Distractions or direct actions? Conceptualising vandalism as a form of political expression.

Successful protest movements often depend on their ability to sway public opinion. Those who can promote their preferred discourse and make it acceptable to mainstream audiences gain an advantage in achieving their aims (Kilgo & Harlow, 2019). One lens this process may be viewed via is the so-called “incivility crisis” of Western politics, with the public demonstrating a dissatisfaction with politics that do not conform to the arbitrary standard of propriety. However, Foucauldian discourse theory suggests that dominant ideas are created and maintained by those in power, allowing them not only power over discourse but also power over definition of boundaries and terms of what is to be considered civil. This invalidates anyone whose politics aren’t performed to the state’s standards. What this means for day-to-day interactions between the public and movements is that how we perceive protestors is fundamentally shaped by the power structures surrounding us, with those who conform to the goals of the state more likely to be perceived as “good” (e.g. peaceful/righteous/worthwhile), and those that oppose the state perceived as “bad” (e.g. violent/undemocratic/pointless) (Chenoweth & Pressman, 2020; Hsiao & Radnitz, 2021). This means that certain voices may be automatically more marginalised than others, leaving these groups with few, if any, avenues for acceptable political participation, regardless of the validity of their aims (Maisel, 2012, p.407). Examples of this can be found in the suffragette, civil, and gay rights movements, all of which were once viewed as uncivil but are lauded now (Braunstein, 2018, p.622; Sugrue, 2018). If certain voices cannot participate on the state’s terms of civility, alternative forms of participation must be used. This paper, then, asks to what extent political vandalism is an acceptable substitute under these constraints. Ultimately, I conclude that political vandalism aligns with the theory of the passionate economist protestor, and that it can be a purposeful act that works towards creating better democracy, using the case study of the “Colston Four” to demonstrate the logic behind property destruction to restore equity (van Zomeren, Leach & Spears, 2012, p.193). The example of the toppling of the Colston statue provides a case study via which to explore this theory, as it centres on an extremely contentious form of political expression: vandalism and property damage. This paper follows the contention surrounding the statue and the ways in which its destruction was received, and looks at how theory surrounding vandalism, civility, and discourse creation can be seen in both the viewpoints of the vandals and their critics. From this, I present a threefold justification for political vandalism, discussing the notion of property destruction as a means to restoring equity, a calculated strategy to cause disruption and create a seat at the table, and an emotional response to events. This draws upon discourse theory, the idea of the parrhesiast as an essential political voice, and Sparks’ idea of the “dissident citizen” to present a new understanding of what constitutes “good citizenship” and effective participation in the face of perceived failings of democracy (Sparks, 1997).