On Individualism And Activism

It seems that activism may be more "feasible" in cultures that are more individualistic. That is, the activists feel freer to do their thing. After all, activism can be a rather lonely activity, especially if it is done in favor of fringe groups.

Often, activism is for something that is not supported by the people in power, otherwise there would be no need for activism. This implies a certain form of resistance that may not be socially acceptable. This is a clear problem in a group-oriented culture. For example, if a culture is highly group-oriented, the actions of an activist may reflect poorly on the family. More practically, an activist in such a culture may be expected to help support her parents, and this would be problematic if she is unable to find regular employment due to the social stigma of activism.

Effectively, one's dependents (e.g. parents, children, etc) are being indirectly threatened in such an environment, and the activist becomes easier to manipulate. After all, activists are often willing to sacrifice themselves to a greater or lesser extent for the furtherance of their causes, but will likely balk at the prospect of having loved ones/dependents suffer as a result of their actions.

On the other hand, one living in an individualistic culture does not always have to contend with such issues. She can easily choose to eke out a subsistence income level while supporting her cause. That is, without incurring social censure for neglecting the group in favor of personal pursuits.