In Alinsky’s essay “A Word on Words,” he has great points about how language and word choice play heavily into our culture and our politics. If we begin to soften our speech and confine ourselves to a certain space in which to work, write, and think, “we begin to dilute the meaning.” Even if we did take the passion out of our language, especially in terms of politics, I wonder whether whatever changed would take place of the old, using the term “harnessing the energy” instead of power. He says, like in most things in life, we should strive for simplicity: E=mc2.
Although many people think of power and immediately connect it to Machiavellian principles, there should be more consideration as to its meaning when using the word: “The power of a gun may be used to enforce slavery, or to achieve freedom. This goes for all words that usually carry negative connotation. Yes, to deny that man does not act accordingly to the principles of self-interest is to deny the true nature of man. It’s not selfishness. It’s reality.
Alinsky uses strong language that is so crisp and clear there is little room for misreading: “The moment the word power is mentioned it is as though hell had been opened, exuding the stench of the devil’s cesspool of corruption.” His language is concise and powerful to the point where no one can dispute his passion. I would not feel the same way had he chose different words.
Power is something that comes up a number of different times in “Tactics.” When he says, “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have,” I felt the hair on my arms and neck stand erect. He says that in a fight, almost anything goes. The Have-nots, it seems, have no other choice but to get down in the mud, as it were, with the Haves. His ideas on how to turn the Haves against each other are so brilliant that it seems obvious what needs to be done. A big problem, as he and I both see it, is identifying the enemy and how blame can simply be passed to the next. Focus on your target, he says, and ignore the rest of those who are responsible for the time being. Nearly fucking died laughing at the fart tactics. If gas is all you have, by all means use what you’ve got.
Braun’s analysis of the anti-democratic institutional culture functions in “Against Decorus Civilty” was very keen on the notion of free market. The way in which he brings Adam Smith’s ideas about economy in a democratic system is great. I do believe that universities should have the freedom to educate as they see fit, by which I mean the professors should have that right. A Student Bill of Rights is a fantastic idea, and now that I’ve head the idea, I think there should be one.
Unfortunately, that’s not how institutions are run. They are run like businesses in which the “academic’s ‘word’ becomes divorced from the ‘world’ in that her contribution to knowledge-making is confined to the privatized space of scholarly production.” It hits a nerve. Maybe some of Alinsky’s tactics should be employed here, huh?
