Are we Disobedient?

At first glance, a climate change documentary titled Disobedience already seems to promise tenacity of a message. Created by a company that goes by the name Disobedient Productions, the relatively short documentary fulfills my initial expectation of its being a stronghold of creative space. What is even more remarkable about this film, however, is its compact yet powerful grappling with the issues of power distribution and ethics in climate change, along with a propulsive call to action inspired by numerous social movements in the past.

The documentary begins with a fast-paced montage capturing the growing severity of the planet’s deterioration, aided by ominous music and the audio recordings of news segments reporting various climate-related events around the world. Considering the near-total ubiquity of climate change news today, this sequence should present no surprise. Yet, the shock factor to a lay audience might come with the revelation of what the US government had previously declared in 1965. This timestamp and the accompanying proclamation of fossil fuel-driven climate change, displayed with hauntingly provocative visual effects, let the audience in for a surprise, then a fit of confusion, even bewilderment. “Why,” one might ask, “have we only started doing something about climate change recently, and not in the 60s?” Well, this question opens a rather vexing can of worms, which the documentary then goes on to address and provide solutions for.

What we now learn is that, in fact, progress might not have moved that far since 1965. The adoption of the Paris Agreement in late 2015, branded a significant step ahead in the course of global climate policy, was shown to be a rather disappointing event. With the Agreement being non-binding legally, the documentary represents a campaign that calls for a different form of leadership. The spotlight is then diverted towards those who can “close the gap” and “[do] what needs to be done on the ground”. Rather than relying on politicians and their unreliability when it comes to actually keep the temperature increase to 2°C, local movements have popped up everywhere around the world. From Turkey to the Philippines to Germany to the US, ordinary people have taken on the role of leadership in handling the direct enemy of climate change: the fossil fuel projects.

At the heart of the film’s message is an open deliberation on the ethics of climate change (or rather the lack thereof), specifically what the fossil fuel corporations have done and continue to do amidst increasingly devastating conditions of natural and humans’ habitats. Early on in the documentary, the Archbishop Ramon Arguelles of the Metropolitan Archdiocese of Lipa explicitly condemns the “progress” made in the modern, globalized world, as it only serves to benefit a few, and mostly out of greed, selfishness, and a desire to exploit. Such moral transgression and tendency also run counter to what the Archbishop has observed about society in history: that most positive changes come from ordinary individuals sharing responsibility with one another (as well as responsibility before God) and joining hands to work towards a common purpose. With globalization being inevitable, he beautifully pronounces the wish to have “concern for others” as the globalized factor rather than a consumerist lifestyle. This brief segment raises an ethical concern, yet it also touches on a different philosophical dimension that is environmental theology. Though it is not quite a focal point of a documentary on civil disobedience, it nevertheless prefaces the ethics question that runs throughout the film.

The roots of much of the public’s exasperation with the unethical behaviors of corporations, as shown in the documentary, is the “corporate capture of the government”. Mentions of fossil fuel companies’, namely Exxon’s, audacious attempts at misleading the public decades for their own personal gains are clear evidence that greed can easily blur the moral lenses of these executives. Even upon learning the severe consequences of their projects on not only the natural environment but also on humans living in these areas (with newborns suffering with birth defects, populations experiencing food shortages and famines, families being evicted from their homes, and regional and cross-national conflicts flaring up as a result), many of these companies turn a blind eye to the misery and agony they themselves cause. Bill McKibben declares this the actual “radicalism” of this climate reality – rather than the “radical activism” done by those trying to thwart destruction.

As the documentary dives deeper into an antidote to such power-grabbing and indifference imbued with greed, the question of what the antithesis of immorality is takes over. In the film, Marshall Ganz of Harvard University then distinguishes social movements from ordinary politics by emphasizing that the former are not so much about “how to divide up the goods but about what a good is”. It is about asking the question of identity, of meaning, and inherent value. He arrives at the conclusion that what it takes to sustain successful social movements is moral clarity. A figure who encapsulated this principle was Gandhi during the Indian Independence Movement, as he proclaimed his identity as a human being before a citizen of his country, whose legislature did not even acknowledge his rights. Being able to engage in social mobilization and civil disobedience then appears to require an ability to transcend beyond the immediate self-interest and attempt to fulfill a responsibility for something much larger – humanity, even the ecology.

This notion of moral clarity ties together two large domains in environmental philosophy. Ontologically, it concerns what constitutes one’s sense of self. Clarity implies a somewhat-consistent, not-vague and nebulous self-conception, especially in relation to the environment and humanity. Moral of course indicates a reflection on ethics, what action one deems morally upright for the environment, and how one can behave in the interests of other humans and non-humans. Once again, the idea of moral clarity is only briefly mentioned in the documentary, but its gateway to a much more elaborate philosophical study of one’s sense of self and moral principles presents potentials for such philosophical exploration to have concrete impacts in real-life social movements.

Disobedience might have set out to speak to any citizens around the world about the potential for change in their own community. With a single resounding message about civil disobedience as a powerful tool of empowerment, the documentary appeals to both those who want to initiate these social movements in a leadership role, and those who simply participate – essentially anyone who believes in the cause. More compellingly, the context of the movement in the Philippines a few decades back in the 1980s also confirms the possibility of action even under a dictatorial regime, which is still present in various parts of the world today. Though not the primary intention, the documentary perhaps also sends a resolute gesture to the world leaders and corporations themselves. The distinctly well-informed nature of the movement and the steadfast attitude of its participants serve as the most striking reminder to these institutions that the power belongs to the people.

There are, of course, absences in the documentary, which leaves the discussion on climate change incomplete. The rousing call for action is not counterbalanced by a suitable amount of warning involving any emotional and psychological (not to mention physical) struggles embedded in engaging with the movements. Failure stories exist alongside success stories too. The emotionality of social activism and politics is an acute topic, especially when it goes to either extremity. For instance, only highlighting the accomplishments of civil disobedience may push for a sense of optimism that presumes social progress as an inevitable accompaniment of action. This attachment to progress serves as a predisposition for what Berlant (2006) calls ‘cruel optimism’. Here I do not indicate social progress is necessarily obstructive (at least not so collectively), but the attachment to progress and the probable emotional struggles that come with it are worth discussing.

Another omission from the documentary that deserves a more prominent space is an ecocentric perspective, to counteract the anthropocentrism that already thrives within the corporate world. While this remains a highly contentious debate between climate activists concerned with intersectionality and environmentalists (a portion of whom are ‘deep ecologists’, Naess, 1986), mentioning the dualism of human-based climate solutions and nature-based ones is crucial in contributing to a more nuanced and complex dialogue on ethics in climate action. Especially in education – and accordingly educational media – expounding both the ideas of tending to social equity in human societies, and of nurturing the wellbeing of non-humans just as much, is a worthwhile endeavor (Taylor, 2017).

Disobedience, while quite short in duration, leaves a lasting impression, both intellectually and emotionally. By engaging with facts, figures, and concrete evidence for what is fundamentally wrong with the current approach of governments and top-down leadership, the film presents a cohesively argued case for why we ought to turn to bottom-up civil disobedience to demand climate action. Disobedience’s educational value rests in the ability to seamlessly draw from historical lessons of various revolutionary periods and inform the present generations of pragmatic strategies and tactics for engagement. Young viewers can walk away packed with insightful practicality that proves to be useful in their own participation in civil disobedience, such as the steps to prepare for a protest, or how to get ‘around’ rather than ‘at’ security obstacles like the police.

One of the most moving facts about Disobedience is that it helps give a voice to the communities whose stories and struggles might not have been told openly in media. As stated in the documentary, the core of social activism is voice, and too often people’s voices are not heard. The film shows a parallelism with past social movements via real footages of protests and demonstrations to concretize inspiration, especially for the young audience who have not lived through some of these impactful moments. The conspicuous address of moral clarity, coupled with interspersed touches of religious reference and analogy, encourages ethical judgment and principles such as care, shared responsibility, and compassion – values activism should not do without. Against the backdrop of vivid visuals and rousing soundscape, the message of Disobedience to viewers of all backgrounds are clear: you can now start with the movement, and the movement can even start with you.

This blog post/documentary review was written as a class assignment for the course “Environmental Philosophy in Education”.

References

Berlant, L. (2006). Cruel optimism. differences, 17(3), 20-36.

Disobedient Productions. (2016). Disobedience. Retrieved from http://watchdisobedience.com

Naess, A. (1986). The deep ecological movement: Some philosophical aspects. Philosophical Inquiry, 8(1-2), 10-31.

Taylor, A. (2017). Beyond stewardship: Common world pedagogies for the Anthropocene. Environmental Education Research, 23(10), 1448-1461.