Hey all,
Hope you are well. Here's what I've been thinking: perhaps we're trying to stuff too much stuff into one definition. Are we over-burdening the concept of "activism"? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Let's keep talking about it.
Here's one thought. Perhaps we need to make the distinction (if there is one) between "activism" and "resistance." Can one engage in resistance (a malingering slave, for instance) that is not necessarily "activism"? How are these two concepts related/connected? Could it be a matter of degree? For instance, one malingering slave v. ten thousand malingering slaves? (Reminder: this is why Steve Hahn talks about slave activity during the Civil War constituting a large scale "rebellion.")
Just a thought. Let me know what you think.
I think this is an extremely important question, and one that I am still having trouble defining clearly. Often in class, it seems as though we define activism broadly: everything that could have furthered African-American welfare or avoided submission falls within the scope of 'activism'.
ReplyDeleteI think part of this might be that we associate activism with positive outcomes. Because something is 'active,' it must have changed the condition of African-Americans for the better. When we consider something that may not be intentionally 'active,' for example, slaves singing spirituals or avoiding submission in some way, we label it as activism because labeling it as passive seems to discount the benefits it provided for the slaves and African-American community.
I think of activism and resistance as separate, although they can intersect. I do not, however, think that only activism can have beneficial results. To me, the distinction comes down to the intention. To me, activism has a connotation that affects the entire African-American community whereas resistance seems more personal. I think that resistance and a lack of submission creates individuals who are more likely to pursue activism. People who resist refuse to accept their social condition, but perhaps are not actively seeking equality for the community as a whole. Activism, in my understanding, focuses on promoting equality for all African-Americans, and has a community-based goal.
I think, however, that it is a mistake to assume that because we call something 'resistance' instead of 'activism,' it detracts from the action itself.
Again, I am still trying to figure out what I think about this. I think that it is key in how we conceive of our readings, yet it is hard to work out. Perhaps the definition I have provided is too narrow. My biggest problem with a broad definition of activism is that I think it diminishes the meaning of the word. What is not activism?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePerhaps I am mistaken, but it was my impression that in class, we tended, collectively, towards a broad interpretation of "resistance" rather than activism. For example, when speaking of slaves' antebellum existence, it was carefully noted that resistance must not be viewed retrospectively, but instead in its contemporary context. The general consensus seemed to be that due to slavery's status as a "total institution" of sorts, nearly any action other than out-and-out submission constituted resistance.
ReplyDeleteThat said, "activism" is different from "resistance." I agree with Mary's post regarding the crucial distinction that must be made. I have no qualms with a far narrower interpretation of "activism" than "resistance," as in my mind, "activism" is a component part of the larger, more inclusive category of "resistance." Activism, for me, necessitates some sort of clear, political message intended to elicit support for a certain cause or draw attention to a particularly salient issue.
Ida B. Wells' anti-lynching literature exemplifies my conceptions of "activism," as a specialized sub-branch of "resistance." Wells' clearly articulated espousals cast attention towards issues of sex, gender, and most readily apparent, lynching. Although I called for a "clear political message," "activism" need not be overtly political, at least on the surface. Wells' "Southern Horrors," among other publications effectively present a clear argument for revision of certain socio-cultural norms, while calling attention to the issue of lynching. This is "activism."
I think degree and intention, as mentioned by Professor McKinney and Mary above, certainly ought to be analyzed to determine how, exactly, they change our understandings of "activism" and "resistance." It is just extraordinarily difficult to know where to draw the line. I do feel, however, that "activism" can be defined more narrowly than can "resistance" without demeaning the achievements of those involved.
I definitely agree that the difference between the two comes down to intent. For instance, at first I thought that the politics of respectability could not be qualified as activism, because it ultimately failed. However, the fact that it was INTENDED to undermine white supremacy and better African Americans, to me, makes it clearly activism.
ReplyDeleteI still have an issue saying that slave songs are, in any way, activism or resistance. I'm not sure if I'm alone in this, but I just don't think something that was more used for humor and hid any negative references to slave masters or whites in general can be labeled activism or resistance. Songs that may have had hidden meanings that dealt with the underground railroad or that incited slaves to rebel or run away are, by intent, activism and resistance.
I definitely agree that activism needs to be defined more narrowly than resistance, but there is definite overlap in the two definitions.