It seems the original ethos and even specific logos around the birth of a movement often gets subverted the more (uncritical) participants that become involved. Each member brings their own unique frame of reference and perceptive filter to the proceedings. The incremental shift (sometimes tumultuous, power-wresting, blood-spilling divergence…) gradually alters the landscape until well-meaning pioneers and originators look around them and exclaim in dismay – I’ve Created A Monster!!!
…Perhaps not that severe an example, but still…
The incredibly passionate people who drove the movement from it’s foundations look back in bitterness and some small portion of self-loathing to a creation that is different from anything they had envisaged.
In light of global economic collapse – Movements for This, Movements for That – should be seen for what some of them are: A knee-jerk reaction to a terrifying set of circumstances and individual occurrences (in terms of financial hardship) that cannot simply be viewed individually, but will definitely be seen collectively. Is the next guy “righter” just because he had another opinion?
Additionally, I’d really like to see an ANT (Actor Network Theory) take on the current economic situation. Trying to pair off the inputs of technology, society, individuals and their actions in a network will take some heady scholarship to accomplish – good luck you young, enthusiastic business school PhD student (with sociological leanings)!!!
When you sift through the screeds of data – economic, social, crazy crap – I’ll read your dissertation Matey Potatee.