A few years ago, there was a crisis in Flint, Michigan. Public water supplies were found to contain dangerously high levels of lead, which had a serious negative impact on public health. Among the first to sound the alarm was Mark Edwards, a professor at Virginia Tech. He brought great attention to the issue, and as a result of his efforts, important steps were taken to improve the situation. While these measures were taken, Edwards continued to monitor the situation. Eventually, water quality reached safe levels again, and Edwards reported on this success. Appreciative of his work, his fellow activists expressed gratitude for his actions and expressed gratitude that the situation had improved.
Hahahaha, just kidding. Of course, that didn’t happen. When Mr. Edwards reported that testing showed that Flint’s water supply had improved, fellow activists responded with insults and abuse, and generally destroyed his personal and professional reputation. I tried. Kevin Drum of Mother Jones magazine wrote about this strange incident:
Mark Edwards, the Virginia Tech professor who first exposed toxic levels of lead in Flint, Michigan’s water supply, was initially a hero in the Flint community. Thanks to him, Flint became the target of national outrage, and finally steps were taken to reconnect Flint to (safe) Detroit water. In less than a year, lead levels in Flint water had dropped to safe levels.
So what did Edwards do? Well, he was a scientist, and just as he had honestly exposed Flint’s problems in the first place, he continued to honestly report the results of his interventions. he said when the water was safe again. That turned him from hero to pariah.
but why? Why is it so scary for him to report that a situation that people ostensibly hope to improve has actually improved? Drum suggests that activists were too harsh to accept the good news.
Here in the progressive community, we like to criticize conservatives for being too anti-science. Too tribal. And too submissive for their most extreme wings. But look what happened here. As you might expect, science tells us that Flint’s water improved after mitigation measures were put in place. But the activists on the ground were too angry and bitter to accept it. Instead, they took a tribal attitude toward the guy who reported the results, and at that point you were either on their side or against them…
So here we are [progressives] It’s anti-science, it’s tribal, it’s submissive to our most extreme wings. Alas, the man named Mark Edwards, who exposed and solved this disaster, is now effectively an exile. It’s a sad microcosm of the modern political scene.
Of course, “activists” are not a monolith, but a collection of individuals who are all motivated by a variety of factors, and multiple different factors influence each individual. Could bitterness be part of the explanation? I’m sure it played a role. But this story also reminded me of another framework I’ve written. I think that can also explain part of what’s going on.
Some time ago I proposed that there are two schools of thought when it comes to political activism. One form was what I called activism as a form of production, and the other form was activism as a form of consumption.
If we look at activism as a form of production, the aim and purpose of engaging in activism is to improve or solve some social problem, or in other words, to produce a specific result. If we consider activism as a form of consumption, then the aim and purpose of activism is to obtain personal benefits, such as a sense of community, social status, and a sense of purpose and meaning. These two different activities have completely different meanings.
If activism is intended to be a form of production, there are clearly defined goals to be achieved, and once achieved there is no need for activism.
When activism is used as a form of consumption (such as by people who believe that “participation” is a major source of meaning and purpose in life), there is no clearly defined goal and the goalposts often move. Masu. One of the driving forces behind their activities.
When the problem really improves, those who use the activity as a means of production will declare “mission accomplished” and move on with their lives. However, for those who participate in activities as a form of consumption, especially those who see activities as an important part of their social identity, the idea that the problem is solved can be threatening. This gives them an incentive to refuse to improve, change the goalposts, or both. Over time, especially as the world gets better, any movement will become increasingly dominated by people who use the activity as consumption rather than production. This is how Gresham’s Law works.
This seems to give some idea of what happened in this case. Edwards became involved with the Flint Water Works as a production activist. So when water supply safety issues improved, the obvious next step for him was to acknowledge the progress that had been made. But for consumer activists, those who find meaning and purpose in “fighting the good fight,” they are being told that the battle has been won and threatening to take away that meaning and purpose. Therefore, those who claim that the situation has improved have become the new attacking enemy. That is why we are witnessing the strange scene that the drum laments. The phrase “don’t shoot the messenger” has historically been applied when the messenger in question is a bearer of bad news. But for consumer activists, when the messenger is the bearer of good news, there is an urge to shoot the messenger instead. Mark Edwards was the unfortunate bearer of good news, but his case is by no means unique.
