I was challenged during the last seminar class about the implications of a scientist society. I am strongly opposed to being an activist because as you know, my personal definition of an activist is any person with strong beliefs that can be expressed in an intolerant manner. This person or group of persons do not consider other opinions and are ready to do anything possible to make things change according their belief system.
Consider the definition from dictionaries:
English Oxford Dictionary of Politics proposed that an activist is
“any person who takes an active past, usually as a volunteer, in a political party or interest group. […] Either they enjoy political activity for its own sake, or they have off-median views which give them an incentive to pull the party or interest group towards the position they favour, rather than the position it would take to maximize its vote or influence. Hence some have argued for a ‘law of curvilinear disparity’ which holds that activists hold more extreme views than either the mass electorate or the party leadership. There is some empirical support for this ‘law’ but it has rarely been tested carefully.”
I did not find a definition from a regular English dictionary. However, here is the definition of Activism in the English Oxford Dictionary:
Activism: “the policy or action of using vigorous campaigning to bring about political or social change.”
In these definitions, there is nothing about radical point of views or intolerance. However, I just noticed an interesting part of the “problem”. I checked for a French definition and here is what I found.
The office québécoise de la langue française states that Activist is:
“Membre zélé d’un parti ou d’une faction de tendance extrémiste ou extrême qui s’infiltre partout, profite de toutes les occasions et ne répugne devant aucune méthode, même violente, pour assurer le triomphe de ses visées idéologiques ou politiques. ”
A translation (a trial) would be: Dedicated member of a party of extremist tendency, who benefits from all the opportunities and by any means necessary, even violent, to ensure the triumph of the party’s ideological or political aspirations.
I am really surprised how these two “dictionaries” define Activist differently. The English one is more about being active in making things change and the French definition is more about a radical view of how to make things change. It might explain why in class, we were not in agreement on the definition of activist. Is it the fact that we have different culture and history and therefore different definitions? No, I don’t think so… I was the only one who believed that activist focuses more on extremism… Anyway, it is quite useless to define Activist as long as we know that there is a wide range (different level) of “being active” (doing nothing to extremism). The level varies among individuals according to the personal willingness to change the world. Some might want a minimal social implication and others are passionate about it… However, I suggest that we should be aware that the more you get involved, the more you share the information with others and therefore your voice is more likely to be heard.
Even if I do not consider myself an activist, it does not necessarily suggest that I do not get involved. I personally like to be involved in different public debates. I have written letters (essays) in Le Devoir, Fédération Professionnel des Journalistes Québécoises website and I have my personal blog. I hope to been able to publish in other Montreal newspapers soon. They were not all published but I tried. Does it make me an activist? As mentioned, I do not really care about the word Activist itself… I care more about what I am really doing on this planet and do not pay attention to how people define me. One thing is absolutely sure; I will never be “activist” as suggested by the Office québécoise de la langue française. Can I do more? For sure… I would love to share my ideas and knowledge with kids. I like challenging myself in order to assess my communication skills but also to see how the perception of environmental issues varies across the generational divide. Why I am not giving seminars to little kids? I hate to say that but time is unfortunately a limiting factor.
This is my concept of been active; get involved in diffusing the “common knowledge” and play your social role if you want to be heard and make a real difference.
However, as opposed to my personal contributions, I also like to read blogs and literature from others with different backgrounds. It, sometimes, keeps me grounded because I feel occasionally that “my head is in the clouds”. There are always people that challenge and force you to reflect on your true beliefs. Even if it is very tough, it forces you to come up with stronger arguments. For me, it is not important if your opponent drags you down with their arguments, I care more about how you bounce back. Even if it seems impossible, I will always believe that things can change… even if it takes time.
For example, one thing that really impressed me during the last class is the fact that Mr Madhav Govind Badami has shifted from a pretty secured financial situation in India to a real insecure environment. He did what I called “jumping head first and without a safety net” because when you make decisions driven by your feelings, you do not necessarily consider the consequences of your actions. He did not turn down opportunities that were offered to him. These “jumps” are often the best decisions that you have ever made. He has even called this jump as “madness” but it reflects that everyone can switch and change at any moment of their life.
Anyway, the point that I wanted to go here is simply the fact that I do not really care about the usage of the word “Activist” as long as it does not mean extremist! Then, get involved and change the world!