top of page
Search

Considering Compliance

Susan Loucks

Updated: Feb 13

Some years ago I visited a friend in Los Angeles and explored the city with her.  One of our stops was the Japanese-American National Museum, which was featuring a major exhibit on Japanese-American internment camps during World War II. I was struck most by the stories of Japanese-Americans who promoted cheerful acquiescence as the best strategy.  They packed their bags and left behind their livelihoods and property convincing themselves that would prove true loyalty to the government, and that this fealty would be ultimately rewarded. 

 

Before the current administration assumed power, I wrote a list – per Daniel Hunter’s guidance – trying to capture everything I was afraid would happen. I surprised myself by how much of my list had to do with normalizing:  I am afraid of becoming numb to gross human rights and environmental violations, of succumbing to an eroded sense of what I should reasonably expect from public servants, of buying in to pervasive meanness, fear, and self-interest as ways of relating to each other.

 

History is adamant, and I’m listening.  Compliance and normalizing doesn’t correct our course - only non-compliance.  I’m celebrating every federal employee that values the true meaning of their oath over hierarchy.   My own strategies for non-compliance are in development.  Of course, there’s straight-up protest, and I’m balancing that with engaging with alternatives to our problems that aren’t tied to current systems.  I’m trying to spend much more time researching other lessons from history.  I am convinced it will be important to share stories, pushing back on deceptively simple ones (for example, that a single actor is responsible for this situation) but also relentlessly recalling us to other ways we can work and be.






 
 
 

Commentaires


Sign up for my monthly newsletter!  Submit your email below.  

©2025

bottom of page