Progressivism: Myths & Realities genre: Gaylingual & Polispeak & Six Degrees of Speculation
We hear abundantly about the netroots and the progressive nature of the blogosphere and yet I find myself asking what denotes a progressive movement? The dictionary defines progressive as, “making use of or interested in new ideas, findings, or opportunities…and...one believing in moderate political change and especially social improvement by governmental action." As I’ve thought about the definition, I began to wonder at which point that which is different or original about or within any progressive movement becomes or seeks to establish nothing more than convention. Further, at the point that it does become convention, does it or can it still remain progressive?
My initial conclusion was that anything defined as progressive must necessarily be in a constant state of evolution in order to remain progressive. That immediately led me to ponder whether today’s progressive movement has remained true to the definitional concept or if it has become an ingrained ideology that simply seeks to unseat and replace the one which currently prevails. I was immediately reminded of the psychological concept that asserts that the healing process cannot succeed through the application of power but only through the power inherent in persuasion. Fundamental to this construct is the value of dialogue and debate such that consensus is achieved by choice; not by force. Unfortunately, there are times when the blogosphere acts in opposition to this construct.
Before reaching any conclusions, it is necessary to understand the dynamics of any movement…whether cultural, political, or religious. While each movement possesses some uniquely defining characteristics, they all share some prevailing similarities. There is a commonality of purpose, a predominantly shared set of values, and a desire to effect the changes that legitimize both. Even so, if a movement doesn’t also possess an unyielding commitment to ascertaining more of the “truth", it is destined to fail. The fine line of distinction seems to be the degree to which those who lead a movement seek compliance with what is known and generally accepted as opposed to tolerance for what is still uncertain yet worthy of further investigation. If the goal becomes primarily compliance, progressivism has been hijacked.
An example to demonstrate the distinctions might be helpful. I personally grew up as the gay movement was evolving. I began the journey when being gay was equated with pathology. Nonetheless, we knew the premise lacked “truth" and we refused to accept the status quo. In so doing, the movement embraced the full spectrum of our constituency and we valued and celebrated our differences. Many of us sought tolerance and acceptance without recognizing the dangers of succumbing to assimilation. Some in the movement sought assimilation knowing full well the cost would be foregoing much of the difference and diversity that we represented, shared, and celebrated. The former were progressives and the latter sought to hijack the movement. Essentially, the progressives sought acceptance while the others sought assimilation in order to participate in the established power system and structure. I contend the cost of assimilation was too expensive.
It then becomes increasingly necessary to determine the true nature of those who participate in movements. It does not necessarily follow that those who are a party to a cause, which can be defined as progressive, actually possess the true traits of progressivism. For many, they simply seek the power that they perceive to be held by the opposition. Therefore, their goal, despite being consistent with progressivism, may simply be to assume power for the sake of implementing and imposing the beliefs they hold. Sometimes it can be nothing more than being granted the opportunity to fit in. Far from being about debate and dialogue, those who pretend to be progressives only embrace both until such time as they can dictate their own doctrines and dogma or, even worse, simply be relieved of their designation as part of the minority view.
To say it another way, gray can only be achieved by combining black and white. Gray cannot be chosen as an act of capitulation. To do so simply removes all the pigment leaving the absence of color…and we become invisible. It is also impossible to dictate or legislate gray…an action too often sought by those who oppose progressivism. Those who attempt to do so run the risk of destroying those on the opposite ends of the spectrum. Therefore, gray is an act of awareness…a deliberate action premised on the broadest view of humanity in order to understand all the “truths" that are inherent to humanity. It embraces black and white and in so doing becomes authentically gray.
As I sorted through these thoughts, I found myself both hopeful and doubtful. Hopeful because the signs of progressivism are alive and well within the blogosphere; Doubtful because there also exists ample evidence that a number of imposters have infiltrated the debate and the dialogue fully intent on co-opting the movement for their own pursuit of power or, sadly, for even the lesser reasons outlined above.
The task at hand is how to inoculate progressivism against the dangers of succumbing to the very disease it seeks to supplant…fear of the unknown and unexplored. I can only offer my own thoughts and feelings. My own conclusion is that progressivism succeeds when individual fears are managed such that they are not allowed to stifle debate and dialogue. Conquering our individual fears allow each of us to risk being exposed to difference and diversity. If fear is allowed to succeed, we each remain isolated in our own narrow interpretations of “truth" and the society remains poised for and rife with the conflict that comes with the unknown and the unexplored.
In the end, I’m afraid of what I don’t know…but I am far more afraid of not being willing to find out exactly what that might be. If that’s progressivism…and I think it is…then in the words of our president, “Bring it on!"
Daniel DiRito | May 21, 2006 | 5:19 PM
Comments
1 On May 21, 2006 at 8:22 PM, Jimi wrote —
Daniel,
I think too many people are uncomfortable assuming any kind of risk. I think another risk you are pointing out is the unwillingness to tolerate something unknown.
Many of us have spent a good majority of their but lives being told by the television exactly what a successful person is - rich, handsome, busty, big house, fancy car and plasma tv's. These are things people can buy into, look out their window and probably see.
To go against that conditioning requires overcoming an incredible amount of installed behaviour. Progressivism to maintain the status quo (like the democrats? snark) allows this illusion to continue and suffer no mental discomfort. But if you offer change, "true" Progressivism, where it'll probably be better, but maybe not, that's the chance, I feel, that chance of failure where a fair enough chunk of folks can't make the jump of setting aside the old bill of goods.
I think Progressivism has already been set aside friend. Supplanted, then quietly laid to rest in a shoebox. In the backyard. The system in place just won't tolerate it.
2 On May 22, 2006 at 12:27 PM, Daniel wrote —
Jimi,
Thanks for your comments and observations. I have to agree with much of what you have stated.
What has always fascinated me is the propensity for some people to avoid knowing more...I've always felt it was a bigger risk to not know something. Fear is a powerful force but it must work differently for me...the thought that I could grow old and have failed to seek more "truth" would leave me feeling as if I had squandered my life.
Maybe it's about curiosity...I have always been a curious person so I've always been willing to take risks...I never wanted to miss an experience or an opportunity to see other ways of thinking and living.
In the end, I just wish people would push the comfort zone...even if they eventually retreated...at least they would have tried.
Always good to hear from you. Thanks again for the comments.
Daniel
3 On May 23, 2006 at 10:26 PM, Archie wrote —
Having read your "about me" page, I felt a surge of recognition: I am just like you, except for all the details.
Residing on the long, thin Gaussian tail of most characteristics is the central thing we probably share. That and an irrepressible curiosity.
But here's a place where I see a familiar difference: you seem to believe in "the truth" as a real thing.
I believe only in a common material reality, and even there I accept that our minds know only a model of that reality. This reality we share is the only thing that can be called a "truth." All else we know is a product of our minds.
Mostly. I don't deny possibilities, like supernatural existence. Even as a buck atheist I think some life after death is possible.
The problem, to me, with seeking "the truth" is the continual temptation to engage in reductionism, as "truth" cannot be too complex, can it?
OTOH, the only truth I admit; material reality, is mind-numbingly complex, and we can only deal with it at all by constructing relativly simplistic models. Hence our variety of perspectives.
( enuf of that :)
To your post, 'progressive' seems to me a word used by the motley group who are opposed to current conservative rhetoric and it's corporatist policies, but who want to avoid the term 'liberal' as it has been so sullied by that same conservative rhetoric, rhetoric dominant now for almost 20 years.
I think it's a bit much to expect a coherent and intellectually consistant ideology from this group, or from any group defined by such a generic term.
Same with the term 'gay.' I'm not, but my friends who are ( I've been in theatre and music, ) well, several have told me stories that clearly contradict your statement that "the movement embraced the full spectrum of our constituency and we valued and celebrated our differences."
Perhaps the subset of the gay movement that you're familar with ( and no one can know the bulk of such a large, distributed thing, ) perhaps that subset has accepted difference. But there are other subsets ( such as the New York upper West side gay community ) that have most definitly not, at least according to my gay friends who live there but work in more conservative jobs like finance.
I'm not trying to get into an argument about the gay movement ( I know almost nothing, other then the Stonewall riot. ) I am trying to say that the loose set of people who call themselves "progressive" isn't a movement at all, and you shouldn't expect so much from them.
I do have more to say about the labeling and self-identification issues that you're interested in. Some of it may be interesting to you... perhaps.
4 On May 24, 2006 at 10:41 PM, Daniel wrote —
Archie,
Thanks for your comments and observations. There is certainly a lot to digest in your remarks.
Actually I think "truth" is very complex and likely unattainable...for me the objective is to continue the pursuit...knowing full well I will never possess all "the truth". Mostly, I see "truth" as being a better understanding of the human condition. In pursuing "truth" we can hopefully do a better job of honoring humanity...beyond that I would have to admit I don't know what I think.
As to progressives, I agree that the term is very broad. In my posting, I was focused on those who identify as such online...basically the netroots crowd...as much as that can be defined or described. Beyond that, I would have to say that they are defined by their "spoken" desire for change and their belief that they are the change agents.
The point I sought to make is that how one seeks to be identified in terms of a label doesn't necessarily mean one fits that label. I tend to think people can only be defined as they actually act out their objectives...the results are more informative than the proclamations.
Regarding the gay movement...again everything is relative to some degree...in essence my point is that looking at the inclusiveness then vs. now...I saw it as more inclusive. Keep in mind that the inclusiveness then may have been more of necessity than choice...which tends to support my point about the results of assimilation. Essentially, once the assimilation began, it became clear that some within the movement had different objectives than those defined by the spoken word.
The larger point is that we are collectively human...which ought to be the relevant connecting point. Unfortunately, sorting seems to be the prevalent objective.
As to my expectations...they exist...but they are realistic. I think it is more important for me to talk about the better choices that are available than to accept that most people won't make those choices...I find my own contentment in knowing I have choices.
I hope to hear more of your thoughts. Thanks again for sharing your observations.
Daniel
Trackback Pings
© Copyright 2024
Post a comment