I really had meant to post this yesterday, but didn’t. Turns out my mom is even cooler than I said Thursday. After the post we stayed up and talked about things, and it was driven home that my mom is not just compassionate, but wise too.
It was a long conversation, but mostly centered on the whole ‘changing the world’ thing. She said a number of things, but the core of it was simple: you don’t change the world by changing the system, you change the world by doing what you can directly.
I don’t know if it’s a function of the culture of academia, or of middle-class America, or of America in general, but I feel as if the solutions that I (and those like me) expect to work are systemic. We want to reduce poverty, we want to improve education, we want to promote cultural growth. And we want to do it at the systemic level.
It is acceptable, perhaps even preferable, to be a crusader, and advocate. You get more respect, or so it seems, if you pioneer sweeping systemic changes: reform welfare, develop changes in educational policy, you know the deal. And while it is admirable to give to the needy, or to help a family you know, those are not ‘enough’. Good things to pursue, or course, but not quite as important as a ‘real’ systemic change.
Consider the way we look at the great reformers: Martin Luther King Jr. for instance. We talk about the way he rallied people and about his charisma and vision (which were amazing), but we don’t talk about his direct action. He wasn’t just trying to change the system from the top, he was starting with himself.
But… systemic changes are, by their nature, long-term solutions. Further, they are top-down solutions. They are imposed upon society by some sort of elite, and history shows how effective that generally is (not very). So, the solution is obvious, if perhaps often ignored: start small, start local, and do things directly.
If you help someone out, and they help someone out, and that person helps someone out… Pretty soon you’re looking at a society that helps people out. And that’s a bottom-up solution, which is going to be much more effective.
Of course working from the bottom up is harder, and certainly not as flashy. But effective? Yeah.
I don’t know what I’m going to do with this yet, but it is much on my mind.
Thomas
Both are needed, I think.
I think you’ve got two distinctions that you’re conflating at the end of your entry: bottom up v. top down and systemic v. direct action.
Systemic changes are not necessarily top-down solutions. Sure, they can be top-down (the World Trade Organization as a means of making freer markets) but they don’t have to be. Take, for example, the labor movement in the early part of the 20th century, or the netroots campaigns for a Democratic majority right now. I’d also say the Civil Rights movement was an example of systemic, bottom-up solution, but I’ll leave that aside since I’m not sure what you mean by “we don’t talk about [King's] direct action.”
Now, at the end of your entry, you talk about looking locally: helping a person out who helps someone out and so on to create a society that helps people out, and it [i]sounds[/i] like you mean this to be bottom-up direct action. But if it creates a systemic change, what is the difference between direct and systemic action? It can’t be that direct is bottom up unless direct is always bottom up while systemic may be bottom up or top down. This doesn’t seem to be the case, as we see top-down direct action in Terri’s Law or, more mundanely, asylum cases.
So we’ve got some examples now.
Systemic, top-down: WTO
Systemic, bottom-up: Labor movement, netroots (Drinking Liberally?)
Direct action, top-down: Asylum cases, Terri’s Law
Direct action, bottom up: individual acts of charity
If those categories make sense, I think you’re still looking for systemic change, but of the bottom up sort rather than the top down.
Yeah, I’ll buy that. There’s probably a conflation, or at least some sort of confusion at work up there.
I guess my problem is that I think (tentatively) that most (but probably not all) bottom-up systemic stuff grows out of people taking direct actions rather than by intentions of systemic changes. Sure the systemic changes are desired (or I figure they often are), but I think it may be the ‘change starts with me’ thing. Or something.
I have this feeling, and perhaps I am unfairly projecting it onto others around me, that working for systemic change is enough and that it doesn’t require direct action. So (for example) I don’t have to help the poor directly, I don’t have to interact with them, because I am thinking about and pushing for poverty relief at a systemic level.
I don’t know if that’s any clearer.
Thomas
Sounds like she’s an actual Christian.
Yeah. I’m pretty sure my parents are two of the big reasons I’m so sure I’m right about religious stuff, actually. They’re sort of like living proof. Or something.
Thomas
Those intuitions sound about right to me, particularly the feeling that if one is working for systemic solutions to poverty, one doesn’t have to, say, give money to the guy standing on the corner. I’ve encountered this sentiment in many people, including myself to my great shame, but that’s another issue.
What I’ve also seen (and have found more frustrating) is the inverse: I’m engaged in direct action, so I don’t have to work for any systemic change. Because I volunteered one night in a homeless shelter last year, for example, my support of economic policies that increase homelessness should be beyond question. I do pro bono work, so I don’t have to work for a more equitable distribution of legal resources that is not dependent upon charity. I went to the protest so I don’t have to…etc etc. Closer to home, Notre Dame sends lots of student volunteers into the community, but they have a bad reputation and are not always welcome–the volunteers are there for one day and then gone. Or think of the “community service” fraternities at AU do.
The view I’ve eventually come to is that any aid is good, but if you want a lasting change in the world, it’s going to take a lasting commitment; and if you want to help people, you’re going to have to meet with people and they have to be in charge.