One of the first thoughts I had for a cohesive line of jewelry was political. Not so much on it’s face – on the surface, it was cute even – but it was commenting on something in society very pointedly.* The most recent jewelry I have developed is political not just in its soul, but on its surface as well. See my Resist post for more on those specifics. I have had many other pieces come to mind that incorporate strong social-commentary.
It seems that I may have a specific interest developing.
I have been thinking about some of the ways that political jewelry works and how it plays in society at both the individual and interpersonal levels. While I approached this a bit dubious of the potential for strong impacts (mainly because I was so interested I was sure there was nothing to find) I now believe that there are very real benefits to what jewelry with a political message can do. Below, I’ll speak briefly about some of these. I’m still exploring this line of thought, and will likely be doing so for years to come, so I’m sure there will be future pieces that focus on refinements and deeper thoughts on all of this.
Primarily Personal Benefits:
Expression and Defiance
Right now, every day before I leave my house, I put on one of my Resist lapel pins, buttons, or necklaces. No matter which I choose to wear on a given day, the act of donning that little sliver of speech makes me feel a jolt of energy, of optimism, of strength. I literally feel a little more like I can face each day and do what is required of me when I put on a falsum. Part of it is because I’m declaring to the world that I have feelings on these matters our country is facing. Part is because standing up to authority, even in such a small way, still feels novel or taboo to me and the thrill of doing so is exhilarating. And certainly part of it is reaffirming, every day, that there are actions I can take that will make this world better. There is some piece of fear buried in there as well, because even such a small thing can definitely make one a target.
It may all be anecdotal at this point, but I’m over the idea that my feelings are unique to myself. They may be far from universal, but I’m not a special snowflake.
Supporting a Cause
By buying a piece of jewelry that advocates for a cause, a purchaser explicitly and implicitly supports that cause. This can be the primary reason for many kinds of purchases. When a product becomes, intentionally or otherwise, associated with a cause, it can be the cause that people are supporting with their cash more than even the desire to own the product. With something like jewelry and other durable goods, the remembrance of that initial support is rekindled every time the purchaser experiences that object. I don’t think this feeling of self-affirmation should be underemphasized. While it would be simplistic to call this selfish behavior, it is important to understand that there is a significant personal gain associated with the purchase and wearing of political jewelry. With jewelry in particular, this personal reward seems important.
Finding a Voice and Acceptance
Certainly every artist I know wants to create in a way that resonates, attracts, and speaks to at least some others. While this can, and often is, a purely aesthetic attraction, it is not limited to that. Political jewelry has the opportunity to appeal to wearers both on an aesthetic and activist level. Many items that classify as non-essential likely fall into this category. (Branded apparel, art objects, stickers, etc.) The idea that something resonates with a large crowd brings value to both the creator and the consumer. In cases, it can be the driving force behind the artist’s energy. Without the possibility of such a payoff, some artists surely would pursue different directions in life. But without art that resonates with them, many consumers would not pursue the world of artistic or designed products at all.
Primarily Interpersonal Benefits:
To use the language of online advertisers, wearing political jewelry can help surface content relevant to viewer’s interests. When someone sees another wearing an intriguing piece of jewelry that is either enigmatic or obviously aligned with particular views, the likelihood of a personal interaction between the viewer and the wearer likely increases. This can lead to viewers being introduced to new causes, new voices, and new perspectives. The wearer can similarly be exposed. In the most excellent circumstances, the two can both find new connections and friends.
Certainly I have had this experience multiple times of late due to my daily wear of the falsum jewelry.
Like it or not, we currently live in a capitalistic society. My personal beliefs on capitalism are complex, but we have a very deeply entrenched set of rules for how things are to be rewarded in our society. Part of that includes the exchange of money for just about everything. I think it’s easy to criticize creators for “capitalizing” on hard or tragic events, and surely it happens in inappropriate ways all the time. But apart from independant wealth, a creator has got to eat and, ideally, money for that food comes from selling the creator’s works. It always seems harder when there is a cause involved, especially one as big as the direction of the worlds most powerful country in the years and decades to come. But profiting off one’s creative work is an integral part of how our society currently works. I work really hard to be fair-to-generous when selling my political work, as do many others. People do tacky things sometimes, though.
Solidarity & Conformity
I’ve thought about this deeply and I think it’s best summarized simply. People are more likely to act when they know that they are not alone in their thoughts and feelings. Symbols, as potentially expressed in political jewelry, broadcast the wearer’s beliefs on certain subjects. The idea that others around you share similar thoughts and feelings can be very powerful. It gives us permission to believe the things we believe. It gives us strength to act. This, I think, is possibly the most important part of political jewelry. Wearing it and sharing it gives us strength. Strength makes it possible to act. Only action leads to change.
Additionally, when someone who is out of the loop sees the appearance of a new symbol or motif, whether they know what it means or not, it can put pressure on them to find out what it means and there is a certain social pressure toward believing the same concepts that is exerted.
These aspects and the way they interact are the most interesting concepts of the bunch to me and the one I’ve thought most about. Expect more on this soon.
Surely there are other ways that political jewelry plays with our psyches and societies, but I think this list is enough to convince me to embrace it further. I think that there is a lot of jewelry, a lot of messages, and a lot of study packed into this concept.
* I’m being cagey here only because, after years, I’m in active development on this and talking about current projects in specifics somehow lets the magic out for me. I’ll try to remember to link this post to the project announcement when it eventually comes.
One of the things I am most interested in is how we change minds. By this, I mean lasting, long-term change in attitude, not just a short-term, temporary persuasion. I think that there may be some overlap in technique, but my intuition tells me that these are vastly different activities with similarly different (and diverse) methods that must be brought to bear.
I have an enthusiastic hobbiest’s fascination with marketing and advertising which, I think, focuses much more on short-term change than what I am really interested in. However, I suspect that there is something to be learned by traditional marketing techniques, and newer techniques in particular. (Repetition, for instance, likely plays a role in both kinds of influence.) Since we are really just beginning to understand the psychology behind marketing techniques, there could be a wealth of knowledge around the corner. (That assumes that what we are learning ends up passing muster down the road, a substantial problem in the psychology field today.)
I have a lot of thoughts on the issue of changing minds in the long term, and I’ll mention them as they come up and my ideas on this matter refine. For now, I’ll just mention a few of the simpler ones.
Length and Depth of Engagement: I think that the amount of time and the depth of exposure to a potentially mind-changing point of view almost certainly influences its success. I imagine that a particularly traumatic experience may form lasting change, but outside of those unfortunate situations, regular, repeated exposure to an attitude, and more than a superficial understanding of that attitude is likely to be necessary for lasting change.
Willingness to Engage: This is really hard. I think it will forever be hard to change a mind that does not want to be changed. Or, put a different way, a completely closed mind is a static mind and a static mind, by definition, cannot be changed. I’m not much for absolutes, and that goes here as well, but “cannot be changed” and “exceedingly difficult to change” are nearly synonymous at this stage of our understanding of this topic.
Rewards for Engagement: Note that I say rewards for engagement here, not for actually changing of one’s mind which, if it happens, is probably it’s own reward in a way. (A more accurate/congruent sense of one’s beliefs, for instance, could be considered the reward.) I think that when looking at strategies for long-term changing of attitudes, rewarding the effort is likely to be at least somewhat important. I’m not sure exactly how this may play out, but instinctually, this feels like it has a place in the discussion.
I note that all three of the initial thoughts I mention above center around engagement with a new attitude. This is encouraging in a way because it means that there is some cohesiveness to my thoughts at this point. It is, however, discouraging because it’s the willingness to engage that I think is most lacking in our US society at present. I think I shall spend some time thinking about ways to prompt that engagement (and incorporating rewards for it, as mentioned above). A post is sure to follow.
I have a basic philosophy that comes up in conversation quite a bit. I find it very useful to understand how rights in a civil society could be balanced using a simple refrain. It goes like this:
My rights end where yours begin.
This statement, if applied universally to all, leads to much clearer boundaries between people in society. I like to imagine the sphere of rights afforded each of us as small bubbles, pressed together like an n-dimensional foam. We all butt up against others, and others us, but none of us intrudes upon one another.
So, while I have the right to believe that a golden monkey rules existence, I don’t have the right to force your belief (or appearance of belief) in the same.
I sometimes extend this further.
You have the right to believe in murder as a fun thing to do. You even have the right to commit murder, I suppose. But others have a right not be be murdered. Since exercising your desired right to murder would infringe other’s right not to be murdered, you aren’t allowed to kill people. You are allowed to believe it’s OK to do so, but you don’t get to actually do it. (This does lend a different moral perspective to the occasional, and usually sensational stories of willing victims of murder.)
So then things get complicated.
Which right is to be protected more, the right to murder or the right to live? The right to believe in a deity or the right to live without such encumbrances? The right to a basic, living wage or the right to vast sums of wealth?
It seems there is no answer to this without a sense of just what we consider basic human rights, enumerations of which have been plentiful over existence, but meaningful application in society always seems to fall short.
But if we can come to consensus on what protected rights should be, I think my concept is useful for better understanding the limits of an individual’s rights.