Perhaps Legally Blonde 2 gave you a romanticized idea of how easy it is to get real-world changes made to address an issue you’re passionate about. Yes, “Bruiser’s Bill” faced opposition. But, overall, the whole process was glamorized into a film-worthy plot instead of revealing the real truth why certain issues are pressed and certain ones aren’t. The reason? Inequality.
Before you jump down my throat, I’m not talking about inequality of ideas. I’m talking about socioeconomic inequality of the people behind the ideas. When 1% of the population controls around 40% of the wealth, it’s safe to say that 1% also harbors around 40% of the power and 40% of the influence.
The top 1% controls around 40% of the wealth…and that number’s only going to grow.
Activists in this top 1% have prominent voices. Meanwhile, activists in the bottom 65% struggle to get their voices heard. Does that make their causes less valuable?
Michelle Obama, one of the most prominent activists in the country, started Let’s Move to “solve” the problem of child obesity. Her program is valuable, sure. But do you think if Jack, a homeless man I once met on the subway, were to start this program, it would take off? Or, if Jack decided to start a program to provide educational opportunities to underprivileged children, do you think it would gain any ground?
What makes Michelle Obama’s ideas any better than homeless Jack’s?
And now I get a little cynical…but most of the time, the activist organizations that the wealthy establish are more for their own image than for bettering the lives of others, so any national improvement is just a side-effect.
We’re not an optimistic nation full of dreamers trying to change the world. We’re stuck in a rut of cynicism because socioeconomic inequality doesn’t allow for certain ideas to be heard, certain causes to take off, and certain issues to be pursued legislatively.
Activists, regardless of socioeconomic class, need their voices to be heard to pursue change.
I’m not advocating for a communist society or for the division of classes to collapse overnight, but in order to revitalize activism – to make it more than a public-image tool – to empower the voices of the passionate instead of the powerful – we need to give people a chance to be heard. There are loads of great ideas floating around but they’re being drowned out by the wealthy and powerful.
I’m barely even touching on the implications of socioeconomic inequality in this post (just relating it back to activism), but let me know what you think in the comments about this issue, or how it affects activism, and where we can go from here!
This is a great post. I think your point about cynicism is especially pertinent. People are cynical and apathetic about politics – and rightly so, because politics in this country are greatly influenced by corporations and $ – and cynical about getting anything done to change society, even outside politics. I’m not sure what to do to change that. That said, I do think that the Occupy Wall Street movement did manage to change the discourse in this country. Previously, people in this country weren’t talking so much about inequality, or the 1% or the 99%, and now they are. People certainly weren’t talking about class – because Americans like to believe that we live in a classless, entirely merit-based society, and now they are. So I think all that protesting had some effect. At least, I’d like to believe it. 🙂