nashvillebrook wrote:Primarily what's useful in this essay is the power-building idea...that it's disempowering to point to a sexy mystical boogieman instead of unsexy criminals stealing money and power. And we have to recognize that not everything we do is power-building. We just need to get better at it, and keep up with the research and critique that fuels empowerment.
So, what does this look like? Community/political organizers use "grand narrative" all the time. The research organizations that they use get down into the details of the "actors acting cohesively" and present data that backs up the grand narrative, naming names and extrapolating consequences. It's up to other organizations to use this data in a way that builds power. When they take that message out to the press, they don't say that "infant mortality rates in the U.S. are a result of The System." It's implied, but what they're paid to do is to identify the places where change can be affected. So, you never say "it's The System," IF, what you want to do is to build power out in the world.
"It's The System" conversations definitely happen all the time as a part of the research process...but on the professional level it has to be targeted, or else there's nothing to publish. Their job is to take the "occult" and make it plain as day.
We're not professionals. We mire ourselves in the discussion, and that's definitely the more interesting end of the stick. The discussion still matters. The discussion is still primary and still fundamental to affecting change. The crit is that if/when you switch gears to affecting change, you change the language. It has to be distilled into actionable bits.
Thats right. Exactly right.
Thats why action is so much easier when the goal is simple, and defined and something we can all work together to achieve.
Its why blockades (ie forest blockades, or mining blockades) can be a very effective form of action. there's a defined target, and a plan of action that goers with it. One thats easy to understand and implement and one that makes sense.
i dunno if it adds much to this discussion or not, but when we go out to fight fires we brief the crew we're taking and we follow (well try to follow) a specific structure which is defined by an anagram.
SMEACS
Situation - ie what is actually happening eg, there's a report of fire at such and such a location
Mission - ie what we have to do, eg we're gonna put the fire out
Execution - ie how we are gonna do it, eg person a does this, person b does that person c does the other etc etc
Admin/Logistics - this usually refers to what we have available and what we can call on if we need it,
Command - the overall hierarchy that will control the incident. this can vary from a simple single unit incident to massive incidents involving tens or hundreds of units and hundreds or thousands of individuals
Signals - how we'll be communicating, among ourselves and with other concerned parties.
The thing about that acronym is it focuses communication into specific structures to get what we need done. It specifies what is happening in as much detail as possible (it may not be much in some situations) and then how we propose to deal with it and what resources we have available. In many ways its the opposite of the disempowering use of language that the op is referring to.
I think the acronym is widely used around the world by emergency services and probably military and paramilitary groups as its a pretty simple and effective way to cover wjhat needs to be covered in a briefing. the real strength of it is the way it positively identifies what the specifics of the situation and the specifics of an appropriate response are. i don't think that acronym is necessarily a particularly useful one for what you're talking about with this
The crit is that if/when you switch gears to affecting change, you change the language. It has to be distilled into actionable bits., tho bits of it might be.
