Apathy again

Much of the discussion surrounding student apathy makes comparisons to the heyday of student activism and public protest, ie the 60s. The real problem with this is that it skip so many movements that failed in between then and now. The nuclear-disarmament movement was as activated as the anti-Vietnam war protests, with what was for a long time (until 2004 with the March for Women’s Lives) some of the largest protests in history. In many ways the Iraq war has more to do with the nuclear power industry than it does with the Vietnam war – the interests of the participants are narrowly entrenched, with no mass-base of people with immediate exposure to the war machine (nuclear war was always just an idea, as in many ways the Iraq war remains just an image on the screen). The false comparison between ‘active’ and ‘passive’ student bodies overlooks this ultimately failed movement, as well as other forms of failed political engagement (2004 election, anyone? Huge turnout, look where we are). So, a big part of the problem with the rhetoric of passivity is that it makes the assumption that activation translates into effective action. Movement building requires careful planning and strategic thinking – it is here that the facile dichotomies of the rhetoric of apathy trips itself up. It implies a failed strategy in its own right – taking to the streets at all costs, broadcasting indignation every which-way and by god, getting properly upset about the world. There is no reason to believe that a merely riled up and angry student body takes us anywhere, and I refuse to believe that protest for its own sake means anything.

Duncan