The scenario discussed in class was an interesting one, mostly because many people in the class were "hypothetically invested." Many of my classmates, including myself, felt that they needed to, and would help in said scenario. I beg to differ. While I think everyone who said they would help really would like to help the girl, there are two reasons they wouldn't. The first reason, and the one we discussed in class, is the bystander effect. In my opinion, it affects people in different ways. For some, there is a fear of putting oneself out there, so they rationalize not acting by reasoning that someone more outgoing is surely going to do something. For others, it may be that they are busy and on their way to something important, so they rationalize that someone with more time will surely act. The second reason I think people would act is because they are not invested. I have never had any experience with domestic abuse, so I am not as invested in this particular scenario. For someone who has been abused or is a reformed abuser, they may have a deeper investment in the situation and become an advocate for the girl.
Advocacy and activism, for the most part, aren't as grandiose as it seems. Ultimately, they are about doing something to change something that affects you in some way. Almost any advocate or activist was personally affected by whatever they are acting for now. For instance, Malala and her father were obviously affected by the education system and women's rights issues before they decided to change the system. This is important for people to understand. In order to be a good advocate, you have to be invested. Why be an activist for gay rights or homeless people when you really couldn't care less? If people advocate for things that are important to them, not only will they be more effective, but they will also change something that helps themselves and those they care about.
