dolorosa_12 | Hope as a state of mind, not a state of the world

I've had this Rebecca Solnit essay bookmarked for a few days, because it's such a clear distillation of my own personal and political outlook that rather than write the ten millionth iteration of my own 'behave as if you have agency' rant, I can now just point to Solnit's post and call it a day.

I might quibble with some of her specific illustrative examples, but the overall shape of what she's saying aligns exactly with my thinking. And while I'm on this topic, I'll add (yet again) that constant awareness raising about iniquities and atrocities absent any specific instructions about concrete action to take in response to those iniquities and atrocities provokes exactly the kind of demoralising, despairing-in-advance apathy Solnit deplores in her essay. The only people who should be raising awareness are those whose job it is to do so: people who work in the media, or people who functionally fill a media-like role (paid or unpaid) by virtue of the content they've decided to disseminate via social media, and the large audience they have there. Even in those latter cases, awareness-raising without context does more harm than good.

Hope is an action. This doesn't mean a naive, apathetic confidence in the status quo. It means being clear-eyed about the gravity of the situation and the potential societal and personal risks it causes, and using what agency remains to you as an individual, a community and a society to push back against the tide, without being overwhelmed by the knowledge that it will be a marathon, not a sprint, comprised of lots of tiny little moments of concrete action. (And being able to handle the fact that the greater the atrocities and injustices, the less likely it will be to stop them with one grand action, and to be able to acknowledge the weight of this without being steamrollered into apathetic despair.)

None of these complaints are directed at anyone on my Dreamwidth reading list, which (to my good fortune) is comprised of sensible, thoughtful people who are better than most at understanding the motivating (and demotivating) power of words and information. But I felt, in the wake of Solnit's post, that it was time to set out my own thoughts on this particular nexus of issues once again, with as much clarity as possible. (And thank you to

muccamukk for giving me the push I needed to set words to screen.)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

chestnut_pod

לֹא עָלֶיךָ הַמְּלָאכָה לִגְמֹר, וְלֹא אַתָּה בֶן חוֹרִין לִבָּטֵל מִמֶּנָּה | Do Not Surrender in Advance (Or At Any Point Thereafter).

From:

dolorosa_12

❤️

From:

muccamukk

This is so well put. I really struggle with how much "awareness raising" type things to include in link lists. It's usually more than zero, but never more than half? Or something.

From:

dolorosa_12

Thank you.

For what it's worth, I don't find your links roundups to be particularly heavy in the sense of 'awareness raising' — even if you just share an informational link, it's done in a way that provides context. The kind of awareness raising I'm thinking of is done by people who seem to view it as (their sole form of) activism. For example, I have friends and acquaintances whose social media accounts are now partly or wholly composed of endless shared videos of atrocities in Gaza, accompanied by comments to the effect that anyone not using their social media in this way is complicit. These are people in centre-left-leaning, politically engaged social circles (whose friends and acquaintances are therefore likely to know very well what is going on in Gaza). These posts are very rarely accompanied by any suggested actions to take in response — no mentions of protests, writing to representatives, places to donate, etc — and my impression is that they are either deliberately or unintentionally contributing to a climate in which people are persuaded into despairing hopelessness and outraged inaction, with a side dish of growing apathy with regard to political involvement in their own respective countries (why bother to vote if our leaders allowed this to happen, etc).

I don't think this is always deliberate — I think in the case of the people I know who do this, it's self-perpetuating behaviour learnt in response to online social norms in their social circles — but I don't doubt that more sinister actors are doing all they can to encourage and amplify these sentiments.

Meanwhile, I know myriad people living in conflict zones or authoritarian countries who communicate much more clearly, both to their fellow citizens and to foreigners outside: they explain/show what the problem is, and list specific things that should be done in response. My reaction when I see this is always much more positive, because this manner of communication makes their interlocutors feel as if they have agency and tasks to do that make them feel helpful and productive in the face of injustice.

From:

muccamukk

Oh yeah. Those accounts. There's some writing on the mental/emotional damage you yourself can take by reading/viewing extensively about the kind of horror going on in Gaza/Ukraine/Sudan, and sometimes all the posting feels like a kind of self-harm or even an act of penitence. Which isn't especially helping people in those conflict zones. Or anyone else.

There's also a kind of cumulative effect? In that I see it less on DW (though not never), I think part of the issue is the mechanics of microblogging itself, where it's so low-effort to repost. Plus, if each person reposts three or four things they think it's !!!important to know!!! are happening, then your whole feed is that kind of thing pretty easily. Some of them might also be bots. *sighs*

From:

dolorosa_12

I think part of the issue is the mechanics of microblogging itself, where it's so low-effort to repost.

I've long felt that this was the case. The viral spread of information is a massively double-edged sword, and if I had my wish, I would go back in time and stop the creation of the retweet/reblog/repost/share/etc button. My stance has always been that if you don't have time to verify the information you're poised to share, or don't have time to think through the actual likely concrete effects viewing your shared post is going to cause, you actually don't have time to click that 'share' button. It sounds counterintuitive, but I actually believe it is beneficial for internet platforms to be mildly difficult (or at least time-consuming) to use — it has the effect of putting the breaks on a lot of overenthusiastic sharing of misinformation or material that does more harm than good. Unfortunately this is very much a minority view!

sometimes all the posting feels like a kind of self-harm or even an act of penitence. Which isn't especially helping people in those conflict zones. Or anyone else.

Yes exactly. I truly believe it with the self-harm, and I'm not even sure that people are aware they're doing it to themselves.

From:

hoarmurath

"constant awareness raising about iniquities and atrocities absent any specific instructions about concrete action to take in response to those iniquities and atrocities provokes exactly the kind of demoralising, despairing-in-advance apathy" THANK YOU, this is my problem with so much of social media and general media right now.

Very good essay. and it's ironic/beautiful she quoted Vaclav Havel because I was literally in Czechia just now, and I took part in a larp set in the world of Disco Elysium, which was played (and will be played this week again) in the actual real life former/abandoned/derelict hospital of Terezin (yes, that Terezin), and most of what he said in that quote could also have been said about the way that larp made me feel.

and yes also, behave as if you have agency. because the world is going to roll along anyway, with or without you.