FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

On Persuasion

A non-confrontational style is wonderful for keeping us comfortable, giving us the appearance of wisdom, and maintaining popularity.  I indulge in it quite often.

Non-confrontation makes me seem as wise as Gandalf and as loving as Ghandi.  I get to tell myself that people won’t understand if I, say, kick their Volvo or, more gnomically, their little hybrid, as it nudges its way through a crowd of pedestrians (two points, three points, respectively).  Wouldn’t it just put bad karma into the air and create misunderstanding?  What good does it do?  Isn’t it better to smile?  And who appointed me as the guardian of public morals anyhow?

But every so often I see myself thirty years from now.  The long retro gaze, like the one we direct now a century and a half later at antebellum carriage drivers in the slaveholding South, tends to focus me a bit.  We judge people in that era not by their smiles but by their frowns.  Southern politesse has an odd way of looking, a century and a half out, like complicity.

I also see myself thirty years ago, driving everywhere and as an environmentalist telling myself I didn’t know what else we could do, and I wonder where the kickers were.  And then non-confrontation doesn’t look so admirable.  It doesn’t even seem friendly.  It seems like a form of contempt.  No one gave enough of a shit about me to get in my way.  I get to own my exhaust backtrail from the Seventies, own up to it, possess it, carry it around with me till the day I die.  I had thoughts without kickers.

Now here’s the kicker, I’d like to say.  But there wasn’t one.

I’m not saying I would have understood the first kick, or any of the first concussive syllables of vigorous nonviolence directed at my actions.  Certainly writing and speech would have helped, if I’d paid attention to them.  Any form of persuasive speech might have made the case that a bit of my own willingness to hurt others, to drive around in a Chrysler Imperial and spread smoke into the atmosphere, could be bounced back in homeopathic proportions and get me thinking.

Long persuasive speech is nice.  But even the brute monosyllable of resistance—the thunk, the yell, the grimace—has a way of lingering.  One thunk, all by itself, is worth itself.  But several thunks, like their dark twin the votes of collusion in democracy, have a way of aggregating.  One thunk is justice, two is love, three is a movement.  Unlike the mob rule called democracy, direct action doesn’t need a majority to make real change.  Imagine just the tiny percentage of people who wasted their votes in the last election by ‘making a statement’ (I guess the statement was, ‘we agree with this system keeping us marginalized’), loosed upon their city as committed, persistent thunkers.

Thinking is fine, but thunking is visceral, powerful.  And thunking is just one of a legion of nonviolent wrenchings of the system upon which we can call, whereas democracy just has the single yes-grunt of the vote.  Who’d have thunk it?

Should we really be spending a lot of our time explaining to someone in a heavily subsidized Canadian Hummer that on top of invoking the American Sixth Fleet in his every urban thrash, on top of spreading cancer fumes in a splay pattern through a dozen schoolyards, on top of intimidating a hundred pedestrians in every trip to the store he was too lazy to walk to and for which cardiological malfeasance he will only too gladly put in his bills to the Ontario health system one day, that on top of all this, he hasn’t used his fucking turn signal?  His innocence, his not getting it, is a form of extravagent indulgence.  Pedestrians who think such innocence should be cherished are showing the real contempt—as if such a human being were not capable of thought.  The paradox here is that a thunk does the real think.

We urge moving forward both ways, by long, thoughtful persuasion, but also with the exclamation mark that summarizes a thought without being one.  May we on most days have the explanatory patience and equilibrium of Ghandolfi, but may we have the courage to punctuate, as well.  Punctuated equilibrium.  Let punk eek be our style.

We move with the law, and we move even if the law has lost its way.  The hook of a good opening line, but also the thunk that is beyond thought.  A good first line, but something to close with, too.  As the magician’s staff said, we’re going to do it by hook or by crook.

DAVID Ker THOMSON drives (out of the city) a couple of times a year.  Friendly, if robust, kicks to his quarter panels will be received in a spirit of gratitude. He can be reached at: dave.thomson@utoronto.ca

WORDS THAT STICK

 

More articles by:
August 20, 2018
Carl Boggs
The Road to Disaster?
James Munson
“Not With a Bomb, But a Whimper” … Then More Bombs.
Jonathan Cook
Corbyn’s Labour Party is Being Made to Fail –By Design
Robert Fisk
A US Trade War With Turkey Over a Pastor? Don’t Believe It
Howard Lisnoff
The Mass Media’s Outrage at Trump: Why the Surprise?
Faisal Khan
A British Muslim’s Perspective on the Burkha Debate
Andrew Kahn
Inhumanity Above the Clouds
Dan Glazebrook
Trump’s New Financial War on the Global South
George Wuerthner
Why the Gallatin Range Deserves Protection
Ted Rall
Is Trump a Brand-New Weird Existential Threat? No.
Sheldon Richman
For the Love of Reason
Susie Day
Why Pundits Scare Me
Dean Baker
Does France’s Economy Need to Be Renewed?
Jeffrey St. Clair
A Mighty Voice for Peace Has Gone Silent: Uri Avnery, 1923-2018
Weekend Edition
August 17, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Daniel Wolff
The Aretha Dialogue
Nick Pemberton
Donald Trump and the Rise of Patriotism 
Joseph Natoli
First Amendment Rights and the Court of Popular Opinion
Andrew Levine
Midterms 2018: What’s There to Hope For?
Robert Hunziker
Hothouse Earth
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Running Out of Fools
Ajamu Baraka
Opposing Bipartisan Warmongering is Defending Human Rights of the Poor and Working Class
Paul Street
Corporate Media: the Enemy of the People
David Macaray
Trump and the Sex Tape
CJ Hopkins
Where Have All the Nazis Gone?
Daniel Falcone
The Future of NATO: an Interview With Richard Falk
Cesar Chelala
The Historic Responsibility of the Catholic Church
Ron Jacobs
The Barbarism of US Immigration Policy
Kenneth Surin
In Shanghai
William Camacaro - Frederick B. Mills
The Military Option Against Venezuela in the “Year of the Americas”
Nancy Kurshan
The Whole World Was Watching: Chicago ’68, Revisited
Robert Fantina
Yemeni and Palestinian Children
Alexandra Isfahani-Hammond
Orcas and Other-Than-Human Grief
Shoshana Fine – Thomas Lindemann
Migrants Deaths: European Democracies and the Right to Not Protect?
Paul Edwards
Totally Irrusianal
Thomas Knapp
Murphy’s Law: Big Tech Must Serve as Censorship Subcontractors
Mark Ashwill
More Demons Unleashed After Fulbright University Vietnam Official Drops Rhetorical Bombshells
Ralph Nader
Going Fundamental Eludes Congressional Progressives
Hans-Armin Ohlmann
My Longest Day: How World War II Ended for My Family
Matthew Funke
The Nordic Countries Aren’t Socialist
Daniel Warner
Tiger Woods, Donald Trump and Crime and Punishment
Dave Lindorff
Mainstream Media Hypocrisy on Display
Jeff Cohen
Democrats Gather in Chicago: Elite Party or Party of the People?
Victor Grossman
Stand Up With New Hope in Germany?
Christopher Brauchli
A Family Affair
Jill Richardson
Profiting From Poison
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail