Throwing Soup at the Status Quo: Why Unpopular Activism Gets Results

When working within the system fails, sometimes you need to make a mess outside of it

People, as a standard, tend to like the status quo. If things are stable to good, the general feeling is why bother changing how things are going? People are set in their ways. A person who has voted Republican all their life is likely to vote Republican even if they need to hold their nose if they don't like the candidate.

Change can be scary. One facet of (traditional) small-c conservative thinking is the unwillingness to change due to fear that things will not be as good as they are now. This is why it is often those doing well and set in their ways who are change-averse. Again, this is small-c conservative and not everyone who has a conservative disposition votes for the "conservative" candidate. It's also why a lot of progressive movements come from the grassroots of those who are trying to improve their lot and all the lots of those around them. A rising tide lifts all boats. It's why the young can have so much passion and vigor for change.

The Emotional Politics of Change

To those doing well, the status quo is good. To those doing not as well or poorly, the status quo needs to be changed. This is one of the basic and fundamental push-pulls of our politics. It's even in a very popular slogan, taken to a Conservative extreme, the current status quo is not good enough, and so they feel the need to make America great again.

It's a simple and powerful message to people and can resonate emotionally. This is the key to it. The emotional part of the message. For as unserious as the message is, people do feel like they are doing worse now than they were x number of years ago. If 2024 taught us anything about the electorate, it is that reason and facts won't convince someone nearly as well as appealing to emotions.

So can advocacy play to those emotional triggers too? Absolutely. Look at those old commercials with sad animals with "In the Arms of an Angel" playing in the background. Do you think they picked that advertising strategy just because? No, obviously they wanted to pull on the heartstrings. This is why emotion and causing emotional reactions can help in advocacy. But it's not only pulling on the heartstrings that does this—all sorts of emotions can be used to further your cause.

The Just Stop Oil Case Study: Soup Works

That brings us to the Just Stop Oil protests for climate change. This was a UK group who did things like blocking traffic, engaging in vandalism, and disrupting sports events. Most notably, they threw tomato soup at Vincent van Gogh's "Sunflowers" at the National Gallery in London and glued themselves to artworks, aiming to draw attention to their cause.

This pissed people off. Do you remember all the angry and foaming-at-the-mouth TV commentators? And yeah, some of these protests were obnoxious. A lot of people at the time said it was not helping their cause. They needed to be good advocates and work to change the system from within, even though the status quo was not changing at all and the oil companies still controlled vast wealth and numerous politicians. Sometimes working within the system just doesn't work.

But you know what? If they didn't toss soup at a painting, maybe no one would have even said the words "climate change" on the news that day. By tying themselves to their beliefs and disrupting, they made an impact. Recent research by Dr. George Ferns at the University of Bath in the UK has found that they succeeded in raising awareness about their cause despite public disapproval.

So they were effective, despite their unpopularity. The study found that JSO's tactics got HUGE media attention and polling showed that 64% of Britons opposed their actions. And you know what else? JSO received significantly more media attention than other more conventional groups. One stat from the study shows they got more mentions in the media than Greenpeace within just one year.

The Radical Flank Effect: Making Moderates Look Reasonable

The study also goes on to discuss the "Radical Flank Effect" which shows how more radical advocates can make the more conventional seem reasonable. This dynamic is well-known and has been used many times to advocates' advantages. The best (American) example of this would be in the Civil Rights movement where you had Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King talking about equity and equality, wanting everyone to have the same opportunities on one side, and you had Malcolm X and the Black Panthers on the other. When your average 1960s low-information voter saw the evening news started with a nice speech by Dr. King and then moved to a rally with a bunch of black folks with guns, they'd likely think that maybe Dr. King wasn't too off base and maybe he would be a good middle ground.

It really did make a difference on the margin in support going forward. (A Gallup poll from 1963 found that 60% of Americans had an unfavorable view of the March on Washington.) They had the option to do the nonviolent and right thing or it could be a pretty bad few years of race war and violence.

It is this dichotomy which is somewhat lacking in the environmental movement. Looking back at history, were the women's suffrage movements popular? The gay rights movement? No. They were deeply unpopular but as time went on they got more and more popular. Popularity does help movements, but it by no means is needed to win.

Winning While Losing the Popularity Contest

The research basically shows that at the end of the day, JSO's actions caused an increase in awareness for their mission—in this case an end to new oil and gas licenses in the UK. Studies have shown that citizens are more informed now due to the coverage. JSO recently announced they were shutting down their operations. Why? Well, the Labour party is in power and came to power in July 2024. Labour ran on halting new oil and gas exploration licenses. So JSO won? (Note: Labour may not have done this specifiaclly because of JSO, but the activism and education of people by JSO's actions sure helped.) Despite the hate, their tactics, and despite everything against them, they got what they wanted and fought for. (At a cost though—last I heard 15 of the JSO members were still serving prison sentences.)

So what does this tell us about advocacy? Maybe there is something to the old adage, "There is no such thing as bad publicity." Should we all start dumping soup on paintings? I would say no. But there are times when radical actions are needed. We've seen this countless times over the years.

When Radical Works: The ACT UP Example

ACT UP (AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power), formed in 1987 in New York City, exemplifies the power of confrontational activism through their bold and unapologetic tactics—a more serious example of effective but controversial activism similar to Just Stop Oil. The group stormed pharmaceutical companies, locked themselves to politicians' desks, threw fake blood on offices, and staged massive "die-ins" where protesters would lie down as if dead to represent AIDS victims. These die-ins became their signature tactic, making death physically visible when society preferred to ignore it.

Their protests targeted powerful institutions including the FDA, the Catholic Church, and Wall Street, resulting in numerous arrests but also significant media attention. The activists weren't just theatrical—they meticulously studied FDA procedures and pharmaceutical research, publishing detailed handbooks and becoming experts on treatment options. Their efforts successfully pressured the government to speed up drug approvals, made treatments more affordable, and fundamentally transformed how AIDS was discussed and treated in America.

It wasn't terribly popular at the time either.

The Criminalization of Environmental Protest

So bringing this back to environmental advocacy, why aren't there more "edgy" actions against polluters in the US? What happened to tying themselves to trees and breaking open pipelines? Well, corporate power and authoritarianism happened.

It has always been illegal to cut open a pipeline to protest the pipeline's existence. However, since the heyday of serious and costly anti-corporate environmental activism in the 1990s, there have been a bunch of new "Critical Infrastructure" laws. Basically, a bunch of corporations got together and lobbied for laws to criminalize protests near pipelines, power plants, refineries, etc., often labeling these sites "critical infrastructure." Numerous states adopted similar or even more extreme laws abridging your rights to free speech. Further, the definition of "critical infrastructure" and what it means to be "damaging," "interrupting," or "impeding" operations is really broad, potentially criminalizing activities beyond direct sabotage, including peaceful assembly near these sites.

What's at issue is again, not that environmental activists should be able to destroy corporate assets willy-nilly, but rather that the consequences for these activities have been massively expanded. Simple trespassing near a pipeline construction site, which might have resulted in a small fine or citation in the past, can now lead to felony charges under these new laws in many states, potentially resulting in years of imprisonment and tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines.

Two-Tiered Justice: Protecting Pipes Over People

We protect corporate assets more than we do people. How often do you see someone getting off for raping or assaulting someone else? Or look at white-collar crimes, and how loose the punishments are for the rich in those ‘victimless crimes.’ It highlights the two-tiered (or more tiers) justice system we have in this country. They are also trying to, in some states, criminalize this sort of action even more, calling it terrorism or ecoterrorism. This is trying to criminalize protest even because people who are not doing anything other than expressing their First Amendment rights are being given felonies for protesting in the wrong place. Activists have been raising the warning signs of authoritarianism for a while now, and this kind of action has a chilling effect on our rights and ability to protest.

Let's look at a hypothetical situation about why this kind of advocacy isn't practiced in the US much these days. Let's say a group of advocates entered a pipeline construction easement, which is private property where the company builds. They put a few bike U-locks on an idle piece of equipment and chain themselves to it. They want to delay the construction even if for a few hours to make a point. In the early 2010s, they would likely have been charged with a misdemeanor for resisting arrest (if they didn't unlock themselves when cops asked) or obstructing police function. Often charges would even be dropped because no one was hurt; it was annoying for a few hours but didn't do much in the greater scheme of things. Maybe a small fine of $500 and a few days in jail if they had prior arrests.

However, do that now in a state with a strong critical infrastructure law, and it would be a felony for "impeding," "inhibiting," or "interfering with" operations. Felony trespassing as well, and potential conspiracy charges too if planning was involved. Sentence? Most states allow for up to 10 years in prison and huge fines of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars.

When No Action Is Allowed, Pressure Builds

This sort of thing has also been criminalized more harshly in the UK, which is why JSO did the kinds of things they did as opposed to the old-fashioned tying themselves to trees. This probably did give them a bit more in the way of publicity too, but when tried and true avenues of protest against something are gotten rid of, advocates need to adapt. I doubt JSO would have been as loathed if they were chaining themselves to bulldozers and protesting where they weren't allowed.

So going back to the MLK/Malcolm X example, one argument made for why the climate/environmental advocacy movement is not making the progress we'd like is that there is no real extreme side; there are only the rule followers, those fighting in systems or following the law. It's a lot to ask someone to go to jail for 10 years for a protest when there is no guarantee that it will even do anything good for the cause.

This kind of criminalization of First Amendment rights is dangerous because it can also lead to more violence. If tying myself to a pipeline isn't okay and neither is cutting a hole in it or blowing up a portion of it, why not do the one that actually causes damage to them if you're in that place? This article is not endorsing that sort of action, but it begs the question: will a dam burst and the corporate interests which criminalized speech around this issue be mad they forced the hands of people to do this? Probably not, but they will still be pissed at the lost money.

The Romance of Righteous Disruption

It is when people feel hopeless that they do the most reckless things. People have been feeling hopeless about the climate crisis for over a decade. No one in power has done enough to solve the problem. People's actions have been criminalized. First Amendment rights have been abridged. These times call for action, but when no action is allowed, the pressure builds.

People in JSO didn't care if you hated them. They didn't care if they went to jail or were dragged through the mud on TV News. They did care about the future of the planet and were willing to sacrifice to do what they felt was right. There is something romantic about that notion, even if you and I may not go that route. The willingness and clarity it would take to be in that position is striking.

And that's why loathsome and seemingly bad forms of protest and advocacy can actually work. It's been proven in the past, and there's a lot of potential there for people to keep doing it. (But be careful, it is not always the best way forward.)