Can Counterculture Go Too Far?
February 2, 2017
In light of recent events, I’d like to make a blog post reflecting on and discussing counterculture and Guy Debord’s The Society of the Spectacle through the lens of the Milo Yiannopoulos protest that happened here at UC Berkeley last night.
My thoughts are pretty fragmented and disjointed right now, since I’m still struggling to piece together and process everything that happened on Sproul and the streets of Downtown Berkeley at the moment. It’s hard to gain a well rounded, objective understanding of the events that transpired last night simply because most sources that have been reporting on the event are pretty biased. This is an extremely politically charged event and statement from the UC Berkeley campus after all, (and occurring during a time of such political tension and turmoil) so the reports on the event have already been used to further certain people’s political agendas. I hope that by the end of this post, I will have been able to gather all my thoughts together and synthesize a clear conclusion out of all of the chaos that occurred last night.
First, a recap of the events that occurred last night. Milo Yiannopoulos, an alt-right speaker, was scheduled to come and speak on campus by the Berkeley College Republicans. Many students at UC Berkeley did not want Milo’s presence on campus, and denounced his hate speech and extreme viewpoints. Thus, they decided to hold a peaceful protest in order to express their discontent with the speaker coming to campus. The protest was successful in that Milo’s event was cancelled–however, it did not disperse after the cancellation was announced and turned into a celebration of sorts. Things escalated when a small group of extremists–the Antifa–grew violent and began to smash windows of school property as well as banks in Downtown Berkeley. The event was pretty well documented, as there were multiple livestreams from a variety of sources, although protesters could be heard telling camera operators to stop filming the rioters’ faces and actions.
This protest can be interpreted as an example of counterculture: people coming together to try and create a space where they can express their countercultural beliefs openly and freely. However, I think that it was about more than simply disagreeing with Milo’s viewpoints and his way of expressing them. Milo seemed to represent something greater that night–perhaps the extremist political ideology and culture that has overtaken this nation with Trump’s presidency. There was a lot of pent up anger and tension in the air as students gathered to express their discontent. However, it was all relatively peaceful in the beginning. Students were voicing their concerns, but no one was inciting violence. I think that one of the most important things in a counterculture should be the lack of violence–it should be a peaceful voicing of dissent by a group of people.
From the footage I saw, it looked like students were the ones peacefully protesting, while a small group of people dressed in all black with masks covering their faces were doing most of the damage–breaking windows, vandalizing property, dumping trash into the streets and lighting it on fire, looting a local Starbucks. I strongly disagree with the actions of the rioters–the Antifas–who decided to take advantage of the large number of student protesters that could act as a shield for the Antifas. They knew that they could remain faceless in the crowd, and this anonymity allowed them to get away with creating chaos in the streets of Downtown Berkeley. Those on the alt-right side are pointing to this event as an example of the fact that “liberals are crazy and dangerous” and even Trump has tweeted threatening to cut UC Berkeley’s federal funding. This violence incited by the Antifas has created so much controversy over an initially peaceful protest, and has tarnished UC Berkeley’s reputation.
Yet I would also like to consider this violence from a different angle. Because what are you supposed to do if your message falls on deaf ears? What are you supposed to do when all of your peaceful protests fail to bring about change? People become angry when they feel their voices aren’t being heard. So perhaps that is the reasoning behind the Antifa’s violent actions. However, I still think that this violence simply makes everything worse. I understand that people may be frustrated, but that does not excuse extreme violence and unnecessary destruction of property. This is simply fighting fire with fire, and it does nothing but cause more pain and destruction.
As I watched the livestreams last night (February 1, 2017), I was struck by how much I was reminded of Guy Debord’s The Society of the Spectacle. There were so many people standing around, simply watching, recording, or taking pictures of the incident. And so many more, including myself, sat at home and watched the events unfold. We live in a world today where most people are content to simply sit around and do nothing, even when there are so many problems and so much tragedy in the world. As I sat on my bed, mouth agape with horror at what I saw on my screen, I couldn’t help but feel useless. I watched my school, my city, my people get destroyed, ransacked, and beaten, while I sat there simply watching.
Perhaps my own inaction was just as bad as, or even worse than those who at least decided to take action themselves. Because by sitting at home and watching, I am complacent in what is happening. I condone what is happening since I do not stand up and actively resist. Perhaps the cowardly nature of today’s society will be all of our downfall–our lack of action, even when we see something that we know is unacceptable, will be the reason we fail in the end. Yet again, I am compelled to think about the other side of it. Because even if I had gotten up, if I had somehow taken up arms against the rioting, would I really have been able to make a difference? Or would I just be putting myself in the face of unnecessary danger? Perhaps what we really needed was for the peaceful protesters to band together, for the majority to work together to accomplish what they know is right and to shut down the rioters.
I am afraid–afraid for what this means for UC Berkeley, afraid for what this means for liberals, and afraid for what this means for our country. If we as a country are so fragmented, so divided, that riots over a guest speaker can happen in the very place where the Free Speech Movement was created, I don’t know what we can do or how we can move forward. America is a country that was founded on freedom of speech and expression. While the protesters had the right to express their views by protesting Milo’s guest appearance, Milo himself also had the right to speak and express his beliefs. Neither of these rights should be taken away. In the end, I think that the protest simply got out of hand. For now, I believe that most of the fault lies in the hands of the Antifas that created this violent protest where there was no need and no want for one. I simply hope that this fact will not be overlooked in the media, and that UC Berkeley will not be seen as an extremist, leftist campus with no regard for freedom of speech. That’s not what UC Berkeley stands for, and that is not who we as students are.
