When activism becomes elitism

On 12.16.09, In life, social change, By Akhila

Maybe it’s just me, but I increasingly see a problem with activism: it can easily slip from passion to elitism. I’ll be honest; as I became more passionate about human rights issues, I started feeling incredibly upset. I started wondering: “Why doesn’t everyone else care? How can they hear about genocide, conflict, women’s rights, torture, lack of access to justice, and not do something about it?” And yes, it made me mad, it made me frustrated and disappointed. But I realized that while I can try to encourage some people to care, many of them just won’t. I also realized that simply because they have different priorities in life, it doesn’t mean they can’t still play a role in activism - and it certainly doesn’t mean that they are “bad” people. Indeed, instead of getting angry at all these people, I should continue to work on human rights issues myself and continue trying to involve them in my work. Ultimately, inclusion will be far more effective than anger.

A lot of activism - whether related to human rights, development, or any NGO work - can turn off the general public when it becomes elitist. It becomes a battle of morals and can even lead to looking down upon those who don’t donate, who don’t seem to care about the issue, who don’t come to events/participate in your non-profit, etc. People start thinking they are “better” simply because they care more. In the case of some development and human rights issues, it starts to seem like the average joe is dismissed as completely ignorant.

But of course, this isn’t realistic. It’s not realistic to expect everyone to be passionate about the same thing; everyone has different roles in life. Not everyone is cut out to be an activist/non-profit person/social entrepreneur. People have their own talents, skills, interests. And an activist is not, in any particular way, a more selfless person than a non-activist. It is just too simplistic of an assumption.

Ultimately, elitism isn’t going to get activists anywhere. Instead of alienating people, activists need to be patient about reaching out to everyone. I feel that there is even some amount of elitism in the online community because I can tell a lot of young people are feeling left out from the discussion. Those who don’t know as much about the issue feel they cannot contribute. I feel that’s one of the reasons Nick Kristof succeeds, because he appeals to the everyday person while also bringing up important issues. He gets people to care and makes everyone feel like they have a say in social change, whether or not they are ‘experts’ or NGO professionals.

Not everyone is going to be an expert on your cause or topic, but that’s also not reason enough to write them off immediately. Yes, everyone has a different role in life — yet, I think every person has the time to contribute in some way to social change. I genuinely believe that everyone can become more informed & civically engaged, but only if activists take the time to make sure that they are being inclusive and making everyone feel like they can play a role. Bottom line? Social change needs everyone - not just NGO experts or scholars. This requires more inclusion, less alienation.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Related posts:

  1. Be the change: Activism is for everyone, by Dollface

Tagged with: • •
 
Comments Comments
Leave A Response
  • well written!
  • Thanks, glad you enjoyed :)
  • There are people who are really GIFTED when it comes to activism. They're called by their passion to fight for what's right and do something about it. Sadly, I'm not one of the gifted activists. I think I would have to be one of those who really do care about social issues, but just don't have the time to ACT on it. Instead, we try to help in little ways we can like in our neighborhood or doing small acts of kindness and try to change the world the best way we know how. :) Great post!
  • Tabitha, thanks for your comment! I totally agree - not everyone does have the time to work on social issues 24/7 and people have to take on different professions for many reasons. We shouldn't expect *everyone* in the world to be activists - and like I said, everyone has their own role in life. We still need doctors, lawyers, bankers, consultants, marketing people to make the world run after all. Activism is a piece of the puzzle and I think everyone can contribute to whatever extent they have the time to, but I don't think everyone has to become a full time activist after all!
  • Mandy
    I strongly agree with Hugh's comments, for one thing. Though I technically fall on the side of "activist" as I have worked for a non-profit for three years now, I found myself jaded and angry at the age of 25 over the petty discourse that activists take. The moral high-horse is sometimes worse than the misinterpretation of facts from the "other side". To put it another way, it's gotten to the point where I don't even care about the "cause" any more, I just want these people to shut up. There are days when I feel like the entire activist community (or maybe it's just the city i work in) are engaged in a petty free-for-all of entitlement and my-project-only rat race for funding and resources. And money is usually the driving factor in this regard since activists usually are the poorest of the lot with the most need for it (project-wise, perhaps not personally).

    On the flip side, however, I also understand why my fellow activists can become bitterly morally condescending. It's frustrating to try to raise awareness of an issue, get laws change only to have politicians sneeringly tell you that it's not a popular issue and therefore unfeasible. Since politicians like to rely on the silent majority as a defense, what else is there to do but to turn to the non-activists who don't care?

    I find the most effective activists these days are the ones who know how to play the political/capitalist game (cause let's face it; you're not a *real* activist if you aren't anti-globalization, anti-capitalism, pro-environment and pro-globalization--and no, that's not a typo) and turn it to their advantage. In other words, be a businessperson, sell your product and your brand, and bring in clients who buy-in to your cause. Make it a value-added business transaction and people will buy. Even though Bono is annoying as hell and his rhetoric makes me want to do something ghastly, can't deny that his BuyRED campaign works.
  • I have to disagree with you here - I'm not exactly sure how effective the RED campaign, see this article: http://aidwatchers.com/2009/12/cui-bono-the-murky-finances-of-project-red%E2%84%A2/ -- but I agree with what you're saying that he has brought in a huge number of people & supporters through the RED project. It is pretty remarkable marketing and advertising but I would wonder whether it's actually effective, whether it causes change, and shouldn't that be our bottom line?

    Anyways, the point you make is extremely interesting because it seems like you're arguing for a more "social enterprise" way forward - when activists don't need to depend on persuading people, begging people to donate, or alienating people. Instead, they can act more like a business and learn from business models -- they can provide a service that is valuable, while also working towards a social cause. I agree that this is a much more pragmatic way of going forward utilizing business principles for good.

    But despite this, there remain human rights advocates and activists whose roles remain in calling out governments, marketing/advertising their causes, and so on and it can become difficult for people in these situations to accept that some people don't care, and this might lead to anger/elitism in their work. I don't know if the business/capitalist solution works in all cases. It can work for development efforts like education, health, microcredit, etc (for instance Kiva has been so successful and NOT elitist in the process, that's why they appeal to the masses) but it's not always possible for human rights activism which often involves pushing a particular agenda one way or another.
  • Mandy
    Yeah, you are right about Bono and Buy Red. I do have to admit though that I think the way Bono promotes his cause is quite savvy and worth examining. I always kind of wondered how me buying Gap and Starbucks helps Africa...especially since Starbucks only donates 10c of each coffee or whatever.

    Well, my personal thoughts on the elitism on a lot of activists is on part because they forget we are all human. Weird thing to say but true. I know a lot of activists who tend to view the world through a human rights lens ONLY and they do not know how or forget how to see the world any other way. It makes them slightly myopic in how their own behaviour might affect other people. But the truth is, the activists I like the best are the ones who are the most pragmatic. All my personal heroes are the women (and they almost are always women) are the ones who blend pragmatism with ideals, working towards tangible goals instead of the ubiquitous and frightening concept of world peace.

    Yeah, I am a huge fan of social enterprise in support of non-profit organizations. For example...it is crazy just how much support and influence Me to We has and almost all their funds go towards Free the Children making it almost entirely self sustaining. Thats something to be admired.
  • Agreed with Bono - I just think there are better ways to help - you can donate the entire 15$ or whatever instead of buying the shirt in the first place. But I think what he's excellent at is marketing and he brought attention to the issue, which is definitely a good thing. A lot of NGOs could learn how to market and brand themselves from him. It's definitely an innovative idea but if much more of the $ went directly to help people I think it would be a lot better.

    I know what you mean about viewing the world through only one lens -- I'm afraid *I'm* starting to do that which is why I wrote this post. Once you get so into the issue and so passionate sometimes it's hard to take the point of view of others or to see that other things are more important to some people. Very true that pragmatism is much better - learning to accept the reality but still going out there and doing something about it. I think the ability to see through multiple viewpoints, to be open-minded, is most important. A lot of activists are actually close-minded in some ways since they refuse to accept that anything else might be important.

    I have the book Me to We and am yet to read it but it definitely sounds like a great idea! My favorite social enterprise is probably Better World Books, check it out. They run it like a business, but it has amazing impact. Very professional, but high impact too. There are many other organizations, but definitely social business models can be incredibly effective.

  • As you have already pointed out that its not rational and justified to assume every individual is a cut out for being an activist, but at the same time it would be wrong to assume, that these people lack the will or desire to make a change. I know a lot of people who want to make a change, but they cannot deliver to the level a dedicated activist does. In such scenarios, its required that we identify their strengths and try to exploit their talents considering their limitations to fit into the model that we have chalked out to bring about change. A small effort from a large crowd can still work wonders :) And if an entrepreneur is truly talented, he would know how to take everyone forward along with him :)
  • Exactly! I agree with all your points -- while it's not fair to assume that everyone can immediately dedicate their lives to being an activist/advocate/non-profit professional, it's also not fair to assume that they don't care about the issue or are heartless. These are two extremes, and the reality is that most people lie somewhere in between the two.

    Maybe because of personal, financial, educational or so many other reasons, some people can't dedicate their lives to activism but still genuinely care. We have to engage these people and ensure they are involved to the greatest potential they exhibit. You are very right and I agree -- but I would still question how "low" to make the barrier to entry. Do we simplify information to attract more people? Or do we keep the barrier high? To what extent would trying to appeal to a broader audience tarnish our messaging/policy/activism?
  • Akhila, I couldn't agree more. You're very wise to have realized this at the ago of 20. Please don't take that as patronizing, but rather as me looking back at the 20-year-old me and remembering with a grimace that I didn't get it.

    The main reason why I was apolitical until recently is that I see the vast majority of political discourse as masturbation. People don't care about dialectic; they just want to win the argument. I don't consider that a useful endeavor. And since it's nearly impossible to disentangle activism from politics - well, you can imagine how I view most activists.

    The majority of what I hear from activists on Twitter is arrogant grandstanding by liberals who are every bit as biased against people on the other side of the political fence as are the latter against the former. Cheap shots abound, and every single one hurts our cause.

    Of *course* the average person finds the average activist to be revolting. I'm a left-leaning bleeding heart, and *I* find the average activist to be a preening, childish wankspout with endless exhortations about the cause but zero interest in actually connecting with the people who have the audacity not to be good little PC liberals.
  • Hugh, thank you so much for your thoughts and it's wonderful to have the insights of someone who's been an activist for much longer and has gone through the same thought process before. Thanks for commenting!

    I very much agree with a lot of what you're saying. People, and especially many activists, tend to get SO overly passionate about their issue or a particular point of view that there is no sense of a balanced argument. All they want to do is argue + prove their point and it almost seems like the cause itself gets lost in the process. Like you said this often gets mixed up in politics and becomes a battle of liberal v. conservative with activists just alienating the other side with their angry rants and essentially, hatred. It's not only elitist but it often also becomes hateful, I think.

    What's needed is emphasizing the importance of an issue and a cause to the extent that it goes BEYOND party lines, that it's not restricted to experts and also not to extreme liberals. Obama ran on the platform that both parties need to work together to solve our nation's fundamental problems, and while I'm not exactly sure how well that's going at the moment, I think he got at the right idea. What we need is not extremes but coalitions of as many people as possible wanting the same thing and coming to agreement in supporting such change.

    For example, activists would not emphasize abortion as a political issue but emphasize that ALL people whether Democrats and Republicans want a world in which there ARE no unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Then, both sides could come together to work on this issue. Same way, issues like Darfur go beyond politics, and we need to emphasize our basic humanity when approaching issues like this. We need to make these issues accessible & appealing to everyone while at the same time, NOT dumbing them down for the general public.

  • I feel strongly that the topic of activism comes back to the fundamental needs of humans. Maslow's hierarchy of needs is what comes to mind. People often aren't able to go care about "other people's problems" because they have their fair share of problems.

    In some ways, I really do think activism carry a hint of elitism. Not everyone is able to take a lower paying job they are passionate about over another that will pay the bills. Unfortunately in the capitalistic society that we live in today, sometimes you just need to figure out how to pay for things.

    Perhaps if more people didn't need to worry about their next house, car, student loan, or health insurance payment, then they would have more energy to think about devoting energy for the well being of others.

    Also, you are absolutely right in stating that people have different interests. There are a million issues out there. Division of labor applies in social change as well. We can't all be fighting for a million causes!
  • That's true - I think that activism becomes elitist at the very basic level: internships, for example. A lot of non-profit internships (most) are unpaid, and of course many people cannot afford this! Not everyone is able to take unpaid internships and this creates a culture through which only people who are better off (or go to top schools & get scholarships) get the experience needed to enter the non-profit field. Unfortunately this creates inequality right off the bat!

    Very true. I think people have to think about their own well being and the well being of their family. I wish there was some way that working in social change doesn't have to be giving UP something. I wish that non-profits could offer stable incomes/standard of living. This would allow everyone to get involved - right now, only the uber passionate and the well off can afford to get involved. Those people out there who care somewhat but also are worried about paying the bills? They have to go to the corporate world, even though they might very well have a passion for social change.
  • Leslie_Forman
    Akhila, I think this is why Kiva has been so successful. They have allowed ordinary people to get involved with microfinance without requiring a huge amount of activism. And I think the low barrier to entry is what encourages so many to get involved. And they provide the tools to make it easy for supporters to become activists as well. Barack Obama did this very well in his election campaign too.

    But I partly disagree with your conclusion. I don't think everyone wants social change. There are reasons why societies are as they are, and the people who made them that way often don't want huge amounts of change. Think of teachers' unions (or most unions for that matter), long-term politicians, etc.

    I think young people like us like the idea of change a lot. And people who are in bad situations (like many people in the US right now) want change. But I think it's inaccurate to assume that things in general are bad as they are and need an immediate coalition for change.

    Thanks for making me think!
    Leslie
  • Leslie, thanks for the comment! That's a great point about Kiva - the idea is very accessible and makes the concept of microfinance seem less frightening and quite simple to understand for the average person. However, one thing I worry about with "low barriers of entry" is that for instance, organizations like Invisible Children have made it simple for young people to get involved by informing them of child soldiers in Uganda, but the information they give out to those involved is not fully accurate. Often people are caught up in the idea of "change" but don't ultimately have a good understanding of the issue they are trying to focus on. Sometimes, low barrier to entry can have a detrimental effect by creating activists who aren't fully aware/informed and this leads to BAD policy options. I guess I wonder in situations like this, how can we make the barrier of entry low without OVERsimplifying the issue to the extent that it's harmful? Does keeping the bar high result in better policies/programs??

    I agree that not everyone wants social change, but I guess what I was saying is that everyone can be involved in it in some way. I think everyone can volunteer some time or donate or even be civically engaged & informed at the very least.

blog comments powered by Disqus


Go To Top »