What do you think?
Rate this book
The Activist: A Daoist Protest Manual
Not yet published
Expected 3 Mar 26The reason why protests have caused maximum pain for minimum gain is that they have done everything right. Well-developed consensus practices from activists have been put into practice in highly coordinated fashion keep messaging simple, restrict communications to a few media-trained representatives, maximize social media spread, try to provoke reactions, do not compromise, and do not legitimize the opposition by speaking to them. As a result, most observers not already sympathetic to the cause have come away with a picture of students as obstinate, naïve, and inclined to violence.
Daoist philosophy holds a set of principles that are completely opposite to the normal modes of social activism. It opposes conflict, striving, standard-setting, clever techniques, and any kind of trust in language. Instead, it promotes grounding oneself in the reality of the world, looking to flow in natural directions, disengagement from conflict, and patience. This may all sound very mystical and not of much use to protests; but viewed in another light, it results in some common-sense conclusions. Would you be more easily persuaded by someone who sat down with you for a conversation, or by someone who yelled angry accusations at you from across a barricade?
The Activist tries to bring out the “common-sense” aspect of Daoist ideals to advocate for a new kind of social activism. It critiques common modes of social and political activism and proposes new modes of activism that might be more effective in promoting positive change in the world.
Daoist philosophy holds a set of principles that are completely opposite to the normal modes of social activism. It opposes conflict, striving, standard-setting, clever techniques, and any kind of trust in language. Instead, it promotes grounding oneself in the reality of the world, looking to flow in natural directions, disengagement from conflict, and patience. This may all sound very mystical and not of much use to protests; but viewed in another light, it results in some common-sense conclusions. Would you be more easily persuaded by someone who sat down with you for a conversation, or by someone who yelled angry accusations at you from across a barricade?
The Activist tries to bring out the “common-sense” aspect of Daoist ideals to advocate for a new kind of social activism. It critiques common modes of social and political activism and proposes new modes of activism that might be more effective in promoting positive change in the world.
210 pages, Paperback
Expected publication March 3, 2026
2 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
November 17, 2025
Taoist philosophy has been applied to many a subject over the centuries, from war to business to governance to relationships, but this is the first time I've seen it applied to activism in a substantive way. The book caught my eye because I've long recognized the central truth behind Fried's work, which is that the tactics and mindsets of protesters often does them no favors and may even ensure failure (if one presumes the objective to be to change behavior and attitudes on a given topic into line with the protesters' stance.) The problem is that protesters are often angry and combative, characteristics which may keep the choir (preaching to itself) warm and feeling self-righteous, but which seldom brings in new converts from among the undecided [let alone from the opposing side.] And if you didn't need converts to your side, you wouldn't have to protest in the first place. Given this tendency, Taoism could be argued to be an ideal source of strategy. Taoism proposes going with the grain, not leading with a fight, and avoiding useless activity.
This book provides interesting food-for-thought about how protesters might have more impact by adopting fewer belligerent and self-serving tactics. Unfortunately, the book also has stretches of stream-of-consciousness writing that -- while perhaps consistent with the Taoist love of spontaneity -- can be a bit of a strain on the reader's ability to follow. This mostly takes place in the latter chapters.
I found this book to be intriguing. I can't say that I came away from it having answered the question of whether Taoist philosophy is reconcilable with activism on a practical level. Taoism asks one to let the natural unfold, while protest movements want to guide a society in a particular direction (notably one by definition at odds which that which has fallen into place organically.) It's not for lack of discussion that I haven't reached a conclusion, but rather that questions remain for me on the pragmatic level (rather than the level of theory.) That said, I found the book well worth reading, despite a few points of low readability.
This book provides interesting food-for-thought about how protesters might have more impact by adopting fewer belligerent and self-serving tactics. Unfortunately, the book also has stretches of stream-of-consciousness writing that -- while perhaps consistent with the Taoist love of spontaneity -- can be a bit of a strain on the reader's ability to follow. This mostly takes place in the latter chapters.
I found this book to be intriguing. I can't say that I came away from it having answered the question of whether Taoist philosophy is reconcilable with activism on a practical level. Taoism asks one to let the natural unfold, while protest movements want to guide a society in a particular direction (notably one by definition at odds which that which has fallen into place organically.) It's not for lack of discussion that I haven't reached a conclusion, but rather that questions remain for me on the pragmatic level (rather than the level of theory.) That said, I found the book well worth reading, despite a few points of low readability.
Review of advance copy received from Netgalley
Thank you to NetGalley and the publisher for this ARC!
DNF at 25%.
What I find interesting is the author's haughty attitude towards, for example, modern-day protest culture. I'd be very intrigued to learn about his "changing the world" credentials, and his justification for such an attitude. Regardless of the contents of his book, this attitude was very obnoxious and almost made me put the book down on page 5 (and eventually made me put the book down entirely on page 40) because I just really do not appreciate it. And, while as a European I also like to joke about stupid Americans, as an American I'm not sure he should basically be saying "Americans are too stupid to deal with repressive regimes and should look at how the Chinese do it".
He also "completely [rewrote] and {reconceived] the Daodejing", which, power to you and your self-confidence, but you admit yourself that you are entirely unfaithful to the original, so I'm not sure where you take the confidence to do this and say it so openly. While he appears to be a scholar of Daoism, and I am thus willing to trust his interpretations of the Dao de jing, his social activism credentials are significantly less clear, as he appears to mainly be a literature scholar, according to his profile page on the University of Alberta's website. He acknowledges himself his lack of social science credentials (kudos to him), but it's still something to keep in mind.
As any good scholar, however, the author is aware of this, mentions it, and, especially when it comes to his motivation to write about Daoism as a white man, he goes into detail to explain his background.
Now that we got that out of the way, I will talk about the actual contents of the book.
The author is not a fan of hope. Nor is he a fan of despair, but he considers hope useless and ineffective. I have to say that I really do not agree with that. Hope, paired with realism, is what drives people to incite change. Sometimes, the greatest achievements are due to the kind of utopian hope that the author would consider wholly useless.
This view is also mirrorred in his Dao's and Daon'ts, where he says, as the very first point, to "be content to do nothing when nothing will work". "Avoid conflict", too, is... funnily enough the kind of utopian view that the author seems to want to criticise. If conflict avoidance had been a priority, we'd most likely still have slavery, and Nazi Germany would have continued happily slaughtering Jews and other minorities. I don't think this is how the world works.
Some of his points also just contradict each other. "Avoid conflict", but "go to those in power", BUT "prioritize direct action over politics" and "don't pressure from the outside"? Something doesn't quite add up here, Mr. Fried.
Oh, also, relying on the media to be effective is bad now. Which, I can see the point, if your action only works if it happens to arouse media interest, that's suboptimal, but the media is a very powerful tool that can and should be used to achieve social change, right? ... Right? Like, we both remember the power of "Napalm girl", right?
There appears also to be the assumption that the reader, like the author, is in a privileged position. Prioritising the needs of others over those of yourself only works in this clear, distinct way, when the needs of others are not those of yourself. A disabled person fighting for disability liberation cannot draw this distinction the way an abled person can. A woman cannot draw this distinction as clearly as a man is able to in the fight for women's liberation.
He continues to analyse (in the widest sense, as he is not a social scientist) the Tiananmen Protests, and takes on a pretty victim-blaming tone. While his assertions might be correct that if the students had left the square earlier, martial law might not have been proclared, I think saying that it was their choices that basically DROVE Deng into a massacre is... certainly something. Especially if you're not actually a social scientist. This is not your field of expertise, and a little more humbleness would be appropriate.
He also seems to believe that protests and public awareness are just... useless, when the case of Apartheid South Africa shows that public awareness (and the actions following from it, such as boycots) are in fact potentially VERY effective tools in bringing about social change from abroad.
He also seems to think any calls for divestment of Israel are solely to feel better about oneself, and have nothing to do with improving the lives of Gazans. Sure, if you take things out of context, I'm sure it might seem that way. But these same people fundraise, for example, with VERY direct effects on the lives of Gazans.
Anyway, I cannot deal with this haughty attitude from a PHILOSOPHY scholar with NO background in the social sciences who now feels it necessary to discuss why protests and much other social activism is stupid and we should all instead do nothing.
It's such a shame because I was really excited about this book and a fresh perspective.
DNF at 25%.
What I find interesting is the author's haughty attitude towards, for example, modern-day protest culture. I'd be very intrigued to learn about his "changing the world" credentials, and his justification for such an attitude. Regardless of the contents of his book, this attitude was very obnoxious and almost made me put the book down on page 5 (and eventually made me put the book down entirely on page 40) because I just really do not appreciate it. And, while as a European I also like to joke about stupid Americans, as an American I'm not sure he should basically be saying "Americans are too stupid to deal with repressive regimes and should look at how the Chinese do it".
He also "completely [rewrote] and {reconceived] the Daodejing", which, power to you and your self-confidence, but you admit yourself that you are entirely unfaithful to the original, so I'm not sure where you take the confidence to do this and say it so openly. While he appears to be a scholar of Daoism, and I am thus willing to trust his interpretations of the Dao de jing, his social activism credentials are significantly less clear, as he appears to mainly be a literature scholar, according to his profile page on the University of Alberta's website. He acknowledges himself his lack of social science credentials (kudos to him), but it's still something to keep in mind.
As any good scholar, however, the author is aware of this, mentions it, and, especially when it comes to his motivation to write about Daoism as a white man, he goes into detail to explain his background.
Now that we got that out of the way, I will talk about the actual contents of the book.
The author is not a fan of hope. Nor is he a fan of despair, but he considers hope useless and ineffective. I have to say that I really do not agree with that. Hope, paired with realism, is what drives people to incite change. Sometimes, the greatest achievements are due to the kind of utopian hope that the author would consider wholly useless.
This view is also mirrorred in his Dao's and Daon'ts, where he says, as the very first point, to "be content to do nothing when nothing will work". "Avoid conflict", too, is... funnily enough the kind of utopian view that the author seems to want to criticise. If conflict avoidance had been a priority, we'd most likely still have slavery, and Nazi Germany would have continued happily slaughtering Jews and other minorities. I don't think this is how the world works.
Some of his points also just contradict each other. "Avoid conflict", but "go to those in power", BUT "prioritize direct action over politics" and "don't pressure from the outside"? Something doesn't quite add up here, Mr. Fried.
Oh, also, relying on the media to be effective is bad now. Which, I can see the point, if your action only works if it happens to arouse media interest, that's suboptimal, but the media is a very powerful tool that can and should be used to achieve social change, right? ... Right? Like, we both remember the power of "Napalm girl", right?
There appears also to be the assumption that the reader, like the author, is in a privileged position. Prioritising the needs of others over those of yourself only works in this clear, distinct way, when the needs of others are not those of yourself. A disabled person fighting for disability liberation cannot draw this distinction the way an abled person can. A woman cannot draw this distinction as clearly as a man is able to in the fight for women's liberation.
He continues to analyse (in the widest sense, as he is not a social scientist) the Tiananmen Protests, and takes on a pretty victim-blaming tone. While his assertions might be correct that if the students had left the square earlier, martial law might not have been proclared, I think saying that it was their choices that basically DROVE Deng into a massacre is... certainly something. Especially if you're not actually a social scientist. This is not your field of expertise, and a little more humbleness would be appropriate.
He also seems to believe that protests and public awareness are just... useless, when the case of Apartheid South Africa shows that public awareness (and the actions following from it, such as boycots) are in fact potentially VERY effective tools in bringing about social change from abroad.
He also seems to think any calls for divestment of Israel are solely to feel better about oneself, and have nothing to do with improving the lives of Gazans. Sure, if you take things out of context, I'm sure it might seem that way. But these same people fundraise, for example, with VERY direct effects on the lives of Gazans.
Anyway, I cannot deal with this haughty attitude from a PHILOSOPHY scholar with NO background in the social sciences who now feels it necessary to discuss why protests and much other social activism is stupid and we should all instead do nothing.
It's such a shame because I was really excited about this book and a fresh perspective.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews