The Activist’s Dilemma

How to evaluate the thing that can either improve your life or eat you alive

Sep 01, 2023

Paradoxically, the worst evils in the world are committed by those who truly believe they are combating evil — Kevin Kelly

Throughout history, you can find cases where street rallies drove positive social change. Nowadays rallying in the streets seems to have a more performative flavor to it and it seems to be driven by a deeper, more personal need.

Nothing happens on its own and nothing is given for free so social action seems to be a one-way street. A simple scroll on your social media feed though might leave you with a grimmer picture. The vandalization of historic statues and the cancellation of speaking events seem all too common.

And although it seems like activism is more prevalent than ever, why it seems to be so ineffective? Why does it seem that it contributes more to chaos and division than actual meaningful change and unity?

I think this ineffectiveness exists because we don't have a way to evaluate it. And with that, we default to our primitive tribalistic instincts.

It’s important to have a way to decide what sort of activism is valid, whether you support it on a personal level or not, and what has the possibility to tear our social fabric apart. You should reject supporting such activism no matter how rosy or benevolent the cause is. Not because you support the opposite but because an incoherent messy application will produce worse outcomes than what it set out to fix.

Reclaim the beaches

Right now in Greece, there is a growing movement that tries to reclaim the beaches. During the summer, it is common practice for seaside businesses to expand the number of sun loungers far beyond the legal limit, leaving no space for the public to set up their own umbrellas and enjoy a swim. So people armed with their towels, flood the beaches and take the space that seems to be in the public domain. Although the “towel movement” started initially in Paros it made its way to Naxos, Rhodes, and Serifos among other places due to its appeal and in many cases effectiveness. Numerous fines have been given and local businesses are more reluctant to break the law.

This is solid activism. And there is a reason for this. For activism to be effective it must fulfill certain criteria. Four to be precise. It must have a clear mission statement, a clear goal, and a clear way to get there that is nonviolent and effective. The fourth one I will share later.

In our “towel movement”, all checkboxes are ticked. We have a clear mission statement, which is for everyone to be able to enjoy the beach regardless if they want to pay for a sunbed or set their own umbrellas and towels.

We have a clear goal, which is to check if local businesses are abiding by the law and only use the allowed space authorized by the government.

The way to get there is pretty straightforward and clear too. People grab their towels and simply go and take up the space they assume is for public use(in most cases this is evident). This way they raise awareness of the situation and hopefully push the government and local authorities to investigate further what is going on.

Unfortunately, most activism doesn't look like this. In many cases, the mission statement and the goal are antithetical to each other, or the way to get there is ambiguous. For example, your mission statement might be “we need to care about the environment and need to reduce carbon emissions” but your goal might be to shut down a nuclear power plant. If you indeed care about lowering emissions why do you want to prevent and demonize the development of a technology that delivers the lowest emissions by far? Pretty contradictory which is an immediate red flag.

Aside from being contradictory, being too generic is a problem too. For example, protesting against “things being expensive” where it's really hard to have a clear goal or way to get there. A possible rebuttal to this can be “yes, we don’t know, but we should push the government to figure it out”. This is problematic. If you don’t have a goal in mind, whatever the government presents, you will automatically object to it, especially if they are of the opposing party. If you shout “things should be cheaper” and don’t resolve it with a proposal somehow you are just building up tension that will inevitably blow up at some point, the consequences of which are almost always unpleasant because people are upset about things they can't even define.

Contrary to the sensible approach the “towel movement” takes, activism reaches peak idiocy in the numerous cases now of the “Just Stop Oil” protesters. They block roads and screw up sports events with the hope of getting attention but negative attention is all they seem to get. If you ask any of the people who glue themselves(or glue their breasts as has happened in Extinction Rebellion protests) on the asphalt, you will likely get shallow emotional talking points without them being willing(or able?) to engage in dialog or debate.

Whenever you see activism where these characteristics don't align with each other, the movement is likely co-opted and protesters taken advantage of.

So if the mission statement, goal, and approach are all obviously self-contradictory how are people still supporting such activism?

Reclaim Meaning

Here comes the fourth criteria to evaluate activism which is more subtle and much harder to get right. Is for the cause you are fighting for to have a clear and evident endgame. When will you know when to stop?

This needs a step back and think about why activists are so passionate and what personal need they are trying to fulfill in the first place. Traditionally meaning was found in things like religion, strong family bonds, and patriotism. These worked pretty well because they were formed in a much simpler time in history when they had some explanatory effect. In a way, you could organize your life around them. Today the world is much more complicated so finding meaning is more challenging. The old ways simply don't resonate with people anymore.

So what they do instead is pick huge noble causes like saving the planet and ascribe to them godlike meaning in order to fill a godlike hole within themselves. As a result, they tie their identity to activism so much that any criticism of the movement is an attack on them personally just like one would take deep offense if you insulted their God or tore up the Bible in front of them.

Due to this condition, activists are unable to see an endgame to their cause because it threatens the livelihood of their identity. Instead, their brain is configured in such a way, that their activism can go on forever and for the sense that they have something worth fighting for to be preserved.

Saving the planet feeds your self-importance and provides meaning. And because they can't let go of it, in the process to protect their sacred meaning they become extremely defensive to the point of downright cruelty. A viral incident where “Just Stop Oil” protesters didn't allow a mother to take her infant to the hospital by blocking the road was pure evil. Another incident from another activist organization where they refused to let a son take his mother suffering a stroke to the hospital. She ended up permanently paralyzed and doctors said that she would have been saved if medical care was given on time.

Slaying the dragon

There is the myth of St. George where he famously killed a dragon to save a village, becoming immediately a hero. Not wanting to drop the identity of a respected hero fighter he started searching for more dragons to kill so he can continue to be seen as such. Due to a deficit of dragons, he looked for smaller and smaller animals to kill ending up fighting with thin air. This looks awfully similar to modern activism where many act like St. George, trying to find unjustness, racism, and sexism in ever smaller and smaller places or even worse in nonexistent places. This doesn't mean that everything is perfect but is better to realize the improvement that has been made and find real dragons elsewhere. Instead, they expand the pool of what counts as unjust, racist, or sexist just like St. George expanded what can be seen as bravery(killing a rabbit maybe?).

For example, violence is physical but now we expanded the definition to “words are violence”, a tactic usually used to shut down criticism. Sexism is discrimination based on gender but now for a man opening a door to a woman might count as “benevolent sexism”. Racism is judging someone on the basis of their skin and not on the basis of their character. Nowadays if there is any mention of the perpetrator's ethnicity or race in the news, this alone might be enough to automatically call them racist. Again, this doesn’t mean that these behaviors are completely eradicated but the improvement being made over the years is massive and not realizing this is a disservice to the people who fought for them. Instead of engaging in this endless hunt of subdivision, look at other parts of the world where many of the above are indeed a problem.

This can be seen in how the media uses these words, where in the past decade the words “sexism” and “racism” increased by 400%. Of course, actual sexism and racism haven't increased by the same degree(to the contrary, they have decreased) but this is a direct effect of the need to find dragons to slay.

This is especially true when it comes to online activism where the barrier to entry is low and it costs virtually nothing for you to post. Not only does it cost you nothing but it is even rewarded since you appear deeply concerned about the oppressed and unfortunate while you elevate your social status.

Similar to the quote “you are the average of the five people you know” a case can be made that your opinions are the average of the twenty accounts you follow online. So posting things that came about from your emotional flailing is literally contributing to the formation of someone else's reality. And it can make a difference. A 2020 study showed 34% of people aged 8 to 17 say the internet has inspired them to get involved in a cause and 43% say it makes them feel that their voice matters. Also due to this distorted reality, many people vastly overestimate the number of killings of unarmed black men by the police. In a survey conducted in 2019, when people were asked to guess the number and the race of police brutality victims, many estimated more than 1,000 black people were shot that year when in fact the real number was 29(and 44 cases regarding whites).

Free to choose

You might have a rebuttal to all this. “Even if things are getting better we should keep fighting and pushing on the off chance of things going down the tubes”. Unfortunately, this doesn't even work in theory, let alone practice as St. George's story beautifully demonstrated. The remedy for things not going backward is to push forward even harder and solve new problems. If you see things going backward, speak up and make a coherent solid case. If you don’t know how to go forward better have the courage to do nothing.

It’s no wonder why Jordan Peterson's quote “clean your room before you go on and try to change the world” resonates so much, especially with young people. It is an alternative to the St. George in retirement syndrome dead end. It offers a path toward social change that is more sustainable and less sexy. More responsible and less flamboyant.

Closing

So there is a dilemma that each one of us will face. Take the route of activism no matter what, and march down the streets just because Martin Luther King did the same, or reflexively reject all activism as meaningless and ineffective regardless. Unfortunately, the more reasonable route is the one less taken. And that is to think beyond what sounds just and what makes you feel good and what makes you seem virtuous. Go a level deeper and evaluate it based on things that can be measured. And then take action.

Anyone is a potential activist, in some way. The challenge is to know what to support and not fall into believing you are combating evil, when in fact you are a foot soldier in someone else’s battle.