“In every struggle for liberty and justice, we are weakened when we shape our strategy to keep powerful interests onside.” I believe this quote, from the introduction of Eamonn McCann’s War and an Irish Town, perfectly exemplifies why true change is so difficult to come by in our society. The whole point of social change – to disrupt something powerfully ingrained in our lives – is nullified because our society is structured to protect power. Power makes reputations, furthers careers, and writes paychecks. Although powerful people are highly scrutinized, they are also protected from mainstream society because of the power that defines them. To ask someone to give up their power (whether politically, financially, or other) is to ask them to put down their shield. However, social change is impossible without someone losing some type of power. Something has to give.
In the early 1900s when Ireland separated from Britain, Britain didn’t budge on granting the six counties of Northern Ireland independence. Many believe this reluctance was influenced by Belfast being a valuable port city. Belfast rewarded the British power in the form of profit, and regardless of the social upheaval that the partition of Ireland caused, the British had interests that they deemed worthy of defense. Today we see something similar in many struggles for social change, including with gun laws in the United States. Despite horrific mass shooting, the intertwined web of interests at the top level of the country has prevented major change from ever occurring. Which is why, as Emory Douglas stated, and quoted by McCann, “real change, if it comes, will come from below.” The power struggle at the top will never sort itself out in time for social change to happen. As a result, it’s the people who don’t have these competing interests that need to lead the charge.
People don’t want fiery rhetoric thrown at them with nothing to back it up. Mr. McCann likened it in our class discussion to being at a Bruce Springsteen concert by yourself; it would be terrible, because so much of the experience is being alongside others feeling the same excitement. People don’t want to be told that they, as an individual, have the powerful politicians on their side. They want freedom and liberty, and to experience these alongside their peers. In order for this to ever happen, we must recognize that those with power might not be the strongest allies.
When I was reading through your post, and particularly the argument you started to develop about how people in power have a cloak of invincibility from the rest of society and the possibility of this changing, I started thinking of the “cancel culture” that has become more prevalent in our society. This idea that at the drop of a hat, a public figure’s reputation and power can be stripped from them, or at least permanently tarnished because the general population saw something or heard of something that they thought was offensive or deserving opposition. I think that this plays interestingly into the idea of freedom and liberty because if both the public figure and the general population have the right to express themselves and live their lives as they wish, why is it that there are movements one group can make to alienate and cast down the other? I think that this lends itself to the argument that although powerful people do have some security in their position, there are also choices they can make and actions they can take that may disrupt this power if it goes against the wishes of a large enough group.
While I agree that changes of power need to occur for social change to happen, don’t you think that the power struggle and deadlock is representative – to an extent – of the conflicting interests of the people? Also how much do people prioritize freedom over their agenda being enacted? I think there’s a point where people stop truly caring about what’s going on at the top as long as their beliefs are realized. So while the conflict in Ireland is unfortunate, it’s somewhat representative of the beliefs of the people there. Now whether the conflict influences the people’s beliefs is another conversation to be had, but these power struggles and deadlock don’t happen for no reason and people cannot be reliant on the powerful to act entirely out of goodwill.
The discussion in this post is very intriguing, and lead me to several different questions. To what end do individuals want freedom and liberty? What is the purpose of that freedom? If we are given that freedom, what are we charged to do with it? If people in power or if the government were to step aside, how would we handle that as citizens of America? I would argue that change could not progress with the divergence of thought present in society. Without a singular person or body in power, my view of the right thing to do might differ from your view of the right thing to do could clash and create only anger and no change. To that point, I feel that people in power should act as mediators for the people. Not necessarily as the be-all, end-all, but as the individuals who seek compromise and are propelled by morality and the good of society. They are to be the individuals who recognize disagreements and convictions of citizens and propel change through the middle.