The story of Tim DeChristopher’s act of civil disobedience and trial as told in Bidder 70 is fashioned around his opponents. We learn at the opening of the film that employees of the Bureau of Land Management refused to interview and appear in the film suggesting the film’s undertone early on. The film does not explicitly explain the exact law he broke and what he did until the trial, so I found myself lacking the totality of information. As I heard stories from Tim’s childhood, entered the confines of his daily life at home, and witnessed his relationship with his mother and his personal mentor Bill McKibbens, the film sensitized me to his case. I could better understand the rationale behind what he did but it was still  unclear to me what exactly happened. I remember opening his Website and Wikipedia page to gain insight. After having a better grasp of the situation, I did not believe that he had committed a prosecutable crime.

Perhaps this was partly due to the nature of Tim’s story as one of a hero wherein there resides a villain. The film shares the value of different types of activism whether it be one person making a banner, protesting with a group, acting bold in the face of a failing government, giving others hope, and most importantly “going to jail for justice.” as Tim says in the film. While it could just be that the film does not show it, Tim never seemed distressed or provocative. His willingness to accept his sentence to defend his cause and leave a positive legacy made me believe in his act of activism. The film promotes this understanding by referencing Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr, other noble heroes that went to jail for civil rights. Comparing the actions of a 27-year-old climate activist to two world renowned leaders is the film’s way of championing him over the villain.

The film does not create a villain but rather exposes the unjust actions of the corporate entities, the fossil fuel industry, and most of all the U.S. legal system. The justice system that discriminated against Tim but not the previous 25 similar bidders. The justice system that barred evidence that the auction was illegal. The same system that prohibited Tim to share his story with the jury. The system that postponed his trial 9 times. And the system that prioritized corporate interests over not just Tim’s but the entire US population’s freedom of speech and right to protection from climate change. This unfair treatment made me further convinced that Tim’s undertakings were a form of true activism. Not just for the environment but for human rights in reminding people of their role in democracy to fight for representation.

Gage, G. & Gage, B. (2012). Bidder 70. United States: Gage & Gage Productions.

This week in class, our discussions and readings largely revolved around the topic of “good activism” vs “bad activism”. The discussion was particularly relevant for me as I used to be involved with a group of activists who had a bit of a bad activist reputation. We were a small but eclectic group; people of all ages and backgrounds came together to protect the humble Briger Forest from the evil corporate monstrosities, Scripps and Kolter. Their website still remains, although it’s antiquated. While I only participated in the “good activism” — peaceful protests, researching EPA guidelines, calling congressmen — some of the more radical activists made local headlines when they were arrested for creating a blockade that cancelled class for a nearby school. Ironically enough, these activists were with Earth First!, an environmental organization that was inspired by the Monkey Wrench Gang. I had already been familiar with them before reading the Monkey Wrench Gang, so when I learned about its influence on Earth First!, I figured that the wrench in their logo MUST be an homage to the revolutionary novel. A quick google search offered no confirmation, but I still have my suspicions.

I have to admit that while reading this book, I was reminded a bit of my high school self. While I may not have gone through as many cigs or beers as the characters in the Monkey Wrench Gang, I did share the belief that radical eco-activism was the only true solution. I didn’t go around burning bridges or destroying tractors, but I felt that attention-grabbing activism was the way to go. I remember listening with deep admiration whenever my environmental teacher would share stories (in a slightly disapproving tone) of his anarchist daughter, and I had dreams of working with Greenpeace. While the Hayduke, Seldom, Doc, and Bonnie were certainly more extreme and “eco-terrorist”-esque than myself and the eco-activists I admired, I did share a few similar beliefs with them, including the need to protect our natural land and the need to have bring attention to the movement. I have since changed my viewpoints to be a bit more practical and anthropocentric (to clarify — I do not exclusively look out for the needs of humans, I just consider them far more than I used to in the context of environmentalism). I see the benefits of sustainability and urban planning, and I understand that in some circumstances, it’s necessary to lose a Briger Forest here and there to create a sustainable living community.

All of this being said, I still wholeheartedly believe that The Monkey Wrench Gang  had a positive impact on the environmental movement. I don’t think that it necessarily inspired activists to turn to eco-terrorism. While Abbey did provide pretty detailed descriptions of the group’s destructive actions, I don’t think that the environmental movement saw a huge spark in this type of activism. Rather, this book inspired people to ACT. It led to an increase in eco-activism groups and likely inspired some of the greatest environmental justice warriors, most of whom would advocate in peaceful yet attention-grabbing ways. Also, the fact that this book was fictional, rather than the often dense and monotonous nonfiction environmental books, likely caused a great increase in the number engaged with the movement.  If Rachel Carson is the mother of the environmental movement, then Edward Abbey is the crazy uncle who may seem like a bad influence on you but is really exactly what you need to grow and become a stronger person!

One of the most difficult characteristics of any activist movement is how to define what is good activism and what is bad activism. Each person has a different definition of what activism is, as well as what qualifies as good activism or bad activism. I thought it was interesting that The Monkey Wrench Gang was such an influential book for the environmental movement because it is what I would consider bad activism.

A frustrating part of being an activist is the painstakingly slow progress that it can sometimes take to accomplish specific goals. For example, DDT was used from the start of WWII until 1972 in the United States, even though Silent Spring was published ten years earlier. However, in Edward Abbey’s novel, The Monkey Wrench Gang, no such action was waited for as the characters in the book sought to make a difference. These characters resorted to destruction and even in some cases the use of explosives to try and make their difference known. This tactic differed from the environmental movement of today; many of the current actions take place in the courtroom or different governmental offices. The juxtaposition to the movements of today, at first made it difficult to relate to the characters. After rereading the passages, I realized that the things they were doing, while poor decisions, were choices that they felt would make an immediate impact. By destroying bulldozers or blowing up bridges, the monkey wrench gang drew attention to the atrocities being committed by humans upon nature. When Edward Abbey wrote the novel, the environmental movement was in its infancy and these acts appeared to have a direct impact on the industries degrading nature.

The environmental movement was spurred onward by this novel and I think this can be contributed to the way that Abbey describes the landscape in the book. Abbey used elegant and descriptive language to depict the nature around the gang. Abbey writes, “the cool twilight of dawn. Jaybirds crying in the pinyon pines. A band of pearl and ivory spread across the east.” Abbey’s figurative phrasing illustrated how Abbey makes the readers feel as if they are in the wilderness with the gang. The vivid imagery creates a romantic feel that the readers cannot escape. The way he depicts nature creates a feeling of beauty and love for nature, which leads the reader to condemn the destruction of it by man.

Even though I think what they did was bad activism, The Monkey Wrench Gang illustrates the beauty of nature, and it brings the conversation of the morality of destroying nature to the forefront.

The beauty of fiction is that it enables the author and readers to enter a world where anything is possible — where magic is real, elephants can fly, or even more implausibly, a group of activists and vigilantes can actually prevail against the money and power of coal companies and industry and succeed in protecting the environment against those who wish to exploit and degrade it.

…

At least, that’s how The Monkey Wrench Gang would have gone if I had been the one writing it. A classic plot arc: from solitary anger, to learning how to work as a team, to articulating and honing their philosophy and message, to a triumphant montage of success. With so much despair and hopelessness in our environmental narratives, occasional victories are desperately needed.

Yet you have to put this novel in an appropriate historical context. Environmentalism was, while growing in popularity, still in its infancy. Popular and scientific understanding of the complex biological, political, and socioeconomic factors contributing to environmental problems was far less developed than it was today. Regulatory enforcement was relatively lax — Ohio’s Cuyahoga River caught on fire just six years prior to the book’s release, and the famous Love Canal disaster in New York wouldn’t take place until three years later.

President Gerald Ford, according to ontheissues.org, seemed to take a lukewarm approach to the environment. He generally neglected the problems he inherited from Nixon, viewed the EPA as just more unnecessary bureaucracy (and failed to recognize its validity as an independent agency), consistently reduced pollution enforcement, and propped up the coal industry. But on the other hand, he did designate the Isle Royale National Park as wilderness area and sponsored the Water Resources Development Act to authorize $409M for public works on rivers and dams.

In this political and cultural context, Abbey’s chaotic tale of destruction and anger makes more sense, and it’s easier to see why The Monkey Wrench Gang had such a profound impact on environmental activists at the time. Decades of polite compromises and moderate regulations had failed to stop corporations from wrecking the American landscape and poisoning communities across the country; the people were simply tired. And whether you agree or not with their methods or justifications, the book forces you to question your own personal philosophy alongside the characters. What actions are acceptable, what are you trying to achieve in the first place, and what ultimately succeeds? For some, the romance of mangling machinery and sabotaging the advance of industrialization seemed like a beautiful fantasy. And for others, maybe it wasn’t a fantasy at all.

What does it mean to be an activist? A social activist? An environmental activist? Why are activists important and what do they contribute to a cause? These are the questions that circulated my mind as I evaluated my personal thoughts on what was and want activism.

While it was easy to use my raw thoughts and emotions to place my vote with the majority and say that the black community leader who sought to educate and help empower individuals in her community was an activist while the vegan extremists who used violence and threats were not, it is much more difficult to take into consideration the implications of these choices. As a community and as citizens of the earth, it is our job to help protect the environment. It is our job to both preserve and conserve aspects of our wilderness, however at our current rate and using our current methods of environmental activism, our future looks very bland.

Currently our idea of environmental activism revolves around education and policymaking. We rely on socially acceptable nonviolent forms of activism such as protesting and education to enact change in governmental policies. In fact, we chose to confide ourselves within the social norms and boundaries and believe in the idea that “If only there were more educators or policymakers then we could save the environment”. However what is this is not the answer? What if the time for peaceful activism is over and the time for action has begun? Although monkeywrenching may only be a temporary solution to many environmental problems, there is no doubt in my mind that it still works.

However, there is a line between activism and terrorism. While I believe that activists need to take more action and stop relying on an unresponsive government, they must not go so far as to inflict terror on those around them. Activists work through empathy for the good or all, while terrorists work to instill their own will upon others. As a result, the current modes of activism must be swayed farther to the right, however not so far as to be considered terrorists.

What is activism? Our scatterplot across the room demonstrated the variety in our ideas and ideals of what activism is. I like to say an effective activist is informed and acts with good intent.
First: being informed. If you are going to march for climate change, then reading up on the science, the arguments, the counterarguments, enhances your credibility as an activist. It is hard to persuade someone of your cause if you do not understand its cause, which is why spending the first few classes defining and learning about climate change set us up to go into activism. Information comes before the act like a thought becomes before movement. If we are going to be activists, we need to understand what we are acting for and against.

Second: intent. Looking at the rhino picture, I was uncertain of its scale of activism because I could not pinpoint the intent of the photographer. Did they take the picture because they care deeply about the plight of rhinos and want to people to look at this picture and care? Did they want the money, the attention, the prestige? How did they capture such a powerful photo? Where they there when the violence happened? Did they try and stop it? There are endless questions that come to mind when I see this picture. I want to know the intent, but I cannot know this from a photograph. For some this may not be a problem; it is a powerful picture and people should know such atrocities are happening. But I think this form of activism is inaccessible to most. It’s hard to act off a photograph, we aren’t given any information about the situation. We can be passive on-lookers and feel deeply, but what are we supposed to do?

The Monkey Wrench Gang, though destructive, acts from good intentions, which allows my conscious accept their actions as activism though they are destructive. The gang does what is within their power to change their situation – they are removing the “anthills” (tractors, bridges, coal cars) of their wilderness. “The anthill, is the model in microcosm of what we must find a way to oppose and halt” (Abbey 84). In the minds of the gang, they are improving their surroundings, and it’s hard not to respect the intent of their actions as well as the fact that they are, indeed, acting.

Abbey, Edward. Money Wrench Gang. HarperCollins, 1975.

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.

This week, we spent a considerable amount of time defining activism. Each individual has a bar, where they determine what classifies as activism. There is also a fine line between positive and negative activism even if it is for a good cause. This is clear from Edward Abbey’s novel The Monkey Wrench Gang.

Joining a movement seems like a form of activism. However, can we consider a gang to be a movement? The title of Abbey’s novel which calls this group a “gang” is where the controversy begins to unravel. Many people join gangs for protection, status, cooperative efforts, or even to commit crimes. When it comes to the Monkey Wrench Gang, a group that defies the law, commits arson, burns down forests for logging, vandalizes machinery, and burns billboards, it becomes hard for me to see a gang as a movement promoting environmental activism.

Though it’s important to contextualize the formation of the gang during a time when environmental issues were not a primary societal concern and even those that cared did not take action. When civil disobedience proved to be a failure, the Monkey Wrench Gang decided they needed to take a strong course of action that would draw attention and make change. As a group, they instilled fear in the polluting industries, the government, and the general public making them a powerful entity. They also demanded instant, large-scale action in a time when people were frustrated that their concerns were not being heard.

This kind of awareness, public attention, and tangible effort made the gang and Abbey’s novel attractive to environmentalist of the time. When peaceful protest failed to make change, using fear and extreme force may have appealed to many people. This kind of forcefulness could have attracted many and made them feel like they were part of a large active effort.

Abbey’s writing style most likely captured the attention of many environmentalists as well. For one, he uses enraging language and cuts his sentences short when describing the different environmental hazards of certain industries. This is juxtaposed with the beautiful and descriptive language employed to capture the pristine state of nature and the characters love for their environment. This makes readers realize how precious their surroundings are and find reason to protect it against those who make economic profit by harming it. Abbey also creates very distinct characters with obvious personalities from different religions, races, and viewpoints to appeal to any kind of person. The characters show care for one another and are held together by a secretive, strong bond making it appealing to join the organization.

While I myself cannot imagine joining this group, it grew quickly and established an important phase in the history of environmental activism.

With all discussions about the book Monkey Wrench Gang stemming in one way or another from “Environmental terrorism,” it begs the question, what is “true” activism? Can the actions these characters did in the book be justified as activism? To me, no. Activism, in my opinion,  is promoting or impeding something with the intention of improving society throughout. “True” activism has a cause for the greater good of society and does not give a reason to not support the cause at hand. In other words, true activism brings justice to the injustices of society. While I’m sure the characters in this book were firm believers that what they were doing was necessary to change the direction in which society was headed, I would argue they crossed the line. On top of vandalism and other ruthless acts, the thing that stood out for me the most was the amount of hypocrisy these characters displayed. In between blowing up bridges and pushing bulldozers off the sides of cliffs, theses characters were littering, tossing cigarette butts on the ground, framing Native Americans for their actions and constantly arguing. While the littering is an obvious example of contradiction, their group dynamic dysfunction is what makes their actions in this book not “true” activism. True activism takes a united group, working as a team for a common goal for the improvement of society. In order for this book to be “true activism,” they have to make me believe and trust the message being made. However, i find a hard time trusting the cause that these characters are fighting for when they can’t even trust themselves. Imagine if the women during the women’s suffrage movement in the early 1900’s were constantly fighting and acting disorganized, would they have accomplished what they did? Or more recently, the people fighting the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline? Activists, throughout history, have accomplished what they have by acting as a cohesive unit and making others believe in their cause.  Monkey Wrench Gang‘s acts of mass destruction and constant displays of poor-teamwork make their cause and actions not only insupportable, but also acts of “improper” activism.