FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

On Persuasion

by DAVID Ker THOMSON

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:
Weekend Edition
February 23, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Richard D. Wolff
Capitalism as Obstacle to Equality and Democracy: the US Story
Paul Street
Where’s the Beef Stroganoff? Eight Sacrilegious Reflections on Russiagate
Jeffrey St. Clair
They Came, They Saw, They Tweeted
Andrew Levine
Their Meddlers and Ours
Charles Pierson
Nuclear Nonproliferation, American Style
Joseph Essertier
Why Japan’s Ultranationalists Hate the Olympic Truce
W. T. Whitney
US and Allies Look to Military Intervention in Venezuela
John Laforge
Maybe All Threats of Mass Destruction are “Mentally Deranged”
Matthew Stevenson
Why Vietnam Still Matters: an American Reckoning
David Rosen
For Some Reason, Being White Still Matters
Robert Fantina
Nikki Haley: the U.S. Embarrassment at the United Nations
Joyce Nelson
Why Mueller’s Indictments Are Hugely Important
Joshua Frank
Pearl Jam, Will You Help Stop Sen. Tester From Destroying Montana’s Public Lands?
Dana E. Abizaid
The Attack on Historical Perspective
Conn Hallinan
Immigration and the Italian Elections
George Ochenski
The Great Danger of Anthropocentricity
Pete Dolack
China Can’t Save Capitalism from Environmental Destruction
Joseph Natoli
Broken Lives
Manuel García, Jr.
Why Did Russia Vote For Trump?
Geoff Dutton
One Regime to Rule Them All
Torkil Lauesen – Gabriel Kuhn
Radical Theory and Academia: a Thorny Relationship
Wilfred Burchett
Vietnam Will Win: The Work of Persuasion
Thomas Klikauer
Umberto Eco and Germany’s New Fascism
George Burchett
La Folie Des Grandeurs
Howard Lisnoff
Minister of War
Eileen Appelbaum
Why Trump’s Plan Won’t Solve the Problems of America’s Crumbling Infrastructure
Ramzy Baroud
More Than a Fight over Couscous: Why the Palestinian Narrative Must Be Embraced
Jill Richardson
Mass Shootings Shouldn’t Be the Only Time We Talk About Mental Illness
Jessicah Pierre
Racism is Killing African American Mothers
Steve Horn
Wyoming Now Third State to Propose ALEC Bill Cracking Down on Pipeline Protests
David Griscom
When ‘Fake News’ is Good For Business
Barton Kunstler
Brainwashed Nation
Griffin Bird
I’m an Eagle Scout and I Don’t Want Pipelines in My Wilderness
Edward Curtin
The Coming Wars to End All Wars
Missy Comley Beattie
Message To New Activists
Jonah Raskin
Literary Hubbub in Sonoma: Novel about Mrs. Jack London Roils the Faithful
Binoy Kampmark
Frontiersman of the Internet: John Perry Barlow
Chelli Stanley
The Mirrors of Palestine
James McEnteer
How Brexit Won World War Two
Ralph Nader
Absorbing the Irresistible Consumer Reports Magazine
Cesar Chelala
A Word I Shouldn’t Use
Louis Proyect
Marx at the Movies
Osha Neumann
A White Guy Watches “The Black Panther”
Stephen Cooper
Rebel Talk with Nattali Rize: the Interview
David Yearsley
Market Music
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail