This is a great essay. Completely agree that all movements operate on a spectrum. I also think of it is a living ecosystem, in which we need visionaries who are really pushing the boundaries of how we think about an issue, as well as more clinical actors like politicians who can pass laws with majority votes, and everyone in between.
Where movements get messy is individuals or organizations not being sure what they are. Radical young organizers start work at a nonprofit and realize they don't actually want to do strategic work. Orgs call themselves radical but then behave strategically. And of course people can shift (I've personally moved from one end of the spectrum to the other), which is fine, as long as they're self-aware about it. Philanthropy often seems like it wants "strategic but with pre-figurative vibes", which doesn't really work for either.
As an aside, I was on the legal working group at Occupy, and we recognized the encampment as prefigurative and were mainly using the legal system, to the extent we could, to protect that. It was most often outsiders projecting their strategic desires on Occupy. ("Imagine if you were like the Tea Party for the left!")
"Political identity paradox" is an insightful explanation of the failure of well-intentioned movements.
I'm watching the birth of another such movement, originating in disillusionment with both political parties, exacerbated by 10/7, and animated by new voices urging people to ignore the November elections and use collective power to demand more responsive leaders and a new economic order.
The utopia they promise has no structure, tactics, or strategy. The leaders seem to believe that a new reality will spontaneously arise from the ashes of our current highly flawed political system.
It doesn't work that way...it never has.
The country faces a crossroads...those pretending or wishing for a third option are deluding themselves.
This is a great essay. Completely agree that all movements operate on a spectrum. I also think of it is a living ecosystem, in which we need visionaries who are really pushing the boundaries of how we think about an issue, as well as more clinical actors like politicians who can pass laws with majority votes, and everyone in between.
Where movements get messy is individuals or organizations not being sure what they are. Radical young organizers start work at a nonprofit and realize they don't actually want to do strategic work. Orgs call themselves radical but then behave strategically. And of course people can shift (I've personally moved from one end of the spectrum to the other), which is fine, as long as they're self-aware about it. Philanthropy often seems like it wants "strategic but with pre-figurative vibes", which doesn't really work for either.
As an aside, I was on the legal working group at Occupy, and we recognized the encampment as prefigurative and were mainly using the legal system, to the extent we could, to protect that. It was most often outsiders projecting their strategic desires on Occupy. ("Imagine if you were like the Tea Party for the left!")
"Political identity paradox" is an insightful explanation of the failure of well-intentioned movements.
I'm watching the birth of another such movement, originating in disillusionment with both political parties, exacerbated by 10/7, and animated by new voices urging people to ignore the November elections and use collective power to demand more responsive leaders and a new economic order.
The utopia they promise has no structure, tactics, or strategy. The leaders seem to believe that a new reality will spontaneously arise from the ashes of our current highly flawed political system.
It doesn't work that way...it never has.
The country faces a crossroads...those pretending or wishing for a third option are deluding themselves.