What Is the Most Political Thing We Do?
When I ask this question of people, most reply that their political life is when they vote (if they do) in an election. Some think they are being most political when performing that singular duty of citizenship, jury service. Activists see their actions to influence elected officials or the public or to promote or protest regarding the causes with which they identify themselves as their most political activity, that is, political action truly-so-called.
Jury duty certainly stands out for those who have had the experience. One problem with seeing it as our most political action is that not all of us are called to jury duty. Those who are may be eliminated from consideration for actual jury service, or may just not have their numbers come up when they are randomly called. The jury is slightly analogous to the draft: you may know you are eligibile to be called, but you may not be looking forward to it. Military service for draftees is a form of required political action: when political action is compulsory, the individual does not get to choose or to vote on what is to be done.
Politics has been seen as how a people determines "who gets what, where, when, and why" (the title of an introductory book by Harold Laski, not widely in use any longer in beginning political science courses). For those who are caught up in the possessive individualism of American political philosophy, this has its appeal. If the goods of life in society are distributed according to a series of "Zero-Sum Games," then it is important to wield influence in order to ensure one is not on the zero side of that equation. "X items - Y users = 0" is true only when "X=Y." That is, if the good we seek (X item) has enough units to go around, every one of the "Y users" could receive one of the "X items." In reality, there are two factors working against this being actualized: scarcity and acquisition of more than one "X item" by "Y users." That many will take more than one "X item" if they can, may cause, and certainly contributes something to the scarcity. If the "X item" is necessary for living, then it is important to everyone to have it. Most of us find we are struggling over "X items" that are not truly necessary for living, but seem to us as though they are. That is why there can be life or death struggles over items that exist in abundance.
Following the logic of possessive individualism pits each of us against everyone else. (See Thomas Hobbes for the definitive argument for this sort of "war of each against each" as the natural state for humankind.) This is a political stance, but it is not a very attractive one. Even those who have great power live in an environment of scarcity created by the struggle over things, whether necessary to life or not. Some struggle over things that have nothing to do with life, too, as is evident from the many wars over diversity of faith which have soiled human history. Surely, risking the "ultimate sacrifice" on behalf of one's country or cause is "the most political thing" that combatants and civilians might do. This is true for them in that the potential outcome of death is the extreme, ultimate, complete sacrifice. But it is not "the most political" thing we do when we think of frequency and not just magnitude of the activity. Besides, most people are not called on to risk their lives for their cause or country.
What is our most political activity?
It is traffic.
What is the right to which we give the most thought and which we defend most vigorously?
It is right of way.
I will elaborate on these points in subsequent posts.
(4/5/2009)
No comments:
Post a Comment