Activism and Democracy: What Are Our Expectations for Self-Education?

by Michelle

categories: Activism & Advocacy, Education & Engagement

Published April 21, 2009 @ 05:19AM PT

One of the key criticisms levied against the Save Darfur movement is that it promotes an overly-simplified view of the conflict in Sudan and, consequently, demands unrealistic and even detrimental international responses to the crisis. Setting aside, for the moment, that this is an unfair characterization of the diverse and multi-layered movement, while also recognizing that a better job could be done to convey nuance and complexity to the grassroots (though I think this has also been internalized by the movement's leadership, and improvements have been made), and also setting aside that many Darfur activists have in fact taken it upon themselves to become educated on the issue, the criticism begs the question:

How well-informed can activism be?

If you're going to levy a criticism against one social movement, consider it compared to others --- and not just social activist movements, but our system of elections and representative democracy.

How many citizens, when they go to the polls, fully understand the complexities of the policy decisions an elected official will make? We select candidates that are aligned with our core principles and ideas of what is best for ourselves, our communities, and our nations. Our opinions are formed by a lifetime of experiences, and I like to think that most of us seek to learn as much as possible before making a decision, as is our individual responsibility, but that knowledge will always be incomplete.

Kevin Funk makes a valid point that "blind trust" in our leadership can have deleterious effects --- I don't think this is an accurate characterization of the movement, but it brushes against the question: Where do we draw the lines of expectations? How much can we expect people to know --- and if everyone can't be an expert on the issues, is their advocacy completely invalid? Are the core principles and beliefs, and the efforts for self-education, on which we base our activism, and our decisions at the polls, dangerously skewed?

And what's the alternative? Oligarchy? An academic elite ruling the country?

It may not be ideal, but it's the simple fact of how social movements and democratic systems operate. It also seems premature to make a sweeping judgment that a movement is ill-informed until you've conducted some sort of factual analysis to back it up --- surveys of activists, analysis of materials produced by organizations, and so on.

[Photo: Chosen mostly because I think my good friend Stephanie will like it.]