Forum Post: "The Activist" as a self-replicating social role

I would like to suggest that any social movement interested in challenging global capital and other institutions of social exploitation/domination should be prepared to take a critical look at "the Activist" as a constructed, self-replicating social role. I am not suggesting a wholesale rejection of "activism" as a mode of social struggle, but a form of critical engagement that recognizes its limitations and counterproductive aspects so that the role itself does not become fetishized.

While social roles have existed for millennia, they are perhaps no more pronounced than in advanced post-industrial capitalist societies where, as a result of automation and the rise of the service sector (call centre agents, market researchers, etc) the role of "producer" within the global economy is being steadily superseded by that of "consumer." While "the Proletariat" in the Classical Marxist sense hasn't been entirely phased out yet, the industrial mode of production is, now more than ever, being outsourced to places like South Asia and Latin America, leaving the last vestiges of the industrial working class in North America and Europe without a "doorstep" to which to bring their "demands."

In this context, it is not surprising that a society obsessed with commodity consumption is offering up all sorts of prefabricated identities for individuals to just "fall into." Roles such as "the Soccer Mom," "the Professional," "the Student," etc are all symptomatic of a society with a disproportionately quantitative, mechanistic focus. The role of "the Activist" is, in many ways, just a symptom of this reality.

What are some key features of activism as a mode of social struggle? The following is a list of different tendencies that I have observed over my own involvement with the now largely defunct "anti-globalization movement":

• a tendency to fragment social reality into a quantifiable number of "issues," "causes," and "oppressions."
• an overemphasis on formality and bureaucratic structures (forming working groups, maintaining speakers' lists, etc)
• regarding the role of "Activist" as a self-defining identity rather than as a means for accomplishing certain goals.

As I stated at the outset, I am not suggesting that activism as a mode of social struggle is obsolete or that it isn't possible to don the identity of "Activist" without letting it "become" you. What I am suggesting is that both the role and the mode of struggle should be approached with an attitude that is both affirmative and critical. Remember, global capital requires a certain amount of "loyal opposition" to justify its own existence.

Thoughts?