Environmental activism: how far can we go?

How far can we go to defend the ecological cause in the public debate? That's a bit the question driving the debate after two activists decided to deface Van Gogh's Sunflowers painting, exhibited at the National Gallery in London, to denounce the lack of attention given by the media and politicians to climate issues.

Is it legitimate to vandalize, degrade, or use violence when defending an ostensibly just cause, that of ecological transition? Is it an effective strategy? We tried to better understand the dynamics of environmental activism by decrypting some of what researchers interested in this subject have said.

Ecology: What is activism?

Ecological transition and the fight against climate change involve major social, political, and economic changes. Logically, these changes are the subject of controversy in society, of debates between social groups that do not always share the same worldview and ambition for the future. These debates then crystallize, it is the essence of politics, into power struggles: it is up to those who can best influence the public and media debate to influence public decisions, public policies, and social norms.

To do this, social movements consciously or unconsciously practice different strategies of influence. Communication strategies, lobbying, marketing, influence campaigns, associative engagement, and various forms of activism, but also activism. It is quite difficult to precisely define the boundaries of activism, which is often confused with militancy, but if we go back to its etymology, we can describe activism as a strategy of influence that primarily uses direct action as its main means. Demonstrations, civil disobedience, sabotage, poster campaigns, hacktivism, or even blockades and obstructions are some examples of these means of direct action. Often, activism is presented as a more "radical" form of militancy, whose actions are sometimes illegal, and even judged as violent.

For many years, a certain form of activism has developed to try to influence the public debate on ecological issues. In addition to peaceful demonstrations, activism can take the form of eco-sabotage, various blockades (roads, industrial sites), participation in ZADs (zones to defend), or various happenings. The recent example of these two English activists throwing soup on Van Gogh's Sunflowers is a good illustration of this.

Why ecological activism?

For those who practice it, activism is a form of response to global inaction on ecological issues. The observation made in social movements, which echoes that of the scientific community, is that collective measures taken to mitigate the ecological and climate crisis and adapt to it are insufficient. The conventional deliberation and decision-making processes seem too slow to take adequate measures in the face of the ecological urgency, and as a result, the risks of environmental, human, health, and social disasters are multiplying.

Activism then becomes an alternative method to try to influence ecological policy. By blocking roads, degrading the headquarters of polluting companies, or participating in more or less violent demonstrations, ecological activists aim to bring environmental issues back to the political and media forefront. They try to influence public opinion by showing the urgency of structural and systemic action, by mobilizing voters. They want to confront politicians with their contradictions to accelerate change.

These modes of action are subject to many controversies. There is first the question of their legality and legitimacy: can one, under the pretext of defending a cause, degrade property, block infrastructure, shock? There is also the question of effectiveness: to what extent is shocking, provoking, really effective in triggering social changes or an evolution of political and social norms?

Ecology: Is activism legitimate?

If we were to stop at the first definition of the word legitimate (in accordance with the law), then most actions of ecological activism would obviously be perceived as illegitimate since many of them involve breaking the law. Yet the second sense of the word (in accordance with morality, fairness, common sense, or the general interest) raises questions on another level: that of justice. Is an action, even illegal, just if it helps advance a cause of general interest?

In the face of the global ecological crisis, it is not easy to answer "yes" or "no." What are our legal conventions worth in the face of the collapse of life? In the face of the suffering caused by the climate crisis? It obviously depends on the conventions, on the value we give them. And if the question remains open, it seems increasingly evident that small eco-sabotages (degradation of a golf course, an SUV, a private jet, a company headquarters) do not weigh much against the ecological threat.

This is indeed the observation made by many scientists working on ecological issues. More and more of them are participating in activist movements, at the risk of being arrested. Others explain why they are rebelling against ecological inaction. In the scientific journal Nature, a group of scientists even called for civil disobedience to accelerate the consideration of ecological transition in public policies. The argument, inspired by John Rawls' theory of justice, is as follows: civil disobedience, by accelerating awareness, could prevent much greater suffering caused by ecological inaction.

Is activism effective?

But is this really the case? Can we really change society, avoid institutional and social deadlock, through acts of civil disobedience, sabotage? Is activism really effective in moving things forward?

This is a complex question because it obviously depends on the type of actions studied, and the public being influenced, as well as the social, economic, political (etc.) stakes involved. Researchers working on this question regularly wonder what types of actions are effective (violent, non-violent, symbolic, or others). They also wonder if certain types of actions are not counterproductive, especially when they provoke a form of reactance.

The literature generally distinguishes three main types of actions. First, "respectful" actions, those that take place in a framework, if not legal, at least relatively consensual: marches, peaceful protests, sit-ins... Some actions are called "disruptive," but not in the start-up sense of the term. Rather in the sense that they disrupt, let's say they break, social order: road blockages, infrastructure blockages, symbolic degradation actions, eco-sabotage... Finally, there are also actions called "dangerous" or "violent": violent opposition to law enforcement, urban guerrilla warfare, or even eco-terrorism.

Some researchers advocate for non-violent action. This is notably the case of Erica Chenoweth, a researcher at Harvard University, who has worked on the history of non-violent protests and tried to demonstrate that they were a powerful (and sufficient) weapon for provoking social change. From her work emerged a rule, the 3.5% rule, which posits that only 3.5% of a population engaged in a non-violent civil resistance movement is needed to tip the society. This analysis, widely contested, has been criticized because of its method, which groups under the term "non-violence" social movements that have sometimes not been truly pacifist, and which underestimates the interactions between violent and non-violent actions.

More recently, researchers who have studied the plurality of modes of militant action and the different forms of activism have taken a more nuanced approach. They show that activists' actions generally have a positive effect, in the sense that they mediate, sensitize, and direct public debate. Peaceful, disruptive, or violent actions certainly have little influence on opponents (those who are opposed to the claim defended by activists a priori) but they can sway the undecided and strengthen the commitment of others

, as well as their participation in democratic processes. They force politicians to address certain subjects. They compel companies to take a stand. And contrary to popular belief, an action, even a violent one, is generally not "counterproductive," and generally does not produce reactance.

Recent scientific literature tends to show that yes, activism is useful, rather effective, and that it can sometimes be a legitimate mode of action in the face of an increasingly dramatic ecological situation.

A cog in democracy

Furthermore, if activism does not necessarily change opinions, its actions reinforce the coherence and power of social movements. Researcher Dana R. Fischer, a specialist in activist movements and the dynamics of democracies, also considers that activist movements around ecology have greatly contributed to structuring young people's engagement in political processes. Engagement that we find today in the form of political militancy, professional commitment, and even legal and judicial actions. These young people, sensitized through activist actions, are now the same ones who are shaking up the world of work by asking companies to change their production policies. They are the ones who mobilize in political movements around ecological issues. They are also the ones developing legal skills around climate justice, leading lawsuits against polluting companies or inactive states... To the point where they are gradually changing international law.

Slowly, activism also changes social norms. A few months ago, a judge even judged the action of some activists, who had taken down official portraits of President Emmanuel Macron to protest against climate inaction, as "legitimate" in the face of the climate crisis. Judges' interpretations, inevitably influenced by public debate, evolve as activism, militancy, and the commitment of different actors demonstrate year after year the urgency of climate issues. To the point that on the legal level, discussion has opened up on the concept of "climate necessity," which designates an emergency in which actions that are initially illegal could be judged legitimate. Like a form of environmental self-defense.

The multiplication of activism also forces the democratic system to address certain questions, and the diversity of activists and the variety of their modes of action force leaders to negotiate, create consensus, on several scales. Or at least to talk about these subjects, whereas they ignored them until now.

Ecology: shocking, to what extent?

What makes these forms of activism useful is that they provoke reactions. Indignation, support, repulsion, attraction, but rarely indifference. One must shock to get a response, whether political or citizen. Shock, to occupy the media space.

This is evidently the technique chosen by the activists of the "Just Stop Oil" movement who splashed Van Gogh's Sunflowers painting. Their objective was to show that a damaged work of art would generate more media hype than the reports of the IPCC. And judging by the reactions, it's hard to disagree with them: within a few hours, all the media had seized on the issue, sparking controversies and debates. Whether we like it or not, this action allowed us to talk about the climate, everywhere. Certainly, under the prism of controversy, but still.

This strategy of "shocking" more and more can be perceived as a form of "tactical innovation," to use the words of Dana R. Fischer. Faced with a media world that quickly gets used to new forms of protest, faced with a political world that is learning more and more quickly to ignore them, activists are forced to innovate, to go ever further in their actions. To a sometimes disconcerting extent.

Neutralizing activism, depoliticizing the ecological question

Faced with activism that is going ever further, the most natural reaction seems to be denigration. Condemn acts that disrupt our conventions, and the individuals who practice them. But this reaction is that of those who ignore social movements and do not want to understand their roots. Rather than seeking to analyze what causes an increasingly intense feeling of frustration, anger, and despair among more and more young people, and what drives them to turn to ever more dangerous actions, we content ourselves with invoking stupidity, ignorance.

But precisely, these activists are not ignorant. Most of the time, it is precisely because they know where the status quo is leading us that they seek, out of despair, a way to move the lines. Most of the time, it is in full awareness of the limits and absurdity of their actions that they take action. And it is precisely because this absurdity echoes the far more worrying one of our collective inaction. Faced with this inaction, should we really be surprised that these young people eventually resort to such actions? After all, it is precisely because conventional channels of action (political channels in particular) have seemed sterile for so long that despair is growing.

By refusing to analyze this despair, and more broadly its causes, we tend to depoliticize the action of these movements. And this contributes, more generally, to the depoliticization of the ecological question, well described by Jean-Baptiste Comby. Everything happens as if the ecological question were only an apolitical, technical issue that could be solved with carbon taxes, behavior adjustments, and a little eco-design, without reconsidering our social norms and economic system. We then avoid really questioning the political changes that would respond to this despair: revitalization of democratic institutions, inclusion, fight against inequalities. By ignoring these gestures, we deny all the suffering, despair, frustration arising from environmental inequalities, lack of perspective, looming crises.

Above all, we forget that ecological transition is a struggle, a difficult struggle to move a system with fundamentally dangerous inertia. And that struggles are rarely won without their share of conflicts, power struggles. Today, this struggle has claimed a victim, the frame of a painting exhibited in a museum in London, one of the richest and most polluting cities in the world. Was it going too far? Perhaps for today's society, which prefers to look at the finger. But it is not certain that this is what history will remember, faced with the victims, very real, of the global ecological crisis.