I just returned from a wedding. It was one of the most fun weddings I've ever been to. Even my husband danced. I was hoarse at the end of the night from singing and shouting. It was great.
In addition to a soundtrack that included songs from my generation, there was a really interesting twist in the evenings obligatory speeches. Usually, the father of the bride is teary-eyed, the maid of honor (or bride's best friend in this case) is sappy and emotional, and the best man is funny, often making use of double-entendres. But not at this wedding. In this case, the father of the bride was teary-eyed, but it was the best man who could hardly get through his speech. And the bridesmaid/best friend was absolutely hilarious. The best man had to stop at one point to catch his breath and find his notes. The bridesmaid gave the new husband advice on how to live with his new wife, including telling him that it is really, really important to watch the Twilight Zone marathon with her.
There's a lot to criticize in our new postmodern era, particularly when it comes to gender roles. But I think it is great that a man can get up during a wedding and get choked up over his best friend's marriage and that a woman can make the jokes and the double entendres. We live in a good time.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Ideology versus ethnic politics
I've been ruminating over my recent experience helping a friend in a local election. We did not win. It is painful to accept, but not entirely surprising.
In our recent wrap up conversations, the issue of what to do next is the main topic of conversation. In these conversations, the group appears to bounce back and forth between pursuing a progressive agenda and paving the path for a more electable progressive candidate or continuing the try to elect a Latino/a. While these are not mutually exclusive endeavors, they are two different foci. If you focus on the former, then we don't worry about the ethnic background of the person we support, as long as they are ideologically progressive. If you focus on the latter, then we have to work to overcome the anti-immigrant sentiment that exists here, in addition to organizing, educating, helping eligible immigrants become citizens, and voter registration.
I'm torn about this. In principle, I am much more in favor of an alliance of progressives that is inclusive of all groups. I do not believe that ethnic politics is useful in the long term. Ethnocentrism too easily morphs into racism, as Latinos in East Boston are now experiencing. Ideologically based coalitions who share common values are longer lasting and more powerful than coalitions comprised of people who have only one thing in common. The Latino ethnic identity is too transient, too squishy, and too unreliable a characteristic to create a long lasting political coalition here. There are too many different national groups, too many different generational differences among those national groups, and the supply isn't as readily replenished as seen in the Southwest.
At the same time, an issues based coalition will not necessarily be able to do the really hard work of overcoming the xenophobia, racism, and sexism that surfaced in this past election. An issues based coalition works to get various issues addressed. This often does not require dealing with the electorate, but instead dealing with decision makers and leaders. It does not necessarily result in a change in leadership or opportunities for leadership.
I'm not sure which way is the best way to go, and whether there is a third way that balances these concerns. I do feel like we need to decide soon, otherwise this group will either splinter or will simply dissipate.
In our recent wrap up conversations, the issue of what to do next is the main topic of conversation. In these conversations, the group appears to bounce back and forth between pursuing a progressive agenda and paving the path for a more electable progressive candidate or continuing the try to elect a Latino/a. While these are not mutually exclusive endeavors, they are two different foci. If you focus on the former, then we don't worry about the ethnic background of the person we support, as long as they are ideologically progressive. If you focus on the latter, then we have to work to overcome the anti-immigrant sentiment that exists here, in addition to organizing, educating, helping eligible immigrants become citizens, and voter registration.
I'm torn about this. In principle, I am much more in favor of an alliance of progressives that is inclusive of all groups. I do not believe that ethnic politics is useful in the long term. Ethnocentrism too easily morphs into racism, as Latinos in East Boston are now experiencing. Ideologically based coalitions who share common values are longer lasting and more powerful than coalitions comprised of people who have only one thing in common. The Latino ethnic identity is too transient, too squishy, and too unreliable a characteristic to create a long lasting political coalition here. There are too many different national groups, too many different generational differences among those national groups, and the supply isn't as readily replenished as seen in the Southwest.
At the same time, an issues based coalition will not necessarily be able to do the really hard work of overcoming the xenophobia, racism, and sexism that surfaced in this past election. An issues based coalition works to get various issues addressed. This often does not require dealing with the electorate, but instead dealing with decision makers and leaders. It does not necessarily result in a change in leadership or opportunities for leadership.
I'm not sure which way is the best way to go, and whether there is a third way that balances these concerns. I do feel like we need to decide soon, otherwise this group will either splinter or will simply dissipate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)