![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
flexibeastMy activist background is one of 'professional' activism. By 'professional', i don't mean that i was paid to engage in activism (e.g. as an employee of what the Movement Action Plan calls a 'POO' - Professional Opposition Organisation). Instead, i'm referring to taking a professional attitude towards doing activist work: that is, not being laid-back about it, but treating it seriously, as though it is indeed one's profession. To me, this means things like:
In more recent times, though, the activist work i've tried to do has involved working with people who often do not share this approach. Unfortunately, it's taken me quite some time to realise that this is the case: because of my background, i've assumed that activism == professional activism, which is obviously not true. And of course, in the time it's taken for me to come to this realisation, my assumption has (unsurprisingly) led me to a) have unrealistic expectations of what i can get done, and b) piss people off.
So i now recognise that not all activism is 'professional', and although i may often find that frustrating, i'm nevertheless at least happy that people are making some sort of effort to engage in social and political activism. i'm not happy, however, at the meme i commonly encounter which suggests that it's reasonable to not engage in activism primarily because it's not 'fun'.
i have a real issue with people who think that all activism should be 'fun'. To me, it's very much an indicator of privilege - and in fact, often an indicator of several forms of privilege intersecting - to be able to choose to involve oneself in activism only when it's 'fun'. i once provided accommodation to a Philippino trade unionist on a speaking tour of Australia: she wasn't a trade unionist, facing death threats from employers, because it was 'fun'; she was doing so because the workers whose rights she was righting for were decidedly not having fun working extremely long, inhumane hours for little pay. i once helped to organise a forum for speakers from the East Timorese resistance movement against the Indonesian occupation: they weren't putting their lives on the line against the Suharto dictatorship because it was 'fun'; they were doing so because the East Timorese people were decidedly not having fun under the brutal Indonesian military regime. And i'm sure i don't need to explain that the Chilean refugees i used to socialise with hadn't fled from the Pinochet-led Junta because it was 'fun' to do so.
Of course, i'm not saying that activism shouldn't be fun where possible. All i'm saying is that it's often not possible, and that being aware of other people's suffering, yet choosing to not assist in attempts to alleviate or end that suffering because such attempts are 'boring' or involve work that's not 'fun' is something that, quite frankly - and not to put too fine a point on it - i find ethically and/or morally repugnant. As i wrote last year, in an LJ entry on activist strategy and tactics:
- knowing that activist work usually requires conscious commitment of resources (e.g. money) to be effective, and thus assisting in the provision of those resources to the greatest extent possible;
- responding promptly to activism-related communications (e.g. emails);
- following through on one's activist commitments, or, if one is unable to do so, redelegating those commitments as soon as possible;
- generally making sure that some form of activism is prioritised in one's life;
In more recent times, though, the activist work i've tried to do has involved working with people who often do not share this approach. Unfortunately, it's taken me quite some time to realise that this is the case: because of my background, i've assumed that activism == professional activism, which is obviously not true. And of course, in the time it's taken for me to come to this realisation, my assumption has (unsurprisingly) led me to a) have unrealistic expectations of what i can get done, and b) piss people off.
So i now recognise that not all activism is 'professional', and although i may often find that frustrating, i'm nevertheless at least happy that people are making some sort of effort to engage in social and political activism. i'm not happy, however, at the meme i commonly encounter which suggests that it's reasonable to not engage in activism primarily because it's not 'fun'.
i have a real issue with people who think that all activism should be 'fun'. To me, it's very much an indicator of privilege - and in fact, often an indicator of several forms of privilege intersecting - to be able to choose to involve oneself in activism only when it's 'fun'. i once provided accommodation to a Philippino trade unionist on a speaking tour of Australia: she wasn't a trade unionist, facing death threats from employers, because it was 'fun'; she was doing so because the workers whose rights she was righting for were decidedly not having fun working extremely long, inhumane hours for little pay. i once helped to organise a forum for speakers from the East Timorese resistance movement against the Indonesian occupation: they weren't putting their lives on the line against the Suharto dictatorship because it was 'fun'; they were doing so because the East Timorese people were decidedly not having fun under the brutal Indonesian military regime. And i'm sure i don't need to explain that the Chilean refugees i used to socialise with hadn't fled from the Pinochet-led Junta because it was 'fun' to do so.
Of course, i'm not saying that activism shouldn't be fun where possible. All i'm saying is that it's often not possible, and that being aware of other people's suffering, yet choosing to not assist in attempts to alleviate or end that suffering because such attempts are 'boring' or involve work that's not 'fun' is something that, quite frankly - and not to put too fine a point on it - i find ethically and/or morally repugnant. As i wrote last year, in an LJ entry on activist strategy and tactics:
Compared to many people in the countries who lives are affected, and sometimes ended, by our government's policies, most (non-Indigenous) Australians are in a very privileged position. We are relatively wealthy, and we don't (yet) need to put our lives, or the lives of our families, on the line in order to achieve social / political change. Are other people's lives and welfare not worth a relatively small sacrifice of our time and resources?
