In the last eight months, I have met and read about many talented and idealistic young people. A few of them have even said they would like to be Prime Minister of Australia or the leader of another country so that they could make real fundamental changes in the world.
We should feel encouraged by such passion and activism in society’s youth. For me, the first thing that comes to mind is ‘Too many cooks spoil the broth.’ My second thought is then, ‘That’s not really fair, Joan. Democracy isn’t like a kitchen. The more people engaged, the better.’
The third thought, which is there all the time, is ‘You’re on a bandwagon, Joan. It’s a tired old thing, naive and egotistical. Why don’t you get off and let the others save the world? There seem to be plenty of leaders out there, some of whom will be effective.’
These past few weeks, I’ve been thinking hard about why I’m an engineer. It often seems futile, designing sludge drying beds for water recycling or developing a green purchasing policy for a company. There are economic and technological systems that need reform out there. Can an engineer ever do more than tinker at the edges?
I was in bed on the edge of sleep and asking myself, ‘Why do you want to work on the big picture problems, Joan? Is it ego? You don’t trust anyone else to make the ‘right’ changes? You look down on the very necessary and difficult work of on-ground implementation? You don’t want to be a faceless worker bee?’
Then I imagined myself in a happy perfect world in which I didn’t have to strive for change. I think that day-to-day I would be content, dancing, visiting friends, eating, taking photos. But without an overarching life goal, I don’t think I would be satisfied.
I haven’t quite got it yet but it’s something to do with ‘meaning’ and ‘purpose’ There’s something about making a lasting, fundamental difference in the external world that motivates me. It is intrinsic in the fabric that makes up ‘Joan’. It might also be a search for approval but not (I believe) power and fame.
Understanding this makes me start to understand that others aren’t like me. Plenty of people go on with life without trying to change the world. I often get upset with these people (most of society). To me, it seems selfish to aim for nothing more than to earn enough money so that you can go on annual overseas holidays or have weekend parties or relax in the garden or buy a new car.
But maybe (surely) other people have different things that provide their lives meaning: religion, family, friends, travel and experiences, science and discovery, winning, playing, their business…
Still, I think that there are a lot of people who live their lives without meaning. Sam de Brito wrote about a woman who ‘started to cry as she spoke about the goat track her existence had become; a worn, weary path between bed, her desk at work, the couch, then bed again.’
Does my life goal to ‘make a difference’ make me morally superior than the person whose life goal is to ‘step foot in every continent of the world’ or ‘put my children through private school’?
Rationally, no. Intuitively, I still have trouble accepting that intelligent and caring people can be comfortable not acting on global issues of justice, equity, ecological damage, and the future. The corollary of that is that anyone who isn’t an activist cannot be intelligent or caring. Again, rationally, this can’t be true but… I still feel it.
I wonder how many formerly idealistic people are laughing at me now? Here I am, just another naive young thing waiting to be processed and brought down by real life.
Hey Joan,
I like your thinking process. It’s definitely worth a thought. Nevertheless, don’t think too much on that as I think, there will be many promising paths for you to choose! 🙂
Cheers
Noris
Hi Joan,
Interesting thought. I sometimes thought about that too, but recently I come to except and embrace those differences. We live in a very organic world. Without all types of people, society would not be as interesting as it is. To me, it is like black and white. White cannot be as pure without something to compare. Beside, I believe that people, who live their lives without real purpose, unconsciously contribute positively to society.
The society is just too complex to be viewed as a product of a few individuals’ action
Thara
I agree that the world needs all kinds of people. And I don’t believe it is possible to generalise about “intelligent and caring people”.
It seems to me that you have a very specific intelligence in mind. What about people who care but have no practical skills related to issues of justice, ecological damage, etc.? I can’t imagine blaming a talented (intelligent?) artist for choosing a life in the arts rather than solving global social problems.
Also, I think your own personal experience probably has a lot of influence on what brings “meaning” to your life. I know my parents have always said that all they’ve ever worked for was to make sure that I never had to worry about my next meal. Having gone hungry themselves in the past, their view of having a “meaningful” life is being able to do things other than worry about getting fed.
I think this kind of individual differences probably fits nicely into Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Justice, etc. I think would fall into self-actualisation — at the very top of the pyramid. Being intelligent and caring doesn’t necessarily mean you can satisfy the four bottom levels…
I understand what you say on an intellectual level. My problem is reconciling this with my sense of values.
I don’t mean that everyone should make a career in global problem solving. I certainly wouldn’t blame people struggling to survive day to day from not engaging in society-wide issues.
I do not believe you need any specific skills to engage in wider issues. If you understand what problems there are (even problems within your local community, not necessarily any wider than that), then you can talk to others about it, write letters to your civic leader, volunteer your time to other causes, recycle, drive less, sign petitions…
I agree that the talented artist, devoted parent, food writer, whoever, they add to the diversity of society. But how can they be ‘intelligent’ and ‘caring’ and ’empathetic’ and ‘forward-thinking’ and ‘generous’ if they don’t:
a) understand the state of their world.
b) act to better it for everyone?
There are people who do understand the problems (even very local problems like ‘My university is treating these people unfairly’, ‘The bus company is ripping us off’) and they complain. Then they do nothing about it. How can I believe that these people really actually care? How can I take seriously people that I think do not care for anything beyond meeting their own needs?
I’m really struggling to understand. Is it that the artist believes that their work is making the world a better place? Does the accountant think about how his work contributes to the smooth running of our vital tax system? Does the mechanical engineer think that by maintaining these aeroplanes, people can connect with other parts of the world? Does a shopkeeper provide services needed by a community?
Then, having come back from work, do they excuse themselves from thinking about the state of the world because they feel like they’ve made their conribution?
(This is essentially what I do, I’m afraid. I don’t volunteer my time to charitable causes except for extracurricular ‘luxury’ things that I care about, like running on committees.)
Or do people actually not think at all about the value they bring to society? Do they go to work because that’s what everyone else does but as soon as they have enough money, they’ll retire and do whatever it is they want to?
I don’t see why someone can’t be “intelligent”, “empathetic”, “forward thinking”, etc. on a small scale. After all, where do you draw the line? Is someone who cares for their local community less generous than someone who cares for their country? Is someone who cares for their family and friends less generous than someone who cares for their local community?
I think what I tried to say in the previous post (it wasn’t very clear — I’m not very good at expressing myself) is that doing all these… “big” things (things which go beyond the self) is not necessarily altruistic, and that it is a way of satisfying the self — i.e. you do it because it makes you feel good.
I think people need to feel good about themselves to function (did you know the normal population tends to overestimate goodness and underestimate badness, and that clinically depressed people are actually the ones who are ‘realistic’?).
So I’m not so much suggesting that the accountant is trying to actively make the world a better place — I’m more leaning towards that people who are actively doing “good” things are fundamentally motivated by self satisfaction as well.
(It sounds horrible, but I don’t really think it is. It’s only natural that people do what’s good for them. And if what’s good for them is good for everybody else, what’s the problem?)
Hi Vera,
I did miss the point of your before-last post. You were saying that people who behave ‘altruistically’ are motivated by their own needs for self-actualisation.
This was also what I was trying to say in my original post, by saying that behaving and thinking in this way provides my life with purpose and meaning. And I understand intellectually that people have needs, purposes, meaning and motivations that are different.
Regardless, I think the world would be a better place if everyone looked at the bigger picture (global, more forward into the future on a larger scale (beyond their grandkids), participate in their local decision processes, protest injustices when they see it. Maybe I get off on that kind of stuff and others don’t. Does that make it all right? I don’t think so. Being predisposed to inaction doesn’t make inaction right.
I want to motivate people to act as change agents in whatever it is they feel passionate about, no matter how small or large scale. If it’s boring, is the answer to make it exciting? If it’s too hard, do we make it easy? If it’s too remote, do we make it closer? If people feel powerless, do we empower them?
There’s no point being intelligent, empathetic, foward thinking, well read and all those good things unless you translate them into action. So I would quantify them by looking at how much effort people devote into the issues that they care about, no matter how big or small. To me, there are too many people who profess to have concerns and do little about them. They don’t act. They go to work. They’re nice to people they meet. They go home. They’re nice to people at home. It’s all a bit easy and unchallenging, isn’t it?
Must we resign ourself to free riding off on the sub-group of individuals who ‘enjoy’ pushing for large scale social progress?
Okay, we’ve come full circle.
1. People are selfish.
2. People who try to change things are selfish too. They just happen to enjoy changing things.
3. If we want other people to change things, we have to make it fun for them.
That makes me feel very angry. It makes me feel like, ‘Well, if everyone is about themselves then why bother with humanity? It’s really not worth it.’
SIGH.
I think it is still worth it. It really depends on how one identify oneself relative to the big scheme of the world. I, for one, grew up in a Buddhist society, which strongly encourages one to shape a better world around us. Although the view it [Thai branch of buddhism] takes, can be viewed as somewhat selfish, but I think it doesn’t matter. As long as you strive to change the world for those without access to do so themselves, there will always be people, who appreciate your work. Remember that majority of people around the world is still living under $2 a day.
Again, I don’t see why I should be angry about the people, who try to make a change, being selfish, because they enjoy it. I see that as long as the society as a whole come out better as a result, I think it is enough for me. Can we say that people like Gandhi is selfish? The answer may be yes in a personal level, but on the society level, he is definitely not. It is really about what angle you view it from.
With most human being selfish, I think it is just in our instinct, common among all other animals. Not that we should compare ourselves with animal, but I think that you can’t deny the fact that we are all animal, and altruistic behavior stems from our desire to see our genes survive in the future. I don’t believe that altruism can be with pure intention without any hidden agenda. Therefore, I still feel happy trying to change the world, while other lives their lives unconcerned, because that is how I identify myself. Having said this I still believe that we still should encourage others to think and act globally.
I agree that we should make it easier to make a change. I think that is why the Barefoot University works. It is because it relies on the locals pushing for a change, by making it easier to access the facilities and resource. This is where I think a lot of charities fail to recognise the potential of those, who they want to help, to help themselves. They are lack of resources.
I’m less grumpy now.
I’ve been talking about this with a few people and thinking about what Thara has said from a Buddhism perspective, and Vera’s insights from psychology.
I haven’t concluded anything except that lots of people face the same frustration as I do about a whole range of issues e.g. religion, scientific rationality, altruism, animal rights.
Perhaps this is all a campaign against laziness? 🙂
While it may be tempting to brand everyone who “doesn’t bother” and just sticks with the status quo as lazy, that’s probably just as bad as branding people who call for altruistic action as egotistical.
For complex issues, the appropriate decision to make is often not clear, and when it is proposed on a large scale, the potential risks are high, so it shouldn’t be surprising that people want to stall and think first. Then you always have people with other motives who like to add to the confusion. Sure, not everyone is priming themselves for action and is just confused – some people are genuinely lazy and don’t care to get involved. However, to get the ones that do care involved, they need to feel like they are making the right choice and that they are empowered to make a difference. Joan, you are one of the lucky (or perhaps unlucky?) few that believe in both of these. Your mission is to convert the rest. Recruiting an army is never an easy job, but was always a necessary one.
This is all for the best, I believe. As you have commented, many people have other causes about which they feel frustrated for the same reason as you. Imagine what would happen if everyone ran around doing things without much thought first? We would be quite a hyperactive society, and probably waste a lot of effort in counterproductive pursuits. Perhaps we need some people in society to actively not care too much and so act like control rods? Perhaps, in caring about different sorts of pursuits and different ways of having a meaningful life, people don’t really ‘not care’. So, whose army will they join? I guess it depends on how meaningful the army’s purpose is to the individual. If the cause is “saving the world” and it means, for example, the difference between getting fed and not getting fed, then someone like Vera’s parents will be sympathetic to your cause.
On the topic of altruism, while we all seem to agree that there is a selfish component to it, I want to reinforce the notion that this is not necessarily undesirable. When we say that humans are selfish, this is a statement of fact about how we have evolved to be. It is usually also a statement of value, i.e. “humans are bad because they only think about themselves”, but I hope that this isn’t pushed too far. I don’t think we could have evolved otherwise, so, as Vera says, I don’t think we should be ashamed of this trait. Rather, we should be proud that we are able to express the whole spectrum of purely selfish to genuinely altruistic behaviour, and that we find a place on the spectrum that suits any particular situation. We don’t want to spend too much time on either side of the spectrum, the results are either an uncaring society or one where people would be constantly getting ripped off. While altruism that we do observe can range from being mostly genuine to mostly egotistical, if the results of the altruistic action are postive then, like Thara, I believe the effort should be appreciated. Sure, we also care about intention, but if forced to choose between a ‘noble’ aid agency who goes out to feed the poor but ends up creating aid dependency, or an ‘opportunistic’ seed and tools company who equips helpless farmers with the view of future business, who is doing the better job?
If you define altruism purely on intention, then maybe it is not altruism that is the most useful concept for you. But, be careful that you don’t misinterpret intention. The mechanism that drives altruism may simply be the wave of joy that passes that accompanies altruistic actions! To dismiss this as being selfish (in the negative sense) seems like a betrayal of altruism.
I wish there was a word that meant “selfish”, but without a value judgement attached. Then you could discuss the concept without the moral baggage. Is there such a word?
My textbook uses “hedonistic” and “self-focussed” but I don’t think they’re any less loaded, haha.
(I’ve been going over my notes on moral development in children today. Bleh.)
I’m glad you’ve joined the conversation. I was feeling bad. Now I will post more again when I’m not on a tight deadline like tonight! 🙂
I enjoy these conversations. They explore the basic assumptions we usually operate, rarely question, and often don’t even realise we make. Not that we necessarily make any progress, but at least we try.
It feels good. It must appeal to my selfish side. 🙂
I will reply properly when my headache goes away. As a less value-laden alternative to ‘selfish’, I usually use ‘self-interested’. People are generally allowed to look out for their own interests without being accused of being a bad person.
Vera, I am sorry you were feeling bad. I was upset but not at you. In fact, you reminding me about the hierarchy of needs helped clarify things for me. Consider this a public apology!
Hi all! Joan posted this article on Facebook and I posted a (way too) lengthy reply. She suggested I re-post it on her original blog. (Joan – I think its awesome you have a blog!)
I’ve just been reading the other replies – this is a cool thread! I like Thara’s Buddhist perspective a lot too.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hey Joan, I’ve just discovered your note and I have to commend your choice in topic and your excellent exposition.
This is a topic that’s dear to me and one that I can very much relate to. Its also one that I’ve found (through experience) can be a conversation killer. Most people don’t tend to like imposing issues like this one, and naturally this is even more so if it runs the risk of implying that they too are guilty. So its a topic I’ve learned to be reluctant to bring up unless its the right audience.
If you’ll indulge me, let me play a little Devil’s Advocate here.
I have to ask the related rhetorical question:
Is it better to be an activist passionate about something, than an impassive? Is activism intrinsically a good thing?
While I often admire passion, there are certainly horrible forms of passion – is terrorism not passionate?
There is a fundamental part of activism – the turning and changing of people’s minds to one’s cause that I think one must always be cautious of. If you wonder why ‘intellectuals’ don’t tend to get voted into office, its that the general public has a very deep mistrust of intellectuals that tends to baffle us intellectuals and make us ask ‘what intelligent person could
possibly vote for the backward idiot over the sage intellectual?’.
Some of this mistrust has been earned by a long line of spectacularly bad advice. Intellectuals in every Western country long advocated for eugenics and often for the discriminatory politics they justified (Hitler had a lot of intellectual supporters in the US, UK and Europe pushing eugenics policy before the concept became a swear-word), reassured us that DDT was perfectly safe, guaranteed that socialism would provide more for the masses, brought us the ‘stolen-generation’ of Aboriginal children, inspired bad IMF policies, and the list goes on and on…
So along with the arguments that come from intellectuals and academics, there is an implicit “trust me, I’m smarter and I know what’s good for you” which I think many find suspicious and disturbing. I believe a good politician needs to marry high-minded ideas with down-to-earth perspectives that people can truly relate and connect to, especially those it affects. They also need to be their biggest critics.
I think that activism, in a sense, is moral warfare, and the problem with moral warfare is that it is highly subjective. Added to that – all too often, the intent and belief in the outcome can be very different from its actual result.
I remember sitting with a large bunch of activists making cordial conversation the night before their planned protest at the Forbes gathering in Sydney. Their stickler – globalisation. As far as they were concerned it was downright evil – a way for companies to exploit poor countries.
I could see many of their concerns, but I had a very different view of it. In my view, for all its flaws it was a great source of good in the world lifting millions of people out of poverty. Indeed, I think it has been the economic miracle of our time that brings us tantalisingly close to eliminating as Bono puts it ‘stupid poverty’, and that scaling it back would plunge millions back into poverty and consequently kill many people. I had to ask myself – would those workers in developing countries be cheering these activists who claimed to have their interests at heart, or would they be pleading for them to stop? I think the latter – whenever I hear representatives from developing countries talk, they always plead for more foreign investment and jobs, rather than less.
So here are some moral dillema to ponder:
Do I refuse to purchase (cheaper) fruits and vegetables from developing countries because they needed to be shipped here and thus incur greenhouse emissions?
Do I refuse to buy clothes from companies that have unwittingly outsourced operations to sweat-shops that if closed would cause families to starve? Do I argue that since agricultural subsidies in Europe cause economic deprivation in developing countries, that French family farms that have been the central identity and livelihood for many generations should be closed? Should we tell China to slow their efforts to lift their people out of poverty – of providing basic electricity to their rural poor, because otherwise it would greatly increase their greenhouse gas emissions? Do we allow consumers to choose whether or not to use plastic bags at the supermarket, or do we push to remove that choice because they stubbornly keep using them?
Some of these I lean very much to a yes or a no, but others really are ‘maybe’.
When I told a friend of mine that I really liked globalisation – that India and China were growing so fast and lifting people out of poverty, that it was wonderful how Bangalore was becoming a technology hub where jobs were being outsourced to – his response was that it was easy for me to say these things since I could comfortably move up the job chain. He, on the otherhand, felt that his livelihood was in danger. Its not easy to change your livelihood – try going back to University at fifty and starting it all over again in a new field while trying to support a family. So is his need any more or less than that of the educated outsourced replacement? That’s the moral decision an activist must really make – not the high minded abstract idealism, but the gritty reality of being able to say “you’re out of a job, but its better this way”.
If one can’t make that call, then they shouldn’t be an activist.
I do feel very strongly about globalisation, about agricultural subsidies, about medical patent protection, about international criminal courts, about carbon emissions policy. But I must also acknowledge that the issues are rather more complex ethically and practically than most people realise, a complexity that blurs the boundary about a stance being intrinsically ‘good’ or ‘better’. Communism, in principle, was ideologically ‘intrinsically better’ – but it was self-deluding in its view of people, rather than rooted in reality. We know its deep practical flaws now, but this is all too late for many.
I would rather education for a full picture, rather than activism on a partial one – and let people make up their own mind. Unfortunately, I know how difficult and frustrating it is to educate people about issues (including people who ‘say’ they’re concerned).
Honestly, I feel like I can go on and on about our flawed internal moral compass, and how and why people resist ‘education’, but I think that’s getting off topic.
While I’m hesitant to pressure people’s choices, I am a big believer in economic incentives. The wonderful thing about science and engineering is that it changes the economics and consequently people’s choices. If solar power were competitive with coal, I believe the consumer choice would be a no-brainer.
So I feel more comfortable making the world a better place through innovation and education, but less so on the activism.
– Dan
Dear Beldar,
You have nominated three conditions that need to be met so that people take action.
1. You need to care.
2. You need to feel like you understand the issue well enough to be making ‘the’ right choice.
3. You need to feel empowered.
I agree. So it’s someone job is to make issues like environmental protection and social equity (stuff I care about) relevant and real enough so that people care. To do so, they will need to appeal to people’s hierarchy of needs. It’s education and it’s marketing. Whatever it takes — appeal to people’s hip pockets, to their higher sense of justice, to their sense of self-prservation, to their sense of fun.
Step 2 is education from others (government, peers, institutes, companies, media) and reaching out for self-education through reading and discussion. I’m keen on self-education but realistically, the less engaged people need public and targeted messages, as well as the capacity to judge the validity of such messages.
Step 3 requires clear, consistent and relevant messages. You need personal stories, demonstration projects, niche markets, leading countries, innovators, institutional support, and so on.
My frustration is when people don’t care, don’t try to understand what’s going on, and don’t seek ways in which they can contribute. Does this mean that I’m not doing my job well enough?
Let me reiterate again. I would be delighted if people just started tackling local and personal problems if that’s what they care about, understand and can address. Example: My Council is going to sell the primary school’s oval to real estate developers because it needs to raise money. I feel angry. I understand they need funding but it is important for kids to have open space to exercise. The Council should find the money from elsewhere. I will write a letter to the MP.
How many people would lament about the loss of the oval and tut tut about how terrible it all is — and watch it happen without doing a single thing?
Dear Dan,
My hope is that if you believed that the government was following ‘spectacularly bad advice’, that you would do something about it. You would write a letter to the editor, or write to your MP, or sign a petition, or join a protest.
I agree with you that we can’t let intellectuals and experts run the show without public oversight. What I’m advocating IS public oversight.
Activism is ‘moral warfare’ (although, I think there are less loaded descriptions than ‘warfare’). Activists are drawing their set of values. This is why people campaigned for Aboriginals to be recognised as citizens. This is why I, as a woman today, have the right to vote. This is why slavery was outlawed in the US.
Even sustainable development is a moral position. I advocate it because I believe that future generations deserve to be represented in present day decision making processes, and if I believe that the government is doing that, then I will campaign to draw attention to it.
You say that innovation and education are more effective and sensible ways to change the world. I’m interpreting you to mean that if people develop fantastic solutions, and if these solutions are communicated through education, then people will be rational and choose the innovation based on its merits.
This is the best way for things to happen, and it hardly happens this way in real life. If you develop a great form of renewable energy, then you will need to overcome a socio-technological system that has evolved to support fossil fuels. You need to break the stranglehold of incumbent fossil fuel industries. You need coordination to distribute supporting infrastructure. You need to change the standards for housing, the automobile, pipes, pumps, whatever it is that will use the energy.
And if it’s a bit hard, your innovation will languish, no matter how fantastic it is and no matter how much information is provided to decision makers.
So you need to act.
I don’t mean that you need to start a protest. I mean you need to marshal enough vocal support to make it worthwhile for a decision maker to risk supporting your innovation.
Now, this applies to anything you believe in, be it technological regime change or social justice or support for the arts, whatever. If you believe that Aung San Suu Kyi being under house arrest for 10 years is wrong, I would hope that you at least signed a petition.
If you believe that science education needs more funding, I would hope that you would write to your MP.
None of this is rational. It’s all about values. Decision-making is not about weighing up incontestable costs and benefits and doing whatever the algorithm says. NO, it *is* about values. And if decisions being made aren’t aligned with your values, then I implore you and everyone to do something about it. Inform yourself first, of course. But don’t let yourself be perpetually stuck reading about the issue, talking about it, pondering and pondering. At some point, ENGAGE.
Hey Joan,
let me be clearer. There is a big distinction between action that represents myself (which has the vote and influence of solely myself) than that which seeks to convert others to my (usually political) cause. Yes, I take *personal* action, but I steer away from activism, by which I mean to influence others to my point of view for a cause.
Even when taking personal action, I very much believe in ensuring that my actions reflect the will of the people it affects. For example, yes I believe that Aung San Suu Kyi being under house arrest is wrong. Do I then push for the use of sanctions against Burma as a protest (as the US does)? Then I ask myself – what are the impacts? Would she want that, and would the Burmese people want that? I have to be convinced of these before making my personal action, and then educating others of these as well as the impact subsidies are likely to have on the Burmese population. I am NOT going to make that moral choice for them even if I make it for myself. (I encourage you to look at the campaigns for and the arguments against Burmese sanctions, although I suggest Indians pay extra attention as they have the significant power)
I might believe strongly against pre-marital sex and the use of condoms, do I then pressure my government (such as in the US) so that aid to Brazil is given contingent on abstinence-only programs being promoted? Those groups in the US were surely taking action…against the will of the majority of the Brazilian population. Surely they too were engaged.
You say that future generations deserve to be represented in present day decision making processes. But how much weight are you going to give them because *you* feel it should be like that? Don’t those present-day parents and grand-parents of those future generations in China and India also care? Shouldn’t we ask them how much they’re willing to slow down their own escape from poverty so it is more sustainable for their kids and grandkids? Or don’t you trust them to do that? I cannot morally support a position that has me decide for them what they should give up.
I use the word warfare because activism is a two-way clashing street that does both good and bad. I do not see it as intrinsically good. Yes, there has been good activism with Aboriginal rights, women’s rights and slavery (all supported by those it affects). But there has also been bad activism with Nazism, White-supremacy, protectionism, and dare I say, Communism, plus many many more.
Are you absolutely sure that your activist agenda is truly moral? Will your actions and vision really have the intended outcome? What are the casualties of your action? If you are not 100% certain of these then I’m not saying you shouldn’t act, but I am saying you shouldn’t be convincing others that your way is right.
My preference is to educate and inform, to protest personally, but unless I truly think it is spectacularly bad, not to try to convert everyone’s mind.
To address innovation – I think you lend too much credence to the ‘incumbent fossil fuel industry’. Even BP has a huge research budget on solar power. And they know this is wise because history is littered with good inventions completely dismantling and usurping existing industries that seemed to be goliaths in their time. Instead I lend credence to the relative cost of fossil fuels being so damn cheap as keeping their industry in power.
“You need to change the standards for housing, the automobile, pipes, pumps, whatever it is that will use the energy”. That may be, but it sounds extremely unpopular with the general population and rather dictatorial. Is it easier to convince and gather the massive public support for such costly change or to change the costs by innovation (or by accounting for energy externalities) so they’ll do it of their own volition?
As for decision maker support – it tends to be risky, economically unsound or state-infrastructure innovations that need the support of the decision makers to get off the ground. And it is not surprising that a lot of them end up failing (they needed all that support to begin with). Economically sound innovations for the general market do often succeed without needing any decision makers to actively support them.
– Dan
I bet were we all philosophers in our previous life. 🙂
Joan and Dan, I think you might be talking slightly past each other. If I may,
I would like to summarise your thoughts to see how they relate.
Firstly, I think you might have different definitions of activism. For Dan, it
is usually a highly engaging activity with the aim to “influence others to my
point of view for a cause”; possibly quite aggressive, and characterised by such
activities as protests, boycotts, speeches, writing and conversation (I’m
filling in the gaps here, feel free to correct or extend the examples). A
fundamental notion is that activism involves a moral sparring, of sorts, where
different values may clash and each tries to overcome the other.
For Joan, it seems to be more general notion, which includes anything that will
“marshal enough vocal support to make it worthwhile for a decision maker to risk
supporting your innovation”. To me, that sounds like it would include
activities like education in its various forms, ranging from propaganda (would
you class that as education?) to something more intellectually engaging and
reflective. In this respect, it seems different to Dan’s notion which excludes
education.
I’m not so sure that education is easy to divorce from activism. A decision
has to be made as to what to teach, and the process by which that is decided
will surely be marked by those exerting influence – which I think would make
them activists in my mind (I only have a fuzzy notion of “activism” in my mind,
especially after reading your essays!) I think it would useful if Dan could
characterise the difference between his version of activism, which he is not so
keen on, and education, which he does support.
Both Joan and Dan feature a clash of morals (not necessarily violent) as being
an important component of activism, and that seems to be the most important
part. They only differ on the scope of activity that “activism” denotes.
Secondly, I think Dan makes a good argument activism not being intrinsically
good. That might be interpreted as advocating passivism, but I don’t think
that was the intention. He would probably make an equally strong argument that
passivism is not intrinsically good either. Rather, it is the cause that
matters. When we say that we “admire the passion” of an activist, I think what
we are actually doing is admiring the cause first, and the passion second. You
only have to read Dan’s examples to be horrified of passion misdirected.
Thirdly, this is how I see your main messages:
Joan: people should take an interest in society-wide issues and take some form
of action that shows their point of view.
Dan: a cautious approach needs to be taken when advocating actions or morals on
wider group of people to avoid a morally dictatorial approach that is ultimately
counterproductive.
I don’t see the two messages as incompatible. The only clash I see is that Joan
urges haste which might tempt her to ‘cut moral corners’, but Dan just says to
be careful not to do so.
Fourthly, Dan I hope you haven’t misrepresented your approach to moral
advocacy. The difference between “personal action” and “activism” can, I think,
be seen as a matter of degree. Perhaps you agree with me and only made the
distinction to highlight the difference in degree. If it is only a matter of
degree, your approach is essentially just one where morals are only weakly
advocated to others (that description of it sounds rather lame – maybe
“respectfully advocated” better characterises your approach). The way you have
written your responses seems to be quite consistent with your approach – you
describe your points of view, give reasons why you hold them, but stop short of
actually saying that we should all adopt them too. Of course, the discourse is
such that this is the implicit message, since presumably you wouldn’t bother to
write about this otherwise, and wouldn’t outline your reasoning unless you think
it was meaningful to us as well.
I’m wondering to what extent your approach is compatible with the needs of a
good politician that you outlined earlier. Perhaps a “down-to-earth
perspective” necessitates a bit more militancy when it comes to advocating their
points of view? A candidate for presidency, for example, might seem to be a bit
too timid otherwise. In that sense, we might be a slave to our human nature,
that doesn’t give us the luxury of always settling issues in a less aggressive
manner. However, your motivation seems to be try to instill civility into such
processes wherever possible, and in that respect I support your approach. It’s
a brave point of view in one sense – it is fully long-term in its perspective,
not accepting short-term ‘practical’ and ‘realistic’ corner-cutting (e.g. moral
dictatorship) if their effect is deemed to be ultimately negative (e.g.
resentment).
Finally, the examples that have been given of general activism that might be
undertaken include signing petitions, writing letters to MPs and writing letters
to the editor. Certainly if everyone did these things they will have a large
impact, but we suffer a certain form of tragedy of the commons with such
approaches. Individually, such actions are often perceived to be ineffectual.
Even people who do want to do something might not do any of the above for that
reason. In such a case, they definitely don’t feel empowered.
Tough issues. No easy answers.
Beldar, your represenation of my point of view is accurate, even the part about ‘Joan urges haste which might tempt her to ‘cut moral corners”. In such cases, we would need others who remind us to slow down and think about things.
I agree with Dan that when calling for action, one needs to do one’s best to understand the full picture of consequences of the action. There are effective measures and there are damaging measures. People need to be thoughtful, not simplistic.
There are a few situations in which I would call for action, then.
1. When one has a good understanding of the likely effectiveness and broader consequences of the measure.
2. Not to advocate a specific action, just to highlight that an important issue has been neglected.
3. When the effectiveness of an action to address a specific problem is still uncertain, but there are clear co-benefits to implementing those measures, and that the co-benefits will mitigate any costs.
4. When someone or an institution I trust advocates a stance. I may not understand all the details but I defer to their experience and knowledge. This trust in particular authorities is personal to me and is the result of me not being able to devote time to study in depth all the issues I’m interested in.
Dan, Beldar has already asked, but it would help me to understand your position if you clarified:
1. The difference between advocacy/activism and education.
2. Who should be allowed to educate others.
(Sorry for the slow response)
Beldar and Joan, wow I’m really enjoying this banter! I think its wonderful to have this opportunity to expose and have my moral position examined so I can see how well it stands up to scrutiny. As I hope you already know, please feel free to fire away to your heart’s content.
Beldar, I think you’ve made excellent observations, and it does seem that Joan and I have slightly different definitions of activism.
You’ve both pointed out that I should clarify what I mean by education. Excellent point! I notice Beldar has astutely hinted at propaganda as perhaps falling into the education category, and this shows that I need to be explicit on the form of education I encourage.
I believe activism dangerously tends to propaganda – by which I mean one-sided arguments that demonstrate excessive confidence and faith in their arguments, in their belief of the result, and in their bulldozing or ignoring of counter-arguments. I went to the Strawberry Festival here over the weekend, and saw more examples of this with a number of angry campaigns that had rather one-sided and simplistic views of issues, advocating actions with, I believe, potentially disastrous results if they could get what they wanted. On the other-hand, I saw some volunteer organisations, such as for volunteering to be a big brother or sister, which seemed to only have positive consequences for all parties involved (with proper checks). I wouldn’t really class these volunteer organisations as activist.
To me, ideally, education on an issue involves showing arguments from multiple sides without a clear moral bias, and most importantly, I would encourage people to explore the issue themselves by looking at online resources reflecting multiple viewpoints so they can discover and make up their own minds. While this is not perfect in eliminating moral bias, I believe it goes a long way. In cases where I am not alone in providing the education, with one side already being well represented, I may seek to expand on it (though less) as well as include information on other perspectives. And again, I would encourage exploration of all sides, without passing moral judgement.
For example, if I were personally against agricultural subsidies, when educating people about them I would strive to be morally unbiased in my delivery and be careful to ensure I also include links to campaigns advocating agricultural subsidies as well as those against them. I would present facts uncontested by the parties and at least strive to present an unbiased set of their claims as a starting point for exploration. I would then leave the moral decision to each person.
I realise that this is asking a lot of people who often lack the time and patience to care about an issue in the first place. However, I am always concerned by people who merely want to be told what is right or wrong as though they are clear and absolute. I have given some thought on possible formats (on a website) that such education can take and I must admit I am not sure how to handle moral topics involving Global Warming when one of the criticisms scientists have of the news media is that by giving the same space to skeptics it biases against the true representation in the scientific population. Noting that this is a powerful argument for the scientific community, I think I may lean towards still giving the same space where they can then include this argument if the oppositional moral position tries to discredit it.
Joan also asks about “who should be allowed to educate others”. I don’t like the “allowed” bit as that implies we allow/disallow people from educating others on the streets or wherever. For me the question is more what should we encourage in our education – and that is to strive to remove bias in presentation and not to pass moral judgement. When a non-trivial moral decision is called for, let people decide for themselves what the moral thing to do is. Is it possible to completely remove bias? I’ll be the first to say no – bias itself is subjective, but I wonder if one can be as objective in that goal as possible? Are there procedures in presentation that can minimise bias?
Beldar, you’re right when you say that I would argue that passivism is not intrinsically good either.
As for the difference between my stance on personal action and activism as being only a matter of degree, I don’t believe so. For me there is a line between personal action and activism. For example – I certainly sign petitions – as long as my signature represents myself to those in power, and isn’t used as a forum for preaching my moral position to others. I certainly can write letters to MPs advocating my moral position – again representing myself. However, I would not write a letter to the editor to convince their readers of my moral position, instead I would write with the aim to educate on both sides, as I outlined earlier, for readers to explore and decide on their own. If I know that I will be in a forum where one side already has significant attention but the other does not, then I would try to balance by educating on the missing side – even if it were not a position I personally supported. The line bounds action motivated by my own biased morals to the personal, versus unbiased education for the general population.
I used to push my moral position aggressively onto others, and used to even be morally disgusted at some people’s positions on issues, but I learned over time that I shouldn’t be so quick to judge and that talking with them, I discovered that they weren’t ‘evil’, but that they simply had different values or that my moral picture was incomplete. Perhaps I still didn’t agree with them, but I certainly couldn’t say that their position was fundamentally wrong. Again, this does not apply for extreme issues like slavery.
Perhaps the other extreme is unrealistic, but currently I don’t see it as a really limiting constraint in making the world a better place. Discussions like these help! As for a politician, most of the decisions made are compromises of some sorts – if somehow it does not but only benefits, then I would have no moral quandry pushing it. For items that are a matter of compromise, I would hope that when politicians advocate a direction that they be clear and objective in not just the benefits but also the moral and economic costs of doing so. I realise that this is what many arguments are actually about.
Dan, I will reply to your comment. I haven’t forgotten it.
No worries Joan! We can have this conversation anytime – I know you’ve got a dissertation to finish.
Dear Joan & Dan,
When the world extended to the hills and mountains and over them was only myth and legend, saving the world was approchable and a natural activity to all of independent character.
You do not need to justify the possession of these noble instincts. Such attributes are normally distributed. You have a constellation of these attributes that makes you who you are. Recognise that the substantial ones are invariant.
You must satisfy your invariant instincts or you will be at odds with your own character. It is only when we are not at odds with our basic makeup that we can find life fufilling and meaningful.
To exercise our instincts for saving the world, requires saving what we perceive to be the world
Being modern, educated and wordly, the world you perceive is immense and this is disempowering compared to the valley world of your ancestors where your feelings were forged and where saving 10 people saved 10% of the “world”‘s population.
Here lays the difficulty in actualising your character. Your perception is of a world so vast that it is hard to see yourself making a difference.
People try to fool themselves and others into believing that one can “think globally and act locally”. To anyone with a sense of perspective, thinking globaly makes acting locally marginal. It’s not setting the world to rights.
To meaningfully interact with the world, you have to either constrain your perception of what it is back to valley proportions by eschewing all global information (most of us here have engaged on just the opposite course which is what has provoked this discussion), losing your sense of perspective, or start seriously engaging with the modern perception of the world.
That latter path can be hard to find, because it is only satisfied by creating ideas or inventions that have a global impact. I think I have found one, and there’s others out there, but for most people a combination of eschewing knowledge of those parts of the world they can’t change, and robust engagement with the parts they can is probably optimal.
Personally, I am unconcerned about when one is to do good, who defines good, etc. I act in the way I do, because anotherway would be at odds with my character.
I support similarly minded people, not because they are moral agents, as defined by society, but because they have common cause with my own feelings and dreams.
Julian.
This is an interesting discussion – I’m sorry I’ve come to it so late.
Joan, I know the feeling you posted about. How is it possible for people to live their lives without caring about bigger issues than the mortgage and what they will do on the weekend? But apparently it is, for many people. And feeling morally superior (or angry, or depressed) does not help me, or them, or whatever cause I would like them to think about.
I think one of the problems is that there are so many causes out there, and a person only has so much energy to give. We are just not built to care about problems on the scale of this whole complex planet and its 6 billion people (or whatever we’re up to these days). Sometimes I feel guilty about giving my time to choir committee instead of a refugee support group or an anti-whaling group or a cancer research fundraising group… but I feel I can be more effective in helping out the choir than I can in chipping away at these bigger issues. I guess that’s how a lot of people feel about a lot of causes – even if it’s just writing a letter to their MP or signing a petition, how do they know that it’s actually having any effect? The problem with educating people about issues without also giving them an easy and plausible solution is that it leads to despair, which leads straight back to apathy.
I think the GetUp model is quite good – they publicise a range of issues which people may not have heard of, you can sign petitions for only the ones you agree with, and they tell you what result the petition has had. Encouraging and empowering.
I think it does also have a lot to do with self-actualisation. A lot of people spend a lot of time distracting themselves from the fact that they are unhappy with major things about their life (their job, their relationships, etc…) If everyone learned how to discover what they really want and make it happen, perhaps they would have more time and energy to spend on making the world better for other people(/species) too. But knowing your values and constructing your life according to them is a big hard task; it’s much easier just to keep on doing what you’ve always been doing. We would need some massive education effort co-ordinated through the whole schooling system, plus support throughout people’s working life and into retirement. And constructing that system seems way too hard… I don’t know what the best way to get around it is. Maybe all we can do is try to maintain our own passion in the face of apathy, guard against it becoming fanaticism, and spend it constructively.