Activism is the effort to improve a particular part of the social situation. Sometimes, a particular trait is seen to be a significant factor for social degradation, e.g. patriarchal traits, consumerism, political centralization, urbanization, restrictions on the freedom of expression, and so on.
Society is a collective of individuals. And individuals' prejudices and urges dictate the general direction of the society.
In each society, be it American or Indian, there is a certain common consciousness of goals and fears. Activism either targets this consciousness itself, or protects this consciousness from attack.
For example, the movie "Fire" was recently released in Indian cinemas. This movie portrays the sexual rebellion of two housewives. Raising one's voice for banning this movie can be activism for the "preservation of social values." Raising one's voice against this ban can be activism for "freedom of expression."
Hence, activism in itself does not mean much.
What is far more important is the motivation behind activism. Again, activism for "preservation of social values" can be motivated by a sense of insecurity and vulnerability whereas activism for "freedom of expression" can be motivated by a desire to propagate one's viewpoint.
Tyranny, or power among others is what is fought in activism, in various ways. Mostly activism is an effort to negate a certain state of affairs.
But since activism is restricted to a certain domain of "ills", and the efforts have to be pragmatic, it fails to go deeper, i.e. into the individual urges. It tries to change the society without trying to change the individual. It tries to repeal or establish new laws or customs without recognizing the basic problem in man.
But should one postpone action till this realization comes? Has action any significance before one realizes and is free of problems oneself? Are problems based on prejudiced perceptions? These are fundamental questions.
Consider for example a tyrannical regime in which individuals are crushed and freedom of expression is non-existent. In such a setting, activism rises to combat the tyranny and the cruelty. But it is overlooked that tyranny and cruelty exists in every man. One can then ask which is more important: removing a social ill? or removing the source of illness in oneself? Removing a social ill will lead to better possibilities for individual quests, it is believed.
A fundamental question is posed when some teachers say that if one is free in oneself, the world changes to something totally different.
What happens to a free individual? It is a deeply challenging question because such individuals still live in this world and carry on some activities. Consider the lives of the Buddha and Krishnamurti, for example. Assuming they were free from the source of misery, how did they go on living their life? What happens inside their brain which makes them do this or do that? Do they see something wrong with the world, which can be corrected by collective action?
Is it that only free people can do something constructive as a collective?
Is it that the fruits of activism are non-existent? Consider the Indian freedom struggle. A hundred years of intense struggle, violence and upheavel led to the ouster of the British rulers. But what was gained by all this? There is hardly a difference in the alienation, suppression and tyranny by the ruling class today than there was before.
Is there any reason to believe that there is something called favorable social conditions for individual enlightenment?
Once one is free, how does one help others to be free? By changing the circumstances? Or making man realize the need to change himself?
These are complex issues, aren't they? But speculative! Since I'm aware only of bondage. Freedom is nothing more than an idea. But then, why set a limit to questioning? Perhaps the realization that one is ill-equipped to resolve such questions will itself make one vulnerable and aware of one's limits.