Activism is one of those things that is hard to clearly define, but, as I found out in class, it’s easier to know it when you see it. I found in our class exercise on deciding if we think certain situations are or are not activism that even when I see it, what I think counts or doesn’t count as activism is hard to pinpoint. Many times I was not sure if I thought a situation wasn’t activism, or just personally didn’t want it to be a kind of activism people engage in. While the bar for what is, and what is not, activism moves and looks different for everyone, people in the late 70’s rallied around Edward Abbey’s The Monkey Wrench Gang as an inspiring rallying call to engage in environmental activism. While the sentiment in class expressed a dislike in the type of aggressive and direct action taking against the companies by harming their infrastructure and machinery, this type of activism was well received by many who read this book at its publication. I wonder what the difference in public sentiment is between now and then that causes such different reactions to this book? Disillusionment with the effectiveness and even trustworthiness of the government was common during that time, but doesn’t seem reason enough to justify blowing up bridges. Perhaps this book, even though the actions taken in it are very radical, provided enough inspiration and incentive to environmentalists to take, smaller, but still direct, action for the environment in the wake of peaceful marches and mere talk not being rewarding or effective. With blowing up bridges or running machines off of canyon cliffs, the effect is immediate and tangible.