10/01/2025
Performative Advocacy: Crackpots, Self-Promoters, and the Illusion of Reform
Christina Short
Weaponized Stepmom, An Exasperation
Advocacy in custody and legislative reform divides into two categories. There are those who leave a measurable record of change, and there are those who leave a trail of performances. The second group thrives on visibility. They sell hope in the form of livestreams, coaching packages, merchandise, and carefully curated personas. This is performative advocacy, and while it may look like reform, it functions as theater.
Performative advocacy is built on the economy of attention. Research on public identity shows that many individuals are drawn to activism not because of its outcomes but because of its capacity to deliver recognition and status (Gill & Orgad, 2018). The performance of advocacy becomes the reward. The more dramatic the story, the more public sympathy is gained, and the stronger the brand becomes. Reform is no longer the goal. Visibility is.
One of the clearest markers of performative advocacy is name-dropping. When measurable results are absent, proximity to power becomes the substitute currency. Social psychology has long identified this as “basking in reflected glory,” a strategy where individuals attach themselves to powerful others in order to inflate their own legitimacy (Cialdini et al., 1976). Instead of citing statutes, research, or documented progress, the performative advocate recites a list of judges, legislators, and celebrities they have supposedly encountered. The name itself becomes the proof. The illusion of influence replaces the fact of reform.
The cycle continues because the audience rewards the performance. Families in crisis are desperate for leadership. When they cannot access verifiable results, they settle for appearances. Emotional stories become easier to consume than legislative language. Symbolic gestures are easier to follow than statutes. As Illouz (2007) notes, modern advocacy often merges with emotional capitalism, where suffering is packaged, branded, and circulated as cultural currency. In custody reform spaces, that packaging becomes the primary output.
The consequence is predictable. While true reform requires documentation and measurable growth, performative advocacy produces none. There are no amended statutes, no validated research, and no sustainable systems to point to. Instead, there are conferences, coaching certifications, and loyalty tests. The measurable growth is absent because the real work of reform is not the priority. Sustained reform requires discipline, evidence, and the slow process of building coalitions. Performance requires only attention.
The distinction is straightforward. Real advocacy leaves a paper trail of reform. Performative advocacy leaves an archive of noise. If what someone produces is products, slogan, catch phrases, name-drops, and stories of being targeted, then what they are doing is not reform. It is performance masquerading as justice. Families who follow these figures may feel inspired in the moment, but without documentation and measurable outcomes, they are left with nothing but theater.
References
Cialdini, R. B., Borden, R. J., Thorne, A., Walker, M. R., Freeman, S., & Sloan, L. R. (1976). Basking in reflected glory: Three (football) field studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(3), 366–375.
Gill, R., & Orgad, S. (2018). The shifting terrain of s*x and power: From the ‘s*xualization of culture’ to . Sexualities, 21(8), 1313–1324.
Illouz, E. (2007). Cold intimacies: The making of emotional capitalism. Polity.
#ʜᴇᴀʟɪɴɢᴊᴏᴜʀɴᴇʏ
