Although I am somewhat interested in disembodied talk about activism (as planning and exploration), it is my position that the sincere activist values efficacy very highly; so highly that talk, while useful, takes on at best a secondary relationship to -effective- action.

So, to my eye, the activist of merit will consistently demonstrate impact through intelligent, effective action. I should mention that some examples of speech may be powerful or liberating enough to qualify.

There is another person who takes the stance of the activist but isn’t really there for important reasons. Someone who has personal agendas that may or may not have anything to do with the issues, but are largely providing their impetus. Thus, their ‘activism’ is actually a formalized pretension of egoism.

The common result is a kind of grandstanding. Such people are dangerously confused. They are making drama and calling it activism. It has little or no effect upon issues. It will often have catastrophic effect upon them, because they are using this stance to obscure more serious matters very close to home.

I think that we should understand the idea of activism to imply successful intervention, not grandstanding. Its measure must be effectiveness, not spectacle. We have more than enough of spectacle, and, indeed, it is part of what we must become activists about.

When we can be intelligent enough to disregard distractions, strategize, test, and develop methods that improve themselves as we implement them — we may acquire the focus and momentum neccessary to achieve activist goals more rapidly and pervasively than we thought possible.

(credit to my friend Ryan for highlighting this matter to me in recent posts and discussion)