Activism in our current standards today is a word used by many in the entertainment and media industry to arouse feelings of lawlessness and perhaps even extremist views. In an opinion piece on Wordpress, Hendrike Dessaules writing under the pseudonym “discipline and anarchy” describes the current stereotypes we have in social media today - namely: “ loud, forceful, assertive, over-reactive”, individuals that come by such actions tend to develop a resistance to the issue that is being presented. Clouded by the same perspective in many movies, it is easy to lose sight that these individuals are fueled by injustices cast upon them and are trying to raise awareness the best way they know how. Of course, in the larger picture, there is a great range and variety of activists that don’t command such visibility.
In movies like The East (2003), we are led to believe that activism exists in the form of extremist groups that counter large companies with daring, criminal acts of terror and violence. The plot is a quick 2-step where the female protagonist is a spy agent sent to infiltrate such a group, but eventually ends up on the wrong side of the law. While I do enjoy the factor of how emotions can fuel a group to take up arms against corporations, I am concerned at how these types of movies can affect the image of true activists in our society who are committed to non-violent protests. This is in conjunction with the movie branding the activist group as “terrorists” - which in part is true because of the actions they take - but should moviegoers be lead to believe that extreme activists are the equivalent of terrorists? At the film’s conclusion, we are shown that there are two ways of bringing change, the most important being communication. But let’s be real here, what are the chances that whoever wanted to bring change is actually a secret agent with spy equipment and is able to track down other hidden spies and shut down environmentally-unfriendly factories? While the movie is on the right track about the message, the plot is just too dramatic to believe.
Does activism command change, or could the reverse be the case? In the novel The Year of the Flood, by Margaret Atwood, the main protagonists are victims of a culture of, you an almost say, slavery - as the society takes a worst turn into dystopia. The poor are at the mercy of corporations that control the world, and our characters are rescued by a cult-like organization called “God’s Gardeners” who blend science and religion into their teachings. The basis of their work is that there would be a terrible tragedy and it would change the world for the better - teaching their members how to survive the new world. In this case, these people are reacting in response to the world changing. While not exactly an activist book in my eyes, it does hint at a world that has undergone destruction due to human activities. Of course, this story is purely fictional, but it also shares a glimpse of how individuals can react to potential devastation - a denomination of many of today’s activist demonstrations.
In real life, activism does potentially cross into dangerous territories, especially when companies demand to take land away from natives that live in so called “resource rich zones.” In an article by David Goodman, we are given an inspiring read of how a native tribe of the Amazon suffered from the government’s allowance of oil companies to enter their homeland. Eventually, they take up arms and fight back for their cause - which was to keep their home safe. “We stopped the schools and our own work and dedicated ourselves to the struggle for six months.” The fight that was meant to secure one people’s land and to continue living became a symbol of fighting off oil companies and climate justice. And with continued effort, they were able to change the law.
But change can occur without conflict. Just by taking a stance in a group that contributes to the message of a larger issue can be considered activism. By definition, all the action has to do is attempt to bring about social or political change - and certainly, a demonstration in any group can trigger such effects. The trigger will usually rest upon the media and in the case the action becomes news, then the audience of the minute event would have scaled magnitudes past expectation. This can be seen in the film Bidder 70 (2012). Tim DeChristopher was just a student who wanted to participate in a general protest outside of an auction event when by chance he was admitted into the auction house. Without planning to, he began to bid on parcels of land that the government was illegally selling off, in an attempt to stop oil companies from grabbing the plots and using them for polluting operations. Although his bids were all fraudulent and illegal in itself - by exposing himself, he presented this auction to the media. But that was the spark that the community needed: someone to be a symbol of the environmental movement that opposed the land-grab that the oil companies were committing. Of course, DeChristopher began to participate in large-scale events after that, such as with the group Peaceful Uprising, but it was this impromptu reaction to the auction that inspired the attention and support that his campaign required.
In chapter 10 of Communicating Nature, Julia Corbett tells us about how the media has put activism in our perspective. She also explains why it’s so hard for non-violent organized events have such an “uphill battle” against the issues that we face today. She states that this is in part because we as individuals and consumers are opposing very large and powerful corporate entities that have their own agendas and interests. Environmentalism is the least of their concerns when it comes to making profits and losing the least amount of revenue. Because any type of change in this industry will be of disadvantage, there will always be resistance to these ideas, even if it benefits the majority (such as the inhabitants of our world from pollution). Corbett also dissects the organization of massive activist groups, stating that they all start small as grassroots groups with a common ideal or goal. When the groups get large enough, usually they will want to garner the attention of the media so they can use it as a communications tool. To do this, they have to make it on the news - and what better way than to host large protests and act in a disobedient way? Of course, as individuals differ, some would take it to extreme views and take legally ambiguous actions.
No comments:
Post a Comment