Activism vs. Organizing and the Modern Environmental Movement

(2/9/2009) - Al Giordano recently wrote an article discussing the differences between what he calls activism and organizing.  While Giordano is biased toward what he defines as organizing, I think the distinctions he draws can be used to evaluate the modern environmental movement.

Giodano describes activism as “the practice of preaching to the choir, rallying the already converted, and trying to convince other "activists" to do your work for you (say, call your Congressman, or write your Senator for or against a piece of legislation)...Activism seeks media attention through protests and other means, errantly thinking it will draw others to its cause by doing so. This dominant tendency in "activism" becomes a circular, self-reinforcing, self-marginalizing, chest-thumping, bureaucratic and anally-retentive activity and a big waste of time with little impact on the issues or policies it seeks to change or defend.”

Organizing, on the other hand, “is based on attainable and quantifiable goals (be they small, as in, "put a stop sign in the neighborhood," or be they large, as occurred last year: elect an underdog as president of the United States). Here's a simple yardstick by which to measure: If it doesn't involve knocking on doors, making phone calls or otherwise proactively communicating with people demographically different than you, it's not organizing.  If it happens only on the Internet, that's not organizing either.”

If forced, The Finite World falls on the activism side of the spectrum, though in its present form I consider this a policy and ideas website, not a tool for organizing OR activism.  As I say when I describe the purpose of this website, we have to decide what our goal are before we organize and act.  And even as we organize, we should be constantly reevaluating our goals using the most up-to-date. empirical information. 

Let’s look at one example of this process of reevaluation – nuclear power.  A combination of factors, such as the Three Mile Island incident (the plant is still active today) and the inability to provide “permanent” storage for nuclear wastes has led to an end of nuclear power plant construction in the United States.  The last plant went online in 1996. 

Given the threat now posed by global warming, nuclear power is now getting a hard second look.  Though still not without problems, nuclear power is a position supported by Sectretary of Energy Steven Chu, and Obama has refused to rule it out as an option.  In Chu’s view, the problem boils down to which power source produces the most dangerous waste – coal or nuclear.  While nuclear power does produce concentrated, radioactive waste, coal-fired plants produce more, albeit much more spread so as to be less noticeable.  Coal, however, produces tons of greenhouse gases while nuclear power produces none.  Other issues to consider when reevaluating nuclear power are nuclear weapons proliferation, cost, regulations, and the possibility of sabotage. 

Giordano is among a large group of organizers and activists that still oppose nuclear power.  He says, as an example of the non-partisan nature of organizing, “I know from experience how to organize to stop a nuke from being built or fired up. I even know how to organize to shut an existing one down. These are things I've done in this life: by organizing, going door to door, reaching out and calling people who are apolitical or apathetic and even those that start out disagreeing to win them over, and then by organizing an authentic movement...We did it under the presidencies of Carter and Reagan, and if need be we'll do it under Obama. It doesn't matter if the federal government is with us or not. It doesn't matter if Obama is with us or not: the people will be with us against nukes in their backyards, and we'll win again.”

I’m not sure which particular issues drive Giordano to oppose nuclear energy.  My hope is that The Finite World can help convince people like him that we should include new nuclear power plants as part of our energy future.

Bottom-Up vs. Top-Down

Giordano’s distinction between activism and organizing can be boiled down to a theory of how things happen in society.  Giordano’s organizers practice so-called “bottom-up” and “grass roots” routes to power, while activists prefer top-down strategies.  “Activists like to make declaratory ‘statements,’ hold ‘meetings,’ invite other activists (usually fairly hegemonic of the same socio-economic demographics as them), engage in group ‘process,’ make ‘decisions,’ veto (or attempt to do so) others from taking initiative outside of the groupthink that too often happens in activist projects, declare ‘party lines,’ enforce them, and claim that one is part of a ‘movement’ even when there is no evidence that one really is.”  This is a good description of what I think of as “top-down” governing style.  It’s also a pretty good description of the upper echelons of any modern liberal (in the classical sense) democracy, whether or not that government came to power with the help of organizers. 

Despite Giordano’s derision, activists have often been successful at promoting their specific agendas.  For example, activists got the administration of George W. Bush to cut the capital gains tax rate (though they didn’t have to try very hard).  Lobbyists, whether they work for the ACLU, the Corn Growers Association, or Google, qualify as activists under Giordano’s definition.

Giordano’s organizers skirt the traditional power structures and try to bring about change by building a popular movement.  The idea seems to be that if you can convince enough people to support your cause, you can use voting power (whether with ballots or dollars) to coerce politicians or other power holders into action.   

The Difficulties of Organizing for Action on Climate Change

Over the past forty years, the environmental movement in the United States has been very good at achieving specific concrete goals through organizing.  Not only have organizers shut down the expansion of nuclear power (as Giordano discusses), but they have also led successful fights against polluted water, strip mines, and deforestation (plus plenty of non-environmental projects).

It seems to me that organizing is still a very important part of the environmental movement.  However, I haven’t yet heard of a group that is organizing for action on climate change.  I suspect that this is in part due to the global nature of the problem.  Organizing works well at a local or regional level.  A core group of people can realistically start out, organize more people, and spread in a realistic amount of time.  People in a region typically speak the same language and live within general geographic proximity of those they wish to convert. 

When it comes to global warming, however, this is not the case.  It is very hard for global warming organizers in one country to go to another and communicate with people who are demographically different.  It would be very difficult to breach the language barrier and for the organizers to support themselves while working. 

To solve global warming (and, I would argue, any other large and complex problem), we need a combination of organizing AND activism.  I do not believe that large groups of humans can come to the right decisions in an efficient manner (if at all) through a purely organizational effort.

Obama’s campaign is a good example of how organizing and activism can function side by side.  While Obama used organizing to great effect, he still had plenty of meetings with close advisors, released hundreds of statements, and came to many decisions without relying on his ability to organize. 

At present, I think environmentalists etc. in the U.S. need to up the efforts on the organizing front.  The movement needs to be moved past its upper-class, young, urban base (I might be wrong about this, but from where I stand this is the base), past its “hippie” image.  We need to build a larger constituency for mass transit and clean energy.  One of the reasons corn ethanol has caught on so quickly even though its benefits are dubious is because it has a constituency.  Farmers like having another marketplace to grow their corn, and drivers like the idea that what they put in their car is good for the environment or energy independence, which is how ethanol has been sold.  People are usually willing to help out as long as it costs them nothing. 

Why does high-speed rail benefit the suburbanite who would have to drive 20 minutes to get to the nearest station?  What do businesses have to gain from paying more money for electricity?  These sorts of questions need answers, and the answers need to be spread if global warming prevention is going to become more than just a pet cause.  We need ways to sell transit investment without threatening people’s cars.