I am deeply sad and not a little frightened today.
Part of how I deal with things that sadden/scare me is trying to understand them.
I'm looking for recs of things to read/watch on the following topics:
- dealing with conflict and intersectional needs in progressive spaces and pluralist societies
- political psychology of right wing groups/cultures, especially anything with a psychodynamic approach
- research into subjective experiences of 'economic anxiety' and political alienation
Started off today with the first chapter Let This Radicalize You by Mariame Kaba and Kelly Hayes, which I'd been meaning to read for a while.
My favorite quote so far:
"In a world where we are steadily being splintered apart, where so much of our social lives have been reduced to commercial interactions, and where fellowship and belonging are desperately lacking, we must relearn how to hold space and belief together in ways that anchor us to each other and to our collective moral commitments."
I've continued to read this over the past couple of days but haven't posted any quotes whoops. Here's some more that resonated with me.
Chapter 2 is entitled "Refusing to Abandon" and talks about the carceral system as "organized abandonment". To heal and grow people need supportive communities but prisons mostly view mutual aid groups, mental health support groups, etc "the same way that they would view a gang.”
I also like this quote about movement building. It's very reminiscent of how I try to help people contribute to open source. It's about embracing the whole person and and helping them make an authentic connection.
"Rather than recruiting people to fulfill the roles that we envision for them, Dixon stresses the importance of learning what people are passionate about and 'finding an intersection' between someone’s interests and the work at hand."
(full quote in image)
In another chapter, Kaba and Hayes write about the continually evolving impact of technology on organizing.They write,
"Activists who experience success using online tools sometimes undervalue or neglect the kind of on-the-ground work organizers practiced before social media"
This echoes Red State Revolt by Eric Blanc, which looked at a trio of wildcat teachers strikes in red states in 2018. Groups that relied on Facebook organizing without also building in person connections fizzled out
Kaba and Hayes also remind us, "Work that can only occur within corporate confines can be eliminated according to corporate whims."
Of course those of us on the Fediverse know that not all tech is subject to corporate whims. But still - even the best tech cannot and should not replace the work of building relationships with each other
Whoops I finished this a while ago, but never posted the rest of my highlights.
"We are not managers or CEOs. We can only win by building something entirely different that offers people something that the oppressor cannot."
"Effective organizing [...] does not begin with having the most compelling argument or the most dazzling direct action, but with developing the capacity to bring people into relationship with one another, such that they might begin to overcome alienation and fear."
Chapter 3 is focused on care. Kaba and Hayes talked about how the natural human instinct to care and the ability of local groups to self-organize care are dismissed by a culture that either lionizes self-interest or assigns the job of caring to the state.
They talk about a 2021 report by the National Intelligence Council (part of the US govt security apparatus) outline 5 possible scenarios in 2040. In one of the scenarios, "Tragedy and Mobilization" they imagine a world where activists win.
Actually going to pull this quote out on its own:
"While we certainly do not view the projections of an intelligence report as a blueprint for liberation, we do find it notable that even intelligence agencies determined to maintain US global dominance at any price— agencies that have historically crushed the democratic hopes of entire nations in order to maintain the current world order—can imagine a world where activists and organizers win."
Kaba and Hayes discuss the difference between organizers and political hobbyists:
"Hobbyists often have very strict political standards around respectability or radicalism, to which few activists ever seem to rise. [...] A person who has attempted nothing can easily point to the fact that they have never failed, but what have they built? What have they healed? As Barbara Ransby says of some vocal political hobbyists, “You’re not making any mistakes because you’re not doing anything.”
Kaba and Hayes note that this pattern of purity and rejection is often the result of trauma.
"Navigating a crisis—or even a misstep by an organizer or activist—is much more difficult with unchecked trauma responses ricocheting around a room. Many of the social patterns and behaviors that lead us to reject one another and revert to individualism are the products of trauma, so to do the work of being human together, we must make space to address these emotional and physiological realities."
Another side note:
One of the cornerstones of attachment-based therapy is helping clients learn how to 'rupture and repair'. If you've been through early trauma, you likely learned that harm is unrepairable, so you find other ways to cope.
I think the most successful, effective, positive organizations and communities are those which have figured out how to do rupture and repair at the group level. Maybe that's what a healthy democracy is.
Anyway, the above quote makes me think of that.
Later, Kaba and Hayes talk about the importance of not idealizing movement leaders. They make many arguments against it.
First, it's an attack vector for people who want to destroy the movement:
"The powerful encourage us to put individual activists on pedestals. Charismatic leaders who are viewed as essential can be co-opted, discredited, or destroyed, thereby harming or even undoing movements. Thus, a movement structure that relies too heavily on hyped-up individuals is highly vulnerable."
Finally, idealizing prominent organizers make it harder for everyday people to imagine themselves getting involved.
"Putting organizers on pedestals also creates psychological distance between everyday people and movement work. Exceptionalizing organizers does not help everyday people imagine themselves within the struggle. It makes organizing seem like something orchestrated by heroic individuals rather than interdependent communities composed of people like themselves."
Oh sorry not finally, one additional reason not to pedestal organizers:
"The right’s investment in individualism means that they may assume they can topple entire social movements by harming single individuals, and those kinds of illusions put organizers at risk."
Hayes and Kaba talk about the importance of connecting and building solidarity with people you have deep disagreements with and who you may dislike. In order to manage this, psychologically, it's important to *also* have space of respite and comfort - 'safe spaces'. But movement work itself is not safe in this way.
"Movements are struggles, not sanctuaries" they write.
@shauna thank you for this thread
I literally have this book next to me—I need to read it!
Shauna GM
Sue is Writing Solarpunk 🌞🌱
Ralf Stubner
Demian