Source - Occupy.com
Throughout history, society has faced the wrath of dissent in one form or the other. Be it on the political, social, economic, or environmental front. However, over time, the face of activism has changed dramatically.
From the Satyagraha movement of the early 1900s to Twitter hashtags and cancel culture, a lot has changed. Gone are the days when masses used to come out in solidarity to express dissent through the moral ideals of rational collective thinking, digital activism is all the rave now.
The sweet misery of Armchair Activism
While activism can be categorized into different forms based on the method of protest, like economic activism, art, and literary activism, social activism, etc.; there is an interesting sub-category that has garnered attention in the wake of digital activism: Armchair Activism.
Armchair activism refers to raising your voice for a cause, not just because you feel strongly against or for it but because you feel it's the politically right thing to do according to the subjective standards of politics and ideologies.
There are two distinct ways of looking at armchair activism: positive and negative. Both are present in society and both need to be analyzed to understand the complicated workings of dissent in the current day and age.
The Positive Perspective
The most important point of commendation of armchair activism is that at the end of the day it is still activism. It's better to raise your voice against injustice than just sit back and watch, right?
There are ample examples of this principle on the internet that show how it succeeds in waking up authorities or even attracting attention towards a cause.
One of the core reasons that motivate people to participate in this form of activism is that it makes the most amount of noise and the fact that the feeling of non-participation may actually result in more injustice.
Another thought that points towards the benefits of armchair activism are that surely, there have been activists and revolutionaries in the past who expressed dissent through their words or art and never really took to streets, picked up placards and posters, sat on hunger strikes, went to jail or devoted their lives to one cause. So, what's wrong with following the footsteps of such great people through the power of social media?
The Negative Perspective
The first and foremost point that needs to be made while addressing the issue with armchair activism is understanding the difference between an activist and someone who believes to be an activist. Every individual has the right to share their thoughts or opinions on different stances, however, disguising this basic right under the cloak of activism practically means disrespecting actual activists who have devoted their lives for the betterment of society.
Now, as stated above, activism can be of various types, and yes there have been revolutionaries and activists who stood strong against authoritative or fascist regimes through literature, cinema, and art, but what we often forget about such great people is the principle that moved them to do so in the first place.
The principle behind choosing the rational and acceptable democratic option of protest or appeal is as important as the protest itself. It is empirical to note that the desperate urge to change the world by sharing an Instagram story about a social injustice sometimes comes from a place of wanting social validation from a small group of individuals who we believe are politically correct.
Another example of armchair activism that you may have stumbled upon is guilt-tripping others into agreeing with political opinions without presenting rational arguments or looking down on individuals for not understanding or doubting certain concepts. (Ex - pronouns, feminism, racism, etc.)
Neither does this help in informing others about these issues nor does this lead to changing people's minds as the motivation is not always spreading information. The purpose is not having healthy political discourse rather making sure everyone knows how you feel about an issue without having to actually do anything about it.
This revolutionary chain of thought comes from a place of frustration and intolerance towards anyone who disagrees with our views. It also leads to the creation of echo chambers as more often than not these opinions are shared among people who already agree with us.
Now, some might argue: what's wrong with raising a voice about something without fully understanding every aspect of it? The problem arises when misinformation about such concepts is used to polarize politics and masses at the expense of social justice.
Moreover, The desperate need to look for squeaky clean role models and cancel the rest stems from the desire to be perceived as someone objectively and politically right. Which is inherently impossible and bears a burden of disappointment, we all want to escape.
Conclusion
Evidently, a question arises - How do we make sure that armchair activism doesn't get the best of us? As someone who has been guilty of indulging in this form of activism, I have found to believe that introspection and education are the most important steps that can be taken before agreeing or disagreeing with something.
The attempt to understand different viewpoints and not force our opinions down someone's throat is also something that can be put to use to avoid divisive politics.
To escape the guilt of hiding behind big bold words and not backing them up with a plan of action, we can start by small insignificant actions that might not mean a lot to others but actions we believe have the power to bring change.
Acknowledging the fact that there are people out there who have lived their lives by ideals without feeling the need to shout it at the top of their lungs can also help in humbling us down and probably letting go of some of our frustrations towards the system.
" Whenever there is injustice, it must be opposed, the question is whether the purpose of protest is change or just revenge."
- Gandhi
Written By: Janshi
.jpg)
0 Comments