I am getting the feeling that there is a tendency within the environmental movement to equate 'visibility' with 'efficacy'. What I mean by this is that there seems to be a belief that the more people that know about campaign X or movement Y, the more change said campaign/movement will bring.
I do not believe that this is not necessarily true.
The problem with this attitude is that a lot of time and effort, money and resources are invested into getting 'in the public eye'. But for what true gain? What does high visibility actually do for the environmental problems that we face?
My point is that there are already a lot of groups that have, in the public's eye, the status of 'protecting the environment'. Is the mere existence of such groups - and the increase in their number - giving the rest of society a false sense of security about our environmental predicament?
Does the sheer number of groups purporting to 'protect the environment' lead to increased apathy amongst the wider population? Does it make people think, "I need not change what I am doing because Greenpeace, WWF, 350.org etc. etc are working on it"?
Perhaps the invisible, lo-fi actions are in fact the best. Perhaps it is best that the public do not think and feel that there are a lot of people acting on these critical issues because it may encourage them, as individuals to act. Perhaps the multitude of green groups in fact de-motivates the average person on the street.
The question that I ask, therefore, is whether increased public visibility of 'green-groups' leads to increased public apathy?
While I don't know the answers to these qustions, I think it is vital that the environmental movement ask them of itself. It is essential, that as individuals and as collectives, we ask the hard questions of ourselves and the work that we do. Surely the best campaign / movement is that which is self aware and self-critical. As such, it is imperative that we are aware of the potentially unintended consequences of our action.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hey Charlie,
ReplyDeleteI've finally decided to post a comment. I think you came up with a really interesting point, and quite tricky too...
In my opinion, the fact that there are many different environmental groups does not necesseraly mean that the average person on the street is de-motivated. If for instance let's imagine that there were only 2 big NGO's, I think that would increase the 'efficiency' or maybe also the 'efficacy' of actions. However, the attitudes of an average person won't be affected because I think the average person does not know the whole lot of environmental groups anyway...
On the other hand, you have this thing called 'locus of control' which I can't remember the definition. But my understanding is that, in this example, an average person is likely to support a well known, visible NGO rather than a small not known one because he/she would feel that this option is the one that will do the most of his/her time or more probably money. And I would say that at least, is better this tha nothing at all.
I believe that the rationale behind the 'visibility' issue is money. Visibility equals more money and also equals more support (in my opinion).
In fact, you can also argue that the average person is not going to act individually. If the others don't do anything why she/he should care about it? (locus of control again).
Or, "ok, it's time for action! What should I do? 1)Oh! look I can get a cool sticker for my car,saying to stop the whale fishing... 2)No, actually, you know what?I would go and do some tree planting under the rain..." (Visibility vs Efficacy?)
I would say the average person would most likely choose option 1, but (hopefully)I might be wrong!
So my take is: Think critically about your actions as you do, but just do what you think is the best, and be proud of it!! And when someone complains in capital letters about your actions and it's not even being constructive reply them in font 6 or 8 "thank you for your cooperation and support. I also believe that we are wasting our time, so I've decided to join an oil company and earn thousands of dollars!"
Hi Emilio,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your reply. I especially like your idea of writing in tiny wee font sizes to those people that seem to be yelling through their email! Classic.
I think that you raise some interesting points that feed into another issue. And that is the problem of competition for funding.
As you say, most people will support the big, visible NGO. The reason they will do this is probably because this NGO has the greatest presence in the public eye.
Does this mean that NGOs will simply invest increasing amounts of money into their marketing so that they in turn get more financial support?
Again I think we return to that same issue: increased visibility (and support for that matter) does not necessarily equate to increased efficacy.
What I'm really getting at is that it seems ridiculous that their is a whole industry that makes its money out of trying to protect the environment. My fear is that the more competition there is between environmental groups, the more they will have to 'fight' for the public's attention and their money.
It just seems such a shame that cash-strapped NGOs that undoubtedly set up with the intention of 'saving' at least some part of nature, are in constant competition with other, similarly as cash-strapped NGOs, all fighting for the same pool of money. And how do they best get that money? Through being in the public eye. And what does that mean? That the money is not in fact protecting the environment but, rather, funding campaigns that gain high levels of public attention.
I know that this is just the way it is and I don't mean to criticise people working in NGOs - many of whom work extremely hard and for very low wages - all I'm trying to say is that it sucks that even the people and groups trying to protect our Earth from the consequences of competition end up being forced to play that very same game.
P.S.
In re-reading what I have just written I must note that not all campaigns require big money. The internet, with its viral marketing and virtual activism is a means of campaigning that is both cost-efficient and effective. I'm sure that we have all signed a petition from AVAAZ?
So, in sum, environmental activism does not have to be big, loud and in the public eye. But, it does have to happen!