Related Articles
What exactly is activism in the modern era?
Let’s start with what activism should aspire to be: an effort to change hearts and minds on any particular social issue for the purpose of advancing a cause.
Indeed, during the 20th century and in the beginning of the 21st century, most activists seemed to follow this blueprint. They sought to persuade the public about the issue they prioritize through effective and appropriate channels such as lobbying to change legislation, disseminating informational materials like surveys and public service announcements that are meant to shift public opinion, and organizing peaceful rallies and demonstrations.
The prevalent form of activism in past generations more often adhered to that strategy, striking a tone that focused on advancing social justice and featuring peaceful and educational activities. Some of the most powerful examples of such activism are the bus boycott of Rosa Parks, the nonviolent resistance of Mahatma Gandhi, the civil rights movement’s Selma to Montgomery March and March on Washington (including Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech) and the teach-ins protesting the war in Vietnam.
To some degree, these strategies are still utilized today. But increasingly, activism has gone astray, as recent protests organized by various movements have been intensifying in their violent and destructive nature.
When activists block major highways, they prevent professionals from getting to work, parents from dropping off their children at school and medical patients from reaching the hospital. How exactly are they winning the hearts and minds by disrupting people’s lives?
When protesters smash the glass case protecting the original text of the Magna Carta, or deface the Liberty Bell replica outside of Washington’s Union Station, how is their destruction of public property effectuating change?
When a coordinated arson attack on the Paris high-speed rail casts the dark cloud of a security threat over the 2024 Olympics, what do such intimidation-based tactics actually accomplish, other than instilling widespread fear and panic?
The point of activism is to effectuate change and to embrace responsibility for positive social outcomes connected to their cause. Yet activists who practice violence and disruption display no such sense of responsibility. Their behavior works against their objectives and pushes people away. Ultimately, they inconvenience and intimidate the people they want to influence.
This aggressive form of activism usually achieves the objective of grabbing attention. That is especially true in an era when social media fans the flames of extremism, as countless users share videos and images of protesters’ eye-catching behavior.
The Rolling Stone Culture Council is an invitation-only community for Influencers, Innovators and Creatives. Do I qualify?
Yet as violent protesters satisfy their short-term craving for attention, they miss the point that activism is about changing hearts and minds. Today’s activism — or at least the activism that typically gets the most attention in traditional and social media alike — is instead largely defined by tactics that intimidate people rather than winning them over. All too often, protests are hateful attacks on people because of their race, religion or nationality. This is a form of terrorizing society — and it means that activism has gone astray.
These violent and exclusionary forms of activism raise key questions that we must confront as a society. Violent protesters are getting attention — but are they winning people over? Are they turning off more people than they are attracting? What levels and varieties of physical or verbal activity is acceptable, and who decides when it crosses the line into violence, harassment and discrimination? Have we lost a sense of the difference between healthy debate and anarchy? Do we even care about the truth and reality anymore, or are we satisfied with whatever picture we see on our social media feed?
Acts of violence and intimidation are completely disconnected from the social change that they are trying to promote. What does blocking access to the highway teach us about climate change? What does burning a flag teach us about Palestinian human rights? What does tear gas teach us about racial injustice? In many such cases, protesters’ anger is understandable enough. But what is the objective of their violent demonstrations? If the goal is changing hearts and minds, it is doubtful that their actions are advancing the objective.
And yet, a modern roadmap still exists for peaceful and impactful activism. For activism to be effective, it needs to influence people in decision-making roles and positions of authority. To have such influence, activists need to “get into the room” to bring their issue onto decision-makers’ radar and into the conversations that matter. The most effective approach to getting into the room and challenging authority entails not only focusing on the problem but also offering a solution, in a way that is respectful of the authority figures you are challenging and builds their trust — because ultimately, you will need to work together with them to effectuate change.
A decade ago, in the summer of 2014, the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge promoted awareness about a disease and encouraged donations to research. The tactic was having people pour of a bucket of ice water over their head, then posting a video on social media. This process sought to grab attention — in the right way.
Perhaps the most powerful case study of effective social media activism is the #MeToo movement. The hashtag campaign raised an immense amount of awareness about sexual abuse, sexual harassment and rape culture. For victims who had all too long remained silent, #MeToo finally gave them the courage to publicize their experiences. Most importantly, the movement won over hearts and minds, exponentially expanding the population of those who now consider themselves activists and allies in the quest to combat sexual abuse and harassment.
As a society, it is incumbent upon us to support and amplify forms of activism that spread information, not intimidation; choose substance, not flash; and demonstrate values, not violence.
Activism has gone astray. But it is not too late to steer it back in the direction of its true purpose.
