Wedges and Worms
by Claire Gelinas
The American Heritage Dictionary defines a WEDGE ISSUE as "a sharply
divisive political issue." A wedge issue may be used deliberately to attract
or repel some portion of a constituency. It may also be an unresolved issue
(often related to social injustice) which divides people who might otherwise
be allies.
The same dictionary defines a CAN OF WORMS as "a source of unforeseen or
troublesome complexity." Worms are essential to the health and fertility of
soil; without worms, soil is sterile and loses "structure." Worms take a
long time to do the work they do and they cannot be controlled; but it is
possible to create conditions which make it easier for them to play their
part in building the ground that holds and feeds us.
Recently, there were differences and disagreements among people about the
organizing of a Convergence for Peace in Bath on August 9, to protest the
"christening" of another Aegis destroyer. Maine author and Second Maine
Militia member Carolyn Chute was invited to speak by Veterans for Peace
member Jack Bussell, one of the planners of the Convergence. At a later
steering committee meeting it was decided that because of Carolyn Chute's
stand on the right to bear arms she should be uninvited.
Some people thought the decision to uninvite the speaker made intrinsic
sense. Others thought it did not make sense at all. Still others were
concerned not so much with the issue of this particular speaker, but with
who makes decisions about this kind of event, and how those decisions are
made. There were conversations by email and postal mail, by phone and in
person. Twenty-six people filled out a survey sent by Larry Dansinger of
Resources for Organizing and Social Change asking how we can best address
the differences among us and find "common ground" to build solidarity among
people with different beliefs and backgrounds. Others got together in small
groups to discuss the issues.
My initial intent was to write an article in which the issue is introduced
and the players have a chance to be heard. I looked at the emails I had on
my computer, reviewed the survey results, and talked with someone who had
been to one of the meetings. And I realize I don't really know how to
introduce the issue. I think it's very complicated. The voices I find
compelling are the voices of people who also think it's complicated. So I'm
biased, too.
Here are just a few of those voices:
- The words antiwar & pacifist are not necessarily the same thing.
- Can we break our silences and talk together about the stereotypes we
have about each other?
- The decision deepens class divisions
- Create more organized spaces for conversation where conflict is
encouraged and made safe and caring.
- Democracy is the way we should make decisions.
- Do you think the anti-corporate globalization movement would be more
effective if we laid out limitations on the beliefs of those presenting the
movement(s)? Should the "teamsters and turtles" never have publicly joined
together in Seattle?
- Fundamentalism, no matter whose side it is on, is always destructive.
- How we relate to each other as people has everything to do with the kind
of world that our movements will create.
- I believe that our movements for peace and justice will only succeed if
we learn to respect and care for one another amidst (and even because of)
our important differences.
- I have no doubt that my strong opinions, and my occasionally blunt
manner, can cause divisions in spite of my intentions.
- The decision is about the larger patterns of exclusion that this
decision perpetuates.
- I want people to be able to use their own voices, and be able to listen
to different voices.
- I need to do whatever I can to stay at the table, to keep talking.
- It is always a shock to hear widely divergent ways of thinking on the
same subject. One moves from inner certainties. What happens when they clash
with others' certainties?
- I thought the idea of a "convergence" is that all kinds of independent
groups — with different political tendencies but who share a common goal —
converge on a specific site for a common action.
- Personally, I think it might be nice for once if folks would break out
of the generally middle-class white college-educated peace activist ghetto,
and learn that diversity of voices can be a good thing.
- Some folks are resisting authority and others seem to just want to
re-allocate it.
- It gets to what each person thinks is at the root of whatever issue is
at the forefront at any given time.
- The decision made by rally organizers is, more generally, about the
deepening of class division and the shutting-out of important differences
around questions of tactics and ethics. It is about using our divisions to
separate us rather than make us stronger.
- The point is not to erase these differences but rather to engage them,
to use them to spark conversations and processes of growth that will make us
wiser, stronger, and more compassionate in our work together. But we cannot
do this important work if we have excluded each other from the conversation.
- Violence & nonviolence issues fail to distinguish between a citizen's
right to bear arms and the right of a global capitalist state superpower to
produce and use weapons of mass destruction.
- What I think would be great is if a bunch of people from both "sides" of
this got together in person and started talking about it.
- Who are "we?"
When this kind of thing happens, it's a problem. It's also, for a brief
moment, a window onto something that isn't always visible to everyone. It's
an opportunity to learn about each other, to learn from each other. If you
find yourself talking about this to someone you agree with, do that. That's
what I've been doing. But also, when you feel strong enough to speak up and
to listen, talk to someone you don't agree with. And listen. That's what I'd
like to do.
Margo Adair & Sharon Howell (in "Breaking Old Patterns; Weaving New Ties")
say, "creating alliances based on mutual respect reshapes how issues are
framed." That's not easy to do. When we really talk with each other and
listen to each other about how this kind of thing happened, people who are
marginalized are taking a risk. But if the respect is real, then the people
who are not marginalized are also taking a risk — the risk of change. And
that's one big difference between a wedge and a can of worms.
If you would like to continue this conversation, and especially if you have
ideas for bringing together people who disagree about these or other issues,
contact Claire Gélinas: 674-2358, rutabaga@megalink.net, 18 Stone Road, West
Paris, ME 04289.
Claire Gelinas is on the staff of ROSC
Back to Peace Talk Index, Fall,
2003