Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    I believe there is a pervasive feeling today (not wholly unwarranted,
    and pretty sad at that) that you "can't beat the system" with your
    own actions.  Actions of the masses can make a difference, but often
    people feel that they, themselves, cannot make a difference.  What
    may come across as apathy may be the result of considering action,
    then rejecting it as potentially non-productive (and perhaps capable
    of producing reprisals).  

    -Jody
    

    
    Well, i don't see apathy.  i see people caring alot....for
    themselves.
    We measure success not on how much a person has helped their
    fellow person but on how much a person has helped themselves.
    We have a society based on greed.  i like how all the largest
    buildings in the cities are banks.  Our monuments to greed.
    

    Re .0, judging by the number of responses to your topic, I'd say
    that maybe Abby was right about the people of the 80's.
    
    I agree with .3.  I think a fairly large percentage of Americans are
    comfortable with their lives, and that is all they've chosen to
    care about.  They are happy buying their new cars, private airplanes,
    CD players, laser discs, whatever, and working their little $45K
    a year jobs.  They have convinced themselves that they deserve what
    they have and that the homeless, the unemployed, the underpaid,
    also have what they deserve.  
    
    Perhaps Abby felt the same as once of the characters from the movie,
    "My Beautiful Laundrette" who said, "The working class is such a
    dissapointment." (or something to that effect)
    
    He really should have stuck around, though, because I think, maybe,
    suicide is the ultimate expression of apathy.
    
    Lorna
    

Mike Z.  Do you ever bother to explain yourself to those who are so unfortunate
as to be unable to read your mind?!  "No period" Is not an answer condusive to
conversation.

I see a lot of apathy and 'can't beat the system'.  I also don't see as much
'coping out' of the system all together as I think there should be.  Frankly,
I'm amazed that 'the revolution' hasn't already happened yet.  

But then again, the average intelligence is going down in this country, and
there are a lot of people out there who have their creature comforts and are
'fat happy and dumb' for the majority of their lives.  The rest of the world
does not affect them; their major worry is either what clothes/makeup to wear
today, or they are consumed in the Rat Race. 

But there are people who care...  And there are more people who are taking
better care of themselves.  A lot of the garbage of the past is being sloughed
off or being looked at in a new light.  This is where my hope is.

Jim.

    The 60's generation attempted to break down barriers/institutions.
    The 80's reflect what appears to be apathy, but is a direct result
    of this effort. We questioned marriage, military service/intervention,
    and big government. All have been closely scrutinized in the past
    20 years and what we have left is a very individualistic society
    that follows the pros and cons of our institutions and beliefs.
    
    Abbey Hoffman held on to a dream that had no support from our society.
    So he perceived this as apathy, became depressed and decided not
    to be a part of the 'system'. 
    
    Of course the young people growing up in the 80's don't see the
    country as being apathetic, for they did not live in the 50's and
    60's, therefore cannot make a comparison.
    
    The 1990's will be a transitional decade where we may go back to
    a modified 1950's type decade. We do need the intensity and strong
    beliefs that was exhibited by the 60's decade. But it needs to be
    directed towards shaping our institutions and beliefs so that we
    all feel a sense of direction, of belonging. I believe that its
    happening right now, but because its not being done via pickets
    and demonstrations, it doesn't seem the same. People/issues get
    more attention when someone is against it, rather than for it. 
                                                              

    It is definitely a 'me-generation'.  It seems to me that before someone
    will do anything for anyone else they ask themselves "what's in it for
    me?" and/or "what's it gonna cost me?"
    
    I think that people don't really want to do anything for community or
    societal reasons because they don't feel that the community or the
    society are doing anything for them.
    
    The golden rule still exists, but now it is a little backwards.  Rather
    that stating 'do unto others as you would have them do to you' it
    states 'why should I do that for them, they wouldn't do it for me.'
    
    It is sad but true.  If would don't start changing things, and
    attempting to bring up a society (our children) who cares for one
    another, they world will not be a very nice place to live....
    
    Ellen

    
    A couple of triggered thoughts..
    
    I tend to think that in this case our perceptions may by
    somewhat different from the reality. I've heard in the last
    couple of months that americans are giving more than ever to
    charitable causes. Also, in small town america. volunteer
    work is strong and healthy, and much of it is church related.
    (No I can't prove the above, they are merely observations
    of friends and relatives.)
    
    Secondly, it should also be considered that with the two income
    household becoming somewhat the norm nowadays, time is an even more
    precious commodity. If our perception is that people don't care,
    perhaps it's because so many of us are so busy. 
    
    							Hank

    <-- re: .8  (just an aside on The Golden Rule)
    
    An acquaintance recently cited The Golden Rule as justification
    for an unpleasant action toward another person.  I asked her how
    she felt The Golden Rule fit in with what she'd done, and she replied,
    "Well, you know -- do unto others as they would do unto you".
    
    When I told her that The Golden Rule read "Do unto others _as_you_
    would_have_them do unto you", she was quite surprised.  The way
    she had understood it, she took it to mean "Screw them before they
    screw you".
    
    Indicative of the "'80's Attitude"?
    
                             ...Lisa V...
    

    	I tend to believe that the 60's "uprising" has merely lost some
    of it's steam.
    
    	There are still many people who care, and are working to improve
    the world - working in a different manner, no "Peace Marches" etc.,
    or not as many of them.
    
    	Yes, there are many who are too comfortable to care, there were
    many in the 60's too. But - in the 60's there was a certain fire
    as it were, and things are quieter now.
    
    	Social change has always been slow, and met with resistance,
    it gained some momentum in the 60's, and now it's quieted down,
    but it has not died.
    
    	I don't think the level of apathy today is adequate to justify
    suicide - and I think the suicide in this case was motivated by
    more personal issues rather than social. The suicide is a tragedy,
    as are all suicides, and Abby Hoffmann does leave a mark - he went
    all out, and he did make a difference.
    
    	Guy B.
    
    

         .....is....
         
         Sometimes they don't die soon enough.
         
         All causes breed martyrs. Martyrs are folks who have
         the courage, audacity, stupidity, [whatever] to throw
         themselves without caution or thought against the
         spears of the "enemy"....in Abbey's case....societal
         norms.
         
         Their *purpose* is to sacrifice themselves if necessary
         to further the cause...especially by *inciting* their
         followers to action, to *force* change to happen
         faster or to alter course.
         
         Their deaths are not particularly tragic in that
         context. On the other hand, if they do not die in
         a *timely* fashion, their lives often become travesties,
         petty scirmishes, lack-luster events that accentuate
         the hopelessness of real change. 
         
         I venture to guess that the real sorrow here is
         that he lived so long...to die now so far removed
         from his glory...rather than that he died.
         
         ---
         
         On the topic of apathy....
         
         I had a young woman working for me about a year ago.
         She was pretty, well-educated, intelligent [in a
         pure sense anyway], on the way *up*. 
         
         We had the occasion to be sitting together in a coffee
         shop and an evening newspaper was sitting spread
         out on the table with some such article about minority
         rights displayed in all its glory.
         
         She chuckled about the headline. Her comment ran
         something like:
         
         	What a big to-do about nothing. I don't
         	see any discrimination. Everybody gets
         	a chance to do whatever they want....
         
         You know, I just didn't have the energy to even *start*
         to respond.
         
         BUT...I *do* think the pendulum is starting a return
         swing. I think *our* generations kids are going to
         be the next generation to raise the roof [as it were].
         
         Maybe the cycle is unbreakable....children of rebels
         growing up to be rebels...children of the status-quo
         growing up to be that. 
         
         Or maybe even mor disturbingly....the pendulum is
         actually slowing down...with mediocrity as the center
         point?
         
         ??
         
         Melinda

    re: .9
    
         People may be giving more to charitable causes than before,
    but I think I heard a report which said that people are giving
    less money, as a percentage of the GNP, than before.
    
    ASP

    
    	I like that I heard the idea of people working on themselves
    more, in this generation. Perhaps that's where the energy is going,
    and thus hidden, merely appears like apathy toward global issues.
    
    	I hope the work that people are doing for themselves leads them
    to a sense of selflessness, which I guess is the opposite of
    selfishness. Somehow, I believe that's true. Maybe the next social
    change will be an intrinsic one!
    
    	But, it is obvious that there are the *greedy*, those who are
    quite 'apathetic' when it comes to the quality of life for everyone.
    They trully are in it to "take care of their own" or whatever, and
    will not be at all adversed to "screw the whole" in doing so.
    
    	Take for example the "fact of life" that's becoming accepted
    as a modern fashion; the two income household. Hey, I always thought
    that things were sposed to get better as time goes on, not WORSE!
    Yet, apparently, this fact is acceptable to most. Twice as much
    work for the same plot of land! Or people working so hard for their
    "space" that they dont really have time to live in it!
    
    	Yeah, the cost of mere social survival for some has exceeded their
    capabilities - why is the homeless count always on the rise? You
    have to be a *team* or a *corporation* in order to own anything, as
    the cost has been placed 'just outta reach' of even a generous single 
    salary. Now, why do you spose that is?
    
    	That's where I see a lot of apathy - people just accepting that
    "oh well, that's just the way it is, if you want to live and work here".
    What's any one person going to do about it anyway? Pay rent the
    rest of their lives?
    
    	Joe Jas                     
    

    	Maybe Abbey killed himself because his audience of the 60's
    got a bit tired of listening to him. 
    
    	When we (my age group) we're in our 20's in the 60's, it was
    said not to trust anyone over 30. Free Love, Free Spirit, good times,
    high times, peace, love. Indifference to the world around us. Then
    a cause, a march, a protest, a sit in. Things changed, minds opened,
    even older people became aware of "things". Then ....... Reality
    faced us. Could we live in communes, old shacks, volkswagen buses
    forever and continue this type of life into our 40's?? No. The us
    became me. I gave up comfort and familyfor what?? For the good of
    everyone, or so I thought. Even the 'establishment' benefited from
    all of the rebellion, and they still had all of the comforts, etc.
    So the "we" became "me". people just wanted a share of the pie that
    they went without. They found that they were creative and
    knowledgeable. Volvos and BMW's were the better built cars and not
    everyone had one. Things with tags became the necklaces, pins, banners,
    etc. that were worn in the 60's. We rebelled in sandals and flowery
    clothes, and long stringy hair, beards, moustaches and weird glasses.
    We rebel in Reeboks, Espirit, Sassoon, and Givency today. 
    
    	But......we're paying with Herpes, AIDS, and more drug abuse
    than ever. The Acidheads, dopers of the 60's have raised the Cokers
    and Crackers of today. Free love has inflicted millions with a price
    tag.
    
    	We never changed ....... we wrapped it in a different package.
    
    Ken

    Ask yourself, child of the 60s, what have I done to continue the
    work begun by Abb(e)y (how DID he spell his name?) and his kind?
    
    I'm a parent now -- did I instill in my children the values and
    the goals my generation shared when we marched for peace?
    
    I'm a voter now -- do I ACTIVELY support the candidates who stand
    for what I stand for?  If there are no such candidates, do I run
    for office myself?
    
    I'm a homeowner now (or for that matter, a renter) -- do I use
    resources conservatively?  Do I recycle anything and everything
    possible?  Am I concerned about leaving this plot of land, and the
    area around it, in better shape than when I became a tenant on it?
    
    I'm an employee now -- do I give my employer (who I chose because
    I respect the product/services we provide) my best effort in return
    for a fair wage?  Do I speak up when business practices begin to
    skew to the shoddy or the unethical?
    
    I'm an investor now -- do I choose my investments on the basis of
    whether they do good or harm to our world?  Or do I go for the big
    return, regardless of how much future generations will have to pay
    to clean up the mess?
    
    This list could go on.  But my point is that the activists of the
    60s have become the "solid citizens" of the 80s -- and if we've
    reared a bunch of apathetic kids, perhaps we should blame ourselves
    and not those kids.  But if we can answer positively to the scenarios
    I've painted above, then I'd be willing to bet that those kids are
    going to turn out to be fairly responsible citizens of this world
    themselves.  Because we've set a positive example for them.
    
    Does that mean that everything will be peachy keen?  Heavens, no.
    But I've personally witnessed too many good works on the part of
    today's young people to be convinced that it's time to give up and
    pull the plug.
    
    Karen
                                            

This 'apathy' note seems to be an interesting sequel to a recent
'selfishness' note - either here or in the MOANS notefile. Some 
of the replies here even discussed the 'Numero uno' (a.k.a. 'the
me, me, me' attitude) as part of the basic apathy theme.

I believe that apathy towards general values is but one outcome of
the 'me' attitude. I believe that we are moving, irrevocably and
inexorably, towards more and more of what Abbey apparently wanted
no part of. I believe that we all must learn to live with it, the
same way we have learned to live with the existence of pollution,
nuclear waste and punk rock (OK, OK, I'm just kidding). 

For completeness sake, I will repeat here the law of nature I defined
in my reply to the 'me generation' note: 

	In any closed system occupied by homo sapiens, positive
	interaction is inversely proportional to the number of
	specimens occupying the system. Further, in any such system,
	selfishness is on the increase. 

-- Ron

I'm disgusted.  The scenario .15 paints makes me want to throw up.  Sure, some
people traded in their conscious in for some selfishness, but like .16 said,
there are a lot of people working to instill what they learned in their kids.

RE: .17

If what you say is true, then we should convert the world back to a 'our home
town' scale of living.  Would that be good or bad or work?

Jim.

I have to say that I think the United States is not as good a place for human
beings today as it was in, say, 1971, the year I graduated from college.

In 1971, I (and many other women) were able to hitchhike around the country
without any trouble from men. The fact that we did it at all is amazing in
retrospect (some would say stupid), but we didn't suffer any damage.

Drugs were expensive then. Although I knew some people who wrecked their lives
on drugs, I didn't know any people who went crazy on crack and wrecked or ended
the lives of other people. (Crack, of course, wasn't around then.)

The United States wasn't nearly as crowded then. During Lyndon Johnson's term
as president, we had only 200 million people. Now we have, what, 240 million?

There weren't as many poor people then (if only because there weren't as many
people).

There wasn't as much plastic and paper and sheer junk.

And I don't think people were as cynical. Many Americans were genuinely
astonished at Richard Nixon's shenanigans. Today, they don't give a hoot about
political chicanery. Don't they realize that they're paying the bill for (to
take one example) Jim Wright's coziness with the S & Ls in Texas? 

No, they seem to like to pretend that this stuff doesn't really affect them. 
People have lost sight of the fact that, whether we like it or not, we ARE one
society. And we're all damaged by the greed of the upperclass and the
sickness of the underclass.

Vicki Meagher

    Keep it all in perspective, people.  The fact that Abbey committed
    suicide doesn't mean that the world is going to the dumps.  He may very
    well have had the type of personality which needs something to buck to
    be happy.  He may have felt that his only identity existed within a
    cause which he felt was bigger than himself.  Finding no cause around
    which to wrap justification for his existence - he checked out. His
    history seems to indicate this and God knows, there are many others out
    there like him. 
    
    Also, our society in general and the "me generation" in particular,
    do not have a monopolies on greed or selfishness. 

    Something to keep in mind: Societies are, like life, dynamic.  When we
    are not part of the process of change we will judge harshly those which
    are.  I've heard many people in this conference bemoaning the apathy of
    youth and society, saying we've become selfish material mongers clad in
    items of trademark status and inflated value. 

    Twenty-odd years ago the "establishment" was bemoaning the radical
    nature of youth and society, saying we're becoming anti-American dope
    mongers clad in unwashed rags and items of poverty status and zero
    value. 

    We think we're raising a generation of apathetics.  Our parents thought
    they were raising a generation of acid heads. 

    Sections of society fought for changes.  In the end they struggled
    against that which they have become.  And the cylce will continue ad
    nauseum or ad infinitum, which ever comes first. To quote some
    bald-headed wise man, "The only thing which doesn't change is change
    itself." 

    Back to Mr. Hoffman: 

    Don't try to make a modern day martyr out of Abbey, because whatever he
    had done in the past, and whatever changes he had wrought in our way of
    thinking, in the end he betrayed it all.  His final act of self
    destruction was, in my eyes, neither an expression of contempt nor an
    overblown political statement but rather the ultimate act of cowardice
    any human being can perform. 

    History has taught that heroes do not die by their own hand. 

    Kris 
    
                            

RE: .18

> RE: .17
>
> If what you say is true ... 

IMO, it is.

> ... then we should convert the world back to a 'our home town' scale
> of living.

Only if reduction of selfishness and 'me culture' is important
enough to warrant the cost of such a cultural change. 


>  Would that be good or bad or work?

Personally, I doubt it can be achieved. Within specific limits, it 
**will** work. Good or bad? Depends on your outlook of life.

-- Ron

I missed the sixties....  but I listen very carefully to people talking about
it...  

I notice that the people who say 'it's just part of a cycle' are those for whom
it was a cycle, and they are now steeped in materialism.  Other people I notice
feel that it was a very special time where there were important causes, and
people cared about how injustice affected other people.  The events of the
sixties still affect how they live their lives.

Sure, I think we are focusing more on individual causes, and I don't think
that's wrong, but some organization is still needed. 

I do have a feeling that Abbey definitely had a 'cause syndrome'... and maybe he
have nothing left to live for.  But I don't feel that belittles what he was.  I
think it is sad that he died, but I don't criticize him for it.

What do you think he *should* have/be done/doing?

Somehow I feel there's a link between replies here and in the 'innocence' note. 

Jim.

    
    RE: .20
    
    I believe the paraphrase should be "Strutting" and Fretting...
    
    "Struts and Frets his hour upon the stage
    and then is heard no more..."
    
    [For those who are scratching....Shakespeare..MacBeth speaking]
    
    Melinda

    Re: .22
    
    >I notice that the people who say 'it's just part of a cycle' are
    >those for whom it was a cycle,
    
    My favorite history text has the observation that, in the twentieth
    century, a liberal/progressive/whatever surge happens every thirty
    years or so -- it's happened in the 30s and in the 60s.  If this
    observation holds true, then we're due for another hit fairly soon.

It's one thing to say that an event is cyclical in nature, and quite another
thing to say, 'it's *just* part of the cycle'...

Jim.

    
<    My favorite history text has the observation that, in the twentieth
<    century, a liberal/progressive/whatever surge happens every thirty
<    years or so -- it's happened in the 30s and in the 60s.  If this
<    observation holds true, then we're due for another hit fairly soon.

Damn, and I threw away my striped hip-hugger bell-bottoms! liesl

    Suicide is the ultimate cop-out.  Whatever he saw as being that
    'wrong' that he no longer wanted to be a part of it, had he stayed
    around, just maybe he could have affected it.  Now he never will.
    
    We all reach burn-out.  When it happens we just have to pull inside
    and protect ourselves until we can regenerate the strength we need.
    It seems to take longer today to regenerate, but I'm 20 years older,
    too.  I don't remember life being as hard in the 60's as it is today.
    I participated back then, and I wasn't afraid -- of the places I
    went or the people I was with.  I participate today -- but I am afraid
    of a lot of the places I go, and I try not to go alone if I can
    help it.  But I still go.
    
    Last August I attended the 25th Anniversary of MLK's original march
    on Washington.  The first march had a feeling of 'together we can
    do anything.'  This one had a feeling (to me) of 'o.k., we're 25 years
    older, now what?'  And the answers weren't as good this time.  And
    there were too many vendors.  
    
    But I'll go back again.
                                
    

	 Hmmm...  An  awful  lot  of speculation on reasons, trying to make
    public  sense  out  of what is essentially a personal act.  I've read a
    number   of  stories  in  the  popular  and  alternative  press.   Some
    gleanings:

	 I believe  it  was his brother who said that Abbie was in constant
    pain  (and  becoming  addicted  to  painkillers)  from  a  recent  auto
    accident.
    
	 He was reportedly being treated for depression with Lithium.

	 In Paul  Krassner's  article  in _The Nation_, he remembered Abbie
    mentioning  how  many  pills  it would take to kill himself a couple of
    weeks before his suicide.

	 The overriding  thread  in most of the interviews with his friends
    was that he was in a bad place.

	 The most insidious view I've gotten from previous notes is that he
    had  failed  in  his  activist  role; nothing could be further from the
    truth.   From  his  activities in upstate NY while underground, through
    his arrest with Amy Carter, to the present day - he never gave up using
    his  considerable  talents  of  satire and organization to advance many
    progressive  causes.   He  was  a  staunch  ideologue,  a  professional
    rabblerouser  who,  in  my  opinion, should be counted a great success.
    The  only  lesson I could derive from his death is that people who give
    so much sometimes don't think enough about themselves...

	 JJRitz