How I learned to stop worrying and love my isms.

When I visit a restaurant, my opening line to the waiter is usually 'Hi, I'm vegan. What do
you suggest?'

What I really mean when I say this is: 'Hi, I was just wondering...I don't eat meat and I don't
want anything with butter in it. Also, no milk or cream or cheese. No ghee either. You don't
use yoghurt in this, do you?...Did I mention the honey?'

Admittedly I'm occasionally still forced to deliver a lengthy explanation of a plant-based

diet, but as time goes by I find that simply stating my ism is the most efficient way of
getting something suitable to eat. Of course, this is largely due to the fact that most vegans
are proud of our ism, one which indicates a sustained ethical commitment to non-human
animals and the environment, and we can thus be relied upon to defend and define it
whenever necessary.

Some of my other isms, however, do not enjoy as much support.

For instance, if more of us anarchists were explicit about our views, 'futurists' like Belinda
Silbert would probably be less inclined to use the term in its derisive, adjectival form, as is
evident in Silbert's response to the Anonymous-affiliated 'Taking Back South Africa 2011'
campaign: "Who is truly behind all of this mischief-making? Who has such a vested
interest in unleashing anarchy? I do not think that this is the way forward in South Africa."
(http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article989003.ece/Rise-up-call-sparks-debate)

Then again, I can understand her uneasiness; 'Winds Change', the online persona
responsible for spreading the campaign, seems difficult to pin down politically, and the
admittedly captivating campaign videos (see, for example, http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=szoIo_uiO3A) are a bit longer on rhetoric and spectacle than they are on actual position.
Disregarding the unfortunate name – 'taking back' South Africa does carry the implication
that the campaign is addressing a group that previously 'had' South Africa and would like it
back again – it's not quite clear what the group wants: mild government reforms? More
effective policing? Community justice? Violent insurrection? Libertarian socialism? Racial
separatism?

While an ism could work wonders here, I'm not surprised by the campaign's decision to
occupy an ambiguous political terrain. After all, we are still – yes, still - living in the
postmodern age of anything goes relativism, an age where ideology is seen as some sort
of naive affliction and positions on anything more serious than consumer taste are best
kept secret lest we embarrass ourselves in intelligent company.

As the infamous manifesto of French leftist group 'The Invisible Committee' - better known
to the French police as The Tarnac 9 - puts it:

‘Today, Western imperialism is the imperialism of relativism, of the “it all depends on your
point of view”; it’s the eye-rolling or the wounded indignation at anyone who’s stupid,
primitive or presumptuous enough to still believe in something, to affirm anything at all.’
− The Coming Insurrection (http://tarnac9.wordpress.com/texts/the-coming-
insurrection)

The irony of this – and the endless capacity for irony is the bland plat du jour of
postmodernity – is that this aversion to isms, because it doesn't happen in a socio-political
vacuum, amounts to a silent acceptance of the dominant isms. By not defining ourselves in
opposition to the reigning economic order for example (that one where we're pitted against
each other in some kind of perversely imbalanced real life rendition of Darwin's Monopoly),
we're saying that we adhere to capitalism. By shrugging our shoulders in order to defer
decision-making to a small bunch of elected officials, we're silently agreeing with the
premises of statism. If you eat a meat-centric diet, you're practising carnism - the
appellation fits regardless of whether or not you've chosen to wear it.

It seems odd then that we so averse to admitting to our isms, especially odd given that
prominent linguists like Zellig Harris have demonstrated their natural historical emergence.
(Simply put, if a bunch of people are all describing kind of the same thing using phrases
consisting of mostly the same words, a shiny new word usually emerges to summarise
these descriptions.)

Why such reticence?

On the one hand, history is replete with examples of the danger of falling behind an ism, a
danger The Invisible Committee is all too aware of:

'Of course, this imperialism of the relative finds a suitable enemy in every empty
dogmatism, in whatever form of Marxist-Leninism, Salifism, or Neo-Nazism: anyone who,
like Westerners, mistakes provocation for affirmation.'

On the other hand, perhaps our kneejerk reactions to any and all isms are subtle
symptoms of consumer capitalism. As consumers we have become conditioned to accept
the dictates of advertisers and biased media corporations. We're used to being told,
unique snowflakes that we are, what each of our isms are, as well as the speed at which
we're to disabuse ourselves of them – how rapidly each and every taste, affinity, or even
political perspective should be subject to change based on the whims of, depending on
how you see it, markets, neo-imperialists and/or other coercive forces.

Additionally, we have, probably fortunately, cultivated something of an incredulity towards

grand narratives and totalizing systems. We're pretty certain that no set of simple isms can
ever wholly capture our respective idiosyncrasies, our nuances of position, our slight
deviations from altogether questionable 'norms'.

In my mind, however, none of this necessitates a wholesale abandonment of isms.

Instead, all that seems to be required is the adoption of a specific kind of sceptical,
cautious attitude. Armed with this, there's no reason why we cannot or should not continue
to use isms strategically in order to be able to efficiently convey information and share our
affinities and desires with each other; if this works at a restaurant, surely it can work just as
well in more important aspects of our lives.

In other words, if you share some of the ambitions of Winds Change and other
revolutionists or reformists of undefined political affiliation, perhaps it might help to explore,
however timidly, one or two isms. This doesn't have to mean toeing a party line, signing a
pact in blood or resigning yourself to wild-eyed zealousness; more often than not, in fact,
it's just about having the tenacity to be consistently explicit about your views - to be the
token anarchist at the birthday party or the token vegan at the braai. In return, you'll have
the benefits of clarity, the ability to more easily locate people you can work together with to
effect meaningful change, and the opportunity to grow and refine your ism. After all, the
best isms, like anarchism, are those that evolve.

In case you're struggling to find an ism that feels just right to replace your default
adherence to kakistocracy (government by the worst), here are a hundred or so to get you
started: http://phrontistery.info/govern.html

“Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to
side with the powerful, not to be neutral.” - Paulo Freire