A Look at American Activism
By Ivan Cash - May, 2008
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, activism is defined as “a doctrine or practice that emphasizes direct vigorous action especially in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial issue.” Author of The Politics of Protest (2007), David S. Meyer, sheds more light on the subject, explaining that the term ranges “from someone who might sign petitions, make phone calls, and donate money from time to time to someone who routinely shows up at demonstrations, lobbies elected officials, and sometimes risks arrest” (p. 46). Whether in support or against these sorts of actions, it is hard to deny that both the legitimacy and prominence of activism is sometimes questioned due to its hot button status and a shift in societal values. This is contrary to a common held belief in the absolute necessity for activism, best expressed by Gandhi’s sentiment that people should “be the change [they] wish to see in the world.”
In accordance with its multi-faceted definition, the connotation of activism itself varies drastically from culture to culture. While countries such as France and Argentina embrace protests and demonstrations, other nations like China and Turkey find political dissent unacceptable. When America gained its independence in 1776, the founding fathers enacted protection of liberty and the freedom of expression, which has since had a deep-seated influence on the lifestyle and tradition of its citizens. Nearly every major change the United States has in fact undergone was sprawled due to citizens taking action and demanding to be heard. This is contrary to the notion that our political system takes care of change when it is needed. From the American Revolution and the abolition of slavery, to women's suffrage and the civil rights movement, the activist ideal of “we the people” has played a fundamental role in the history of the United States.
Despite earlier prevalence, however, Meyer (2007) admits that it is not uncommon for activism to be dismissed as a radical, irrational practice that paradoxes the seemingly conventional method of influencing governmental policy (p.47). The inclination to label activists as “crazies” or “anomic individuals who desperately search for some kind of human connection to make sense of their disjointed and disappointing lives” is one that fails to escape even select scholars and popular writers (Meyers, 2007, p. 47).
This stigmatization of activism among Americans may more recently be partly due to law enforcement intimidation tactics surrounding the act of protesting. The civil liberty-infringing nature of recently passed laws, such as the USA Patriot Act is exemplary in portraying this sentiment. The piece of legislation’s loophole-ridden, broad wording has enabled the government to have tighter control of power (Van Bergen, 2002). Section 802 in particular addresses domestic terrorism as, “appear[ing] to be intended ... to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion” (Talanian, 2002). The subjective, all-encompassing nature of this definition is problematic as it grants the government the ability to arrest even peaceful protesters, provided certain circumstances (Talanian, 2002).
One other example of why protesters might feel intimidated is the advancement in riot control technology. Wearing helmets, body armor, gas masks, and shields, and being equipped with ample amounts of tear gas, pepper spray, plastic bullets, and electric tasers, riot police seem better suited for war than crowd control. This puts the American authority, whose very role may be questioned by the activists, on an elite, nearly untouchable ground. Never before has the disparity between civilian and law enforcement officer been so drastic, which can only add tension, possibly discouraging potential activists from engagement due to fear for their personal safety.
Any negative attitudes towards activism may also be caused by a societal shift in respect to the importance of politics. Modern political disinterest is evident when examining a 1997 UCLA survey that found college freshmen’s commitment to political causes to be at its lowest in the survey’s 32 years (Alvarado). Moreover, only 26.7% of the students polled reported that keeping abreast with political affairs was an important goal, compared to 57.8% of students answering the survey in 1966 (Alvarado). A somewhat correlating 2002 study from that Higher Education Research Institute addresses changing priorities in college students, explaining that over 80% of American college students wanted to develop a meaningful philosophy of life in 1966, and only 40% were concerned with becoming financially well off. More recently those two statistics have virtually flip-flopped. While not dealing directly with politics, it can be deduced that a concern with money over a focus of understanding life, will deter true activism.
Support for the idea that the political focus in America may be shifting also comes from New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman who, after visiting several colleges in 2007, remarked that the students were “much less radical and politically engaged than they need to be.” Friedman (2007) went on to say that “America needs a jolt of … idealism, activism and outrage” from its college students.
While the perception of activism and political engagement may indeed be in jeopardy, the true merits of these activities are alive and more relevant than ever. Firstly, to dispel any doubt concerning the legitimacy of activism, a survey conducted in 1968 by social psychologist Kenneth Keniston (2007) found that leaders of American student social movements were “better educated, more informed, and more connected to organization and established politics than were their less-activist classmates” (p. 47). This portrays activism as an activity that should be encouraged and looked up upon, as an educated, informed, and connected citizen is doubtlessly a more positive contribution to American society than one who is not as developed in these facets.
Activist Abbie Hoffman, author of Steal This Book (2002), reinforces the belief that “democracy is not something that you believe in, or something that you hang your hat on. It's something that you do, you participate. Without participation, democracy crumbles and fails. If you participate, you win, and the future is yours.” This portrays Hoffman’s idea that activism in America is an absolute necessity and without it, America will collapse. Sixteenth President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, builds on this idea, explaining that “this country belongs to the people and whenever they shall grow weary of their government they can exercise their constitutional right to amend it, or revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it.” This further exemplifies the high value which aught to be placed on activism.
If an American is at all concerned with the goings on in the country they inhabit, if a person takes any type of care for the world in which they live, activism is a sure way to further involve oneself and make real change. On the other hand, passive, submissive, or apathetic actions deprive citizens of the world from having any voice or impact, which can often lead to power disparities, breeding injustice and oppression, the antithesis of what’s most important: peace on earth. As civil rights activist Martin Luther King Jr. summarizes, “the greatest sin of our time is not the few who have destroyed but the vast majority who have sat idly by.”
References
Alvarado, Diana. (No date provided). Student Activism Today. Diversity Digest. Retrieved May 5, 2008, from http://www.diversityweb.org/digest/Sm99/activism.html
Friedman, Thomas. (2007). Generation Q. The New York Times. Retrieved May 5, 2008, from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/opinion/10friedman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Hoffman, Abbie. (2002). Steal this book. New York: Da Capo Press.
Meyer, David, S. (2007). The politics of protest. New York: Oxford University Press.
Talanian, Nancy and Bill of Rights Defense Committee. (2002). A guide to provisions of the USA PATRIOT ACT and federal orders that threaten civil liberties. Florence, MA: Bill of Rights Defense Committee
Van Bergen, Jennifer. (2002). Repeal the USA PATRIOT ACT. Truthout. Retrieved May 5, 2008, from http://truthout.com/docs_02/04.02A.JVB.Patriot.htm