One of the aspects of the discussion that intrigued me this week was the idea of monkeywrenching portrayed by Edward Abbey and Dave Foreman and the contrast to that of Bidder 70 and Tim DeChristopher. Abbey and Foreman depict their type of activism as aggressive and unorganized attacks on the objects that they view as destroying the landscape, while DeChristopher went about it in a peaceful way and was able to galvanize support even though he ultimately went to jail for his actions.
However, one of the differences between Abbey and Foreman and the way they described monkeywrenching was fascinating to me. In The Monkey Wrench Gang, Abbey depicts monkeywrenching as a fun fictional activity that inspires the readers to connect with the characters. I think that by the end of the novel Abbey has created a connection with the readers and made the characters seem like ordinary people that just wanted to make a difference in the stoppage of environmental destruction. After reading chapter 12 of Foreman’s Confessions of an Eco-Warrior, it seemed as if they were describing two very different processes. In chapter 12, Foreman takes the stance of trying to rationalize why monkeywrenching is an acceptable practice by attacking the arguments against monkeywrenching. I found the language that he used during the chapter as self-promoting or downright controversial. One of the lines from the chapter that struck me was when he said: “Monkeywrenching is a proud American tradition, existing happily in the shadows while decorous American bow before the brightly lit Great God Private Property.” I found this statement to be a concerning one for the idea of his activism because it seemed to mock other people who were not participating in monkeywrenching and heap praise on to himself because he has been someone who had been monkeywrenching.
The contrast to monkeywrenching would be the activism shown by Tim DeChristopher. DeChristopher “bought” 2.5 million dollars’ worth of land in Utah that had been scheduled for oil drilling. DeChristopher had no intention of drilling or purchasing the property; instead, he wanted to stop the land from turning into an industrial area near national parks. His actions started a movement towards warning people about the effects of global warming. On the flip side, DeChristopher finds himself in a precarious situation of being prosecuted by the US government for disrupting the sale of land. He then uses that attention to convey a positive message and starts a group called Peaceful Uprising and supported a new candidate for the House of Representatives. DeChristopher wound up paying the price for his actions and was sentenced to two years in federal prison, but the movement that he had created was a positive one for change and remains a powerful message about what activism can create. We need to use the DeChristopher case as an example of what needs to be done in the future and how to be a disruptor, but one that brings a positive and meaningful movement forward.
