Skip to main content

Revolution

Today I wore my bright yellow YSS t-shirt that read, "I vote for revolution." Upon seeing my t-shirt, Shreya, my better twin, asks me: "Do you think revolution through the electoral process is possible?" Gee whiz, what a conversation starter, especially at 8:35 AM, I thought. I answered that the possibility of revolution is relative to the context of where and when the revolution happens; and also what type of revolution one speaks of. But my simple answer was "No, definitely not here."Given the earliness of the morning, my case was pretty insubstantial. I referenced some obscure trend that showed a correlation between electoral participation within democratic countries and the corruption within those governments. The largest democracies (How do we measure democracy?) are in countries that are most unstable. I jokingly cited Asia as an example. But really, India and Puerto Rico were examples of large, dysfunctional democracies.

Although my t-shirt reads "I vote for revolution," I don't vote for revolution. Revolutions create sudden, often terrible changes to the status quo. Revolutions, when fought under the banner of nationalism and patriotism, are blood orgies in disguise. Revolutions are extreme moments in human history that allow us to appeal to ideals, rethink structures, and change reality--but only for a moment. The energy spent on a revolution is fruitless because the extremism of that moment becomes an afterthought in the larger progression of history. We remember the French Revolution as necessary given the extreme disparity of wealth, resources and power. But the revolution itself was a moment of sheer madness. Sure, it inspired these ideals of fraternity and egalitarianism, but it was filled with blood. I would much rather see the masses concentrate that energy into creative, productive forms of expression that did not involve the loss of human lives. Once the climax of revolution is over, people return to their unjust ways.


For whatever reason, I feel intuitively inclined to classical conservativism. I am opposed to rapid change in governmental and societal institutions. I believe in process, slow change. I am not with Burke, and his camp of French Revolution Haters, but I preferred his foretelling of the violent rebellion against tradition and proper authority that was the French Revolution than I did the lofty ranting of Voltaire. Of course, this identification with classical conservatism does not mean that I am ideologically de facto aligned with conservative politics. In fact, a discussion of politics, economics, or society would reveal that I am hardly conservative. Needless to say, there is a difference between social, economic or political conservatism--ideologies that fall under the umbrella of ideological conservatism-- and classical conservatism.

I gave up on revolutions after the summer of 2004, after a week with Youth Solidarity Summer (YSS), a progressive South Asian youth organizing training program. Prior to 2004, I had had my share of protests where I watched people behaving badly, spewing mantras of hate, saying ridiculous, obscene, vulgar things to make a point that could be made in other ways. I was turned off by the shouting, even the physical labor of picketing. I have friends who still believe in revolutions, raising their voices, and protests-- and I respect them for what they are capable of doing. I admit that society needs these people to demonstrate solidarity and raise other peoples' consciousness about issues. There is something very powerful that happens with you are surrounded by idealist, young, beautiful men and women who share your opinions on war, or unfair labor practices, or factory conditions. You feel the energy, even if its 20 degrees below zero and there are 500,000 people gathered around you. You feel the energy, even if its 85 degrees and your with just a few of your friends, picketing and chanting on Fifth Avenue. Having experienced these things, I'd still rather sit behind a desk and shuffle paper. I'd rather be a bureaucrat. I'd rather work in a cubicle. I'd rather be part of larger, more gradual process. I'm not a revolutionary. I'm a moderate. I won't compromise my values, but I will not give into groupthink either.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why Not Friendship (Revised)- Repost

It is difficult to be merely a friend to a boy who seems more suitable as a husband than a friend. To reduce a potential life partner to a friend is immature and selfish. Friendship is the not the greatest type of relationship, but it is the safest. Friendship allows you to be intimate without the messiness of other things, like physical attraction, etc. Between friends, there is a warm permanence, a fuzziness that can be called appreciation and gratitude. There is also comfort and trust. Friendship is great if only for the possibility that one can know the beauty of another human being. The possibility of that is worth the difficulty of all else. But sometimes friendship is not enough. Sometimes, to reduce someone to friend when he should be much more is an affront to the opportunity God has presented before you. It is like saying to him, I know that we are amazing together, but we should be friends because I am a dumbass. To reduce him to friend also precludes the possibility of love...
Malcolm Gladwell. "Getting In: The Social Logic of Ivy Leage Admissions" http://www.gladwell.com/2005/2005_10_10_a_admissions.html Major themes: 1. Passion is a significant contributor to success. 2. High intelligence means little without discipline and passion. "Bowen and Shulman write about the characteristics that make athletes more coveted by Ivy League schools: One of these characteristics can be thought of as drive--a strong desire to succeed and unswerving determination to reach a goal, whether it be winning the next game or closing a sale. Similarly, athletes tend to be more energetic than the average person, which translates into an ability to work hard over long periods of time--to meet, for example, the workload demands placed on young people by an investment bank in the throes of analyzing a transaction. In addition, athletes are more likely than others to be highly competitive, gregarious and confident of their ability to work well in groups (on teams). I ...

Re: Your Inquiries

"You confuse yourselves with your actions, even with your thoughts. You barely understand that in order to be, it should not be necessary to act, and that the world changes you far more than you change it." (Malraux, The Temptation of the West, 1961 ) The world consists of wonderful people who enter and exit your life. When you let them enter, your breaths seem more thoughtful, your behaviors more scrutinized, your ideas challenged, and sometimes your brain orgasms from happiness. But when these individuals leave, you experience equally significant things like confusion and hurt. It seems okay to let someone in, someone trustworthy, good, honest, and not concern yourself with the end. As things exist in your mind, there is no harm. Intellectual promiscuity, then, is not so bad. To have intimate, intelligent conversations into the morning is not troubling, either. Sometimes when good people enter, it is not necessary to act, or specifically to resist. When people enter, their ...