Intellectualizing Activism
(Author’s note: Apologies for yet another long pause between posts. The news and discourse has been filled with wall-to-wall coverage of the Israel/Hamas war, so I haven’t had much else to write about for quite some time. I might write a longer post about Israel/Palestine soon, especially in the wake of the ongoing ceasefire and hostage exchange, but for now, this is what you’ll be getting.)
A few days ago, as of my writing this post, I was scrolling through my Facebook feed and saw that a cousin of mine—who, for context, is a dedicated Marxist activist—had posted about some activism that they had recently partook in, with the goal of drawing attention to the genocide (their words, not mine) in the Israel/Hamas war. Specifically, they and other activists disrupted the lighting of a Christmas tree in their community—conducting business as usual, they reasoned, was immoral while a genocide is taking place.
This led me to think of the climate activists I’ve been hearing about on the news for the past year or so—the ones who splash paint all over precious works of art, or block roadways. Similar to disrupting a Christmas tree lighting, these acts are meant to draw attention to the issue in question. That said, I question whether the empirical effects of these tactics are productive in any way to achieving the goals they claim to strive for, and at the risk of coming across as a smug armchair activist, I figured I’d put my thoughts down in writing.
As far as I see it, activism of this sort—public actions that are staged with the goal of drawing public attention to, and making change in, a social/political issue—is truly effective when it achieves three things:
Calling attention to a social ill that needs addressing.
Putting pressure on and disrupting those in power who choose to perpetuate that social ill.
And changing the hearts and minds of the public in a way that benefits the cause being promoted (thus putting even more pressure on those with the power to affect change).
Activism can be fairly effective while missing the mark on the second or third objectives, but it’s most effective when it achieves all three, and the first objective is, of course, the prerequisite that’s required for effectiveness. A great example of truly effective activism took place during the civil rights era, when black activists engaged in sit-ins—they would walk into whites-only establishments, such as restaurants and bars, and sit waiting for the service that they were owed until either they were arrested, or the white owners or employees caved to their demands. This tactic beautifully achieved all three objectives—by simply attempting to exercise the same civil rights that their white contemporaries took for granted, black sit-in activists called attention to the social ills of racism, put pressure on the white business owners who chose to engage in or enable discrimination, and—especially through their commitment to non-violence—helped show the broader public that there was no rational or humane reason for such discriminatory practices to exist.
Compare that to something like disrupting a Christmas tree lighting, blocking a roadway, or ruining a valuable work of art. While those actions may (sort of, technically) call attention to the issues of Israel/Palestine or climate change, thus (sort of, technically) meeting the first requirement, there is no pressure being placed on those with the power to affect change in those issues. Forget politicians like Joe Biden or Benjamin Netanyahu—even the local representative probably doesn’t care if a Christmas tree lighting gets disrupted. Not only that, but average citizens—the people whose hearts and minds you’re trying to change—likely just get annoyed and aggravated towards the activists, and thus become less curious or interested in hearing what the activists have to say. On the whole, these sorts of tactics seem not only ineffective, but actively detrimental to their stated cause. If these activist groups continue using these tactics, I find it difficult to see them maintaining continued relevancy over the long run.
To be completely fair, geopolitical issues such as the Israel/Gaza war seem like they’d be much more difficult for local activist groups to have an effect on, even if they exercised tactical prudence. But that doesn’t render said tactical prudence unimportant; that makes it more important, if anything. Your power to affect change is inversely proportional to the size of the community you’re trying to change, and activism, when done right, can ripple outwards. If I were a local activist and I wanted to pressure the national government into promoting a total ceasefire in the Israel/Gaza war (as opposed to a temporary one), I would want to put all my focus on the House representative who represents my district, since he or she is a member of Congress. If I can convince enough others in that district to support a total ceasefire—and, ideally, make it a top issue—the more pressure that puts on the representative to also state their support for a total ceasefire, or risk losing their position as their constituents turn against them. I certainly wouldn’t waste energy ruining my neighbors’ day.
This illustrates why state and local politics are so important—just as important as national politics, if not more so. Unfortunately, however, Americans tend not to focus on them so much—generally speaking, they don’t have the same reality TV show vibes that national politics does. Activists are more than capable of changing that, if they so desire. That said, based on what I’ve seen regarding the pro-Palestine and climate movements, the energy that activists typically bring to American politics seems aimless at best, and at worst, more of a virtue signal than a real attempt at making change. This is a very dangerous precedent in a time when one of our two major political parties is more explicitly fascistic than ever. Activists are our country’s immune system against tyranny; if they don’t start exercising greater prudence with the tactics they choose to adopt, America will have an autoimmune disorder in addition to the disease of fascism—and it will be that much easier for fascism to take over.