Where Narcissism Rules

On a recent broadcast of “Real Time with Bill Maher,” America’s perennially cynical libertarian launched into a diatribe protesting the recent phenomenon of lactivism. Yes, lactivism.

Recently a woman breast-feeding at a Kentucky Applebee’s was told not to leave in order to breast-feed—talk about “eating good in the neighborhood”—but merely to cover up the twins. What unfurled after that was the first-ever national “nurse-in” at that local Applebee’s to protest the allegedly outrageous actions of the store manager.

Despite Maher’s distasteful remarks—that “there is a place where food and breasts do go together: Hooters”—he offers a grain of truth about what the nurse-in represents. This form of activism and others like it illustrate “how activism has become narcissism.”

Maher is right. Too often activism does become narcissism. At its very core, activism is meant to bring about social and political change. Our country’s greatest activists have focused on the issues, not themselves—people like Susan B. Anthony or Martin Luther King, Jr. Now it’s hard to tell whether purported activists are championing their causes or themselves.

After calling the Rutgers women’s basketball team “nappy-headed hos,” shock jock Don Imus quickly found himself embroiled in scandal. Despite Imus’ profuse apology, Reverend Al Sharpton didn’t seem keen on hearing any explanation. Appearing on everything from Larry King Live to Fox News, Sharpton mounted his crusade against Imus’ language. Suddenly, just as the nation was trying to digest and debate the event, we were bombarded by a din of nonsense from a man who enjoys the sound of his own voice.

More recently the liberal think-tank MoveOn.org took out a full-page ad in “The New York Times” denouncing a report on the state of Iraq from General David Petraeus. Under the pretense of political action readers of the paper were treated to the bold proclamation: “General Petraeus or General Betray Us.” Despite the hard facts under the headline about the state of Iraq, MoveOn.org only succeeded in shifting attention away from the military report and onto the think-tank itself.

At Harvard, even if our brand of activism doesn’t carry the same clout as that of Sharpton or MoveOn.org, we should think about whether or not we are effectively championing our beliefs. Groups ranging from Harvard Right to Life (and its dreaming fetus posters) to Stand for Security (hunger strike, anyone?) have been accused of organizing unnecessarily contentious campaigns. Proponents of either group would argue that is the most effective way to draw the limelight to any issue or cause—and to an extent that is correct.

But there is a fine line between this recent spate of narcissist activism and real activism that seeks to change the world. Since our impact on a larger, national scale is minimal, I’d like to believe that all of our campus activists haven’t become afflicted with the now-common inflated sense of self. And despite the problems, our campus also has some examples of provocative, but effective, campaigning.

Earlier this term when a number of students from the Harvard AIDS Coalition donned “HIV Positive” shirts around campus, it was a sight that could have sent former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist into a state of panic. And it also sparked a campus-wide debate about the merits of wearing such a controversial slogan.

Like the MoveOn.org ad, the shirts were “edgy,” but not to the point of egotism. At the heart of the stunt was not a desire to intentionally polarize the student body, but to spark reasoned debate. And so long as campus activists remember that their purpose is to promote a cause, not themselves, we should be able to avoid the worst instances of thunder-stealing.

Jessica C. Coggins ’08, a Crimson arts editor, is an English and American literature and languages concentrator in Cabot House.