{"id":2291,"date":"2022-12-30T08:28:15","date_gmt":"2022-12-30T07:28:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/youth-talks.org\/?p=2291"},"modified":"2024-03-10T13:26:12","modified_gmt":"2024-03-10T12:26:12","slug":"how-effective-are-activist-happenings","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/youth-talks.org\/fr\/how-effective-are-activist-happenings\/","title":{"rendered":"How effective are activist happenings?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

If you haven\u2019t seen one, you have probably heard of one.\u00a0Happenings are performances organized by activists<\/a>\u00a0in a public space, which seem to take place spontaneously. They are typically illegal and are designed to shock passers-by and obtain mediatic coverage. As more and more such events made it to the headlines these last months, analysts observed that most activists participating in happenings were concerned by their government\u2019s climate inaction, quite young (20-30 years old), mostly female, post-graduate students or students, with various professional backgrounds.<\/p>

But from\u00a0throwing food on a Van Gogh<\/a>\u00a0painting to\u00a0interrupting<\/a>\u00a0a politician\u2019s press conference topless, how effective is this flamboyant way of action? As an attempt to help you build your own opinion on this matter, this article (also the last of our activism series) dives into two examples of activist movements known for their happenings:\u00a0Just Stop Oil,<\/a>\u00a0which \u201ccommits to halting new fossil fuel licensing and production and\u00a0Femen,<\/a>\u00a0whose \u201cgoal is to protect women\u2019s rights\u201d. Each point takes into account an argument that says their happenings are not effective, based on the assumption that they do not succeed at rallying more people to their cause.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t

\"\ud83d\udca5\" <\/span>Argument #1 \u201cHappenings promote violence\u201d<\/span><\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Recently, the group of climate and social justice activists <\/span>Just Stop Oil<\/a> provoked multiple reactions about its happenings, namely throwing food on paintings exhibited in major national museums.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>

Among such criticism was violence to the point where American art critic Jerry Saltz<\/a> described the events as \u201cTaliban-like\u201d. In parallel, the French Minister of Interior Security described other climate activists blocking a construction project as \u201ceco-terrorists\u201d.<\/a> To rephrase it, the illegality of happenings is threatening to some people, which generates negative reactions among the public, possibly polarizing debates, rather than convincing new people of the need for urgent climate action.<\/p>

Stop Oil Now activists explained<\/a> that they are not violent as they targeted, on purpose, pieces of art that were protected by glass and couldn\u2019t be damaged; represented nature to highlight their goal to protect the environment; were in national museums to obtain their government\u2019s attention. Moreover, the French professor of political sciences Simon Persico<\/a> explains that government officials often use words like \u201ceco-terrorism\u201d to justify the security measures they deploy to stop activist happenings. An observation that somewhat echoes Just Stop Oil\u2019s slogan: \u201cAre you more concerned about the protection of a painting or the protection of our planet and people?\u201d.\u00a0<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Takeaway <\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Just Stop Oil targeted museums to demonstrate how urgent they believe the climate situation to be while breaking the law. As a result, government and cultural actors perceived it as an attack against their institutions and the public.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t

\"\ud83d\udcf8\" Argument #2 \u201cThey are only doing this to get their 15 minutes of fame\u201d<\/span><\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Femen<\/a> is a feminist movement founded in Ukraine in 2008. It is now present around the world and became known for its happenings\u2019 features: vehement topless women with activist messages painted on their bodies, wearing flower crowns, targeting politicians and events.<\/span><\/p>

Critics,<\/a> including other feminists, accused Femen of seeking fame as they organised photoshoots with pop-culture magazines such as Les Inrockuptibles, and of instrumentalizing young women\u2019s bodies to get media coverage. Their main point: Femen happenings bring more attention to female nudity than the protection of women\u2019s rights.<\/p>

Howerver, former Femen member Elvire Duvelle-Charles<\/a> explains that the risks taken while disturbing political events (e.g. aggressions,<\/a> prison) are too numerous and serious to think that their actions are motivated by fame. Notably, Femen leader Inna Shevchenko<\/a> had to seek asylum in France because she was targeted by the KGB as she publicly expressed her anti-Poutine stance.
Femen activists also argue<\/a> that their aesthetics echo their slogan – \u201cMy Body, My Weapon!\u201d – to desexualize the female body and empower women. They want us to ask ourselves why their nudity disturbs as much as it attracts the media.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Takeaway\u00a0<\/b><\/span><\/p>

Femen activists are often accused of adopting sensationalist tactics to obtain fame. They respond that they take many risks to make their voices heard and that their aesthetics are perfectly effective when it comes to obtaining media coverage and making a memorable impression.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t

\"\ud83d\udc1d\" <\/span>Argument #3 \u201cHappenings discredit other, more traditional, activist movements\u201d<\/span><\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

More traditional, yet ecologist too, activist organisations have been critical<\/a> of Just Stop Oil and others\u2019 happenings. They believe happenings, which systematically involve civil disobedience and breaking the law, discredit their fight against climate inaction to the point where it could slow down their progress. The same goes for Femen and other branches<\/a> of feminist activism.<\/p>

Indeed, happenings are not systematically more efficient than demonstrations or petitions. As they are organized spontaneously and with fewer means, their failures<\/a> are more numerous than within an association with more funding and experience like Greenpeace.<\/a><\/p>

The main problem: these illegal actions are carried out to irritate and question very broad causes that are not necessarily understandable for the general public, whereas legal modes of action block specific projects and are therefore better at spreading a message.<\/p>

According to some sociologists,<\/a> this opposition between \u201cresponsibility\u201d and \u201cradicality\u201d is a recurrent theme among activist circles, that shows illegal actions emerge when legal organizations are perceived as too consensual with the status quo. It simply is a cycle,<\/a> for example, Greenpeace was created in 1971 because other anti-nuclear movements were considered not effective enough, Extinction Rebellion was founded because Greenpeace was too \u201csoft\u201d and many Stop Oil Now members were previously members of Extinction Rebellion!<\/p>

More than rallying public opinion around their cause, their goal<\/a> is to saturate the media space until governments act. Despite criticism, radical activists and happenings are more and more numerous and frequent. Finally, climate justice and feminism are increasingly discussed by more and more people, meaning there is no evidence<\/a> that the radical nature of civil disobedience is slowing down activist movements defending the same cause.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Takeaway\u00a0<\/b><\/span><\/p>

No one is capable of answering whether illegal activism, as long as it is non-violent (e.g. happenings, civil disobedience) is more or less effective than legal ways of action (e.g. demonstrations, petitions). But some research has demonstrated that there is one thing we can observe: illegal actions do not discourage new people from joining both illegal and legal movements.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t

\"\ud83d\ude3e\" <\/span>Argument #4 \u201cHappenings do not generate public support\u201d<\/span><\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Marches with tens of thousands of people hardly get any attention. Blocking a road or occupying a building, on the other hand, is much more effective in attracting media interest. However, happenings require annoying other citizens that have nothing to do with the movement\u2019s target.<\/span><\/p>

Here, the argument against happenings is based on the same reasons given above about discrediting moderate ways of action: people don’t like it,<\/a> which would lead them to oppose the social and climate justice movements led by radicals like Just Stop Oil and Femen.<\/p>

Again, the radicals will respond that getting the general public on board is not their goal. What they want is to get their voice heard and to get attention. But how? Two sociological concepts explain it: the radical flank effect<\/a> and the Overton window:<\/a><\/p>