Selective activism makes fads out of real problems
Sincere commitments to activism should not be solely reliant on what celebrities and media are talking about
Activism should be based on ideology, not simply on what's trendy. (Unsplash/Heather Mount)
Living through history is always a tough time. Nothing happens that cannot be critically scrutinized by various experts and polemicists regarding what impacts certain events may or may not have down the road.
With much going on so quickly, it’s easy to lose track of every major event going on around the world — especially if news coverage of some dominates public attention and crowds out other happenings. Combine attention limits with attention being directed to certain events and you may find yourself, perhaps unintentionally but this is not always the case, engaging in selective activism.
Selective activism is advocating only for specific causes that one deems important. Effectively, it is tunnel vision towards a single or very few issues at the expense of others that may be directly or indirectly connected. This is often driven by feelings of personal connection — the closer one is to the issue, the more likely they will be to take a stand on it.
For example, a queer person may advocate for broad 2SLGBTQ+ rights within their country, but fall short on addressing the intersection of race and queerness. Or, an environmentalist may support preserving green-spaces but is quiet about the transition towards environmentally sustainable jobs. Such lapses can be the result of the person being genuinely unaware or preferring to concentrate on certain issues.
However, there can be instances where the activism is driven entirely by the fact that the issues are en vogue. All of social and mainstream media is hyper focused on the social “soup du jour.” Suddenly the attention dies off and the problem that is very likely still ongoing is forgotten about.
No matter the reason, selective activism is harmful because it creates a notion that all social causes can be ranked by “priority” according to what is trending and shows how biases, implicit or explicit, will influence activists’ decisions.
Knowing whose words to trust is a tricky game in this age of rampant disinformation and “know-nothing-know-it-alls” confidently being as wrong as humanly possible. It is a skill in and of itself to identify sound, logical contributions to the larger discourse from the sophistry of blowhards.
Celebrities are no exception. They are people too and just as fallible. The difference between them and the average erroneous thinker is that celebrities have thousands to millions of people following them. So when a star speaks, for good or for ill, the world listens.
Appeals to celebrities are problematic because, again, celebrities can be wrong by ignorance or because there is money on the line. In the latter case, they can either profit off of lies — by endorsing or promoting bunk, scams, and whatnot — or opt out of conversations they are likely ill equipped to discuss.
This is not to say that all celebrities should “stay in their lane” whenever big events unfold, oftentimes they may have personal experiences or ties to it and wish to discuss them. That is perfectly valid and understandable. But that is not everything.
We cannot rely on the upper echelons of society to descend and grace us with the solutions to our woes. In fact, the vast majority of the time, the upper echelons are standing diametrically opposed to real change because it stands to disrupt their luxurious lifestyles.
Grassroots activism is the way to go — no reliance on talking heads to know what causes are “in.” Causes should not be “in” or “out,” it should be couched in principle and reinforced by one’s ideology. Treating social awareness as fads to be followed is hollow and unhelpful.
