Ego-foddering: Why is it awful, who benefits, what is to be done? #oldfartclimateadvice #climate

I believe that one of the biggest problems “we” face as individuals-in-groups-trying-to-unfuck-the- world, is the seductive call of ego-foddering. This piece explains what I mean by ego-foddering, the two main types that I have spotted (there may well be others!). It then moves on to who benefits from it, who does NOT and what consequences ego-foddering has. Finally, it turns to the ever-important “what is to be done?” question. This is published “in beta” – that is, it’s provisional, subject to modification (hopefully improvement!) I’d really appreciate any reasoned critique of it. Many thanks in advance

What is ego-foddering?
Back in 2011,when I came up with the term, I described ego-fodder as

“the audience at any public event (big or small) which has not been structured by the organisers to provoke the highest possible amount of participation, engagement and mingling.“

So, ego-foddering is the process – deliberate or merely “passive” – of destroying the potential of attendees/participants and turning them into an audience, into ego-fodder for you/your organisation/another speaker who you’ve got along to get more people to come along and make you feel validated.

Here’s a possibly controversial bit. Traditionally the sages on the stage have been old white men. In my opinion it doesn’t actually help so very much if those on the stage at the front are black, radical women. If it’s ego-foddering, it’s ego-foddering, not movement-building. In the same way that neoliberalism can find willing meat-puppets of any gender or race, without changing its basic operating system, so it is with ego-foddering.

The label ego-fodder(ing) comes from “cannon-fodder”, with its understanding of rows of soldiers being fed into the mouths of guns. But there is a “modern” variant. Let’s call them for termin(ator)ological ease, the T-800 type and the T-1000 type.

The T-800 of ego-foddering is big, lumbering but deadly and comes with a Germanic accent, of people in rows, with those at the front to focus of attention/adulation.
It’s pretty easy to see T-800 ego-foddering, they’re not so good at disguise. And in fact, we’ve all been in plenty (too many) of these meetings. In fact, most people’s experience of schooling is this. Sit in rows. Stay silent. Absorb what the teacher is telling you. Squeeze out the sponge on the appointed (exam) day. Get the result. Repeat. A society built on the Peter Principle, filtering, filtering, always filtering sheep and goats. But I digress…

The second variant of ego-foddering, the T-1000 is far harder to spot, far hardier. It’s slinky, shape-shifting, really really deadly, super-good at disguising itself.
No longer are you stuck in rows, but you’re in a circle, or sat around in small circles, at tables. There may even be flipcharts and coloured-pens.
But ultimately , you’ll be focused on what they want you to be focussed on, answering questions they think are important, that help THEM do what they want. You’ll not be actually invited to find out anything useful about the other people around your table (for more on this see here and here).

Who benefits from it?
The powers-that-be, basically. They achieve/sustain and maintain their hierarchy, their sense of (self) importance and knowledge.
Speakers get a captive audience, and people likely to buy their books. Organisers get to see dozens/hundreds of people present, and bask in (reflected) glory.
Though that’s only part of the story. There are, depressingly, other beneficiaries. To quote myself-

It finally occurred to me today the level of collusion in this. Yes, the people at the front want their egos stoked and stroked. Yes that is endless and destructive. But the ‘audience’ wants – for the most part – to be infantilised, to be “taken care of.” We want parents to blame, we want parents who will take care of us. We surrender our autonomy, our ability to make connections, to forge (in every sense) our own paths. We allow ourselves to be seated, bored and patronised. In exchange, we get to offset responsibility for our own education, our own movement-building.
The parents (not “adults”) at the front of the room want children who will obey, and be dutiful and respectful. But it’s not as if the audience is all rushing for the door marked “adult.” Through that door are the horrible fearful rooms marked responsibility, uncertainty, self-mastery.
Better to suck the thumb, suck the dummy. Watch the powerpoint. Listen to the plenary.“There there, it was just a bad dream. Sleep. We are here to protect you.”

 

Who does NOT benefit from it?
Anyone/thing with any investment in a habitable (not-just-for-humans) planet, obvs. All those – present humans and other species, future humans and other species who are being sacrificed on the altar of the great god Economy, of Growth. Who thought that social movements (especially in countries where we have formal freedoms around information, speech and assembly) were going to get their fucking gamefaces on and do something about the eco-cide. Them, they’re getting screwed by ego-fodder. But they don’t vote/turn up to meetings or fill out direct debits, so, you know, screw them.

 

What are the consequences?
The consequences of ego-foddering is that the few people who do occasionally turn up to meetings feel alienated and don’t come again. They think they don’t have the stamina/intelligence to be an “activist.” They also tell any of their acquaintances who ask that organisation X is not interested in their skills, knowledge, perspectives and is just more of the same grand-standing middle-class complicit boring condescending wankery.

 

Why/how does it persist?
So if it is so terrible, why does it persist? Because it meets the emotional needs (for attention or for denial of personal responsibility) of speakers, organisers and attendees. Those who might “change the system” never stick around long enough, or don’t have a name for what they are being subjected to.

 

What is to be done? “You” could do about it.
I’m not going to waste everyone’s time by saying much about what event organisers could do. They tend, in my experience, to be very small c-conservative, and quickly realise that a change of format could mean they could not offer up captive audiences to visiting Celebrities. This would upset the business model, and mean fewer bums on seats and less ego-fodder for them too.
Here’s a checklist from ages ago
checklist-for-organisations

Nor shall I waste much time on speakers, who are not going to refuse it. It would be too much of a (monkey)-wrench to forego the pleasures of basking in the adulation (or at very least attention) of a captive audience.

Both types could, in theory, forego the dubious and parasitical pleasures of ego-foddering, but they have not done so to date, and to “hope” they will is just silly. We need courage, not hope.

So, it’s up to us – we’re the ones we’ve been waiting for.

Here’s a few things we could do.

  • We could refuse to participate. We could let organisers of meetings know that we’re not going to meet their ego needs unless they meet the broader movement’s needs. We could send them a letter/email beforehand, along these lines.

algorithm-for-event-attendance-page1

  • If we decide to trust their blandishments and go, then we could always separate under the law of two feet (I personally do this, to the disgust of people who think that it’s rude to walk out of meetings. Me, I think it’s ruder to stage meetings that people want to walk out of. Again and again and again).
  • We can NAME what we see. We can explain to other people (in blogs, conversations, on social media that what is happening is ego-foddering, and that it is not okay, because it has terrible consequences).

See also (and omfg have I written a lot about this topic)

“We’ve got to stop meeting like this”

Advertisements

Beginnings of an “undercovers” fiction list

So, recently I reviewed two books “about” infiltration/undercovers, and asked for suggestions. I got loads of really helpful pointers. Here is the first very rough list of additions (there were some others, mentioned in the blog post.  I’ve kept track of the various people I have to thank for these tips too, but decided not to include that info here.

I need to integrate it/alphabeticise/annotate etc.  Oh, and actually read some more of them and produce the paper for the conference and the activists… should keep me off the streets…

 

Books “about” undercovers

Book Author(s) Description Suggested by (for thanks)
Q Luther Blissett Q is a novel by Luther Blissett first published in Italian in 1999. The novel is set in Europe during the 16th century, and deals with Protestant reformation movements. Jonathan Atkinson
Orkney Twilight Clare Carson https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/alix-long/clare-carsons-orkney-twilight_b_7233992.html? @UndercoverNet

 

Stealing The Future @MaxHertzberg Alt Future East Germany @UndercoverNet
The Man Who Was Thursday: A Nightmare G. K. Chesterton @UndercoverNet
Naming the Dead Ian Rankin G8 Gleneagles shenanigans
The Terrorists Sjöwall and Wahlöö
Javelin Roger Pearce @BristolKRS
Sweet Tooth Ian McEwan Sweet Tooth is a novel by the English writer Ian McEwan, published on 21 August 2012. It deals with the experiences of its protagonist, Serena Frome, during the early 1970s. After graduating from Cambridge she is recruited by MI5, and becomes involved in a covert program to combat communism by infiltrating the intellectual world. When she becomes romantically involved with her mark, complications ensue. @UndercoverNet
A Legacy of Spies John le Carré https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Legacy_of_Spies @UndercoverNet
Guest SJ Bradley, @BradleyBooks An authentic look at anarcho-greens, anti-globalisation, the squatter movement and punk bands by someone who was clearly there @MaxHertzberg
Cold Island @MaxHertzberg It’s over twenty-five years since Mara arrived in Britain, yet today she no longer feels safe in the country she thought she knew.

Threatened with deportation, Mara goes underground. She meets others who have made their home in the UK but are now leading lives in the half-shadows of society.

Together they embark on a journey across the moors of northern England, hoping to reach relative safety in Scotland—but the officers of Immigration Enforcement are never far behind.

@MaxHertzberg
Demo Richard Allen OH GOD AVOID THIS BOOK.
The Secret Agent Joseph Conrad Excellent, gripping, thought-provoking
Under Western Eyes Joseph Conrad Sadly, no
Vida Marge Piercy READ THIS BOOK
My Revolutions Hari Kunzru

 

Really good 70s/90s stuff. Very well written, thought provoking
The Invisible Circus Jenny Egan Also good on the consequences of violence, but not actually so much about undercovers as memory, activism etc
Invisible Armies Jon Evans Highly competent thriller, with a corporate spying on activists thread throughout.
The Weatherman Guy Jon Burmeister Dunno yet, but looks lurid af.

 

 

Films (documentaries and live action)

Documentary- “In the inner circle”

 

The documentary “Im inneren Kreis” (English: “In the inner circle“) by Hannes Obens and Claudia Morar, which will be distributed from now on UCM.ONE (NONFY Documentaries), describes the already almost unbelievable twists of the undercover employments of Iris P. in Hamburg and Simon B. in Heidelberg. Both assignments combine fundamental ethical and political topics and questions in themselves Sarah Arens
Film – Police, Adjective  2009 Romanian drama film directed by Corneliu Porumboiu. The movie focuses on policeman Cristi, who is investigating a teenage boy who has been smoking hashish. Over time, Cristi begins to question the ethical ramifications of his task. Sarah Arens
Film – Ummah – among friends
 
After killing two skinheads in a failed operation against neo-Nazis, young undercover intelligence agent Daniel finds a hiding place and new friends in Berlin’s Turkish Arab community. In a realistic and witty way, the German director of Turkish origin shows the rapprochement of two worlds which seem violently opposed. Sarah Arens

TV Shows

TV Shows- Between the Lines season 3 interesting stuff about the intersection of private sector & state actors as both attempt to undermine civil society (animal rights, anti-Pinochet, anti-fascism) through infiltrators, agents & touts.
TV Show
Ghost Squad
“Whilst superficially the focus is on CIB2/CIB3-style police-investigating-police storylines (similar to start of BTL), ‘The Ghost Squad’ (2005) is largely interested on the cumulative effect of UC work on an officer’s sense of self “

 

Ghost Squad is an unofficial top secret Internal Affairs unit that recruits former police officers who’ve proved their honesty during their service and sends them undercover to investigate and root out corruption within the police.

TV Show Spooks Season 1 ‘Spooks’ S1 has the ‘Traitor’s Gate’ episode, with veteran MI5 field officer Peter Salter infiltrating dastardly anarchist/anti-capitalist terrorists, but falling in love, etc etc
TV Show Undercover – BBC drama https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b076vdbc/episodes/guide

 

 

Plays

Any Means Necessary Kefi Chadwick

 

 

Of plastic documentaries, heroism and Spanish Researchers

The Spanish Researchers UK network is kinda cool.  They were created to promote communication within the community of Spanish Researchers working in the United Kingdom by creating a social network that facilitates the sharing of professional and life experiences. The association has encouraged this communication via the establishment of Constituencies throughout the UK.”

Last year some Northwest SRUK folks got in touch with me because they were putting together a day’s seminar on climate change and sustainability, here in Manchester. I got together with colleagues from the Sustainable Consumption Institute (hello Sherilyn McGregor and Joe Blakey) and, along with other folks (from Tyndall Manchester) we helped them put on a good day.(Their blog–  and fwiw my reflections.)

They got in touch again (usually a good sign) and asked if I’d come along as an “expert” (cough, cough) to a film showing and discussion. I said yes. The event was last Wednesday, 30th January. This is a blog about that.

After welcoming everyone and pointing to the popcorn and pop, they showed the film. It’s a recent documentary called A Plastic Ocean, and it was very very much of its type. That is to say, it started with some photogenic/sympathetic (if you’re white and middle-class) people doing something Nice.  And then realising that there was Trouble. And so then setting out to find the Source of the Trouble. And while not necessarily DOING that (erm, capitalism, much?), finding that things are A Lot Worse Than They Thought. But nobody wants a downer. There’s enough of that, so the second half of these documentaries – and this one is no exception – have to talk about shiny New Technologies. If ONLY these could be deployed, maybe there would be some Hope.

standard doco narrative

This, of course, follows the hero’s path (thanks to David Ruiz for this insight – he put the theoretical meat on mere empirical bones).

So we started with some ocean-photographers and divers realising there is trouble (plastic) in paradise (oceans off Sri Lanka) and then expanding to the human and ecosystem impacts, without ever doing more than hinting at the vast lobbying power of the plastics industry, or the Anthropocene or… well, anything that would orientate people and empower them.
And – as I said in my comments afterwards (I was asked along for my ‘expertise’, after all), these documentaries never almost never talk in any historically informed way about the power of social movements to force the state to regulate private corporations, and create some of these new industries we pin our hopes on (e.g. the USA and recycling).

Anyway, the Q and A went pretty well. The chairs went straight into a big circle, so everyone could see each other and the “sage on the stage” thing was mostly undermined,  but for one painful instance when some idiot older white guy interrupted a younger woman before she’d finished what she was saying. Sigh.  Could it have been done better? Well, perhaps if people worked in pairs on observations and questions before feeding into the group, but that doesn’t always work. Anyhows apparently the feedback was good, and I hope the organisers are happy – they did a fine job.

Next up for SRUK in Manchester is a showing of a film about how women were passed over by NASA as pilots, back in the day.  It’s on Wednesday 6th February, from 6.15 at the Cervantes Institute on Deansgate. It’s free (but you’re welcome to make a donation for the popcorn and fizz!)

 

Fwiw- On plastics – here are some articles that I will be blogging about (I need to read anyway for an upcoming TAing thing)

  • Clapp, J. 2012 The Rising Tide against Plastic Waste: Unpacking Industry Attempts to Influence the Debate. In Histories of the Dustheap: Waste, Material Cultures, Social Justice, Publisher: MIT Press, Editors: Stephanie Foote and Elizabeth Mazzolini, pp.199-226
  • Meikle, J. 1997 Material Doubts: The Consequences of Plastic. Environmental History Vol. 2, No. 3 (Jul., 1997), pp. 278-300
  • Fisher, T.2004.  What we touch, Touches Us: Material Affects, and Affordances. Design Issues Volume 20 | Issue 4 |p.20-31
  • Walker, A. 1994.  Plastic The Building Block of the Twentieth Century. Construction History.Vol. 10, pp. 67-88

Two novels on undercovers and infiltration – #Spycops #Spycopsfiction

Books reviewed:

  • Under Western Eyes by Joseph Conrad (1911)
  • Demo by Richard Allen (New England Library, 1970)

 

So, I am guiding my reading a bit, because I am Writing A Paper.  These two are both

  • about Russian secret intelligence operations overseas.
  • about the infiltration and attempted disruption of dissident social movements.
  • pretty tough to read (for different reasons).

There ends the similarity.

Under Western Eyes (UWE) is a late novel from Joseph “Heart of Darkness” Conrad, and apparently almost broke him in the writing (and me in the reading – not to War and Peace levels, but in the same ballpark).  It’s about a young student, Razumov, in Moscow who gets caught up – against his will – in an assassination plot and its aftermath.  The majority of UWE takes place in Geneva, where he is attempting to infiltrate/spy on some expat Russians.  My god it goes on. This is Conrad, so obvs there is an Unreliable Narrator, an elderly Brit trying to keep his lechery under control. It is, apparently, a Novel of Ideas.  Yes, well, Conrad sure does stint on the car chases and explosions…

People say things like this-

“I’ll tell you what you think,” he said explosively, but not raising his voice. “You think that you are dealing with a secret accomplice of that unhappy man. No, I do not know that he was unhappy. He did not tell me. He was a wretch from my point of view, because to keep alive a false idea is a greater crime than to kill a man. I suppose you will not deny that? I hated him! Visionaries work everlasting evil on earth. Their Utopias inspire in the mass of mediocre minds a disgust of reality and a contempt for the secular logic of human development.”

(Conrad, 1911: 95)

This is Conrad, of course, so there are plenty of acid observations to be going along with

“No!” Razumov interrupted without heat. “Indeed, I don’t want to cast aspersions, but it’s just as well to have no illusions.”

Peter Ivanovitch gave him an inscrutable glance of his dark spectacles, accompanied by a faint smile.

“The man who says that he has no illusions has at least that one,” he said, in a very friendly tone. “But I see how it is, Kirylo Sidorovitch. You aim at stoicism.”

(Conrad, 1911: 207)

and, if you like it really really over-wrought

Then, looking hard at me with her brilliant black eyes—

“There are evil moments in every life. A false suggestion enters one’s brain, and then fear is born—fear of oneself, fear for oneself. Or else a false courage—who knows? Well, call it what you like; but tell me, how many of them would deliver themselves up deliberately to perdition (as he himself says in that book) rather than go on living, secretly debased in their own eyes? How many?… And please mark this—he was safe when he did it. It was just when he believed himself safe and more—infinitely more—when the possibility of being loved by that admirable girl first dawned upon him, that he discovered that his bitterest railings, the worst wickedness, the devil work of his hate and pride, could never cover up the ignominy of the existence before him. There’s character in such a discovery.”

(Conrad, 1911: 379)

But tbh, I would not have finished it but for the Paper (see below) (And yes, this is almost certainly a reflection on my shallowness rather than the book’s worth!)

richard-allen-demo-bk

Meanwhile, Demo is a 1970 offering from the New England Library (men of certain age will know that this means violence, sex, sexual violence and Social Darwinism that would have Herbert Spencer saying “steady on old chap”). This book is the kind of trash that gives enjoyable trash a bad name.  The racism, sexism, classism, unabashed madness of it all makes it a very hard read.  Plot? Well, if you can call it that – some old farts from a thinly veiled Special Operations Executive get it in their heads that all the demos around the world are being orchestrated by Moscow.

Here’s a flavour of the writing (warning, there are pages and pages of this-

The colonel felt pride wash over him as Mai Bedford lifted her glass high. It was a distinctive appelation (sic) – like Flying Tigers and Desert Rats. But for sheer guts and courage none of those others could begin to match a Hartsman or Hartswoman as they had fondly been called in those final days of Europe’s torment. These were the backbone Britain and the Free World had needed when dark clouds clouded the horizon> They had been a strange mixture of bravery, nervelessness, patriotic neurotic so vital in that ancient game called espionage.

(Allen, 1970: 19)

And they are right – there is a baby-faced KGB agent inciting and pulling the strings, while getting laid a lot (who knew that Bolsheviks could be so, well, horizontal).

So these codgers get their mostly willing kids to do counter-espionage. Most of this seems to be done by shagging hippies (always with huge tits, obvs) who have relevant info-

““They’re avid protesters. Anything goes for that Cy, Tim. He’s part Panther, part anti-pollutionist, part anti-Vietnam. You name it, he’s in there pitching against established order. He hates pigs, too,” and she laughed uproariously.
(Allen, 1970: 45)

There’s a grotesque faux-apologia for My Lai and by the end……. ah, look, I can’t go on.  It’s repetitive, lurid, gratuitous, with plot holes you could stage a march of millions through.  …  I would not have finished it but for the Paper (see below).  This is not a book that should be tossed aside lightly. It should be…  blow-torched.

Weirdly it makes zero reference to the Angry Brigade shit that was going down at the same time. It should be read against the slightly- later “Leftwing Terrorism in Britain literature” that has been so well-explored by Joseph Dartington.

 

 

I am writing an article for an upcoming conference, organised by the State Violence Research network with the title “Spies Like Us: Of the usefulness to activists of fictional representations of the agent provocateur and the spy.”

IF YOU KNOW OF ANY BOOKS, FILMS, PLAYS, TV shows that have a representation of the penetration of a social movement organisation (ideally an environmental one), ideally by a member of the police (but corporate spy will do), ESPECIALLY if it set in the recent past (i.e. since, oh, 2000), then please let me know!

 

At the moment the A-list includes

Vida by Marge Piercy (an all-time favourite, which I look forward to reading with my all-time favourite wife in a few weeks)

My Revolutions by Hari Kunzru

The Invisible Circus by Jenny Egan

Invisible Armies by Jon Evans

The Secret Agent by Joseph Conrad

The meh list

Under Western Eyes by Joseph Conrad

 

The Under NO circumstances attempt to read list

Demo by Richard Allen

 

(I will do a separate review for some non-fiction that I read – Under Cover, Deep Cover etc)

 

 

The I don’t know yet list

The Weatherman Guy by Jon Burmeister

Three scrabble-tastic words I didn’t know – buckram, carmine, vaticinate

So, just did a review of Joseph Conrad’s Under Western Eyes (and another, truly atrocious book) – next up on this site.  UWE had me reaching for the dictionary on three occasions- buckram, carmine (I kind of knew) and vaticinated-

 

“He felt his lips go stiff like buckram, and instead of a reassuring smile only achieved an uncertain grimace.

(Conrad, 1911: 62)

Buckram is a stiff cloth, made of cotton, and still occasionally linen or horse hair, which is used to cover and protect books. Buckram can also be used to stiffen clothes. Modern buckrams have been stiffened by soaking in a substance, usually now pyroxylin, to fill the gaps between the fibres

 

She disregarded it. Her carmine lips vaticinated with an extraordinary rapidity. The liberating spirit would use arms before which rivers would part like Jordan, and ramparts fall down like the walls of Jericho. The deliverance from bondage would be effected by plagues and by signs, by wonders and by war. The women….

Carmine (/ˈkɑːrmɪn/ or /ˈkɑːrmaɪn/), also called cochineal, cochineal extract, crimson lake or carmine lake, natural red 4, C.I. 75470, or E120, is a pigment of a bright-red color obtained from the aluminium salt of carminic acid; it is also a general term for a particularly deep-red color.

Vaticinate – foretell the future.

Books I definitely did not buy today

Down to Withington to

  1. get anti-worming stuff from the vet for the stripey monster (and tell captive audience a terrible joke)
  2. get someone to succeed in shutting my “talking shoe” up
  3. buy new (second-hand) jeans.

As Mr. Loaf sings, two outa three ain’t bad.  And I absotively posilutely did not buy four books for the grand total of one quid.  And these books were in no way the following

  • Christopher Isherwood The Memorial
  • Christopher Isherwood Down There on a Visit
  • Andrew Sean Greer Less
  • Charles Shield And So it goes. Kurt Vonnegut: A Life.

Meanwhile, had a fab greasy spoon veggie breakfast and going through all the job applications (Sheffield, Canberra, East Anglia, Stockholm) that I have to apply for in the next few weeks. And Manchester too, for that matter…

 

Three questions about social movements

A friend of mine just shared this blog post by Duncan Green which begins

Tomorrow night I am doing an ‘ask me anything’ session on skype with some students from Guelph University in Canada, who have been reading How Change Happens. They have sent an advance list of questions, which are really sharp. I’d appreciate your views on 3 in particular:

  1. Are there important differences to note between processes of long-term change and temporary victories of social movements? How can we tell which one we are witnessing?

  2. How can we tell if something is a short scandal or a true critical juncture?

  3. How would you say we could determine if a movement is successful?

 

These are good questions, and Green lists more of them further down in the blog, which I will try to answer (as much for my own sake as anyone else’s) in a post soon. But given the tight deadline, this-

Are there important differences to note between processes of long-term change and temporary victories of social movements? How can we tell which one we are witnessing?

There are huge differences between long-term change and temporary victories.  Temporary victories tend to be laws (new ones, that attempt to “institute” new behaviours/make existing behaviours legitimate) or to stop some particular form of idiocy (a dam, a road, a pipeline).  Long-change is both organisational (new arms of the state/new corporate behaviours, maybe some new big NGOs with middle-class people and their salaries and glossy-fucking-document-itis) and institutional in the broader sense of cognitive and normative and affective pillars (Scott, 1995).  Much harder to measure, point to (see Diani etc on measuring social movement organisation outcomes.)

For me, the key difference is between mobilisation (“easy”, exciting, visible) and movement-building (boring, unrewarded, invisible, not much adrenaline). The two are conflated regularly, wrongly.  You can mobilise for temporary victory. You want to win long, you need to movement-build.

We mostly witness mobilisation. For me, I can look at a public meeting, or a group’s “business meetings” and can see in the ego-foddering and the emotacycles they indulge in, as part of the smugosphere, that it’s going nowhere fast.  I have taken to calling these outfits social mobilisation organisations rather than social movement organisations.

 

How can we tell if something is a short scandal or a true critical juncture?

Scandals only become junctures if someone (social movements) make them so. There is nothing intrinsic, usually.  There are scandals unfolding all the time – 40k humans dying of starvation daily, species being exterminated, our own future-selves slaughtered on the altar of neoliberalism, capitalism and authoritarianism.  It’s an old and banal observation, but true nonetheless – (social) problems need to be turned into issues by moral entrepreneurs.  (Yes, it’s possible to take that too far and go full social-constuctionist. Don’t do that.)

 

How would you say we could determine if a movement is successful?

You have to define success.  Mine is that more people have been provided with the skills, knowledge and connections to develop their potential as individuals-in-groups.  Other definitions include how many people went to a march.  Yeah. Great.  To quote myself from a recent secret document –

We need to think of those who attend meetings and actions NOT as empty vessels to be filled with information or hope from the Big People at the front of the room/organisers, as blank slates to be written on, but [brace yourself]

as PEOPLE, with hopes, fears, confusion, abilities, but also people who are busy, de-motivatable and decruitable.

Radical, eh?

Here is what we remember every time we think about staging a public meeting, or hosting a business meeting/action. If you don’t find out what they can do, what they want to (be able) to do, and connect them with OTHER PEOPLE IN THE GROUP BESIDES JUST YOU, then they are almost certainly not going to stick around. And when they go, they take with them not only their skills, but some hope (because everyone can see the group is shrinking) and the future connections of people they might have brought into the group).

 

But “success” is so often followed by the creation of some new NGO or the expansion of an existing one and then DEMOBILISATION of people.  Then the powerful can undermine and water-down whatever concession they were forced to make.  And it doesn’t, in my experience, matter if that government is left, centre or right, or a corporate.

 

Up to now I have been the slightly-lefty “responsible” wanna-be academic.  Now this.

FOR FUCK’S SAKE EVERYONE IT IS ALL THERE IN ANIMAL FARM BY GEORGE ORWELL, OVER SEVENTY GODDAM YEARS AGO.  GROW SOME EYES, GROW SOME SPINE.  INNOVATE, DAMMIT.

 

What do people think of the answers? Useful, useless, worse than useless? What did I miss? What would you add (subtract)?

 

Words, ideas, videos