Rainn Wilson, who played the beloved Dwight Schrute in the hit show “The Office,” recently changed his name on all social media platforms to “Rainfall Heat Wave Extreme Winter Wilson.” On November 9th, the actor announced that, as a “cheap little stunt,” he was changing his name on Twitter and Instagram in order to spread awareness about climate change and encouraged others to do the same. We have seen these kinds of “dramatic” gestures of activism appearing more and more frequently in the past few months, a phenomenon that is likely fuelled by the 2022 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP27) in Egypt. However, there is a question of how effective this kind of activism really is when it comes to producing substantive change. There is no doubt that these stunts garner great attention on social media, but in such a digitally manipulated and complex world, it can be difficult to determine the real impacts of such actions.
By now, many of us have seen the videos of climate protesters throwing soup at expensive paintings and supergluing themselves to walls. These shocking acts have sparked passionate controversy and received criticism from multiple sides. While some were outraged by perceived disrespect to the artwork, others, including supporters of the climate action movement, pointed out additional flaws in the protesters’ approaches. Individuals like Lucy Whelan, a climate activist and art historian, have pointed out that, to many, the acts make the activists look like “hooligans.” When there is no real damage to the artwork, it becomes too easy to move past the issue. In contrast, Rainn Wilson’s name change has elicited a largely positive response.
So what is the difference here? Is Wilson’s method more successful in creating long-term change? Given how much social media and the internet have pervaded our ways of thinking and acting, it is more and more compelling to question how successful these stunts really are. In both situations, the news of the events spread like wildfire (pun intended), but many have questioned whom these acts will really reach. Individuals that care about issues of climate change are likely already listening and want to create change. Therefore, in the case of the activists throwing soup, creating more awareness does not exactly resolve the core issue at hand, which is that individuals struggle to translate intentions into actions. Change is largely inhibited by factors like increased negative affect and pandemic fatigue, not necessarily by a lack of awareness.
Conversely, individuals who do not care as much about the issue are likely to be more put off by the action, enforcing negative associations with climate activism. There is mounting evidence that exposure to opposing viewpoints can actually strengthen our existing beliefs and promote polarized views, as opposed to reducing them. Fortunately, there is also evidence to show that individuals can be persuaded to adjust their beliefs given the right environment and way of presenting these views. This large-scale study showed that when there was communication between individuals with similar characteristics but opposing views, polarization was reduced. Moreover, increased feelings of closeness between these individuals “greatly increased the assimilation” of the political message. The public response to the activists throwing food at paintings, thus, begins to make more sense. The activists doing these stunts are often quite young and display physical attributes characteristic of progressive Gen Z youth, like dyed hair and piercings, and they may conform less to heteronormative and gender stereotypes. These attributes may create a sense of “otherness” from the view of older, more conservative individuals, making them less receptive to the activists’ message.
In comparison to the soup-throwing spectacle, Wilson’s name-change was a far less shocking, yet salient action that gained traction with minimal backlash. It makes sense that this less confrontational and controversial approach generated less animosity. Additionally, Wilson is already a well-liked, famous, and charismatic individual, which likely plays a big role in his ability to persuade his audience. His success and familiarity with many people lead many to view him as a credible source, regardless of whether or not he is really in the right. A number of studies have examined and exposed the influence of celebrities on the decision-making of the public. A notable idea explored in this research is the “match-up hypothesis,” which proposes that the effectiveness of celebrity endorsement depends partially on the degree to which the celebrity’s image is consistent with what they are endorsing. For example, an athlete can more effectively promote sportswear than cosmetics. Extending this idea to Wilson’s climate activism, we can note that he serves as a board member of Arctic Basecamp, a team of Arctic experts and scientists who work to inform global leaders about the global risk of climate change. Additionally, in 2009, Wilson co-founded SoulPancake, a digital media and entertainment company with the vision of “making the world a better place through thoughtful, inspiring content.” As previously explained, people are likely to be more persuaded by Wilson’s words as they can relate to him due to his familiarity and generally down-to-earth spirit. His activism is thus much more credible and likely to have a greater impact on his audience.
Still, one could make similar criticisms as those addressing the soup-throwing display. Specifically, what audience is Wilson really reaching with his name change? Individuals who support and follow him are already likely aware of climate issues. As mentioned previously, a greater issue seems to be that individuals lack the ability or motivation to transform this concern into action, so increased awareness may do little to remediate this. Wilson did indicate, however, that his intention was to reach COP27, and it seems that some constructive agreements have been made. Unfortunately, as we know, the previous conferences have fallen short in making adequate commitments to reach goals such as limiting global warming to 1.5° C. It is also unclear how this “name-changing” will really impact the opinions of global leaders in the conference. It seems that Wilson’s approach, although effective at producing a large positive reaction, may be limited in its real impact.
In such a polarized society, strategies for promoting awareness and change must consider the nuanced way that activism is received by the public. The negative response to the activists throwing food at paintings supplies an interesting contrast to the largely well-received “name change” promoted by Rainn Wilson on social media, allowing us to examine these nuances. There’s something to be said for how attention culture on the internet has a short shelf life, so drastic actions and statements are sometimes necessary to get people’s attention. Although raw motivation and desperation for change are commendable, in order to produce a bigger effect, these campaigns must appeal to the greater public while also tackling public apathy. The public lacks not so much the awareness but the impetus and luxury of contributing to real change. Along with creating awareness, climate activists must use their platforms to propose practical solutions and incentivize sustainable change.
Edited by Rebecca Bennett
Setareh Setayesh is a second year student at McGill University, currently pursuing a B. Sc degree in Psychology. She joined Catalyst as a staff writer this year and is particularly interested in social epidemiology and the interaction between culture and politics in relation to human rights and development.