Pitfalls of Protesting: the Modern Bias Towards Physical Activism

Many consider protests to be a form of “direct action.” This belief seems reasonable in a time when “slacktivism” and “clicktivism” are prevalent; after all, if people are willing to invest their time and energy into physically participating in something, their contribution must carry more weight. However, the reality is that protesters are not doing anything other than expressing their opinions publicly outside. In an age where we spend so much time in front of screens, physical actions may feel more significant, but this is a modern bias.

True “direct action” might involve something as extreme as volunteering to fight in a war (though I am not suggesting that this is preferable) or becoming a politician. A street protest is merely one of many communication mediums, alongside podcasts, television, social media, and written articles. Each medium has its strengths and weaknesses. Protests are particularly effective at conveying emotions and attracting media attention, but they often sacrifice depth for broad appeal. It is difficult to communicate complex or nuanced ideas during a protest, as the intensity of the emotions expressed can overwhelm the audience and cause them to disengage even if they are amenable to listening. (This video shows a good example.)

While emotions are not insignificant, the very conflicts that drive people to protest often stem from our tendency to react emotionally rather than thoughtfully and critically examine the arguments on both sides. Many people find such cognitive tasks exhausting and boring—energy they would rather not expend. However, if our goal is to minimize misunderstanding and maximize understanding, the written medium is far more effective, allowing for the expression of nuanced and complex ideas without the distortion of emotions.

It is unfortunate that emotional expression dominates political discourse. Physical activism makes the investment of effort indisputable to observers, much like the ownership of solar panels and electric cars makes the investment in the cause of climate change indisputable. However, whether you join a protest or stay home tapping on social media feeds, your primary mode of engagement is emotional. While emotions are vital to art—where the goal is to faithfully represent an artist’s inner world—politics is fundamentally about coordination. Logic is the best tool for achieving this coordination. Emotional expression can resonate deeply with others, but not consistently; everyone interprets emotions differently, and while this diversity of interpretation is beautiful in art, it is problematic in politics. For effective political decision-making, we need to rely on logic, which provides a common ground for agreement on policies and laws.

For political processes to be productive, we need people to engage in tasks that are often perceived as tiresome and boring. Because few are willing, protests have become a popular means of capturing attention. In other words, protests cater to people’s desire for instant gratification and the avoidance of intellectual rigor. Political conventions serve a similar purpose. While it is exhilarating to be among thousands of people who share the same political views, this excitement does little to foster an understanding of political differences. In fact, it often reinforces divisions, leading people to feel more self-righteous and contemptuous of their opponents.

Another pitfall of protests is that negating, complaining, and blaming are emotionally satisfying. While we may not think of these negative emotions as enjoyable, they offer a release for internal tensions, whether related to the issue at hand or not. (See this video as a comical illustration of it.) When people are motivated by such emotional release, they often neglect the search for solutions. The Occupy Wall Street movement, for example, fizzled out because it offered no clear solutions. Many, including some Wall Street bankers, agreed that capitalism had serious flaws, but the question of how to fix or replace it was a boring one that few wanted to tackle. Similarly, the recent political turmoil in Bangladesh saw student-led protests succeed in removing an authoritarian leader, but they offered no clear path forward.

While most of us may not be able to devise effective solutions individually, collectively, we need as many minds as possible working on these challenges so that the best ideas can emerge through discussion, much like how the scientific community collaborated on the COVID-19 vaccine during the pandemic. Superheroes are not necessary.

Protests will undoubtedly continue because we are emotional beings, but we should not be misled into believing that physical actions are the most substantial way to engage in politics.