[ad_1]
Climate change activists are turning to civil disobedience more often to prove their point. 1,000 scientists from 20 countries organized coordinated actions in April to block roads, picket infrastructure, spread paint and paste up huge climate information. In the same month, Extinction Rebellion — a group that British government officials were recently considering designating an organized crime group — are planning to blockade oil facilities across the UK.
While their tactics can be a boon for their cause, research shows that they also pose significant risks. Research shows that different levels of disruption can be appropriate depending on the purpose of protesters.
Eric Shuman, who studies collective and psychological protest at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in Jerusalem and the University of Groningen in The Netherlands, says that peaceful demonstrations and petitions that adhere to societal norms are more effective and draw support from people who might be sympathetic.
But, if the goal is to change policy support among people who might otherwise be ambivalent to the cause, then more disruptive protests — such as civil disobedience, strikes, and boycotts — have been shown to be effective, he adds.
“[Opponents] aren’t necessarily going to ever be supportive or probably even like the protesters. But by causing disruption, they are basically putting pressure onto them to make changes or support change so that disruption will stop,” Shuman stated.
Disruptive protests can cause political and social pressure to compromise.
Policy-makers need strong incentives for changing the status quo. Disruptive protests are a way to make a difference. They reduce the chance of voter backlash and put pressure on those in charge.
Research shows that civil disobedience can only be effective if protesters have clear, positive and constructive goals. Otherwise they risk becoming a nuisance to society and being seen as rabble-rousers. They must project a clear image while building enough pressure for policy-makers to respond.
They have many options to choose from.
Occupying a space is at the bottom end of the scale, followed by strikes and boycotts. Blocking roads is a way to make things worse, especially when it comes to safety. Major traffic arteries are targeted by protestors. Disrupting speakers at events and throwing glitter bombs, hacking, and other disruptive actions push the boundaries even further. Protesters move beyond this stage into potentially violent actions like interfering in property or attacking people.
At this stage, they risk triggering outrage from observers.
“Once something is perceived to have crossed some sort of moral line or boundary, this is when the disruption is much less likely to be effective, for a lot of reasons,” Shuman said. “People will have a strong motivation to condemn it and everything associated with it.”
Protesters who take a more disruptive route are less likely than those who follow it to violate the moral threshold. Clearly targeted and goal-orientedRather than indiscriminate attacks, disrupting the infrastructure of climate harming activities is better than indiscriminate attacks.
It is less likely that disruptive protests that are clearly targeted will cause a backlash.
A broad movement
David S Meyer, professor of sociology and political science at the University of California, studies social movements and their relationship to institutional politics. He said effective protesting is made up of a broad spectrum of actions.
“If you look at the most successful movements in history, you will see that there were many people doing many different things. Because authorities have many people to deal with when making concessions, making accommodations, or negotiating, a diversity in tactics is actually a plus. It gives bystanders many things to hook into.”
He said that it is difficult to attribute the success or failure of an activist movement to a particular method of protest.
He said, “Rosa Parks wouldn’t have sat down that morning if she hadn’t been organizing for the dozen-years before.”Martin Luther KingShe organized the bus boycott that lasted a year and others filed a lawsuit to go to the Supreme Court.
Is violence the answer to our problems?
What about climate protesters who violate moral boundaries and engage violence? This includes those calling for destruction of fossil fuel infrastructure. More research is needed, but there is some evidence that extreme acts of protest from a small radical flank can actually be beneficial to the cause.
“When violence occurs within the umbrella of a much bigger non-violent group, it can sometimes have an effect on creating disruption and the pressure for action. Shuman said that there is a larger, non-violent group which is seen as more moderate, and people believe they can at least concede to some of their demands.
Many actions can be part of successful protest movements
Climate activists welcome all actions
Climate activists are open to a variety of tactics within their movement.
“The forms of action and protests within the climate movement are very diverse and wide-ranging — and that is a good thing. Jule Pehnte is an activist with Climate Action. She said that there are many forms of protest that reach different groups and compliment each other, including peaceful blockades that affect climate-damaging infrastructure. Fridays for the Future Germany.
She stated that it didn’t matter how radical a protest movement might be, Climate change will have far greater impacts.
“We discuss again and again how radical the global climate movement can be, but the point remains: How radical can it become?” She asked.
“We should not be discussing protest forms, but have an honest discussion about how we can reduce emissions quickly and socially and face the reality of climate crisis.”
Climate fatalism is the worst strategy
The 2020 manifesto How to blow up a pipelineAndreas Malm (a Swedish lecturer who is also a climate activist) argues that climate activists should consider using violence to target the infrastructure and properties of climate-destroying activities, but not people.
He envisions a world where, despite all the marches, strikes, and petitions, the necessary action to combat climate change doesn’t take place.
“Do we think we have done everything we could and tried all the options but failed? Do we conclude that the only thing left is learning to die — a position already propounded by some — and slide down the side of the crater into three, four, eight degrees of warming? Is there another phase?
He also argues that any action which does not accept fatalism is important.
“The most religiously Gandhian climate activist, the most starry-eyed renewable energy entrepreneur, the most self-righteous believer in veganism as panacea, the most compromise-prone parliamentarian is infinitely preferable to the white man of the North who says, ‘We’re doomed — fall in peace.’ He writes that none of the positions on this side of climate denial are more despicable.”
Edited By: Tamsin W. Walker
[ad_2]
