 |
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
||
 |
 |
|
||
|
||||
 |
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
So PoliticalFebruary 11, 2006 The other day in conversation someone referred to the local horse scene, and one organization in particular, as "so political." I muttered noncommittally: I know the local horse scene, and this organization, considerably better than my conversand (Aside: "Conversand" doesn't appear in either of my two most-used dictionaries, Merriam Webster's Collegiate, 11th ed., or the American Heritage Dictionary, 3rd ed. Why doesn't English have a handy word for "the person one is having or had a conversation with"? Maybe it does have such a word, but I and my dictionaries don't know it. If so, please let me know soonest. Suggestions other than "conversand" also welcome. "Conversator" is a possibility, but "converser," which is in the dictionary, doesn't cut it. While we're at it, AHD lists "conversazione" as "a meeting for conversation or discussion, especially about art." Makes me want to learn Italian. How about "conversazionera"?) . . . Anyway, I know the local horse scene, and this organization, better than my conversand, aka the person I was having this conversation with, and "political" isn't one of the top 10 words I would use to describe it, but plenty of others regularly refer to it as "political," so I didn't say anything. There are several good reasons to keep one's distance from most of the local horse scene, and if "so political" doesn't describe any of mine, well, as we say online, YMMV -- your mileage may vary. What bugs me is that I'm not sure I know what people mean when they say a scene or an organization is "so political," "too political," or just "political." For years I've had people tell me to my face -- usually while laughing or shaking their heads -- that I'm too political, and I don't entirely understand this either. I'm not involved in any electoral-political activities, and for many years I haven't played a leadership role in any organization. There are no "office politics" where I work because I work by myself. Hell, I'm not even registered to vote. When I'm told I'm "so political," usually I've just been giving my take on a situation that involves several people, accounting for actions, speculating about motives, hazarding a guess or two about what's going to happen next. Is that what people mean by "political"? If so, I'm political with a capital P. My fascination with group dynamics probably goes back to childhood, when knowing what was going on in my family was a basic survival skill. Ever since, life has been throwing me opportunities to learn more, and I've been grabbing as many as I could: the antiwar movement, student government at the two colleges I attended, the feminist movement, the women's community, Martha's Vineyard, and a whole lot of books, history, current events, fiction . . . Almost from the beginning of the "second wave," grass-roots feminism has been extremely attentive to group dynamics, aka group process, or just "process." Truth to tell, often we've been hyperattentive or selectively inattentive to process -- but is there any insight or tool so inherently good that it can't be used to guilt-trip, lambaste, silence, or generally avoid the issue? Not that I know of. This is a huge part of the fascination: why does it so often happen that smart, principled people with the best of intentions enter into a group project and make a complete hash of it? It happens so often that plenty of smart, principled people with the best of intentions avoid organizations like the plague -- and, I suspect, refer to almost anyone who devotes time and thought to organizational activity as "so political." "United We Stand" has been royally co-opted by the professional patriots: these days it pretty much means "Shut up and support the Bush administration." But the idea that people working together can accomplish more than people hiding in their burrows is not unique to supporters of the status quo. Hell no: very few successful challenges to the status quo have been made by individuals in isolation, and even the most brilliant leaders and strategists are ineffective without people to refine, expand, and implement their plans. Sure, sometimes saying a person or an organization is "too political" means that it's too full of itself and is mainly looking for better ways to manipulate people. Other times, though, it's a way of dismissing ideas and insights, and maybe justifying one's own inactivity. As with so many other things, it's important to know the difference.
|
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
 |
|
|||
 |
|
|||
Home - Writing - Editing - About Susanna - Bloggery - Articles - Poems - Contact Copyright ©
Susanna J. Sturgis. All rights reserved. |
||||