Apathy Soc
When I was an undergraduate at University, I enjoyed going to Student Union debates.
They were interesting, often passionate, debates - sometimes discussions, often arguments.
Much of what was debated directly affected us students and the University - I recall one heated debate over whether the Union should promote the idea - revolutionary in the 1970s - of a coffee bar: the notion that student social life then might revolve around something other than cheap alcohol was actually quite new, and strange as it may now seem coffee shops were then rare. That was the main stuff of the Union, really - how best to direct limited funds to support student societies ('Socs', they were called); what to request from the University in terms of student welfare; how to encourage better teaching; what amenities should be provided on campus.
Some debates were wider - issues over which we had no real influence whatsoever - the future of nuclear power, of nuclear weapons, what we should 'demand' the government do over the then endless strikes, riots, terrorism (Guildford, my University town, was the scene of the IRA 'Guildford pub bombings'). Those debates were fun, though - interesting, argumentative, informative, frustrating.
Other issues were in between. The 'environment' then was a revolutionary issue - it was controversial to care about it, let alone demand it be respected. I was elected Environment Officer, despite no track record in environment. My platform was twofold and limited: we should demand an end to fox hunting (that went nowhere until 40 years later..); and we should request the river authorities to better manage the river banks in order to support wildlife - specifically otters, which were then indigenous to Surrey but threatened. Student power was suitably demonstrated when the river authorities happily acquiesced in trialling a scheme to cut only one bank of the river at a time - so that wildlife could continue to survive in the other. It didn't save the otters, but it did show me that talking to people can work - and that even the admittedly puny power of the local Student Union could at least open the doors to dialogue.
All those debates I enjoyed hugely. They were procedural, with 'points of order' and calls to Madam Chairman (we had yet to invent chairpersons, but we had a female President). To me they were how democracy worked - engaged, involved, debating, arguing, agreeing - and voting only at the end, if truly necessary when consensus could not be reached by further discussion. It was hard work - you had to prepare your case, inform yourself as to the opposing views, respect the rules and procedures of debate. Marshalling your forces for the vote was almost incidental.
Student societies, as I said earlier, were called 'Socs' - Rugby Soc, Chess Soc.
Student Union debates, even in that time of student unrest, were poorly attended. We used to call the Union 'Apathy Soc' because students were so apathetic that few ever turned up. Even on issues that mattered - coffee shop or bar, extra nurse or counsellor - hardly anyone ever bothered to turn up to debate. But it worked OK generally. I like to think it worked because those of us who cared and did work at it reached generally good - or at least not bad - resolutions: but it might just have been that our resolutions had so little impact on most students that actually nobody noticed.
But sometimes we debated issues that were controversial. Human rights. Women's rights. Equality. Those were trigger issues: the regular Union people like me were generally liberal - or at that time it would have been a tiny bit revolutionary, to care about something like women's rights - but the student 'body' were not. As now, liberal values were balanced by conservative (with a small c) views. I would call them reactionary in that they were views in reaction to ours, rather than expressed on their own. And on such trigger issues, Apathy Soc caught fire: meetings were packed. I remember it - perhaps wrongly - as Rugby Soc taking over Apathy Soc. Certainly the Rugby Soc were prominent in opposing women's rights (any suggestion of 'feminism') and equality (remember sport was caught in the crossfire of the fight against apartheid at that time). But most of all, now, in view of how the world now is, I remember three things.
First, that our (my) liberal views were fiercely opposed by a large number of people - perhaps the majority.
Second, that the debates weren't. There was no debate - just shouting. Everything was shouted down. Often there wasn't even a debate at all - just a call for the vote.
Third, that the ability of the reaction to mobilise their vote was amazing - much greater than ours (because actually, we were after all the few who turned up for Apathy Soc in the first place).
Now I do accept that views like mine - which I would characterise as typical liberal values of tolerance, respect, equality - are a minority. And I respect other views in the sense that I respect people's right to hold them (I don't think they are right, I just don't disrespect them for being wrong). But I am once again struck by the way that democracy functions (I won't say 'works' because I don't think it works, it is broken). A majority totally disagree with liberal views; they do not engage with the process (they are the Silent Majority); but they can, sometimes, turn out to vote.
In the wake of the Trump presidency's poor early approval ratings, I saw a startling statistic. At the very nadir of Richard Nixon's unpopularity, in the depths of the Watergate scandal, his approval rating was 24%. That is, even then 24% of Americans approved. Having been politically interested at the time, and having read about it since, I am just stunned - it seemed to me that no sane person could possibly have approved of a President who had done those things. And yes, 24% isn't a Silent Majority - but it is a pretty huge Silent Minority, isn't it? Not everyone thinks like I do - I have to keep reminding myself of that.
Having brought up the 'T' word, I have to bring up the angry shouting thing. Rugby Soc, in my memory, were very angry, and very shouty. Being against something - especially when that something is happening against your will - leads very easily to being angry about it. And anger, I think, Trumps everything. Love might indeed Trump hate (and I am writing this on Valentine's Day so I hope so), but anger very definitely Trumps everything, love included - when it comes to the vote.
The reason I say democracy is broken is because I never thought democracy was about voting: I thought it was about engagement, involvement, discussion, agreement - and sometimes argument that had to be put to a vote. But at Apathy Soc on women's rights and equality - and now with Trump and Brexit - it is not about discussion and agreement, it is about anger and shouting and the vote.
I have no idea what to suggest. It does actually work quite well to sail along serenely engaging with the democratic process - presumably ignoring the Silent Majority because, well, simply because they are Silent so it is easy - but sometimes it stops working and democracy prevails in a different way, for a time. I don't think it would work for the Silent Majority to rule because then we would be the Silent Majority but being engaged with the process we would actually not be silent, so we would be the Loud Majority, and we see how that is working out - not nice. But I don't think anyone has the faintest idea how to go the third way - to help everyone to be engaged with the democratic process, to be involved, discussing, debating, sometimes arguing - and only when all else fails resorting to the vote. It's quite hard work engaging with the democratic process, and there are so many other things to do. Anyway, my own political involvement is tenuous now, so I am quite relieved to leave it to others to sort out.
I do know that you shouldn't underestimate the Silent Majority. Nor should you make the mistake, if you have liberal views, of thinking their views are anywhere near yours or ever will be: especially when it is reaction against something. John F Kennedy said:
I understand that now better than I did: and it is less funny than it was.
They were interesting, often passionate, debates - sometimes discussions, often arguments.
Much of what was debated directly affected us students and the University - I recall one heated debate over whether the Union should promote the idea - revolutionary in the 1970s - of a coffee bar: the notion that student social life then might revolve around something other than cheap alcohol was actually quite new, and strange as it may now seem coffee shops were then rare. That was the main stuff of the Union, really - how best to direct limited funds to support student societies ('Socs', they were called); what to request from the University in terms of student welfare; how to encourage better teaching; what amenities should be provided on campus.
Some debates were wider - issues over which we had no real influence whatsoever - the future of nuclear power, of nuclear weapons, what we should 'demand' the government do over the then endless strikes, riots, terrorism (Guildford, my University town, was the scene of the IRA 'Guildford pub bombings'). Those debates were fun, though - interesting, argumentative, informative, frustrating.
Other issues were in between. The 'environment' then was a revolutionary issue - it was controversial to care about it, let alone demand it be respected. I was elected Environment Officer, despite no track record in environment. My platform was twofold and limited: we should demand an end to fox hunting (that went nowhere until 40 years later..); and we should request the river authorities to better manage the river banks in order to support wildlife - specifically otters, which were then indigenous to Surrey but threatened. Student power was suitably demonstrated when the river authorities happily acquiesced in trialling a scheme to cut only one bank of the river at a time - so that wildlife could continue to survive in the other. It didn't save the otters, but it did show me that talking to people can work - and that even the admittedly puny power of the local Student Union could at least open the doors to dialogue.
All those debates I enjoyed hugely. They were procedural, with 'points of order' and calls to Madam Chairman (we had yet to invent chairpersons, but we had a female President). To me they were how democracy worked - engaged, involved, debating, arguing, agreeing - and voting only at the end, if truly necessary when consensus could not be reached by further discussion. It was hard work - you had to prepare your case, inform yourself as to the opposing views, respect the rules and procedures of debate. Marshalling your forces for the vote was almost incidental.
Student societies, as I said earlier, were called 'Socs' - Rugby Soc, Chess Soc.
Student Union debates, even in that time of student unrest, were poorly attended. We used to call the Union 'Apathy Soc' because students were so apathetic that few ever turned up. Even on issues that mattered - coffee shop or bar, extra nurse or counsellor - hardly anyone ever bothered to turn up to debate. But it worked OK generally. I like to think it worked because those of us who cared and did work at it reached generally good - or at least not bad - resolutions: but it might just have been that our resolutions had so little impact on most students that actually nobody noticed.
But sometimes we debated issues that were controversial. Human rights. Women's rights. Equality. Those were trigger issues: the regular Union people like me were generally liberal - or at that time it would have been a tiny bit revolutionary, to care about something like women's rights - but the student 'body' were not. As now, liberal values were balanced by conservative (with a small c) views. I would call them reactionary in that they were views in reaction to ours, rather than expressed on their own. And on such trigger issues, Apathy Soc caught fire: meetings were packed. I remember it - perhaps wrongly - as Rugby Soc taking over Apathy Soc. Certainly the Rugby Soc were prominent in opposing women's rights (any suggestion of 'feminism') and equality (remember sport was caught in the crossfire of the fight against apartheid at that time). But most of all, now, in view of how the world now is, I remember three things.
First, that our (my) liberal views were fiercely opposed by a large number of people - perhaps the majority.
Second, that the debates weren't. There was no debate - just shouting. Everything was shouted down. Often there wasn't even a debate at all - just a call for the vote.
Third, that the ability of the reaction to mobilise their vote was amazing - much greater than ours (because actually, we were after all the few who turned up for Apathy Soc in the first place).
Now I do accept that views like mine - which I would characterise as typical liberal values of tolerance, respect, equality - are a minority. And I respect other views in the sense that I respect people's right to hold them (I don't think they are right, I just don't disrespect them for being wrong). But I am once again struck by the way that democracy functions (I won't say 'works' because I don't think it works, it is broken). A majority totally disagree with liberal views; they do not engage with the process (they are the Silent Majority); but they can, sometimes, turn out to vote.
In the wake of the Trump presidency's poor early approval ratings, I saw a startling statistic. At the very nadir of Richard Nixon's unpopularity, in the depths of the Watergate scandal, his approval rating was 24%. That is, even then 24% of Americans approved. Having been politically interested at the time, and having read about it since, I am just stunned - it seemed to me that no sane person could possibly have approved of a President who had done those things. And yes, 24% isn't a Silent Majority - but it is a pretty huge Silent Minority, isn't it? Not everyone thinks like I do - I have to keep reminding myself of that.
Having brought up the 'T' word, I have to bring up the angry shouting thing. Rugby Soc, in my memory, were very angry, and very shouty. Being against something - especially when that something is happening against your will - leads very easily to being angry about it. And anger, I think, Trumps everything. Love might indeed Trump hate (and I am writing this on Valentine's Day so I hope so), but anger very definitely Trumps everything, love included - when it comes to the vote.
The reason I say democracy is broken is because I never thought democracy was about voting: I thought it was about engagement, involvement, discussion, agreement - and sometimes argument that had to be put to a vote. But at Apathy Soc on women's rights and equality - and now with Trump and Brexit - it is not about discussion and agreement, it is about anger and shouting and the vote.
I have no idea what to suggest. It does actually work quite well to sail along serenely engaging with the democratic process - presumably ignoring the Silent Majority because, well, simply because they are Silent so it is easy - but sometimes it stops working and democracy prevails in a different way, for a time. I don't think it would work for the Silent Majority to rule because then we would be the Silent Majority but being engaged with the process we would actually not be silent, so we would be the Loud Majority, and we see how that is working out - not nice. But I don't think anyone has the faintest idea how to go the third way - to help everyone to be engaged with the democratic process, to be involved, discussing, debating, sometimes arguing - and only when all else fails resorting to the vote. It's quite hard work engaging with the democratic process, and there are so many other things to do. Anyway, my own political involvement is tenuous now, so I am quite relieved to leave it to others to sort out.
I do know that you shouldn't underestimate the Silent Majority. Nor should you make the mistake, if you have liberal views, of thinking their views are anywhere near yours or ever will be: especially when it is reaction against something. John F Kennedy said:
"25% of the people are against everything, all the time"
I understand that now better than I did: and it is less funny than it was.
Comments
Post a Comment