Balancing Action and Theory

 "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity." 
William Butler Yeats

I.

There is a scene in Waking Life where four young men are walking down a street, taking turns mumbling about their nihilistic philosophies. Here is an excerpt from the transcript:

"Society is a fraud so complete and venal that it demands to be destroyed beyond the power of memory to recall its existence....

"To rupture the spell of the ideology of the commodified consumer society so that our repressed desires of a more authentic nature can come forward."

So ... yeah.

Eventually, they come across a man on top of a telephone pole. They ask him what he's doing up there and the old man replies, "Well, I'm not sure."

As the four young men walk away, one quips, "Stupid bastard." To which another replies, "No worse than us. He's all action and no theory. We're all theory and no action."

II.

The people who loot neighborhood businesses and tear down the statue of Ulysses Grant are all action and no theory. The people who set up police-free, autonomous zones are all action and no theory. The insurrectionists who storm the Capitol are all action and no theory.

Then there are people who are all theory and no action, like think tanks, policy analysts, and bloggers (hey!). They do fascinating research and write compelling think pieces but rarely leave the office to try and change things.

Another way to think of theory vs. action is Yuval Levin's idea of formative vs. performative institutions. A formative institution is one which shapes an individual; a performative institution is one that individuals use as a platform to build their brand.

All-Action activism tends to be performative and ineffective because its movement lacks theory and direction. It focuses on the Other (marginalized groups) and ways to improve their lives. But its lack of improving the self leads to individuals who are nasty and ineffective.

The most staunch antiracists are some of the meanest people I have ever met. You don't need a bible to see that they are motivated by the deadly sin of anger and wrath. The third principle of the Theory of Enchantment (itself a formative institution) is to root everything you do in love. It's not hard to distinguish the antiracists who act out of love from those who act out of anger, the former will always be the most successful activists.

Theory is built in a formative institution, usually a church (actually the best formative institution is the military, but that shapes people for war, which isn't relevant for what I'm talking about). But sometimes churches are, well, selfish. They can de-emphasize action directed toward others and instead focus on getting one's self into heaven. They aren't always designed to create meaningful change through action. Sometimes a lot of it just sounds like the nihilistic philosophers from Waking Life, all theory and no action monks who kneel and pray all day (to be fair you also have nuns who build hospitals and schools.)

III.

Most "activism" I see today is the opposite: it's performative. It's designed to get the attention of people who are likely to, or already do, agree with you. It's people going to progressive colleges to give lectures about white supremacy. It's screenshotting a letter to your boss and posting it on Twitter. It's Antifa standing up to fascism by marching through Portland, the most liberal city in America.

MLK activism, however, was noticeably different. It was designed to get the attention of people who disagreed with you. It was the melding of formative roots (theory) put into performance (action).

"and there is no plan to strategically escalate"

For protests to be effective they must be inconvenient, uncomfortable, and they must continuously increase what MLK called "creative tension".

If they can ignore you, then your protest is no longer effective. https://t.co/JxZcNq7VSf

— Dr. Mansa Keita (@rasmansa) July 6, 2020

Dr. Keita makes a great point, the all-action/no theory people are making it uncomfortable for the powers that be. And the all-theory, no-action bloggers can just be ignored. But the "creative tension" of the Civil Rights movement seemed more purposeful and I think that's because of the people leading the charge.

IV.

The rituals of formative institutions are helpful in that they restrain our worst impulses. In Philip Gorski's American Covenant, he talks about how Puritans viewed freedom as being more than what libertarians harp on about. From a religious perspective, it was being free from our own passions. In his famous speech that I love to reference, David Foster Wallace wrote about what happens when we give into these passions:

"And the compelling reason for maybe choosing some sort of god or spiritual-type thing to worship—be it JC or Allah, be it YHWH or the Wiccan Mother Goddess, or the Four Noble Truths, or some inviolable set of ethical principles—is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive. If you worship money and things, if they are where you tap real meaning in life, then you will never have enough, never feel you have enough. It’s the truth. Worship your body and beauty and sexual allure and you will always feel ugly...

Worship power, you will end up feeling weak and afraid, and you will need ever more power over others to numb you to your own fear. Worship your intellect, being seen as smart, you will end up feeling stupid, a fraud, always on the verge of being found out."

Without the formative institutions that shape character and free us from our own passions, we fall into "all action, no theory" performative demonstrations that always fall flat on their faces and often produce backlash that makes things worse.

In my view, formative institutions are at their best when they do two things. First, they give your mind something to worship (as opposed to compress) so that you can mentally train yourself to be free of your passions. So instead of worshipping money or beauty or power or intellect, we are free to focus our attention on something meaningful. 

Second, they give an answer to Levin's question, "Given my role as (member of formative institution XYZ) how do I respond in this situation?"

I always loved Levin's line because it assumes an individual's responsibility to the public good, which brings me back to Catholicism. 

V.

Martin Marty wore about the two ways Protestant churches view their role. Private Protestantism is primarily concerned with the afterlife and promoted saving souls and individual salvation. Meanwhile, Public Protestantism believes that the way to God is through the transformation of society. (Another way to think of this is the difference between faith and works.) 

Catholicism doesn't fit neatly into either, but it feels more private than public. Catholicism focuses on the self and ways to ensure admission to heaven. 

Sure, Lent is kind of a big deal, which helps free ourselves from our passions. I think that is a good thing. There is a social justice component to Catholic life, which turns attention to the Other and ways to improve public life. 

But these things are not as important as the sacraments and the focus on the self. There are penalties for missing Mass or not going to confession. It's hard to break the sacrament of matrimony (get divorced). You are expected to pray daily.

Conversely, there is no penalty for never helping the poor. There is no expectation to volunteer in your community. Anything you would call Public Catholicism--performative, action-based work--is extra credit stuff. 

As a non-believer (technically apatheist) I still care because my wife is Catholic and we are raising our children Catholic. My oldest goes to Catechism (basically Sunday School) and I'm okay with this because I'm not against religion. But I'd rather be for it. And it's hard when I see what he's learning and none of it has to do with public life or giving him an answer to Levin's question.

To me, Martin Luther King Jr. had the best blending of formative, theory-based roots that could be put into performative, public-facing action. Malcom X, for all the ways he contrasted with King, fit this description as well. I have many thoughts on their legacies, but that is for another post.

For now I just want to say that I've been critical of activism that I thought was too performative and ineffective. But I also recognize that I shy away from action and I actually envy that level of passion. However, there is a reason I shy away from action and it has to do with a calling I am more drawn toward.

VI.

Performative vs. formative. Theory vs. action. Public vs. Private. I think all of these conflicts come down to one thing: the tension between Truth and Justice. 

Justice without Truth will unfairly punish the innocent. Truth without Justice will allow injustice to fester and people to suffer. Both are important but I am just more emotionally drawn to Truth.

I disagree with tax cuts for the rich and think there should be more wealth redistribution. Yet, when then-Senator Kamala Harris tweeted:

The average tax refund is down about $170 compared to last year. Let’s call the President’s tax cut what it is: a middle-class tax hike to line the pockets of already wealthy corporations and the 1%.

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) February 11, 2019

... I was bothered because, well, it's just not true. Likewise, what happened to Michael Brown was awful and I hope the pain we feel leads to serious police reform. But when Senators Harris and Warren say he was murdered, that is also a lie. Hate crimes against the gay community are awful, but the Pulse nightclub shooting narrative was a lie and the Matthew Shepard narrative was a lie. I hate Trumpism and bullying but the Covington Catholic narrative was a lie. 

These are just little white lies but even if they are in the pursuit of Justice I agree with, I feel an obligation to call them out. Part of what holds me back from a stronger pursuit of Justice is a strong commitment I have to Truth. Justice without Truth feels tainted to me. 

But I am more aware now that holding too tight to Truth prevents Justice and I need to find a better balance.

The four young men in the Waking Life scene are concerned with Truth, to the point that they never do anything. The old man represents a Quixotic quest for Justice, to the point his actions aren't producing any results (if it were a more on-the-nose metaphor he'd say he had climbed up the pole to fight white supremacy). It's obvious that both extremes are bad, but what do we optimize for?

Maybe the answer is for everyone to seek a healthy, balanced pursuit of Truth and Justice? Maybe the answer is for society to have equal numbers of Truth-seeking and Justice-seeking individuals pushing back on one another? 

This is a long post and its conclusion is indicative of my blog. I don't feel like I have an answer but at least I feel like I now understand the question.