A severe downside to living in a world dominated by private enterprise is the fact that we slowly become desensitized to how much of our daily lives are dictated by capitalism. Publicity and advertisement are so entrenched into our routines, that seemingly unrelated issues end up having an effect on businesses. Ironically, capitalism seems to be dictating the traction of the sole force that does try to fight it- activism.
In a world ridden with generational social inequality, capitalism adds a power hierarchy that only exacerbates the gap between the people who have held a monopoly over wealth, and the people that have been denied their rights to it for centuries. It is thus, not a stretch to say that capitalism poses a barrier to societal equity, and thus movements that aim to resolve the gap must actively fight against it. However, what happens when something dictates such a large part of your life, that the channels that you use to spread your word are controlled by the very things you fight against?
A major facet of capitalism is the competition it sets up as a self check mechanism. Every single enterprise builds off of it, including the media that activists use to gain traction and awareness. As a direct consequence, we end up with ideas like the original concept of ‘The Activist’, a TV show that pits activists against each other in a ‘may the best activism win’ scenario. This competition not only demeans the work many put into spreading awareness, but also ends up utterly destroying the idea of collaborative effort and intersectionality.
While controversial, most say it is okay for one to buy into such structures and try and change them from within. Which is (somewhat) what happened at the Met Gala. Contrasting stories stem from the same event, and therein lies the difference between performative activism and garnering for change. On one hand was a literal fashion statement by Cara Delevingne in their ‘Peg the Patriarchy’ outfit, which stood in stark contrast to Billie Eilish getting a brand to stop using fur products entirely. A lot of the former change is said to be performative, given that the Met is inherently an event made to cater to the elites, and the statement… just isn't radical in the modern context at all. Most of it simply seems an excuse for celebrities (and the labels they wear) to gain clout and traction. Some may argue that this is precisely what sparks discussion, but the action of being performative never causes any real change, it simply shifts the burden of tangible change onto a different medium. The discussion that it sparks still makes it the responsibility of the masses to garner for change.
Given the evils, most activism fights are heavily entrenched in society and power, it is virtually impossible to entirely stay out of these circles, and still be able to garner for change and create large-scale awareness. It becomes almost imperative to try and change structures from within. While discourse around issues holds its own weight, it is simply not enough to have tangible effect. Change is important, and so is awareness. But it is equally important to know where this burden lies, and for people with high social capital, it may look a lot like using their power to leverage change in institutes that have had a problematic past.
Comments