I’ve noticed that activists (or just people who care about any public issue, even if they are not very active about it) fall into three categories.

  1. Individualist people. They want to make personal choices to change their personal impact on the world. Many strongly oppose taking political action at all. People who just avoid buying meat or petrol cars or nestle or products from occupied palestine etc. That is their way of making a difference.

  2. Social people. They are interested in the local/community level. They organise swap-meets, do bicycle repair workshops, they work together on allotments, they volunteer at charities.

  3. Political people. They want to make national or global changes. They go to protests, write to politicians, vote in elections.

Of course most people do a bit of all three. But everyone seems to be really focused on only one of them.


I will argue that #1 is three things:

  1. Ineffective.

  2. Counter-productive.

  3. Self-defeating.


Ineffective

The amount of impact you can have by tweaking your lifestyle is small. Even if many people do it, business will not. And most of the problems are caused by businesses.

You won’t impact overfishing by refraining from fishing yourself, but people think that you can impact pollution by not driving a car yourself. In most cases it’s the businesses which must change their ways, not the individuals.

Counter-productive

What if you stop buying fish? Even if 1 billion people decide to not buy fish, that still leaves 6 billion people who are still buying fish. This is the perfect situation for fishing businesses - despite massive opposition, their sales are barely affected. 1 billion people opposing fishing with political action would kill the industry.

But people think buying more tofu and less beef is worthwhile in the fight against farming malpractice, that buying a bike or electric car will help against pollution. This style of activism is very popular among the problem industries themsleves, and actively promoted by them. It is “activism by excercising consumer choice”.

But we must be more than just savvy consumers, to really change anything.


Self-defeating

If you make a choice - you will use less water, heat your house less, eat less tasty food, spend more money on ethically produced products - you are making a small sacrifice. Others are not. Those others are at an economic advantage against you. Even if all you are spending is mental energy, they will have slightly richer lives than you. In aggregate, this type of action is self-limiting, self-defeating.

If the people who do the right thing suffer slightly, and the people who don’t are unpunished, there is a strong disincentive to take action. This is the opposite of what is needed.


I made an earlier post about how everyone is divided - interested in different causes - so there is no critical mass to change any one thing - even though there is broad support for all of the causes. I won’t repeat that here - it’s a different problem.


So, to me this has all become obvious recently by talking to kinds of people I wouldn’t normally talk to. Individualist action is very popular. There is even a taboo against political action. People want to avoid confrontaion, and they are jaded of the news cycle.

But does have a value - as the entry-level. To start people thinking about the greater good, ease people into being concientious. #1 is the easiest, so you can get satisfaction from making a small difference. And you don’t risk big disappointments or uncomfortable confrontations, so it’s accessible to more personality types, which is important. It also feels more democratic, more civilised.

But I’m convinced now, that these individualist people (the vast majority IMO) all need to be persuaded into more effective methods.

To spend any energy, time, money on activism through personal consumer choices, it undermines the very cause you are working for. These methods are championed only by the very industries who want nothing to change.

I would argue that your anecdote about fishing is flawed. If you care about over fishing, you don’t just not fish, you don’t eat fish either, thus reducing the market for fish and so businesses will fish less.

As for individual activism being self defeating, I feel like you are ignoring the self fulfillment of doing something for a cause by yourself.

All this being said, you definitely make some good points, and more variety in activism is useful for the cause. What opinions do you have when doing political/communal activism goes against the point you are fighting for (eg promoting the negatives of social media on social media)?

@roastpotatothief
mod
creator
link
fedilink
1
edit-2
1Y

feel like you are ignoring the self fulfillment of doing something for a cause by yourself.

Yes I did ignore that. But I do understand it. For example if you are vegan just because that gives you self-fulfillment, that’s fine! You don’t need to justify your lifestyle from a utilitarian perspective - find a justification why everything you do is for the global greater good.

doing political/communal activism goes against the point you are fighting for

Not sure I understand. Like driving to conference about the evils of fossil fuels? Like talking on facebook about the need to stop using facebook? That sort of thing? I think it’s a bit off-topic. I don’t really know. What do you think?!

reducing the market for fish

Did you read this part?

What if you stop buying fish? Even if 1 billion people decide to not buy fish, that still leaves 6 billion people who are still buying fish. This is the perfect situation for fishing businesses - despite massive opposition, their sales are barely affected.

I missed that part, that is a good argument against the effectiveness of individual activism. As for what I think about hypocritical activism, I think there is a fine line between it being necessary in the short term to coming across as overtly hypocritical and shallow, thus undermining the entire point they are making.

soronixa
link
fedilink
21Y

I don’t think individualist activism is ineffective, counter-productive or self-defeating at all, it’s just not enough, and should be cosidered the first step for making real change in society. even if it’s not easy or effective to do something at an individual level, not doing what you preach doesn’t look good to others. everyone has to start from somewhere after all.

but I guess eveyone on lemmy would love to become political/social activists. but there are some of us, myself included, who have no idea where to begin.

@roastpotatothief
mod
creator
link
fedilink
21Y

Yes that’s a good way of looking at it. I don’t want to make people feel bad for doing a good thing. But by coordinating with other people, they can multiply their efforts.

If I were a farmer, I could just stop using pesticides. My local environment would benefit. But then my farm would become bankrupt, because the price of crops assumes you are using pesticides.

This is (IMO!!!) worse than doing nothing. You need to stop everyone from using pesticides.

soronixa
link
fedilink
11Y

This is (IMO!!!) worse than doing nothing. You need to stop everyone from using pesticides.

so you would say fediverse developers should track users and try to ban tracking methods at the same time? because not tracking users means financial disadvantage?

if not, then it should be clear that the farmer needs to avoid using pesticides. (although in reality, pesticides are essential to good products, it’s how much they’re used that matters.)

@roastpotatothief
mod
creator
link
fedilink
31Y

Good point. I only mentioned “competitive” markets. I don’t know economists would call the internet social network market. The assumption that everyone is forced to ruthlessly cut costs and maximise profits to survive, that only applies to “competitive” markets like farming, fishing, most industries.

Most other businesses are owned by professional investors. They only care about share prices and dividends. Only remit of the CEO/manager is to maximise the business’s profit and value. The owners/investors would immediately fire him for deriliction of duty, if he did something ethical over something profitable.

So the businesses which have any freedom to choose ethics over profit, they are few. But Lemmy is one of them.

So a farmer cannot make the choice to avoid pesticides (or to use them responsibly) unless he is in some niche market which is not economically “competitive”. But Lemmy can and does make that choice.

@testman
link
fedilink
21Y

Now I am interested, how does one become “effective activist”?

Was there any research made about various activist movements, analysing their methods and showing the corellation between methods and their success rates?

Or at least some encyclopedia of Activism? Some kind of activism wiki?

Make a guide for activists, where you go through basics, what to do and what not to do in order to effectively achieve the change that you are fighting for.

@roastpotatothief
mod
creator
link
fedilink
1
edit-2
1Y

Well no this is just my opinion. It’s stuff I’ve realised by talking seriously with a big group of serious activists.

But since you ask … this idea is amazing … I reallly like this approach to the whole question:

https://www.effectivealtruism.org/articles/introduction-to-effective-altruism/

There is also “from dictatorship to democracy” which is really an activist’s handbook. I think it’s worth picking up.

soronixa
link
fedilink
11Y

I’m interested too, but kinda clueless. I have no social influence or political power, and I don’t know anyone who has, so what can I do?

@roastpotatothief
mod
creator
link
fedilink
21Y

I don’t know either. I have some ideas, but I don’t know how to develop them. For example:

https://lemmy.ml/post/49190

  • 0 users online
  • 1 user / day
  • 1 user / week
  • 1 user / month
  • 5 users / 6 months
  • 39 subscribers
  • 15 Posts
  • 17 Comments
  • Modlog