What the climate movement’s debate about disruption gets wrong
The recent debate about whether climate activists should employ disruptive tactics tends to conflate all forms of disruption. The debate typically focuses on the public’s reaction to protesters, yet the more important question is whether a given tactic imposes disruption on elite decision makers. Mo...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Springer Nature
2024-01-01
|
| Series: | Humanities & Social Sciences Communications |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02507-y |
| _version_ | 1797363515663581184 |
|---|---|
| author | Kevin A. Young Laura Thomas-Walters |
| author_facet | Kevin A. Young Laura Thomas-Walters |
| author_sort | Kevin A. Young |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The recent debate about whether climate activists should employ disruptive tactics tends to conflate all forms of disruption. The debate typically focuses on the public’s reaction to protesters, yet the more important question is whether a given tactic imposes disruption on elite decision makers. Most external analysts, and many activists themselves, fail to specify what approaches are most disruptive of elite interests and which elite institutions the movement should target. They also often misinterpret the lessons of historical social movements. We reconsider one of those movements, the Birmingham civil rights campaign of 1963, in light of the current strategic debate. We argue that disruption is necessary, but that not all “disruptive” strategies are equally effective. In particular, we advocate a strategy that can impose sustained and escalating costs on the elite sectors that can force politicians to confront the climate emergency. Priority targets include financial institutions that fund and underwrite fossil fuels as well as corporations, universities, pension funds, and other institutions that consume and invest in fossil fuels. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-08T16:22:27Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-811bba5b4ff44310acc47371b4760e35 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2662-9992 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-08T16:22:27Z |
| publishDate | 2024-01-01 |
| publisher | Springer Nature |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Humanities & Social Sciences Communications |
| spelling | doaj.art-811bba5b4ff44310acc47371b4760e352024-01-07T12:16:41ZengSpringer NatureHumanities & Social Sciences Communications2662-99922024-01-011111710.1057/s41599-023-02507-yWhat the climate movement’s debate about disruption gets wrongKevin A. Young0Laura Thomas-Walters1University of Massachusetts AmherstYale UniversityThe recent debate about whether climate activists should employ disruptive tactics tends to conflate all forms of disruption. The debate typically focuses on the public’s reaction to protesters, yet the more important question is whether a given tactic imposes disruption on elite decision makers. Most external analysts, and many activists themselves, fail to specify what approaches are most disruptive of elite interests and which elite institutions the movement should target. They also often misinterpret the lessons of historical social movements. We reconsider one of those movements, the Birmingham civil rights campaign of 1963, in light of the current strategic debate. We argue that disruption is necessary, but that not all “disruptive” strategies are equally effective. In particular, we advocate a strategy that can impose sustained and escalating costs on the elite sectors that can force politicians to confront the climate emergency. Priority targets include financial institutions that fund and underwrite fossil fuels as well as corporations, universities, pension funds, and other institutions that consume and invest in fossil fuels.https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02507-y |
| spellingShingle | Kevin A. Young Laura Thomas-Walters What the climate movement’s debate about disruption gets wrong Humanities & Social Sciences Communications |
| title | What the climate movement’s debate about disruption gets wrong |
| title_full | What the climate movement’s debate about disruption gets wrong |
| title_fullStr | What the climate movement’s debate about disruption gets wrong |
| title_full_unstemmed | What the climate movement’s debate about disruption gets wrong |
| title_short | What the climate movement’s debate about disruption gets wrong |
| title_sort | what the climate movement s debate about disruption gets wrong |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02507-y |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT kevinayoung whattheclimatemovementsdebateaboutdisruptiongetswrong AT laurathomaswalters whattheclimatemovementsdebateaboutdisruptiongetswrong |