Heather+Reply

From: **Heather Curry ** Date: **Wed, 10 Oct 2007 19:54:54 -0000** Subject: **Re: $40M Sprawl Magnet?**

This is critical: "Cures come with understanding." So let's approach this with that end in mind. The following is a diatribe, but not an attack. I have often proclaimed apathy to be the problem, and then recently started to wonder what that meant. Apathy is epidemic. Our voter turnout rates are abominable; our community meetings sparsely attended. Even when we're passionate about the topic, we fail to show up (provisional "we" here). So what's going on? Civic apathy is certainly one way to see it, and yet on the other hand, is it also possible (this is not an either/or situation, but a both/and) that citizens may feel (and be, in many cases) disfranchised? By the relative incomprehensibility of public policy, perhaps (though, as Andrea has discussed, Sarasota County is working double time to achieve public transparency, and I imagine they aren't alone in their efforts). Or by the daunting prospect of figuring out where, how and when to jump in. Or maybe it is not the tv they would need to shut off, but time with their families or partners they would need to sacrifice in order to engage. Yes, for some, it is apathy, I'm sure. For others, it is the mechanism of time itself that works against full (or even partial) engagement. Regardless, I would hesitate to assert that apathy is a chosen condition. It is a process--apathy. Something that flourishes in a supporting environment and is often a response to despair, frustration, a feeling of anonymity. Whether or not this is entirely true, if one perceives it, then it is true for them. I also believe that most people I talk with want a responsive government. Would we be more inclined to engage if such large-scale political disfranchisement (2000 election, anyone?) had not occurred? (Okay, I recognize that even in that election, voter turnout was poor; it didn't help matters, at any rate). If we felt we could trust our government to hear us when we spoke? If a government exists of, by and for its people, then to some extent, it should ABSOLUTELY care for them. One should not have to worry about healthcare, and yet daily, we do. One should not have to worry about providing better-than-adequate education for their children and themselves, and yet, daily, we do. We do indeed "worry about it." We have no option. A moment of conspiracy theory: when one is bombarded with tv "reality," with unreliable and heavily biased news, with ubiquitous (and often notably covert) marketing campaigns for everything from shampoo to mortgage companies to funeral homes to childrearing, my god, do we necessarily and in full consciousness choose to disengage? Or could it be that all that advertising serves a mighty purpose in distracting us from civic agency? Upon my first visit to New York, I found myself reeling in the aftermath of a sensory explosion. I was trying to decide on something to do, anything, and couldn't, so after four hours, I took the train back to Rochester and couldn't tell you what I did see. So it is well and good to say that apathy is a problem. I agree. But I am compelled to examine the possible source/s of it. It is not an expression that evolved in a vacuum. So how can we collectively foster an atmosphere receptive to and supportive of community engagement? Does it already exist? I would imagine that attending a community meeting is made a great deal easier when you have childcare, transportation, and good health... Chicken or egg, right? At this point in our political evolution, it appears so. Feminist collectives have long worked to secure those most basic provisions, and the length of that trajectory (which can certainly be traced back to first wave feminism in the 19th century) is a pretty amazing testament to the trans-historicity of that struggle. My point is, apathy may also be the contemporary expression of exhaustion. We are, in a most collective sense, dog-tired. I heard Vicente Fox lambasting Hugo Chavez on the Daily Show; he derided him for giving Venezuelans that which they have not earned... and so do not appreciate. The classic argument against redistribution of wealth. So what is the commentary? If you don't have it, it's because you haven't EARNED it? You don't have health insurance because you haven't EARNED it? You don't have a roof over your head or food to eat because you haven't EARNED it? Really?! How does one begin to contribute to a society when they don't have the most basic provisions, or are fighting like hell just to hold onto them? And I am not just referring to those in apparently dire straights, those you can look at and read their desperation in the briefest glance. I am referring to a ridiculous percentage of Americans who would lose everything in a second if the company they worked for went under, who are balancing at the edge of disaster but living in apparent luxury, those whose loans far exceed their income, those who are managing their mortgages and car loans by transferring balances to new credit cards on a regular basis. This isn't an isolated situation. I don't think we can even begin to utter a word like "apathy" until this reality is fully addressed. Complacency is often pegged as the source, and while it may often be the case, it is not the sole source. Additonally, it may be that although community meetings aren't hotbeds of activity, there are other sites that are. In our efforts to describe our respective communities, I imagine we'll encounter the "strange attractors," those locuses of activity and change that go unnoticed in contrast with the more visible goverment and community meeting spaces. Okay, that's probably more than was ever required. Andrea, I fully agree with a great deal of your post, but I wanted to excavate apathy, too, from a different angle.

From: **Heather Curry ** Date: **Wed, 10 Oct 2007 20:33:29 -0000** Subject: **Re: $40M Sprawl Magnet?**
 * ^  || Heather Curry  ||   || [|View profile] ||   ||   More options  Oct 10 2007, 4:33 pm  ||
 * ^  || Heather Curry  ||   || [|View profile] ||   ||   More options  Oct 10 2007, 4:33 pm  ||

Okay, I know I know, more? But this one's brief: Marvin Gaye said it well in "Inner City Blues". That's all.

Eric Reply3  Mukarram Reply2  Amelia Reply2  Heather Reply2  Eric Reply4 Allison Reply