On Wholeness: Another Refutation of "Purity" and "Popularization"

So many brilliant, amazing, wonderful people wrote about this subject already, but since there can be no power greater anywhere beneath the sun than solidarity---I'm speaking my piece, too.

Where, o where, did the dichotomy of "puritans" vs. "popularizers" come from? That seems quite the stretch. But not near as much as who receives those labels. The entire construction of that infamous post falls apart under the most cursory examination.

What is usually meant by the term "popular"? What is "popular," besides "liked/appreciated by a lot of people"? An uncharitable reading is that things become popular if they cater to the lowest common denominator, are unchallenging, simple. It is true that things tend to become popular inasmuch as they resemble what is already popular; popularity builds upon the status quo---but the shifting of what becomes known as "popular" usually points to an extension of what went before, rather than a mere replication.

What is usually meant by the term "purity"? What is "pure"? Something is "pure" when it is a distillate---refined down to one substance, one essence, one truth. Whatever else "pure" may be, it isn't a blend.

So, I find that entire post bizarre in that it is a complete reversal of how those terms are generally used. It's a reversal to name the folks asking for multiplicity, complexity, inclusiveness, a greater Whole---as "purists". It's a reversal of any common understanding of the term, to call the very people asking for more voices---the perspectives of disparate bodies situated in multiple locations (physical, intellectual, spiritual, sexual, emotional, racial, cultural, chronological, geographical, ethnical), as not desiring popularity. Isn't a broader base by definition popular? Isn't that wider range of people the proverbial "97%"?

I've noticed a distinct calling for the dumbing down of political thought over the years, as a response to the "sound bites" of the right (aided by the deregulation of the media). I'm mystified by that call. Right here where I stand, I see people who hunger for depth. Right here, in the heartland. In urban rustbelt neighborhoods, in diners, in churches, in taverns, on the shop floor. Folks are damn sick and tired of being spoken down to. Of heavy editing. Of canned talk, distilled answers. We are told by pundits ostensibly on the side of "the people", that folks can't digest the background information, the history, the theory.

That new message---"keep it simple, stupid!"---flies in the face of movement history and practice. Back in the day, alternative newspapers were a more common sight; publishing the news the mainstream papers would not, or could not. In-depth articles related the struggle both to the past and to contemporary struggles elsewhere. Back in the day, people craved literacy, and not just basic literacy, either. In the early days of the labor movement, some folks became known as "readers"---the people who would read works of literature or political theory to those who couldn't read that well (or at all). Speakers were mighty popular, and massive crowds turned out for rallies. Carving away the complexity of a message breeds apathy; drains the blood from a movement. Without that lifeblood intricacy provides, a certain energy is lost. Communication is stunted.

We're told folks will shy away from explanations that are "too hard". Yet bell hooks' books still keep selling, and remain favorites of women who thought feminism wasn't for them, or about them, until they got knee deep in her knowledge. Women, even young women, continue to name hooks as their favorite feminist writer. How did she get that popular? By dumbing her work down? Eschewing theory? Far from it. She brings theory down into concrete examples; relating the concepts to the familiar substance of daily lives. She defines her terms, too---as in "white supremecist capitalist patriarchy", which is usually shortened to "patriarchy" in the mouths of white feminists who perhaps are uncomfortable with naming white supremacy or capitalism.

We're told to stay "on message", or "on point", as when the phrase "reproductive rights" refers to the right to choose abortion. If we posit the phrase "reproductive justice" to broaden the scope, replace the narrower term, we're complicating matters. As if issues such as forced sterilization, tying welfare benefits to invasive forms of birth control (such as Norplant), tying welfare benefits to child support (even under the threat of violence from a former abuser), lack of access to reproductive health care and prenatal care, infant and maternal mortality, pollutants in breast milk, INS and family separation/deportation, the rights of disabled women to bear and/or keep their children, the effect of dioxin on endometriosis, employment discrimination against mothers, lack of availability of comprehensive sex education in public schools, low birthweight infants, prematurity, parental rights of single mothers/queer mothers/homeless mothers, HIV/AIDS, birth defects from: environmental racism/the use of depleted uranium in weapons/nuclear testing in the Pacific/uranium mining in the western United States/etc. aren't already muddying the waters for the women who must wade through them.

And that's just one issue. One issue with threads intertwined amongst the body politic as one's own veins, arteries and raw nerves. Yet if you speak viscerally on such matters, you will be called out for your lack of "objectivity". Another reversal, as the work of neurologist Antonio Damasio in Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain shows that without access to one's emotional centers, one is unable to make rational decisions.

We are told that the barriers to greater complexity, a comprehensive message in feminist movement, are within the small minds of the common people. That no one is actually engaging in gatekeeping. That it is better for 97% of the masses to get 3% of feminism, rather than risk the chance that more than 3% will get 97%, and all hell will break loose (or something like that). But great thought, just like great art, does get appreciated by masses of people. It can and does become popular. It's just that folks are all too frequently denied the rich experience of respect for their intelligence. Deemed "not worthy" or "not ready". A replication of the status quo of low expectations and negative assumptions, from the very people who insist that they stand for Change! This isn't Your Mother's Feminist Movement! (which is a damn shame, because my mother's feminist movement brought the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Title IX, and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978. But I digress....)

So, to be pure? or to popularize? Is that the question?! Or is it rather:

To be comprehensive.

To be collective.

To be recognized.

To be real.

Pace