When Protests Aren't Persuasive
Where's the evidence that blocking highways and throwing soup on paintings leads to any meaningful change?
Back in the 1950s and 1960s, when the civil rights movement took place, black people who had been forced to sit in specific seats on a bus or in restaurants took action.
It started with multiple people who refused to give up seats on bus -- most notably, Rosa Parks -- and continued with younger blacks who sat at lunch counters in sections reserved for whites.
The push to end segregation was easily understood: Requiring people to sit in particular sections of a bus or restaurant because of their race is wrong and black people are not hurting anybody by sitting in a particular area.
What made it possible for those behind the civil rights movement to affect change was that they made persuasive arguments and engaged in persuasive tactics which directly went at those who pushed segregation. They made it clear what they wanted to change and why.
Fast forward to today and we have those who are sounding the alarm about climate change. The tactics utilized have ranged from activists who block highway traffic to throwing soup on a painting.
These people talk about their worries about climate change but have very little in the way of solutions. If one looks at those who were blocking highways in Washington D.C., you'll notice that they talk about how they got 2.5 million views for one of their videos.
While that's a lot of viewers, can one point to any change that actually took place? President Joe Biden has yet to actually declare climate change an "emergency," but what does that mean, exactly? What moves need to be made in order to address these concerns? And can they demonstrate they would have a positive effect?
As for the soup ordeal, it seems to be fading into the background, much like most viral moments in social media do. If the tactic becomes just another "here today, forgotten tomorrow" item in the 24/7 news cycle, then how can anyone say that the tactic has had any effect in bringing about change?
Furthermore, exactly who are these protests targeting? Is there any evidence that the people who are getting stuck on the blocked highways, have any influence on public policy?
Instead, the people being impacted by highways being blocked are doing things from trying to get to work to needing to get to the hospital. If you watch the video (the Substack post is free to the public), there's one man who declares the climate activists' protest is more like to get people to turn against their cause rather than listen.
And that's because the protest doesn't target the people who have the say in policy. Compare that to sit-ins, in which the protest has a clearer effect on whoever runs the restaurant.
Furthermore, customers already there weren't prevented from eating or leaving the restaurant when they needed to get back to work. It's true that lots of people in the restaurant targeted the protestors, but it wasn't because the black students engaged in tactics to keep them from eating. A person who takes your food away prevents you from eating, but a person who simply sits in an unoccupied seat does not.
The same is true for those throwing soup at paintings. Which person with a say over climate policy is being impacted here? What energy company? What business?
If one wants to get a message across, one needs to direct protests in a manner that has a clear impact on those who set policy. It also needs to be persuasive rather than simply being a nuisance.
Otherwise, these protests simply become one in a long series of viral moments that few remember a month later because they've moved on to the next current thing -- while those who do remember them may be more likely to reject what the protestors have to say.