My main takeaway from what I have read so far of The Monkey Wrench Gang and the discussions we have had in class was how hard it is to define activism. Everyone seemed to have a different opinion of what activism was, whether it was people protesting Trump’s anti-shark comments by donating money to help save sharks, or vegan “extremists” threatening and harassing a group practicing cooking with meat literally from scratch. At least we could all agree that the latter was a bad form of activism, or not even activism at all, due to its sinister execution and lacking intent.
However, The Monkey Wrench Gang presents a unique situation. Doc, Bonnie, Seldom, and Hayduke are fighting for the environment, for the beautiful nature they treasure. But the means of gaining attention and standing their grounds are highly controversial, including burning down billboards, vandalizing machinery, and utilizing explosives. The group itself justifies its actions, concluding that it would not be able to gain any attention otherwise.
And on one hand, it is true. The Monkey Wrench Gang’s actions does gain attention, which in turn spreads the message of environmental sustainability. They are not harming any humans, only the “greedy” corporations.
On the other hand, although the intention is good, the execution is ultimately bad. The group is committing crimes to further their own cause, which is why I believe we disliked them in class. They can quickly be labeled as villains, even terrorists, which therefore dismisses them of any credibility.
I believe the interesting case of good intent but bad execution that The Monkey Wrench Gang describes is why the book captured the attention of so many environmentalists. We are still trying to find a way to effectively communicate our concern to the people in power, and this book illustrates an extreme but interesting approach. However, as concluded earlier, we must find another way of doing so.
