. After India’s Chief Justice referred to unemployed young people as “cockroaches,” young activists turned the insult into a political identity. What began as online satire became a youth-led movement culminating in the eventual resignation of India’s education minister. The name Cockroaches itself is deliberately ridiculous, even self-deprecating. But that is part of its appeal. Students turned an insult into a form of solidarity, however limited. Reuters reported that its founder was still undecided about whether to create a formal party.
There are some striking parallels with Serbia. Both movements were driven by young people who felt excluded from established political institutions; both have used digital communication to organize and spread their message; both have resisted being absorbed into conventional parties and politics.
Both movements also challenged conventional ideas of political leadership. In Serbia, the refusal to identify a single leader or allow established politicians to take ownership of the movement was a source of strength. In India, the Cockroach movement demonstrated how a seemingly ridiculous identity could become a powerful organizing device without relying on a single charismatic person.
The question, of course, is what happens next. What happens to intense, highly visible political movements when there are no institutions capable of sustaining them? Can a movement create institutions without becoming the kind of institution it originally set out to challenge?
As Jäger admits: “The corrective to our hyperpolitical impasse…of drawing atomized individuals back into parties and unions may seem nostalgic, authoritarian, or simply unrealistic.” Indeed, he understands that “Even the most hardened reactionary must accept by now that no amount of railing against the legacy of 1968 and postmodern hedonism will inspire the youth to unplug their consoles and start attending church in formal wear on Sunday.
No comments:
Post a Comment