ACTIVISM WILL SAVE US FROM HATE (AND EXTINCTION)

Tempo di lettura: 16 minuti

“Activism is my rent for living on the planet”
– Alice Walker – American writer and social activist

The word of the day, of every day, the word that should be put in the various philosophical calendars circulating online, on school bulletin boards, at the newsagent’s, on public transport should be ACTIVISM. A simple word, which by becoming part of our lives with all its load of meaning, alone would be enough to change the world. From the very first breath of a newborn baby. Because it is a word you wear, a second skin: a word that nourishes, dresses, speaks, listens, loves, welcomes, looks beyond, passes from generation to generation.
Sometimes, in pronouncing it, one may encounter reactions of perplexity or curiosity, because for some people it is a word without meaning, which has remained outside the doorways of their homes.
There are occasions when it is worth explaining, because it is possible that our interlocutors may want to try to put it on if only out of curiosity. It is also worth giving a definition to clarify who we are, and how we have chosen to be in the world.
“Auntie come on, tell me about some of your anger, some of your fights!”…now, this is one of the occasions when it is worth explaining that I am an activist, even to sow a seed. Better to suggest replacing the word ‘quarrel’ with ‘questioning’, because the difference lies in the substance. Quarrelling can be the consequence of questioning something that had been silently accepted up to that point for so many reasons. My niece is curious as to why I quarrel, and as long as she is curious, I am ready to explain. So that she does not grow up with the idea that ‘there are far more important issues to deal with, before your arguments about human rights’, so that, beyond her own choices and paths, she has a clear idea of what it means to choose to be an activist, that is, to embark on a journey in the world together with many other people, pursuing the goal of change, social justice, awareness. The most beautiful of journeys, full of surprises and not a few difficulties, where one can only improve.
It is a journey that does not necessarily imply physical displacement, but undoubtedly a mental resilience and the ability to choose a side on a daily basis, even in the most seemingly trivial actions. It is a perpetual journey, which does not have the character of randomness and circumstance, because otherwise it would be called opportunism and not activism. It is a journey that sometimes requires pauses for refreshment and recharging, but which itself provides these two resources through motivation.
During this journey, contamination processes take place in the world around us, we witness the birth of new relationships, we leave seeds that will germinate and give rise to other journeys. Activism is like a second skin that, once worn, remains forever: through it, life lived takes on a whole new dimension. One no longer stops looking at the past with an eye to the future, and an awareness of the responsibility of present actions.
There is no activism without politics, because activism is presence in the polis, in the public space, with the aim of influencing its dynamics. There is, however, politics that exploits activism, and one of the greatest challenges is to be able to detect it, reveal it, and banish it. Mediation on human rights is not part of the activist’s journey. Never. Strongly upholding this principle continually reaps victims along the journey, and leaves deep scars, but these are worth bearing.
A young woman, faced with the consistency of someone who made a decision even if it meant the loss of a job, said ‘you know, I was taught not to bite the hand that feeds you’: the hand that feeded her was full of filth, compromise, empty propaganda and lack of consistency. She went on this way, never being able to decisively support her own ideas, enslaved to a system that guaranteed her anything except honesty and integrity. Those who left her there know that every choice she makes, every seemingly sustainable speech, conceals that principle of ‘don’t spit in the dish you eat’. She can wear all the activist suits in the world, they will never be her second skin. And she is in good company.
I cannot humanly conceive of anyone who manages to live without thinking of committing at least part of their time to something beyond the four walls of their ego. Yes, I know, I sound really naive, but it is the truth: I do not understand, what would be the meaning of life if not to fill it with something that we can pass on to those who come after us? You will forgive me if I say that there is no point in bringing children into this world either, if not as yet another act of egoism and conformity, since we do not commit ourselves to leaving them a world in which they can feel free and safe, able to take on the changes and challenges of a humanity challenged by itself. It is not me who is naive, it is those who do not set themselves specific goals who only waste their time. Maybe I am bitchy, yes…it suits me better.
Certainly for me, being born to parents who have always looked far beyond their own life space and time, has meant having a little baggage with which to leave.

In spite of this, I still find myself in circumstances where I am at a loss for words, such is the emptiness I feel:
“Sorry, explain to me for a moment: did you write that euthanasia article because you get paid?”
“Err…no…it’s about the association journal I belong to…we all write a bit.”
“… uh…but do they pay you? I mean, you must have a contract, I suppose.”
” No, I don’t. It’s not my job. It’s a cultural association, a non-profit…we deal with human rights, we spread the word, you know?”
” But why do you do it then, sorry? You don’t get paid and you waste your time.
“Because it is important to spread the word, to involve, to inform. That’s how you try to contaminate public opinion and make change. I am an activist, and I use all possible resources available to me’.
That was the end. My interlocutor’s gaze is the astonished one of someone looking at ‘the world through a porthole’, as if I were someone who has never really understood anything in life, a poor dreamer who goes around putting flowers in cannons! I get cold shivers in these circumstances, but to warm myself up I just have to think that in my everyday life I am surrounded by people with whom I do not have such absurd conversations, perhaps we discuss the contents of an article or new ideas.
Well, nine times out of ten – but also eleven times out of ten – the people who are ignorant of the concept of activism are the same ones who engage in conversations about everything that is wrong around them – just outside their doorstep, let’s be clear… fuck what’s going on in the world – but don’t think it’s worth it to be struggling to improve the situation. Empty words that come out of their mouths to meet other empty words and wander together in search of action to be taken…and instead fall miserably to the ground crushed by the weight of those who utter them just to pass the time. ‘If it suits me, that’s fine’, is the motto of these people, who do not move a finger except to reinforce the walls defending their individualistic fortress. Despite what my niece might think, I do not ‘argue’ with these people, my words seek brave and resourceful travelling companions, to build reasoning and give new life to good and new actions. It is from those fortresses that all criticism and hateful language towards those who instead take action to make the world a better place for everyone starts:

– The young men and women who protest about the environment become layabouts who either do not want to study or do not want to work. The fact that they want to live in a cleaner world than we have made them find it does not count.
– Women who fight every day for their rights and against all discrimination and violence are egocentrics to whom nothing ever goes right. As is the entire LGBTQ+ community, of course. It used to be better: people died in silence, gave birth with devotion, stayed at home with love, lived their sexuality inconspicuously.
– Anyone who takes action to promote a sustainable economy by consuming ethical products is a radical chic. It is better to apply the ‘who gives a fuck’ method to consuming, as long as it is cheap.
– Animal rights activists who protest against violence and the killing of animals for fur, against hunting, are ignorant and radical chic (a term always randomly dropped in) who do not consider that man has always hunted for food and has always worn animal skins for warmth. For that matter, we could continue to throw urine and excrement off the balcony of our house or cure our coughs by going to breathe in the tunnels when trains pass by, we always have…

The most annoying thing for me is not that people choose not to pursue the path of activism, but that they disqualify those who choose it on the grounds that it is, to say the least, embarrassing…but to say the least, stupid and mediocre.
It would be enough to admit that one has no desire or interest, certainly exposing one’s individualistic nature. But a generic ‘thank you’ is enough, addressed to those who, in so many different ways, choose to stay outside the fence.

“Those who say it can’t be done are usually interrupted by others doing it” – James Baldwin.

Activism finds its way into every field of life, work included.
As I have already had occasion to write, sometimes precariousness and exploitation are wrapped up in the definitions of activism and volunteerism, weaving a network of complicity with a power system that rubs its hands and licks its chops, because it gets expertise, dedication, professionalism, at the price of a crisp packet. The concept of dedication to the cause is so abused that even in for-profit private companies, the motivation to grow the company is used as a reason for exploitation, or the mantra ‘think of those worse off than you’ is used to induce workers to accept absurd working conditions. The fact that we work for a fair salary is old-fashioned, almost insulting.
Through accepting this compromise, we are losing all rights on the one hand, and emptying activist practice on the other.
One thing is to write an article for an association, to participate in protests, campaigns, awareness-raising actions, volunteer activities, even providing specific skills and personal resources; it is quite another to work well over eight hours a day, to hold positions that require a contractual framework, to take on positions of responsibility that require authority and recognition in certain contexts as others do, and to accept that all this is called ‘activism’ to justify the absence of protections and rights, silencing every voice of protest. Activism in the workplace is something quite different, and activism means first and foremost not giving up one’s rights in the name of compromising with an oppressive system. Does anyone feel called upon? Well, know that I am thinking of you.
Activism requires courage, cohesion, communication, continuity over time, and the ability to address and act on conflicts. Only in this way over time activism becomes collective and movement. Those who think they can use it to their own liking stay outside, immobile in their servility.
Activism is expressed in many different ways, and knowing them helps to choose the one that suits us best, but also to isolate the language of hatred. It often happens, in fact, that we come across the usual functional illiterates on social media who lash out against celebrities or even simply organisations that publish messages, interviews, videos, actions taken, personal backgrounds, testifying to their involvement in a particular cause. Some people, more or less famous, do this as activists, others in support of activism. Through social media, you can find many examples of how a people, who speak out to talk about a disease, find themselves the target of hate speech for reasons that initially go beyond the content of their message, and end up bullying anyone suffering from that disease. Awareness-raising is a form of activism, and what probably cannot be tolerated by people who live in the loneliness of their own fortresses, is the fact that we talk about topics unknown to them, with precise and non-abstract language, in a public space where they are also in the embarrassment of not understanding a fucking thing.
Actually, we have few reasons for not being activist, but some people do not lack imagination to justify their non-activism.
Recently, I read the comment of a woman I met many years ago, at the dawn of my feminist activism journey. Despite the fact that she was considered an activist of a certain stature, I always felt a sense of unease in her presence: she used to give great theoretical lectures on feminism, citing authors and sources that certainly showed that she had studied, but in practice I could not discern any coherence. Worst of all, she always disqualified every other woman around her, unless she was a woman of power. I always tried to be polite to her…I was young, insecure, and believed I was not enough if a woman of such experience treated me with condescension. She used to give grades in ‘feminism’ to women, and I didn’t want a low grade. After her many others I met, they are still there, doing more or less damage, watching the world from their bubble of self-referentiality. Sometimes they feel they have to go public and give their opinion – maybe a little voice inside tells them that the world might be interested, who knows. Then one fine day, I happened to come across a long post-speech of hers in which, starting from afar, she went so far as to attack, in a rather grotesque manner, a feminist association in her region, which had the audacity to found and run a space of women for women without boasting of her collaboration.
In this place, the dastardly women dared, and still dare, to hold book presentations, self-help groups, handicraft classes, exhibitions, to the point of making plans, cultivating relationships, planning protests, creating new relationships. Activities in which she has never participated. But which she has chosen to define publicly as forms of compromise with a male power that runs public bodies and makes decisions on the management of spaces. A compromise that sees women employed in typically feminine jobs – sewing, knitting, embroidery – assigned to them by the patriarchal society that thus holds them back in their roles and prevents their emancipation. She has gone as far as ridiculing women, but only gaining the approval of those who mistakenly consider her the last true feminist on earth. With pleasure I discover that there are not many. What she has omitted – not ignored, I don’t think she is ignorant – in order to attract certain approval, is that craftivism is a form of protest, of self-consciousness, of relationship.
The fact that history hands it down to us as ‘women’s work’, which was so defined even as a school subject in the 19th century, does not imply that it cannot be made a tool of protest. Instead, the problem is that it was first defined and then handed down from generation to generation as an exclusively women’s duty, which had to be brought as a dowry in marriage; not a choice, but a skill to be included in a woman’s bag of duties, among all the other instruments of oppression. This, for our surviving feminist, must be enough for her not to like it in any way. “Woe betide you if I see you embroidering, sewing, knitting!”, I imagine her shouting during her ‘feminist diploma classes’, as she strolls between the desks clutching a wooden baton, shoulders straight and gaze fixed. She makes me laugh like that, that’s all you need.

I stop, and think of that beautiful, huge flag sewn collectively by the women of the feminist movement in the 1970s, which I jealously guard at home. I stop, and imagine what was happening while women were sewing that flag: the words, the strategies, the organisation of protests, the emotions, the fears, the sense of freedom, the sisterhood and reflections. The history. This is enough to move past the empty lessons of non-activism, and instead get back on track to try to sow activism by making its different forms known – in addition to the aforementioned CRAFTIVISM or ARTISTIC ACTIVISM – which is always evolving and under discussion. All forms of activism are indicated by portmanteau words, i.e. the combination of parts of words that put together give rise to new ones, such as Artivism and Hacktivism.

The different forms of activism that I would like to explore and share with you, concern the real, forward-looking, conscious commitment of realities that choose to support protest against all oppression, social injustice, discrimination. These are paths of contamination between the world of activism and specific realities that have nothing to do with the trends of the moment, with ulterior motives aimed at gaining visibility. It is a life choice, which, after all, any one of us can make. Perhaps by delving deeper, you too can discover that you are activists through your art, your social channels, your own work.

When we see those occasional meteor-like, superficial support phenomena, not at all connected to the realities that are engaged in activism on a daily basis, then we are witnessing a phenomenon of Colour Washing or Woke Washing.

Colour washing is a practice that has as its only aim the profit of a specific company, of a public figure, which seeks to attract the attention of that segment of the population that is aware of and sensitive to a specific issue. The communication is tricky, as it does not represent the real values of the company or character involved, but is well constructed for commercial purposes. It is about appearing and not being. The message is “hey, look: I care about what you care about, too!”

The term colour-washing, encountering the different dimensions of activism and social engagement, merges with the different colours that distinguish them:

PINK-WASHING: the term was coined by the Breast Cancer Action movement as part of the Think Before You Pink campaign, to urge people to reflect on what lies behind the companies, leaders and governments that use the pink ribbon to support the fight against breast cancer but at the same time produce products related to the disease or fund the fossil fuel industry. The term nowadays stands for all the actions that the political and profit worlds deploy (products, proclamations, initiatives) to signify their proximity to the fight for women’s rights, against violence, bodyshaming, stereotyping, in support of equal pay, and so on. A feminism of façade, which produces profit – and consensus – without any coherence in actions: speaking of products, many brands produce clothes that incite the values of feminism in countries that exploit women’s labour, who are also precluded access to education, freedom of choice, forced into forced marriages. Speaking of politics, words often have no coincidence with deeds, just look at the condition of women at work, in the family, in public space, access to sexual and reproductive rights.

RAINBOW-WASHING: June is Pride Month, LGBTQ pride month, commemorating the 1969 Stonewall protests against NYPD violence against the LGBTQ+ community. At this time of year, many companies show their support for the LGBTQ+ community by selling products in rainbow colours. A beautiful initiative, too bad that in many cases companies produce what they sell in countries where homosexuality is illegal, punished with the death penalty. One of the most striking cases is that of Primark, which in 2020 launched a series of garments with the name ‘Pride’, allocating 20% of sales to support Stonewall . All very nice, too bad that the garments sold were produced in Turkey, a country where civil rights are not respected and homophobia is rampant.

B(I)PoC WASHING: the abbreviation B(I)PoC is a term referring to Black, Indigenous and People of Colour. The term is explicitly intended to make these identities visible in order to counter racism towards black people and the invisibility of indigenous communities. Many companies try to appear inclusive, anti-racist, only from an outward point of view, without pursuing internally coherent and non-discriminatory actions. The most commonly used term is ‘brown-washing’, but I prefer to use the more inclusive one. I welcome suggestions.

WHITE-WASHING: it is an effort to prevent people from finding out the true facts about a situation, e.g. brands that do not take responsibility when tragedies occur such as the collapse of the Rana Plaza on 24 April 2013 in Savar, on the suburbs of Dhaka, one of the most productive cities in Bangladesh. The tragedy resulted in the death of 1,129 people and the injury of 2,500, and symbolises the consequence of production at any cost: the textile factory employed people working non-stop in a building not intended for that purpose. It was an entirely predictable disaster, especially since cracks had been reported. The building was evacuated for checks and was declared up to standard, so production resumed non-stop: the products were commissioned by western companies including Piazza Italia, Benetton, Primark. Out of this tragedy, the Fashion Revolution movement was born.

Companies exploit the concept of ‘lazy activism’ for their own profit: people satisfy their need to buy material goods, but ease their consciences if the brand supports a civil rights cause.

But we don’t have much more time to make the world a better place, and no justification: we can easily check the consistency of companies and even question them directly through the loco social channels, you can see how by having a look here.

We can also play it safe by making conscious purchases and favouring the fair trade market, which supports international trade and cooperation and guarantees the absence of exploitation, as well as opening our eyes to the world through the story of every single project that results in the product we are buying. We can do this without even having to move from home, and also by supporting local activities, have a look here.

Finally, disobey. To disobey a system that wants us to be slaves to consumption at the cost of the lives and freedom of other human beings. A system that builds consent by filling our heads with fake proclamations, empty speeches that are useful only for its own self-preservation.