There are two different ways one can use economics to analyze political activism. (Yes, more than two, but this time I’ll be talking about just two.) First, what do I mean when I talk about being politically active? I mean things like going to rallies or demonstrations, signing petitions, voting in elections, always advocating and trying to persuade people to a certain point of view or support a certain type of political policy, things of that nature.
Another way to think about activism is to view it as a form of production. In this model, an activist engages in activism to produce some kind of output. Therefore, activists with grievances about the justice system protest in the streets, sign petitions, vote, and raise debates in an effort to produce a better justice system. Environmental activists engage in these activities to produce the result of better environmental health, however one may define that, and so on. Considered as a means of production, we can say that activism seeks to ensure or improve the production of public goods. In the environmental context, for example, improved air quality will be beneficial to society – it is indisputable and indivisible.
A second way of looking at activism is not as a method of production, but as a method of consumption. What does it mean to be an activist consumer? It means that an activist engages in activism to enjoy some private benefits. These benefits include things like feeling at home and belonging to other activists, gaining status in society, and a sense of purpose and purpose. While activism as production focuses on the production of public goods, activism as consumption is about achieving private goods. If it is done as a means of implementation, the wider effects of activism are external.
Just as education can be a form of mobilization and a form of social expression, activism can be both a form of production and a form of consumption. Any given activist can be inspired by either, or both to varying degrees. But each type of activist has a very different effect on what we should expect.
If activism is considered a form of production, we would expect the activist to be deeply informed about the subject – environmental science, criminal justice, or whatever else it might be. They will have well-defined end goals – a clear point where one can say “mission accomplished” and when they finish that campaign, activism will end. An activist will have a keen eye on how their activities bring them closer or further away from their desired goal. This will motivate the activist to self-evaluate and adjust lessons if a particular method seems ineffective or ineffective.
If activism is used as a means of implementation, none of the above conditions need apply. As an activist seeks personal intellectual and emotional satisfaction, as well as social recognition, there is no particular need to be deeply informed about the subject. We can expect to see people both passionately protesting about an issue while at the same time being unable to answer even basic questions about that issue. And the activist will not be able to clearly identify and explain what the desired result is, and how they will know how to achieve it, in any way other than vague and undefined ways. Rather than saying “job done” anytime, the activist was always moving the pole. Whether activism successfully achieves its stated goals will not be evaluated by the activist, nor will new methods be adopted if a particular method of activism appears ineffective or ineffective. Instead of focusing on the most pressing issues and using the most effective methods, an activist will be motivated by whatever problems are most familiar, or make them feel the best. Their activism will focus on activities that send the strongest signal and elevate their social status, rather than on those that effectively achieve a stated end.
Activism as production has many features that make it as powerful for social benefit as activism as consumption is lacking. The methods of correcting the lessons we can expect to find in activism as production will not be perfect, but they will at least help move the movement in a direction that leads to the production or development of the social good. But activism as a practice lacks these means, so it is only by chance that the externalities of this practice will be good rather than bad. And there is a high chance of externalities going bad – there are more ways to make things worse than to make things better, so actions taken without the means to check and fix are more likely to do more harm than good.
It seems to me that most of the political activism today is the use of private property with negative externalities, with little in comparison to productive work that actually contributes to the creation or development of something good for society. Those who treat activism and political involvement as a commodity are best described in the line of TS Eliot’s play. Cocktail Party:
Part of the damage done in this world is because of people who want to feel important. They mean no harm – but harm is not in their interest. Or they don’t see it, or they forgive it because they are focused on the endless struggle of thinking about themselves.
Source link