Article When does being ‘apolitical’ become a political act?

[C C]

https://theconversation.com/when-does-be...aga-292217

EXCERPTS: Politics isn’t limited to government. In a more general sense, it refers to the relationships of power in society and between members of society, and efforts to change them. [...] Being apolitical is not the same as being “neutral” on political issues, especially in cases where significant injustice is taking place.

Some argue attempts at neutrality on such issues entrench, or at least permit, the injustice. [...] The Red Cross argues its political neutrality allows it to assist more people affected by conflict. On the other hand, mercenary soldiers – who are politically neutral and fight purely for wages – are generally seen as much less ethical. Many current conflicts in the world are fought by such soldiers.

[...] Is it unethical to be apolitical? Not always. Being apolitical is defensible based on some philosophical perspectives, but context matters... (MORE - missing details)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The problem with evaluating or judging apolitical, though, is that by necessity that is going to be conducted according to the criterion and preferences of a school of thought that is accordingly itself is not "a-".

[Yazata]

https://theconversation.com/when-does-be...aga-292217

Being apolitical is not the same as being “neutral” on political issues, especially in cases where significant injustice is taking place.

The problem in many/most cases is that there's little agreement about when "injustice" is occurring, what it is, or who is doing it to who. Justice and injustice aren't scientific quantities that can be measured with laboratory instruments. Ascriptions of justice or injustice are largely matters of intuition and may not be all that objective.

I guess that being "apolitical" is a refusal to be swept up and to define one's self as a culture-warrior. One might still have strong opinions on the relevant issues, hence it needn't mean "neutrality" exactly, but it indicates a reluctance to let one's opinions of the hot-button issues define one's social relationships.

Some argue attempts at neutrality on such issues entrench, or at least permit, the injustice.

Or maybe "neutrality" might suggest reluctance to become complicit with what may or may not be use of alleged ethical issues for political ends, to privilege the interests of this or that aggrieved special-interest group. Steering clear of that might be a good thing.

The Red Cross argues its political neutrality allows it to assist more people affected by conflict. On the other hand, mercenary soldiers – who are politically neutral and fight purely for wages – are generally seen as much less ethical. Many current conflicts in the world are fought by such soldiers.

I don't think that I would agree to a blanket condemnation of mercenary soldiers. Whether I would support them or not would depend on who is employing them and what cause they are fighting for. It really doesn't matter a whole lot to me whether individual soldiers are all bought-in on some great moral cause. Soldiers needn't all be jihadists. What matters is what they are actually doing out there on the battle field.

Is it unethical to be apolitical?

I'll say 'no'. Sometimes it's the best way to preserve friendly relations across the whole political spectrum and to preserve a broad inclusive sense of community. But political activists who want to mobilize as much of the public as possible to advance whatever their great moral crusade is, obviously won't like people who damnedly opt out and fail to play along.

[Syne]

Nowadays, criticizing the apolitical seems to be the bludgeon of the left, in a "if yer not wit us yer agin us" mentality. Many leftists view centrists or the apolitical as effectively MAGA Republicans. Seems to be part and parcel with the speed at which they try to drag the Overton Window leftward. The "middle" is constantly finding itself further and further to the right, simply in contrast to the how extremely far-left the left has gone. Essentially, if you're a centrist, they expect you to move to the left relative to them. If you haven't, you're MAGA.

[confused2]

The Red Cross remained neutral during WW2

https://www.icrc.org/en/document/icrc-wwii-holocaust

On 29 April 1942, the German Red Cross informed the ICRC that it would not communicate any information on "non-Aryan" detainees, and asked it to refrain from asking questions about them.
Information about the persecution inflicted on Jews did, however, filter out of Germany and the German-occupied countries, to reach the Allied governments, and some of this information also became known to the ICRC.
In the summer of 1942, the ICRC debated whether to launch a general appeal on violations of international humanitarian law. It prepared a draft, but decided in the end not to issue the appeal, believing that it would not achieve the desired results. The ICRC therefore continued with its [uncritical] bilateral approaches.

I tend to regard the Red Cross as complicit.

[Syne]

Appeasement is not neutrality.

[confused2]

Appeasement is not neutrality.

Good stock phrase but meaningless without context.
The context seen by the Red Cross was that anything but absolute neutrality would have undermined their ability to act in future conflicts - this is a value judgement not 'appeasement'. By chance I had a family member who would have been 'involved' with the Red Cross at he time .. we had one short conversation and never spoke to each other again.

[Magical Realist]

Is it unethical to be apolitical?

Not at all. Any more than it is unethical to be indifferent about any other hyped-up overmediated collectivist crap. Like the Superbowl or Christmas or Taylor Swift's wedding. In fact I believe it is more ethical NOT to be so political and obsessed with remote affairs that impact your life in no way. Quit living in empty abstractions and embrace what is truly yours.

“You always own the option of having no opinion. There is never any need to get worked up or to trouble your soul about things you can't control. These things are not asking to be judged by you. Leave them alone.” (Meditations 6.52,)

[Magical Realist]

"I wanted to read you a quote I really like. You know Jehnny Beth from Savages? I like her attitude, her music. I wrote this quote down a couple of weeks ago. She said in an interview, “Art doesn’t have to talk about politics to be political or to change the world. Artists are here to open us, to make us feel more in touch with others and connected and empathetic. That’s what art does.” I was like, Gee, I wish I’d said that. I wasn’t prepared for the Golden Lion in Venice at all. It was quite surprising, so I didn’t really have a speech prepared, but I had read this quote a few days earlier and I paraphrased it a little bit. So, I agree that everything is political in a sense, as Godard said. To not directly talk about politics does not mean something isn’t political. But for me, the political thing is to protect empathy in a way. The last time I saw Joe Strummer, it was like five weeks before we lost him. He was in New York. He walked me back to my home from a restaurant because I had the flu or something. He stopped at my door and looked me in the eye, and I’ll never, ever forget this. I repeated it recently. He said, “Jim, our job is to protect empathy at all costs, and to live groovy lives.” And then he left into the rain and he died five weeks later that summer. Next time I saw him was at his funeral in London in a coffin. I’ve been trying to live by that. “Protect empathy at all costs. And to live groovy lives.” I’m trying to do both. I’m trying to enjoy the strangeness of my life, but I am trying in my work to protect empathy."--Jim Jarmusch to Bilge Ebiri in Vulture

[Syne]

Appeasement is not neutrality.

Good stock phrase but meaningless without context.
The context seen by the Red Cross was that anything but absolute neutrality would have undermined their ability to act in future conflicts - this is a value judgement not 'appeasement'. By chance I had a family member who would have been 'involved' with the Red Cross at he time .. we had one short conversation and never spoke to each other again.

The result is that the Red Cross, operating in an area run by a dictator, cannot be trusted to report accurately, leading to prolonged human rights violations and deaths. Complicity, appeasement, enabling. Call it what you like.