Do you think activism is beneficial or contributes to your society?

Question

Why or why not?

That's an interesting point you've made (orange kitty). In what ways has some activism become deviously biased?
To any one else who wishes to answer this, you are more than welcome.

Answer 1

The personal is political.

Shop for organic vegetables from local farmers and growing my own is activism. It supports the community in which I live. It removes money from corporations force farmers to produce at the lowest price with no regard to sustainability.

I have solar hot water. This is activism. It means that fossil fuels are not being used to bring as much electricity.

I am a member of several organisations that pressure for social change. Who have succeeding in raising awareness of abuses of human rights, injustices in the workplace, abuses of power in the political process. Some of those campaigns have led to better outcomes for known individuals.

I give my time in creating community, put my money into local community events. In doing so I assist the local economy, and contribute to the wellbeing of those around me. This is activism.

I put energy in to supporting those who are trying to make a difference to make the world a better place. So that they feel less alone, and I feel less alone. This is activism. It makes a difference.

And it contributes.

Answer 2

I'd hesitate to speak positively or negatively about activism, per se, but prefer to distinguish between the different causes, the different attitudes, and the different methods of activists and their effects. However, that's not what you asked and that would produce a lengthy reply.

Taking the bad with the good, I'd have to say that activism makes a positive contribution. With technological progress as well as the natural changes that happen with changes in population, climate, migrations, and warfare, society will change. But activism is about taking a role - purposeful and hopefully deliberate - in the direction of that change, rather than letting other forces for change run their course.

One might suppose that those other forces are really the engine of activism (this was a major debate in Marxist theory) and that activism merely brings about the inevitable, but I see no basis for such a supposition, certainly no well-developed theory along those lines that stands up to close scrutiny. People taking the reins of society, whatever "social forces" may cause them to do this, have generally brought us not only to greater liberty, but greater self-awareness.

(Although politics alone can also produce its own form of blindness.)

Answer 3

I think that generally activism is a positive influence. Exercising freedom of expression is an important part of a free society. But that being said, I think that activist organizations sometimes undermine their credibility (and actually, the credibility of all activist organizations) by protesting things that are trivial or ridiculous. A good example of this is when, about 10 years ago, PETA staged a protest against the town of Fishkill, New York insisting that they change the name of the town. Turned out that the name "Fishkill" is a Dutch word that has nothing at all to do with the killing of fish. It revealed an astounding level of ignorance and self-righteous arrogance for such a noted international activist organization.
Activism is great, but you should pick your battles. And make damned sure you know what the hell you're protesting or advocating.

Answer 4

Of course, it does. Nothing happens without activism. Women's rights, Civil Rights, Children's rights, Animal Rights, Worker's Rights.....Political reform, Environmental cleanups, and many times things which begin as "special interest" evolve into mainstream concerns; like various medical research (AIDS, for instance). Wars can start or end due to activism. Unsafe situations like chemicals being used or unsafe vehicles are addressed through activism. Censorship can be held at bay through activism. Undue government involvement in our private lives (like the McCarthy era.... and now the "Patriot Act") can be stopped. Nuclear power, DDT, lead paints, which affect all of us can be eliminated through activism.

Activism has only recently become a 4-letter word. "Activist" is simply a term which describes "a person who cares enough about an issue to DO SOMETHING about it."

Answer 5

Daniel Boone, Billy Ray Cyrus, a vice president, A place that can safely hold the most gold in the United States ( Fort Knox ), Black Gold ( coal ). A number 1 trauma center ( UK Chandler Medical Center ) Lexington, Ky. A famous congressman named Carl D, Perkins, bluegrass music, and last but certainly not least Colonel Sanders and his famous Ky Fried Chicken, and maybe best of all the 101st Airborne Division.

Answer 6

A major problem with activism (especially protests) is that one person or a group makes a claim and a massive group of people gather round to support and protest without testing the veracity of the claim(s).
A second problem is idiotic micro-activism: trying to fiddle with little bits of pointless legislation and attacking the window dressing instead of the reason it was put there.

Activism, to be useful, needs to be both based upon sound principles and directed.

Answer 7

I wouldn't want to live in a world without people willing to work towards social and political change. I don't agree with some forms of activism, and don't agree with the views of quite a few activists, especially those that are anti-activists, but I'd rather see our society change, whether I agree with the changes or not, versus becoming a stagnant, dying society, where change is not needed or allowed.

Answer 8

Everyone's going to have an agenda, but I think being active to do things for each other is really just doing what it takes to Be a society, though we've come to think of it as something extra.. of service to each other and our community as a punishment.

Answer 9

Activism is on the whole what people of good conscious do; they "go where angels fear to tread" and they do it for all of society and not for themselves alone, to fix what is not right.
It goes wrong when it results in violence.
Examples are: bombing of abortion clinics and undue force as a response to sit-ins or marches. (I don't know what, other than war, Britain could have done in response to the Boston Tea Party, but that is the risk activists take whenever they shed light on society's failings.)
C. :)!!

Answer 10

In some degree, yes, but for the most part it's become a beurocracy with intent. It seems that everyone has a "cause" and with all the causes out there, we become numb to the ones that are really of import. Facts are skewed to present their purpose in the fashion that suits them, lobbiests have sooo much money behind them it's silly. The 60's are dead... I wish that there was some responsibility behind the movements. It's gotten so far that they are talking about making it illegal for a parent to spank their own kid these days. Like Unions, they serve their purpose, but after the goals are achieved, the organizations strive to continue their existance beyond their function. It's old and tired.