From Mindbombs to Firebombs: The Narrative Strategies of Radical Environmental Activism Documentaries

The article examines the narrative strategies of two documentary films that give insight into the direct-action campaigns of two radical environmental groups; Jerry Rothwell’s How to Change the World (2015) recounts the birth of Greenpeace and its development of “mindbomb” communication strategies. Marshall Curry’s If a Tree Falls (2011) chronicles the rise and fall of the Earth Liberation Front and its tactics of ecotage. Situating both films in the larger history of radical environmentalism in the United States, the article explores the affective side of their rhetoric on two levels: on the level of the activists’ own communication strategies and on the level of the films made about these activists and their strategies. It argues that making a documentary film about radical environmentalist groups raises moral questions for the filmmaker and that, each in his way, Rothwell and Curry have both made films that straddle the line between ostensible objectivity and sympathetic advocacy for the individuals they portray.

Critical pedagogy

While environmentalism is often associated with different non-governmental organizations, agencies, movements, institutions, and grassroots groups, one of the least understood types of environmentalism is so-called radical activism. This article will argue that the label of radicalism or even terrorism attached to some forms of environmental activism precludes learning about the causes of environmental crises. Based on the work of Paulo Freire in critical pedagogy and eco-pedagogy, this article supports the position that learning about social and political framing of “radicalism” as well as the issues that drive this “radical” action help the development of critical thinking and ethical judgment in students. By analyzing student reflection essays on the film If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front, this article draws lessons in ecological citizenship and critical thinking.

ДИВЕРГЕНЦІЇ ЕКОЛОГІЧНОГО РУХУ (ЕКОЛОГІЧНИЙ РАДИКАЛІЗМ ТА ЕКОЛОГІЧНИЙ ТЕРОРИЗМ) КРІЗЬ ПРИЗМУ ПОЛІТОЛОГІЧНОГО ВИМІРУ

The article attempts to analyze theoretically the socio-political phenomenon of «environmental terrorism». Complex of global environmental problems (pollution of air, water, soil, common planetary temperature increase, greenhouse effect, destruction of the ozone layer, large-scale floods, droughts, hurricanes, reduction of biological diversity, scarcity of natural resources, rapid demographic growth, cities crisis, environmental refugees, anthropogenic (man-made) garbage collapse, etc.) correlates with the radicalization of environmental views and the rhetoric of peaceful meetings and pickets of government institutions, corporations and international organizations are being replaced by firing from firearms, laying bombs, arson, namely terrorist acts. In today’s world conditions, in the fight for environmental issues solutions, for the right of every person to a clean environment and a fair distribution of resources, environmental views are transformed increasingly into extremism and radicalism, and thus, eco-activists cross the border and become eco-terrorists. The author of the article emphasizes that in the modern scientific space there is a significant lack of research material on the issues of environmental terrorism, which significantly complicates theoretical studying and the search for methodological tools for understanding this socio-political phenomenon. In his search for the keys to understanding of «environmental terrorism», the author turns to the evolution of the environmental movement (which has been developing along two main directions: the institutionalization of the environmental movement and the politicization of the environmental movement) and notes that at some stage of the evolutionary development of the ecological movement, divergences arise in the form of extremism and radicalism of environmental movements, which became the basis of environmental terrorism. Theoretical analysis of the activities of environmental terrorist organizations, including the Deep Green Resistance, the Huntingdon Society for the Suppression of Cruelty to Animals (Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty), the Animal Liberation Front (Animal Liberation Front) and the Earth Liberation Front (Earth Liberation Front), also Earth Above All, Sea Shepherds and others, allows to assert that the increasing feelings of anxiety, helplessness and inevitability of ecological catastrophe on a planetary scale, total disappointment in political institutes and activities of international environmental organizations, «false news and rumors, pseudoscientific beliefs, turned into myths, mad populism, outdated and new group phobias, extremism and all this in hysterically transformational communities is turned into a theoretical basis and a trigger for violence» and becomes «nutritious» substance for the environmental terrorism.

On Compromise in Radical Environmental Activism

Mainstream environmental groups have long been criticized by more radical activists as being too willing to compromise with industry and development interests. Radical groups such as Earth First! and Earth Liberation Front were formed as a reaction explicitly against perceived failures of mainstream groups. Although the radical activism employed varied from direct action in the form of aggressive civil disobedience coupled with eco sabotage, the tactics of the radical groups suggest two strands of movement. For example, the actions and demands of Earth First! seemingly fit their conviction that compromise is a betrayal of their moral convictions and results only in further deterioration of environmental protection, and the radical activism of this group can be seen to fit well within historically accepted norms of protest movements within constitutional democracies. In contrast, Earth Liberation Front does engage in what might be called ecoterrorism, a form of political violence. This article addresses the following emerging questions: Is an uncompromising approach an effective strategy for radical environmental activism in fostering positive environmental change? What is required of constructive democratic action? Can radical environmental activism be a resource for cooperative practices and coalition building? These questions relate to ecological justice, which is growing in importance as a paradigm that combines social concerns about the environment with issues of nature protection, thereby underlying the need for coordination of strategies and cooperation in order to bring about a positive change In this paper, we examine the positions and arguments of some radical environmental activists and their detractors, and analyse their moral beliefs and political attitudes. We claim that “No Compromise” is not an acceptable strategy for environmental activism. In the analysis that follows, we are not suggesting naively that only warm fellow-feelings, congeniality, and an overt willingness to compromise are reasonable responses to powerful contravening force. We argue instead that when used, strong - and even perhaps sometimes illegal - direct action can be conceptualized and carried out in a way that does not hinder all opportunities for effective compromise, coalition building, and the like, that are ultimately essential elements of most successful protest movements. We build on Martin Benjamin’s claim that compromise need not always involve moral capitulation or failure, but can be integrity-preserving. It can, we believe, be an effective means of moving a pro-environmental agenda forward. Key to our argument are the distinctions between moral and political compromise, and the interrelations between moral and political community. Seeing oneself as a part of a larger community in which decisions must be made, and recognizing responsibility towards the members of a moral community (including humans and nature) is essential to a full appreciation and effective use of compromise. These considerations are anchored in an approach that constructively links participatory democracy and radical activism.

Expansion: Night Moves

This chapter discusses Night Moves as a political thriller about ecoterrorism, and focuses on Riechardt’s adjustments in form, style, and content as compared with her prior body of work. While on the surface, Night Moves appears to have more commercial intentions, it is an overt challenge to cinematic commercialisation. Although the thriller genre promises sex, action, and special effects, Night Moves, in true independent cinematic fashion, never shows these events on screen. Night Moves invites ethical questions through the ecoterrorist actions of the protagonists and the gender commentary supplied through the sparse dialogue and character interactions. Through interviews with Reichardt and her cast and crew the chapter covers production methods and makes connections with contemporary environmental activist groups, such as the Earth Liberation Front, the Occupy Wall Street movement and to terrorist acts such as the Oklahoma City bombing.

Antiglobalization and Radical Environmentalism: An Exchange on Ethical Grounds

Since 1992, clandestine radical environmentalist cells, calling themselves the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), have carried out arson attacks in an effort to punish corporations for environmentally deleterious practices. I examine the radical environmental movement and find that its recent rise to prominence and notoriety is part and parcel of the larger development of the more general anti-globalization/anti-capitalist movement. Specifically, I examine how, despite its libertarian conservative origins, the ideology of Earth First! changed after an influx of new members with anti-state, anarchist sympathies. Finally, I assess the applicability of three major criticisms of “globalization from below” to the case of the ELF, namely: a) that its preoccupation with the transnational sphere and abandonment of electoral politics is misguided, b) that direct actions such as property destruction are counterproductive to the wider aims of the movement, and, c) that its strategies of contention are too episodic, and do very little to encourage practical, inclusive, local, and sustained action in the service of global justice