Last October, philosopher Raymond Geuss stood in a graveyard in Cambridge, England for a mysterious filmed interview. In an eery setting, Geuss communicated an inspired statement: knowing the historical context of what you stand for “will change your attitude toward the world and toward yourself … It will prevent you from identifying in too fanatical a way.” Geuss is more of a muser than a fixer, but to me his words have serious practical applications. The philosopher’s words hold particular credence for two instances of today’s rampant political polarization: the Chilean student protests and the Occupy Movements.
Since May, the young adult population of Chile has risen up, asking for affordable education and state involvement in curbing private institutions. Building upon the “Penguin Revolution” of 2006, when high school students protested—in black and white uniforms, hence the name—the scale of the current uprising has become gargantuan. A June 30th march brought out more than 100,000 students. Earlier that month, 100 schools had been occupied by the restless youth, and there began a comical accompaniment of flash mobs and kiss-ins.
Due to the historical contextualization inherent in their message, the Chilean students’ mission is astonishingly coherent. Students share an awareness that the current crisis is a direct result of cuts to public education by the Pinochet regime of the ‘70s and ‘80s. Private control of the university system initiated by that conservative government has dominated until today, driving up the price of tuition while student numbers increase. Since Pinochet’s time in office, no new public universities have been founded.
The historical determinants of the current crisis are so strong that they pulse through a generation which never experienced them firsthand. All the same, the solid ground of historical justification allows the protests to be proactive, instead of solely reactive. The movement has produced the Social Agreement for Chilean Education which formulates its wishes, such as increased financing of public universities and enforcement of laws against profit in higher education. Chileans aren’t just saying “No!” They’re pointing to the past and changing the future.
Where is the same coherent message from the Occupy Movements? Grievances against the broken financial system are reactive, and have not resulted in unified proposals for change. “No” is the necessary first step, but it needs historical context in order to induce a comprehensive transformation. Deregulation under Ronald Reagan catalyzed the shift from an industrial to financial economy in the U.S. The Garn-St. Germain Act of 1982 deregulated bank savings and loans capabilities. The dreaded Credit Default Swaps resulted from the extreme financial leniency of Reaganomics. The trend is more nuanced than purely a Republican incentive—Carter and Clinton deregulated finance too, the latter drastically so. And as we can see from Occupy Movements here in Canada, the trend and its consequences were not contained in the U.S. alone.
Regulation is a wonderful thing. It keeps asbestos out of homes and drilling stations afloat. But plunging regulation down throats as an unmovable demand scares people. Simply screaming at Goldman-Sachs won’t solve anything. What can are specific regulations that will undo the risk-based finance created in the last 30 years. James Madison wrote in 1787 that “Liberty is to faction what air is to fire.” With this in mind, today’s protestors should take a page from the Chileans: assume the liberty to articulate your faction’s message, after finding the historical context to do so.
