Looking for activism news & videos? Get the latest activists news, videos & alerts right here on Disclose.tv. ✓ Click to browse today!Activism is a form of political or social action by activists - entering "the system," reforming it or protesting from outside, drawing attention to and changing grievances with activities. Does it lead to the goal, or rather the integrationist way? Activism is a counter-model to passive acceptance. Stay alerted!
The Duden defines activism as "active behavior,[progressive] determined action, urge to act." An activist is defined by Wiktionary as "often politically engaged, purposeful person."
The philosopher Karl Popper (1902 - 1994) described the activist's attitude as "the propensity for activity and the aversion to any attitude of passive acceptance."
The German philosopher Rudolph Eucken propagated a post-Kantian "new idealism." He also called it "creative activism" (from 1907, activation of the joint creative power of all people). The term soon changed and is used as a term for political action.
At the end of the 1960s and in the 1970s, the "new social movements" (women's movement, the gay movement, environmental movement) gave rise to various forms of activism. They were often characterized by a combination of adoption as conclusively established strategies of the organization and new open, democratic ways of action.
To point out real grievances and shortcomings, to work towards concrete changes in conditions, with these concerns activism is a form of political action.
Michel Foucault dealt intensively with the concept of power and the analysis of power relations. In the question of political action, of questioning existing power relations, he points to the possibilities for conflict of "unruly freedom," which changes power relations (in his view already inherent in the power relations, "inherent antagonism"). Foucault sees criticism as a means of freeing oneself from the power of another and behaving freely about one thing.
"But at the same time freedom must oppose an exercise of power that ultimately seeks to control it completely." (Subject and power). Activist Hannah Arendt describes the essential concept of "civil disobedience" in her action-oriented understanding of politics: "when some people agree in their consciences, and these deniers decide to go public and make themselves heard." (from the speech "Civil Disobedience").
One of the fathers of "non-violent action" as a form of political commitment is the US political scientist and activist Gene Sharp. According to Sharp, power is the result of an agreement. The exercise of power requires the tacit consent of the (often "silent") majority. Those who no longer remain silent are given the tools to shape society in such a way that it is in people's interest. According to Sharp, the means of choice is "non-violent action."
The field of tension would thus be defined:
Activism: do not wait inactively, but do not enter into formal political processes (as a participant), but become active, e.g., through public relations work and demonstrations, through actions.
Attention: on the other hand would be the opposite of the activist the assassin (attendre french = to wait): someone who remains inactive, waits, remains in passivity.
Actionism: A misdevelopment of activism would be actionism - the actions turn into an end in themselves, a goal no longer becomes recognizable.
Activism or integrationism - what leads to the goal?
Is activism capable of bringing about social change? Or does it make more sense to'enter the system' in an integrationist way?
The US writer, radio presenter and gay activist Michelangelo Signorile has a clear answer: "Activism has brought us forward, not the gay mainstream."
Social movements are always confronted with the eternally repeating and continually evoking question: go into the system, change it? Or criticize from the outside and create something new? Which way leads to the goal? Is the integrationist who enters the operation successful, whose positions are thus initially accepted and possibly manages to change something from within? Or is it more purposeful to develop one's position autonomously and to try to realize it, if necessary in protest against the system from outside? With the current, or against the current, what leads to the goal?| More