Radicalism

This is in direct relation to my last entry, as radicalism is a common result of inflammatory rhetoric. Radicalism is a very tricky thing, particularly when asking the questions of what constitutes it, and when, if at all, it is called for. I've heard two main takes on radicalism, which are quite plainly; for and against. Some say that it is simply those taking the necessary action that will bring about the desired results that can't be achieved through other means perceived as insignificant or ineffective. Those that ascribe to this philosophy see their particular cause as one that has reached a stage where the only way they can see significant change being achieved is through drastic means. Then there are those who believe that any form of radicalism is delegitimizing to the cause. They see means of such a nature as doing more harm than help and only as a detriment to the stated purpose. Personally I believe that whether or not "radicalism" is called for, should be entirely determined based on a case by case inspection. Of course the question of what radicalism even is needs to be asked. What one might consider to be drastic, might be perceived as completely tame to another, making perspective once again a crucial factor. Many feel the title of radicalism should be saved until the threshold of physical violence and destruction has been crossed, but others would say ideas or even simply words can be deserving of the title of extremist in nature. My view is that it all comes down to one thing; does the action amount to something that will change a mind. A simplistic definition of course, but more significant and encompassing when one applies it to various instances of acts accused of being radical. Violence changes minds. It can inspire either disdain or invigoration depending on the worldview of the individual seeing it. Ideas change minds. Personally, after reading or viewing some new material, the new perspective immediately alters my perception of the circumstance in question. Words change minds. Even just a simple short poem or essay can be incredibly powerful, having the ability to inspire further actions that can lead to an unimaginable alteration of a particular individual, populace, or even the world. Radicalism is often seen as the result of desperation. It is sometimes said to be the act of an animal that's been backed into a corner, a last resort of sorts and an indicator of dying momentum, but I wouldn't say that's always the case. I'd go so far to say that it is often a strategy employed by those who see that at this point in their pursuit of a goal, a flashpoint move is called for to reinvigorate the prospects of success. So in that context, it wouldn't be a last series of death throws of a doomed endeavor, but a means to finally achieve the goals that were originally set out for. No matter what the context of radicalism might be, the perception of the particular act might arguably be the most crucial factor to consider before taking any sort of action. The fight for independence in Ireland is consistently associated with visuals of cars exploding into buildings, causing sympathy for the cause to plummet. The desire for the end of US military presence in the middle east is forever intrinsically bound with visuals of planes crashing into those towers, reducing them to rubble and making the expression of that sentiment largely tied with reprehensible acts of violence and destruction. In those instances, I would unequivocally say that the acts of extremism were undoubtedly also acts of cowardice and desperation. "Radical", "extremist", "fanatical", these words have been the death knoll of many efforts that might have been otherwise noble in nature and resulted in progress. These are causes that never came to fruition because the means attempted in order to achieve them were outright rejected by the general population due to the perception that they violated moral lines that designate the vice or virtue in any particular goal. That's the key issue surrounding radicalism; it doesn't matter how noble your ends might be, if the means don't fall in line with what is deemed to be acceptable, you likely won't see the results you desire, and even if they do come about, they will be detested for the process that led to them. However, there have also been many instances of radicalism having positive results. These, however, were acts of radicalism of a different nature. The words of Doctor Martin Luther King Jr. were called radical, the actions of Rosa Parks and those who partook in the Montgomery Bus Boycott were called radical, but resulted in the invigoration of the civil rights movement. Ultimately, selectivity is key. Not only in what is done, said, or otherwise accomplished, but in the way in which the results are attained.