Ecology in Mind: The “Cult of Consciousness Raising”
Christopher Koliba
| Revision History | ||
|---|---|---|
| • November 13-27, 1991 | Newspaper: Funded by Syracuse University students. | |
| The Alternative Orange: Vol. 1, No. 2 (pp. 8,11) | ||
| • August 26, 2000 | Webpage:  . | |
| DocBook XML (DocBk XML V3.1.3) from original. | ||
“Consciousness raising.”
What good is it? Is it worth one‘s time and energy to pound new ideas or clearer interpretations of news events into another‘s head?
A conversation has developed among environmental educators who are concerned about the looming ecological crisis as to whether “consciousness raising” unto itself is enough to stimulate a change in the lifestyles of the people in a given culture; the concern being that the current western obsession with industrialization and unchecked consumption mentality are not ecologically sustainable the earth just won‘t be able to handle all the pollution and waste expected to be produced in the coming decades by an exponentially growing world population. The question these radical thinkers are raising pertains to the use of traditional “educational” means of effecting behavior (consciousness-raising), in conjunction with contemporary media channels (this newspaper being one of them), as a method of triggering massive, revolutionary transformation in culture.
This question is relevant to not only those of us concerned about the environment (all of us???), but also to those radical thinkers who see the need for revolutions in the prevailing economic systems, in the restructuring of the “academy,” and the relationships we experience within our families, our churches and our communities. And yet this question over the effectiveness of “consciousness raising” is rarely asked. It has just been assumed by those who have decided to “bring the truth to bear,” or who have developed theoretical “solutions” to the social and political problems, that the means (the act of consciousness raising) are the same as the ends (a revolutionary change in culture.) For example, an article on “Leninism” is crafted as a persuasive device — the ultimate goal of the author is to persuade one to change perspectives... which sometimes happens. But the question that rarely gets asked is whether an article on Lenin actually stimulates radical transformation. Certainly an article alone will not inspire one to stop paying taxes or scorn identification with the bourgeois class.
A real source of motivation which most radical thinkers regularly neglect are the “experiences” of those they are trying to influence (shaped within a cultural context...). For example, the readers of this newspaper are likely to be students or people who work with (for) students. These students have grown up in a particular cultural context. MTV, video games, a right-wing orchestrated mass hypnosis (if you‘re into conspiracy theories), have all been a part of their (our) reality. The radical thinker, when attempting to effect some measure of change within the students, must keep these facts in mind. To understand why the student body (and almost every member of this university community) has been lulled to sleep by the hypnotic delight of modern civilization is an essential step in the process of awakening to what radical educator Paulo Freire calls “conscientizacas, ” learning to perceive social, political and economic contradictions, and to take action against the oppressive elements of reality (see Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed) . These inherent contradictions in our reality surface when the gaps between “real” experiences and “coerced” experiences are exposed. We can see this gap when we look at a few of the major institutions which have influenced the experiences of those we are attempting to influence .
The Roman Catholic Church, the United States Government, and “Wall Street” “understand” our experiences enough to know how to influence — in a manner which i am here labelling “coercive. “ (Now before i go on to illustrate, please note that almost any social institution coerces. In addition, i must also add that these three examples have been central to the formation of my own cultural contexts, and for this reason i am able to criticize them. )
The dogmatic tenants of the Roman Catholic Church clearly state that sex before marriage is a “sin.” Those remaining celibate are candidates for acceptance into the “communion of saints. “ The dogmatic tenants of “patriotism, “ as dictated by the U.S. government, clearly state that one must bear arms in defense of the “country” when called to do so. Those who commit murder in defense of their “country” are candidates for metals of honor. The dogmatic tenants of capitalism, as embodied in “Wall Street”, clearly state that one must “sell” his or her labor to someone else. Those who attempt to “earn a living” (as if “living” isn‘t a gift to begin with) are candidates for a life of high tech, material prosperity. Do you see a pattern here? These institutions, and the people who run them, understand our experiences and use this understanding to generate guilt, unquestioned loyalty and a gluttonous consumer mentality, while disguising this manipulation under a veil of “status” (sainthood, honor and material prosperity.) Does the radical thinker suffer from the same tendency?
To answer this question we must look at the nature of “revolution." To get people to “become” revolutionaries do we have to generate elements, ideas, emotions which coerce? Should we make the potential revolutionary feel guilty for polluting the environment? Should we make her question her loyalty to a nation and then offer something else for them to attach her loyal to (a new political party, a new religion, chaos) ? Should we offer him something else to consume (words, ideas, gods) ? I hope you can see the dilemma that the radical thinker is caught; within revolutionary intent does not necessarily inspire revolutionary action. The same old deck keeps getting reshuffled, while the “ace of spades” still has the bent corner. Until we figure out how to throw the deck away, we will be caught in a “no win” situation.
I believe a way out exists in gaps (or “tears” as i had demonstrated in last issue's “Pee Wee” column) which appear when one is placed in the position of a “listener” of people‘s real experiences.
Does the Roman Catholic Church listen to the real experiences of the Roman Catholic who has sex before marriage? Does the U.S. government listen to the real experiences of the person who refuses to shed blood for a nation? Does “Wall Street” listen to the real experiences of the impoverished person whose labor no one wants to buy? Might it be the radical thinker‘s responsibility to listen to the first-hand accounts of these real experiences? Has anyone really ever listened before?
Ironically, we ignore these questions and proceed to cite verbose theoretical treaties — creating new symbols (dogma) for the masses to attach to. So what am i doing performing the consciousness rasing gig? What am i doing citing verbose philosophical treaties? This is a very important question to ask, because it gets to the heart of the matter. At this point i am going to get mean and nasty, those of you who get offended easily, please listen to this next statement. I am conducting an exercise in which i am allowing myself to listen to my real experiences... listen in, won’t you???
So what am i doing performing the consciousness raising gig? Deflecting responsibility. Easing my conscience. Inflating my ego. Ignoring sacrifice. Ouch.
Deflecting responsibility — I do this “gig” as a way of showing my commitment to revolutionary change. I can then blame you for not listening or being too damn apathetic to usher in some measure of change in your lives. By attempting to raise your consciousness i am placing the burden for action on you and taking it off of me (cowardly-like.)
Easing my conscience — These, no doubt, are my “radical years.” Marriage, a little success, and a couple kids will see to it that i rationalize my intense desire for revolution away. Since i think this will probably happen, i must deal with the guilt; and so i choose to do something that will not threaten my “future.” (Publishing articles are threats only to the paranoid schizophrenics in the F.B.I. and the C.I.A.)
Inflating my ego — I get to walk on the street and feel all special. All of you bourgeois swine step aside. Here comes a radical walking down the street who has some serious consciousness raising to do!
Ignoring sacrifice — I am not willing to give up what I have for you or any future generation... sorry, i guess i‘m a product of the times — MTV, video games, mass hypnosis...(note: intense cynicism) Ouch.
Let me try to salvage something positive out of this. For those looking for structure, i offer these five points... read‘em and weep:
1.) To the radical thinker — consider the manipulative stench associated with any rigorous dogma.
2.) To the members of the cult of consciousness raising — keep doing what you are doing... i suppose... who am i to criticize? I know i still plan on being an active member of the group. Do you think we could look into group insurance rates and a pension plan?
3.) To those who are really committed to revolutionary change —please let those of us in the cult of consciousness raising know you‘re around, we could use some inspiration from time to time.
4.) To those who are really committed to revolutionary change —explore your imaginations. Experience the burden of the hypnotic trance of modern civilization and realize that we are culturally unable to envision a world without war or exploitation. To mention the word “utopia” these days offers one up for ridicule. Perhaps this cynical laughter is really a cry of deep anguish, as our imaginations have become caught up in Hollywood‘s cybernetic nightmare for so long. Attempts at positive creative envisioning are snuffed out before they ever become realized (or even shared for that matter.)
5.) Those of you who were interested in what was said in point four — this, i believe is where the future of radical thinking lies. By calling upon each individual to create a vision made from her or his own real experiences and passions all of us can better experience each other‘s experiences, and free ourselves from this tendency to manipulate an “understanding” to fulfill our own obsession with specific means or ends.
Until next time — sustainable peace and stuff like that
