Micah White | January 17, 2008
A wise philosopher once wrote that before we can act ethically we must first learn to think. He claimed the dichotomy between theory and action is a false one and that in our age thought is the action needed most. His is a conclusion most activists resist. After all, the label we wear so proudly is derived from the verb ‘to act’ and many of us take this to mean that our essence as activists is simply “those who act”. Oftentimes, we hold this position because we believe that action is the most expedient course to social change and we grow angry at the inaction we see around us. The belief that what holds us back from accomplishing our goals is a lack of widespread mass-action is taken as an assumption. Few dare to consider whether it might be a lack of thought, not a lack of action, that is thwarting our movement.
If we maintain that we are ‘activists’ primarily because action is the means by which we hope to accomplish our goals, whether these goals be ceasing war or ending reckless consumption, then we must entertain the possibility that there may be another path as well. We advocate action not because it is an end in itself but because it is a means to an end. For example, it is not total participation in TV Turn Off Week that we want so much as the effect that widespread participation would have on our collective mental environment: the loving conversations that it would enable between family members no longer glued to their screens, the laughter it would produce in children playing football and not Grand Theft Auto or the political consequences of a populace informed by discussions with neighbors not scripted debates in studios faraway. In the case of TV Turn Off Week, the act of turning off the television is only a means to the goal of calling into question the role of television in our culture. And here we’ve come to a general principle: we act because we believe action will bring us closer to our goal. And given the planetary decisions we collectively face and the catastrophic consequences of our choices, it may seem reckless to dethrone action. Isn’t it clear that to do nothing is an unacceptable choice? Yes, but it is still possible that thinking is not doing nothing. To understand how this could be true, we must set aside our fears for a moment and consider what it is about action that we cherish.
I think we privilege action over thought because we take action to be primarily active and thought to be entirely passive. In a situation as alarming as the one in which we live, it is understandable that we want to be active. We have seen the terrible consequences of a population whose passivity has allowed great injustices. Our activity allows us to say that we are not complicit. Therefore, we seize upon action as a guarantor of activity and shy away from thought for fear that it will lead to complacent passivity. But is it the case that thought is always passive and action always active? It is curious that while actions may sometimes be active or passive we understand thought to always be passive. We see clearly that someone may resist equally by acting passively or actively. But when faced with the question of thinking we immediately condemn anyone who takes thought to be a necessary way of actively resisting. However, there is one way that thought is uniquely necessary: the possibility of thought is a prerequisite for successful action. This can be understood in two ways.
The first takes thought to be the originary impetus of action and argues that if our thought is distorted so too will our action. If every time we act we do so in a way that is always at its core complicit with what we struggle against then we will always fail. As Audre Lorde once wrote, “the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house”. And if the master’s tools are the way we think and apprehend the world then our actions will always be in vain unless we think differently. That much is obvious; burning fossil fuels will never stop global warming just as conforming our thought to the constrains of televised culture will never grow a new culture. However, if our primary concern is with the content of our thought then an immediate problem arises: how can we know if we are ‘thinking differently’? In all cases, it is difficult, if not impossible, to judge the long-term success of ones thoughts or actions as their full accomplishment may not be seen for many years. To accomplish something means to bring it into its full realization, to prepare its entire unfolding. In this respect, time is cruel. The actions for which we receive an immediate result are the most inconsequential: we can ‘try out’ the new product the moment we buy it. But We may never know, unless we are the fortunate minority to live through a turning, whether our ideas about the ideal global situation will be realized. The desire to experience an immediate effect is part of the problem we face. Artists have long understood this truth: few expect their aesthetic vision to become treasured in their own lifetimes but that does not stop them believing in the necessity of their artistic project. Likewise, although it may be impossible to experience the full accomplishment of ones activist thoughts we can be assured that all widely held beliefs were once controversial and suppressed. This consolation is the source of many thinkers’ persistence but it does not help us to determine whether our thoughts are sufficiently different or whether we will succeed.
There is, however, another way we can understand the relationship between thought and action. If thought is a prerequisite of action then whether thought is possible is of vital importance. And this is largely the point that wise philosopher above wished to make: we must learn how to think because thought is not possible. The impossibility of thought makes the question of how to act moot. It is not an exaggeration to say that consumption based affluence has made us insane. We no longer have the mental clarity to face the decisions of our individual lives let alone those of the planet. A growing number of us suffer from mental illness caused by an over stimulated mental environment polluted with thousands of corporate messages each day. We are a people cajoled into living to spend and we are encouraged to unlimited consumption. But a culture that is dependent upon consumption alone is not one that cares for thought. The adman’s jolts constantly interrupt us to say, “buy,” even at our most private moments. Commercialism has infiltrated all thought, making thought done outside of these commercial interests increasingly difficult. Whether it is because there is no time left in our over-worked days for contemplation or because our mental environment is too noisy and polluted for any hope of clarity, we find ourselves in a situation where different thought is not possible. It is a dire situation for as we’ve seen, without thought action is useless.
What then can we do? The fact of the matter is, as culture jammers we’ve long known the answer to this question: we must engage in a militancy that restores the possibility of mindfulness. We must clean our mental environment. Turn off your television, blackspot an ad, buy nothing and do whatever you can to clear a space for contemplation in this age of sound bites. For unless a different thought is possible, all our actions are will be in vain.