Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

The Medium is the Movement

Posted by Chris Bowers, Open Left at 4:27 AM on May 6, 2008.


In what ways is the contemporary progressive movement directly altering the way people interact with major institutions in our society?

Is there a progressive movement? This question has seemed particularly relevant over the last two weeks, as support for Barack Obama has washed away apparent long-standing principles of the movement: do not legitimize Fox News and Democrats should become more partisan. Now, apparently, we need to go on Fox News as much as possible and we much ditch partisanship altogether. If the Obama campaign can change the principles of the movement so quickly, perhaps there isn't a movement at all.

Perhaps a different question is necessary: what is a political movement, anyway? Thinking back over the 20th century, the defining characteristic seems to be a large-scale political undertaking that not only had goals of changing governmental institutions, but that changed the way people lived by shifting the balance of power in other major institutions as well. A political movement seeks to reorganize society on a far broader level than simply changing governmental policy. Examples include:

  • The labor movement fundamentally changed the economic structure of this and other countries by granting wage-laborers more power over the American workplace.

  • In addition to expanding access to government, the civil right's movement sought to reorganize educational, housing and employment patterns throughout the country. Other examples from this time period include the Black Panthers and the "counter-culture," which were primarily organized around institutions other than governmental policy (law enforcement and cultural consumption).

  • Radical Islamicist movements have worked to reorganize virtually every major institution in a given society, from education to religion to familial structures to cultural consumption.

A political movement always targets more than governmental policy change, since only changing policy would not alter the general framework of how people live in a given society. With that in mind, in what ways is the contemporary progressive movement going beyond seeking governmental policy change, and directly altering the way people interact with other major institutions in our society?

Looking over the major ideological institutions in America--the family, education, mass media, religion, and the workplace--the largest and most rapid changes are currently taking place in the latter three. By lowering the cost of information, the Internet has dramatically changed both the media landscape specifically and cultural production / consumption patterns more generally. Also, in terms of religion, nationally there is a broad movement away from self-identification as Christian, and even a dramatic re-organization within Christianity itself. Within the workplace and our larger economic structures, the rise of the Creative Class has had a major impact on the types of jobs available in America, and also on income inequality. This isn't to say that there are not major changes in other major ideological institutions like education and the family, just that the changes in the above three are far more pronounced in recent years.

Now, which of these three major changes can be identified a part of a "progressive movement?" The religious shifts don't really work, since the movement away from traditional religious identification and institutions is not organized by any group of people, and is simply happening on its own. Since it is at least partially a side-effect of a rising corporate power, income inequality, and de-industrialization, the rise of the Creative Class doesn't really work, even most members of the Creative Class tend to be progressive. This leaves us with the lower cost of information, and resulting explosion in cultural production, brought on by the Internet. Perhaps the de-centralization of mass media consumption, the public sphere interaction, and cultural production brought on by the Internet is the progressive movement. It is the clearest example of how daily life has changed in a progressive way over the last decade. The medium is the movement.

Identifying the medium, and the changing cultural and media consumption / production patterns it has created, as the progressive movement itself helps provide perspective both on Barack Obama and on policy priorities for maintaining a healthy movement. First, changing viewpoints that Obama's campaign has created about Fox News and partisanship will not be isolated incidents. Since the consumption and production patterns themselves are the major change, the movement is ultimately lacking in fixed precepts. We should expect other changes in the future, including an inevitable rejection of Obama's ideas on partisanship and Fox News. Second, in order to maintain a healthy movement and the positive feedback loops the movement creates for progressivism, telecom policy and net neutrality should be understood as top, non-negotiable policy priorities. If net neutrality is ended, then the contemporary progressive movement, along with all progressive policy and lifestyle changes it promises, will come to an end. The movement is not just dependant upon the medium, but is in fact embedded in it. If net neutrality is ended, it will shift control of the medium away from individuals with broadband access, and toward large corporations. If the movement is the medium, then control over the medium for the average Internet user must be maintained, and expanded, at all costs.

Finally, from a "medium is the movement" perspective, the choice between Clinton and Obama isn't really even a choice at all. It's Obama by a mile.

AlterNet is a non profit organization and does not make political endorsements. The opinions expressed by our writers are their own.

Digg!


Obama's Activist Victory
Here are the four keys to Obama's victory.
June 4, 2008.
Obama Will Narrowly Win the Popular Vote
Cutting through the spin in the popular vote count.
June 2, 2008.
Bob Barr Wins Libertarian Nomination
Is Barr McCain's Perot?
May 27, 2008.
Republicans to Campaign as Democrats
The Republicans are hoping to co-opt the Democratic message to stem their losses in November.
May 19, 2008.
Handicapping the Veepstakes
The Hill asks 97 Senators whether or not they would accept an offer to be their party's Vice Presidential nominee.
May 13, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Campaign Finance Reform
Posted by: Southern Gal on May 6, 2008 8:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A movement that gains public financing of political campaigns would go a long way to changing the entire local, state and federal governments and the financial,legislative, judicial, economical, and educational components of our country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

?!
Posted by: sui_generis on May 6, 2008 9:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The very premise of this article is BS right off the bat. Nobody on the left, Obama OR even Clinton's folks are saying, "we need to go on Fox News as much as possible and we much ditch partisanship altogether." You can be correctly concerned when you see folks like Scaife and Murdock supporting Clinton, but just showing up on a FOX show doesn't indicate capitulation -- ESPECIALLY if you use the appearance to gain ground you didn't have before.

I mean -- you've heard there's an ELECTION going on, haven't you? We get the same dumbass morons on the left every year who DESERT their best hope for change because the candidate moves to the center IN ORDER TO GET ELECTED. Are you really so dim as to not understand that if a Democratic President gets elected at the same time as a Democratic Congress, which we haven't had for decades, that is the ONLY WAY to bring about REAL PROGRESSIVE CHANGE? What were you hoping for, a revolution of the proletariat, comrade?


Candidates who simply show up on FOX's network -- and don't capitulate to their views -- are manipulating the dupes of the right just like the right use the MSM to manipulate everyone else. Sometimes you can't dismantle the master's house without using the master's tools.

Anyone who thinks just APPEARING ON a certain network is giving in NEEDS TO GROW UP and gain some perspective. These are the same folks who decried in 2000 that there was no difference between Gore and Bush.

(Note that this is NOT a defense of PANDERING to the right -- just a comment on the absolute SILLINESS of thinking that a candidate simply showing up on a given network, all other things being equal, is some kind of loss for the left.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ?! Posted by: sui_generis
HUH??
Posted by: crazy carlos on May 7, 2008 9:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This whole article was a white guy's version of trying to shoot someone thru the grease. Puff the magic dragon stuff. Did you get an A for this kinda crap? C. Carlos

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]