Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Wemaking
Wemaking
Wemaking
Wemaking
Wemaking
Wemaking
Wemaking
Wemaking
Wemaking
Wemaking
Wemaking
Wemaking
Wemaking
Wemaking
Wemaking
Wemaking
Wemaking
Wemaking
Wemaking
Wemaking
Wemaking
Wemaking
Wemaking
Wemaking
Wemaking
Wemaking
Wemaking
Wemaking
Wemaking
Wemaking
Wemaking
Wemaking
Wemaking
Wemaking
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Wemaking

208

Published on

Published in: News & Politics
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
208
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. We-making Daniel Vaarik
  • 2. Who are “we”?
  • 3. Every definition of “we” changes the world Humans Old people Parents Startuppers Etc etc etc
  • 4. We-making is always they-making The creation of “them” is vital for making “us”
  • 5. Some “we’s” and “they’s” are fairly new Generations Nations Car owners
  • 6. In Spring 2010. Theatre NO99 created an experiment.
  • 7. An audience member was asked to come to an empty stage.
  • 8. People were encouraged to join her. “Because she is so lonely down there!”
  • 9. People started coming to the stage to support her.
  • 10. Soon many people filled the stage.
  • 11. But not everyone left the seats.
  • 12. And even after being asked many times, some people never went to stage. Suddenly there were “we” and “they”. The audience was polarized.
  • 13. Unfortunately... ... polarization is also a main mechanism of making sense of the world… ...it is also the easiest way to get votes in politics
  • 14. “If you came from the planet Mars, it would have been harder to make distinctions between the new guard and the old. But you could tell that the new ones were happier, they wore Baltman ties. The old ones were sad and angry, they had monochrome ties from the Leningrad trouser-factory number 3”. 
 
 (Daniel Vaarik, “Praktikaaruanne”, 2012). I’ve been polarizing too
  • 15. Absolute “we” is impossible … since “we” always requires “them”... ... since without different viewpoints the world as we know it, would end. !
  • 16. “We”/“They” creates suspicion Who are these strange “they”? Are some of the “they” among us? Is this person perhaps an agent of the “they”?
  • 17. Violence can secure the “we” “Violence gives some form of certainty ...” (Arjun Appadurai, Fear of Small Numbers)
  • 18. Minor differences as major anger points In fact, minor differences can become the least acceptable ones. How dare you come between us while we are ALMOST “we” now?
  • 19. Animals as “we” Swans are seen as part of natural “we” in Estonian media. Cormorans are seen as intruding “they.
  • 20. Jokes as symbolic violence upon “them” nationalities gays
  • 21. Government and “we” Official “We” becomes destiny !
  • 22. How nations define “we” Ethnic Multiethnic
  • 23. “Estonian Russians or Putin’s”?
  • 24. Bringing the “we” together Push: military, money, legal stuff Pull: soft power, culture, inspiration
  • 25. Maintaining the “we” Not so much what is said, but how it is said
  • 26. Avoid final polarization Don’t say that: “who is not with us, is our enemy” Learn to stop the radicalization cycles
  • 27. Mandela: a master of soft power or a pussy?
  • 28. Symbolics of “we” If apology, then pure If monument, then beautiful and inclusive
  • 29. Silent gradualism of “we” Role models Everyday practice
  • 30. that every “we“ is imaginary In the end, remember…
  • 31. We can imagine very different “we’s”
  • 32. Thanks.

×