THE VERDICT ON THIS ASSUMPTION: Mixed Bag
Powerful economic and political interests continue to work against national climate policy. Many climate advocates look to broad-based collective action or social movements to develop political pressure to counteract these vested interests. In doing so, climate change advocates often identify “Big Oil” as the enemy to progress. But does the identification of a common enemy really mobilize action?
Frames Associated with This Assumption:
Social movements consist of a collection of people with a common goal and shared values. Members understand who “we” are and what “we” stand for. Often, the boundaries of membership are framed in the context of an “out-group” with which members of the in-group do not identify. Defining an “enemy” can both help define in-group membership and promote group solidarity.
Social movement organizers also frequently identify a common enemy to elicit emotions because emotions are an effective way to motivate people from ideas to action.1 By identifying a common enemy, social movement organizations provide a target against which moral outrage and anger can be vented.
Defining a common enemy may also be important in shaping not just the impetus to action, but also the success of the group’s mobilization efforts. In current social movement theory, identifying a “responsible party” is one of three key variables that shape the success of mobilization efforts.2 The other two are a sense of group efficacy and the level of confidence that decisionmakers in the system can be influenced by collective action.
According to this research, the effectiveness of mobilization efforts is heightened when people feel as though they have the ability to make a difference (high efficacy), there is a high level of trust that the system is responsive and fair, and there is a clear perception of who is responsible for the problem being tackled. Under these circumstances, people are more likely to feel a sense of anger and be more willing to engage in collective action.
Alternatively, if the same conditions of group efficacy and trust in the system are present but the problem is perceived as caused by “circumstances” rather than a clearly identified “responsible party”, people are likely to feel frustration (instead of anger) and mobilization efforts likely to be weaker.
This research is important for climate change because it suggests that when climate change is portrayed as an unfortunate consequence of industrialization or modernization, people will be less likely to engage in political mobilization. On the other hand, if we can convincingly identify “Big Oil” as the “responsible party” for ongoing climate problems, mobilization efforts are likely to be more successful.
Given the importance of efficacy to the effectiveness of “enemy” framing, we need to understand trends there. Research has found that individuals who believe that climate change is real, human caused and solvable are much more likely to engage in a variety of types of mitigation-related actions3 , suggesting a sense of personal efficacy (confidence in their own actions). According to the same research however, people in the U.S. tend to have a low sense of collective efficacy (confidence in the social group as a whole). For example, a fifth (22%) of respondents believe that although society could reduce global warming, it won’t because people are unwilling to change their behavior. And relatively few people viewed any form of activism as effective (donations, contacting government officials, attending rallies). In fact, 74% said that none of these forms of activism would have much effect.
These public opinion research findings suggest that American’s low sense of collective efficacy and trust in the responsiveness of the system could be responsible for generating feelings of contempt and despair rather than anger even in the context of having identified a common enemy.
- Blaming an external enemy for climate change can help motivate people and solidify group cohesion.
- Creating a common enemy can backfire when people don’t feel they can make a difference, or if they think the political system isn’t fair.
- Campaigns that target a common enemy should be combined with clear evidence of group efficacy and a viable political avenue for progress.
