All sociopolitical movements follow the same exact predictable pathway: 1.) A group of people feel like their views, lifestyle, and/or personhood is under assault by those in power. Lets call them the pros 2.) The pros decide to fight for equality, appealing to the emotions of bystanders 3.) Outside sympathizers join in the fight 4.) The other side (lets call them the cons) begins to mobilize and voice their opposition 5.) A media war ensues 6.) The pros begin labeling the cons with derogatory terms meant to coerce by fear and shame as many con-sympathizers as possible over to the pro side. (some examples: bigot, misogynist, racist, etc.) 7.) This works. Fear and shame are powerful motivators. 8.) The pros now have enough power to change things, so they do. 9.) For a brief moment in time, the pros actually achieve equality with the cons in most important sectors of society 10.) But the pros, having been down so long, continue fighting. Now they want change. Equality is achieved, but why not ride this momentum and change society to make it how they want it? 11.) Now the pros fight for progress, successfully riding that wave of momentum from their earlier equality fight 12.) Everything appears to be going well as the cons have been all but silenced, and the pros march forward unobstructed And heres where it gets interesting. Theres a coin-flip of probability that one of two things will happen next: A.) Nothing. The cons get old and die, along with their opposition views. B.) The cons mobilize. They become that group of people mentioned in step 1. In the cases where this happens, things get ugly. And they get ugly fast. (Example: Sunni-Shiite relations in Iraq) For the 1 or 2 of you still reading at this point, I guess what Im trying to say is: sociopolitical movements take a HUGE risk by deciding to double-down and fight for change/progress instead of simply equality like they say they are. Not only is it incredibly risky, but its incredibly hypocritical.
Posted on: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 15:27:59 +0000