Ian Murray wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > The "one" speaker "enlightening a passive audience is a horrible method > for organizing. One need only think of all those citizens sitting in > church pews to realize this. It's not the content alone, but the form of > communicating that has created the passivity that we see in large public > speaking venues. This is part of why many activists are quickly seeing > as the limitations of the communicational formatting of large > rallies/demos; too much effort is wasted on the positional goods paradox > of who gets to lecture "the crowd." I need only mention how TV > reinforces that dynamic on a daily basis.
Please. The whole history of political activism makes it fairly clear that people are Persuaded primarily in one-to-one or one-to-a very few. All political activity is aimed at generating the contexts in which that one-to-one situation can come into existence. And the nothing beats mass demos for that (and it doesn't make a fucking bit of difference what the speakers say -- who listens!) The demonstrators go home ready to talk and to be talked to. Carrol
