Sinclair argues that the demonstration is rather an ineffective means of revolution. At first, this revelation is rather startling. Sinclair is openly refuting the very methodology which any “student of protest” has come to revere. We have been taught that the demonstration is the most effectively peaceful means of obtaining a solution or solutions, and yet, Sinclair refutes this assumption; our revolutionary education. It is not that Sinclair is, necessarily, calling for a more violent means of overcoming oppression (though, at times, it may seem that he is). Here, it is important to remember that he advocates taking over the “Man’s” media, rather than destroying it. The absence of violence, or high energy, is not what he finds problematic in light of the demonstration. Rather, Sinclair suggests cultural revolution; a revolution which is inextricably linked to lifestyle. One must live revolution in daily life. The demonstration doesn’t allow for the development of an “alternative life context.”
I mean living in a revolutionary way is what is finally a threat to the established order, and that’s what’s finally going to make the difference…Now the good aspect of demonstrations is that they get a lot of people together and, hopefully, unite them around one issue, at least momentarily. But that’s as far as they go. After the demonstration, everyone goes back to their individual rooms with their one roomate, and goes to classes and watches television, consuming, sitting around waiting for the next demonstration to happen. It doesn’t provide an alternative life context for people who want something different” (Sinclair 176)
On the other hand, Sinclair is not emphasizing something entirely chaotic. He may be suggesting a recourse to “high energy,” but it should not be mistaken for attempts to demolish everything which existed previously. To an extent, as previously suggested, Sinclair is suggesting something very similar to what Deleuze and Guattari emphasize in A Thousand Plateaus. Sometimes working within the strata is the most effective means of subverting the power structure. Sinclair suggests taking over the radio stations and the literature. The media forms are not the Man’s media forms, just forms that are used to express the Man’s message. If the message changes, Sinclair asserts, then the media changes (See pages 109-113).
Another provocative parallel arises between Sinclair’s work and that of Kunstler in Geography of Nowhere. Sinclair suggests that the revolution requires thorough consideration and planning. If Kunstler’s geographies can be considered revolutionary in that they refute the typical disregard for space and human interaction, than they are an important point of consideration. Throughout Geography of Nowhere, Kunstler continually references the importance of planning. In the case of Portland, Oregon, Kunstler suggests that certain ordinances were developed with the future in mind. To control growth, the city planners developed several integral restrictions. These restrictions barred growth outside of certain areas, prohibited unnecessary increases in parking space, and limited the height of buildings. Similarly, Sinclair seems to be arguing against a certain spontaneity which is often inaccurately associated with effective revolutions. Sinclair advocates that people understand the problems, research, develop centers for the dispersement of knowledge, and, most importantly, live that which they feel is right or good. To live something instead of momentarily demonstrating something is, obviously, much more significant. Living something insists that one understand the cause and plan for the future.
