Peace and War: Yuppies and the Peace Movement

beatriz

I often wonder what is preventing people from voicing their concerns, do we share the same concerns? and are there different ways of expressing them?
In this age where SMS and Internet are becoming main forms of communication, mainly among the youth, how are these communication methods impinging on action?
The article below touches on other aspects of peace organisation and poses many more questions...

Peace and War: Yuppies and the Peace Movement
by David Swanson on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 11:23 PM

The single biggest reason that the peace movement is not larger and more aggressive is that people with one foot in it are focused on trying to be respectable in the eyes of the corporate media, for their own sake and – in their misguided view – for the sake of the movement.

As an example, take the meeting I went to in Washington, D.C., this evening. About 40 people, mostly in their thirties, mostly doing all right financially, about 37 of them white, gathered at a restaurant to vote on whether their little organization would endorse the September 24th march against the war.

They ran a very well disciplined meeting and made very articulate arguments on both sides. Those in favor argued that people are dying and that it needs to be stopped, that movements must be large and inclusive to succeed, that you can't build an opposition political party without wholeheartedly opposing the illegal and immoral war with which the party in power is identified, etc. (....)
Seriously, it was a room full of amateur PR agents. They wanted to maintain "political credibility" for their little organization. They wanted to focus on lobbying and electing officials (this in the colony of DC, which has no voting representation in Congress and no US senators!). They wanted to be "credible," they kept saying. One woman was afraid she'd not receive government clearance for a job she was applying for if she marched in an event that "communists" would be marching in. Another man said he would prefer a silent march without signs or speeches. Another preferred the candlelight vigils held around the country recently for Cindy Sheehan. Another had read an article by Todd Gitlin and actually taken it seriously. It was a bizarre room. But it was representative, I suspect, of a lot of people.

It's interesting, though, that they mostly wanted to march as individuals. (....)

continue reading: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=51&ItemID=8634

peter_j

(Beatriz, that URL doesn't seem to work).

The excerpt though touches on an unavoidable tension though. Community organisations might be critical of the mainstream media's conservatism in reporting world events, but they are still reliant on it to get conventional publicity. That means there are impulses to dress and package messages in ways that are more easily digested by reporters looking for angles and newness.

Another direction to take with the media is to provoke them into reporting, through street actions that make news. But does it defeat the point if these actions are solely about enticing news coverage? When does it become another just form of PR?

Now we have the internet breaking down many barriers, but even that has its issues. Google is the internet's front door now, and it is run by various secret algorithms. One of Google's methods awards sites a 'page rank' based on the number and credibility of sites that link to them. New forms of time-consuming PR cater to this, attracting links from respectable websites, institutions and organisations. Again this might exert an influence on the way an organisation portrays itself.

That excerpt almost riled me a little with the following: "About 40 people, mostly in their thirties, mostly doing all right financially, about 37 of them white..." Which is supposed to mean? That's me! What is the point in subtly dissing people for participating in protest because they are obviously all guilty white yuppie do-gooders?

Anonymous

I tend to think that it has to do with the first paragraph

"The single biggest reason that the peace movement is not larger and more aggressive is that people with one foot in it are focused on trying to be respectable in the eyes of the corporate media, for their own sake and – in their misguided view – for the sake of the movement. "

Everyone tries to be better behaved than the next person - it is so pretentious and I think it has something to do with the class division, still patent in our society.
After having attended numerous rallies opposing the war on Iraq, the "terrorist laws" forced upon us by the government etc, about two weeks ago I attended the anti IR rally (Industrial relation laws). The difference was very clear, the IR demo was mainly a working class affair, were the others were not.

If my impressions are right, why is it that we cannot be more open to understanding issues that do not affect us directly, but indirectly by eroding our societal wellbeing? How, as a society, can we be so self centred? Why is it that we cannot make connections? Sorry, but architects also suffer from industrial abuses, overtime without pay and so on…

I found the following quote from an article in the archinect interesting, while not 100% relevant, also places questions about the notion of volunteerism (much to do with the peace movement too)

Architects who tackle these issues--housing urban homeless people, housing the poor, sheltering refugees and victims of natural disasters--have accomplished their "good" work in the after-hours of the private sector practices that sustain their own lives. Even those who achieve economic stability are still perceived as more philanthropic than business-oriented. How many intelligent, thoughtful designers are lured away from addressing the immediate needs of the disenfranchised by more lucrative pursuits? The poverty of service organizations is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Eliminating the myth of a necessary divide between profitless-but-helpful and profitable-but-neutral-or-negative is central to any plan for architects to begin addressing the needs of the displaced.(....)

continue reading: http://www.archinect.com/views/view.php?id=9735_0_36_0_C

Beatriz

Javiera

What does it take for people to take action?

I can't imagine returning to Australia any time soon, I may be a traitor, but I refuse to be associated with a govenment that decieves, murders and worse of all, wins the popular vote. Nevertheless, I have a theory (it's just a theory).

I believe Australia has to hit rock bottom, to improve. It appears that the only people who are excercising their voice are the racist yobs... but that's a start... at least better than silence. I'm waiting, and hoping that people will wake up to the chants of these racists and say to themselves: 'what's happening to us, what are we doing??'. Let's hope that my theory proves right some time soon. Otherwise I'll continue to hear people speak about the racist Aussies on the London tube, and just stay quiet.

peter_j

Guilt by association? I'm not sure that Australians (or the English) are necessarily associated with their dodgy governments. I pay my GST and obey the laws but don't support them. I wasn't too surprised when Howard returned again, given the expensive fear-mongering they engaged in (this time interest rates, last time boat people), and given a lack-lustre opposition.

"It appears that the only people who are excercising their voice are the racist yobs... but that's a start... at least better than silence"
It might appear like that, but it isn't like that. There are other voices out there, just not getting coverage in the UK. The drunken brawl in Sydney had their 'voice' reported only because they got violent, and the media sniffed 'ethnic tension'. There could be more non-boofhead voices, but there's only so much space on the op-ed page of The Age/SMH. The web doesn't seem well used in Australia for public discussion. The Monthly has no website, Web Diary and The Paper have died. I can only think of Online Opinion and a few blogs as online places to look for opinion.

Anonymous

I agree with peter that there just isn't a place online for Australians to voice their opinions about current affaris/politics/society/etc other than perhaps the Age/SMH site. I usually read through the "your say" section in the morning after reading the news because it seems that so many issues get raised by the news, and yet people either don't want to talk about it online or don't feel that they should (better to voice your own opinions around friends for fear of being flamed?).

I'm still studying and probably don't have the most exhaustive experience (and naive) of this topic but in my day to day life and uni I don't know what it is about my faculty (which some of you will have graduated from perhaps) but overall, if you start talking about politics/current affairs/society you get told that you're talking about "way to heavy" topics or recieve some wannabe anarchist comment like "it's the government. damn those #$&*$ to #(*$#&$#.". It's almost like having these opinions puts you either as a hippie or a yuppie. I didn't realise knowing what is going on in your own society and country (let alone world) made you an intellectual snob but talking about Architecture and Design is somehow more accessible/relevant to everyone.

I suppose I find this going out and meeting people in the same field. I'm not trying to suggest all Architects/Landscape Architects/Planners/etc should talk about such topics all the time, but come on, there is so much more than design happening and we do contribute/react to these things on some level. That's why I joined Arch for Peace.

I hate to put in a little diatribe, but last semester I had subject with Darko Radovic and he mentioned that his urban plans had not been executed because of the war and people in the lecture theatre laughed! There is nothing funny about what Milosovic did! He had just died in the Hague before he could stand before a court for his crimes against humanity! This is a class full of senior students who somehow think that it is perhaps a funny twist of fate that Darko's admittedly beautiful plans for his city had not been executed.

Disaffected, Uninterested, Self-Centered. I'm guilty of it as much as the next 20-something. I feel like peace rallies/public demonstrations are something from centuries ago "the plebians versus the monarchy"...and yet I know that it is one of the few rights that haven't been eroded away. Perhaps the question should be how do we make people feel included in these movements? Stop making it about factions/agendas and more about one overarching belief that despite your own reservations there are some things we can agree on without fear of being labelled or excluded.

Anonymous

Hi N,
Couldn’t agree more with your words and sentiment. It is also difficult for arch-peace to discuss real and important issues. Somehow, we are a society that believes that taking responsibility is "way too heavy" - as if we have not yet grown up as society. We leave the important issues to the "experts" and politicians and we stand back washing our hands – blissfully ignorant. By the way, this is not only limited to universities, it also happens in the workplace too.

I am optimistic and I believe that this strive for babyish ignorance will soon change, or I hope so in any case!

N

I hope not to offend anyone in saying this, and I'm guilty of it too...

This thread has only 7 replies to date with more than 300 views to this topic. Is it just one person refreshing the page over and over again?

It feels like this could e a really good debate/conversation within Architects For Peace because this thread is about peace rallies (exercising your right to have an opinion and publicly voice it), and on a more passive level, stating your opinions (on the internet anonymously) as to why you think people don't want to participate/agree with peace rallies.

Are the topics posted meant to be replied to, or is this more like a message board? I'm just a little worried that perhaps we're not really supposed to reply and I've been using up server space when I'm not supposed to :oops:

peter_j

Thanks for the reply N, and welcome.

No, we want lots and lots of people to respond to these posts, and they do occasionally. Maybe it's a technology thing - a lot of people find forums a bit hard to fathom (really they're easy). Please post many more times.

How do we get more people to voice their opinions? I think it's been a bit of a headache for us, and is also discussed at this post:
http://www.butterpaper.com/talk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=99

A point I make, in that post from last year, is that architecture means something different in Australia. Here is it is a profession entwined with local/state/federal politics, but we tend to take a short sighted view of things and it's quite rare to even get a comment from an architect (etc) on planning or transportation (much less Iraqi reconstruction). I'm hoping that the sad and backward position our current federal government has taken on climate change might prompt a few more to start finding their voices.

Here's Thom Mayne. respected Los Angeles architect and 2005 Pritzker Prize winner, in a very recent interview.

I’ve taught for 30 years. The key thing is that architecture is a discipline where it’s impossible to escape values. It’s radically value-laden. I think it’s possible that you can become a designer—an architect—and see it as somewhat autonomous and not as a political act, which is just totally incredibly naïve. I try to make [students] aware of the radical, political, cultural, social nature of our work and how it’s impossible to escape those responsibilities.
AIA NEWS 09/06

In the last paragraph he indirectly crits the hermetic nature of architectural schooling and culture - saying if you get out there and learn about the world, it will make you a better architect. Here's to that.

beatriz

Thanks Peter, that is a very important statement.
Architects for Peace (Arch-Peace international) since the early 70's have spoken in similar fashion but it doesn't sink in.
I also try and discuss these issues with my students. All willing to adopt environmentally sustainable practices, but only a few would go deeper into discussing the reasons as to why Australia hasn't signed the Kyoto protocol--surely a backward political decision. Even fewer would attempt to make a link between our "life style" and our unsustainable production of greenhouse gases.

Politics also goes back to decisions such as: "who gets what, when and how"

N

Beatriz, I really liked what you had to say about the decision of "who gets what, when and how" because I think that is linked to a little bit of guilt that runs through most people and what I think can be attributed to the generation of "i'm in, as long as it doesn't affect me".

However, in fairness to your students, I think a lot of it is due to the peer pressure I mentioned in my first post. One of my friends was in your class last semester and I think he felt a little stifled and unable to voice his opinion (even if it was based on knowledge) due to this pressure.
I think something as fluid as sustainability tends to leave alot of loopholes for abuse of the term itself. A really good book to read is "Watson's Dictionary of Weasel Words" by Don Watson, and Watson lists many words used by people in this professional area without consideration of what it really means. When people sit down to think about their way of life and the impact they have on the environment, I think the arrows all point to the "life style" which you mentioned in your reply. It points to us on so many levels. And I beg your pardon for writing yet another long winded post (I promise I'll learn to cut back! )

How much are people willing to sacrifice. I was in your lecture (Beatriz) when you showed various examples of more sustainable living in areas around Melbourne and yes they were attractive, and yes they were probably great places to live. That said, I suppose the next question would be "Why aren't people choosing to live there as a standard and not an option?". That could be pinpointed to fashion/culture. The students in your class probably all agree with you that things must be done, but again, not when it actually calls for them to make some sacrifices. Sacrifices on what they/we percieve as a good "life style". Although they probably lust after the warehouse in Fitzroy, there are many that come from middle to upper income families where there are 2 or more cars despite living in an area that is well serviced by 3 modes of public transport. That already pushes the blame to themselves when they enter into a discussion on how to be sustainable.

To finish this long winded, and probably round about answer I think I still have two questions:
Why is it that they/we ask for better public transport (insert other measures to make our lives more sustainable) when they/we have no intention of using it after they/we manage to offset the costs of driving a car everywhere?

And in reference to the initial post on war and the yuppie movement:
How can we support things like peace in areas of deep political, cultural, racial conflict when our own country is going through a more subtle mode of causing these conflicts (eg: Citizenship test actually reaching the level of public debate, revoking the temporary protection visas, etc)?

Oh and as a side note (I'm doing it again....) sometimes I wonder what will happen in future years. Waves of nationalism have always been something that ebbed and flowed in countries such as Australia with Howard, the Netherlands with Fortuyn, France with Sarkozy, the USA with Bush, and the list goes on....but this time round it seems all to real (as opposed to reading about it from things like the 1848 Revolutions, Post WW1 Germany). After all this nationalism came a complete political, social, cultural, economical overhaul....so where are we headed? Protest all you like, but what good will it be when the walls to our countries are so high we can't even see over them?

Apolgies again for making this so long and if I've missed the point :?