Thus far in class, we have neatly categorized the impacts of
revolution into two categories: social
and technological. I would argue there is actually a third class
of revolution that occurs within
individuals – one that is not visible through slogans or a neatly packaged
product. We are all familiar with the
“make lemonade with lemons” cliché. Every time we make the conscious decision to approach
something in a new way, to restructure our attitude and response, a personal
revolution occurs.
Consider the following:
What Stacey Kramer did for herself is revolutionary.
We can’t change the physical world around us, but we
certainly have the ability to alter our reactions and perceptions to it. When that pursuit creates meaningful and lasting change within us,
a personal revolution has occurred. When
making that paradigm shift takes courage, forces us to transcend pre-established
limitations, and creates a new world, a personal revolution has occurred.
We have witnessed the digital revolution and are in the
midst several social revolutions, but we each have the potential to undergo our
own revolutions as often as we choose. Think of the grandmothers and mothers Alice
Walker addresses throughout In Search of
Our Mothers’ Gardens. These women
did not march on Washington; they did not pursue cases in the courts; in fact,
they waited for the day when
revolution would bring social change.
But what they did in their lives is still revolutionary, at least on the
personal level. To live through such conditions,
yet still instill in their children
hope and a vision for the future, and to cultivate beauty – to sing, to garden –
is representative of a personal revolution.
Without their refusal to sink into the depths of oppression, the later
revolutions might never have occurred.
Without a doubt, I would agree that we can define the individual/personal revolution as a third category. However, I will question to what extent an individual has the ability to change himself. Much of characterization comes from conditioning, interactions with the world, and habitual decisions, but much of it also comes from our genetics. While I believe that we can rewire our habits, try to change our preconceived notions, and challenge our conditioning, I don't believe that we can start completely anew.
ReplyDeleteStacey Kramer's talk was wonderful. Every unexpected event has the capacity to open our eyes if we're willing to be challenged by it. Having such a heavy diagnosis and resulting treatment confronts you and everything that you've done and believed. This most likely leads to desired change and therefore the personal revolution. But my question would be, does it always have to take something of such magnitude to inspire personal revolutions? Does it have to be a shattering or devastating event? Can we decide to change our own ways of life without being "awoken" to the problem by an external stimulus?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteStacey Kramer's talk is inspiring and I agree that a person could have a self revolution. But that self revolution seems more like a moment of insight or deeper understanding, and I wouldn't call that a revolutionary. Kramer provides a wonderful way of seeing things is a positive light but taking a positive view on things isn't a new idea. Self revolution is something I think everyone could benefit from because it imply improving yourself, but I'm just self improvement by changing thought processes don't seem revolutionary to me.
ReplyDeleteI would have to disagree. There is a difference between self improvement and something more dramatic as a self-revolution. I've struggled with how to view myself, especially on this campus, but throughout last year I ended up working on trying to understand people around me and why I was feeling the way I did. When I felt like I had my "epiphany" so to speak it changed how I viewed a majority of my life. I think when you can understand yourself and your world, and interact with the whole of it in an entirely new way, that's self revolution.
DeleteAs I was writing this post, I was apprehensive about applying the term revolutionary too liberally; I do not think that revolution is synonymous with change. Yet I think Katie touched on this in her post by asking if personal revolution is born only from a certain magnitude event. The answer to this question defines the difference between mere change and revolution. What ultimately matters is the perception of the event’s magnitude.
DeleteAn event does not have to be hugely shattering like a terminal illness, loss, or witnessing a bloody scene. Brianne’s understanding of herself in relation to others did not come at one definitive moment and to an external viewer, it could appear as if that revolution manifested itself from thin air. But something else entirely more complex was occurring at the internal level: the culmination of experiences and interactions that eventually lead to a completely new understanding. The cliché “one man’s trash is another man’s treasure” is quite applicable here. What one person perceives as a menial or insignificant event could just be one more stone to the foundation of another’s road to revolution or perhaps be the cornerstone piece.