|
"There’s a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part, you can’t even passively take part, and you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop! And you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!"
--Mario Savio
The way that an individual functions within a larger group, and the way that those groups operate within the greater society, has long fascinated me. The 2008 presidential campaign contest, including both the two major party’s primaries, and the general election, will definitely be studied by both sociologists and historians as the most intense since 1968. Within those studies there will be a focus on "group dynamics."
In both 1968 and 2008, the elections were heavily influenced by the federal government being seen as a war machine, more intent upon inflicting its will on a foreign nation that posed no threat to it, than on responding to the needs of the American citizens. In both years, groups of people who had been becoming organized for years were presenting challenges to the machine. Those challenges were rooted in the Power of Ideas.
Older DUers tend to remember Mario Savio with great affection. He was the son of Sicilian Catholics, and as a teen, served as an alter boy while considering entering the priesthood. He was a highly intelligent high school and college student, and his belief in the social gospel that is known as "liberation theology" would lead him to become involved in groups that were politically active.
In 1963, he traveled to Taxco, Mexico, as part of a Catholic relief agency that assisted the poor in becoming self-sufficient. The following year, Savio took part in a protest against a segregated hotel chain in San Francisco; he was one of 167 people arrested. While in jail, an associate asked him to take part in the Freedom Summer activities in the south. While in Mississippi, he and two other volunteers were attacked by a group of thugs. The police refused to investigate the case, until civil rights leaders put pressure on President Johnson.
Upon returning to college at Berkeley, Savio faced a decision: should he be satisfied with his investment in the civil rights movement, or should he sacrifice his own comfortable position, and become active on a higher level? This led to his being a leader of the Free Speech Movement.
Savio would say that his primary interest was social justice, not "politics." More, he did not advocate breaking every law that he felt was unjust, but rather being selective. In many ways, he was a revolutionary priest who recognized that the power of the Constitution was not limited to a document in a glass case in a Washington, DC museum; rather, its power was in being a living document that needed to be exercised in every generation.
There was an incident on his campus, where Sevio would tell a crowd that was facing a potentially violent confrontation with police, "I ask you to rise quietly and with dignity, and go home." The crowd peacefully dispersed. This incident was similar to when Malcolm X dispersed a crowd in New York City, and when a high-ranking police officer said, "No man should have that much power." Historian John Henrik Clarke said, "I believe it was at this time and after, with some consistency, that they began to plan the death of Malcolm X. (Malcolm X: Make It Plain; Cheryll Greene; page 105) The implications are fascinating: a person who could keep a crowd from becoming involved in violence was considered "dangerous."
At this time, Savio became a target of the FBI. FOI documents released in 1999 showed that it was the crowd dispersal that caused J. Edgar Hoover distress. He was placed on the list of "key targets" by COINTELPRO, and Hoover literally placed him on the list of American citizens to be rounded up and held in detention without access to court review, in the case of a "national emergency." This was not because he advocated violence, or was a "communist." It was because he was an advocate of the Power of Ideas, specifically those found in the Constitution of the United States.
Now, back to group dynamics. Within every group that works for positive social change, there is always some degree of tension. This takes place on two levels: first, between the group leadership and the larger, often "grass roots" membership; and second, within the leadership. A perfect example of this is found in the civil rights movement. Many of the people at the grass roots level felt an increasing divide between their daily efforts and the leaders of the various groups, such as the NAACP and SCLC. Also, the older leaders of several groups were jealous of the international attention focused upon Martin Luther King, Jr. It’s fair to compare this to some of the tensions that have existed within groups during the democratic primaries, and with the mild friction between Jesse Jackson, Sr. And Barack Obama.
The institutional opposition to social/political activists who advocate "change" is an important area for us to focus our attention. The machine always seeks to identify areas of tension within the groups to exploit. There are, of course, numerous other tactics, but the attempt to fracture the group is the half of Hoover’s command to "disrupt and neutralize" that fits our study of group dynamics this morning.
Those who were active in the 1960s and ‘70s know that it was while the enemies of social change infiltrated and spied upon all groups, they were most able to "disrupt" those groups that were associated with the potential for violence. The best examples of this were the infiltration of the Black Panther Party and the American Indian Movement. Two types of people were sent in to infiltrate these groups: informers and agent provocateurs.
"Informers," as we know from Michael Moore’s classic "Fahrenheit 9/11," infiltrate on spy on any "anti-war" group, even those who engage in peaceful, legal means of expressing free speech. The idea of an undercover officer reporting on meetings where group members eat cookies and drink milk would be funny, if it were not so anti-American. Far less humorous are the agent provocateurs, who try to gain positions near the leadership, and who advocate the most violent and illegal actions, in order to disrupt and neutralize the group.
When Martin Luther King, Jr., was leading non-violent demonstrations, the enemy was unable to do more within the group than plant informers. Because the group was non-violent, it was not possible to make use of agent provocateurs. However, in the last period of his life, his enemies hired people to participate in peaceful public assemblies and marches, and to create havoc by such behaviors as breaking windows and throwing rocks. This would disrupt the movement’s actions, and helped to discredit it in the national media. The classic example was King’s first march in Memphis.
Among those who attempt to infiltrate in order to spy on and disrupt groups are political operatives. They are not that different from the agent provocateurs who try to discredit politically active groups, except they tend to wear suits and ties. During the 1968 and ’72 elections, the Nixon campaign relied heavily upon them. They planted spies in the campaigns of every democratic candidate, from the primaries through the general elections. Many of their activities are documented in the Senate Watergate Report. Among these operatives were a number of toxins from the Republican College group.
This year, in the primary season, republican operatives attempted to create hostilities between the groups that backed Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. They have continued this effort in the general election campaign, with limited success.
We have also witnessed people attempting to fool us on the internet, including on DU. This weekend, for example, a person claimed to be a friend of the fellow who assisted Ashley Todd in reporting on her "assault." This person asked us to "trust" him, and assured us that the incident involved no group activity, but was rather the work of one mentally ill person. That attempt to encourage DUers to take a short-cut to rational thought didn’t work well, and thankfully the person was "tomb-stoned."
As we approach the election of Barack Obama and Joseph Biden, we see more of the republican machine becoming desperate. They fear the very idea of national leaders who can help bring about social progress by rational, peaceful means. Yet it is not just the "leaders" that they fear: they are upset by the concept of community organizers and grass roots activists working in an atmosphere where positive change can be instituted.
After Obama and Biden take office in January, our work will not be completed. Instead, we will be at a point where, like Mario Savio, we have to ask ourselves if we want to "retire" to our relative comforts, or if we instead are willing to step up to a higher level, which is needed in order to bring life to that Constitution in the towns and cities across America. And when we do this, we need to have an understanding and appreciation for the role of group dynamics.
Thank you for reading this. And thank you to Mario Savio and all the others who made this election possible.
Your friend,
H2O Man
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
