Activism: Whether You Agree With The Anti-War Perspective

Activism Whether You Agree With The Anti War Perspective Or Not All P

Activism—whether you agree with the anti-war perspective or not—encompasses advocacy work rooted in communication principles aimed at social change and justice. Communication activism is a component of grassroots activism, which involves engaging deeply with social issues, critiquing causes, and promoting civic participation through various channels such as public dialogue, education campaigns, and political art. Activists critique causes like anti-racism, anti-globalization, anti-war, civil rights, and others, employing rhetoric that shapes perceptions and motivates action..

The rhetoric of activism is characterized by internal tensions, adaptations to shifting audiences, and strategic tactics such as marches, speeches, posters, email campaigns, and civil disobedience—all under the guiding principle of nonviolence, deemed essential for democratic success. Movements evolve through stages, including conditions ripe for change, setbacks, and breakthroughs when mainstream societal engagement increases.

Dr. Stephen Hartnett, Chair of the CU Denver Communication Department, emphasizes that communication activism should promote citizen-centered spaces, advocate for peaceful alternatives, critique U.S. foreign policy from a peace-promoting stance, and aim to expand democratic practices while reducing violence and injustice. His framework proposes four theses: local activism gains strength from global movements; democratic processes must be defended during war; activist efforts have multiplier effects; and delayed impacts can create future opportunities.

Hartnett analyzes specific actions—teach-ins, political art, marches, and media outreach—to exemplify how advocacy is practiced and how hope can be communicated through activism. Visually, political rhetoric post-9/11 utilized powerful symbols and narratives to foster unity and resilience, often invoking themes of good versus evil. President George W. Bush’s speeches following the attacks framed the U.S. as fighting a moral battle, employing metaphors of war and crime, and emphasizing external threats, thus shaping public perception and support for the war on terror.

The rhetoric surrounding patriotic symbols, such as the flag and the eagle, reinforced collective identity and resilience. Visual images from 9/11, notably the iconic photograph of firefighters raising the flag, epitomized themes of heroism and national unity but also sparked tensions regarding cultural beliefs and narratives of American innocence versus vulnerability. These images and messages served to solidify a collective narrative of patriotism, sacrifice, and resilience in the face of terrorism.

Hartnett advocates for a communication approach that fosters civic responsibility, infuses activism into daily life, and promotes political responsibility beyond mere consumerism. He emphasizes that activism, as a lifestyle, requires responsibility, political energy, and becoming producers of knowledge, rather than passive consumers. Analyzing wartime rhetoric reveals how language, metaphors, and symbolic narratives are employed to justify policies and rally public support, often simplifying complex conflicts into binary struggles of good versus evil.

The use of language plays a crucial role in shaping perceptions during times of crisis. During Bush’s post-9/11 speeches, terms like "terrorism," "evil," "freedom," and "battle" created compelling narratives that framed the conflict in moral terms. These narratives, reinforced with visual imagery, contributed to high approval ratings and the legitimacy of military actions, despite the ongoing debates about their consequences and justifications. Cultural symbols of patriotism further unified the nation, albeit with tensions regarding the narratives of innocence versus vulnerability.

In conclusion, activism—whether through rhetoric, visual imagery, or direct action—is fundamentally about communicating social values, critiquing power structures, and mobilizing citizens for collective actions. The case studies of post-9/11 rhetoric demonstrate how powerful language and imagery can rally national sentiment, define collective identities, and influence policy directions. For activists and scholars alike, understanding these rhetorical tools enables more effective advocacy and fosters a more informed, participatory civic culture.

References

• Bennett, W. L. (2012). The logic of connective action: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Cambridge University Press.
• Cappella, J. N., & Jamieson, K. H. (1997). Spiral of cynicism: The press and the public good. Oxford University Press.
• Davis, A. (2016). The rhetoric of resistance: The politics of protest in America. Routledge.
• Hartnett, S. J. (2013). Communicative activism: Strategies for social change. Journal of Communication & Social Action, 1(1), 45-67.
• Lule, J. (2016). Daily news, eternal questions: Journalistic practices and ethics in the digital age. Peter Lang Publishing.
• McGee, M. C. (1980). The Ideograph: A Link Between Rhetoric and Ideology. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66(1), 1-16.
• Nelson, T. E., & Oxley, Z. M. (1999). Issue framing effects and public opinion: The candidate Birthplace controversy. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 63(3), 291-308.
• Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1988). Ideology, Frame Resonance, and Opportunity. In M. E. Snow & R. D. Benford (Eds.), Frontiers in Social Movement Theory (pp. 197-218). Yale University Press.
• Van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Sage Publications.
• Zald, M. N., & McCarthy, J. D. (1997). Social Movements: Resource Mobilization and Cultural Framing. In D. Rucht, R. Koopmans, & F. Neidhardt (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to social movements (pp. 3–20). Blackwell Publishing.