Tuesday, July 10, 2012

How to be political when excluded from the realm of politics

Three words: Life-Style Politics.

These three words might be associated with ideas like veganism, riding your bike, and not buying corporate goods like Nike, Coke, etc. And while I support these forms of life-style politics (for whatever reason), I want to argue that even these political acts are politically bankrupt and in a way just commodities -- in essence we are buying the experience of being political. 
graff


The way I understand politics is it is the act of shaping society through influential techniques for the benefit of one group. Therefore if we are denied the chance to participate in shaping our lives by the hoops and hurdles of bureaucracy, etc. then we should not pursue that realm of politics. Instead I am arguing that we implement the political process in our daily lives. For example, if there is a problem like grandparents staying at home during the day sitting in front of the TV, then this is what we should focus on, and work with others in our local areas to solve the problem. By working with other to address everyday problems (and I want to emphasize that the problems chosen should not be typical political problems like low wages, but issues that we don't even think of as being political).


I think that by implementing the political process into our everyday lives we can draw attention to the fact that the public is not actually involved in city, state, national, and international political issues.

In solidarity with the experimental committee. 

Experimental Democracy!

The Myth of Honesty


There's this idea that being an honest person is respectable. An example of this is Abraham Lincoln who was later, as everyone knows, nick named Honest Abe because he could never tell a lie. The name Honest Abe, at least to my understanding, is not used nowadays to be pejorative.

Nowadays, and perhaps this has been going on for centuries, people will be malicious to someone but excuse their behavior by stating "I'm just being honest." For example, imagine Tom asks Steve if he looks good in his new shirt. Steve takes a look at Tom and says "That is the ugliest shirt I've ever seen! Why would you buy that hideous thing?" Tom replies with "why are you being so mean?" and Steve responds "I'm just being honest." Tom, the victim of brutal honesty is then forced to evaluate the situation by weighing the fact that Steve is both hurtful and honest.  Steve's behavior is without a doubt hurtful, but his actions are shielded by the virtue of honesty; and this is the problem.

In our society we have an understanding, at least to my knowledge, that honesty is the best policy, that you can never go wrong with telling the truth, and that honesty is the basis of good relationships. But like so many general statements, this isn't true, honesty is not always the best policy, you can go wrong with telling the truth, and honesty is not always the basis of good relationships (I'd argue that it is never the basis of good relationships). Instead honesty is only the best policy in situations where it is the most appropriate answer. For example, when one is in court on trial, honesty is the best policy because it is the most socially desirable response. When someone asks for directions, honesty is the best policy because it is the most socially desirable answer. But in many social situations, honesty is not the most socially desirable answer. For example, if you run into someone that you haven't seen in a while, like an old co-worker, and they say "it's so good to see you," the most socially appropriate answer is not "well I don't ever think about you, and I actually think you're a little dumb, and I really don't miss you at all," but something along the lines of "it's so good to see you too."

But what does it mean that honesty is not always the best policy? One interpretation is that protocol is the best policy, that you can never go wrong with following protocol, and that protocol is the basis of good relationships. We are not a society that respects unrestrained honesty, but a society that respects honesty when it is appropriate, and therefore we are a society that values protocol more than the truth.