Do you remember the viral video about a climate group’s protest by throwing soup at Van Gogh’s painting?
Some became outraged, some were on the understanding side.
To be honest, I was pretty mad, too. Let’s just say I relate a lot to Van Gogh’s life story, and I couldn’t bear seeing that.
Of course, after knowing that the painting itself is unharmed, I wasn’t as mad anymore.
Nonetheless, the act sparked a debate about the effectiveness of different forms of protest.
Critics argued that the real damage was done by alienating the public from the cause itself. They protested the UK government for supporting for opening new oil and gas fields in the North Sea.
Militant protest methods aren’t something new. Supporters of these approaches often take historical examples like the suffragettes as an example.
Many historians, however, argue that the suffragettes’ contribution to women getting the vote was minimal or even counterproductive.
Such discussions often rely on people’s gut feelings about the impact of protests.
But psychological research might shed light on the effects that these kinds of protests have.
Activist’s sacrifice
In a set of experiments, researchers showed people descriptions of protests and measured their support for the protesters and the cause.
Some read about moderate protests like peaceful marches. Others read about more extreme and sometimes violent actions, such as animal rights activists breaking into a lab.
Protesters who took extreme actions were perceived as more immoral.
Participants also reported lower emotional connection and social identification with these “extreme” protesters.
The effects on support for the cause were somewhat mixed, suggesting a dilemma for activists.
What should they do? It’s hard to find a balance between moderate actions that are ignored and more extreme actions that gain attention but may be counterproductive.
Activists argue that personal unpopularity is the price to be paid for media attention to “get the conversation going” and win public support.
Now, several experiments, including collaborations with students at the University of Bristol, explored participants’ views of protesters.
The experiments there used a framing effect, where differences in how reported protests impact perceptions.
For example, a Daily Mail article referred to the Van Gogh protest as a “stunt” in a “campaign of chaos” by “rebellious eco-zealots.” The news outlet judged without mentioning the protesters’ demand.
The experiments tested the relationship between attitudes toward protesters and their cause.
Surprisingly, reducing support for protesters had no impact on support for their demands or cause.
Basically, the public says, “I agree with your cause, I just don’t like your methods.”
Still gets people talking
Disruptive protests admittedly garner significant media coverage. And when that happens, such organizations likely see the outcomes as successful.
For instance, Animal Rising, the animal rights protesters, caused a 15-minute delay in the country’s 2023 major horse race, the Grand National, live on ITV.
The protest, although disruptive, the RSPCA to call for a review into the horses that died during the Grand National weekend. It also sparked a debate about animal exploitation.
Some others have resulted in the organizations’ spokespeople appearing on news outlets.
Now, let’s take a look at peaceful protests.
For four days in April 2023, Extinction Rebellion (XR) held a peaceful protest in central London. It drew an estimated 60,000 people.
This marked XR’s first mass protest since announcing a pause in disruptive actions.
It aimed to attract those put off by direct action and arrests. At the same time, it also aimed to build coalitions with other environmental groups for positive headlines.
XR, along with 50 other environmental groups, co-signed a letter demanding the government abandon new fossil fuel projects.
They demand the government to establish an “emergency citizens’ assembly” for climate solutions.
If the group’s main goal was to secure better or more headlines, the results seem underwhelming.
Mainstream TV coverage was largely nonexistent, despite an estimated 60,000 people marching peacefully without a single arrest.
And, it’s still unclear if XR’s new approach worked.
Although, I should note that in XR’s case, the media was indifferent due to its past methods of protests. The Guardian’s coverage raised questions about XR’s plan to return to civil disobedience if the government didn’t meet its demands.
Negativity (and actions that may make it worse)
XR protesters argued that disruptive protest is reported while non-disruptive is not.
Experts also believe that there’s a clear imbalance in media coverage between disruptive and non-disruptive protest.
The “protest paradigm,” might serve to feed media spectacle and outrage while vilifying protesters. This, however, may not harm the climate movement as much as expected.
Governments may enact tougher laws for protestors that are arrested or detained.
But, young activists interviewed for a PhD argue that stricter laws could make them more radical.
Academic research indicates increased jail time as a deterrent often does not work.
Moreover, young activists keep suggesting that over time, climate activists could become more radical as the stakes rise due to climate breakdown.
Nevertheless, dramatic protest isn’t going away, and those protesters will likely face negative media attention.
However, when looking at public support for protesters’ demands, there’s no compelling evidence that nonviolent protest is counterproductive.
People may “shoot the messenger.” But they at least sometimes hear the message.
How should one do activism?
Those who try to make something better may benefit from local activism.
When people speak up and work together, they can bring about powerful changes.
For instance, Colorado ranchers have pushed their governor to enact a clean electricity standard for the benefits of wind turbines on their lands.
Peaceful or disruptive, research and history suggest that local action is more powerful. Here are the reasons.
1. In some places, much of the policy change, especially regarding climate change, is local instead of national.
Replacing fossil fuel power plants with renewable energy technology falls largely under the control of state governments.
The public can influence utilities and public utility commissions by paying attention, writing letters, and joining local groups.
When pressured, city officials can set policies to replace all the inefficient, carbon-rich appliances with efficient and greener ones.
2. Local wins can be contagious. Advocates in Massachusetts won a local policy in 1997 where a portion of electricity bill payments supported renewables.
By 2022, this policy, known as community choice aggregation, was adopted by over 1,800 local governments across six states. In short, that affects millions of people in return.
Local action can create learning curves for technology. It may also push for more solar and wind turbines, leading to increased manufacture and price drops.
3. Local action can trigger national policy changes, spread to other countries, and ultimately lead to global agreements.
Historical examples include the fight for a 40-hour work week, and the civil rights laws in the 1960s.
Environmental regulation in the 1970s is a noteworthy case. Citizens organized protests due to cities clouded in smog, rivers catching fire from industrial waste, and beaches fouled by oil spills.
Municipalities responded by implementing environmental enforcement. Lawsuits were costly for corporate interests, leading them to support federal intervention.
source:
Leave a Reply