I struggle to understand the attraction that street theater, as an organizing strategy, has for some environmentalists. And for clarity, I define street theater in the environmental organizing context to include any form of direct action protest that involves costumes and props; giant walking globes, crying human polar bears, hippies on stilts, etc.
Sure, it’s really fun to dress up in costumes. Lord knows I relish Halloween critical mass in SF, or the chance for an 80’s hairspray spandex party with friends. But I don’t pretend to believe that wearing crazy costumes will help me convince anyone of anything, especially something so critical and polarizing as climate change. I think there’s 3 major chain-reaction problems with using street theater as a means to build a movement:
1. We look stupid
2. People feel alienated
3. It says, we’re different from you, therefore we’re against you
Looking Stupid
When was the last time you let a talking polar bear shift your views on a political issue? Maybe you buy your car insurance because of what a talking gecko tells you, but that’s a separate issue… The truth is, direct action street theater looks totally stupid to the vast majority of people who witness it, and it significantly undermines the credibility of the environmental movement.
A really valuable contrast is to look at the civil rights movement – did they dress up in crazy chicken costumes or walk around on stilts to get their message across? No. They wore suits and ties, professional dresses, and through their powerful imagery won the respect and sympathy of the American people for their issue and their human rights. When dignified black men and women were beaten and arrested on television – they were martyrs. When a human polar bear is handcuffed outside the White House, it’s just another crazy weirdo looking for trouble – no sympathy, no respect, no credibility. Is it really that hard to understand why conservative senators won’t listen to environmentalists? It’s because we paint ourselves as crazy!
Alienation
As a Berkeley student and environmentalist, I’ve participated in my share of protests that involved street theater. I can say, hands down, that every single bystander (someone who happened to come along the protest on their way to work, for instance) I witnessed at these protests felt utterly alienated from the cause. Not only alienated, but often scared, upset, and confused – like the female janitor I saw leaving the Citibank branch in Washington DC that Rainforest Action Network shut down over Powershift weekend.
She hurried along the outside of the building as the folks in gas masks and biohazard suits chanted “No New Coal” – a message that I’m sure was totally lost on her as she tried to escape the intense state of panic she was experiencing from the fact that her workplace being taken over by dozens of angry, costumed environmental activists. No sympathy was had by the cars that drove by either. Do the street theater folks actually expect average people that witness their antics to respond in support? At best street theater serves as entertainment, which might make a few people laugh, but it certainly doesn’t build the kind of legitimacy it takes to win political leverage.
Creating Visual Polarization
Ultimately, most people in America wouldn’t dress up publicly in an outlandish costume for any cause, even ones they truly care about. The fact that environmentalists do on a regular basis creates a line of division – it says: we’re different from you, we’re crazy, we’re against you. We’re going to get in your face, in a way that makes you uncomfortable, in a way that you yourself cannot relate to, and tell you to support our issue. It simply weirds people out.
The True Motive Behind Street Theater
I’m not naïve – I know the real reason behind protest street theater is to get media hits. It’s that simple. And in that sense – it’s effective. Reporters will certainly stand around all day and take pictures of stupid-looking environmentalists in weird costumes, and they will gladly publish these pictures en masse to further solidify the negative stereotypes of environmentalists in the media. I ask the proponents of street theater: Do you actually think street theater is effective in furthering our goals? Is it good to overload the American public with a barrage of alienating images that stereotype and discredit our movement? Should media hits, no matter how alienating, polarizing, and discrediting – be the central focus of our public outreach campaigns?
New Protest
If we’re really serious about solving the energy and climate crisis, then we need to be serious in our media tactics too. The powerful imagery of everyday Americans standing up for justice was what won the civil rights campaigns of the south, and we need to invoke that same compelling imagery today.
A vital lesson we can also take from the civil rights movement was the example of the freedom riders – whites who came to the south in solidarity with blacks and faced the same human rights abuses from southern government, which was subsequently televised and shocked the nation. Why were the freedom riders exceptionally effective in media? Because whites could relate to them – it took people who looked like themselves standing up, facing physical abuse, and advocating for justice to move the sentiments of white communities who had less in common with blacks. To that end, as environmental organizers, we must strive to project ourselves as people that everyday Americans can relate to, not a bunch of stereotyped hippie radicals that people have come to despise.
Save it for the Afterparty
I don’t think a bunch of polar bear crazies are going to earn the credibility to win climate solutions in the U.S. Congress and in the U.N. – legitimate, professional climate advocates are. Let’s stop being our own worst media enemy and forgo the silly theater tactics for a credible, professional movement that more than just the most radical environmentalists can feel comfortable getting behind. Once we get substantial climate legislation passed in this country, we can bust out the polar bear costumes at the after-party.
RAN and many organizations have had major substantive (and documented http://ran.org/media_center/news_article/?uid=4764) victories moving corporations and governments with these tactics. Other tactics have been effective as well and its not hard to see how the different approaches actually reinforce each other with radical/visual tactics providing pressure and cover for other approaches to make headway.
Direct action works, it just does. And yes it makes some folks uncomfortable (it makes me uncomfortable). But it works. And lots of other tactics work too.
Also after 5 years of working to build broad youth coalitions I have learned that movements require inclusion, trust and mutual respect, not moderation.
What was beautiful about the DC Citi action was that at the same time thousands of students were lobbying their elected officials to make significant policy change. Both were necessary and effective and everyone had a way to plug in. SDS and PIRGs working together on the same day, thats movement building.
Rachel,
It’s good to see you posting on IGHIH. You’re a rad organizer who I respect a lot and it’s good to hear some strong opinions from someone who’s lived environmental activism in so many ways for the past few years. As someone who’s engaged in a variety of political and corporate campaigns on climate change for the past eight years, I disagree with your blanket criticism of polar bear suits and street theater.
Different tactics serve different purposes. An effective campaign has a clear target and employs a strategy of diverse tactics to influence that target. Street theater is usually used to shine a spotlight on an issue and/or gain new recruits to a campaign. I don’t think many campaigners would argue that going for earned media of an action with people being arrested in polar bear suits is a good way to convert the unconverted to the cause of environmentalism. Instead, they would probably tell you that it’s a good way to get the media to cover the real story: i.e. Bank of America investing billions in coal when they should be investing in renewable energy. Street theater and the resulting media attention can open the door for more moderate actors and other allies to engage in tactics designed to sway public opinion and influence decision-makers.
Comparing today’s movement to stop the climate crisis to the civil rights movement of the 1960s isn’t really that useful in my opinion. Although global warming is a legitimate crisis, it is a completely different kind of crisis than segregation and Jim Crow. As far as I can tell people are not being lynched, jailed, and beaten for opposing coal subsidies and protesting for more clean energy investment. The issue is serious, but the targets and injustices are less personal and stark than they were back then. Therefore, sometimes in order to get peoples’ attention, it makes sense to use humor and stunning visual images. I agree that street theater, by itself will not swing public opinion on global warming. However, I think it can be used as a good way to draw the public’s attention to a specific new issue, embarrass and therefore discredit a target, or get more artistically-minded volunteers excited about being part of a campaign. It seems to me that that last reason worked for you more than once. I don’t think that’s insignificant.
Perhaps Breakthrough should have done a little more homework before posting a critique of tactics.
It’s proven that these tactics work.
Check out this blog from Grist- http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/6/15/173220/032
A study by Jon Agnone at University of Washington, Dept. of Sociology showed the following:
1. Protest is significantly more important than public opinion or institutional advocacy in influencing federal environmental law. Agnone found that each protest event increases the likelihood of pro-environmental legislation being passed by 1.2 percent, and moderate protest increases the annual rate of adoption by an astonishing 9.5 percent.
2. Public opinion on its own influences federal action (though less than protest), but is vastly strengthened by protest, which “amplifies” public support and, in Agnone’s words, “raises the salience of public opinion for legislators.” Protest and public opinion are synergistic, with a joint impact on federal policy far more dramatic than either factor alone.
3. Institutional advocacy has limited impact on federal environmental policy.
Yes, admittedly, it can be uncomfortable for those in the presence of costumed activists. I’ve certainly been there myself, leading around the polar bear and feeling silly.
But that’s really not the point. In my experience, the purpose of costumes and large props is not to impress or change the opinions of those who see it with their own eyes (such as the janitor at Citibank). Nope, she’s not the target audience here. The target is the media in order to reach a larger audience.
Visuals of this sort are critical for media attention. If costumes will get you covered in the press, then that story will reach a much larger audience, this is particularly true if you are trying to reach TV or print audience. If the strategy of an event is to reach as many people as possible, then ham it up with costumes and visuals!
Often costumes can also be effective to attract people to come up and talk with you who might not otherwise have approached you, particularly kids/parents.
If costumes are used strategically, they can be awesome!
Josh,
Humor? I grew up in Washington DC, and I’ve seen my fair share of all types of protest, and I can honestly say (as an outsider who only recently considered himself ecologically concerned) that I have never seen environmentalists use street theatre in a way that is at all humorous. If anything, this is “shock” theatre–i.e. I’m going to shock you into a place where you NEED to think about this issue, you NEED to see my opinion as valid, you NEED to start caring.” What kind of activism bullying is this? I have always been a proponent of letting people come to the issue as they will–giving them information, educating them, raising the level of public knowledge, and letting people draw the conclusions that, if you have compellingly presented your points, you want them to draw. I do not mean presenting these points using fear, shock value, or mental aggressions. I do mean appealing to people’s values, reason, and natural dispositions. Shock makes people withdraw, and we want people to invest their interest. How can this type of street theatre help?
I wasn’t at Powershift, and I wasn’t at the Citibank protest, but the way Rachel describes it, I would have been ashamed to be associated. There is no nobility, and no points to be made, scaring janitors or bank tellers or even bank managers. These are people who are subject to the policies of their corporation, just like those who suffer the effects of their dealing with coal. People want to make a living, and we should not begrudge them of those opportunities.
I think street theatre will only serve to keep us in the streets. Let’s open up our movement to new and better tactics so we can push for the new politics and new policies we are trying to create. It is always better to raise the level of discourse.
Thank you,
Adam
Josh, Arthur and Jenny, thanks for the comments. I think you all highlight what the main point of street theater is: gaining media attention (which Rachel also acknowledge in her post). At that, it can certainly be effective, and to the degree that any press is good press, the tactic works.
But what I think Rachel is trying to drill down to, or at least press us all on, is to consider what the “collateral damage” of these tactics might be, what the effect on those who view the actions or the subsequent media coverage, and on how those folks opinion/view of our activists is impacted. Making people uncomfortable is indeed fine. Drawing attention to our actions is critical. But are there ways that we can actually invoke sympathy and solidarity, rather than alienation and marginalization?
Direct action can be very effective at that. Street theater, at least how we largely deploy it seems to me like it’s been less effective at invoking sympathy and solidarity, for the reasons that Rachel highlights. For example, which images do you find would resonate with you – or with a typical student or parent: the image of the polar bear costumed activist getting arrested in the post above, or the images of normal, sometimes scared looking students getting hauled away in this video (from the No War, No Warming action). If we insist on costumes and props, which is a more powerful image that can resonate with Americans: a field of activists in green hard hats, or a collection of activists in gas masks and suits staging a “die in”?
Ed, this isn’t a critique of protest in general, just a critique of the specific tactic of (potentially alienating) street theater.
I am skeptical of the scaring of the janitor report. I was at Citibank that day and witnessed most of the passer-bys as being amused, interested or not interested. No one looked scared.
It’s Washington D.C. they have protests there everyday.
Otpor, the Serbian student movement that initiated the fall of Milosevic, began with street theater and built a mass movement. Billionaires for Bush have effectively used street theater to help sway public opinion about the war in Iraq. Last year, RAN’s Billionaires for Coal used street theater to land in the editorial page of the New York Times and helped scuttle the TXU coal plant proposal.
To post blogs like this is uninformed and irresponsible. It seems like a lot of hogwash coming from non-organizers trying to marginalize street organizers.
Oy vey. It’s disappointing to see such blanket biting criticisms made, clearly without much attention paid to how street theater tactics, and NVDA in general, is often very effective in a larger strategy to pressure power holders of all kinds. This article seems to be grounded in knee jerk condemnation with little understanding of how different tactics can be employed strategically in a wide variety of campaigns. The dubious, ahistorical comparisons to the civil rights movement are particularly disappointing, and I would encourage the author to study the history of U.S. social movements and the role of Direct Action in pushing them forward – the civil rights movement is a shining example of its efficacy (the die-in that happened at Citibank that the author cites was a tactic that has evolved directly from the civil rights movement).
Healthy discussion about tactics is important and useful. But polemics like this have little to do with building an inclusive movement or healthy debate and ring truer of divisiveness.
I’m confused as to why the author feels its her place to speak for “the vast majority” of the public who encounter street theater tactics. In my life organizing I have seen these tactics time and time again – when done well, in an inclusive and open way – be engaging, fun, and effective. The Citibank action that she mentions is a great example – over 300 people participated in the action. Over 250 of the participants said it was their first time ever engaging in those tactics. Nearly all of them wanted to stay in touch, and of that 250 over 200 wanted to do it again. Stories of how the action was engaging, fun and empowering were told over and over again, and many of those participants have gone on to organize in their local communities, effectively pressuring power holders and building in the investment and commitment of a growing base of activists.
The fact that some people use these tactics poorly does not mean that they are useless.
I do agree with parts of this article – I think its very easy for the Environmental movement – and all activists – to come off as alienating weirdos. I often see activists engaging in confrontational action for its own sake, and that often damages our cause(s). We need to relate to and engage people in this country, not alienate them. But theater and direct action are tactics like any other – sometimes they are appropriate, sometimes they are not. They can be done effectively, or they can be done poorly. To criticize a nonviolent tactic AS a tactic, outside of strategic context, makes little sense and shoots ourselves in the foot. We need to be guided by thoughtful strategy and be effective organizers in constantly engaging lots of new people, growing our base, deepening political analysis and understanding of the historical legacies of social movements we inherit, ultimately to build a new world. A robust toolbox of tactics that we can use is a GOOD thing. Using tools wisely and appropriately is a good thing. We should be guided by strategy, not by tactics. And we should engage each other with healthy debate about the strategy and direction of our movement, not ill-informed disrespectful assertions like this.
Looking forward to a time where our movements build themselves up rather than tear themselves apart,
Joshua
Hey All,
I had the wonderful privilege of spending a week at a Ruckus Tactics Summit, in the creative visuals track. In that track, I made a giant mask, developed a piece of street theater about nuclear power plant expansions, and learned about banner making. The final result of our track was a street theater performance that captured a lot of the issues with nuclear power plant expansions in an engaging, humorous and easily understandable way. I’ve participated in and organized many, many street theater actions. As such, I find blanket statements denying the efficacy of ALL street theater as an organizing tool hurtful, and short sighted.
I’ve never seen anyone be put into “an intense state of panic” by street theater tactics. What I have seen is people being engaged in a way that a they aren’t used to, in a way that challenges assumptions and makes it harder to ignore or block what we are trying to educate/inform people about. When taking to the streets, I always try to ensure that actions have an element of creativity, as I’ve been to many incredibly boring marches. Street theater and arts activism is a powerful tool, and in my opinion serves to do MUCH MUCH more than merely get media attention (though its super effective at that).
When doing street theater, people have COME UP TO US to ask what we are doing. Thats really different than having to approach random people with a boring sign. It creates a whole different dynamic. During one performance, a group of people sat on a nearby bench and watched for a good 30 minutes, something I’ve rarely seen a bunch of random bystanders do in any other situation. On another level, having a creative, artistic, expressive side to street actions/marches/protests also energizes participants, making it much easier to mobilize people to come back to another action.
As visual artists and theater fan, street theater has also helped me to ways to fuse my passions for the arts and social change in a meaningful, satisfying, empowering and fufilling way. There are lots of different talents and skills in any broad based social movement. Not engaging with a broad diversity of tactics isn’t strategic.
Also, Breakthrough, please stop using IGHIH as a venue to attack the values and tactics of other organizations that are working for the same end goal. We might not agree on every point, clearly we don’t, but there are much more productive ways to have that kind of dialogue than attacking each other on internet land. Don’t help our TRUE opponents (oil corporatations, ect) out by creating divisions in our movement.
I believe in the incredible value and power of story-telling and of theatre. In the summer of 2006, I spent 2 and a half weeks, with some of my fellow students and friends from my high school theatre program, engaging in various guerrilla theatre productions on the Washington Mall. By my estimate, we engaged in 6 overall. Now, I am admitting right now that none of these productions were purely for protest’s sake, and thus our convictions came from a different place, which may have led to a different evaluation of what tactics would be most effective. Regardless, we took many different approaches. On various occasions, we experimented with the power of silence, place, character, and spread. My friends and I found, and I remember us discussing, that we felt we had achieved our goals, and reached more people, when our modus operandi was one of subtlety and accuracy of pitch and tone than one of volume and momentum at all costs. For example, on the day that we dressed up in costumes and spent our time running across the mall in a staged chase on toy horses (you know–a horse head on broomsticks) we felt that, fun as that had been for us, we didn’t think we had reached anyone at all. On the day, however, where we subtly spread ourselves throughout a relatively small space and each pointed to a different player standing somewhere else on this plain and engage in slow, deliberate and synchronized movement and line delivery, we felt the most fulfilled, and noticed that we had reached the most people.
This was my experience, as someone involved in a guerilla theatre endeavor on the National Mall. I learned that there is power in reservation, in precision, and yes, sometimes in understatement, when engaging in this kind of storytelling.
While I appreciate Rachel’s impressive resume’, her description of street theater as “stupid” and “crazy” only divides the movement and discounts the hard work, sweat, and blood of those who do street theater. (Rachel, before you discount me as a crazy old hippy radical environmental extremist, you should know I’m still a registered republican, a former Air Force officer, have an engineering degree and an English degree, taught high school, and probably would have fit well into your “professional” image until I grew my hair and beard). A number of my co-workers participated in the Citi action at PowerShift. When someone in a business nearby saw the event and asked, “What’s going on?” one of her co-workers educated her on Citi’s funding of coal. This was nothing to be ashamed of. I am very proud of all those participants out there putting their necks on the line to save my home and community from these fiends in suits.
In this day and age, even when we do wear suits and ties, our opponents marginalize us as environmental extremists no matter what we do or say. I’ve participated in street theater, decapitating King Coal in Charleston, SC. The message on the TV news was that we opposed mountaintop removal, something the news anchors had never heard of. When 13 “normal” looking people got arrested in WV Gov. Joe Manchin’s office reception room, they made the news locally but word didn’t get outside the state. In 2008, our audience doesn’t all look alike. If we pander to folks who look and dress like Dick Cheney, we’re marginalizing the folks in overalls, tie-dye, shorts, and dreadlocks whom I want on my side. (By the way, would folks PLEASE stop cutting off your dreadlocks? Willy, Abe, Marley: grow them back…) The “average” American doesn’t look and dress like the average American of 1968–remember when everybody wore a crew-cut, a suit, or bouffant (sp?) in their senior pictures? And I’m sick to death of “professionals” who blow up my back yard and poison my water.
All you polar bears out there are more than welcome in West Virginia.
King Coal? OFF WITH HIS HEAD!
Rachel – I have a lot of resonance for your piece. Street theater often causes me to cringe and think that everyone passing by on the street must be cringing too. (Much like rallies & marches where every chant includes either “hey hey, ho ho…” or “…when do we want it? now!”)
BUT
Getting out on the streets and street corners to voice an opinion & make something happen has a long, vibrant, beautiful history in the U.S. Apologies for the cliche but it’s a cornerstone of free speech, a venue for people who cannot pay off Big Media to present their concerns. And even though it often makes me uncomfortable, I still admire folks with the guts to get up & get out & make themselves heard in that manner.
Think about it: every great act of public protest (marches, pickets, parades, rallies, demonstrations, street theater, happenings, etc.) – to some extent or another – is an act of spectacle, done to draw attention, to make a cause or a need dramatically VISIBLE.
To that end, I’d like to reiterate an idea that’s been tossed around for years — the Million Species March on Washington. A purposefully goofy spectacle – “come as your favorite species!” – for an extremely serious cause. The folks with the best sense of humor win…
i was alerted to this discussion and read the original post with some dismay. I think it is a shame to waste this precious time and space on, essentially, criticizing allies.
like many have said, there needs to be a variety of tactics. street theatre being one of them.
I must say, RAN’s citi action just before earth day in NYC, which ran on youtube, was amazing. when i first watched it, the whole spirit of the action energized me.
it was great to see people having fun in the name of stopping MTR…it was great to see the cops engaged in the ploy…people who spend the majority of their time delving into the deadly depressing facts of climate change need to let some steam off and have fun and be creative…
the words alienation and marginalization are a bit hyperbolic and overused. i think we should better think of how ‘uncomfortable’ we ALL will be if we don’t get the peoples’ attention and stop climate change!
i’ve been totally impressed with RAN , their actions, organization — please keep up the good work and let’s encourage each other!
“Is it really that hard to understand why conservative senators won’t listen to environmentalists? It’s because we paint ourselves as crazy!”
Actually, I think it’s probably because they are heavily invested in defending and maintaining a system that provides them great power and privilege at the expense of life on the planet. That is a big part of what makes the conservative senators, is it not? Is someone who has devoted their life to smoothing the way for big business really ever going to get behind any plan that will actually cut carbon dioxide emissions to zero (or even the more-popular-but-not-good-enough 20 percent) by 2050?
Which is not to invalidate any of the discussion taking place over when street theater is or is not appropriate. It’s good to use tactics strategically, and not simply out of habit.
I want to thank everyone who responded to my post. It’s generated the kind of discussion that I think is healthy for our movement to have. Below are some areas I would like to address in response to the many well-informed comments that were made today.
Failures
I clearly failed to articulate both some of my core intentions and underlying assumptions in this post. Let me try to clarify:
My intention (in regards to the content of the post) was: to articulate my personal view of direct action street theater as an environmental organizing tool in our movement, in the specific context of it’s impact on the lay public (as experienced both directly by bystanders and through the media), and to invite others to share their opinions. Because I didn’t make it clear that I was more concerned with our national media image and immediate impact on bystanders than the strategy’s effect on group bonding, specific campaign success, etc, I can see how it was interpreted as a blanket statement (and basically was).
I don’t feel all street theater is bad – far from it. I am saying that in the context of our national media image and non-environmentalists who witness these actions first hand, the overall result can be negative stereotyping and alienation of potential supporters of our movement. I clearly focused too much on what I see as the weaknesses of street theater, and I appreciate the evidence that many of you have provided that points to its strengths. I agree that it is very useful and effective in certain contexts, and my post strove to explore the areas in which it is not. Were I to write this post again, I would have written a less inflammatory, more open-ended discussion describing my view of both the strengths and weaknesses of direct action street theater, inviting others to share their opinion as I did mine. Hindsight is 20/20, and I have certainly learned from this experience.
My intention in regards to the overall purpose of the post was: to try to offer a critique in order to make our movement stronger. I totally agree that unity is absolutely vital, but I also think open space for discussion regarding tactics and direction of our movement is just as important. In order to grow, to transform, to be cutting edge – we must constantly assess our tactics and not just rely on what has worked in the past, or what we are used to doing. I’m not making this statement directly in regards to street theater (aka implying it’s no longer a useful tactic), but I think a thorough vetting of street theater’s pros and cons, short-term and long-term, would serve us. Maybe at the end of that discussion, we would agree unanimously that street theater is serving us well in the context in which we employ it. Maybe not. Ultimately, I care about our movement being effective at solving climate change, and I felt compelled to add an opinion in regards to a particular strategy we use in striving towards that goal.
Clarification
Use of the word “stupid”: Stupid is a bad, inflammatory word, I know. I was arguing that street theater is unfortunately often perceived as stupid by non-environmentalists, not that it is inherently stupid in itself. Maybe we don’t care what some members of the general public think of our imagery as long as our media hit garners attention to the issue, but I still think we should examine how we come off to people.
Gratitude
Thanks to everyone for better informing me on the role you see for street theater, how it’s empowered you, and why you think it’s an effective tool in our movement’s portfolio of strategies. Even though I have personally participated in several direct actions that involved street theater (and witnessed dozens more, at Berkeley), I came away from this discussion better informed with a more robust view than I’d had when my opinions were formed from just my personal experience alone.
Humility
This was my first post on IGHIH, and I clearly came off harshly. My tone, and use of inflammatory terminology to get my ideas across, was offensive to some who are veterans in the street theater world. I accept that, and apologize for making some people feel discredited in their preferred style of activism. I thank the people who responded to my ideas in a respectful way, even though emotions were clearly running high among many comments. I want you all to know that I take your reactions very seriously, and this has been a powerful lesson to me on how to create meaningful and productive discussion, rather than divisive and polarizing discussion. So again, thanks for helping me learn about navigating the blogosphere – I have found it can be quite a sensitive landscape to vet ideas, and requires nuance, composure and experience (which were glaringly missing from my post today).
A Bit About Me
The one comment I personally felt was over the line came from the anonymous poster named “Ed Abby”, who said I was a “non-organizer trying to marginalize street organizers”. To me, this was a personal attack that was unsubstantiated. I realize you don’t know me, but I was hurt by your comment because I am a 100% committed environmental organizer. It’s because I am committed to organizing that I feel compelled to try to analyze and improve our tactics so we can be as effective as possible. I’m not as experienced as some folks, but I am an organizer with valid opinions and I think our movement should be open to engaging debate, not attacking and trying to humiliate people for having a different opinion.
Again, thanks to everyone who commented so far and I hope productive debate continues on IGHIH. Even though it’s been a long, emotionally-challenging day for me, I’m glad I put up this post and said what I said – some great debate was had, solid points were made, and I for one learned a lot.
Amy, Breakthrough is most certainly not trying to tear our movement apart or tear down others who don’t agree with us. If we present criticism and critique it is motivated by a desire to be a more effective, more powerful and more successful movement. One thing should be entirely clear: we at Breakthrough Generation are a group young people with a diversity of backgrounds and opinions, all of whom are stalwartly dedicated to building a more sustainable, just, and prosperous future. On that end, we can claim unity.
But silence gets us nowhere. Calls for unity can often be a powerful way to silence crucial criticisms we should not ignore.
I think Breakthrough fellow Helen Aki sums up what I’m trying to get at pretty well in her most recent post at Breakthrough Generation’s blog. I’d encourage folks to read it and reconsider what you think we’re trying to do.
And to be clear, the topic of how to present critique or criticism in a way that is not viewed as a personal attack or an assault on someone or some organization has been a topic of practically continuous discussion here at the Breakthrough Generation offices, since we all arrived a week ago Monday. We don’t want to be divisive for the sake of being divisive. We don’t want to tear anyone down to make them weaker. Maybe we’re still clumsy at our attempts, and we welcome suggestions (and criticisms!) about how to get better at that. We’re still experimenting with our style, building our identity and forming our politics. For that matter, so is the youth climate/clean energy movement. Internal debate and criticism is critical to the formation of that identity.
So we should also be clear that we won’t stop pointing out where we think we can get better, stronger, more effective. To keep silent would be what helps TRUE opponents.
Cheers,
Jesse
if malcolm x were alive, would he say the civil rights movement was a success? it certainly won people of color an equal opportunity to be white. that’s for sure. perhaps we should criticize all this harping about the success of the civil rights movement. was it? i’m not sure.
i think it important that we not hide our personalities just so mom and pop will not feel threatened by us. that’s their problem, not ours. i’m glad to sit down to a conversation with a person in church, clean-shaven and showered and everything if that’s what needs to be done. but out in the streets, it’s a celebration and it’s resistance. and we’re gonna make it a party.
from the forest,
kodama
No movement will succeed without a diversity of tactics.
While the upright citizens protesting racist laws and policy in the 60′s were a part of the solution, armed militants and race riots also influenced policy. (See “How Non-Violence Protects the State,” P. Gelderloos) Street theater wasn’t necessary then, because peoples’ rights were being violated right there in town – thus sit-ins achieved a similar theatrical effect.
The polar bears aren’t dying in DC and there aren’t many coal mines in downtown San Francisco. Street theater can be a powerful way to create a visual to bring attention to a real problem.
This movement needs more people in suits speaking out, but let’s not forget that getting there – a more just, prosperous and sustainable future – is going to take everything and everyone we’ve got. If people feel called to get arrested in polar bear suits, the LEAST you can do is not bash them publicly for it.
Maybe you should even be supportive…
Hey Rachel, Breakthrough Folk and my fellow blogger-organizers,
I respect your right to post whatever you want on our blog and I respect your right to create dialog inside the movement about what is the best use of our power. That being said, I whole heartedly disagree with your use of this blog as a forum to air divisive grievances. This blog is a public forum that is supposed to represent the youth climate movement to a much broader audience than the activist background that most of us contributors and commenters come from.
We, as self-proclaimed organizers, have better things to be doing than attacking each others tactics and policy stands. We should be getting people in our communities excited to ask candidates the right questions, vote the right way and take a stand against corporate interests that guard the status quo.
Sometimes these inflammatory, infighting-encouraging posts, like the criticism of Ranger Rick’s support of CCS, make points I agree with. Others, like the Critical Look at Seattle’s Greenfestival and this post I take some issue with. No matter what I think about the topic, I don’t think it is right to air your dirty laundry in public. If you’ve got a problem with street theater, encourage the organizations you are working with to stop using it (though you’ll probably have to suggest a better tactic to hit the campaign goal). If you disagree with a campaign a big enviro group is running, don’t give them money, let them know why you’re not supporting them and write their target a letter on your own letterhead and let them know how you feel. Posting about it on IGHIH does nothing to make our community or our climate movement stronger.
My message goes out to all posters, but especially the Breakthrough Fellows, who it looks like are about spend the entire summer cross-posting material to IGHIH: please cut out the inflammatory tone, which intentionally or not, are attacks on the premise or goals of other groups in the IGHIH community. (Yes, I looked at your blog, and you have some good posts that I’d be happy to see on IGHIH. Just not the inflammatory ones.)
Let’s spend our summer fighting the corporate criminals and organizing power vote to oust the corrupt politicians. Let’s use our blog to post about our awesome actions and policies which are going to change the world.
Yochi
I have a confession.
I’ve spent most of my life ashamed of, feeling humiliated by, and strangely angered by–of all things–political street theater.
Growing up I, just about more than anything, wanted to be “normal.” I wanted a my family to have “normal” jobs and “normal” viewpoints and do “normal” stuff.
But that isn’t my family. My grandparents were and are pacifist anarchist street theater activists. My parents were and are environmental and social justice activists deeply involved in non-violent direct action.
I grew up surrounded by homemade placards, people getting arrested and telling stories of time spent in jail, and legacy of very public often confrontational activism.
Although I feel a lot of pride about all of this now, I grew up with a deep sense of embarrassment. I just couldn’t understand why everyone around me was so “out of touch” and why their whole worldview was so very different from the families of all the kids at school. I desperately envied families with new cars, barbecues, and big televisions. I thought for the longest time that street theater, NVDA, and basically any kind of activism involving being outspoken in the face of ridicule and criticism were not only personally humiliating, but ineffective.
But I’ve come to see that those feelings were not the result of “alienating” activists, but of my own discomfort confronting social injustice.
The reason I’ve long felt such an aversion to political street theater, I now understand, is precisely because it forced me to confront deeply upsetting problems in a visceral, personal and immediate way that all the reading/meetings/speeches in the world never have.
It also forced me to confront something even more intensely powerful and often uncomfortable: the fact that I can choose to be a part of a movement for change.
For me, that is both inspiring and uncomfortable because such a confrontation comes with an increased awareness of the unprincipled things I do sometimes choose, of the privileges I enjoy, and most importantly of the grave sense of responsibility that comes with acknowledging one’s own power and the power we have when we act together.
Look, there’s lots of bad street theater. Sure. And yes, people sometimes dress up in costumes and make fools of themselves, and do very little to help change the world. There’s also tons of stupid, alienating and offensive lobbying, media work, and policy research.
But there’s something that street theater can do which no amount of lobbying, research, or even many other kinds of NVDA can: it can force a personal kind of internal confrontation with and examination of deep seeded fears, deep yearnings for justice, and a deep sense of empowerment.
To me, waiting for the “victory party” to do that means nothing less than delaying that party indefinitely because I think that some of the most profound change happens in exactly those moments when we do feel uncomfortable.
One thing I’ve certainly come to understand about myself, in no small part because people who have been brave enough to be outspoken in the face of cutting criticism, is that the moments in my life when I learn the most–when I transform–are very often the moments when I am the least comfortable, when I get angry, when I feel unsure, and when others push me to expand my perspective.
And that’s exactly what these actions do.
And I, at least, am done running away from people who are brave enough to speak out and stand up and be creative in the face of seemingly overwhelming pressure not to do any of those things.
Because I know, first hand, that’s how change happens. That’s how we learn to shed our fears and embrace both our own hopes and each other.
I would just have to say that I attended a protest in Houston that RAN was a part of calling for no new coal plants. I am coming from a state where our homeland is being bombed and buried on a daily basis. The tension is high in our struggles because I am saying no new coal plants and my neighbor is saying I have to feed my Family. So to have a chance to laugh at the antics of street theater is refreshing. I was in a state far from my homeland and there was a group doing theater about King Coal. Their message was dead on. It made me feel empowered to know that people fighting global warming on the burning end also understood the extraction end and what my people endure on a daily basis from King Coal.
I also think to make this movement strong we all must do what we do best.
I also shared the utube video of the citi group protest with some elders who are being bombed and bullied everyday and it made them happy to know so many are working to help them in their struggles.
I’m finding this an incredibly useful and thoughtful discussion. Full disclosure, I’m RAN’s organizing director. I wasn’t always comfortable with creative forms of protest, but I’ve come to believe that they’re not only appropriate, but absolutely essential to building effective and energetic movements.
There seems to be general agreement that getting media attention is an area where street theatre and arts-based activism can be particularly effective. I couldn’t agree more, but that’s just one benefit of this tactic:
1. Activists ourselves
I know it’s important to join picket lines and rallies, but I have to admit that sometimes it gets a little… boring. But when I’m part of something more creative, it makes activism FUN. And as Molly Ivins wrote, “You got to have fun when you’re fightin’ for freedom, ‘cause you don’t always win.”
When we use our imaginations to creatively or humorously illustrate the issues we’re facing, we’re not just re-energizing and sustaining ourselves, we’re also attracting and engaging other potential activists who find traditional protest uninteresting or off-putting. We differentiate ourselves from the outmoded ways of thinking that got us into this mess.
2. The public
Yes, there are those in the public who think that street activism is stupid. Many of these people will also shout at me to “get a job” whether I’m dressed as a polar bear, carrying a picket sign, standing at an information table, or otherwise expressing my opinion. They’re not the ones I’m hoping to engage.
Other members of the public will be inspired by creative actions. At a minimum, it breaks them out of their routine for a minute and gets them to think. That’s a victory in and of itself. More often than not, I’ve seen passersby cheer , salute, or join creative demonstrations.
One key to successfully engaging the public –and not alienating those we don’t want to alienate – is careful planning. Making sure that the visuals clearly present the message and, ideally, having other activists along to engage passersby and answer questions so performers don’t need to break character.
3. Our targets
The corporations that RAN targets aren’t afraid of traditional activism. They’ve been dealing with that for decades and they can do it in their sleep. What they ARE afraid of is UNCERTAINTY. And they’re concerned about their brand image. They don’t want to look stupid.
We gain power from the fact that they have no idea what we’ll do next or where. If we do it well, it can put them off balance, drive them to the negotiating table and contribute to real change.
I agree that not all creative activism is done as effectively and engagingly as it could be. That’s an area for all of us to continue to grow, learn and share lessons learned. I’m looking forward to that, and I have great faith in our creativity as a means to change the world – after all, that’s where we got our vision of a better world in the first place.
For those of you who don’t know me, here are three pieces of context, so feel free to take what I say with a grain of salt:
1. I grew up in DC with politicians and media folks living down the street and crazy things happening all the time.
2. Over the past ten years, I’ve been in protests with 6 foot tall fish with pfiesteria lesions, furry bears, giant chainsaws, and whatever else you can imagine, and I once drove across Scotland and England with a 30 foot tall inflatable dinosaur.
3. I’ve spent the past five years living in the contentment of Athens, Georgia, population 110,000.
I have nothing directly against costumes and props. However, they just don’t grab my attention anymore. I don’t believe that it’s simply because I’ve been around it forever, either. Here’s the typical reaction of my friends when something is going on (be it evangelicals, living wage activists, vegans, anti-choice activists, or whatever):
- “So there’s something going on up the street.”
- “Huh…what is it?”
- “Something with trees [or whatever prop or costume]”
- “Crazy”
People aren’t surprised anymore. Too many TV ads. Too many animated things and pop-ups on Myspace. Too much stalker “news” on Facebook. And yes, too many fluffy, furry, slimy, ugly, giant, sign-waving lions, tigers, bears, and chainsaws all over the place. “Sideshow” is the term for something to distract you while you wait for what you want to see.
In the age of so many channels, e-mails, websites, and newsfeeds, there’s no need to watch the sideshow. In the age of so many messages, we’ve gotten to be experts at tuning out the ones we aren’t looking to see.
Just because there’s a half-naked girl doesn’t mean you’ll click the ad on Myspace. Just because there’s a giant banner doesn’t mean you’ll care what’s on it. It’s a shame that good things get tuned out with the bad, but it’s how most people get through their lives.
The Tate Center is the student union at the University of Georgia. There’s a big plaza outside of there where daily there is someone trying to sell you something or convince you of something. Having been on both sides of this situation, I’ll tell you something: people pull out their cell phones and pretend to talk when they walk through there.
Costumes, props, and stunts just aren’t noteworthy or creative anymore. I’m not knocking the creativity of the particular actions: I’ve seen plenty of new and different things being done. However, for most people, they all go in the category of crazy stuff that they ignore. Right there with the skanky Myspace ads.
So, at least in my mind, the main argument for stunts–that they’re creative and attention-getting–is no longer valid. Yes, please, do creative and attention-getting stuff, but do it an original medium rather than a new variation on the same approach.
I pay attention to my friends and people I trust. I don’t think I’m alone in that. I try to avoid being interrupted from that, so I ignore everything else–including well-intentioned bears and inflatable smokestacks.
If you’re interested, check out books by Seth Godin, particularly Permission Marketing. His books are generally written for people selling stuff, but the points are valid for this, too.
Rachel, I really want to congratulate you on raising this issue. I’ve heard of your work through the BYA, and I’ve been impressed with everything I’ve read. If this blog were just the party line, it would be so boring I wouldn’t read it. Instead, by voicing diverging opinions and stirring hornets’ nests, we’re all the better for it. Thank you.
Rachel,
Thank you for posting such a humble response to the first stretch of comments. Your words put to rest many of my own concerns about this post. It’s tough putting your ideas out there in blog land and later realizing that they were interpreted differently than you intended. Writing with humility (and respect) is a learned skill for organizers, one which considering the above comments, many of us could use more practice in.
I think it has been beat to death, but just to add that corporate america does great with their silly people in costumes, Ronald McDonald, the Hamburglar, sports mascots, and non-industry folks like Louie the Lightning Bug, and Smokie the Bear. I once spent a summer dressed as JR Beaver, the mascot of the Oregon State Parks system, and not once did anyone run away alienated, it was seen as a good tactic. Adults loved it. Kids loved it. Drunk dudes loved it. People wanted to talk to me. It was funny. It helped us talk to people who wouldn’t otherwise want to talk about preserving Oregon’s parks. It was really sweaty, but I don’t think anyone thought I was stupid or alienating.
And cheesy costumes have certainly worked out ok for McDonalds.
Also, in my understanding, street theater stems at least in part from Augusto Boal’s Theater of the Oppressed, and from the pedagogy of Paulo Freire, which is about bringing together diverse people from diverse perspectives, most notably, the oppressed. So, I wouldn’t discount it as a tactic that could work today. You don’t have to have a phD or work for a fancy think tank to get streat theater. It speaks in metaphors and visual language that rings more true than graphs and charts for the majority of america.
Highly recommend reading Freire if you want a deeper understanding of how unique social events like theater can bring people together who would otherwise stay separate. As well as be an educational tool for people who have different skills and ways of learning.
I don’t think either Boal or Freire were stupid, and they weren’t polarizing. Street theater in that tradition is a radical equalizer that brings people to the same level.
Stupid isn’t a nice thing to say and it hurt my feelings. Thanks for apologizing. However, if you actually regret it, you can edit your blogs to rescind or take out comments you regret saying, FYI. There are instructions.