Activism

"Activism" is one of those terms that is commonly used but controversial to define. Several online sources cite the definition from the American Heritage Dictionary (2000) -- "The use of direct, often confrontational action, such as a demonstration or strike, in opposition to or support of a cause."

It is an interesting area of fiction to speculate what would have happened if some detail of the past were to be changed. What if the other side had won a war? What if someone who died had lived longer, or what if someone had died earlier than they did? These might be "big" changes, but changing any slight detail might result in a completely different world. There are science fiction stories that deal with the subject of beings traveling back in time, and changing their own futures.

I may seem to have strayed off topic -- I started off discussing activism, then jumped to the idea of changing the future by changing the past. My point is that no one can ever accurately state what WOULD have happened if things had happened differently than precisely the way they DID happen. This leads to the idea that I cannot prove or adequately support my current beliefs on activism.

Still, my current opinion is that activism often, or usually, produces the opposite of desired results. That is, I believe that anti-war protesters often lengthen wars, pro-environmental activists often lead to increased environmental destruction, and activists fighting for social change often delay or prevent their desired change. As I have already acknowledged, without being able to go back and forth in time and change variables, there is no way to prove or disprove this idea.

Even if it is true that activism usually produces the opposite of the desired results, this is not to say activism is totally wrong or bad. There may be a valid role in simply giving the activists an outlet for their strong feelings, the need to "do SOMETHING". Still, I would ask the activist whether he or she is truly certain that their actions will serve to further their goals, or whether they may just be fulfilling their own need to take some sort of direct action.

There are some interesting, if sometimes questionable, overlaps between physics and human interaction. A well-known principle of physics states that "Every action produces an equal and opposite reaction." While we may debate whether this is strictly true in all circumstances, there are certainly cases in which it seems to apply to human interaction. I personally have encountered situations in which I had no strong opinions on a topic until I encountered a person who held strong opinions -- and I ended up feeling strongly that the person was WRONG. The person succeeded in changing me from having no opinion to having a strong opinion, but it was opposite of their desired result.

This is especially a problem when using "direct, often confrontational action". Many onlookers will be repelled simply by the fact that the action is direct and confrontational, regardless of the merits of the cause. Sadly, this can hinder communication, leading to an ever-widening gulf between two positions that might not have been that far apart to begin with.

A clear example involves some of the actions taken by the animal-advocacy group, PETA. Please note that I am stating neither my support for nor my opposition to PETA's agenda. In fact I have profoundly mixed feelings regarding PETA, due at least partly to their tactics. For instance, there have been occasions when young people were subjected to a "pie in the face" for appearing to promote an industry that PETA was opposed to, such as a "pork queen". Publicly assaulting a high school girl on the stage at a county fair MAY make the local or even national news, but I question whether it will advance PETA's agenda of having fewer people consume pork -- AND I submit that it may engender sympathy for the girl and lead to LESS sympathy for the cause of animal rights.

While I can offer instances that seem to support my belief that activism often or usually produces the opposite of the desired results, I repeat that I cannot prove this idea, and I do not believe it can ever be proven or dis-proven.

Activists, almost by definition, have strong feelings about the causes in which they are active, and would probably view my opinion with strong hostility. If an activist wished to engage me in a debate, they might cite instances in which high-profile activism seemed to advance the activists goals. For example, there have been some famous strikes that are credited with leading to changes sought by the strikers. I have two responses. First, I am willing to stipulate that SOMETIMES activism might be effective in accomplishing the activists goal (though I am not convinced). Secondly, I have questions about "the big picture". Activism may win the battle but lose or at least delay winning the war. An example is "women's suffrage". Without activism, it might have taken longer for American women to have gained the right to vote. Without activism, American women might have more quickly gained equal status in the workplace. I realize that these statements may be viewed as highly inflammatory.

Then there is the matter of degree, or the question of what each person calls "activism". One person may consider it to be "activism" to refuse to eat a certain species of fish, while another might scoff at calling this "activism", and instead insist on physically attacking the fishing boats. The person who physically attacks the fishing boats may accomplish more in both directions, both attracting people to their cause and repelling them from it.

Perhaps I am not giving enough credit to the idea of "doing SOMETHING". Perhaps it is more important for the activist to take some sort of action than for the activist to further their stated goal. I suspect that there are times when this is absolutely the case. After all, at the end of the day, you have to live with your opinion of yourself, and you can probably never know for certain whether you are truly furthering your own stated goals.

Truth is complicated.