To All the Hipster Activists: Get on with it

[Riceball]

This is, IMO, a brilliant and timely critique of my generation* (Y) and activism/world change-ey-ism:

Hipster activists: quit raging and join the machine
Luke Ringland
 
Street protests are cool. Working hard for decades to become a leader of business, government or even civil society; not cool. Incremental change; not cool.

And herein lies a pitfall for generation Y: many of our most educated and socially aware people want to work parallel to real power. It's more hip to be a dissident; simple as that.

And what happens when cool is fickle?

My initial reaction to Kony 2012 was tainted by an aversion to slick marketing - especially of the American hipster brand. But I pushed through my morass of ill-feeling and wished it all the best; substance over packaging.

No thanks to my passive support, it seems that the campaign is a spent social force. This quote from the Sydney Morning Herald's Nick Miller puts it well:

In a final ignominy, the whole event was satirised in a South Park episode last week. It was the death knell for Kony 2012's hipster credibility...

Like Occupy and the Keyboard Cat – which lasted much longer – the Kony video is soon to be just another puff of internet dust. Meanwhile, Kony the man and many others like him will go on causing misery. Uganda's deep-rooted and complex problems will still require solving.

And that's a fundamental problem with fads: they lack the thought leadership needed to get and keep people engaged.

If you conflate activism with entertainment, people switch off the moment something new comes along. It's almost like Newtonian physics: the force of what turns the masses on is equal and opposite to what they give back.

In other words, maybe there are no short cuts to social change?

Many in the young activist crowd see drama as the only way to make an impact. But I wonder if their choices are as much about personal preference as the likelihood of success? Working through the system is painstaking. But someone has to do it - right?

I just quit my job at a prominent international development NGO - a very much part-of-the-system gig. I plan to travel and start my own online publication, so until further notice, this message applies to me as much as anyone.

Thinkers of Generation Y: if we don't get on the power ladder, who will? Perhaps the hippies of the 60s can elucidate by asking that question of today's leaders.

Who knew about Tony Abbott^ when he was in university? Shock horror, he's about to be PM. And the hippest activists from back in the day? What are they up to?

I don't want to sound too disparaging of new wave activism. Mass social movements, bolstered by the online universe, have the potential to be immensely powerful. For example, the Arab Spring will hopefully have lasting positive impact.

But this uprising harnessed an army of poor and repressed discontents; a far cry from energising people living a life of security and material comfort.

Ladies and gentleman of my generation, we must keep our eye on the big game. We must reject fear of elitism and promote thought leaders with the wherewithal to work long and hard.

Above all else, some of us will have to play the game.

I know posting stuff that you just blatently, 100% agree with and personally subscribe to is normally a bit dickish, but I think this is a very interesting perspective and one that I share. Its actually something that I personally aspire to - although not so much direct social causes (more political/economic).

*note: I don't like to break things into "generations" although in this instance it works quite nicely.
^ Tony Abbott is the Leader of the Opposition in Australian federal politics and is almost a sure bet to become PM at the next election.

[MondayMorningLunatic]

He has the Kony 2012 thing all wrong. We know for a fact that Kony is no longer "causing trouble" in Uganda because he fled the country years ago and might even be dead. It wasn't hipsters who ruined the Kony 2012 movement. It was Invisible Children's shoddy information and business practices.

And honestly the word "hipster" has just became an ambiguous label for "people I don't like." I was going to start my post by saying that all the people I deem to be hipsters worship the establishment (especially Obama), but I'd be falling into the same trap. The word has lost all meaning by this point.

[Super Dude]

No no, Riceball, I think you're spot on. Here's a story my dad told me, about a son of a friend of his:

So this guy's son used to be a hacker, a damned good one too (I don't really know what his parents thought about it, maybe at first they didn't even know). And so he got together this group of friends and they set out to "free us" from government censorship and to aid Americans in all their dastardly internet deeds and whatnot (I don't really know, my dad doesn't understand the internet that well so he was rather vague on that point). At some point, the U.S. government caught whiff of what he and his group was doing, tracked them down, and when they finally caught up to him...they offered him a job at the Pentagon.

Yep, now this guy works for the U.S. government on a pretty hefty salary, because he and his buddies are developing this technology that can create remote networks in third world and non-democratic countries, so that in countries like China and Syria where there's internet censorship or government blockage of the internet, oppressed peoples can set up independent networks that can't be easily detected by their governments (as you can probably tell I don't really understand the technology well, but that's the thrust of it). It might also help accelerate internet-driven protest movements like Iran's 2009 (2010?) revolution, or the Arab Spring. So he gets to do what he aspired to - bringin' down the Man - but he does it by working for the Man. And the cool cash he rakes in don't hurt neither.

And so I don't know how you confront an issue like economic inequalities (Occupy movement) using an approach like that, working within the system, but it sure as hell can work with issues like the environment. Hell, that's been my plan: instead of working for a non-profit or the government to get polluting firms to abate or adopt clean tech, why not work for those firms and showing how their business model could actually be made more efficient by adopting those greener approaches? Or if I end up doing law, I'll show how they can address and even embrace environmental legislation in a relatively painless way. Like the article says, I quit raging so I could join the machine.

[snapple]

Super dude that's how you do it. Unfortunately, many hipsters don't realize that wearing clothes from the 19th century and listening to bands that are obscure doesn't lead to social change. It takes hard fucking work.

[Chino]

[Rathma]

Like Occupy and the Keyboard Cat – which lasted much longer – the Kony video is soon to be just another puff of internet dust.

Lol @ comparing Occupy (which is still going btw) with Kony 2012. The Occupy movement isn't an internet meme. It's (primarily) an American movement that stems from the country's ever-growing imbalance and unsustainability. Any politician that fails to understand Occupy as a social symptom and writes self-gratifying articles with words like "hipster" or telling people to "get jobs" and feel like they've adequately addressed the issues should just be disregarded.

[Sigz]

Super dude that's how you do it. Unfortunately, many hipsters don't realize that wearing clothes from the 19th century and listening to bands that are obscure doesn't lead to social change. It takes hard fucking work.

  And who said it did? Hipster != activist.

As for the article. I don't think it has anything to do with generational differences. Activists will always want instant change, regardless of the time period they're protesting.

[PraXis]

Hipsters should be neutered.

[El Barto]

@ The problem with that approach is that the machine tends to overtake the individual.  It's easy to say that you want to change things from within, but group think, teamwork, and good ole cognitive dissonance tend to screw that plan all to hell.  In the example you gave, your hacker buddies are developing something that would come to be anyway, but they're doing it for The Man, who will of course have more control over the outcome.  Much better to give someone a lock that you built, than to let him build his own and hope you don't have to pick it at a later date.

[Super Dude]

Truth be told I think "the Man" is a silly concept anyway, so we'll have to agree to disagree. Although I understand what you're saying there and I'd just have to say to that, that it's a danger we always have to reckon with but it shouldn't prevent us taking necessary steps if we think the outcome is truly worth it.

[Scheavo]

If 70% of people under 30 voted, it would dramatically change the government. 2008 had 51%, and that was basically record numbers.

As for the general message, and discussion so far, pessimism is a damn sure way for the system to work. On top of that, the US mentality that the government sucks, really does help perpetuate the government sucking.

Give young people the chance, and they'll probably break and remake the machine.

[jammindude]

This thread reminded me of something that I have always felt was very profound....

There's a place in the world for the angry young man
With his working class ties and his radical plans
He refuses to bend, he refuses to crawl,
He's always at home with his back to the wall.
And he's proud of his scars and the battles he's lost,
He struggles and bleeds as he hangs on the cross-
And he likes to be known as the angry young man.

Give a moment or two to the angry young man,
With his foot in his mouth and his heart in his hand.
He's been stabbed in the back, he's been misunderstood,
It's a comfort to know his intentions are good.
He sits in a room with a lock on the door,
With his maps and his medals laid out on the floor
And he likes to be known as the angry young man.

I believe I've passed the age of consciousness & righteous rage
I found that just surviving was a noble fight.
I once believed in causes too, I had my pointless point of view,
Life went on no matter who was wrong or right, ohhhhh

And there's always a place for the angry young man,
With his fist in the air and his head in the sand.
And he's never been able to learn from mistakes,
He can't understand why his heart always breaks.
His honor is pure and his courage as well,
He's fair and he's true and he's boring as hell!
And he'll go to the grave as an angry old man.

Whoa, and there's always a place for the angry young man
With his working class ties and his radical plans
He refuses to bend, he refuses to crawl,
He's always at home with his back to the wall.
And he's proud of his scars and the battles he's lost,
He struggles and bleeds ‘til he hangs on the cross
And he likes to be known as the angry young man

- Billy Joel 1976


In 35 years....things havn't changed much...

Plus ça change,
Plus c'est la męme chose

- Neil Peart 1978

[kári]

If 70% of people under 30 voted, it would dramatically change the government. [...] Give young people the chance, and they'll probably break and remake the machine.

Seriously? Here in Belgium everyone over 18 is required by law to vote. Of course you can vote for no one, a "blanco" vote, but you are required to go to the voting booth. I just looked this up, of the 7.767.552 people entitled to cast a vote, 402.488 voted blanco or invalid.
I couldn't look up age statistics but since only about 1/19 people "didn't vote", rest assured that more than 70% of people under the age of 30 voted.
My point is that "the machine" is not broken nor remade here in Belgium, and I'm sure that a lot of western European countries have the same policy on voting: over 18: required to vote.

[Super Dude]

Well we don't really know what would happen if youth voting in the U.S. was made compulsory. But the way things go now, with hardly any people my age voting (or of any age except the elderly, for that matter), things change slowly and usually not by a lot.

[gmillerdrake]

If 70% of people under 30 voted, it would dramatically change the government. 2008 had 51%, and that was basically record numbers.

Not just in the Presidential election but every other election as well. I'm all for ridding the Federal Government of EVERY career politician...especially the ass hats whove been there for more than two terms. THEY are whats wrong with American politics, both (R) and (D).....every one of them are greedy criminals who couldn't care less about you or I.
I'd slap term limits on every political office.....these politicians want you to think that what they do is so incredibly hard. It's only 'hard' because they have to try to navigate that huge web of lies, deciet and greed they've wove.

[Super Dude]

Okay conspiracy guy...

[gmillerdrake]

Okay conspiracy guy...

I don't see how the clowns in Washington flaunting thier 'superiority' over us every day...every election...is a conspiracy. They all suck. Period. All of them.

[Scheavo]

If 70% of people under 30 voted, it would dramatically change the government. [...] Give young people the chance, and they'll probably break and remake the machine.

Seriously? Here in Belgium everyone over 18 is required by law to vote. Of course you can vote for no one, a "blanco" vote, but you are required to go to the voting booth. I just looked this up, of the 7.767.552 people entitled to cast a vote, 402.488 voted blanco or invalid.
I couldn't look up age statistics but since only about 1/19 people "didn't vote", rest assured that more than 70% of people under the age of 30 voted.
My point is that "the machine" is not broken nor remade here in Belgium, and I'm sure that a lot of western European countries have the same policy on voting: over 18: required to vote.

I'm sorry, but do you really want to start getting into comparing how broken the US government is with the Belgium government? That's not a battle you're goin to win, not even by a close margin.

51% of people under 30 voted in 2008. That was really high, and it's why Obama is President. If 70% voted, Ron Paul would be given serious consideration by the media. If 70% voted, Medicare and Social security wouldn't be the giant political cards that they are.

So ya, they would remake the machine. I never said they wouldn't institute a new machine in it's place, but young people are more radical, young people change things. The Revolutionary Founder's were generally all quite young, look what they did.

[Riceball]

Three things (shows what happens when I don't post in my own thread for a few days...)

I agree about career politicians - as far as I can tell the system wasn't meant to be that way. It promotes insularity and a lobbyist mentality which, really, aint a good thing.

I've been thinking about the merits of compulsory v voluntary voting; and I don't think either is superior. Both systems distort governance and public policy, either through populism (in the case of compulsory) or small target extremism (in voluntary). That may be a controversial view, but I'm happy to debate.

On "the man" or "the machine" (which was the original point), I think Kony was just a convinient example. In all honesty, social activist campaigns are all very different - largely because they are almost always fought on new or different issues. I think the point the authour was making, and the point I was trying to make while posting it, is that there is far too much bluff and wind from these activist groups and very little "action". I don't mean action as in protests or anything like that, I mean more like lobbying, rigour in policy development, and an acceptance of the political process and how it works nowadays.

Also, there is a fair bit of intellectual capital that goes to waste in these groups (again, I don't think the Kony thing is an example of this, all Kony was was a slick, emotive marketing campaign - but the Occupy movement perhaps moreso). If a fraction of these people working for social activist groups decided to get off their high horses and do the ground work required to affect change, they would probably get more done.

[kári]

If 70% of people under 30 voted, it would dramatically change the government. [...] Give young people the chance, and they'll probably break and remake the machine.

Seriously? Here in Belgium everyone over 18 is required by law to vote. Of course you can vote for no one, a "blanco" vote, but you are required to go to the voting booth. I just looked this up, of the 7.767.552 people entitled to cast a vote, 402.488 voted blanco or invalid.
I couldn't look up age statistics but since only about 1/19 people "didn't vote", rest assured that more than 70% of people under the age of 30 voted.
My point is that "the machine" is not broken nor remade here in Belgium, and I'm sure that a lot of western European countries have the same policy on voting: over 18: required to vote.

I'm sorry, but do you really want to start getting into comparing how broken the US government is with the Belgium government? That's not a battle you're goin to win, not even by a close margin.

51% of people under 30 voted in 2008. That was really high, and it's why Obama is President. If 70% voted, Ron Paul would be given serious consideration by the media. If 70% voted, Medicare and Social security wouldn't be the giant political cards that they are.

So ya, they would remake the machine. I never said they wouldn't institute a new machine in it's place, but young people are more radical, young people change things. The Revolutionary Founder's were generally all quite young, look what they did.

I wasn't trying to compare the governments... But why would young people voting make for such a big change in America when young people have been voting for a long time in some countries where it has changed nothing.

[Implode]

Most likely those countries are far more liberal than the US.

[Super Dude]

Three things (shows what happens when I don't post in my own thread for a few days...)

I agree about career politicians - as far as I can tell the system wasn't meant to be that way. It promotes insularity and a lobbyist mentality which, really, aint a good thing.

I've been thinking about the merits of compulsory v voluntary voting; and I don't think either is superior. Both systems distort governance and public policy, either through populism (in the case of compulsory) or small target extremism (in voluntary). That may be a controversial view, but I'm happy to debate.

On "the man" or "the machine" (which was the original point), I think Kony was just a convinient example. In all honesty, social activist campaigns are all very different - largely because they are almost always fought on new or different issues. I think the point the authour was making, and the point I was trying to make while posting it, is that there is far too much bluff and wind from these activist groups and very little "action". I don't mean action as in protests or anything like that, I mean more like lobbying, rigour in policy development, and an acceptance of the political process and how it works nowadays.

Also, there is a fair bit of intellectual capital that goes to waste in these groups (again, I don't think the Kony thing is an example of this, all Kony was was a slick, emotive marketing campaign - but the Occupy movement perhaps moreso). If a fraction of these people working for social activist groups decided to get off their high horses and do the ground work required to affect change, they would probably get more done.

While I agree, I think it naive to think the system could ever be any other way. It's human nature, with all its faults and evils. Corruption always finds a way.

[Scheavo]

If 70% of people under 30 voted, it would dramatically change the government. [...] Give young people the chance, and they'll probably break and remake the machine.

Seriously? Here in Belgium everyone over 18 is required by law to vote. Of course you can vote for no one, a "blanco" vote, but you are required to go to the voting booth. I just looked this up, of the 7.767.552 people entitled to cast a vote, 402.488 voted blanco or invalid.
I couldn't look up age statistics but since only about 1/19 people "didn't vote", rest assured that more than 70% of people under the age of 30 voted.
My point is that "the machine" is not broken nor remade here in Belgium, and I'm sure that a lot of western European countries have the same policy on voting: over 18: required to vote.

I'm sorry, but do you really want to start getting into comparing how broken the US government is with the Belgium government? That's not a battle you're goin to win, not even by a close margin.

51% of people under 30 voted in 2008. That was really high, and it's why Obama is President. If 70% voted, Ron Paul would be given serious consideration by the media. If 70% voted, Medicare and Social security wouldn't be the giant political cards that they are.

So ya, they would remake the machine. I never said they wouldn't institute a new machine in it's place, but young people are more radical, young people change things. The Revolutionary Founder's were generally all quite young, look what they did.

I wasn't trying to compare the governments... But why would young people voting make for such a big change in America when young people have been voting for a long time in some countries where it has changed nothing.

I'm disagreeing with your idea that it has "changed" nothing. For one, it won't change anything in your country cause it's already what's happening. That's why I wanted to compare our two governments, to see how they are different, to point out how ours might change.

[jammindude]

Three things (shows what happens when I don't post in my own thread for a few days...)

I agree about career politicians - as far as I can tell the system wasn't meant to be that way. It promotes insularity and a lobbyist mentality which, really, aint a good thing.

I've been thinking about the merits of compulsory v voluntary voting; and I don't think either is superior. Both systems distort governance and public policy, either through populism (in the case of compulsory) or small target extremism (in voluntary). That may be a controversial view, but I'm happy to debate.

On "the man" or "the machine" (which was the original point), I think Kony was just a convinient example. In all honesty, social activist campaigns are all very different - largely because they are almost always fought on new or different issues. I think the point the authour was making, and the point I was trying to make while posting it, is that there is far too much bluff and wind from these activist groups and very little "action". I don't mean action as in protests or anything like that, I mean more like lobbying, rigour in policy development, and an acceptance of the political process and how it works nowadays.

Also, there is a fair bit of intellectual capital that goes to waste in these groups (again, I don't think the Kony thing is an example of this, all Kony was was a slick, emotive marketing campaign - but the Occupy movement perhaps moreso). If a fraction of these people working for social activist groups decided to get off their high horses and do the ground work required to affect change, they would probably get more done.

While I agree, I think it naive to think the system could ever be any other way. It's human nature, with all its faults and evils. Corruption always finds a way.

Absolutely THIS!  I don't think I've ever read a more true statement. 

But this is exactly why I believe any and all efforts to "vote out" anyone, or "change the guard" in any way, shape or form, is nothing more than re-arranging the chairs on the Titanic.   Sorry, that last part is just my opinion.

[Super Dude]

Indeed, which is why I also believe the libertarian cause to be futile. Even that would be rife with corruption, and I imagine it would be harder to check or balance it given that the mechanisms would cease to exist in the first place.

[igotrhythm]

If 70% of people under 30 voted, it would dramatically change the government.

How so? They're all either going to vote for either a Democrat or a Republican, and it doesn't matter which one gets in because they're both backed by the same money. What could reasonably change?

[Super Dude]

Oh, IGR. This is the start of something beautiful, isn't it?

[Scheavo]

If 70% of people under 30 voted, it would dramatically change the government.

How so? They're all either going to vote for either a Democrat or a Republican, and it doesn't matter which one gets in because they're both backed by the same money. What could reasonably change?

The problem isn't the label "democrat" or "republican," its the candidates they put forward and elect. Its the platforms they put forward, for the electorate which demands them.