I have cited the below mentioned quote previously in an article I wrote called Apathy - a frailty of the human condition. I believe that it is also part of an appropriate response to the question at hand.
Susan Carpenter : I didn't want things to get violent.
Henry Carpenter : Violence isn't the worst thing in the world.
Susan Carpenter : What is then?
Henry Carpenter : Apathy.
Source The Book of Henry (2017)
In that article I wrote:
Each day that we awake and step out into the world as human beings, we get to choose how we respond to its often anomalous visage. We get to choose our voice and to decide how that voice and our actions shape the world in which we live, and we in turn are then shaped by the impacts we make and the consequences of those choices. We exist as the causal link to change and evolution.
There is an oft-quoted line, attributed to Mahatma Gandhi, that says:
be the change you wish to see in the world.
Now Gandhi did not say that exactly, what he did say was this:
We but mirror the world. All the tendencies present in the outer world are to be found in the world of our body. If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him. This is the divine mystery supreme. A wonderful thing it is and the source of our happiness. We need not wait to see what others do.” – Mahatma Gandhi source - goodreads.com
We could all aspire to be more like Gandhi and look inward, seeking internal transformation before trying to change the world around us. I believe periods of self-reflection, introspection, and contemplation are required by each person to revisit who we are as individuals, what we each represent, and what we can do personally to effect change, within ourselves first and foremost, and then hopefully within the macrocosm of the world around us. By going within, we can find our true voice, and on this, Joseph Ranseth and I agree.
For the activist, drawing attention to their cause is key. But they should aim to draw positive attention; to draw real support.
What a lot of activists do instead is to say...
hey, if I make life difficult for the rest of society, I'll piss them off sufficiently enough that they will decide collectively, by default, to support our objectives, simply to make their pain go away.
Indirect support is therefore achieved because those feeling the pain, place pressure directly on those causing the issues being targeted by the activists, to force them to put a stop to the activism. The activist hopes the remedy comes in the form of acquiescence to their demands. It rarely does! Abrogating the rights of others to assert your own is not the way forward.
I do agree with the character of Henry Carpenter in The Book of Henry, when he says that apathy may just be the worst thing in the world. But, whilst I agree that we should stand up for what we believe in and let our voices be heard; that the end can justify the means, I don't believe that the end justifies any means. And I believe that we have to find and use the right voice wisely when we are seeking to bring about a real change in society.
People will always differ in their views on this point: to what extent one may go in the name of any given cause. One person may say that their chosen course of action is being done out of love for humanity and the survival of the planet, whilst another sees immediate harm in the action and does not believe that the protest action, in itself, is very loving or conducive to change in its current form, and therefore lacks justification. This is always going to be a very emotionally lit and subjective issue.
I personally think it comes down to whether the protest action in question has a reasonable chance of success, within the existing political environment, of bringing about a sufficient meeting of the minds to expedite or move significantly towards real change.
They say
Start with one...
That one that we start with?... should be ourselves... when we find our true voice, we can inspire others to follow in our footsteps, not rely on having to force their hand. If we want real change, we need to bring along willing, engaged supporters - true proponents of the beliefs carried by ourselves. This is when real meaningful lasting change can happen.
When we do engage in activism or protest in an effort to effect social and political change, we should always ask ourselves (a) whether the action being taken is likely to achieve anything in the grand scheme of things or whether it is simply a soapbox performance), and (b) whether it is doing more harm than good?
If activism has no hope of changing the status quo, or if it causes undue disproportionate pain in pursuit of change, it really cannot be justified. The activists become detractors and distractors as opposed to torchbearers of a just cause. They become an example of might is right allowing pure power to trump justice. When the exercise of one set of rights is facilitated through the trampling of the rights of others, this cannot be right.
Some of history's greatest activists achieved incredible feats through peaceful means that did not infringe upon the liberties and rights of others in a disproportionate manner viz: Martin Luther King, but sadly too many activists use the genre of political protest as a cover to achieve more nefarious objectives.
In the end, justification for one's actions has to be decided on the merits of each case, but I do believe that if we don't first go within to seek out personal change, our true voice and the correct expression of that voice, we will end up going without when we seek to expand that vision into the world.
Note: Part of my post consists of a consolidation of the comments I have made on the posts of others who have taken part in this week's ecoTrain QOTW.
Header image by 1001love in canva pro library
Dreemport banner used with permission of 
