Earlier this month I finished the related research report (done as part of a Masters project). The report summarizes what I heard from people during my research and provides some thoughts on what organizations might do to better engage people in their advocacy work. It is written in fairly plain language, includes all the postings in this blog, and a list of resources (some on this site, some not).

If you would like a copy of the report, I can send you a PDF (about 500 kb in size). Just send me a request by email (only electronic versions are available). Send to jaellis (at) uvic.ca.

Thanks to those who took their time to participate in the interviews, leave comments on the blog and participate in the workshop! And thanks to all who are committed to working for change in our community!

Jennifer Ellis

Basically, the premise of this article in Orion magazine is that the world (not “our” world as the author notes) is looking down the barrel of a gun. He asks what a person would do, how they might act, if a person was rampaging their house, killing their loved ones.

“Would the question burning a hole in your heart be: how should I live my life right now? I can’t speak for you, but the question I’d be asking is this: how do I disarm or dispatch these psychopaths? How do I stop them using any means necessary?”

It is not enough he says to “be the change you want to see in the world” as the world won’t last that long. Being enlightened isn’t an option if there is no world to be enlightened in. Buying green won’t make a difference if there is no world to go shopping in. He argues that the question we need to ask isn’t about asking ourselves how we should live our life, but to ask the land that supports us“What can and must I do to become your ally, to help protect you from this culture?” Of course, you then need to be willing to listen and act on the answer if things are going to change.

To read the full article, see the “World at Gunpoint” in the latest issue of Orion Magazine.

However, in this decade it looks as if social change activists (and the Obama campaign) have clued into people’s need for inspiration and hope. While social change movements still have their messages about what we have to lose, I’m seeing more and more about what we have to gain. Movement organizers and spokespeople have recognized that people know about the doom and gloom but they need to feel inspired before they will do anything about it. They need to be able to imagine another world is possible and that we can get there.

Artists are well positioned to provide such inspiration by tapping into the realm of the imagination (whether on their own or through a collective process) to explore new visions for the future. While artists can show the world as it is, in its glory and its darkness, they are also able to help others stretch the boundaries of what could be. Story, poetry, paintings, film, theatre, music and other creative expressions can all feed our craving to be inspired towards a new future.

For me, science fiction novels about egalitarian societies helped me question current “norms” and imagine new ones. Hearing the South African anthem still triggers a sense of hope for change. Raging grannies and rebel clowns remind me to include space for humour and joy in whatever future I am shooting for. Photos or paintings of landscapes feed both present and future desires.

I came across a page of quotes on “art and activism” and have selected a couple that do a better job than I can hope to at highlighting the role of artists in helping us “see the world anew”:

“In our modern world the artist is tempted simply to do stunts in order to attract attention. But the true task of the artist is to discover her or his relationship to a community, a community often in desperate need of the artist’s power to see the world anew.” Page Smith, from the forward to Art in Other Places: Artists at Work in America’s Community & Social Institutions.

“The challenges of the next century must be met by citizens with enormous energy and a well developed capacity for imaginative discipline. Our communities need creative pioneers, adept at risk taking, challenging assumptions and questioning conventional wisdom. This is the domain of the artist: listening, translating, borrowing and synthesizing. The creator takes the old and new and links them.

He or she celebrates the common threads and the dissonance, reflects our triumphs, our pain, our folly, creating fresh images and giving new vision. This is the creative process. This is the territory of the artist.” William Cleveland

Questions: Is feeding the imagination an important component of getting people to act? Should advocacy campaigns include more art and, if so, how?

Yet “activists” like these demonstrators are often portrayed as being against things – against big business, against government decisions, against development, against war. They seem to be all about fighting and opposing and struggling. They are depicted as inciting conflict, as being unbending and uncooperative. They are never happy or satisfied.

It is true that sometimes anger and frustration can push people to the point of yelling and shaking their fists. (Who isn’t angry about the pensions being paid out with public money?). But they are usually angry and frustrated with the way things are, with the status quo, with things that go against their values and beliefs.

If you step around behind the stereotype and take a second look, you’ll see that activists are really all about change, about wanting a better future, about believing things don’t have to be this way. “They” want equal rights. “They” want a healthy environment. “They” want stronger communities. “They” want peace.

As one quote I cited in an earlier entry reads: “Even if those who cling to traditional politics don’t like it, activism represents nothing so much as an informed, passionate and engaged citizenry.” Maybe its time to reclaim the word?

Informed + passionate + engaged = Activist.

Questions to consider: How do you feel about the term “activist”? Are people who sign petitions, write letters or show up to the occasionally demonstration “activists”? Can the negative connotations of the word be overcome?

In public forums on their resulting book, “Common Fire: leading lives of commitment in a complex world,” parents often asked what they could do to make their children socially aware and responsible. The authors’ reply was that there was no “Gandhi pill”.

In other words, there is no one thing, no one event, that will ensure a person lives a life of commitment to the common good. It is a blend of influences that matter.

While there is no clear recipe to follow, according to one of the study’s authors, Laurent Parks Daloz, there are some key ingredients that help foster individuals who care enough about others around them and feel compelled to act. He notes that there are four types of social engagement that help people learn greater social responsibility.

The first is the presence of the “other”.  This means having the opportunity to have shared experiences with people from different classes, races, cultures or some other type of difference that can help open your eyes to how the same world can be experienced very differently. I recall reading about a white teacher who had seen media stories about the racial profiling behaviours of police, but it was only when his black colleague shared his own stories of getting unfairly pulled over that the white teacher really “got it.”

The second type of engagement involves the ability to talk about your experiences and perspectives, to reflect with others on why things are the way they are and how that affects people.  It is a chance to test and challenge assumptions, and to learn to articulate new views of the world.

Having a supportive community of people around you, a “mentoring community”, is the third type of engagement. Such a community gives people a place where they can learn and be supported as they stumble along a new path.  Parks Daloz writes about how Nelson Mandela acknowledged the critical contributions of his mentors as he was starting out on a political path against apartheid.

The final type of engagement that Parks Daloz mentions is the opportunity for committed action. Like other writings on transformative learning, this is the step that allows people to integrate their new perspectives and experience of the world through action. It provides a chance to reaffirm that they are a person committed to act on issues important to them, to their community.

So there is no Gandhi pill. And advocacy organizations are not going to be able to implement these four conditions consistently and concurrently. However, it might be worth reflecting if, as part of a longer term strategy to grow an active constituency of supportive and active people, any of these forms of engagement are being effectively offered to people.

Questions to consider: Do you think experiencing these four “conditions” do contribute to a greater life of commitment to the common good? What would you add or delete? Should advocacy organizations be doing more of, or any of, this work?

Parks Daloz, L. Keen, C. Keen, J., Daloz Parks, S. (1996). Common Fire: leading lives of commitment in a complex world. Boston: Beacon Press.

Parks Daloz, L. (2000). Transformative Learning for the Common Good. In Mezirow, J., Kegan, R., Belenky, M., Stanton, A., Parks Daloz, L., & Brookfield, S. (Eds.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. (pp 130-123). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Although social movements have played a key role in bringing about significant social change, somehow activists often believe their movement is getting nowhere. In the process, they sometimes create a culture of failure and even develop an aversion to success.

This is the argument of Bill Moyer who developed a social movement analysis tool called the Movement Action Plan (MAP). A summary of his model describes how activists manage to find lots of evidence for their failures while being blind to the successes they achieve. MAP outlines and evaluates the different stages in a social movement, helping activists to recognize where they are in the process and how they should define and evaluate success at each phase of the journey.

One of Moyer’s main points is that activists too often target the power holders, the people with the decision-making powers (in governments, in corporations), instead of the ordinary citizens. Yet a social movement becomes successful when the cause is adopted not by the fringe, but by the mainstream. Only then are the “powerholders” apt to listen and respond. He argues that the “grand strategy” of a social movement should be to promote participatory democracy as powerholders are sensitive to public opinion and will change only when their power is threatened.

However, many activists define success as the point when they have changed the minds and practices of the powerholders. As Moyer reasons, changes at the top only come in the latter stages of a social movement. The earlier stages involve getting the issue on the public agenda and in the public’s minds and hearts. If these are not identified as an important steps along the way, then activists working on the cause will be frustrated, seeing only their continued failure, and may give up. And if they give up before they have created a groundswell, they will fulfill their prophecy that nothing will change!

It seems to me that the issue of climate change provides a good illustration of Moyer’s thesis. After all, we have a governments in place that are undermining international agreements on climate change and doing all they can to avoid implementing any meaningful changes. Does this mean those working on this issue have failed?

Given the amazing changes in public awareness and concern about climate change, the level of personal engagement in conservation measures and, I believe, the increasing pressure on government to step up to the plate and really do something, I would say not! The level of public understanding and action on climate change related initiatives has grown exponentially in the last decade. Governments are now trying to dodge the issue, but the activists have huge networks of allies and supporters that are making escape less and less likely! According to the MAP model, this movement is in the latter stages and has achieved critical successes along the way.

In my interviews with people, many have said it is important to understand how their efforts are contributing to the cause, and if success is being achieved. Moyer’s model highlights what successes activists should look for depending on what stage they are at. It is then important that they also learn to communicate these successes to their growing constituency of supporters if they are going to manage to move to the next stage.

Questions to consider: Do you agree that activists tend to focus on failure, or at least fail to see what they have achieved? Should targeting the general population, not the powerholders, be the “grand strategy” of a movement?

Moyer, B. (1990). The Practical Strategist: Movement Action Plan (MAP) Strategic Theories for Evaluating, Planning and Conducting Social Movements. San Francisco: Social Movement Empowerment Project.

Moyer, B. (2001). Doing Democracy: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers.

While this may be stating the obvious, it echoes research I have read in the past about on volunteer recruitment. In national surveys, many people also said they didn’t volunteer because no one asked them to! So if it is so obvious, why isn’t it happening more?

Of course organizers working on an issue need to ask people to write letters, attend meetings or rallies, sign petitions and so on. And they do, time and time again. However, I think it is often  ”the same damned bunch” that gets asked.

In some of my interviews with local organizers, people have noted that their more successful campaigns have involved building partnerships with different groups in order to expand the reach and legitimacy of the campaign. Partnerships increase the number of people speaking out and show multiple perspectives are concerned about the same issue. It not just “that same damned bunch”.

Over the next few days, I will be setting up in a café or two to ask people why they do or don’t get involved in advocacy. I am hoping to learn more about whether Yukoners feel they are being asked enough, and if they’re being asked in a way that works for them.

But if you have comments on how important just being asked is to your involvement in advocacy, or how you might be effectively asked to speak out, I would love to hear them! When was the last time someone asked you to speak out on an issue? Did it work? How could they reach you more effectively?

Give people too little and they might not know enough to feel confident about speaking out, to counter the counter arguments, or even to know what needs to be done.

Give people too much and they might feel too overwhelmed at the scope of the issue, too confused by the complexities of the topic, or too intimidated by the level of change that is needed.

Make the message too strong, and it could make them feel like they’re a nail being slowly pounded into a board by one heavy-handed hammer blow after another. Or they might feel like you are Chicken Little crying that the sky is falling, that you’re just another over-the-top activist claiming their issue is the biggest and most important of all.

Make the message too weak, and people could put it at the bottom of their “to do” list, somewhere between walk the dog and buy fluorescent light bulbs. The lack of urgency makes the cause forgettable unless it is happening between them and the hardware store.

So what does work?

There is no one easy answer as much will depend on:

1. Your issue (how complex it is, how much people already know).
2. Your audience (what a college student, a retiree or a parent of toddlers might want to know could be different).
3. The length of time you need support (that could be days or months or even years).

Present the issue clearly

Most social change efforts are about complex issues. But they need to be simplified so the “ask” is clear. What is it you want people to do and to say? Spell it out.

Also, present your information in tiers – provide the simple version upfront and then provide access to increasingly detailed levels of information for those who want to get a better handle on it. Calls for action that I get from Avaaz.org, an online organizing site that tackles a variety of global issues, provide a good example of this.

Know your audience

Often, outreach campaigns try to use one approach for all. But different causes have different groups of people interested for different reasons. Parents might be motivated to fight climate change for the future of their children. Youth might be more interested in the idea of fighting corporate control and consumption of our resources.

The Yukon, though small, is made up of distinct audiences. Learn more about your constituents and speak to what they think is important.  Why would they care enough to speak out for change on your cause? Map it out.

Build understanding for the long-term

Many social change movements involve a long-term effort to secure change. However, it often seems that we react to issues and dive into one small campaign at a time. We issue calls for action independent of each other. Who has time to plan when the next crisis is already on the desk?

However, if you know that you will be needing to call repeatedly on people on a particular issue, start laying the groundwork early, so people are more primed to act when you needed. It will save time in the long-run. Hold public education events on the topic. Seed the media with stories that highlight the concern. Write stories in your newsletter or on your website. Get partner groups to do the same.

Also focus on building your constituency for the long-term. This also means gathering names and contact information, thanking and reporting back to people who do act, and reaching out to new people.  Always think about building what you have instead of starting from scratch each time.

Weak knowledge of the issue is one reason people don’t act when called on. So when you know you will be needing to draw on people to support your efforts, craft your message and your approach carefully. Avoid flooding people with details or overwhelming them with the gravity of situation. Instead, focus on being clear about what you want them to do and strengthening their understanding for the long-term. Also be sure to thank them for their efforts and report back on your successes (more to come on celebrating success in a future entry)!

****************************************************************************************************************************************************

Engaging the Unengaged

A free workshop for social change organizers

What motivates some people to speak up for change while others stay on the couch? How can you get more people to speak out on an issue or cause you are working on?

Tuesday, April 21^st, 2009

7:00 to 9:00 pm

Whitehorse Public Library

Please pre-register to guarantee a seat!  Email me at: jaellis@uvic.ca

*****************************************************************************************************************************************************

A small group of clowns is makings its way to the G8 Alternatives march [in the UK]. They pass over a bridge above the motorway. Half a dozen policemen line up, they face the line of clowns and stare at each other. Two clowns start to count down: “Three, two one – go!”. The police and clowns rush towards each other, the clowns’ hands are outstretched and, faces grimacing, the clowns scream “Kazamm!”. There is a floating moment of confusion…and they run into each others’ open arms. Clowns hug policemen, policemen hug clowns. Everyone is a bit surprised, there is a roar of celebratory cheers from the clowns and slightly sheepish and embarrassed applause from the police….” (Fremeaux & Ramsden, p. 21)

Doesn’t that make you wish you were there, to at least witness it, perhaps even to don your own red nose and join the fun?

This action was part of ‘rebel clowning’, a form of activism that “aims to inject values often seen as distinct from the political realm: joy, pleasure, desire, diversity and horizontal power structues.” (Ibid., p. 24). It is a serious endeavour which includes two-day “clownbattant” camps that train participants to reclaim their joy, find release in physical movement and focus their energies.

I think humour and joy are a great way to break down barriers and open ears and hearts-of current and future activists and of the powers that be. I met some of the founding members of the Raging Grannies when they came to one of my Masters courses in Victoria to share their stories of taking political action through song. Dressed in colourful hats and feather boas, the message of these “older” women was serious and their “rage” was real; but their approach was fun. Across North America, and the seas, older women have seized on the idea of combining humour and political action and started their own “gaggles” of Raging Grannies (for a short hit of the Grannies, and one of their anti-war ditties, view their 20^th anniversary song on You Tube).

Using humour and joy can disarm even the sternest of opponents and attract media attention. It can also break down barriers and encourage a “supporter” to cross the line between silent support and vocal action. Too often, activists and their organizations have a reputation of being all about doom and gloom, of being too serious and too cynical, of being all work and no fun. But slap on a red nose or wrap up in a feather boa and things are bound to change.

Fremeaux, I. and Ramsden, H (2007) We disobey to love: rebel clowning for social justice. In  D. Clover and J. Stalker (Eds.), The Arts and Social Justice: Re-crafting Adult Education and Community Cultural Leadership (pp. 21-38). Leicester: NIACE.