The Thing About Movements

In my morning readings, Ann Althouse had a review of a NY Times article The Feminist Pursuit of Good Sex by Nona Willis Aronowitz.  In her opinion piece Ms. Aronowitz talks of her personal challenge, “Was pornography a vanguard of sexual freedom or a tool of the patriarchy?”  Ms. Aronowitz writes of the split in the feminist movement where one side views sex and pornography as good, and the other as a patriarchal tool to suppress womankind.  Ms. Aronowitz writes this is caused by one sides lack of “nuance.”  Ms. Althouse believes there is a lack of nuance on both sides, with each accusing the other.

This got me to thinking about what does an individual gain or lose when they join in political movements and are they aware of their gain or loss?

Clearly, when people band together there is a strength and support of like-minded individuals who will encourage and perhaps guide the new members in the ways of the group.  This is a positive thing if it does not progress to the level of enslavement to an ideology.  For example, when an addict attempts recovery groups like Alcoholics Anonymous provide wonderful support and guidance in how to regain control of life.  If carried too far through the worst-case scenarios can play out as demonstrated by Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple project (AKA Jonestown) massacre, or the Branch Davidian Church confrontation in Waco, TX.

Then there are the politically inspired movements such as the feminist movement began shortly before the civil war, or the flat earth society, began shortly before Christopher Columbus left Italy for Spain.  Today we have the hashtag movements of a hundred different things ranging from the lives of certain colors to the wearing of pink hats.  Each began not as a movement but as an idea in a few activists as a way to gain a larger following.

But what does an individual sacrifice in becoming a part of the movement?  For me, that is the critical question.  As we look at the popular movements of today I can’t help but feel the average participant is asked to check their reasoning at the door and must accept without question the values of the movement leaders.

From my vantage -- outside looking in, this appears to be true regardless of the political leanings of the movement.  The further from the center the movement is, the more the followers must abandon their individuality.  In that sense, movements don’t seem all that much different than gangs, just without the chains and tats (although tats have become popular within movements as well).

What social media has taught me is so many people are searching for themselves and are willing to abandon their historically rooted values to be a part of the larger group, even if it means they must abandon the idea of self, and reason.  For many of the hashtag generation, it offers the illusion of rage without consequence, but I am afraid they will soon come to realize such a thing cannot exist.  There is always a consequence.  It may not be public, but it is there until it can be reconciled with the larger moral questions.