Photo Courtesy of Unsplash
Upon opening social media in October 2022, one would be hard pressed to go more than a few minutes without stumbling upon, often with the accompaniment of pointed opinions, a video of two young activists hurling cans of tomato soup onto Van Gogh’s Sunflowers painting. Upon a closer look into the incident, viewers would quickly find that the painting was covered by glass and completely undamaged. Like many of the soundbite, shock-value bits and pieces so common to news and social networking sites today, though, this piece of information, along with so many other matters of contextual importance, were often left out or, if present, very brief. In such a world of constant newsfeed, social media echo chambers, and in which the strongest and most shocking opinions are often quickest to gain traction, it is easy to see why instances like this have become so polarized. Yet, this does not mean they should be. Perhaps, upon taking a closer look at both the history of climate vandalism and of protest itself as a tool, it can even be said that, though there is no absolute marker of effectiveness, protests like these are better than no action at all.
Environmental vandalism is no new phenomenon. As long as environmental movements have been around, people have tried by whatever means they deem necessary to make their voices heard. While anything veering into the scope of danger to human or animal lives can absolutely not be said to be moral, disruption is, quite literally, the entire point of protest. Never has there been a protest, or at least one with any real impact, in which something has not been disrupted. From bus boycotts and diner sit-ins forcing change into effect during the American Civil Rights Movement, to the prevention of logging in remote Indian forests due to those reliant on the trees and ecosystem surrounding them quite literally clinging to them, protest is disruption. Without disruption, what incentive is there for change?
To say that every single act of environmental vandalism will have a profound impact on people’s views is far-fetched at best. Despite this, though, action is action. If every single act of protest, including disruption by way of vandalism, was thoroughly thought out from every possible angle of effectiveness and ineffectiveness, no protest would ever happen at all. Trying to predict what exact impact a protest will have or how much traction it will gain is, quite frankly, pointless, for there is no real way to know. What is predictable, though, is that change will not happen without protest. If no one is taking action against those causing harm, there will be no reason for them to change their ways. Sometimes, perhaps, this action may mean vandalism in some sense or another.
What is important to note, and somewhat measurable, in determining the effectiveness of environmental vandalism, is whether or not the disruption it causes will ever touch those in positions of power. However, even if they do not, they absolutely are still apt to spark thought and conversation if they gain traction. The most effective forms of vandalism as protest, and just in terms of protest in general, are the forms in which action will force those in power to consider change. Protests in which the majority of or only harm is brought to those who do not have the power to bring about change, such as through sabotaging equipment in ways that will do more harm to the workers having to fix it than to the companies or corporations behind the practices being fought against, are hardly useful aside from as a talking point. That is not to say that they are ineffective, but there are often far better ways to go about bringing about protest than causing direct harm to those without the power.
Is throwing soup on a painting the most effective or complete way to stop climate change? Absolutely not. Is it going to drastically change the minds of the masses into supporting or rejecting the fact that climate change is a problem? Again, definitely not. Does that mean it, or other similar protests, are completely useless and entirely not worth doing, though? Certainly not. No protest will fix everything– that is not what they are for. What they do, though, is shock people, force them to think, and get them to talk. With talk, too, comes further action, and with further action comes further disruption. Further disruption, in turn, leads to real, effective change– change that will help solve the environmental problems plaguing us all.
