Global | Local | Two | Hardt

I had that same thought, Tracy, when the Yes Men were shopping on the street for a cheap shirt that most likely was assembled in a land far away, made with stitches tighter than the local labor laws. It made me think of the second First Things First manifesto, which was signed by people who probably use those very products in their every day lives that they described with disgust in the rant. What does this say about activism and shouting things on the rooftops, when they're things you don't even whisper in your own home?

Kalle Lasn talks about activism here: "Direct action is a proclamation of personal independence. It happens, for the first time, at the intersection of your self-consciousness and your tolerance for being screwed over. You act. You thrust yourself forward and intervene. And then you hang loose and deal with whatever comes." I think he's talking about this coming from the inside, from your soul, and if it's not there, then why do some designers (not 'we', of course) promote things they don't believe in, whether it's an idea or a product?

I don't think that the Yes Men don't believe in what they are doing, but I do think that there is sometimes a disconnect between what people are projecting and what they are feeling and doing in their personal lives. Does it have to do with the sense that what we do as individuals has little concequence, but what the multitude does can be much greater?

okay, i gotta say something here. i think it's a little unreasonable to suggest that the FTF signers are "disgusted" with credit cards, et al, and call them out for using them in their daily lives. first, some of those types of products (not butt toner of course) are hard to avoid unless you're diligent, but let's be reasonable about what the statement was about. it's not about never using those products, or about f'ing the whole system that promotes and produces those products. i don't think anyone (including those in our studio who signed it) expects that to happen. it's about the vast majority of design being used to (over) promote that class of products, and simply saying we (the signers) don't agree with design being used to those ends, and that we should look for alternatives.

i think tracy's comments on the shirt buying, pc using, etc, are all perfectly correct. the fact that there is a disconnect (likely, maybe, possibly) between public words and private actions is also true. it is impossible for there not to be some level of hypocrisy in this type of situation. the implication tracy made is that if they are against globalization then they wouldn't be using those products. that begs the question, "how far does one take it?" issues of activism and how they fit into one's life force a person into sitting on a continuum: the less hypocritical you are, the more marginalized from society you are, the more people see you as a freak, the less you can affect change on a large scale. the more you live like a "normal" person with a few oddities about you, the more hypocrisy there is, but you will be better integrated into the masses, where you can affect more change. i'm not condoning letter-bombing people by any means, but look at the unibomber. that guy was the hardest of the hardcore. he was against most modern technology, so in order to not be a hypocrite, he lived in a shack off the grid. wacko? yes. hypocritical? not nearly as much as the yes men, or me or you.

of course i can't speak for them, but i believe the yes men would readily admit to their hypocrisy in being overly picky about their shirts. i definitely noticed it in the movie too. on the other hand, their suits were all from the thrift store. in the end, life is always compromised in some way, because we're human. it's hard to constantly have that type of guard up, and sometimes it's just easier to not think about it. i guess for me it's just about trying to "think about it" as much as it seems feasible while finding that line between affective relationships and strong values.

Tyler, I'm a bit confused as to whether you are in complete disagreement with what my original statement is or not. While I will state outright that the shirt scene seemed to contradict what their efforts were trying to bring to light (cotton content vs. made in…) in a way that very well could have been consistent with their mission, all I was stating was my personal confusion about where to distinguish the 'boundaries' on the situation. It very quickly becomes a blurry area (previously stated). In yesterday's studio conversation, I was grateful for Jason's clarification regarding the extremes: that it isn't about adopting everything in the extreme, but about shifting that mid-line. I hadn't thought about it in that way to date, and it clarified much for me. *blushes with humility*

I'm not suggesting we all turn "Kaczynski" on the situation, but I would also go on record that while it might be impossible to completely exercise consistency in all of our daily decisions, that there are creature-comfort affordances that we simply don't want to give up because we don't like being inconvenienced... although that starts to get a little bit off of the topic—perhaps another thread about what individual efforts can be adopted in order to combat what the WTO seems to think is warranted, and how the power of one is quite measurable—take Katrina, for instance, where the frustration of many 'common' citizens with government lack of response reached the point to where they have initiated several independent rescue/relocation/assistance missions that have truly truly put the larger governing bodies to shame.

Tyler, I'm a bit confused as to whether you are in complete disagreement with what my original statement is or not. While I will state outright that the shirt scene seemed to contradict what their efforts were trying to bring to light (cotton content vs. made in…) in a way that very well could have been consistent with their mission, all I was stating was my personal confusion about where to distinguish the 'boundaries' on the situation. It very quickly becomes a blurry area (previously stated). In yesterday's studio conversation, I was grateful for Jason's clarification regarding the extremes: that it isn't about adopting everything in the extreme, but about shifting that mid-line. I hadn't thought about it in that way to date, and it clarified much for me. *blushes with humility*

I'm not suggesting we all turn "Kaczynski" on the situation, but I would also go on record that while it might be impossible to completely exercise consistency in all of our daily decisions, that there are creature-comfort affordances that we simply don't want to give up because we don't like being inconvenienced... although that starts to get a little bit off of the topic—perhaps another thread about what individual efforts can be adopted in order to combat what the WTO seems to think is warranted, and how the power of one is quite measurable—take Katrina, for instance, where the frustration of many 'common' citizens with government lack of response reached the point to where they have initiated several independent rescue/relocation/assistance missions that have truly truly put the larger governing bodies to shame.

tracy, i understand what you're saying in the original post and i agree with it for the most part. i'm not sure what the point of the "shirt scene" was, now that i think about it. wether it was intentionally pointing out their involvement in the "global spectacle" or they were simply shopping for a nice shirt, i don't know. i recognize the issues of hypocrisy you pointed out and agree that the line gets blurry quickly. i guess what i'm getting at is that there is always going to be some level of hypocrisy because we are all enveloped in the same global structures that are often impossible to live outside of.

the boundaries are always different for each individual, and often are shifting over time based on new knowledge and convictions. that's why i personally tend to get frustrated with armchair criticisms of activists because we never truly know another's motivations or rationale unless we know them personally. i usually tend to think "at least they're out there trying something." as opposed to me who's typing on a keyboard in graduate school.

i also agree with jason's statement, and i guess my comment above addresses that to some extent ("...it's not about never using those products, or about f'ing the whole system..."). i would agree with your statement of record and say that it is basically impossible to be consistent in all of our daily actions. it's dependent on how hard you want to tow the line -- how much you're willing to stick your neck out for a belief. i'm willing to bike around as much as i can, but i still can't totally survive without a car. in fact, i think i'm the only one in studio who has two cars (one for me, one for lori). how's that for hypocritical? cool.

Certainly it comes down to this: "Hypocrisy" ceases to have any meaning if everybody's a hypocrit. We don't describe people as people. So to save us all from hypocrisy, and to save the word (we don't have enough in the English language), we gotta use it for more insidious examples.

In some ways, what this debate is centered around how a message is delivered rather than the message itself. Through the use of satire and cynicism, The Yes Men unfortunately place themselves into a more vulnerable position. Satire and cynicism carries with it a sense of smugness and arrogance, or a sense of hipness to which everyone does not have access. I feel this percieved exclusivity of the message promotes a harsher criticism on their concurrent actions. Meaning- the way this message is perceived through the choice of delivery (culture jamming cynicism) will generally lead the viewer to a more focused scrutiny of their actions. I don't necessarily feel that their choice of delivery was incorrect or out of place, but it is intriguing that we (myself included) have noted some hypocrisy in their actions, while letting some of these same tricks go uncriticized in a piece like Life and Debt. For example- the smugness in the facial expressions and responses of the IMF consultant in the Life and Debt piece was appalling. However, with very careful editing we neither heard the question he was asked nor understood the context in which it was asked. However we did not seem to question the hypocrisy of spin/manipulation done in that film. This might be an inaccurate comparison, but my basic point is that we bought into the delivery of Life and Debt but had more criticism and doubt of the effectiveness of The Yes Men. I suspect it had more to do with how the delivery of the information was chosen. Maybe this is incorrect, but I would like to continue in a discussion on how these two films both as comment and as visual communication were effective or ineffective in their delivery as this could have some bearing on our own choices.

hear, hear matt. as i mentioned the other day, i don't believe the actions of activists in general are intended to be immune from hypocrisy. we might consider as well that the filmic version of the yes men was produced by the actual yes men -- and in that respect, they are showing and hiding what they wish. it is not as if we had an objective window into their lives in that moment. the yes men wanted us to see that purchase, and it is likely that they themselves realize the "hypocrisy."

therefore, i for one don't think it nullifies their work. more likely, i think they intended to show us that either: (a) in order to spark this very debate; or (b) to indicate that all of us, including them, are not free from the restrictions of global trade.

jason, post/thought jinx. exactly. i am happily manipulated by "life and debt" and happily uncomfortable/amused by the antics of the yes men. however, it is interesting to me how relatively uncritical of the constructions of these media our discussions have been -- for folks who are use related mechanisms on a daily basis.