Direct Action
Judith has nudged me into writing something about Direct Action, with the words “it depends just how far it goes”. I agree, but that’s not all. It’s also about the nature of the action itself, how effective it is, what it’s objectives are and how it impinges upon others, bystanders. There is also scale, in relation to the “injustice” it seeks to remedy.
The trouble is that, as far as I am aware, there is no generally accepted definition of what Direct Action is, although there is this. Some qualify the phrase with the preceding words “Non-Violent” but even this is fraught with difficulties. Is damage to property violent? Or damage to another’s livelihood or psychological well-being?
The phrase is so woolly that it encompasses a very wide spectrum of potential actions. So, let's try and narrow it down.
I’m not too sure whether things like Demos, Protests and Marches fall into the category of Direct Action? But a Picket Line I would say does. All of these things though, generally, are planned in advance, the rest of us know it’s going to happen and we can if necessary make alternative arrangements, and there are rules. It’s when the rules are broken that things start to get tricky.
So, the question then becomes, when is it justifiable to break the rules? And while we are considering this question let us also consider that Governments themselves can break the rules as well!
Let’s take a few recent examples. Sneaking into Woolworths and placing Climate Change Stickers on the incandescent light bulbs on their shelves is quite benign. One is defacing another’s property but there is no adverse effect on the public at large. Same with climbing up a chimney at Kingsnorth – they were guilty of trespass but again no adverse effects on the public. But the "Plane Stupid" actions at Stanstead did make a lot of ordinary people get quite upset.
So, anyone considering Direct Action has to be very careful about how that action will be perceived by those they wish to persuade and convince to their cause.
There are those who argue that most of the “rights and freedoms” we enjoy today have been won by one form of direct action or another, often at huge personal cost. The suffragette movement, the Civil Rights movement in the USA, and more recently the homosexual movement are prominent examples. One could also point to Trade Union rights or more precisely protection of workers from exploitation.
Unlike our neighbours across the Channel, we in the UK have not had a revolution where we chop people’s heads off. Nevertheless, rights do not come without responsibilities.
It is each and every one of us responsibility to maintain the environment that sustains our species very existence. Where there is activity that threatens our life support system [and that of generations to come] is what I mean by the “right [responsibility?] of self defence”.
How one views any specific “direct action” is a matter of personal judgement which may or may not be modified with time and hindsight.
This is not a subject I know much about, as you can tell, but these thoughts are intended to generate debate and discussion so we can all get a better understanding.
Discuss.
19 comments:
Well, a great start to the discussion!
Do protest marches count as direct action? I'd be more inclined to classify them as persuasive action, which I have no problem with.
I do start to get edgy about actions like invading Kingsnorth (or indeed chucking yourself under a horse at the Derby, much as I approve of female suffrage).
And then you get to the kind of violent action against vivisection that saw people jailed recently. I have the gravest doubts about testing pharmaceuticals etc on animals. However, I am much more open to hearing rational argument than being persuaded one way or another by slander or physical violence.
I do know of course that comprehensive discussion will not always win the day. Having worked in politics for nearly 20 years, I understand fully the desire to lightly tap some idiot on the head with a full-size leather cosh. But if you can't win your argument by the use of clear debate, then perhaps you have to accept that you are in a minority.
Over to you.
I have copied an extract from Judith's previous post;
[But if you can't win your argument by the use of clear debate, then perhaps you have to accept that you are in a minority.]
I prefer dealing with facts than ideas but I am really fascinated by the statement.
Anybody wants to stick their neck out?
Judith?
annesevant
annesevant
Bonne Noel, Anne, a little late.
If the only way you can win an ideological argument is by threatening the opposition with violence, it's not a very convincing argument.
If you can't win your argument by reasoned debate, persuading the majority to your point of view, then you surely you have to accept that the majority disagree with you. That doesn't mean you should cease holding your own views, just that you'll have to keep on trying to be more persuasive.
Well, Judith, the rhetoric is changed a bit by what you say and I suppose we could go on and on for ever, in the most polite way!
Do you mean that the only alternative to a clear logical argument is violence?
I am much more crafty than that! (Which, of course, does not mean I win but I do enjoy a good battle and never rest on my laurels either!
annesevant
Joyeux Noel Anne - that's the idea put your name down twice - Laurels will take a good amount of punishment - Need some Berberis too - to get your "point" across.
RSC will be supporting all Groups and Individual Residents in 2009.
Reasons for failing to win an ideological, or even a practical argument may be many. These reasons may also include the "winners" being in denial as to the gravity of the situation facing them. Their short term "win" may turn out to be a long term loss for everyone.
One thing that amuses me, in a wry way, about direct action is that "the Left" nowadays like to think of it as their territory. They then get very upset when they find that "the Right" can also take direct action, and that often there are a lot more of them and they're a lot nastier. A case of needing to be careful and thoughtful of the principles you argue in favour of, I think.
Laurels will take a good amount of punishment - Need some Berberis too - to get your "point" across, says Richard or Rep!
Ouch, just as well he is not suggesting I rest on a bed of pyracanthas, it would be me taking the punishment as well as the poor plants!
Bonne Annee a tout le monde!
Bonne Annee a B21.
annesevant
Bonne Annee one and all.
I've been letting this thread run and will come back with some comments later.
It's always worth remembering also, that the majority *can*, and sometimes do, get it wrong.
2009 - wow!
Have fun ...
Dorothea - of course the 'majority' can get it wrong, when they disagree with you!
That's the point of this thread - how do you persuade the majority of 'wrong thinkers' to YOUR point of view?
Do you do it by reasoned debate, peaceful protests or violent action?
This lively debate is lovely! Who started it?
We need a referee! I wonder how the redimanager would screen this. (Strongly worded PMs and harsh editing?)
annesevant
"of course the 'majority' can get it wrong, when they disagree with you!" - Judith.
There seems to be a misunderstanding here. I'm speaking historically. No doubt we can all think of instances in the past when the majority (even in the looser democratic sense) have got a decision badly wrong, and ended up paying for it with greater suffering.
Excuse me if I reiterate that where the "winners" are in denial as to the gravity of the situation facing them, their short term "win" may turn out to be a long term loss for everyone.
My feeling is that no-one can be saved from themselves, especially not by the well-meaning or by self-appointed cadres and "vanguardists". There are, after all, none so deaf as those who will not hear.
Sadly perhaps, we just have to accept that some things are just inevitable, as the great tradition of Greek tragedy shows us.
Getting things back to more basic issues, do the Green people have information of that thorny issue (no, not pyracanthas!) of what is happening to the green disposal of recyclable household refuse? Things seem to have gone ballistic and I wonder if our council (amongst many other councils) are wasting money pretending to recycle when recycling seems to be number one, unecological, number two, very expensive indeed.
Then, aiming at a smaller target! When posters are tied to the gates of Claybury Park advertising forthcoming events, who is supposed to remove them when they are out of date? If they are still there when useless, aren't they 'rubbish'. Whose responsibility?
annesevant
Have you not seen the latest post, Anne?
"Whose responsibility?" Room for some topical direct action against litter perhaps?
Direct action: my middle name! (allotment rubbish, I spent hours collecting, whether it is dumped in mountains by the 'anonymous' public or by plotholders who will receive a 'clear as crystal' tirade if I find out who they are (and I do). I am very positive in that way. I have not been murdered yet!
Now, my other half spends the odd half hour on a regular basis clearing the hegde along Claybury Park, the pavement, the grassed area, and disposes of what he collects responsibly, even recycling the cans!)
I have also watched other people walking in the park picking up litter as they go.
What I do mean, is that people should be responsible: once your leaflets are out of date, they are, technically, rubbish and they are your responsibility, not the responsability of anybody else.
I don't even know that they should be allowed to attach bits of plastic wrapped information onto the gate, but I suppose the end justifies the means. (It does not make it right and, Dorothea, if we want to be precise, when members of the public collect rubbish in public places, they are stealing! Just as well the prisons are full.)
annesevant
Time for me to come back and comment.
I rather like the notion of Persuasive Action being a separate category or, if you like, a sub-division of Direct Action. This I think is the political dimension of reasoned debate of which Judith speaks. Although “reason” and politics don’t seem to be common bedfellows.
What other categories are there? Marches and demos probably fall into Persuasive Action in that they are an overt show of the strength of support. But they also have a marketing or publicity angle. They are an attempt to sway public opinion.
Publicity stunts though usually involve breaking the law, or creating a nuisance. These do have a side-effect in that they highlight lax security. If our security services can’t look after the PM or the Queen what chance have we got?
Then there is Civil Disobedience: which usually means getting arrested. Frankly I prefer the police to be out catching criminals.
I think that “Direct Action” has a specific meaning to those who use it, not to define what they are doing, but to define themselves. These are the people who also use terms like Activist, Radical and Progressive. All words that irritate me.
As Anne has highlighted grass roots direct action [no capitals] like clearing up litter is often illegal. Where the law is an Ass it should be challenged, eh?
Judith, what's a leather cosh?
Allegedly used by the Police in the 19th Century.
Post a Comment