In our social change class last week at Houston last week we were talking about activism as a driver of social change. We’re reading The History for Tomorrow which provides a great lens on how we might learn from some of the experiences and patterns of change throughout history as we face the challenges ahead.

Roman Krznaric gives a historical account of the abolition of slavery (less about the goodness of white folk and much more about the avoidance of slave uprising) which dispels the idea that such big important social change came simply from good human governing. In fact, it was a necessary tool for stabilising what was becoming an increasingly volatile anti-slavery movement.

Does a dive into macrohistory suggest that the powerful only make these kinds of changes when the status quo is no longer an option? when avoidance of possible negative futures (whatever the issue) becomes more critical for their own livelihood than allowing the status quo which serves them well, to remain?

And so if we understand from history, that activism and radical resistance are critical in making alternate futures possible (even if only in the imaginations of the powerful) . . then surely activism and resistance are a critical part of social change.

The Radical Flank Effect

Krznaric talks about The Radical Flank Effect . . and the role this plays in defining the scope or extreme boundary of what futures might be possible; thus providing a kind of ‘phase space’ wherein those in power will have to shift in order to keep the peace,

Groups like Extinction Rebellion whose initial objective seemed to be focused around getting so many people arrested that the system would become overwhelmed. This kind of mass civil disobedience and disruption mirrors somewhat the Oliver Tambo approach in the early South African apartheid movement . . Tambo and Nelson Mandela who co-founded the congress’s youth league in 1944, reinvigorated a flagging antiapartheid organization into a militant liberation movement, preaching civil disobedience and mass protest. Tambo urged black South Africans to make their townships “ungovernable.

It strikes me that groups like Extinction Rebellion seem to follow an arc . . a movement begins, it gains traction and support . . but eventually runs out of steam. Which makes me wonder . . is the temporary nature of this kind of civil disobedience a help or a hindrance when faced with a longterm cause like climate? Do they act as a radical flank for climate issues? and how does their potential for impact compare to those groups like Greenpeace who have campaigned over many years, combining both activist activity with attempts to influence policy? I also wonder — what it tells us about a country when we consider how we treat our activists.

If we disallow activism that acts as a kind of radical flank, knowing what we know about the important role of radical flanks, does the right to protest mean anything at all?

It also raises the question — what are the acceptable bounds for protest? And who gets to decide? Feeling strongly about a cause in no way justifies extreme action that might be harmful; but what about civil unrest? What about disrupting traffic or blockading businesses?

And if we deem any kind of civil disruption out of bounds when it comes to activism, then how do activists create impact? And does their protest always offer a pathway to social change or policy? On critical issues like climate; we surely need protest and activism.

The Rise of Value Signalling

Some might point to the online campaigns and twitter hashtags as a more peaceful form of protest. Many added the #blacklivesmatter hashtag or changed their twitter profile to Ukraine’s flag but how impactful is this kind of value signalling?

Although participants often have the best of intentions, this kind of low effort value signalling seems more performative than it is protest. Retweeting a post or using a hashtag feels rather superficial in the scheme of things and worse, it gives the impression of being ‘active’ without the person actually having to do anything at all. This kind of performance activism seems more focused on building social capital rather than any genuine movement towards the cause itself.

Not all digital activism is performance activism; in fact, distributed digital organising has played a crucial role within the political sphere. The mechanics are less important than the intent and subsequent behaviour. What’s more, it potentially reduces the ‘cause’ to a passing trend, where users can show their support with the click of the mouse without having to examine their own prejudices or actually do anything substantial to support the cause.

True privilege is the ability to be insulated from the consequences of our actions

I saw this post this morning and it reminded me of these questions I’d been noodling on. The changing role of activism and the role ordinary people can play in demanding change . . .

Original Tweet here

The changing role of radical protest

Some argue there is no need for such radical protest and whilst it’s true in the Western world that we have some legal frameworks in place, what happens when the very institutions supposed to represent us, are only partially representative - I’m thinking Trump’s stacking of the courts here ….I’m also thinking of the army of white men passing law on the reproductive rights of women . . further clouded by the lack of separation between church and state when it comes to political funding and influence.

“Remember that all models are wrong; the practical question is how wrong do they have to be to not be useful.”
George E. P. Box *

Perhaps it's more useful to think simply of radical flank as a mechanism for change, a technology that occurs within a context of legal and moral boundaries. An attempt to find the boundaries of the social system within which the issue or cause can be located, and to allow a certain chaordic operational protest within that phase space. After all, the radical flank is a kind of formation . . there is nothing inherently violent within the concept itself, other than the fact that it represents an extreme or outlier often outside the map of our normative boundaries.

• How can we embrace the opposing tensions within radical resistance and activism mechanisms both as a source of balance and a driver of transformative change (a tension in and of itself)?

• How can power be harnessed for transformation without entrenching or annihilating the very things we seek to change?

Perhaps the most potent practice is to ask:

• who is doing the work?

• what context are they operating within?

• who is getting the benefits and who gets to decide?

  
  

*Empirical model-building and response surfaces, George E. P. Box, Norman R. Draper · 1987, p.424