When I was much younger, I came across a text. I don’t remember its format or purpose. But I do remember that at one point, a First Nation teenager was requested by a researcher to translate the word government into his language. The teenager replied “grandmother”.
This could have taken place almost a decade ago. And although I don’t recall the context or the article, the teenager’s answer seemed important enough to retain in my mind. It was only in time and through academia that I began to understand the implications of this answer.
In human history before modernity, knowledge and wisdom were approached more or less holistically, albeit heavily influenced by religion. The fragmentation of our experiences and knowledge into academic disciplines; and the separation between ethics, morality, and politics are all consequences of the intellectual focus on rationality from early modernity.
Today, politics is a discipline reserved for a few who have been trained in the particular art. And although there have been numerous postmodernist activists and literature that try to reclaim politics back to the individual level, the formal institutions and practitioners of politics remain unchallenged by most while being shaped and adapted by capitalist interests.
Then, within the context of our federal election, what are the implications of politics fragmented away from morality and ethics?
Morality and ethics are in themselves battlegrounds for meaning and ideological manipulation. But consider that you and I establish a collaborative meaning for morality. You and I agree that Plato’s normative definition of morality is something we can work from: code of conduct that is put forward by a society and that is accepted as a guide to behavior by the members of that society.
When terms like morality and ethics, right and wrong, come across the political discourse, it is regrettable that they are often referred to as being subjective concepts. I think, this is where the great problem of our times lies. The focus on rationality and objectivity has within it a bias towards data that is factual, numbers, official testimonies, etc. This is why politics is heavily driven towards economy in Canada. Economy is always the answer, e.g. Child poverty will be solved through economic plans that will lower corporate taxes in order to improve job placements.
But you and I know there are better solutions, easier solutions to many problems politicians face. Apply reason but within a framework that allows you to do good, to make positive changes in the world around you. Focus on happiness, quality of life, maybe quality of leisure time.
In this election, people ask for more education funds, and more spending and investment on health care. In order to re-appropriate the political discourse to fit our needs, we need to take the discourse and turn it around and away from cold rationality based on fact sheets and numbers. We need to speak through politics of our issues in our own terms, the way we subjectively experience. Speak of your necessity to spend time with your family, speak of your difficulties working three part time jobs while having to maintain your grades to get approved for scholarship next term, speak of the way you felt the last time your store got held up, or perhaps they way you felt when the police officer was being abusive but you were too scared to report him.
Don’t let the politician redefine what is important to you. You have your own discourse, and yours is the one that resonates with those around you. You have a voice and a way of understanding your life from your own true perspective. Let them know. Bring politics into your life and not vice versa.
Maybe one day, when someone asks you what government means to you, your response can be “I am government”. We are all the government.
No comments:
Post a Comment