Activism and "shock" tactics

When I was a primary school aged kid, we would occasionally have trips to the beach. It wasn't far - a mile or so, to use the distance measure of the times (that's about one to two km now), and they were often family trips, or trips with family friends. 

They were also usually horrendous because of the expectation of getting changed behind towels that idiot aunts/adult "friends" would drop. Their glib responses after that along the lines of "your privacy doesn't matter" (which is what their words amounted to) were, in my opinion (IMO), abusive - and, frankly, stupid to the point of being cretinous. This was the time of my life when I started to realise some adults were not all (or even mostly) wiser, all-knowing, informed - or even observant: they were clueless morons (particularly when fishing - landed fish were obviously distressed, and to seemingly be so unaware of it or uncaring really struck me [and there are the sadists who claimed shellfish couldn't feel pain as they were boiled alive . . . ] ). These abusive events weren't helped by sexist differences in attitudes - sexist differences that showed internalised sexism, misandry, belief in stereotypes, and fear of not doing/being the same as others (even if that was at best stupid and at worst harmful), which was an endemic problems (still is, to some extent).

There were other problems as well - including me having the buoyancy of a rock. I struggled to stay afloat and swim in freshwater swimming pools, and it was worse in salt water where waves made staying above wherever the water surface was and breathing even harder. The casual dismissiveness of my dislike of that showed the equally cretinous and endemic attitudes over being "tough and fearless or brave" (if you have no fear, you don't need the courage of being brave).

If I was to sum it up, I'd say it was people socialising for the sake of human connection in ways that were formulaic or, frankly utterly stupid (or, at the very least, seriously flawed)  - but everyone was so desperate for human contact and connection that they ignored or overlooked or didn't even notice the problems. This was the 60s, so this era included unthinking things like "serving your time" until you were promoted (no matter how talented) and being promoted when it was your time (no matter how untalented), and things like the initiation abuses of apprentices (which sometimes caused injuries or left scars [sometimes for life] or were fatal), etc. But it all provided "a way" to form human connections . . . even if the connections were with abusive people (and the 60s and the previous decade [and no doubt others] were the era of keeping domestic violence [DV] hidden behind white picket fences and an illusion of "nothing to look at here - we're all TOTALLY the same as everyone else" . . . which was probably true, sadly).

Unfortunately, we still have the problem of people so desperate for human contact and connection ^{[Note 1]} that they ignore or overlook or don't even notice problems and stick to socially conditioned, formulaic values and ways of being, doing, and thinking. At least we're more open about issues such as DV, depression, the effects of abuse, etc - even if we're still struggling to find a way to manage and, ultimately, prevent that. (And, on a lighter personal note, when I got into sailing I developed a love of water - but I'd rather swim in 50 feet of salt water than five feet of salt - or any fresh water.)

But those problems are not the problems I want to cover in this article. 

What I want to cover is the day when, after I got through the compulsory nudity abuse, I was passing time, and found a stick on the water's edge. I picked it up and tried to throw it back into the sea - for no reason other than it was something to do to pass the time until I could back to something I wanted to do (read books). However, the stick was slimy, and slipped out of my hand as I threw it - and splashed just in front of a girl of similar age, who was obviously terrified by that. I ran to Mum and said the stick had slipped and nearly hit someone, so what do I do, and she told me the obvious "go and apologise". I did and my unfortunate near-victim was eventually reassured enough to start including me in the play that she and her friends were doing, but I told her it was OK, she didn't have to do that. (I was glad she felt better, and relieved that she wanted to demonstrate that to me, but a fake friendship wasn't necessary.)

That day was the start of my "safety" journey (which has included being Safety Officer in what was technically an operating mine site, although it was actually a cattle property where exploratory drilling was being performed ^{[Note 2]} , employee representative, and other roles - including inclusion & diversity roles, which are - in part - about mental & emotional safety), but it was also an early experience with the topic of shock. 

Let's move on several decades, to when I came across people who think the sole purpose of art is "to shock" -  not to cause increased awareness or even change (which requires a sight more than just shock!), or to give people relief from the desperation of their lives through beauty, but just to cause shock. 

That has always struck me as being a bit like children trying to justify some pranks that their parents caught them doing and told them off for. Much of the art that has been intended to cause shock has NOT caused an inspiration to me to change the world, nor has it increased my awareness - it has just seemed to me to be puerile (and, in some cases, it assumes that, just because the artist doesn't know about something, I couldn't possibly know about that either *eye roll* ). 

But that has not always been the case - for instance, Picasso's Guernica ^{[Note 3]} conveys the horror to a reasonable extent (but not to everyone). 

Personally (which means the effects on others may be different, and some MAY be inspired as I have not by such art), I find reporting more likely to have a positive impact than art intended to shock - and that applies, IMO, to many others, as well. 

As examples, consider that: 

• the (shocking) news reporting on the Holocaust helped lead to the Nuremberg  trials; 
• public protests triggered, in part, by (shocking) news reports led to an ending of western intervention in the Vietnam war; 
• the (shocking) public murder of George Floyd led eventually to the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement; 
• Tarana Burke's sharing of her (shocking) experiences led to the Me Too movement; and 
• (sometimes shocking but often toneless & factual [the facts being the cause of the shock]) reporting has eventually led to pressure enough for some (belated and inadequate) action on the climate crisis.
  

On a personal note, the shock of discovering, while still at school, the brutality on both sides of the Indian  "Mutiny" (from a TV documentary) and in wars in the 20^th Century (from Purnell's history series) was a key step in me becoming a peace activist. 

So it seems to me that "shock" can be:

• personal and beneficial (the slipped stick led to learning and activism for me, for instance);
  
• personal and harmful (this category includes assault, abuse, etc - including being on receiving end of discrimination, which [in my case, including sexual assaults I've been subjected to as a child and adult, including rape] has left me with complex trauma);
• societal and harmful or meaningless (e.g., the puerile art intended to shock for the "artist's" personal gratification and not much more [if the audience doesn't understand/comprehend the message, there won't be any useful impact - and some "messages" are incredibly obscure] ); or
  
• societal and beneficial (e.g., art that prompts genuine reflection [e.g., Guernica], news/photos of atrocities [there is a risk that one can become desensitised, but it can also be personal & beneficial [e.g., the effect of learning from history for me], and some political campaigns).

I'd like to examine the issue of campaigns for political change and shock a little further. 

IMO, some use of shock for political change is good - or at least effective. In this category, I would include: 

• Gandhi's use of civil disobedience (non-cooperation), with an aim to provoke a response using non-violent methods that would lead to the oppressing British being shamed in the eyes of the world and their own people back in the UK; 
• actions during the US civil rights campaigns of the 50s and 60s such as sit-ins (when white people were "shocked" by the experience of sitting beside people of colour in food stores), the freedom riders (which also showed the issue of white support for civil rights - and the murder of two of the white and one coloured campaigners shocked a great many people into realising the extent of the depravity of racists), and Dr Martin Luther King Jr.'s great speeches - which informed white & black people and challenged racist stereotypes & internalised racism  - and the marches of that era (e.g., here); and 
• modern movements such as BLM and Me Too.
  

The use of "shock" by some forms of political activism may be considered somewhat controversial (generally by those in power - and their sycophants - as it is a threat to their worldview), but still be effective. I include Extinction  Rebellion in this category (and note that some comments in response to their activism has been utterly nonsensical - e.g., the comments mentioned in this post of mine), but also a fair bit of other community activism (such as campaigns against domestic and sexual violence), where I consider the denialist reactions of head-in-the-sand orthodoxy / conservatives / elites (and their sycophants) is the problem, rather than the actual activism.

If those denialists were actually intellectually honest enough (or at least open-minded) and had better emotional competence, then shock tactics would not be necessary, IMO. 

The resistance to the reality of the climate crisis (which was not a crisis when activism started, decades ago) is an even more apt example of the problem of denialist reactions of head-in-the-sand orthodoxy / conservatives / elites (and their sycophants). 

More generally, it has to be said that some of the reactions to activism are truly appalling. Examples of that include: 

• the Amritsar massacre by the British in India in 1919; 
• police brutality and violence (including the use of attack dogs, projectile and other weapons, fire hoses, chemical warfare, etc - see, for instance, here, and here) against the civil rights movement in the USA (and elsewhere), which eventually led to BLM; 
• the abuse of power that has enabled sexual and other  violence against women throughout the 20^th Century and further back in history; 
• persistence in problems known to be causing problems - such as maintaining high GHG emissions.
  

But on top of that, some activism is "poorly conceived". 

Some of that is lack of political expertise (there's a steep learning curve - hopefully aided by someone more experienced, but then, circumstances and times can change as well so mentors may not be able to help as much as they wish), some of it losing sight of "the bigger picture" (such as using arguments that you like but which harm other groups), some of it lack of awareness (e.g., various parts of the LGBTIQ+ communities not being aware of their impacts on others, or "forgetting" about or directly/indirectly discriminating against other sections of communities - I had a list of examples, but decided to omit that for brevity [and in case I'd left someone out] ), some of it as a result of the trauma of being in a discriminated-against-group who are forced to fight their own battles, and there are no doubt other causes.

But, as I'm writing about "shock", it is important to remember that the shock (and other forms of harm) of discrimination DOES actively cause harm serious enough to cost lives in a range of ways - including suicide that I consider the discriminators (who are sometimes from other discriminated against groups) are directly and personally (but probably not legally) responsible for.

None of this is helped by the shock of discriminators thinking that them stopping their active discrimination results in instant friendship - that's a bit like a rapist stopping the act of rape and then saying "there you are, I've stopped, so stop your caterwauling and we can all be friends now" (and, incidentally, I have been raped).

There can be a tendency to blame "being on the receiving end" of discrimination as "making one 'more' [read: 'unreasonably / excessively'] sensitive", but my experience - including discussions with others - of that situation/experience is that any problems are due to such experiences making one more aware of the abuses that others experience (and if you have doubts about that, look up intersectionality). 

Thus, if a member of a discriminated against group says something is offensive or unacceptable, it almost certainly is.

And if you think that things shouldn't change, think back to the times when slavery was widely accepted - and the fact that you were more likely to be the slave being flogged, raped, or otherwise abused (I won't repeat other examples) than the owner.

If you have the opportunity to learn from someone who has been on the receiving end of discrimination, then - as I did with the girl who was nearly accidentally hit by me clumsily throwing that stick I was a child - do so, and try to be a better person making the world a better place in whatever way you can.

Notes 

1. A related issue is "what do I do with my time?" Parental figures' responses to that can be formulaic and based on "fitting in". In my case, I recall - a couple of years before the events I'm about to describe - asking my adoptive mother "What do I think about while falling asleep?" I no longer recall what Mum said, but such things are opportunities to help children break out of social conditioning, and better live who they really are. 
2. We had more than our fair share of accidents with inexperienced drivers in 4WDs on heavy black soil (I had a 2WD Gemini, which was light enough to just skate over the surface rather than sinking in to the axles), and, after talking to some older, more experienced people about how to fix the problem, was able to organise some advanced off-road driving lessons for everyone. I missed those as my assignment ended a few days beforehand, and a few people were quite surprised I didn't find a way to stay out the extra few days, but that would have been unethical. (And I was not a perfect Safety Officer - I generally had little to no support, and was on a steep learning curve.) 
3. I'll probably think of a better example about five minutes after I publish this.