Who have you been influenced by?
Who have you influenced?
There's a sense, as we move through the world, that people are watching us, we're concerned that we've done something embarrassing, and we're afraid that people are thinking about something we've done, long after they're gone.
The spotlight effect.
The reality is that the things we think people are going to notice, or think about later are out of mind quickly.
However there are things that we do, and ways that we interact with the world that can have an impact on others - the permissions we give each other and the things we normalize. It could be a grand gesture or statement in support of someone, but it could be something more subtle like a man with long hair (I'll come back to this).
I recently had a conversation with my father and … we don't really see eye to eye politically. In one of his responses he mentioned identifying with the old man in the beer garden in the movie Cabaret (1972) - the old man has seen it all and is weary of all hubbub and just wants to drink his beer in peace.
I won't go into the full conversation or even most of the details, but I did want to talk about one line of thought that it sparked/furthered.
3 minute clip of the Beer Garden scene from Cabaret (1972)
Watch the clip, it's only around 3 minutes. I'll be referencing it in a bit, so it might be useful ;) .
Then watch the old man in the following clip from the Avengers (2012) - it's around 1.5 minutes.
1 minute clip of the Crowd scene from The Avengers (2012)
The two scenes reminded me about the influence we can have on the people around us.
In the Avengers scene, the old man stands up to a bully - it's a grand gesture as fits the Hollywood blockbuster. The clip ends with Captain America saving the old man before moving off into a superhero battle. But what could his action have accomplished? What would others in the crowd take away from his stand? What would they have taken away from him dying from taking his stand (if Captain America hadn't been there)? Would others be inspired by his defiance and joined him or would they have continued their submission?
The old man in the Cabaret scene takes the opposite approach. His is a small, subtle gesture - intending to not be seen. Sure, he wants to be left alone. But what are the consequences of his silence?
As the scene unfolds, more and more people join in singing with the nazi youth. How many of them only joined in because they didn't want to stand out, going along to get along.
What if the old man had simply stood up and walked away, leaving the nazi boy to go find a quieter place to drink … one with fewer nazis? If people had seen him walk away, how many others would have left too? His leaving would have set a precedent - giving others permission to leave as well.
I've been reminded a few times over the past several years (for some reason) of the Nazi Bar Anecdote.
Popularized by an anecdote shared by Michael B. Tager (@IamRageSparkle) on Twitter in July 2020. Tager recounted visiting a "shitty crustpunk bar" where he saw a patron abruptly expelled: the bartender explained that the man was wearing "iron crosses and stuff", and that he feared such patrons would become regulars and start bringing friends if not promptly kicked out, which would lead him to realize "oh shit, this is a Nazi bar now" only after the unwanted patrons became too "entrenched" to kick out without trouble.
Beyond the obvious connection of not allowing space for nazis, this also fits in with the main topic. The subtle action of tolerating nazis in your bar, gives then permission to be there; it influences their behavior. And the action of kicking them out sends the signal - both to them and any onlookers - that this space is both hostile to nazis and safe for other people.
Virtue signaling has taken on a negative connotation over the years. I'd argue that this is mostly due to right-wing media and personalities - and then the left's tendency to cow and acquiesce to media portrayals and react by self censorship or criticism. The Factually podcast with Adam Conover had an episode in December that discussed virtue signaling, as well as movements in general - it's worth a listen.
The right does not want people on the left to feel connected. The criticism of Virtue Signalling is intended to keep people separated and feeling alone. People who feel alone are easier to manipulate, control, and conquer.
So ... signal your virtues! Let people see what you believe in - give them space and permission to identify with you. Stand up in the midst of kneelers and let people on the fence know they aren't alone.
This has been something on my mind for many years. Growing up, my hair had to be short … because I was a boy. Additionally, I think that in my dad's mind there wasn't a way for a boy to have nice-looking long hair and then I wouldn't be able to find a job and become a productive member of society.
When I finally moved away at eighteen, I let my hair grow out. And for the 28 years since then it's been long most of the time - I go through cut-and-regrow cycles. Once it's long enough, I like to keep it braided both to keep it out of my way and because I think it looks nice.
I prefer the long hair as a personal style, but I also like being an example to young boys and their fathers of a man with long hair. It's become more acceptable in the south since I was kid, but somewhere, maybe I can still provide inspiration to a child, and permission to his father, to grow out his hair - to challenge assumptions and open minds.
It's about acceptance and permission, influence, and connection.
Part of why we go to protests is for that connection. We want to feel a part of something, standing up for our principles, and standing with our community. We get permission from the people we see and stand with, but we also give acceptance and permission back. We give permission to them and to anyone watching (from the sidelines - the old man in the beer garden, across the state, country, and the world via news reports and social media posts).
Over the past year or so, there's been discussion of the 3.5% Rule:
The 3.5% rule is a concept in political science that states that when 3.5% of the population of a country protest nonviolently against an authoritarian government, that government is likely to fall from power.
Too many of the articles or general discussions treat this as a hard rule, but also as an automatic point at which change happens - once we reach this, then things will start to change.
The 3.5% Rule is about community and the permissions given, and the influence that those people can have. People stand up and raise their voices, others join in and this continues until the group is too large to ignore - too large to control. Those people (the ≥~3.5%) make the change by continuing to act, by influencing (giving permission to) politicians and leaders to join them and making the necessary changes.
It all starts with one person, doing something different - standing up when all others are kneeling, or taking a stand (walking out) when the bar is singing nazi songs, or kicking the damned nazis out of your bar to begin with) when others are acquiescing. One simple, scary, act can cause regimes to topple.
Happy No Kings III Day!
Also: Nolite te Bastardes Carborundorum