Thoughtful post, but that's not what "the personal is political" means, as presented by Audre Lorde, intersectional womanist — which is where a lot of intersectional feminists of today learned the concept. It was never about consumer choices at all. It was about how our personal struggle as trans and queer women of color and marginalized gendered people of color was a political issue, about how our very existence is politicized against our will in white supremacist cisheteropatriarchal usa, our very existence is political — and thus we must act in reaction to that involuntary politicization. It wasn't meant to be individualist to begin with.
Thank you for this. In my notes to myself initially I wanted to carve out more time to look into the origins of the phrase. I only briefly looked at Carol Hanisch, but didn't give myself the room to dive more into it about went more with how its understood today. I definitely should've looked more at how she meant it, who she credited, Audre Lorde's usage of it, and more. Thank you for teaching me about how it was originally intended, which is of course more in line with how I wish we understood it today!
The IWW had a slogan that addresses this issue in large part - build a new society inside the shell of the old. Recognizing that we're starting today with a flawed society that can't end overnight is a useful perspective.
Have you written on the phrase "no conscientious consumption under capitalism?" I feel that tension / dichotomy a lot when I hear people use that phrase so I'd love your thoughts on it.
We practice revolutions of power, which do not transform us. The cycle continues.
True revolution is one of the mind. Then it spreads, unplanned, leaderless.
We are so conditioned to seek control, we fail to see that it's the curse.
Of course, a revolution of the mind can end up a bad miracle as much as a good one. The outcomes depend on the stories we tell. Our tales of meaning are what guide us.
The Dawn of Everything is a great book! This also made me think more about your other post on the answer to right-wing populism and how the political is also very personal (based on personal interactions and trust). I think framing things in that way can make it easier for people to understand the impact of their words and actions, and the value of continuing to provide a positive alternative to people is immense. Like you said before, each person who is convinced, or at least prevented from joining the right-wing is a win, but also each person could be the relative or friend of a politician (local or national), or could have great influence through their company or network and that is more the point. If you change enough minds, you start to move the levers of power as well. It's not the only work to be done, but it's a good part of it.
Hi Joshua, We just published this podcast interview about a new book, 'The Path to a Sustainable Civilisation', which you and your readers might find relevant in the context of the piece you wrote here. https://climatesafety.info/climaterevolution5
Do you think schizmogenesis lets us down in that we concentrate on enmity between near neighbours? The Greeks hated and feared the Persians; the Norse hated and feared the Sami. Also, we don’t like those within our ranks who are different, more so than those who are actual outsiders. Church leaders hate and fear gay churchgoers more than people of no religion. I love your work, have shared
Thoughtful post, but that's not what "the personal is political" means, as presented by Audre Lorde, intersectional womanist — which is where a lot of intersectional feminists of today learned the concept. It was never about consumer choices at all. It was about how our personal struggle as trans and queer women of color and marginalized gendered people of color was a political issue, about how our very existence is politicized against our will in white supremacist cisheteropatriarchal usa, our very existence is political — and thus we must act in reaction to that involuntary politicization. It wasn't meant to be individualist to begin with.
Thank you for this. In my notes to myself initially I wanted to carve out more time to look into the origins of the phrase. I only briefly looked at Carol Hanisch, but didn't give myself the room to dive more into it about went more with how its understood today. I definitely should've looked more at how she meant it, who she credited, Audre Lorde's usage of it, and more. Thank you for teaching me about how it was originally intended, which is of course more in line with how I wish we understood it today!
The IWW had a slogan that addresses this issue in large part - build a new society inside the shell of the old. Recognizing that we're starting today with a flawed society that can't end overnight is a useful perspective.
This was incredibly helpful, thank you.
Have you written on the phrase "no conscientious consumption under capitalism?" I feel that tension / dichotomy a lot when I hear people use that phrase so I'd love your thoughts on it.
Oh wow, thank you for this suggestion that might have to be a piece I write soon!
We practice revolutions of power, which do not transform us. The cycle continues.
True revolution is one of the mind. Then it spreads, unplanned, leaderless.
We are so conditioned to seek control, we fail to see that it's the curse.
Of course, a revolution of the mind can end up a bad miracle as much as a good one. The outcomes depend on the stories we tell. Our tales of meaning are what guide us.
The Dawn of Everything is a great book! This also made me think more about your other post on the answer to right-wing populism and how the political is also very personal (based on personal interactions and trust). I think framing things in that way can make it easier for people to understand the impact of their words and actions, and the value of continuing to provide a positive alternative to people is immense. Like you said before, each person who is convinced, or at least prevented from joining the right-wing is a win, but also each person could be the relative or friend of a politician (local or national), or could have great influence through their company or network and that is more the point. If you change enough minds, you start to move the levers of power as well. It's not the only work to be done, but it's a good part of it.
Hi Joshua, We just published this podcast interview about a new book, 'The Path to a Sustainable Civilisation', which you and your readers might find relevant in the context of the piece you wrote here. https://climatesafety.info/climaterevolution5
Do you think schizmogenesis lets us down in that we concentrate on enmity between near neighbours? The Greeks hated and feared the Persians; the Norse hated and feared the Sami. Also, we don’t like those within our ranks who are different, more so than those who are actual outsiders. Church leaders hate and fear gay churchgoers more than people of no religion. I love your work, have shared