What does lasting social change look like? How do we build a coalition of people who believe in the power of organizing, believe that every human life is precious, and want to make real, tangible change?
“Our youth are impatient with the preliminaries that are essential to purposeful action. Effective organization is thwarted by the desire for instant and dramatic change, or as I have phrased it elsewhere the demand for revelation rather than revolution. It’s the kind of thing we see in play writing; the first act introduces the characters and the plot, in the second act the plot and characters are developed as the play strives to hold the audience’s attention. In the final act good and evil have their dramatic confrontation and resolution. The present generation wants to go right into the third act, skipping the first two, in which case there is no play, nothing but confrontation for confrontation’s sake—a flare-up and back to darkness.”
– Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals
The four social justice books read over the last six months have crucial insights on building lasting change in society, from the birth of a radical idea to implementing that idea in widespread consciousness and systems. The most important lesson is the time and effort required for lasting change. Persuasion doesn’t happen overnight, and public consciousness does not change through shame and alienation.
Hundreds of books provide strategies and steps for successful organizing, and anyone looking to get involved seriously should consider reading them. I have attempted to synthesize what I’ve learned in the following themes: conversation, coalition, strategy, execution, and evaluation.
Step 1: Conversation
Identifying the community’s issues is the first step in any successful movement. In the past, this has meant sitting around coffee houses or bars to express individual views on the world and what matters to each person. In modern society, this type of conversation becomes much more challenging. Social media has limited the iteration of ideas necessary to create a methodology for movements. It’s become increasingly difficult to sit down with someone and identify where needs overlap and what messages will be most effective in building coalitions.
Having “coffee conversations” is essential in identifying the group’s goals. How far is the movement willing to go? What are the limits? What are the demands? Finding consensus on these questions allows movement members to clearly understand what they are a part of and how to talk to others about it. The only way to answer those questions is through consensus, which is reached through iteration and conversation about methodology, values, and ideology.
The conversation doesn’t have to be in person. The Quiet Before by Gal Beckermann talks extensively about the different avenues of discussion and iteration. Feminist and queer theory were born out of these types of conversations, in particular through the creation and distribution of Zine culture. Zines allowed third-wave feminists to identify the issues facing women in the 90s and early 2000s and express their opinions unapologetically. These women built these books with iteration in mind – people would respond to and distribute essays and poetry with their art. Every part of the process encouraged the unofficial conversation on values and ideology. A consumer did not have to agree with everything to add their voice.
Step 2: Coalition
Step one involves conversations, and step two uses dialogue to form broad coalitions. In politics, this is often called a “Big Tent.” Many of the authors of these books wrote about the differing opinions of organizers within broad change movements. These tensions caused organizers to either work through differences successfully or allow differences to splinter their movements. Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals explains that community organizations do not need to agree on many things to identify the problems within their communities and discuss the tactics to solve them.
Forming a broad coalition means having difficult conversations about differences and commonalities, understanding that liberation is intertwined, and knowing that your ally for one issue may not be your ally for another. Providing a litmus test for entrance into the base of support will limit the breadth of impact because it limits the number of people necessary to make a change. The Quiet Before by Gal Beckmann contains an entire chapter on the Charlottesville protests by extreme right-wing organizations, as well as the deep conversations organizers had about who they would and would not “allow” in their movement. The consensus was broad inclusion because they had more power and more people involved.
A frequent question larger organizing groups grapple with is the prevalence of litmus/purity tests. In coalition building, leaders sometimes present an issue they will not compromise on, expecting partners to always agree with their values and positions. A good example of this type of coalition presents itself in traditional politics. Sometimes, Democrats and Republicans work closely together for one bill or issue and then directly oppose the next bill. If politicians used purity tests for collaboration and expected their partners always to hold the same values, they would never work outside their political party.
Step 3: Strategy
Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals is the best guide for generating an effective organizing strategy. Your community’s plan for the issues facing it will be unique. The most critical aspect is ensuring the approach goes beyond the opposition’s lived experience. By creating a plan outside of the opposition’s lived experience (but one inside the organizer’s), the opposition will not know what to do, and the action will have a higher chance of success.
A great example of a strategy outside the “opposition’s” lived experience was Shema Cincinnati’s protest at the Hen Mazzig event (I use opposition in quotation marks because the Institutional Jewish community was the “opposition” to the activists in Shema, not because the actual views or perspectives of the Jewish community are something to oppose). There had never been a protest of that kind inside a Jewish community event. It took several protestors standing with their signs before the police and community leaders figured out what to do. Where these protesters were ineffective was in conversation and coalition building. Shema Cincy created a litmus test based on antizionism to join, which alienated potential allies and made their coalition incredibly small. The purity test caused the institutional Jewish community to ignore their point of view and keep the portrayal and messaging of the conflict to stay the same.
Step 4: Execute and Evaluation
Strategy means little without action behind it. The implementation must be fluid enough not to fall apart as new information is gathered. It is also important to remember that a strategy is only outside of the “opposition’s” lived experience once, and then it becomes part of their understanding. The same tactics over and over again will be less impactful over time.
Measurements and metrics must be used to understand a strategy’s success. Activists must be able to define success for their actions and their movement. For the LGBTQ community, an individual action’s success might be stopping an anti-LGBTQ bill from passing through our statehouse, but the movement’s success could be broader equality.
Identifying those evaluation methods ensures a critical lens through which to evaluate the movement’s successes and failures, learn from them, and improve upon them in subsequent actions. It also allows for celebrations when there are small “wins.” The work of social change is hard, and it’s crucial to recognize even the small wins as they come.
Activism, Change, and Organizing: A Conclusion
The most widespread issue with the advocacy process is the lack of strategic and critical thinking about performance, systems, and tactics. Protests and demonstrations without aim and structure will never be effective organizational tools for creating societal change. Social change requires challenging conversations and a lot of patience.
When considering activists’ tactics, one must consider one’s own biases. Anger at an opposition based on opposing opinions differs from anger at an ineffective tactic. Confusion, because a tactic goes beyond the personal scope of understanding, is not the same as confusion regarding an organization’s demands and goals. Criticizing a group’s tactics differs from criticizing their values.
Being the loudest is not necessarily a bad thing. Loud voices tend to get heard, but the message matters, too. Being loud alone will not make a change without a clear set of goals and strategies. Sometimes, a better approach might be to work behind the scenes, and sometimes, the best strategy might be to make the biggest stink possible. Only your own organizing goals will tell which one will be most effective.
Don’t be fooled into thinking that the only way to bring about change is to take to the streets. That is one way of many. As you start conversing with the people in your community, remember all the available avenues. Work within the systems and society in which you live. Use civil disobedience strategically. Have hard conversations with people with whom you disagree. Create boundaries for your safety as a marginalized person.
And most importantly, engage in the activism that matters to you. Don’t worry about the fights that don’t excite you – you do not have to give every issue 100% of your time and energy (one way to think about this is to identify what the fights you would wake up at 4 am to get on a bus ride for 3 hours to make it to action on time). Conversely, don’t disregard fights that you feel don’t include you. A better world for us is inextricably linked to a better world for our neighbors.
The world I want to see will only materialize if I manifest it through action. Action in practice means having complicated conversations, building a broad coalition, identifying the decision-makers, setting demands, and adapting as opportunities present themselves.
