At the risk of hyperbole, reading about this man on parole getting arrested for losing his shit while the activist couldn't admit to a really bad call based on absolutism, kind of broke my heart. I, too, believe that we need many forms of changemaking, but they all need to be strategic. Yes, Jonathan got the media attention his group wanted, but at what cost? Not only did the blockade harm this one man (and all the others we didn't hear about), but the backlash from everyday people against "extremists" is real and harmful to the cause of addressing and solving the problem of climate change. Creating a negative response to one's cause is just not strategic.
Not to belabor the Solutionary Framework we've developed at the Institute for Humane Education, but it does work to prevent actions that cause significant unintended negative consequences. The framework guides people to find powerful leverage points for change and then asks them to develop solutions that do the most good and least harm for everyone (people, animals, environment). Few (if any) taking the framework seriously would conclude this kind of absolutist activism is actually solutionary. The framework would demand that they think harder and devise truly strategic approaches that don't harm others in their execution.
Grateful to hear from you on this Zoe. What's most disturbing to me is that those funding these edge-pushing activists should know better - including Margaret Klein Salamon, the psychologist who is the exec. director of the Climate Emergency Fund (which has given more than $1 million to organizations supporting these groups). She said on my webcast they know they anger average people but that's fine if they recruit those on the fringe. See the tail end of this post for her statement: https://revkin.substack.com/p/amid-protest-debates-researchers
At the risk of hyperbole, reading about this man on parole getting arrested for losing his shit while the activist couldn't admit to a really bad call based on absolutism, kind of broke my heart. I, too, believe that we need many forms of changemaking, but they all need to be strategic. Yes, Jonathan got the media attention his group wanted, but at what cost? Not only did the blockade harm this one man (and all the others we didn't hear about), but the backlash from everyday people against "extremists" is real and harmful to the cause of addressing and solving the problem of climate change. Creating a negative response to one's cause is just not strategic.
Not to belabor the Solutionary Framework we've developed at the Institute for Humane Education, but it does work to prevent actions that cause significant unintended negative consequences. The framework guides people to find powerful leverage points for change and then asks them to develop solutions that do the most good and least harm for everyone (people, animals, environment). Few (if any) taking the framework seriously would conclude this kind of absolutist activism is actually solutionary. The framework would demand that they think harder and devise truly strategic approaches that don't harm others in their execution.
Grateful to hear from you on this Zoe. What's most disturbing to me is that those funding these edge-pushing activists should know better - including Margaret Klein Salamon, the psychologist who is the exec. director of the Climate Emergency Fund (which has given more than $1 million to organizations supporting these groups). She said on my webcast they know they anger average people but that's fine if they recruit those on the fringe. See the tail end of this post for her statement: https://revkin.substack.com/p/amid-protest-debates-researchers