Ecoterror v. Ecotage (Conclusion)

Previous (Part 2)

Consequences and Conclusions

Our use and understanding of language has revealed itself to be crucial in our discussion of the ELF. Because of the disparate characteristics between ELF actions and those of old and new terrorism, we’ve thrown the ‘terrorist’ label, and therefore the ‘ecoterrorist’ label, out the window. This is not to say that there could never be such a thing as ecoterrorism, but rather that the ELF is not deserving of that label; although the differentiation is motivated by numerous observed differences, it is primarily because ELF actions direct their destructive force at property without a single recorded loss of life. As eco-saboteurs, the ELF may be an annoyance, but any ‘terror’ they invoke stems from a lack of familiarity with their history of action and ideological position. The distinction, while warranted, doesn’t get the ELF off the hook, for acts of sabotage can be thought of as different from, but similar to, acts of terrorism; both sabotage and terrorism are considered criminal acts, and both employ destructive force as a means of influencing social conditions. Terrorism has the misfortune of having a strong negative judgment attached to it, and since there is an acknowledged similarity between terrorism and sabotage, one can assume that sabotage inherits a similar negative judgment. One must remove universal prescriptive judgments from both descriptive signifiers;

“under certain circumstances[,] violence—acting without argument or speech and without counting the consequences—is the only way to set the scales of justice right again. . . . That such acts, in which men take the law into their own hands for justice’s sake, are in conflict with the constitutions of civilized communities is undeniable; but their antipolitical character . . . does not mean that they are inhuman or ‘merely’ emotional.” (Arendt 1970: 64)

One need not agree with such action, let alone support it. What one must guard against, however, is simply dismiss it out of hand without a consideration of the goals, motivations, and general ideological thrust that guides it. Doing so suggests a complete and utter failure to listen.

I have not discussed the difference between terrorists or saboteurs and freedom fighters because such a discussion is moot: the difference is prescriptive. It would arguably not be so important to distinguish between terrorism and sabotage if one did not think of terrorism as inherently immoral, however. The passivist mindset, which abhors destructive force regardless of its incarnation, is a peculiar moral position when one is only talking about the release of energy¹. Very bad things can be created with productive force, and those very bad things can be destroyed with destructive force. The reverse is also true, of course, which places the morality of all action into the arena of public debate. While violence directed at another living thing is an extreme that our society believes should be avoided if at all possible, I do not dismiss it as inherently illegitimate, particularly when one perceives one’s self as subject to necessity’s yoke. Sabotage, when employed carefully and in a manner that disrupts without threatening life, is even more capable of being socially acceptable and, prescriptively speaking, ‘good’, than the permissible violence of which Arendt speaks.

Some take the position that terrorism and sabotage are immoral because they are not legitimized by democratic political institutions, but such an argument is problematic. While it is not my desire to step into the realm of moral philosophy, one, ostensibly, has two options for conceptualizing morality: it either has a Form independent from one’s experience and perception, in which case there is no guarantee that it can be approached through the democratic institution, or morality is socially constructed, in which case it is a fluid object that, because all social actors have a part in constructing it, remains an ambiguous concept that the democratic state must perpetually attempt to approach and formalize into law. Democracy is a strategy for directing action based upon its perception of public sentiment within a society, but it is not the arbiter of legitimacy; “to judge by our legislative action,” argues John Dewey, “[w]e believe . . . that we can create morals by law . . . and neglect the fact that all laws except those which regulate technical procedures are registrations of existing social customs and their attendant moral habits and purposes,” (McDermott 1981: 605). Social sentiment trumps law as the means of understanding a society’s constructed moral position, and that position is inclusive of all sentiments within the society, not simply majority sentiment.

If democracy is more than simply a political system—if there is such a thing as a democratic society, in which all interaction is capable of directing action and creating desired social conditions—the direct action pursued by social movements—productive or destructive, legal or illegal—plays an important and parallel role to the political bureaucracy. Ecotage, and sabotage in general, creates nothing in and of itself, but from a structural functionalist perspective one could argue that sabotage serves as a sort of social filibustering that hinders movement toward what the saboteur considers undesirable social conditions. It does not attack one’s fellow community members, but does attack the product of other community members’ efforts which, presumably, the saboteurs feel are encroaching on the liberty of themselves and others. If few individuals feel the same way as the saboteurs, the individual acts are only marginally disruptive, but if a significant percentage of the population feels similarly, media coverage can recruit those like-minded individuals to act similarly until the separate but ideologically harmonious actions paralyze such productive efforts by making them a waste of energy and capital. When accompanied by more ‘legitimate’ tactics for social reform, which Elves generally do, sabotage can be viewed as promoting democratic discourse; it gives the political majority a reason not to pursue a course of action if their numerical superiority is minimal and their desired direction dramatically contentious with the desired direction of their opponents.

Possibly more important, however, is the fact that such direct action has the ability to influence more than state policy, and allows a society to influence, at least to some degree, non-governmental institutions such as corporations that are undemocratic and unresponsive to societal wishes. As it stands, one’s only option at influencing the actions of corporate NGOs is through one’s consumptive practices, which is problematic considering the inequality of economic resources and the lack of bargaining chips an established non-consumer has; one cannot threaten to buy less than his or her current nothing. When ethical ambiguity of a certain conceptualized ‘progress’ exists, sabotage promotes inaction and a greater equity of influence, thereby keeping the forum open to continued discussion and debate. Although such a system may not be efficient, it is not antithetical to a democratic society.

1I am indebted to Hannah Arendt’s On Violence for her redefining of ‘force’ so that it is understood as not synonymous with ‘violence’, but one should take note that Arendt’s definition of violence is not the same as my definition of violence. Arendt’s violence is what I call ‘destructive force’.

References

Amster, Randall. 2006. “Perspectives on Ecoterrorism: Catalysts, Conflations, and Casualties”. Contemporary Justice Review, Vol. 9, No. 3, September 2006, pp. 287-301. Taylor and Francis Group.

Anonymous. 2007. “What the Elle? When corporate media tackles anarchism, the FBI, informants, and the ELF”. Portland Indymedia. portland.indymedia.org/en/2008/04/374887.shtml. Last Updated: Unknown. Last Accessed: December 5, 2008.

Arendt, Hannah. 1970. On Violence. Harcourt Brace & Company. New York. 106 pages.

Inhofe, James. 2005. “Statements of Senator James M. Inhofe”. U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, Hearing Statements, May 18, 2005. epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=247266. Last Updated: Unknown. Last Accessed: December 5, 2008.

NAELFPO (North American Earth Liberation Front Press Office). 2008. http://www.elfpressoffice.org/main.html. Last Updated: unknown. Last Accessed: December 5, 2008.

Plows, Alexandra; Derek Wall, Brian Doherty. 2004. “Covert Reportoires: Ecotage in the UK”. Social Movement Studies, Vol. 3, Issue 2, (October 2004,) pp. 199-219. Taylor and Francis Group.

Pressman, Jeremy. 2003. “Leaderless Resistance: The Next Threat?” Current History, Vol. 102, Issue 668, (December 2003,) pp. 422-425.

Shiftshapers. 2005. “Security Culture”. Guerrilla News Network, (A)utonomous Resistance, November 13, 2005. http://www.gnn.tv/B10549. Last updated: unknown. Last accessed: December 10, 2008.

Thomas, Pat. 2008. “Greens are the new reds”. Ecologist, Vol. 38, Issue 4, (May 2008,) pp. 5. The Friary Press.

Todd, Andrea. 2007. “The Believers”. Elle Magazine, September 2007, pp. 266-268, 270, 272, 323-325. www.elle.com.

Yardley, William. 2008. “Ecoterrorism Suspected in House Fires in Seattle Suburb”. New York Times. March 4, 2008. www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/us/04homes.html. The New York Times Company. Last Accessed: December 8, 2008