Author Archives: Ella Smit

Critical Mass

Posted on by
1

I began to toy with the differentiating factors between a revolution and a civil war in class and want to tease out the importance of civic involvement in these two phenomena. The largest, and most crucial, distinction between a revolution and civil war in my opinion is the factor of choice. In the simplest of terms, one can opt to become part of a revolution while civil wars engulf a civic society potentially against their will. This being said, a movement’s vitality can depend on critical mass participation. I think it is necessarily true to say that the choice or option to participate in a transformative movement greatly varies participation in numbers. Depending on the nature of the revolution, individuals can be offset with exposing oneself in front of the institution they’re trying to change. Civil wars, on the other hand, are more demanding of civic participation because of the nature of direct conflict and the necessity to fight for survival. I also believe that revolutions have a greater degree of fervor. We often associate revolutionary movements emerging from the peripheries of society because of their more radical approaches to instating change whereas I typically associate civil wars with a battle to find the means for survival.

 

Complete Exposure

Posted on by
1

“Citizenfour” is a prime example of a pictorial depiction of a counter state movement. The documentary chronicles Edward Snowden’s process, incentive, and aftermath to releasing classified NSA surveillance on the American people. Edward Snowden is a name that lives in infamy in the United States because he conspired against the American Government after learning the degree to which intelligence officers invaded the privacy of American civilians to spy on them for the sake of national security.

As a documentary, “Citizenfour” represents counter-establishment because its a subversion of the government to reveal the truth. Snowden started a movement where the public sought greater transparency and liability within the branches of government. Snowden managed to make a state vulnerable by exposing its clandestine operations–– his goal was to exploit the paradox of government surveillance of its people in a liberal democracy.

How does the state respond when it feels threatened? How does the state regain control over its populace when its broken their trust? Although the Snowden case is a contentious issue in the United States due to the national security circumstances at the time, I would argue that Snowden’s actions were revolutionary because of the instability it created with the Government and its people. In some respects, his actions can be seen as a reformist type of revolution because he wasn’t trying to dismantle the governmental system but to expose it. It catalyzed a period of awareness and hyper-sensitivity among the American people which has since changed the way the Government navigates its tactical surveillance in the name of national security. Snowden makes me think about the applicability of Gramsci’s organic intellectual. He conjures up the narrative of a modern organic intellectual because he is both a participant in elite American politics and government as well as living his life as an American citizen. He understands the desires and necessities for the Government to respect the privacy of Americans because he fit the demographic of who the Government was surveilling. Yet he was also an agent of the American government therefore understanding the knowledge and premise of what the NSA was trying to accomplish. His awareness of how the State was surveilling the American people and understanding the American civilian psyche helped him make an informed decision about how to effect change from within the system.

Working in Tandem

Posted on by
1

To be frank, I think fortuitous and organized action coalesce to create a revolution. Much of the reason why the Haitian Revolution was successful was because it was a mixture of meticulous planning and spontaneous fervor to revolt. Kurzman believes in the principal that revolution created the revolution while Camus argues that ideology provokes a revolution and that is an irresistible human compulsion, but the most potent revolutions finds a way to intertwine both practices.

A prime example to demonstrate how revolutions combine the element of accident and fate is how the moment of viability comes into fruition in a revolution. The moment of viability is the quintessential moment for the start of a revolution. It can be unforeseen and unpredictable, but not always. Planning implants the ideology of revolution that Camus contests for. It is done covertly and subversively and creates the causal explanation that there is a run up to the moment of viability. The run up to viability is the combination of ideology and restoring human dignity to avoid haphazard, coincidental moments of synced collective action. The Haitian Revolution and #MeToo movement became feasible because there were preceding incidents––a run-up to viability––whether with slave masters or sexual assault allegations, which began to build tension and anger among victims. These preceding events became the run up to viability where victims vehemently acted upon impulse which coincides with the causal explanation for coincidental revolutions.