Finding the Spark: Common Sense and a Little Fire's applicability to modern social movements.

A main question that I have been grappling with since about halfway through our text (Common Sense and a Little Fire, Orlek, 1995) is exactly how the four women in this book found the strength and conviction to fight for so long against such opposition.  The text explores their circumstances, and the particular hurdles and victories of each of their lives, but it left me wanting to know more about what fueled them in their fight.  What was it about their characters that allowed them to be so utterly committed?  Especially in the case of Fania Cohn, this commitment (specifically to the success of the education program within the International Ladys' Garment Workers Union) drove her to lead a solitary life, nearly void of leisure and completely void of romantic love.  All of the women involved in the Industrial Feminist movement were most likely moved to the point of physical action at one point or another; they marched in the streets and repetitively held strikes to force factory bosses to listen to them.  They organized at night, after a long shift at the factories and taking care of their families. So what exactly gave them the strength to do this? And what was different about their situations from modern situations in which the same types of injustices and oppression are still happening? And, most importantly, is it even possible for modern activists to replicate their success?

Now, I understand that times are different. The text spans from 1900 to 1965, with most of the militant actions focused in the earlier years of the chronology. The living and working conditions in an immigrant ghetto for a garment factory at the turn of the century were deplorable by today's standards. The political atmosphere, dealing with two World Wars and then McCarthyism, are also not exactly what we are currently facing in modern America.  But even so, are there not still injustices in society to be attended to? There is clearly still cause to take to the streets, as we saw with the Occupy movement in 2011, teacher's union strikes, the ongoing string of climate change protests, and other movements like immigrants' and  farmers' rights, current up to this week with the McDonnald's workers strike in Harrisburg, PA.  Clearly there are still things worth fighting for and groups of people who are motivated to strike, if only for a day.

Wait, the Harrisburg McDonnalds strike lasted only for a day? The Occupy Movement lost media attention rapidly and is still bleeding out? Where is the dedication of Fania Cohn and her sister organizers?  Perhaps their caliber of dedication lost to the past, and our generation of leaders can never hope to mimic those who were raised in foreign lands by Jewish families on the ideals of Socialism and Marxism. Or, is it we who have changed? Is it not a lack of dedication on the part of would-be revolutionary leaders, but rather our reticence as everyday American citizens to rise in solidarity? To be moved to emotion and action? To live with both eyes open to poverty and injustice, and strive to eradicate it?  I would argue that it falls to every single citizen to become as Fania Cohn was: though her family was relatively wealthy and she could have lived comfortably, she chose to be on the ground working to give voices to the women that had no agency to find their own.

Are these times really so different from the 1900s-1960s?  Immigrant rights and workers rights are still under attack.  Entry-level jobs and internships can demand exceedingly high hours for low (if any) pay, simply because of the stack of resumes a foot high that they can choose from.  We are living with the same sense of competition that the garment workers faced: if you cause too much trouble, or ask for better conditions or higher pay, you will be thrown out the door past the girls lining up to replace you. Complacency is keeping us in check. Work may be hell, but at least we have a job, right?  "I have no time to enjoy my books or my furniture, but without a paycheck I will lose my apartment."  "I have no time to spend with my children, but I would rather see them starving for attention rather than food." I think our reason for complacency has to do with the same sort of national politics that brought a close to the Industrial feminism Movement in the 1960s: much as the Red Scare and McCarthyism shut down any sort of social uprisings in the post-war era, modern America is still reeling from the Terrorism legacy of 9/11.  We have been taught to love our country more than ourselves, and that to sacrifice for "the good" of your country (as defined by those in economic and political power) is a sacrifice you should be willing to make.

So we are left again where Cohn, Schneiderman, Lemlich, and Newman were stymied.  Just as they had difficulty finding a leader to carry on their legacies amongst the new generation of female union members, we are still failing to rise to that challenge today.  I'm not arguing that there hasn't been progress made in the 50-some years since their deaths, but rather that it is time to re-define what makes America great. It should not be because we are slaves to a capitalist machine, but rather because of our citizens are leading contented lives.  We must realize that complacency is not enough, and that better conditions are still possible. We must bring ourselves out of the 21st century media-induced stupor, and go out into the streets to see what is really going on in our communities.  We must care about our neighbors and their welfare as much as we care about ours.  We must hold those four women as our standard, and deny our culture of fear and helplessness. We must choose action over complacency. We must denounce "barely getting by".