Parsing movement tensions
A common phenomenon in social movement spaces is that strategic disagreements get interpreted or manifested as interpersonal disagreements, which is really unfortunate as it makes it very difficult to make progress on the strategy with this type of confusion. One of the most often fought battles is over whether a certain step – whether compromising on a piece of legislation, or endorsing a candidate, or agreeing to not criticize an elected – is consistent with a true and deep commitment to the issue, and thus whether the person proposing that step can be trusted. A recurring challenge here is that the definition of “winning” differs across different strategic lanes, so one person thinks they are getting an amazing outcome (based on the analysis for people in their lane, such as the inside game), whereas another person thinks that the outcome is horribly disappointing or harmful (based on on the analysis within the ‘alternatives’ lane, where people are creating and practicing more transformative models).
If you’re interested in this topic, I have two background readings for you and then a memo that, imho, has deep implications for social change strategy.
Philanthropists Must Invest in an Ecology of Change (SSIR)
Should We Fight the System or Be the Change (In These Times)
Social Ecology and Movement Tensions (memo)