Can a leopard change its spots?
Can a leopard change its spots?
or, Some Notes on Direct Action
This was originally published at Deep Transition Network (DTN) as Some Notes on Direct Action.
Some notes on 'direct action'
"Direct action is a matter of acting as if you were already free."
-- David Graeber
I was thinking that this would be "an article". But it seems to want to be just some notes, as if written on a paper napkin in pencil in a cafe, but shared with you all here, anyway. I want eventually to write a genuine 'article' on this topic. But that will take more time than I want to give to it at the moment.
The above paragraph, in a way, is a way of my admitting as a writer that I prefer conversation to essays, generally. Conversations feel much more alive for me. They allow me to feel connected with others. My communication is not "one way". So this may be some notes in pencil on a napkin here, but it is also an invitation into a conversation on the topic of direct action.
(Yes, yes, I know that writing on a paper napkin with a pencil is near upon impossible, as paper napkins are apt to tear with any pencil pressure placed upon them.)
Okay, so I spent some time exploring what folks -- broadly -- have to say about direct action. And one of the many things I discovered (surprise, surprise!) is that there is little actual agreement on what the phrase means. For some, direct action basically means engaging in such a way as to put "pressure" on governments to adopt policies which, without such extreme pressure placed upon them, they'd be unwilling even to consider for a minute. As much as I love and appreciate Extinction Rebellion (the branded movement), one of my complaints about XR, as it is also called, is that as a 'movement', it pours far too much energy into trying to put pressure on governments, and not nearly enough energy on directly transforming society and culture itself.
Now, I'm speaking here as one who lives in the USA. Notice I did not say "I am an American". I do not actually identify as someone who is "an American". I despise the American government (USA government). I love this land, however. It is my home. The government, in my view, is an occupying force. It's not a government of, by and for the people and never has been. There is truly nothing to love about the USA government, in my view. I do not wish to petition them (yes, them) with my grievances.
Sh*t! My pencil tore my napkin as I was saying that. Sigh. Too much pressure on the yellow #2.
Okay....
I want to cast a wide net with which to catch my fish. Because the phrase "direct action" is used very broadly, I'll accept that convention and then I'll outline in pencil some specific kinds of direct action and comment on what direct action has to do with what is called "prefigurative politics". I've already alluded to my preference for those forms of direct action which are decidedly not about asking the government to change its spots (allusion to the leopard changing its spots, the idiom). I no longer wish to try and persuade governments to transform. I strongly suspect they will not consider re-forming themselves until we've already changed our culture very significantly without asking for their help or their permission.
Those who want to use what they think is "direct action" to try and force governments to change their spots are welcome to bang their heads against that wall for as long as they like. I figure, as a 56 year young man, that I've done quite enough head banging for one lifetime, and that more than five decades of utter failure at pressuring governments to transform has had the effect, mainly, of burning out those we call "activists". Putting it in slightly different words, I see governments of the world as representatives of concentrated economic and decision-making power. My aim in life is to reverse that trend, to un-concentrate such power. To distribute it evenly and equally, which I call "democracy". (Ironic that the USA calls itself a 'democracy'!)
Damn! Tore my napkin again!
Okay..., let me get to my point here so I can invite you into a conversation. Sigh.
I promised a quick outline sketch without a lot of rambling on and on. (I'm considering joining Onandon Anon, which is like Alcoholics Anonymous, but for those who talk too much.)
Here's a sketch on a napkin, without overly much explanation (for now! You've been warned!)
Types of Direct action:
1. Obstructive
2. Destructive
3. Constructive
4. Instructive
I believe we require all of these now. The situation is pretty bad, so we need them all, and others too.
This four item list is hardly meant to be comprehensive. And isn't it fun that they all have "structive" in them! I think so. (Smiling from ear to ear, pleased by my own astonishing cleverness.)
Obstructive direct action aims to put in place obstructions of access to the machinery (mainly) which is intended to be used to build oil and gas pipelines or mow down perfectly happy and healthy forests, or to dig vast gaping, smoking holes in the living Earth which are so aptly called "mine". It is a way of putting bodies and materials in the way of "progress", obstructing "progress" -- with "progress" being rape and pillage. Obstructive direct action is almost always utterly non-violent, and ought to be.
Destructive direct action is typically synonymous with vandalism. What it is destructive of are things like bulldozers, pipelines under construction (or having been built already), infrastructure of various kinds, machinery bent on the above-mentioned rape and pillage. Destructive direct action, as vandalism, is also almost always non-violent, as it should be. (Note: Some people -- and dictionaries -- do not distinguish violence from vandalism. I believe they are all wrong on this.)
Constructive direct action are actions intending, mainly, to transform culture -- especially material and economic culture. It begins with imagining what an ecologically and socially wise and sound culture would look like and then it goes about directly creating that world. In this respect, as I see it, constructive direct action is the very embodiment of the essence of Prefigurative politics. So, for example, if what we require is to have a truly ecological culture (or ecological 'civilization') is a material culture and economy which burns vastly less fossil fuels, constructive direct action is action taken to make fossil fuels far less necessary (dependency reduction), while directly creating the conditions in which we can meet our legitimate needs without burning fossil fuels. If we require a culture which depends less on mining, deforestation, etc., we emplace the conditions in which these are neither necessary nor perpetuated. This is the Royal Road of direct action, in my view. But it is terribly neglected by almost all ecological / environmental movements. As an eco-cultural revolutionary (non-violent, non-insurrectionary) this is the praxis I advocate with the most zeal and gusto!
Instructive direct action, as I see it, is the key to the success of constructive direct action. The phrase "weapons of mass instruction" would be fine, except that it has the word "weapons" in it, and I would instruct against such phrases which are "too clever by half," as the Brits would put it. Constructive direct action is a direct expression of instructive direct action, because constructive direct action requires accurate, honest, insightful, intelligent, informed understanding. And it requires a growth in awareness and accurate knowledge among those who are presently ignorant. So it's about instructing the sadly ignorant with the facts which they'd know were it not for our living in societies saturated in disinformational propaganda, as we are.
Okay, enough scratching (and tearing) napkins with pencils here. I want to know what you think. I want to engage in conversation here, and I'm tired of hearing my own silly voice.
So, as you see (Readers of The R-Word), my vision for how a revolution could transform our material, economic and political culture centers on direct action as its primary focus and praxis. And conversation is crucial to any such praxis, so just as I invited folks at DTN, I invite you into conversation here (‘comments’ below).
I often draw on the idiom which says “A leopard cannot change its spots,” as a way of saying that governments are extremely unlikely to suddenly transform in such a way that they begin to place biospheric and ecosystem (and biodiversity, and a stable climate) well-being (health) at a priority as high as they place economic growth, and wealth and political power accumulation among those who already have far more of these than they require or ought to have. This is one among several good reasons I am an advocate for non-violent revolution in which we directly go about creating the sort of world we want to live in.
All of my writings here at The R-Word are intertwined in fleshing out a theory of praxis and its virtues over time. All of my little articles and essays can be read independently, but to really get what it is I’m up to will require reading The R-Word as if it were chapters of a book, but more loosely stitched together than that.
I was thinking of writing a book called The R-Word, but I finally decided it that while it will be a book, it will not be the usual book of chapters or essays. Instead, it will be a collection of essays and conversations, mainly. And so it will have many voices. It will be more like a conversation than a typical book.
If you’d like to contribute to this book in some way, through conversation on eco-cultural revolution, through interviews…, or similar, please do let me know. I’m mostly interested in conversations and interviews with published authors, but I’m bringing a very open mind to the whole project. Oh, and just so you know, I will not be the only interviewer. And my voice will not be in all of the conversations in the book — or here in Substack. Diversity of perspective and opinion is key!