On equivalent pay and chance, on sexual assault, on reproductive rights, on respect. We require to be remembered for our passion and function, not our pink pussycat hats. I'm all for clear messaging. It's real that on the ground, the march was quite woolly (pun intended) in terms of what it represented.
However is it helpful to set up an opposition between artistic action that, Dvorak appears to confess, "draws in more people" and the effort of combining a "major message?" With whom are you combining that severe message with if not with the individuals who are drawn in by the more abstract and poetic one? Here is Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, replying to a wave of lefter-than-thou online commentary charging the Women's March with not being radical enough: The scale of the attack [from the Trump administration] is as deep as it is broad, and this implies that we will need a mass motion to face it.
We need to welcome those individuals and stop the conceited and moralistic chastising of anybody who is not as "woke". So. It's just a few days into the Trump presidency, and you can see that it's going to be a scary program. With so Related Source Here of blows drizzling down, keeping an even keel is not going to be easy.
The threat of this mindset is that it enforces atomization and seclusion, that you end up being blind to the signs that new individuals are using to discover each other, which by definition originated from brand-new places. Critique can easily become its own bubble, as eliminated from the symbolism that in fact moves individuals's lives as those analysts on Early morning Joe: "ha ha ha pink hats," instead of "ha ha ha ball caps." "We do not understand the effects of what we put out there.