Are You a Civil Society Activist?
by Hooman Askary
Arseh Sevom
...
What is Civil Society
Before trying to delve deep into a practical definition of a “civil society activist” let us see what is exactly meant by a “civil society”.
According to Jeffrey C. Alexander – one of the thinkers who has helped us understand this rather abstract idea – civil society was conceived in the 18th century in a positive way. It was in the words of the philosopher Immanuel Kant, “a burgher, city dweller’s society.” Later, more complex ideas were annexed to the endless definitions and as per a recent version, civil society is “a basic configuration in which society stands apart from the state, develops autonomously and becomes increasingly conscious of such autonomy at both the individual and the collective levels.” All that would translate into an active society wherein citizens take matters related to their community, neighborhood, rights and etc. into their own hands – “civilly”. These activities might include forming associations, clubs, organizations, developing networks and raising awareness on their issues of concern.
Civil Action Takes Patience
In recent decades the concept of civil society has been revived in connection with democratization. In this way of thinking, civil society activism and democratization are strongly correlated. Recent case studies (especially in the Arab world) however, demonstrate that there is more to the establishment of democracies than civil society activism. The two main factors in addition to an active civil society are legislative and administrative elements. These elements in more closed environments, with strong patronage mechanisms, are usually restrictive obstacles thus limiting or, at best, slowing down the process of democratization. Therefore, here is your first lesson: do not expect your efforts, as important as they may be, to yield your desired results over night – learn to be patient.
With this brief introduction to “civil society”, we can now discuss who makes a civil society activist.
Here is our recipe for making one:
1. Do your homework: Activism does not mean much if you don’t have basic awareness of the various aspects/dimensions of your goals. Read your local news, try to familiarize yourself with the history of your cause, speak to people and listen to them, see if anyone has already done anything in this regard or not.
2. Find others: Once you are done with the first step, try to find people who have done similar things in the past. In an environmental example, if your goal is to collect garbage along the riverside, for example, try finding people with similar concerns on social media, in your neighborhood, or by means of searching for them elsewhere. Tip: sometimes finding one link connects you to a whole network. This might further motivate you to do your “homework” thoroughly in the initial step.
3. Expand: We tend to think that activism can start out and go on with only one person; however, it should be remembered that civil society activists must deliberate in what they do; they must take it upon themselves to expand their network whenever they can. The more successful you are in expanding your initial network the more “socially-civil” your activities will be.
4. Raise awareness: As a civil society activist, this should be your main objective. The methods for carrying out such a task vary from place to place and time to time but it is basically upon you to choose ways that are agreed by the public as “civil behavior” that, according to the scholar on Neil L. Whitehead, do not diminish anyone’s power of choice or violate their freedom.
...
To Read the Rest
Showing posts with label Community. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Community. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Sunday, December 4, 2011
scott crow: Black Flags and Windmills -- Hope, Anarchy and the Common Ground Collective
PM Press link for the book
'Black Flags and Windmills' TRAILER from Louisiana Lucy on Vimeo.
also a full presentation by scott crow on the ideas and experiences in the book
This is a response by Michael B. to Sara P. on the Edu email list. Sara asked him to define in greater detail his understanding of Anarchism (I will proofread and link the addresses when I have more time). There is a lot of confusion about what anarchism is, mostly because of the disnformation propagated by the corporate media--so I wanted to provide an explanation here:
Sara, :) remember this all on the fly here (no revisions) and I can explain in more detail.....
First, "libertarian" has many meanings -- are you talking about right - libertarian (think of tea party or Rand Paul: traditional american version that wants to remove drown government and privatize everything) or left - libertarian (these are traditional anarchists: earlier european version that branched off from cadre socialism and sought to bring more autonomy into individual/collective lives while realizing the potential of liberated communities). There are also many, many types of anarchism, but let me lay out some basics (I would also encourage you to watch scott crow's presentation in the video I provided http://olkyeducation.blogspot.com/2011/12/scott-crow-black-flags-and-windmills.html -- he/Common Grounds is a great example of anarchist direct action ... also notice he doesn't cap his name (why would that be?). Also I would suggest going to see April Browning's screening of Howard Zinn's The People Speaks at Natasha's. For the record Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky both claim they are left-libertarians
Short descriptions:
Anarchists do not seek complete absence of government. There is a need for basic communal structures to facilitate needed materials -- water for a large community is a good example. What anarchists do want is leadership, not leaders -- in other words a society in which we cultivate the ability of all to step up and work for the greater collective good. They also demand, yes demand, transparency of actions/processes (our occupy movement processes are coming out of anarchist collective principles) and that leadership always be held accountable. They are also opposed to privatization of basic necessities (at the least) and corporate oligarchies -- basically these types of relations rest upon infantilization and dependence of target populations, as well as the creation of elite syncophants in the government. We believe democracy doesn't come from the top, that it can only come from the people. That democracy demands the resistance to illegitimate authority (like our current two part, coroporate capitalist oligarchy)
Anarchists do not believe in complete freedom for the individual. In fact we have a lot of problem with the word "freedom" which has its origins in slave societies. Also consider what is means to be free in our consumer society -- freedom is often an illusion. Anarchists seek "liberty", for individuals and communities. They rests upon the development of "autonomy". For me, I think of autonomy in this way: autonomy = individual liberty + collective responsibility + creative learning + participatory economics. At every step of this formula is the development of individual liberty in tandem with collective responsibility. Anarchists believe that communities are best served by autonomous individuals (and this is the polar opposite of the "radical individualism" of consumer capitalism) and that autonomous individuals are best cultivated in liberated, participatory collectives/communities. If anything, Anarchists are truly the most concerned with community and the individual's role is those communities. Responsibility = ability to respond (why we hold such much value on the creative development of individuals). Capitalism seeks fragmented, alienated, anxious individuals/communities because these are people that are the most easily exploited for profits.
Anarchists are not opposed to profits. There is nothing wrong with co-ops, local markets, exchange of goods with ones neighbors. We just don't want to worship at the altar of profits or genuflect to a mythical corporate free market (we should do some readings sometime on this term).
While Chomsky http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19760725.htm and Zinn would call themselves left-libertarians/anarcho-syndicalists and I call myself an anarchist -- we are talking about the same thing (and there are videos of both claiminbg themselves as anarchists) -- and we can see what Zinn thought of anarchists in the People Speak http://youtu.be/6hUQ657XR7Y
I also view anarchism as a personal philosophy. Here is my take on it:
Anarchism is a person-centered philosophy. Its focus is on autonomy amidst the social and economic pressures of mass society for superficiality and conformism. It is our responsibility, as free and conscious beings, to create meaning out of life and to develop an authentic existence. It is also, in my opinion, in this regard, our duty to help others develop their response-ability to do the same (for me as a teacher this is the core of an anarchist pedagogy). In this anarchism is radically collective in orientation. We are cultivating autonomous, ethical and responsible individuals who care about their community. Anarchism does not discount other beings in this world... it is holistic, in the sense of recognizing that humans are just one set of beings that live and share in the development and continuation of the broader environment.
Freedom = Responsibility. Anarchism is a philosophy of freedom. It requires that we step back and reflect/reassess on what we have been doing and what effect our thoughts/actions have on the world. In this sense we are more than just individuals, we are members of larger collectives and our personal ethics always extend beyond ourselves (anarchism is not vulgar egotism). In this we can only be as "responsible" as we are "free." Response-ability, the ability for people to respond to the problems of their society and the impetus for them to care beyond themselves, is only realized by free, authentic and ethical beings. Where there is mindless conformism, shallow consumerism, or brutal oppression, you will see a breakdown in the development of response-ability (both in the ruled/rulers... or, manipulated/manipulators).
Ethical considerations are the primary questions. We all understand ethics and freedom differently, this is a given, and thus we must bring each of our understandings into play and sharpen our ideas through open/free public discourse. In this we, as individuals, as a community, as a society, and as a global ecosystem, should consider ethical questions as primary steps to building a better world. An autonomous individual is responsible to develop and consider the authenticity of their own personal lives in relation to their society. My authenticity should not be at the expense of your opportunity to realize yourself (for example, we are not bloated ticks that feed off the misery of others in order to realize some twisted sense of self).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I realize I am a deeply flawed and difficult person. This is always a work in progress and I struggle as an individual.
To realize true liberty, autonomous citizens, participatory economics, and liberated communities .... that is all I have ever dreamed of since I was a little kid.... seriously -- it is all summed up in the usage of the word: "solidarity"
Here is a great discussion of current anarchist thought (esp. cindy milstein) in relation to the Occupy Movement http://www.againstthegrain.org/program/493/id/451547/mon-11-07-11-anarchism-thought-and-streets
and once again to circle back again to scott crow -- why does the government/media/corporations fear anarchist so much?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/29/us/29surveillance.html?_r=1
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Glenn Greenwald: OWS-inspired activism
OWS-inspired activism
by Glenn Greenwald
Salon
It was only a matter of time before a coordinated police crackdown was imposed to end the Occupy encampments. Law enforcement officials and policy-makers in America know full well that serious protests — and more — are inevitable given the economic tumult and suffering the U.S. has seen over the last three years (and will continue to see for the foreseeable future). A country cannot radically reduce quality-of-life expectations, devote itself to the interests of its super-rich, and all but eliminate its middle class without triggering sustained citizen fury.
The reason the U.S. has para-militarized its police forces is precisely to control this type of domestic unrest, and it’s simply impossible to imagine its not being deployed in full against a growing protest movement aimed at grossly and corruptly unequal resource distribution. As Madeleine Albright said when arguing for U.S. military intervention in the Balkans: “What’s the point of having this superb military you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?” That’s obviously how governors, big-city Mayors and Police Chiefs feel about the stockpiles of assault rifles, SWAT gear, hi-tech helicopters, and the coming-soon drone technology lavished on them in the wake of the post/9-11 Security State explosion, to say nothing of the enormous federal law enforcement apparatus that, more than anything else, resembles a standing army which is increasingly directed inward.
Most of this militarization has been justified by invoking Scary Foreign Threats — primarily the Terrorist — but its prime purpose is domestic. As civil libertarians endlessly point out, the primary reason to oppose new expansions of government power is because it always — always — vastly expands beyond its original realm. I remember quite vividly the war-zone-like police force deployed against protesters at the 2008 GOP Convention in Minneapolis, as well as the invocation of Terrorism statutes to arrest and punish them, with the active involvement of federal law enforcement. Along those lines, Alternet‘s Lynn Parramore asks all the key questions about the obviously coordinated law enforcement assault on peaceful protesters over the last week.
But the same factors that rendered this police crackdown inevitable will also ensure that this protest movement endures: the roots of the anger are real, profound and impassioned. Just as American bombs ostensibly aimed at reducing Terrorism have the exact opposite effect — by fueling the anti-American sentiments that cause Terrorism in the first place — so, too, will excessive police force further fuel the Occupy movement. Nothing highlights the validity of the movement’s core grievances more than watching a piggish billionaire Wall Street Mayor — who bought and clung to his political power using his personal fortune — deploy force against marginalized citizens peacefully and lawfully protesting joblessness, foreclosures and economic suffering. If Michael Bloomberg didn’t exist, the Occupy protesters would have to invent him.
* * * * *
After visiting numerous Occupy sites over the past few weeks, I’ve repeatedly said that the protests are among the most exciting, inspiring and important political developments over the last decade. That’s true for several reasons: its innovative, pioneering tactics, its refusal to be pigeonholed with partisan identity, its resistance to translating itself into establishment media language, its organic form, its appropriate contempt for the nation’s political and legal institutions, its singular ability to force discussions of wealth inequality into the discourse. But I think its most impressive attribute is that it has inspired a level of activism and a sense of possibility like few other things have. It’s worth highlighting a few representative examples.
Ever since the Occupy movement began, the blog FireDogLake, with very little attention or self-promotion, has overwhelmingly devoted itself not only to covering the protests but also to creating an amazing new template to help sustain it. Exclusively relying on reader donations, FDL has sent one of its youngest and most relentless activists, Kevin Gosztola, around the country for the last two months, visiting over 20 different encampments from every region in the nation. Gosztola has been able to provide first-hand, on-the-scene reporting from all of these sites, but more important, has built a network of representatives and liasons to enable coordination and communication among site organizers.
Over the past month, FDL — with the construction of this network — has done something truly amazing. In addition to police crackdowns, it has long been assumed that the greatest challenge to sustaining the Occupy movement would be the approaching harsh winter in Northern cities. The assumption — not unreasonable — was that few people would be willing to occupy outdoor spaces in zero-degree weather or below. FDL, with its “Occupy Supply” project, is all but ensuring the elimination of this problem.
Again using nothing more than reader donations, FDL designed and then purchased a full line of winter clothing for free distribution to the various Occupy sites around the nation: hats, sweaters, scarves, gloves, socks, blankets, jackets, thermal underwear, face masks, and more. Every penny FDL raises — 100% — goes exclusively toward the manufacture and free distribution of these products to Occupy protesters. They have thus far raised close to $90,000, and spent roughly $85,000 of it on the purchase of almost 7,000 items. They have also furnished heat generators, tents, and sleeping bags to numerous sites as well.
To Read the Rest and To Access Hyperlinked Resources
by Glenn Greenwald
Salon
It was only a matter of time before a coordinated police crackdown was imposed to end the Occupy encampments. Law enforcement officials and policy-makers in America know full well that serious protests — and more — are inevitable given the economic tumult and suffering the U.S. has seen over the last three years (and will continue to see for the foreseeable future). A country cannot radically reduce quality-of-life expectations, devote itself to the interests of its super-rich, and all but eliminate its middle class without triggering sustained citizen fury.
The reason the U.S. has para-militarized its police forces is precisely to control this type of domestic unrest, and it’s simply impossible to imagine its not being deployed in full against a growing protest movement aimed at grossly and corruptly unequal resource distribution. As Madeleine Albright said when arguing for U.S. military intervention in the Balkans: “What’s the point of having this superb military you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?” That’s obviously how governors, big-city Mayors and Police Chiefs feel about the stockpiles of assault rifles, SWAT gear, hi-tech helicopters, and the coming-soon drone technology lavished on them in the wake of the post/9-11 Security State explosion, to say nothing of the enormous federal law enforcement apparatus that, more than anything else, resembles a standing army which is increasingly directed inward.
Most of this militarization has been justified by invoking Scary Foreign Threats — primarily the Terrorist — but its prime purpose is domestic. As civil libertarians endlessly point out, the primary reason to oppose new expansions of government power is because it always — always — vastly expands beyond its original realm. I remember quite vividly the war-zone-like police force deployed against protesters at the 2008 GOP Convention in Minneapolis, as well as the invocation of Terrorism statutes to arrest and punish them, with the active involvement of federal law enforcement. Along those lines, Alternet‘s Lynn Parramore asks all the key questions about the obviously coordinated law enforcement assault on peaceful protesters over the last week.
But the same factors that rendered this police crackdown inevitable will also ensure that this protest movement endures: the roots of the anger are real, profound and impassioned. Just as American bombs ostensibly aimed at reducing Terrorism have the exact opposite effect — by fueling the anti-American sentiments that cause Terrorism in the first place — so, too, will excessive police force further fuel the Occupy movement. Nothing highlights the validity of the movement’s core grievances more than watching a piggish billionaire Wall Street Mayor — who bought and clung to his political power using his personal fortune — deploy force against marginalized citizens peacefully and lawfully protesting joblessness, foreclosures and economic suffering. If Michael Bloomberg didn’t exist, the Occupy protesters would have to invent him.
* * * * *
After visiting numerous Occupy sites over the past few weeks, I’ve repeatedly said that the protests are among the most exciting, inspiring and important political developments over the last decade. That’s true for several reasons: its innovative, pioneering tactics, its refusal to be pigeonholed with partisan identity, its resistance to translating itself into establishment media language, its organic form, its appropriate contempt for the nation’s political and legal institutions, its singular ability to force discussions of wealth inequality into the discourse. But I think its most impressive attribute is that it has inspired a level of activism and a sense of possibility like few other things have. It’s worth highlighting a few representative examples.
Ever since the Occupy movement began, the blog FireDogLake, with very little attention or self-promotion, has overwhelmingly devoted itself not only to covering the protests but also to creating an amazing new template to help sustain it. Exclusively relying on reader donations, FDL has sent one of its youngest and most relentless activists, Kevin Gosztola, around the country for the last two months, visiting over 20 different encampments from every region in the nation. Gosztola has been able to provide first-hand, on-the-scene reporting from all of these sites, but more important, has built a network of representatives and liasons to enable coordination and communication among site organizers.
Over the past month, FDL — with the construction of this network — has done something truly amazing. In addition to police crackdowns, it has long been assumed that the greatest challenge to sustaining the Occupy movement would be the approaching harsh winter in Northern cities. The assumption — not unreasonable — was that few people would be willing to occupy outdoor spaces in zero-degree weather or below. FDL, with its “Occupy Supply” project, is all but ensuring the elimination of this problem.
Again using nothing more than reader donations, FDL designed and then purchased a full line of winter clothing for free distribution to the various Occupy sites around the nation: hats, sweaters, scarves, gloves, socks, blankets, jackets, thermal underwear, face masks, and more. Every penny FDL raises — 100% — goes exclusively toward the manufacture and free distribution of these products to Occupy protesters. They have thus far raised close to $90,000, and spent roughly $85,000 of it on the purchase of almost 7,000 items. They have also furnished heat generators, tents, and sleeping bags to numerous sites as well.
To Read the Rest and To Access Hyperlinked Resources
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Kevin Seal: Occupiers Past and Present – Oakland Union of the Homeless
News of the Occupation: Occupiers Past and Present – Oakland Union of the Homeless
by Kevin Seal
The Occupied Oakland Journal
(Kevin is a member of the Occupy Oakland Media Committee as well as a freelance journalist)
Several new proposals for action are underway in Occupy Oakland. As these initiatives take root, occupiers are careful to note that this movement happens in the context of a lengthy history of protest in Oakland. From the Black Panthers to the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights to Color of Change, there is a rich legacy of civil disobedience in Alameda County, and Occupy Oakland is helping bring these varied and long-standing communities together in action.
The occupation is looking at reclaiming foreclosed homes and preventing at-risk homeowners from losing their properties to predatory lenders and fraudulent banking institutions. As this movement evolves and strengthens, it is instructive to study the Oakland Union of the Homeless, and the many successes this group had in the reclamation of abandoned houses.
On December 15, 1987, a homeless man named James Lee was killed by gunshot, prompting a Christmas Eve protest in which activists broke into and occupied an abandoned house. Oakland police evicted the activists two days later, but the seeds were sown for a national movement. With that action, Andrew Jackson, Glenna Jackson, Terry Messman (now the editor and layout designer of the newspaper Street Spirit) and several other activists founded the Oakland Union of the Homeless.
Over the following few years, this group reclaimed Victorian houses in Oakland, demanded low-income housing from then-Senator Pete Wilson, and staged a high-profile act of civil disobedience in which the Union’s members refused to leave Wilson’s office. In 1990, the Union took over three more houses, and successfully petitioned California for an allocation of $1 million to the building of Dignity Housing West, an Oakland low-income housing development. The 26-unit James Lee Court Apartments, just three blocks from Frank Ogawa Plaza at 15th Street and Castro, came from this demand, as did 46 other units in Oakland. Dignity Housing West is in negotiation to acquire 1,000 more units in California and Nevada, and is working to establish a downtown Oakland office building for non-profit clients.
On the national level, 1990 also saw big steps forward from this movement. The National Union of the Homeless got the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development at that time, Jack Kemp, to commit 10% of the agency’s vacant housing stock for the purpose of homeless housing. Kemp ultimately broke his promise, and in response, poor and homeless people in Oakland as well as New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Chicago, Detroit, and other cities began breaking in and taking over these houses.
To Read the Rest
by Kevin Seal
The Occupied Oakland Journal
(Kevin is a member of the Occupy Oakland Media Committee as well as a freelance journalist)
Several new proposals for action are underway in Occupy Oakland. As these initiatives take root, occupiers are careful to note that this movement happens in the context of a lengthy history of protest in Oakland. From the Black Panthers to the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights to Color of Change, there is a rich legacy of civil disobedience in Alameda County, and Occupy Oakland is helping bring these varied and long-standing communities together in action.
The occupation is looking at reclaiming foreclosed homes and preventing at-risk homeowners from losing their properties to predatory lenders and fraudulent banking institutions. As this movement evolves and strengthens, it is instructive to study the Oakland Union of the Homeless, and the many successes this group had in the reclamation of abandoned houses.
On December 15, 1987, a homeless man named James Lee was killed by gunshot, prompting a Christmas Eve protest in which activists broke into and occupied an abandoned house. Oakland police evicted the activists two days later, but the seeds were sown for a national movement. With that action, Andrew Jackson, Glenna Jackson, Terry Messman (now the editor and layout designer of the newspaper Street Spirit) and several other activists founded the Oakland Union of the Homeless.
Over the following few years, this group reclaimed Victorian houses in Oakland, demanded low-income housing from then-Senator Pete Wilson, and staged a high-profile act of civil disobedience in which the Union’s members refused to leave Wilson’s office. In 1990, the Union took over three more houses, and successfully petitioned California for an allocation of $1 million to the building of Dignity Housing West, an Oakland low-income housing development. The 26-unit James Lee Court Apartments, just three blocks from Frank Ogawa Plaza at 15th Street and Castro, came from this demand, as did 46 other units in Oakland. Dignity Housing West is in negotiation to acquire 1,000 more units in California and Nevada, and is working to establish a downtown Oakland office building for non-profit clients.
On the national level, 1990 also saw big steps forward from this movement. The National Union of the Homeless got the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development at that time, Jack Kemp, to commit 10% of the agency’s vacant housing stock for the purpose of homeless housing. Kemp ultimately broke his promise, and in response, poor and homeless people in Oakland as well as New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Chicago, Detroit, and other cities began breaking in and taking over these houses.
To Read the Rest
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Bluegrass Film Society: Korkoro (France: Tony Gatlif, 2009: 111 mins)
Bluegrass Film Society
Korkoro (France: Tony Gatlif, 2009: 111 mins)
November 16th, 7:30PM at BCTC Auditorium
Korkoro (France: Tony Gatlif, 2009: 111 mins)
November 16th, 7:30PM at BCTC Auditorium
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Shane Claiborne: A Monastic Revolution
A Monastic Revolution
On Being (American Public Media)
Shane Claiborne is a leading spirit in a gathering movement of young people known as the New Monastics. Emerging from the edges of Evangelical Christianity, they are patterning their lives in response to the needs of the poor — and the detachment they see in our culture's vision of adulthood.
To Listen to the Interview
On Being (American Public Media)
Shane Claiborne is a leading spirit in a gathering movement of young people known as the New Monastics. Emerging from the edges of Evangelical Christianity, they are patterning their lives in response to the needs of the poor — and the detachment they see in our culture's vision of adulthood.
To Listen to the Interview
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)