Pugsworth´s Thoughts

This is a place for me to store ideas, thoughts and feelings that I would like to share with the rest of the world.

Name:
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Monday, April 27, 2009

Asylum seekers vs nationalism

It’s been disappointing to observe the revival of the asylum seeker debate in recent weeks. The coalition is back to fear mongering again because they don’t have any constructive policies to offer. Tactfully though they have shifted their language to emphasise ‘border protection’. While this isn’t an offensive concept it still leaves me a bit miffed. Why is it important that we protect our borders? Most of us don’t live very close to them anyway so I don’t see how we are affected by it. We are naturally isolated from the rest of the world so there are very few people trying to cross our physical borders. And our coast line is so expansive it becomes a very expensive exercise for very little benefit – perhaps this is why the Rudd government has reduced funding for this activity? Still, there is a broad public sentiment that it is important to protect our borders and I am still a bit stuck on why?

The most common argument appears to be a worry that if we allow a trickle it will turn into a flood. Is there any evidence for this? I mean it is an intuitively appealing argument but is there historical precedence for the idea that trickles of any form turn into floods. I suspect that most of these are the result of damn walls (both literal and metaphorical) being put in inappropriate and unsustainable places.

A more intellectual form of this argument is probably about protecting national sovereignty. That if we let people take advantage and trickle in ‘illegally’, it will eventually weaken us a nation. But I would posit that it is probably more the institution of the nation-state that is under attack rather than Australia or our way of life in particular (and that this is a good thing).

Even then it is still surprising to realise how strongly people identify threats to their nation as threats to themselves and thus how big a part of identity nationalism really plays. Ultimately the coalition is not to blame for this debate – it is a broader cultural problem with how we construct our identity. Why is our nation so important to us? Fundamentally I think it is because most people are disempowered at the personal and community level. That is, for whatever reason, they are not able to draw a sense of confidence or belonging from within themselves, their family or their community and feel vulnerable within the big wide world. Thus they have latched onto the nation as their source of strength and protection from the big wide world – and of course politicians are only too happy to provide this sort of sentiment (they can’t actually provide any real protection) in exchange for a few votes. (Note that the ALP has tried to trump fear with a bigger fear by uttering the word recession and thus returning public attention to the economic crisis from which the ALP believe they can offer at least some spin that sounds like protection.)

So yet again I find that the problem stems from personal disempowerment. But perhaps I am just trying to make my theory fit the problem? (a classic form of disempowerment after all). So I’d be interested to hear from any readers as to whether you think my line of reasoning makes sense or how you might answer some of my questions differently. Otherwise I’m left with the conclusion that insecurity is the root of all evil and that the real solution lies in doing the community and personal development work to empower people to develop their unique sense of identity rather than relying on the nation’s. This plays an important part in assisting the global poor to undermine nationalism – the evil 20th century philosophy that also underpins our global political system and has brought so many horrors to humans, earthlings and the earth itself.

Saturday, April 04, 2009

Anarchism

This is a label and identity I've been toying with since leaving the church and engaging with the activist movement. In a lot of ways I like it's ideal and if I think rationally about it for long enough I agree with it, But I have such a hard time getting over all the baggage associated with it. When one talks about anarchists I still have this image in my mind of feral revolutionaries who just want to cause chaos. This image is still reinforced by references in the main stream media around large protest groups.

The first time I really felt ready to adopt the label was when I was cycling around London. I guess cycling around any large city designed for cars and pedestrians is enough to make anyone break the rules and make up your own system - well it is for me anyway. But four years on my commitment to owning the label still wavers under attacks from those feral revolutionaries that exist only in my mind - and maybe yours? The reality is most self defined anarchists I've met are not feral and only some are revolutionaries. Most of them are in fact nonviolent. My perception of the few feral revolutionaries that are out there is that they're mostly socialists who are interested in different concentrations of power as opposed spreading power out.

But I guess the key thing is to define what I mean by anarchism - such a contested label and see if I can hold to that. So recently I came up with
An Anarchist:
- opposes systems based on hierarchy
- and supports egalitarian social and political systems that are created and maintained by the people involved in them.
Add to this that I sit towards the reformist end of the anarchist spectrum and maintain my commitment to nonviolence and you get an anarchism that isn't as radical as it sounds. In fact it's really just a natural expression of the principles I outlined in my core beliefs post.

So there you go, I've entered the fray. I am an anarchist and that's what I think it means. I'm sure I can add to that definition though, so questions welcome.