ES 375: Ecosocial Advocacy

Evaluating Ecosocial Activism
Definitions and distinctions

For this as a Word document, click here

It is easy to judge ecosocial actions. It is far more difficult to do so with insight. Much of the value and effectiveness of ecosocial activism depends on a refined ability to critically assess different actions and approaches. There are various ways of evaluating ecosocial activism, and a variety of things to keep in mind.

OBJECTS OF EVALUATION

There are at least three different objects of evaluation:

• Individual cases of ecosocial activism that happens at a particular time and place (e.g. boycotting this product at this time).
• General types of activism (e.g., changing personal lifestyle versus direct action).
• General approaches (e.g., legal or illegal).

BASIC CRITERIA FOR ASSESSMENT

We can evaluate each of these dimensions in terms of:

• Ethics. Does the case, type, or approach ethical? What are the ethical principles on which you base that judgment? How might someone criticize your view and take a different one?
• Effectiveness. Does this type or approach achieve the intended results? What evidence and reasoning do you base your judgment on?
• Relative value. Two different actions can be equally effective in producing the desired results. But what is the relative value of the intended results? What are your assumptions and values that lead to this judgment?

Note: When evaluating activism, it is crucial to consider a wide sweep of consequences and implications.

• How will this action affect workers? the poor? people in the third world? women? the environment locally? the environment elsewhere? other activist groups? your own future?
• What might be the political and social repercussions? For instance, might this lead to the election of more progressive or repressive politicians?

TYPES OF GOALS

There are different types of goals, and different ways of conceiving of the relative success of activism.

• Gain a specific result – the most common goal, but not the only one.
• Gain political power
• Build sense of bonding and community in the activism group
• Cultivate sense of purpose in the activism group
• Energize the group
• Affirm and express the values of the group
• Build a powerbase
• Build a movement
• Raise consciousness

There are also different types of ultimate goals.

• Targeted reform: changing a particular law, policy, etc.
• Systematic reform: reforming the system in broad terms (e.g., fundamentally change electoral financing and lobbying)
• Overthrowing the system and starting another

ETHICAL AND RELIGIOUS JUSTIFICATIONS

Utilitarian (consequentialist) : An act is right if it produces the desired result.

• Moral : The desired result is morally based (e.g., the greatest good for the greatest number)
• Practical : The desired result is not morally based (e.g., it helps our company or political cause)

Deontological : An act is right if it is the right thing to do.

• Higher law or duty : There is a higher law (often religiously based) or we have a duty (often “as human beings”) that we should act in a particular way (e.g., treat all people equally)

Virtue ethics : An action is right if it is one that a person of high virtue would do when living out that virtue.

• Rational and intentional : Rational analysis of what one ought to do to fulfill those virtues
• Spontaneous and intuitive : Our very nature leads us to act this way, without any rational reasons or ethical imperative (e.g., you spontaneously move to save a baby from danger, or you intuitively decide that you should join a cause).

Natural law ethics : An action is moral if it conforms to natural “law,” which is moral.

• In human nature (this overlaps with virtue ethics)
• The moral character of the natural world
• The inherent quality of history

Religious beliefs and values : An action is right if it conforms to and embodies a religious belief or value.

TYPES OF BENEFITS

These distinctions are especially relevant to judgments of utilitarian ethics, relative value, and effectiveness.

Material benefit : An act is right if it improves the material well-being (e.g., food, housing, education, safety, or biodiversity, ecosystem health, etc.) of individuals, social groups, or ecological systems.

• Short-term benefit? Long-term benefit? Benefits future generations?
• Specific benefit (individual people or organisms, social groups or species)? Systematic benefit (strengthens an economic system, community, or ecosystem, etc.)?

• Does it at the same time work to the disadvantage of others? If so, how do you evaluate the balance?
• Do you privilege certain individuals or groups (e.g. the poor or endangered species)?

Psychological benefit : An act is right if it improves the psychological or spiritual well-being of individuals or social groups. (Often the focus here is happiness or pleasure, but it could also be sense of self-worth, inner peace, spiritual fulfillment, etc.)

Moral benefit : An act is right if it creates greater social justice, freedom, or other moral value.

• Note: some benefits have multiple benefits. For instance, greater self-determination can give a social group immediate and long-term benefit to people and animals, strengthen the social system and local ecosystem, provide deeper sense of self-worth, and greater freedom and justice.

ATTITUDES

The attitudes of activists also deserve evaluation.

• Attitude towards one’s position: Moral righteousness and certainty? Open commitment (committed but open to being changed)? Complete relativism?
• Attitude toward the condition one is responding to: Outrage? Inner peace?
• Attitude toward the other side: Hate? Seeing them as evil? Love? Identification (we are all complicit)?
• Conception of the problem : Seeing it as an isolated case? Seeing it as a structural problem, i.e., the result of a system (calling for social analysis and systematic political change)?

VIOLENCE AND NONVIOLENCE

In analyzing violence in activism, keep in mind these distinctions.

Nonviolence: two types

• Philosophical : a belief that nonviolence should be followed as a moral duty or spiritual path. “Deontological.” Usually this implies that it should be followed in all (or at least most) circumstances.
• Tactical : a belief that nonviolence should be followed in certain cases because it is most likely to produce the desired ends. “Consequentialist.” Usually this implies that violence is justifiable in other cases, depending on the context.

Violence: two attitudes

• Violence accepted in certain cases, although primarily as a “necessary evil.”
• Violence embraced as a positive, creative act.

ISSUES

Questions to ask:

• How important is it? Is this an extremely important issue with broad and deep impact, or relatively minor?
• How bad is it? Is the problem grave or only relatively problematic? (Has the environmental movement been “immensely successful?”)
• How imminent is it? Does the problem demand immediate action or can one respond over time?
• How effective are the “legitimate channels” and other alternative means? What is the chance that working through the political or legal system or marshalling public opinion will work?
• What positive impact will the action have?
• On the particular goals of the action
• On the people in the movement
• On the causes of the problem
• On people responsible for the problem
• On other social groups
• On long-term social situation
• What negative impact will the action have?
• On the particular goals of the action
• On the causes of the problem
• On the people in the movement
• On people responsible for the problem
• On other social groups
• On long-term social situation

THE BASIC VALUE SYSTEMS

What values form the basis of the evaluation?

• The relative value of different people and social groups, including people of other countries and people in the future.
• The relative value of animals, plants, and ecosystems.
• The value of basic necessities of food, shelter, clothing, health, education.
• The value of different degrees of comfort, convenience, and affluence.
• The value of various personal freedoms.
• The value of economic (market) freedom.
• The value of property.
• The value of democratic processes, at local level up to national and international.
• The value of cultural integrity.
• The value of self-determination.

Back Home