The way the Finnish press conducts itself is horrible. They insist on a binary, and neutral reading of events and to hear from all sides (presenting victims and perpetrator as equals). This is rooted in an ideal or condition where strong civil society associations, advocacy groups, and working groups maintain capacity to respond to inaccurate claims or flawed reporting.
For example, if a mainstream media article questioned the effectiveness of an independent organization, that organization could make a convincing public case defending their work. The reader could decide the truth. Mainstream media operates, and news legitimize themselves (as something which inform decisions) by the premise that ideas circulating in a neutral public sphere will be sorted out fairly.
Mainstream media monopolization and austerity politics have made this an impossibility.
Today, the one of the few domains where people feel they have power, is in defining language and representation. This is often dismissed as the realm of identity politics and therefore treated as secondary or even hindering efforts in building power within movements. There are valid reasons to move beyond identity politics, language or tone policing. But it should be acknowledged that people became picky with words, because they could not project power in other ways.
Communities can still gain something from shared norms regarding language and tones.
A lot of communist&anarchist literature and discourse is shaped by concepts expressed with military terminology. This is understandable: many historical progressive leaders participated in armed struggles or served in the conscript armies for different empires. They drew upon those experiences when organizing against opression.
In Finland today, we are far removed from this tradition. Which is why the use of military language, concepts, and metaphors creates a hindering imbalance. We proceed to invite into our spaces forms of specialization which we do not actually possess. We speak of maneuvers, fronts, and strategy, but we lack the practical experience behind the concepts.
Our strengths lie elsewhere.
Working with diverse communities… Which do not share an understanding to, for example where the “frontline” in taking action against fascism is, is frustrating. But it also is a real asset we already posses. Communities have their own lived experiences, and perspectives. So, if we frame our thought with military concepts: we cannot convincingly engage and become defined by people for whom violence is a profession. This is simply because we don’t possess that culture nor those skills.
It would not be beneficial to develop such capabilities. Institutions dedicated to training violence teach these skills far more effectively than any democratic movement. Imitating them would put us in an awkward stance.
Using language emphasizing conflict, or dialectics will invite people to take adversarial stances. This takes a lot of work to maintain and may support specialized groups but can’t be culture. When others are presented as enemies and tensions are described as battles, this can create unnecessary stress. The stress can be reduced by deploying vocabulary which feels more familiar, and comfortable to us. Using such language can support more sustainable ways of organizing.
This is the best lesson The Game of War (2010 by ClassWargames brings . The fancy language and elegant delivery pushes us away, to discovering our own advantages.