[Peace-discuss] Re: [Wefta] Coercive harmony at WEFT

[C. G. Estabrook]

I don't accept the description, Paul, but I'm "provoking
people" because I think that there's a dangerous tendency at
WEFT right now to freeze its boundaries, both in terms of
activities and personnel.  That's contrary to its being open
community radio.  WEFT can hardly "question authority"
vis-a-vis the national media regime and then condemn the same
thing internally.  It's of the nature of alternative radio to
contain some contestation.

And there's a lot of bad politics buried under the invocation
of "respect" as it's apparently understood in this country
today. "I respect you as a person (and not as an artichoke?)
but am eliminating you as an irritant."  That seems to be what
Nader is talking about as "coercive harmony."  It's how to
enforce "cooperation" since "everyone thinks they're right."

Madness has been described as the fear of the loss of control
of one's boundaries, and the notion has been extended to
groups and organizations.  I think WEFT is showing signs of
that craziness and has picked a scapegoat in Randall.  That's
a personal injustice, but even more it's a sign of how WEFT is
crippling itself.  And that would be a shame. 

Regards, CGE

---- Original message ----
>Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:21:50 -0500
>From: "Paul M. King" <pmking at uiuc.edu>  
>Subject: Re: [Wefta] Coercive harmony at WEFT  
>To: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>, Peace-discuss
<peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>, WEFT <wefta at weftfm.org>
>
>Carl,
>
>Why are you provoking people? This vote was very difficult for
>me and this morning I question whether I did the right thing
>last night. The charges, I think, were legitimate: disrespect,
>dismissive of authority and excessively uncooperative. It is
>indeed an admirable quality be able to dissent and engage in
>conflict on behalf of justice, but there's also wisdom in
>knowing when to concede and when to compromise, particularly
>when we are all essentially working for the same goals. Being
>right does not give one justification for pursuing a goal by
>any means necessary. Everyone thought they were right last
>night. George Bush thinks he is right too.
>
>I fear that the divisiveness and deep-seated hostility that
>has been generated by this issue will outweigh any good that
>may come from it.
>
>Where do we draw the line, as activists and dissenters? "The
>Middle Way" has always been a favorite Buddhist mantra of
>mine. Why eschew the good we can achieve by compromising an
>absolute goal (achievable without falling victim to coercive
>harmony) in favor of creating vicious hostility in its
>achievement?
>
>Respectfully,
>..:: Paul King