Is Moderate Activism a Waste of Time?

There are two things that I suppose I need to define here: "moderate" activism; "waste" of time.  What I am thinking of as moderate, for the purposes of this discussion, is non-violent, primarily.  Even if the demands are extreme, if they are presented in a calm and non-overtly threatening way, I will call them moderate in this case.  This leads us to include Gandhi, King and similar protesters in the moderate category.  As for a waste of time, in the wider world it is almost impossible to define in general terms.  Anything can be fun and fulfilling for one person and a total waste for another.  Activism, however, does have a goal, so we can say that activism that does not achieve its goal has been a waste of time, and that is what this discussion will use as a definition.  Calm and quiet activism can be seen as non-threatening.  Of course, some people will react as if their very lives were being threatened, the people who benefit most from the system that the protestors are asking to change, but those who do not benefit directly, or also see some unfairness in it, will see the reaction as excessive and feel the protestors are behaving appropriately.  Still, does that mean there will be change?  Those who have the power to modify laws, conditions, or whatever change is being demanded are generally not happy to do so at the drop of a hat.  They may make promises; they may meet with activists; they may propose their own compromises.  But in the end, without public pressure, most things simply do not change.  Sadly, moderate activism does not always generate that public interest, although we may occasionally look to them and say, "Look how well they behave, look how they follow their values.  What mountainous moral high ground they have!"  The moral high ground does not guarantee change.  Violent protests certainly draw attention to issues.  They also have the unfortunate tendency of turning public opinion against the changes demanded, but at least they keep issues in the public eye.

Our Doctor began as he often does, explaining that we are dealing with words.  Yet, our information often comes through images.  Words can provoke images in our minds, whether they are the ones the author meant or not, so words are necessary, but also, in his opinion, dangerous.  He thought there would be no real discussion, since we would all agree, but he then said he did not agree with the essays by the Leader and the True Philosopher.  He later warned us about internet activism, or even putting our opinions in that public forum, since everybody can find out everything about us.  Even moderate protest can generate a strong response, to prevent people moving to the next level.

The True Philosopher took another tack on the meaning of "moderate", preferring the Aristotelian idea of balance and rationality to lack of violence.  So, a moderate activist may be dedicated truly to the cause, but does not act impulsively; rather, this activist acts with moderation and planning, always knowing the next step to take.  While there is some overlap in the definitions, there is not a necessary link, as violent acts can be planned out carefully ahead of time as well as peaceful demonstrations.  He mentioned his own experiences as a protesting college student, being involved in peaceful demonstrations, which were met with police violence.  The activism of the students was backed up by reason and rationality while the violent, extreme reaction was merely an impulsive counterattack by a threatened authority.  He admitted that "moderate" is more often used to denote a half-hearted participation or apathetic support than rationality.  In a later contribution, he also used "cowardly" as an associated word in modern times, and said that protest is a sensitive issue because of the power imbalance inherent in it.  He also blamed infiltrators in activist groups for a large amount of violence, saying they are there to cast a bad light on the group, making use of the moral high ground idea.

The Actress was sure that it makes no sense to ask politely for change, since it is too easy to ignore those requests.  Like the True Philosopher, she noted that peaceful protesters are often met with violence in spite of their non-confrontational attitudes.  She went so far as to say she was against Gandhi in support of peaceful protest.  She also mentioned self-interest in activism, saying many celebrities or famous figures will participate in peaceful demonstrations, not to actually promote the cause, but to promote themselves in a safe space.

The Leader recognized violence as an attention getting strategy, but said that issues do exist that do not benefit from violent protest, giving food labeling as an example.  He also said that there is no necessary link between protest and violence, since many people resort to destruction and mayhem just out of boredom or simple love of destruction.  At the same time, he warned us, the authorities will use any excuse to restrict liberties, so while violence should be a last resort, it can be part of the tool kit.  He agreed with the True Philosopher's view that activists should know what they are asking for and why, as well as the people watching them.  We need to analyze a situation before labeling it good or bad.  He mentioned instantly available information as a better aid than pure attention grabbing for stimulating interest in an issue, mentioning the multilingual signs held at the Greek protests; protesters knew they would be seen all over the world and they wanted their message to get out in their own words as much as possible.

The Deep Thinker hesitated to give a clear answer, stating that it is relative to the cause and the situation.  Extreme activists, he said, are totally convinced that they are right, but being convinced does not mean anything.  He complained about the self-promotion of many activists, both moderate and violent, saying that they want the spotlight more than they want the changes they demand.  He also pointed out the dangers of activism done without the moderation defined by The True Philosopher, since changes effected without long-term planning bring about unforeseen consequences that can be worse than the situation they were meant to improve.

The Educator wondered if there were situations in which violent protest is plainly justified.  She asked, "Would I kill if I had the opportunity?"  She then insisted that moderate, peaceful activism is in most cases the more courageous path, since it requires more self-control, and (I would say) more humor than mere violent reflex.  In her own country she had an example of peaceful activists, theater companies that performed in the streets after the theaters were closed by the government.  They openly defied the authorities, without attacking them directly.  Their presentation won them support from the public, although many actors and directors probably paid a price behind closed doors.

The Seeker of Happiness saw protest and activism as inevitable in democracy, since the best we can do is a sort of tyranny of the majority, with only small tweaks to protect minorities in some cases.  He saw moderate protesters as still having something to lose, therefore not taking too big a risk, while the extremists see themselves up against the wall already.  He felt that society should have safeguards against the need for protest by maintaining avenues for communicating grievances with the authorities that are open to all the populace, not just a few elites.  Voting is not enough or effective, in his opinion.  While he did not openly state it, he implied that activism of all types is not a waste of time, but something citizens might be inexorably driven to by an incompetent or inattentive government.

Now, the real question is how much time have we wasted versus how many neural connections have we strengthened by debating topics on Sunday evenings?