Liberal activism

[Guest guest]

I was reading an article for class by a socilogist named Robert

Merton who said that there were three big fallacies among many

liberals (he was talking specifically about civil rights activists,

but it can be applied generally to all liberal activists-

environmentalists, feminists, animal rights, etc.) which limit their

effectiveness in reducing prejudice/discrimination:

 

(1) They tend to preach to the choir most of the time and seek like-

minded people for mutual support.

(2) Their continued association with like-minded liberals produces

the illusion that their views are the consensus of our community at

large.

(3) They are content with our individual behavior, free from guilt,

and thus see no need to do anything to fix society. It as if they

feel that each individual must realize the error of their ways

through personal aphiny.

 

I was just wondering if members of this group think these claims are

generally true (and if so have any suggestions to help deal with

them). I think that he was at least partly right. yet if we go

around telling people meat is bad... just look what usually happens.

Even people who claim a love for animals but still eat meat become

enraged.

[Guest guest]

At 01:38 PM 11/6/03, you wrote:

>I was reading an article for class by a socilogist named Robert

>Merton who said that there were three big fallacies among many

>liberals (he was talking specifically about civil rights activists,

>but it can be applied generally to all liberal activists-

>environmentalists, feminists, animal rights, etc.) which limit their

>effectiveness in reducing prejudice/discrimination:

>

>(1) They tend to preach to the choir most of the time and seek like-

>minded people for mutual support.

 

The seeking part I believe to be true for the most part.

The preaching to the choir is also true for a majority

of the time but probably to a lesser extent than seeking

like-minded people. I have continuing conversations with a

fairly conservative person and it seems that we cannot

change the opinions or views of each other in most instances.

 

>(2) Their continued association with like-minded liberals produces

>the illusion that their views are the consensus of our community at

>large.

 

Nah. I know I'm in the minority at the moment. Well, maybe not

so much in the San Francisco Bay area but certainly when considered

across the United States.

 

>(3) They are content with our individual behavior, free from guilt,

>and thus see no need to do anything to fix society. It as if they

>feel that each individual must realize the error of their ways

>through personal aphiny.

 

I'm never free from guilt. I grew up with guilt instilled in my very

bones. I see a great need to fix society but don't have much

of a will to do as much as I think that I should. Well, I do believe

it would be a marvelous thing if every individual could realize that

my views are obviously right but consider it somewhat unlikely.

 

aphiny or epiphany?

 

>I was just wondering if members of this group think these claims are

>generally true (and if so have any suggestions to help deal with

>them). I think that he was at least partly right. yet if we go

>around telling people meat is bad... just look what usually happens.

>Even people who claim a love for animals but still eat meat become

>enraged.

 

I think it works better if you try to persuade someone indirectly

than directly in many instances. In other words guide them

in such away that they believe that they have come up with

the realization. Slimy, huh? Psychology, huh? Or is that

politics?

 

Gary