Direct action and identification of success(es) in environmental activism: a case study of the Sea Shepherds Conservation Society (SSCS) antiwhaling program in international waters.
I- Introduction The Sea Shepherds Conservation Society (hereinafter, SSCS) is an international non-profit, marine wildlife conservation organization (SSCS 2016) established in 1977. It is considered as an environmental activist group sub-group of social movement. Any social movement group gathers around an idea or ideal and a target or goal to accomplish via direct or indirect actions perpetrated by the group or individuals from the group. Accomplishing goals and targets might be the end-point of social movements groups, but identifying these accomplishments by successes is not automatic. The specificities of environmental activism (or environmentalism) reside in placing the nature and environment above the society and human desires. While literature exists on social movement s direct action and on social movement s successes, none link them together. Therefore, this essay will connect the concepts of direct action and success(es) in environmental activism, before applying it to the case of the SSCS. This essay aims at challenging the idea of success of direct action by answering the research questions as follow: Is direct action linked to the idea of success?, and is the activist s idea of success is as what is usually defined as success in social movement literature? To answer these questions, this essay will bridge the gap between action and success if it does exist, and specifically in the environmental activism sub-group of social movements. Studying the special case of the SSCS anti-whaling program in international waters will support or oppose to this hypothesis. By conducting a thorough literature research and analysis, I will first develop the theory that direct action and success are related in environmental activism, by developing the two concepts of direct action and success in environmental activism. The identification of success can differ from one person to another, or from one group to another, it will be necessary to first develop the different forms of successes for environmentalist groups and for the SSCS in particular. Subsequently, these two concepts will be challenged in the study of the particular case of the SSCS antiwhaling program in international waters. This essay contains four chapters, the first one being the introduction, and the last one the discussion and conclusion. The second chapter focuses on the theoretical part: developing and linking the concepts of environmental activism, direct action and successes. The third part, developed symmetrically to the second chapter, is dedicated to the case study of the SSCS anti-whaling program in international waters. 2
II- Environmental activism 1) Defining environmental activism From a lifestyle movement to an anti-group to a social movement group itself, the three ways to identify an environmental movement group: as a lifestyle movement, as an anti-group and as a group. Environmentalism as a lifestyle movement is known in our modern society under different names. Indeed, some lifestyle movements call themselves greener as they appear to project a more naturalistic and holistic lifestyle closer to nature and to environmental protection. Namely, trends like veganism, vegetarianism, locavore or green living are defined as lifestyle movements (Haenfler et al. 2012). These trends are described as having an individual and private participation rather than creating a collective action (Haenfler et al. 2012). They spread through personal choices, having different successes in individual acceptance and participation. Environmentalism as a lifestyle movement models the identity of participants while creating a diffuse social change depending on the movement s attractivity and facility to adopt by newcomers. Environmental activism is also often perceived as an anti-group: participants to social movements groups are against an activity that will not benefit the nature, fauna, flora, or the general environment. For example anti-nuclear, anti-road construction, anti-whaling, etc. groups exist. These groups thrive by opposing issues/aspects that affect the environment. These groups are usually often perceived as troublemakers by the media and politician by speaking or acting against preauthorized projects (Kitschelt 1986). Lastly, environmental activist group that speak and act towards the protection of nature by engaging people towards a broader understanding of the environment and its need for protection. For example, groups such as the ones that work for biodiversity conservation fit in this category: promoting the environment positively, and creating a collective identity to generate greater support (Saunders 2008). It is also important to note there is no strict line separating the anti-group to another social movement groups. Sometimes the anti-groups also promote positively their cause, such as the SSCS. 2) Direct action in environmental activism Direct action can take many forms; it can be violent or non-violent (Doherty et al. 2003), and some forms of direct action are very specific to environmentalist groups. Protest is a form of direct action which is used by many social movement groups and which also exists as a form of direct action for environmentalist groups. Example of this can be of the anti-nuclear protests, Campaign against Climate Change (CCC), or more recently the COP21 Paris Climate mobilization. Protest as direct action in environmentalism is often non-violent, but they can always degenerate to a violent form (which often comes from more radical groups). Other forms of environmental direct action can be: sittings, tree hugging, road camps or other camping situation, ecotage etc (Doherty 1998; Kitschelt 1986; Plows et al. 2004; Roeschke 2009). Apart from ecotage, these forms of direct action are mainly nonviolent; they consist in staying in a certain place for a long period of time as an act of objection. For instance, tree hugging consist in people climbing trees and staying on the trees for a long period of time as to stop organization to cut the forest/trees. Ecotage on the other hand is considered a violent form of environmentalist direct action. Indeed, the word itself is the combination of ecological and sabotage : activists use sabotage against corporations and organizations that the environmentalist 3
group deems dangerous for the environment and nature. Actions such as setting buildings on fire, or disrupting research on Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) have been done in the past as acts of ecotage. Direct action is not the last resort, but rather a preferred option by social movement groups (Doherty et al. 2003). Therefore the chosen form of direct action by a group will be inherent to the beliefs of the group. As seen above, a anti-group, created as an opposition to something will be more prone to direct action and violence than another group which is not entirely defined by being against something. 3) Forms of successes Three main forms of successes have been identified in the social movement literature: political, biographical/personal and cultural (Giugni 2008). Political impact as a form a success is defined as changes that the social movements intended in policies, laws, governmental structure etc. The biographical/personal impact of social movement is defined as having impacted the lives of the participants or activists in any way. The cultural impacts of a social movement is tri-dimensional: firstly by having socio-psychological impacts on the general public s values, beliefs and opinions; secondly by impacting on the cultural production and practice as such (e.g.: literature, music, visual art ); and lastly by having effects on the formation and reproduction of collective identity and subcultures (Giugni 2008). These three forms of success in the literature are generalized for any social movements, but they can all be applied to environmentalism. 4) Direct action and success The definition that Doherty gives on direct action is as follow: direct action is intended to directly change perceived political, social or environmental injustices (Doherty et al. 2003). From this definition, we can start bridging the gap between direct action and forms of successes seen earlier. Any action taken by an activist group has an intrinsic goal or target. Achieving this goal or target, by intended or unintended ways can be a success for the social movement group. By engaging in a direct action, a social movement group has a definite goal, which can be a success, but might not be a form of success that was previously defined. The choice of direct action by a social movement group as a means to achieve a goal is not insignificant. Therefore biographical or cultural impact as the only outcomes of direct action, which was the method chosen by a social movement group, is questionably related to the activists idea of success. Consequently, it is possible to challenge the idea that activists may have different opinions on what success means to them. Indeed, the direct action strategy that social movement groups choose may not have as target policy, biographical or cultural outcome, but have a preference on direct impact. To support of oppose this theory; the specific case of the SSCS s anti-whaling program in international waters will be studied. 4
III- Case of Sea Shepherds 1) Identification of Sea Shepherds Paul Watson, who left Greenpeace to create a more pro-active and aggressive group, founded the Sea Shepherds Conservation Society in 1977 (SSCS 2016). But even being legally a society, the general public, governments, media and members give to the SSCS s members different identities, such as protesters, activists, ecoterrorists, pirates The connotation behind these terms is mainly negative, and does not help the SSCS to improve their image to the general public. In some way, a social movement group may be defined according to the strategy that this particular group chooses. For example, the use of violence or not may help classify the social movement group in a category rather than another. For the specific case of the SSCS, their anti-whaling program actions are more violent than non-violent, therefore classifying them as radical activists or eco-terrorists from an external point of view (Moffa 2012). From an internal point of view, the classification of the SSCS is still blurred in the multiple individual identities as some of the members carry personal identity inside their description of the SSCS (Stuart et al. 2013). Therefore bringing the concept of lifestyle movement into the identification of the SSCS. The society can fit in the three different definition of environmental activism: as an anti-group by acting against whaling, as a group by protecting whales and as a lifestyle movement. However, Paul Watson in response to an editorial in Australia refuted the label protesters for identifying the SSCS, and stated: We may be pirates but we are not protesters (Stuart et al. 2013). His line of thought was that the actions that protesters use (strikes, sittings, use of banners etc.) has never help saved a whale whereas the SSCS by conducting acts of piracy against whaling boats have saved many of them. The founder of the society highlights the importance of getting things done. The SSCS was founded on the idea of immediate action and is ideologically centered on direct action (Stuart et al. 2013). 2) Direct action: anti-whaling program in international waters The SSCS website states that their mission is to end the destruction of habitat and slaughter of wildlife in the world s oceans in order to conserve and protect ecosystems and species (Stuart et al. 2013). One of their main missions is called 1 anti-whaling program and has the goal of protecting the whales 2 against whale fishing (or whaling) (SSCS 2016). Whales are a taxon recognized as endangered and considered as under need of protection by the United Nations, and international laws exist towards whale s protection and conservation (Roeschke 2009). However, whaling still exists, as some countries do not respect these laws, and especially in international waters where no government can apply these laws. It is in these conditions that the SSCS takes action against the whaling boats: by chasing, harassing, scuttling and [ ] ramming illegal fishing vessels (Roeschke 2009). The SSCS s strategy to stop whaling is as follow: the society buys vessels, and brings them to where whaling ships are (in international waters), and do everything they can to stop them from hunting whales. The SSCS tries to sabotage the whaling ship to prevent them from hunting whales at a specific time, but also tries to sabotage the whaling ships in such a manner that they would lose their ability to hunt whales permanently, in some extreme cases by sinking the whaling ship (and sometimes 1 Called from the outside (media, public, governments etc.). 2 The whales as a general taxa, not a specific species. 5
leading to the sinking of the SSCS own vessel) (Nagtzaam and Lentini 2007). It is without doubt that direct action is the preferred way of doing things by the SSCS in their anti-whaling program. The SSCS s goal in their anti-whaling program is to both prevent illegal whale hunting in international waters and help towards whale conservation. The question to be asked now is if they consider success as what is usually defined as a success, and how they would define success. 3) Goal and Success The SSCS do not intend to change the laws, policies or governmental structures, neither to they want to have biographical impact. The idea of success that the SSCS has is to protect whales against whale hunters. The SSCS anti-whaling program s primary goal is to enforce existing international laws, where governments are unable or unwilling to do so (Nagtzaam and Lentini 2007). This is their prime motivation, which gave them the name of vigilantes of the high seas in literature (Nagtzaam and Lentini 2007). Therefore, the SSCS members idea of success becomes different: is more action-focused and results-driven. Moreover, the SSCS find success in public consent and support of their action (Roeschke 2009), which in a sense touches upon the concept of cultural impact. Indeed, the publicity that the SSCS creates about its antiwhaling activities modifies the general public s opinion by giving them the resources to understand their goals and the importance of their actions. This can be supported by the multiple documentaries that were made on the SSCS and delivered to the world. While the media sometimes depict a negative image of the SSCS, it still remains publicity for the SSCS, and gives them an opportunity to be more well known in world and maybe gather more supporters (Nagtzaam and Lentini 2007; Roeschke 2009). The actions perpetrated by the SSCS led them to be known worldwide and have a direct impact on the whaling problem the world is facing. The SSCS through direct action managed to achieve its goals in the past and is continuing its antiwhaling program until now. 6
IV- Conclusion Via research through literature review and analysis, this essay bridged the gap between direct action and success, and redefined what success was according to activists point of view, specifically for the case study of the SSCS. In environmental activism, direct action can take multiple forms and is focused on having both immediate and long terms impacts. These impacts being considered as successes by the main participants are not automatic. Indeed, the collective movement that has been started towards a direct action may have a goal that might be different than what is usually considered as successes in social movement literature. By studying the case of the SSCS, it is possible to say that some social movement group have different aims than others and the idea of success may differ from one group to another and from an individual to another. However, by studying the case of the SSCS, it is understood that direct action is closely linked to achieving goals. To conclude, it is important to say that the idea of success that a social movement group has, whether it is an environmental-focused group or not, can differ from the usual definitions of success from social movement literature, but they still remain a success for the group and its members. Direct action is not always directly linked to success because achieving goals does not necessarily always imply success in the usual way of defining successes. 7
REFERENCES: Doherty, B. (1998). Opposition to Road-Building, Parliament Affairs, 51 (3), pp. 370-383. Doherty, B., Plows, A. and Wall, D. (2003). The preferred way of doing things : the British direct action movement, Parliamentary Affairs, 56, pp 669-686. Giugni, M. (2008). Political, biographical, and cultural consequences of social movements, Sociology Compass 2 (5), pp. 1582-1600. Haenfler, R., Johnson, B. and Jones, E. (2012). Lifestyle movements: exploring the intersection of lifestyle and social movements, Social Movement Studies, 11 (1), pp. 1-20. Kitschelt, H.P. (1986). Political opportunity structures and political protest: antinuclear movements in four democracies, British Journal of Political Science, 16 (1), pp. 57-85. Moffa, A.L.I. (2012). Two competing models of activism, one goal: a case study of anti-whaling campaigns in the southern ocean. Nagtzaam, G. and Lentini, P. (2007). Vigilantes on the high seas?: the Sea Shepherds and political violence, Terrorism and Political Violence, 20 (1), pp. 110-133. Plows, A., Wall, D. and Doherty, B. (2004). Covert repertoires: ecotage in the UK, Social Movement Studies, 3 (2), pp. 199-219. Roeschke, J.E. (2009). Eco-terrorism and piracy on the high seas: Japanese whaling and the rights of private groups to enforce international conservation law in neutral waters, Villanova Environmental Law Journal 20 (1), Art. 6. Saunders, C. (2008). Double-edged swords? Collective identity and solidarity in the environment movement, The British Journal of Sociology, 59 (2), pp. 227-253. SSCS (2016): http://www.seashepherd.org/who-we-are/, accessed on January 15 th, 2016. Stuart, A., Thomas, E.F., Donaghue, N. and Russell, A. (2013). We may be pirates, but we are not protesters : Identity in the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, Political Psychology, 34 (5), pp. 753-777. 8