Diversity and redundancy are generally important principles of a successful system; in order for the system to succeed, mechanisms must exist to compensate for failure or weakness. We see this in natural ecosystems (Kassahun, Yow & Renninger 2020), in electrical design (Csanyi, 2019), even in strategies of cybersecurity (Pierce, Fox et al, 2018). This principle has been identified as critical in the field of advocacy as well (Jeppesen, Kruzynski et al, 2014; Lyons, 2014; Minkoff, Aisenbrey & Agnone, 2008), and specifically with respect to environmental action (Gibson, 2000). Collectively, in order to successfully achieve significant social change, a spectrum of tactics are needed, as per the title of Aric McBay’s opus “Full Spectrum Resistance” (2019), and a 360० strategy which targets both individual behaviour all the way up to advocacy for structural revolution. Effective movements rely on diversity to accomplish different strategies, from building a strong base of support, to mobilizing that base to effectively resist power, to ultimately shifting the needle of what is considered acceptable to decision makers. Building a framework to organize diverse tactics Two frameworks have intrigued me as a way of categorizing these tactics. The metaphor of the avocado has been used to talk about advocacy at the micro, meso, and macro level (Buchman, Woollard, et al, 2016) (figure 1). This model can be helpful to select goals that target one’s immediate environment (for example, a clinical encounter or personal lifestyle choice), one’s broader but still local environment (for example, one’s clinical practice environment or community), or a system at large (for example, the health system as a whole). This is a framework that has been used to motivate healthcare providers to advocacy. Different approaches may be more appropriate to or effective at achieving particular goals at each of those levels. In a similar way that a clinician would use different interventions depending on where a client sits with respect to the stages of change, for example (Rains, Penzien & Lipchik, 2006), certain tactics may be more effective at engaging people at different points along the social barometer (Shields, & Somerville, 1994) (figure 2). Gene Sharp was one of the first to formally describe and categorize methods of nonviolent action (Sharp, 1973). Aric McBay designed a taxonomy that ranks them along a spectrum (figure 3). In keeping with the metaphor of “moral jiu jitsu,” (Solomonian, 2020 August 31) the best tactic for any particular target or goal is the one that is most likely to exert the appropriate pressure on the relevant target to prompt the desired change. Social or economic non-cooperation (such as a strike, boycott or mass divestment) can withhold necessary resources from a powerful entity. Although McBay describes these actions of omission as lower risk, the choice to participate in such actions is potentially risky or inconvenient for some, which can deter participation. Given that large numbers tend to be needed for success, this can be a barrier. Indirect action such as lobbying and awareness raising can help to bring attention to an issue and propel a target into the stage of contemplation; however, this strategy may be immobilizing if it invokes difficult emotions such as fear or guilt, not uncommon with respect to the climate catastrophe (Haltinner & Sarathchandra, 2018). Some argue that appealing to morality is ineffective, while others see a place for this tactic (Severson & Coleman, 2015; Heyd, 2003). Some argue that the best approach at all levels of the proverbial avocado is to build alternatives in order to model what is possible, to focus on transformation and evolution. This is the crux of the transition movement (Temper, Walter et al, 2018). The Black Panthers (Patel, 2011) and Gandhi’s movements (Bayly, 1986) both stepped outside of the prevailing and oppressive systems of power. Kibbutz in the Jewish tradition is a model of socialist ethos (Near, 1986). Cooperative organizational structures have also been framed as a means of resistance to dominant socioeconomic culture (Wiksell, 2017). However, the Nuffield intervention ladder - even an updated version that accounts for its intersection with autonomy (Griffiths & West, 2015) - suggests that the masses will do what the system makes easy (figure 4). We cannot rely on individuals to make the ethical or sustainable choice if the environment and systems are designed (deliberately or otherwise) to make this difficult (eg. it takes a lot of work to travel by public transit if you live in Scarborough and work in Etobicoke; it requires deliberate planning and organizing to purchase plastic-free household cleaners from a limited number of low-waste suppliers; moving to a commune is not a simple choice for most people). Until systems undergo radical change in which the sustainable and ethical choice is the easy one, it may be unreasonable to expect most people to move beyond contemplation, particularly if their time, energy and financial resources are occupied with the priorities of survival. In fact, some have argued that current systems are designed explicitly to reduce the motivation of the masses to rise up. In the absence of sufficient critical mass to successfully engage in the tactics that McBay places towards the left of his taxonomy, more aggressive direct action can have the effect of shifting the ideas of what is acceptable and necessary among the populace, which may ultimately support the boldness of decision-makers, a la Overton’s window (Solomonian, 2020, July 08). In their dissertation, Dillard (2002) explores in depth cases in which “the emergence of radical voices energized and expanded movements” by broadening the position of moderates This type of direct action is referred to as radical flanking, and usually takes the form of more marginal or riskier tactics. If our culture is fundamentally corrupt and unjust, then we require “radical” change (from the Latin radix, or root), to dismantle culture from its roots on up (Temper, Walter et al, 2018). A plant can’t thrive if its roots are rotten. I would argue that any action that holds this premise as its foundation is radical by nature. Even if the bulk of individuals acknowledge problematic structures of extractive capitalism and racism, they are unlikely to take meaningful action because they don’t have the capacity, because it is uncomfortable, because it is costly, because they benefit, because, because, because … King himself identified the “white moderate” as the greatest threat to the civil rights movement; the same threat likely holds for any radical social change: “I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress … We who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.” (King, 1963) GreenPeace is an excellent example of an organization that takes risky, dramatic, confrontational action to shift public perception of systemic problems with respect to the environment (Home, nd). Bill McKibben from 350.org has been framed as having had a more “radical” impact on the rhetoric. By articulating an unapologetic and radical position regarding the impact of fossil fuel extraction on the climate catastrophe, and calling for institutional financial divestment from this industry, McKibben arguably increased the “acceptability” of more moderate positions on climate action (Schifeling & Hoffman, 2019). Extinction Rebellion takes this stance, using tactics further to the right on McBay’s taxonomy to elevate the pressure on governments to take immediate action on the climate crisis (Join The Fight Against Climate and Ecological Collapse, n.d.; Gunningham, 2019). At its most extreme, militant flanking could threaten or enact violence; the Black Panthers flanked Martin Luther King Jr.’s nonviolent approach during the civil rights movement in the 1960s (Robnett, Glasser, & Trammell, 2015), and radical flanking was seen by the African National Congress as essential to the eradication of apartheid in South Africa (Braithwaite, 2014). Conversely, Marx and Engels, who explicitly advocated for violent revolution, acknowledged that social change could also be affected through peaceful means (Barrow, 2019). It has been argued that what is considered radical is context-specific and will depend on the culture and the regime in a particular environment (Snow & Cross, 2011). Radical actions or organizations (whether or not they are militant) may result in greater attempts at repression of a movement by systems of power due to their threat to the status quo and those that benefit from it. By framing such movements as “terrorism,” they can be delegitimized and squashed (Tompkins, 2015). However, this may in fact be part of the strategy: by sacrificing one’s freedom, a radical approach demonstrates how important a particular issue is, perhaps increasing the perceived legitimacy of more moderate tactics (Haines, 2013), potentially propelling the overall movement forward. King himself defended incarceration as a tactic by which the urgent need for social revolution could be emphasized (Berry, 2005; King, 1963). Categorizing my own actions Since making a deliberate choice to engage more in activism and advocacy, I have engaged in a variety of tactics to pursue a range of goals. As a point of interest and self-reflection I have itemized my various activities over the past two years, and attempted to graph each action according to a matrix of level of action (micro/meso/macro), and its place on the spectrum of action. Many actions fit in multiple levels and points on the spectrum, so the analysis was a bit creative, but the results are informative (table 1 and 2; figures 5. It is revealing that most of my actions are relatively low risk. This has been deliberate, given my professional and personal obligations. Although, as explored in another piece, the likelihood of me suffering severe consequences from taking more radical action is low, especially compared to other populations (Solomonian, 2020, March 19), at this point I am hesitant to risk arrest or personal safety. I consider much of how I live to be an act of defiance or social non-cooperation. Although acts of omission can be impactful when done en masse, when done individually they are more symbolic. Building a sufficiently large base to have measurable impact - as discussed above - can risk being a poor use of resources. I admit to struggling with cynicism trying to bring people with me along the diffusion of innovation curve, despite my appreciation of the structural barriers described earlier. It’s discouraging and disappointing when others don’t seem as ready and willing to make sacrifices, and I feel like I’m spinning my wheels. In XRTO we spent a lot of time trying to rally and mobilize people, and many of us felt like our efforts were futile; in the end enough people burnt out and pulled away that the local movement collapsed. I have felt similarly in NEST and with the Ecocouncil at CCNM - that “others” aren’t doing enough (I am simultaneously aware that others who are making greater sacrifices likely have the same perception of me). The dominance of my tactics that encompass support work (including by those who are willing to take greater personal risks), capacity building and creating alternatives is reassuring to see. To me this reflects a commitment to engage with people who are prepared to take action and are seeking either leadership or support. I included the tactic of “constructive conflict” on my spectrum; this is not on McBay’s original taxonomy. Arguably, constructive conflict is a feature of many of these strategies, but I positioned it just prior to direct confrontation. The spirit of constructive conflict was explored in another piece (Solomonian, 2020 October 15); the idea is to deliberately (and compassionately) create tension that makes the illogic or injustice of a particular system or ideology unavoidable. It shines the light on the flaws inherent in our dominant systems and challenges the dominant rhetoric. This is one of my favourite strategies; by being unapologetic about my “radical” views, and sitting in deliberate discomfort I seek to create the tension that I hope will propel the people with which I engage along the social barometer. I have many avenues in which I can do this, including in my personal relationships, through advocacy within the institutions of which I am a part, and through personal and organizational presence on social media. My intention is to demonstrate that there is another way to frame/view/live, and attempt to engage people in critical reflection of the stories they are being told and their complicitness in these systems. I try to do that with love. We as a culture tend to shy away from conflict; I attempt to engage in loving, compassionate curiosity that rhetorically challenges existing worldviews. It is interesting that although many of my chosen tactics aim to have an impact on the macro level (where the most radical change must occur), when I honed in on individual tactics, most are at the micro and meso levels. This reflects the limits of my personal influence, and the influence of my credentials. While I garner respect among my profession, and may have influence in my local community groups, my capacity to impact high level systems is very limited. The naturopathic profession does not have significant pull with decision-makers; we have a limited lobbying power. Pursuing this degree was a way for me to bolster my credibility outside the profession with respect to taking higher level action. Partnering with other organizations with greater credibility is another strategy, particularly on behalf of NEST. By collaborating with and supporting the work of groups like CAPE, HPAP and Drawdown, we may have a greater impact than the naturopathic profession on its own. Given my access to literally thousands of students over my career, teaching may be the most impactful way in which I can impact the collective social barometer. I routinely capitalize on this role to model “radical” ways of engaging in the world. Arguably, choosing to be a naturopathic doctor itself is an act of social non-cooperation; by continuing to encourage my students to embrace radical ways of thinking (naturopathic doctors pride ourselves on seeking the root cause of dis-ease) rather than seeking mainstream acceptance through conformity, I hope we can continue to be comfortable creating constructive tension. Conclusion It is impossible for one person or even one organization to encompass the full breadth of tactics necessary for effective social change. However, by recognizing the importance of diversity and solidarity among groups aiming to achieve the same goals, we may be able to harness individual strengths and opportunities for propelling truly radical change. By examining my own actions and reflecting on their successes, I am more able to focus my efforts toward tactics that are a more effective and efficient use of my personal resources. References
0 Comments
|
Archives
January 2024
Categories
All
|