Symbolism versus Analysis

Is it not another incumbent aspect of capitalist society that we think of ourselves in terms of nothing more than the mere volume of value we offer to public life?  That we are credible to those in power, rather than credible and accountable to ourselves?  We’re told that our actions are of importance, that we can make a difference.  Yet we’re subjected to paltry compensations from those in power in order to suppress those ideas which are deemed counter-productive or pose a threat to the existing order.  

Yet this in and of itself is problematic.  Our actions and political statements are extensions of our passions and beliefs, and to consider them in reference to compensations of mankind undermines their power and their potential for social good.   Political activism is artistic experimentation.  It is symbolic.  And so such symbolism cannot be applied to paper, nor analysed by those obtuse enough to apply such symbolism to paper.  

50:50 Parliament

It has frequently been argued that social movements carry little weight in the policy-making process and are therefore incapable of promoting change.  However, this pessimistic attitude is, more often than not, held by those who fear change.  And those who fear change are oftentimes the people with considerable power and privilege, and perceive social movements to be a threat to their current state of security, status and stability.

Stop Repeating History

ISIL is not a geographical location we can bomb.  It is an ideology which has only been strengthened by the choices of our government.  The only thing certain in our belief of location is the death and harm caused to hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.  Just as it was certain in our war-filled history.

Counter-Hegemony: Some Thoughts

We're building a counter-hegemony. We're constructing new powers, new ways of thinking, and new ways of approaching our social world. We don't need to mindlessly, passively accept the dominant narratives any longer. We are capable of thinking beyond what we've been told and indoctrinated to accept. We can do so much better, we need to do better. And I think the increase in direct action we've been seeing, hearing about, and participating in over the last few months is demonstrating that people care. That people want change and to be actively involved in that process. Collectively we have been able to start new discussions and engage more people, spreading the word that change is possible and that we can impact the world. In fighting against something we are advocating otherness which shows how destruction can be constructive. And we are now seeing more regularly that what unites us is the struggle of humanity against neoliberalism. We are finally starting conversations about systems of oppression and not just power inequalities, and, I believe, this can be nothing more and nothing less than a positive thing.

What does it mean to say ‘NO’?

Globalisation and neoliberalism aren’t about individuals against humanity, it's a comprehensive system which oppresses us universally but situationally.  There is more than one form of oppression; it's more diverse now than ever before.  Globalisation and neoliberalism are wars against humanity.  It's a system which benefits from the exploitation of the social peripheries and the expected apathy of the masses.  We need to unite and fight.  The momentum is with us because the truth is with us.  We know better and so we need to do better.  And we are.

Hope in an Apathetic Climate? Some Reflections

We have built fantastical architectural designs which reinforce the order of spatial existence we occupy, but our reliance on set structures has created a dogmatic permanence.  We have become consumed and blinded by such dogmatic claims that we cannot observe the planned obsolescence nor the impermanence of the structures we have created and our existence.  Our order is fragile and yet we protect it, upholding the notion that it is a strategic operation of co-existence, when, in reality, we use it to isolate ourselves.  We exist in an interconnected series of power structures, failing to recognise our very existence and constructed order as powered, thus negating our innate ability to reclaim power through deconstruction.  We can create a power, through the creation of an anti-power.  There currently exists a thin veil between private and public: it is time to renegotiate such terms. 

The Blight of our Landscape

The human world is currently on the brink of catastrophic environmental disaster.  As President of the USA, Barack Obama, said in the State of the Union Address, “no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change” [Obama 2015].  To quote Tony Juniper, author of How many lightbulbs does it take to change a planet?, “We must now face the challenge of meeting expanding human needs while simultaneously maintaining the relatively stable and productive planetary conditions that have sustained our welfare… [because] if we are to build sustainable societies we will need to address some urgent and large-scale interlocking trends, namely, climate change, the impending global mass extinction of species, and the depletion of resources” [Juniper 2007: p.6]. 

Unsustainable Consumption

Of course big firms and farmers wouldn't be happy if we all gave up the consumption of animal products because it is a direct threat to corporate profits! But you know who would be pleased by our conscious decision to eliminate such products? The animals we have to actively *kill* in order to temporarily satisfy our taste-buds. It’s not your personal choice / freedom of choice to eat meat if it puts others in danger or obstructs their freedoms, it’s a complete contradiction and exceeds a statutory limit.

Guatemala: Apathetic Youth and People-Power?

Credit: 

Jorge Dan Lopez/Reuters

We’ve heard of the Arab Spring.  We’ve watched on as mainstream news outlets have relentlessly reported on the impact of actions by the general public have had on the governing social and political systems.  We’ve been witness to countless outbreaks of violence, unrest, and humanitarian crises, which have produced graphic and obscene images that became a viral presentation of a system that is failing.

A Society Lacking Compassion

Daniel Etter/New York Times/Redux/eyevine

We live in a world where we are constantly bombarded with images and messages about what it means to be an autonomous individual in our current world state.  We are told how to style our hair, what to wear and when, how we should live and work.  Frankly this appears to be the opposite in opposition to the freedoms we are regularly told we have in liberal Western democracies.  In this state of what can only be perceived as a form of harassment from the state that seeks to protect us through manipulation, it is incredibly easy to lose ourselves, our identity and sense of purpose.

Yet, step back for a minute and consider those who do not have the privileges so readily available to us in the Western world.  Masses of the earth’s population live in dire poverty, in countries conflicted by civil and external wars, and under dictatorial governmental leaderships.  Yes, we may easily lose ourselves and our sense of purpose, but for far too many, losing their homes and the daily threat of the loss of life is an all-too regular occurrence. 

The Body Project

“In the affluent West, there is a tendency for the body to be seen as an entity which is in the process of becoming; a project which should be worked at and accomplished as part of an individual’s self-identity… [yet] Body projects still vary along social lines, especially in the case of gender.” [Shilling 1996: p.5]

Should Feminism Rebrand Itself for a Wider Audience?

It has been suggested that feminism, as we know and understand it, should rebrand itself because the brand of the movement, not the message, is turning people off and away from the realities of the feminist fight. 

Therefore, I find myself asking whether feminism should rebrand itself to appease those who dislike the brand so it can appeal to a wider audience.  And I find myself answering no.  Feminism should not need to rebrand itself to be duly accepted by the mainstream.  Feminism should be a movement with a name that continues to be unapologetic in its demand for attaining equal rights, the advancement of women and marginalised groups in society, and the restructuring of patriarchal demands.

In short, no.  Feminism should not rebrand itself.

Process

Everything is one long process.  Even if there are shortcuts available, the original process is (usually) still abided by.

As in many aspects of our lives, the key to success lies in planning and executing processes.

Honest Roof

Having grown up with a limited scope of knowledge about the world around me, due to living in a western-centric, capitalist and globalised society, has often left me with questions about the experiences, cultures and history of countries not part of the system in which I have been privileged to live.

Being fortunate enough to study at a respected university and work in a supportive and fairly well-paid part-time job has allowed me to create opportunities to travel and learn more about the world in which I live, broadening my horizons and knowledge, reducing prejudice and bias I know I have oftentimes willingly accepted based on the propaganda my media sources exploit as a result of a lack open minded and opposing views.

Cameron's Massive Shiny Forehead on the Big Screen

08.05.2015 – Conservatives have won a majority government with 331 elected seats in the House of Commons

We can rant and rave and say, ‘look at what you’ve voted into Britain.  Look at what you've done to our government’ as much as we like.  Yet the sad fact is that the Conservatives have been voted in, and there is no changing this fact (at least not for another 5 years).  We just need to accept that Cameron is now running our government, and we have the joy of experiencing a laissez-faire centric, neoliberal elitist party control our futures. 

The Politicisation of Social Media

Observing the latest trends, patterns and issues raised on social media highlights the power the internet has had in connecting people, not only with each other, but with politics and issues of social justice. 

Through the use of social media, many sociological issues are raised and answers / solutions ignored, and this just proves that radical change within ourselves is the first necessary step in combatting the existing systematic oppression of many social group (whether that is racially, sexually, or in terms of class). 

Fracking Version 2.0

I have previously written about my views and thoughts on fracking, not only in general, but specifically to the United Kingdom.  The post can be found here.

Now I return to this issue, due to a recent revival in the topic.

This week, Greenpeace released information that David Cameron was seeking not only to fast-track the laws on fracking, but also to amend them.  The amendment he wanted to impose?  The right of fracking companies to drill under people's homes without their permission.  

Education or Ignorance: What Will You Choose?

Why do we do the things we do?  Why is change something so uncomfortable?  Is it just our minds perceiving this threat, or are we genuinely threatened and anxious?  Why is my conscious choice to go vegan a threat to so many?

It is baffling how, when people ask questions regarding the vegan lifestyle, they are completely uninterested in the answers and instead become defensive over their behaviours.  Perhaps it is because on some deeper level, conscious or not, they feel guilty and know that they are morally justified to be taking another life for consumption and abusing a sentient being for our own comforts.