Opinion Assignment 3

Is Klein correct in her assessment of activism today?  Is it really less effective?  Less dangerous?

For the western world, I do not believe Klein’s assessment is perfect. In some aspects, the Bono, Pro-Logo type activism is appropriate, and successful. It may be less dangerous, but is it danger that defines success? I do not believe so. I believe there is a balance that can be achieved through all types of activism.

Klein argued that consumerism type protest is “less powerful than grass roots street demonstrations” (Delaney, 2007). The reason I agree with this assessment is because it relieves the government from listening, doing their part and making things right. Sometimes, people must get into the government’s face and to demand action before action is taken; like the Freedom Riders during the Civil Rights Movement. Creating donations through consumerism is more like a band aid; it does not make the G-8 act. In the Live 8 video, it was stated that all one had to do was to “persuade these eight demigods” into making the right choice to decide to end poverty (Jkhorner, 2006). Although this is a true statement, I do not believe it is as simple as it sounds. On one hand, maybe if America went on a diet, half of this world’s hunger problem would be solved. On the other hand, maybe it is more about the Western world needing to teach the other countries how to maintain agriculture, land, alternative crops and industry (more than they are currently doing), because giving poor countries temporary food is not going to solve the problem for the next centuries. Sustainability is just as critical.

In addition, I enjoyed reading about the irony of the entire situation. For instance, Live-Aid products contribute to the environmentalist issues and arguments. It also goes against poverty’s argument and the reasons poverty exists: Consumerism, industry, capitalism and globalization. After all, isn’t it argued that globalization is one of the main reasons for poverty? There is a cycle here if you have not noticed regarding this type of consumerism/activism—I’m fighting against A,B & C, but in order to raise the necessary money, I need to use A, B, & C to help me win my fight.

The reason I disagree with this assessment is because Bono type fundraising makes good sense. First, these organizations make a difference. They are able to cut through the red tape and complete the action they set out to complete. Second, these organizations empower people. People are taught that with a vision, anything can happen. If everybody bought a shirt that created a dollar to donate, then millions of dollars would be donated; it is that simple. Since people like to receive and give at the same time, it stimulates a certain market. Third, it creates a means to contribute where people do not have to get their hands dirty, or dedicate their time. It is somewhat similar to the “Free-Riders” that Goodwin & Jasper (2009) talked about (p.55); but different in the sense that your dollar does make a difference even if you don’t join the organization. One dollar from 75 million people creates a wealth of 75 million dollars that can make a difference with little effort by one particular individual.

In my opinion, I think it is also important to keep in mind that we are in the era of entitlement that is different than previous entitlement eras. What does this mean? It means that people feel entitled; or deserve a reward. Sometimes it is easier to get from people by giving. People feel that they should receive something in lieu of their giving. A concert that raises money and awareness at the same time as giving pleasure to those who attend is a win-win situation. Why not? Some may argue that nothing political changes and that it is a waste of time. Although part of their analysis may be correct, they are wrong in other areas of their analysis because lives have been changed for the better with the money collected. Maybe Bono-ization only works as a band aid, but it still works.  

If Klein is correct, what factors do you think have made activism by young people today different from that of the Freedom Riders or anti-Vietnam protests?

In realizing that Klein has put forth good argument, I believe there are many factors for this. Some factors being that the youth do not like to get their hands dirty, they like to receive when they give, consumerism helps define who they are, and it’s trendy. The youth of today are caught up in trends and it can be sold to them through venues like MTV and Facebook. Young people are taught that they can make a difference through donating money by texting from their cell phones. In addition, they are often urged by their parents not to put their bodies in harm’s way. Unless they are the working class poor, they are not even urged to get a job while in school. They are pampered youth without a cause.

If Klein is wrong in her assessment, what is it about today’s social movements that you think has the potential to be powerful?

Where I disagree with Klein is that there is enough room for every type of protest and movement. Television aided the Civil Rights Movement, why shouldn’t television, concerts and technology aid in today’s movements? Although protestors need to physically stand tall, march, and be heard as they demand change, American Idol’s “Idol Gives Back” campaign worked because it was a direct path of action to the people in need. It may not have changed the true powers of the world, but it served a purpose.

Delaney, N. (2007). The Bono-ization of Activism. Retrieved from https://myasucourses.asu.edu/@@/6592741637253856BC816DE023FA3F24/courses/1/2010Winter-X-JUS430-90094/content/_4739790_1/Klein.doc

Goodwin, J. and J. Jasper. (2009). The Social Movements Reader: Cases and Concepts, (Ed.). Malden, Ma: Blackwell Publishing

Jkhorner. (2006, October 16). Live 8: One Campaign Remix [video file]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fya4-s3F-oc