Toward A New Activism: Part 1
I am a member of an internet listserv. It should be no surprise that it focuses on issues regarding New Urbanism and the Congress for the New Urbanism. I don’t participate very much in the discussions and am mostly a lurker. Many of the listers are professionals and quite serious and accomplished in their work. One thing that I find so refreshing about the list (if you are interested in joining, send an email to listserv@lsv.uky.edu with subscribe CNU as the body of the message — notice that the list is hosted on a University of Kentucky server) is the diversity of opinon and perspective. This particular area of interest– urbanism, has managed to cut across cultural and political boundaries. There are civil libertarians on the list who are well aware of federal and local government’s role in helping create and maintain sprawl. There are people of different religious faiths who are compelled to add a
voice to the discussion. One issue some might talk about, for example, is the current trend of churches establishing outside of neighborhoods and instead putting the behemoth Mega Structres on highway arterials, perhaps whispering that only those who with cars are welcome inside their doors. Or the flipside of that situation is Hyde Park Baptist Church
vs. the neighborhood of Hyde Park, here in Austin. The church’s growth has meant the destruction of 30 homes in the old, tree-lined neighborhood. The church’s 5-story parking garage doesn’t fill up on Sunday mornings, yet the church plans to build a new one. How come?
Apparently the Expeditions and Land Rovers (almost the entire congregation lives outside of Hyde Park) are too big for the garage built before the SUV Occupation. Curiously, local property/individual rights cheerleaders are silent on this one. Could it be because Hyde Park’s residents are comprised of mostly nouveau riche liberals and crusty campus leftys?
Let’s get back on point. The listserv, among other things, has had an impact on how I perceive what the best avenues of social and cultural change to be. As someone who believes that the sprawl around us has dire social, environmental, and economic consequences, I want to do whatever possible to make positive change (in this case the continued stigmatization of auto-rrific subdivisions and environs) happen. But as I look to other “movements” or change-based organizations or philosophies, I don’t glean a lot of inspiration. For example, “direct action” and other in-your-face protest and activist tactics, in many ways do more harm than good. To be sure, events such as the Seattle rebellion, or uprising, or riot or… will have lasting, tangible effects. But I think most direct action techniques preach to
the converted and simply turn off those that may otherwise be interested. I’ve flirted with the more direct action techniques and am familiar with the desire to put the pen down and get busy. I remember when I was home over the holidays and witnessing the shocking
increase in poorly built, tacky, vinyl-sided futureslums. They had leap-frogged over the interstate into pure Bluegrass Horse Country. At that point I realized that what had always been sacred land for Kentuckians of our area, was becoming a blank slate to fill for developers.
Lexington has always maintained an image of a little bit o’ southern graciousness, a smidgen of college town progressive, and a lot of keepin’ up wit da Jones’s. It should not be surprising that Lexington sees the sprawl of Nashville, Louisville, Cincy, etc. around it and and quietly declares former prized countryside ripe for bulldozers. And it is well established that there is no large influx of people coming to the city (sure a few people are moving there), but rather it is people in the city moving further out to get more bang for the buck. Even though
we know that their piece of paradise will lose some luster as the big boxes, even tackier subdivisions, etc. invade the Kingdom of Cu-de-Sacs. So at any rate, back home for the holidays, I remember one particular new lot was going up (with the obligatory leafy name, “Oak Canyon Village”, or something equally ridiculous. I daydreamed about dancing off into the night toting a lighter, a giant can of kerosene, and… let me be clear, it was only a daydream. And I felt guilty and foolish afterwards. But I know that desire. And I believe that desire is rooted in anger–even hatred, rather than a reasoned, articulate approach to making significant, lasting change happen.
Those that for whatever kooky reason become passionate about things like New Urbanism, etc. face something much worse than a hostile public: they face an indifferent one. Groups such as PeTA maintain that they have to cut through
the noise. They must put up hugely offensive billboards, or have naked protesters confront the circus’ arrival to town. While this does add a theatrical, colorful element to something long considered fairly dry and staid, it has a terrible side effect: “normal” folks, who work for insurance companies, deliver the mail, fight fires, go to church, eat at Applebees, shop at Target– in other words, most people, are turned off. Not only
are they turned off, but there is a permanent impression made: “PeTA is a group that does not resonate with me. They are too extreme. I don’t want to be associated with them.” Why then, does direct action and similar change-focused techniques continue to grow in popularity?
I am having a hard time piecing together a coherent one-sentence answer, but I think it has to do with aesthetics. A documentary called
The Merchants of Cool, nicely identifies this “thing” that I think fuels the direct action momentum.
Part 2, coming soon…