Boycott boycotting: Support instead – Part 1

What are Christians known for?

We’re supposed to be known for our love.

“By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.” – John 13:35

I don’t think that’s how we’re known. I think we’re more commonly known for our protests and boycotts.

“But,” you protest, “I’m not like that.” (I’m putting words in your mouth, but at least I’m willing to admit it.)

Let me give you a quiz.

The “Am I A Boycotter?” Quiz

1) You hear that McDonald’s is giving 100 zillion dollars to abortion clinics. Your first instinct is to…
A. Stop buying Big Mac’s for lunch.
B. Volunteer at a crisis pregnancy center.

2) You learn that Nike is using forced child labor to churn out thousands of shoes a day. Your decide to…
A. Purchase sneakers from Adidas next time.
B. Pay so a child doesn’t have to go to work.

3) Your local newspaper features a story raving about a new movie that promotes promiscuity. You
A. Cancel your subscription
B. Write to the editor of the paper explaining your views

My guess is that in the majority of these situations your gut reaction is to choose option A. Mine is too.

This is where we as Christians need to alter our thinking.

(Note: I’m going to be picking on McDonald’s a lot here. I’m only using it as a hypothetical example… really :) .)

How boycotts are supposed to work

The purpose behind a boycott is to force the boycotted establishment to change a policy or take different action. Some boycotts call for a substitution, like substituting Burger King Whoppers for McDonald’s Big Macs. Others call for a complete drop of a certain product or service, like on Buy Nothing Day when activists abstain from buying anything on black Friday.

How boycotts don’t work

How much money does McDonald’s, Nike, or the local newspaper lose because of a boycott? Most Christian boycotts don’t gain enough traction to make the any news other than Christian sources.

Even if they do get some attention, the loss to the establishment because of the boycott is probably offset by the added media exposure created by the boycott. And as I’ll explain toward the end, a boycott success probably hurts Christianity the most.

Does anyone do anything about the problem though? Probably not. Anyone that sees the boycott and agrees with the cause will only join with the rest of the boycotters. In other words, they’re only joining in not doing anything.

Even when the boycott achieves its agenda, the strategy is dreadfully indirect and inefficient.

The boycott strategy is indirect because it relies on the boycotted establishment to take action. The protestors must first convince the establishment to act. Usually this doesn’t happen. Most organizations that would seem to be worth boycotting are large enough to have a fairly substantial cushion, meaning that they can wait it out longer than the individual protesters.

If and when the decision is changed, the establishment still has to take the action. For most large corporations or organizations, the lag time between deciding to go in a different direction and actually stepping in that direction are enormous.

Together then the protester has to weather both the siege to achieve the changed decision and the delay for action once the decision is made.

The boycott strategy is inefficient because of this indirect nature. The fact that a boycott was necessary to keep people from supporting a particular establishment means that prior to the boycott, people were supporting the establishment. They might have been supporting it for various reasons, but we have to assume that those reasons were beneficial to both the establishment and the protesters. Otherwise the support would not have been given and accepted.

Once the boycott ensues, the protesters are forced to find alternatives, which means they are not functioning efficiently. They’re buying from and therefore supporting second best. In most cases, the second alternative is only slightly better than the first and does little to directly address the initial problem. The protesters efforts in a boycott are thus inefficient.

The establishment also loses efficiency by losing some of its natural support base. Without this support, the establishment must find and rely on second-rate supporters (i.e. supporters who would not have normally supported before the boycott).

Let’s pick on McDonald’s again. To put this into monetary terms, for every $100 the protesters withhold from supporting McDonald’s, $100 are scattered throughout second-rate alternatives (in our example, spent at Burger King).

Now we must assume that every $100 spent at McDonald’s does not go directly to the abortion clinics. We’ll be generous and say they give 10% of all revenue. Therefore, for every $100 McD’s loses, only $10 is kept from supporting abortion. The net tradeoff then is the protesters losing $100 to second-rate alternatives to keep $10 from doing harm.

Of course the ideal outcome of a boycott is for McDonald’s to eventually change the policy altogether, which would mean that the protesters’ $100 and everyone else’s funds are redirected from supporting abortion.

Even if the boycotters are successful in forcing this policy change, the change will only result in the establishment not supporting abortion. In other words, the success of a boycott only neutralizes the situation. It does nothing.

And in most cases, a success won’t even yield that much because of the loss incurred in the process of the boycott. Remember, the protesters must organize the boycott, rally together, make signs, and so on.

Boycotts are ridiculous when you stop to think about what actually occurs.

But if it’s such a bad idea, why do we do it?

Why we boycott

The simple answer: boycotting feels good and is easy. If you look back up at the quiz, notice how easy the A options are. These don’t require much from you. You can do a little boycotting, tell your friends of the evil of McD or whatever, and bask in your sacrifice for the noble cause.

You feel as if you’ve accomplished something by buying from Burger King instead of McDonald’s. You’re still able to munch a grilled chicken sandwich and go on your merry way.

Forget it. You’re only lying to yourself if you think boycotting is effective. The effort you spend even considering a boycott is wasted. You might as well buy from McDonald’s and donate the time you would have wasted with a boycott scheme.

But there’s an even more important reason for boycotting boycotts, one that goes beyond simply being inefficient and ineffective. This one holds even if the protesters succeed in changing a policy.

Boycotts are negative

Ever had a teacher try to teach you something by only telling you when you’re wrong?

Imagine yourself way back in first grade:

You: 1 + 1 = 4.

Teacher: No, you’re wrong.

You: 1 + 1 = 3?

Teacher: No.

You: 1 + 1 = 2?

Teacher: (Silence)

You: Okay, 1 + 1 = 0.

Teacher: NO! How many times do I have to tell you? You’re WRONG!

You’re probably crying right now. Or kicking your teacher in the leg (it depends on your personality, I guess).

This is an extremely simplified example, but the general principle still holds. We don’t learn what’s right by being told or shown what’s wrong. We learn what’s right by being shown what’s right.

Boycotts are a fundamental violation of this principle. Boycotts show what’s wrong. They generally offer little in the way of showing what’s right. They disprove but offer no alternative.

Rebuke without correction is worse than no rebuke at all. Telling people they are wrong over and over again, like the first grade teacher in the example, is worse than letting them figure out the right answer on their own.

The Bible tells us many times to rebuke but it never stops there. The Bible always gives good alternatives. For every “thou shall not murder”, the Bible gives a “do good to those who spitefully use you” alternative.

Boycotts don’t do that. Boycotts stop at “thou shall not.”

This is the law without love. The law kills and destroys without love.

“…because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression.” – Romans 6:14

Yes, we rebuke, but as Christians, we ought to be known for our love.

To be continued

*****

This could be somewhat of a suicide post for me. Young, radical blood thrives on protests and boycotts. Without boycotts, what will I write about?

By posting this, I’m backing myself into a corner. From now on, I’ll have to post a viable alternative any time I rant against a cause. Otherwise this whole system falls to the logic of the “two-move checkmate.”

I’m willing to take that responsibility though. Hold me to it. If I ever write negatively without providing a positive alternative, please stop and let me know.

By avoiding the boycott trap, I believe we can cut through much of the garbage that slows down many Christians in their walk with Christ.

Having said that, it seems that I’ll have to give an alternative to boycotting. After all, didn’t I say we are to boycott boycotting? This contradicts itself if no alternative is provided.

Not to worry. I will offer some practical ways to support instead of boycott in an upcoming post.