Fun Fact: I needed to be up by 3:30 AM to go to work and I was too busy writing to even care haha!
As online discourse heavily utilizes academia, it’s very easy to see that everything you do or don’t do, everything you engage or not engage with, can be analyzed and deemed as political. One’s very existence and outward expression rooted from this existence is analyzed on a socio-political level, levying cultural history and historical oppression to understand the individual being analyzed. Anything being thought consciously and subconsciously stems from complex history and dynamics when expressed will influence the web of connections and eventual cultural lexicon. If everything is political, down to the base identity of existence, by extension there is a kind of belief that everything can be used as a form of political activism.
While I am not trying to discredit this way of thinking, I am trying to point out how this kind of thinking has made a kind of complicity within the system and can discourage real political action. If everything is political, nothing is political. If everything can be used as political activism and cognitive reinforcement of political ideals, then nothing can be used as political activism. Currently, political activism in the most real and tangible sense (Protesting, fund raising, organizing, and volunteering) has now become something that is intimidating to the average person. It is seen as too inconvenient, costly, dramatic, and time consuming compared to the convenience of passive consumption in late-stage capitalism.
The system both politically and economically has manipulated the analytic world of academia to make the act of cognitive consumption or passive acknowledgement into a political stance or even activism. One who simply exists in a consumptive state can feel themselves as equal to a political organizer for having the same beliefs. I believe this is rooted in capitalism’s monetization of attention and time, as well as a post-object economy where a product being sold no longer holds financial merit based on its material properties for the buyer instead justifying its cost through its cognitive impact and potential.
Maybe this is a controversial opinion, but I do not believe that just thoughts does not make someone politically superior. And I reach this claim by recognizing the intangibility and minor fluctuating opinion of thought itself. One day someone could bless the benefits of capitalism for providing competitive salaries, and on another day the same person would be the most staunch marxist cursing capitalism for creating a difficult work-life balance. In the end, simply acknowledging the harm our current system perpetuates does not make someone more of an activist, it just makes them someone who is aware of how the system harms. By believing that simple thoughts constitute political activism, it perpetuates a “me versus a world of sheep” mentality. It assumes that the people around you lack a kind of cognitive complexity for not outwardly acknowledging how fucked up their surroundings are.
A major pitfall that weakens my argument is voting behavior. Thinking a certain way determines which political party to vote for, which undoubtedly influences the future of politics and the population’s quality of life. However, voting every 4 or 8 years pales in comparison to the act of joining an organization that promotes people to vote by doing presentations in local colleges. Through voting, thoughts are given a tangible outcome through the bare minimum of actions which can still be skipped if the timing is inconvenient for the voter.
Another counterargument is the culmination of actions and subconsciously expressed thoughts that add up and amount to a defined culture. Where a single thought is added among a sea of similar ideas creating an environment where change is infinitely harder to implement by going against the established values. While it is a compelling argument, it tends to forget that the defined culture is a culmination of the arguments leading up to its rigid and limited definition. Every era summarized in simple terms is overlooking years of arguments, debates, movements, and innovations that simply cannot be fully understood even if one lived in that period. By emphasizing the thoughts of thousands it forgets the large influence that occurs from the actions of hundreds. The intentional actions implemented alongside the loud expressing of ideas does infinitely more in cultural conversation than the passive belief of recognizing the importance of societal reform.
Our current political and economic system does not eliminate alternatives that challenge its foothold on our society, but it does emphasize the alternative’s inconvenience in a world that has been built to fulfill our wants and needs to be the most productive and convenient as possible. Thinking about interacting with others in local farmer’s markets, the extra expense of supporting small businesses, or the loss of pocket change by donating to a trusted cause instead of saving up for a snack. How could the over-worked and over-stimulated individual do that nonetheless commit to volunteering in a soup kitchen? It is far more convenient to trust the abundant and established corner store chain brand and grocery store than it is to plan a trip to get fresh produce in a local market exchange.
It is important to remember that real change is never done through ideological superiority that lacks illogical fallacies or rhetorical potholes. Most successful political movements in history have made this abundantly clear. Even if the members of a government reform movement or revolution all have differing ideas of how things should be led, it was infinitely more effective to continue with a clear goal rather than being passively content with their ideology alone. I understand the root of our convenience-focused lifestyle is based on a work culture that over-exerts their employees that makes ethical yet inconvenient behaviors difficult to implement. Even though it is overworking that is the issue, in order to live a more fulfilling lifestyle one must engage in the difficult world of political activism, but the shame from lack of action in real life is lifted through the idea of consumption equating to real world protesting. Even if you know deep down, watching a short-form video and arguing with a bot on social media is nowhere close to attending a protest. Maybe it’s the risk of failure despite the immense effort and sacrifice that pulls people away from even trying.