As
I have read more of Martin Luther King's writings and
speeches, I am reminded of the quote attributed to Mahatma Gandhi:
“When the people lead, leaders will follow”. I am particularly
reminded of this when King (1967) in the third of his Massey lectures
for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation talks about the young
negroes ceasing to imitate “whites in dress, conduct, and thought
in a rigid, middle-class pattern” and “began initiating” (p
46). The result of this change was that the young negroes changed
from being followers to being leaders of social change.
In
the fourth lecture, King talks of the laws being in place and
commissions having written reports but still no change was happening
for those in poverty and segregation was not being broken down. It
was not until the people took to nonviolent resistance being willing
to go to jail in their masses that the political leaders began to
implement what the law and commissions had already said was what
should happen. The people caused the change in direction. It was not
the elected leaders or the industry decision makers, those in
business leadership, those with a stake in keeping the system as it is. These were the people who failed to provide the
leadership for change. The leadership for change had to come from the people.
Why
do I think this is relevant for now? I see in the British election an
attempt of a leader to strengthen her hand for the changes that she
wants to make in British Society. She, Theresa May believes that she
has a majority backing of the people to take Britain out of the
European Union. This is the will of the people she keeps telling the
48% who voted remain. What she is not saying is whether all the other
policies that she wants to force through are the will of the people.
She would prefer not to talk about those.
However,
the key issue here is that she in her so called position of
leadership seeks to follow the will of the people as fashioned by an
election campaign. If she gets the majority in the forth coming
election, it will not just be Brexit that she will claim is the will
of the people but the whole package of social reforms tucked into a
manifesto that few will actually read. She will swear adamantly that
the vote for a Conservative Government means that Conservative policy
is the will of the people.
However,
there is another element of King's message that is easily overlooked.
This is the place of the middle-class. King in the third lecture
goes on to say “It is ironic that today so many educators and
sociologists are seeking methods to instil middle-class values in
Negro youth as ideal in social development. It was precisely when
young Negroes threw off their middle-class values that they made an
historic social contribution. They abandoned those values when they
put careers and wealth in a secondary role. When they cheerfully
became jailbirds and troublemakers” (p p 46-47).
Hidden
in this message
is the power of middle-class thought to control the population and
restrict the prospect of change. This message still applies today
with the British education system instilling in the youth of today
the middle-class values that will hopefully make them followers
rather than free thinkers. The problem is that "Education
makes a people easy to lead, but difficult to drive; easy to govern,
but impossible to enslave." (Lord Henry Brougham). The type of
education desired by leaders is the education that encourages
conformity to the current middle-class norms but education should
encourage critical analysis and when that occurs the people will in
time revolt against the indoctrination and attempts to enslave.
However,
there is also another way to look at this message and this is how do
we encourage the middle-class to seek the changes that are necessary
and not simply to go along with the way things are? We have to
challenge those middle-class norms and the comfort that the
middle-class feel they have obtained. Racial segregation would never
have been removed from the US if the middle-class had not felt that
their position and status was under threat. It was as their felt
sense of security declined that they became willing to change.
Lecturing people on the monetary system or inequality will not bring
change. Those who want to hear listen to lectures. We need to
motivate change by challenging the security of the middle-class so
they are motivated by their self interest to support the required
changes.
King's
fourth lecture to some extent addresses this issue because following
the nonviolent resistance that brought down segregation, there were
riots in the US that King describes as being against property. King
didn't support the riots but understood what motivated the rioters.
However, this raises the issue of what is the best approach to expose
evil in the system and bring about the changes that are necessary?
Martin
Luther nailed his proclamations to the doors of the of the temples of his
day. Could we nail our proclamations on the doors of financial
services organisations, the temples of modern society? Or should we
camp outside these temples as the Occupy movement endeavoured to do
without success? Or should we as the civil rights marchers did hold
our ground nonviolently in resistance being willing to fill up the
jail system for the changes we believe are required? Or do we
implement our own solutions that disrupt and expose the corruption of
the current system? Or should we like the rioters physically attack
the physical buildings (not the people as terrorists tend to do) that
these institutions operate from? Or do we use some other invasive
attack that destroys the financial infrastructure? I exclude
terrorism or attacks against people but I also would argue against
destructive attacks against property or systems.
The
course to change is motivating the people so that in large numbers
they demand the changes required. Ideally, I would contend we achieve
this through nonviolent resistance and through working to build the
alternative structures required as the current system comes crashing
down. The 2008 financial crash was an opportunity for change but no
one believed there was an alternative system or way of operating. The
wheels need to be in motion for the alternative as the current system
begins to crumble under the pressure of the masses rising up in
protest against its suicidal path.
References
King
Jr., M. L. (1967). The trumpet of
conscience.
Boston: Beacon Press.
King
Jr., M. L. (1967). Youth and social action The
trumpet of conscience
(pp. 37-51). Boston: Beacon Press.
King
Jr., M. L. (1967). Nonviolence and social change The
trumpet of conscience
(pp. 55-66). Boston: Beacon Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment