I have no idea what the rather ridiculous folks in this video are protesting against or about, but I am quite certain that they would have accomplished a great deal more if instead of taking over the cafeteria, they had eaten lunch in the cafeteria and had a meaningful conversation with the people around them.
These folks are a perfect example of what is wrong with our culture of political change today. We think we have only two options: voting or protesting. In reality, these are two of the least effective means of effecting lasting change. Real change, as I shall repeat until such change comes, is heart change. The student filming the video constantly throws around terminology he thinks is sophisticated, but that obviously lacks any clear meaning. He would struggle immensely, I imagine, to get outside of the stale and really rather shallow and meaningless (probably even in comparison to whatever professor, parent, peer, or pamphlet he is parroting) phraseology in which he is stuck. I doubt severely his ability to put his own ideas in terms which would be readily understood by those outside his own paradigm. His constant references to "consensus" raise more questions that cannot be answered without a rather lengthy conversation (Consensus among whom? Why is consensus important? What the heck is consensus in the first place?). The people he's speaking to have no clue what he's talking about and don't really care. They are neither threatened nor enlightened by his actions, only annoyed.
Now I'm not saying there's no place for protest, but protest cannot take the place of conversation. Just look what a lack of conversation has done to these NYU students. Having seen their protest, I do not take them seriously. The whole protest was a farce. I have no clue what all this "consensus" business was about, but I guarantee that the moment I hear anyone start throwing around too much talk about consensus, that my first thought will be these NYU students, and that, fair or not, I will be less likely to take such talk seriously (not that I'm particularly inclined to take vaguely Rousseau-esque talk of direct democracy of some sort seriously in the first place). If anything they've done their view a disservice. When will we learn that it is sometimes better to sit down at the table and talk than to stand on it and preach?
Sunday, March 8, 2009
How Not To Affect Real Change
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Sponsored Post
Why invest in precious metals?
Over the last 5 years, the US dollar has lost nearly 50% of its value relative to the other major currencies, as the value of the U.S. Dollar declined, gold and silver prices have increased.
Posted by W. E. Messamore Comments (0)
3 comments:
I agree with you, Ben. It's sad that empathy seems to have escaped us these days.
Any true leader will tell you that the first and most important thing we have to do is listen. Not preach. Not protest. Listen.
This was very amusing to me, but if it was a Tea Party protester acting this way I would be livid. So it's a good call to warn ourselves not to end up pulling off whiny, shallow, impotent stunts like this. Good call.
Good point, TennZen. Listening is indeed essential. Listening is the difference between an angry debate and a friendly conversation.
And Wes, your description of the protest is perfect: "whiny, shallow, and impotent."
Post a Comment