Is “Extreme Activism” a Winning Strategy?

By: Ben Baisinger-Rosen

On September 27th, members of the environmental group Just Stop Oil threw soup at two Vincent Van Gogh paintings housed in the National Gallery in London as a form of protest. This action came mere hours after other members of the organization were jailed for performing a similar stunt two years prior. Just Stop Oil has gained notoriety in recent years for targeting prominent monuments, works of art, and landmarks, with the most notable example being the group’s use of powdered paint on Stonehenge. These acts have drawn widespread condemnation, with many people outraged that important sites are being defaced by activists. At the same time, it is undoubtedly true that the style of activism utilized by Just Stop Oil and organizations like it generates conversation and discussion of climate activism as a whole. Given the potential for more extreme forms of activism to both grow awareness of environmentalism and alienate people, it is important to discern whether extreme activism is suited to modern environmental advocacy.  

“Extreme activism” can broadly be understood as any action that is viewed as “harmful to others, highly disruptive, or both”. It is worth noting that this form of activism was not created by Just Stop Oil. Many social movements across history have utilized this strategy. Moreover, while this form of activism is becoming more common within the environmental movement, it seems to be a symptom of the broader environmental movement’s growth. With that in mind, it is important to understand the principal benefits and harms of this strategy. Research on the extent to which extreme forms of protest affect the level of public support for a cause has been somewhat mixed. On the one hand, some studies have found that extreme protest actions have no negative effects on public support for a cause. Indeed, they may have positive effects in the form of agenda-setting, which refers to the idea that activism can help bring an issue to the attention of decision-makers and the general public. However, not all research shares this view. A Stanford study exploring the effects of extreme activism across a variety of issues found that participants indicated less support for social movements that used more extreme protest actions. Negative reactions to extreme protest actions also led participants to support the movement's central cause less, regardless of individuals' prior ideology or views on the issue. The authors identify the cause as a lack of personal identification: when people observe a movement doing something extreme, it can make them less willing to continue supporting that movement or join the movement in the first place. 

The crucial framework for evaluating the efficacy of extreme protest as a strategy is the current state of the environment. While larger government efforts have somewhat succeeded in slowing the rate of global warming, global temperatures are still rising, extreme weather events are still increasing in frequency, and large-scale intervention is still required to address climate change. This framing is important because it informs how we should think about strategies for climate activism. The question is not whether extreme activism works; rather, it has become whether it is the best strategy given the closing window we have to address the oncoming effects of climate change. 

Under this supposition, it becomes clear that extreme activism is ill-suited to present circumstances. The reason is simple: the biggest challenge for environmental advocates is no longer convincing the general public that climate change is an issue, but rather translating that support into action. The principal benefit of extreme awareness is that it draws attention to the movement and forces people to consider it, under the logic that if people are forced to think about an issue, they may be more inclined to address it. However, around 70% of Americans support some kind of environmental policy. Internationally, research indicates that 69% of the global population expresses a willingness to contribute some amount of their personal income, 86% endorse pro-climate social norms, and 89% demand intensified political action. This is especially important to consider in light of the possibility of extreme activism alienating members of the public. Even when taking the most charitable approach that extreme activism has no effect on levels of support for a cause, it may cause opponents of an issue to become further entrenched, harming the ability of an organization to grow. As such, an approach who’s principal benefit no longer applies and carries the risk of harming the continued growth of the environmental movement should not be endorsed as a widely-used strategy. Overall, people with strong interests in environmental action ought to think not just about what they are interested in advocating for, but how they choose to do so in order to represent their interests in the best possible way.