Philosophy

Sara Jane Olson and Radical Activism

Let's start off our third year with a guest post from C. Ewing. (Open invitation to Playground playfriends -- if anyone has something they'd like to see posted, please send it along. Always interested in guest posts and new voices.)

So, noticing today's headline, I began to wonder: just how far can activism go? As we've discussed on your blog before, boycotting without harm is pointless. Indeed, activism that does not merely educate; activism that is meant to impact a system rather than inspire or merely disseminate information, must have some sort of power over the system it it supposedly affecting.

I'm reminded of PETA (don't groan...yet), in that they had shirts with a number on the front. I can't remember if it was 25 or 27 or what-have-you, but it was supposed to be the number of animal lives saved every year by a vegetarian. Were the bottom line of the meat industry not as marginal as it is, the impact would be limited to personal virtue, ethical considerations, etc. Being vegetarian or vegan would be strictly a matter of personal purity, and would have no interest, or rather, would have no leverage with which to promote an interest in the economic arena. The ability to alter business practices is indicative of a direct and notable relationship between the dietary practices of the consumers--even a minority of consumers--in regards to the industry and its ability to generate capital.

But when do you go too far? When does the (perhaps permissible) harm that is required to be effective as an activist start to edge toward rebel territory? When does being a rebel shift to being a revolutionary or a terrorist? Is it lives lost? Property damaged? Or is there something lurking under the surface? There does seem to be a respect for persons that is present with the activist. The activist does not call the butcher evil (not always anyway), nor the land-developer a villain. The activist realizes that we are all shackled to the economy, and the need to make a living. The idea is not to immediately overthrow the industry, to eliminate their livelihood, etc., but to alter it over time to make it more humane, greener, etc.

There seems--to wax Humean--to be a respect for our enemy. We are all ultimately people, and our compassion for those persons bumps heads with our striving to do the "right thing", and as such, our activism is tempered. Even the incredibly passionate activists stop short when it comes to the well-being of others, realizing that it is not only a concern--but largely it seems--at the very basis of why the activism exists in the first place. The intent is to make a better world, and just not just for the self, but for the sake of the people in it.

But this does not seem to be enough. I'm not sure forgetting the person behind the product is sufficient to make that leap. Is there something else? Is there a sort of mania or psychosis present? But I think that is dismissive. Surely, we can't think all these people are so handicapped. And what about the revolutionists we celebrate? What of the idols who wanted freedom to be bought with blood? Who felt that it was not just justified, but our obligation to fight, and kill, and die?

How do we distinguish the hero from the villain, when their rhetoric is so alike?

When do ends justify means in bringing about social change? When is civil disobedience across the line?

- Self-less And Unenlightened?
Guest-post from C.Ewing today (let me repeat my invitation to anyone who stops by the Playground to send me something as a guest post): So, I was thinking the other day (I don't suggest it as a hobby, 'tis rather burdensome), and realized that...

- Is A Foolish Consistency Really The Hobgoblin Of Little Minds?
Guest-post from C. Ewing In perusing matters of faith, I was also reminded of this quote from the movie Secondhand Lions: "Sometimes the things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe in the most. That people are basically good;...

- Agap? And Our Mett? Obligation
Guest post from C.Ewing: Linkage and here. Recently, I had a discussion with TR about the linear assumption people seem to have. That is, if one appears to be acting in a kind way (performing a kind action) then we tend to assume that this relates back...

- Social, Moral, And Ethical Inhibitors In The Modern Age
We live in a radically different society from the time of Plato and Socrates lived. The changes that have come about since then have changed the way that people deal with their problems and issues from day to day. Certain actions are permitted while others...

- Farm To Fridge - The Truth Behind Meat Production
We all like to think we're good people, but sometimes it's difficult to tell the difference between an accurate description of ourselves and wishful thinking. When you think of yourself as a good person, you're probably thinking that the fact...

Philosophy