Is this another of those "awakening" stories? You know....how a person who was blind (when many others were not) finally opens their eyes to SEE? They often make a career out of the original blindness, and then they make a second career out of the marvels of their "awakening".
I have encountered it all before.
Though I know of this author and her book only by what I have read in Amazon reviews and a brief once-over of her website, I suppose it is a good thing that Anthea has come around to some examination of her activities.
But honestly.....I was aware of the pitfalls of leftwing activism (and the far leftwing perspective) when I was a schoolgirl. I thought it was incredibly obvious. I am likely to roll my eyes at someone just coming around to the realization far later.
She isn't the Anthea Lawson who writes all those bodice-busters also listed on Amazon, is she?
I just returned from a walk in the woods where I pondered and concluded that Activism seemed to be at the root of most of the things that are dividing us. I added "ism" to every thing I could come up with and got the feeling that each of those things was not serving to change things for the better, or that somehow they were manufactured to divide us. Not original thoughts. I was obviously struck by the title of this substack topic upon my return. Thank you, Iain, for sharing your words and research.
This resonates. Activism has become so politicized, but even below that, your comment got me thinking about how it seems to be almost inherently de-humanizing. I think advocacy can be very human, but once an issue has been carved out of and away from relational life and isolated as a 'cause' it becomes quite deadened and dogmatic. At least that's what I'm feeling in the moment.
I was in an online forum where someone introduced themselves as an activist for x cause. How might I respond without seeming combative? " Hi, my nane ix x and I am decidedly NOT an activist." There is a hidden dialectical argument here that I lack the wits and eloquence to set out right now but I know this self-claimed "activist" title smells funny. If it gets identified as a left brain emissary thing fine but I know IMcG does not align left brain with progressivism with which activism is strongly connected to. It would be interesting to see this untangled.
Activ-ism today declares WAR against the Activity, in the form it unfolds.
Usually, the solution brought to the table involves destruction.
It also involves replacing the Activity with another Activity, from the same level of thinking - within the same fundamental paradigms (or thought processes) as the systems it's trying to replace.
Reshuffling the deck chairs on the same sinking ship.
I have known of universities in North America promoting "Activism as a Career" to undergraduates, through Activist Programs. I have seen various schools advertise for students on the sides of city busses. Since the NGOs have been handing out funding like candy these past several decades, for leftwing activism.
It is how these NGOs seek to control society. They find the young gullible sorts (in need of a salary) and they lure them through their Achilles Heel. Which in the case of the young lefties, is their vanity of wishing to be seen as "saving the world.....the progressive way".
This is an important and very timely discussion to have. I recall that recently you were with Rupert Read at the Climate Majority Project. And you are clearly aware that there are many people who are looking for a deeper connection with the sacred. Emerging out of that connection, many of the same people feel called into some form of engagement with the metacrisis ("the crisis within and between all the world’s major crises" [1] per Rowson) that itself derives from the "left hemisphere capture" of contemporary Western culture and civilization, as you've persuasively documented in your books and conversations. This capture that has shattered our world today, as it has done several times before. Activism can be sacred work, at its best. As you pointed out: "In the Judaic tradition it is our duty and obligation, but also our honor, to be the means for repair. That is why we are here: to repair what was shattered." [2] "I hope it's true the idea that I might be trying to affect, or succeeding in affecting, something of a paradigm shift." [3]
Anthea Lawson previously described activism as "trying to change things through either opposing what is already going wrong, creating new alternatives, or working to change the spiritual and psychosocial underpinnings of how we relate to each other." From the same conversation, she said (paraphrasing) "I'm encouraging anyone who's doing activism to think about the fact that we're not separate from the problem we're trying to change. It's not wrong to point out that many "captains of industry" are profiting off of the exploitation of working-class communities. But, when we speak to people who we want to join us, if we have a sort of morally superior "we've got the answer" attitude, that is extremely off-putting." [4] The sort of activism that is blind to how it might increase polarization is the enemy of the mass action for systemic change that it seeks to inspire. (Indeed, sowing such division is the tool of choice for opportunists.)
Rupert Read put it bluntly, "As long as we're inclined as activists to think we are the "pure ones," and those we are fighting are the "impure ones," then basically we've already lost... This is what I sometimes saw over the years, people choosing purity over success. They would rather kind of feel like "righteous losers" than have to in any way compromise and actually succeed in changing something, as if they were more interested in preserving their own personal purity over any kind of possibility of actually making a difference. The "frame" becomes so strong that it repels any evidence that doesn't fit it, which ironically is exactly what we were criticizing our opponents for. We become just as unwilling as they were to be evidence-based... We need to be inclusive of people who will not ever want to be identified as "activists," people whose politics do not agree with our own, whether that be on identity politics or on the left-right political spectrum. If we're not interested in that kind of inclusiveness then the reality is that we're not interested in building a truly mass movement for change."
This is where Lawson's notion of "entangled activism" comes in. (It also reminds me that only a few days ago Bayo Akomolafe wrote about "para-pragmatism." [5] Which may not be an entirely unrelated idea.) Anthea Lawson: "We need to be building movements that are as broad-based as possible so that everyone can speak among their own circles and connections. We can't place ourselves on a soapbox; we are part of an interrelated web of communication." Jonathan Rowson noted that perhaps one of the things people fear is a kind of "cultural assimilation" within an activist tribe, that they'll sort of disappear into the will of the whole, and that they have to parrot things that they don't feel like are entirely their own. So it's critical that people find the space to speak, to feel, and to discover their own interests and appetite.
There seems to be a focus here on moving away from a divisive "identity politics," which invokes the frame of good and bad identities, friends and foes, and instead moving toward something much more like a "values based activism" so we can have conversations about the shared values that are important to all of us, regardless of whatever our personal identity may be, conversations about the values that bind our families, communities, and our nation together (participation in the "evolution of value" per Zak Stein, which should call to mind "McGilchrist's Wager").
Sarah McBride, for example said "I think that a politics that is rooted in opposition to an enemy is fundamentally regressive. We can put forward an aspirational politics that isn’t defined by who we are against, but by what we are for and about who we can be. And I think that is a more successful path than an enemies based politics, which so often devolves to anger. You can have effective politics, and good politics, and better outcomes, with an aspirational politics, with a politics that isn’t just about what it’s opposed to, but about what it can build and who we can be."
"...perhaps one of the things people fear is a kind of "cultural assimilation" within an activist tribe, that they'll sort of disappear into the will of the whole, and that they have to parrot things that they don't feel like are entirely their own." Yes. When I was in my 20s, I was suckered into a couple of "movements" that tried to capitalize on my disgruntledness. The very first professional production I was in, several "seasoned" actors who were in that show with me decided that they were being treated poorly and encouraged the rest of us to rise up against the producer and director. They made demands and then ended up suing the company. We ALL had to go in on it or the message would not be sent. Well, that was devastating to me as a new actor. It destroyed the company and us actors were seen as liabilities to future productions. As a newbie, I had no idea I was being treated poorly. I was just doing my job and having a decent time at it. Later when I was getting my master's degree, fellow graduate students decided to do an uprising demanding more pay and benefits. They wanted me to join their movement, so I went to one of their meetings. They gave me a brochure and a button. None of it felt right. I kept thinking, if I were running a theatre or any other business, would I be able to withstand a group of discontent actors/employees? Everyone is trying to make a living, here. Each of these movements was an all or nothing endeavor. While I agreed with the premise of why they were wanting to highlight some significant issues, I found it to be way off base. They were out for blood. They wanted to bring the whole damn thing down. What good would that do? Now, no one would have a job. Companies are wary of employees who have a past with activism. And if they're not, they should be. So now, when I see injustices, I don't run to the nearest ACLU meeting. Private conversations are usually the best route. It may not make a splash, but change can be made.
Those are some great examples. In a culture captured by the left hemisphere, this is not an isolated story. I think this gets into a few of the practical applications for how Lawson's "entangled activism" can benefit us in these sort of situations. You've put your finger on precisely the predicament. As Lawson described above: "we're not separate from the problem we're trying to change." In any dilemma, everyone is working under certain real constraints. Rather than rapidly escalating a situation, there is a principle of proportionality to bear in mind, such that it is almost always going to be best to attempt to resolve disputes at the lowest levels of engagement that are available to us. Very often that is all that is required. A failure to recognize this can easily lead to lose-lose outcomes that benefit no one. Anthea Lawson again:
"For me, thinking about how we do activism is a lens for thinking about a much deeper question: How do we relate to everyone (and every thing and every being) who is not us? Most of the dilemmas in the world today come down to relationality. And for those of us in the West, the reason they are dilemmas is because relationality has been completely sidelined by Western culture."
Well, this gets even better the more you share. The whole "relationality" is almost primordial. I got sick of the Arts world and all their radical causes. I went in a bit of the opposite direction and work in a church now. We have seen steep declines in attendance and membership. We've spent considerable time discussing how to reach people and we keep coming back to the need to be relational. People must feel like they are needed and included and this is of great benefit to them. I might be stepping past what you're talking about, so forgive me as I process this out loud. I'm kind of smiling that I stumbled upon this today. 😊
Who confers god-hood on these activist types? They seem to believe they are touched by the divine.
Whereas I see them as being trapped in their own Shadows.
Or some of them might be considered opportunists, finding a non-specific career niche wherever they can.
Is this another of those "awakening" stories? You know....how a person who was blind (when many others were not) finally opens their eyes to SEE? They often make a career out of the original blindness, and then they make a second career out of the marvels of their "awakening".
I have encountered it all before.
Though I know of this author and her book only by what I have read in Amazon reviews and a brief once-over of her website, I suppose it is a good thing that Anthea has come around to some examination of her activities.
But honestly.....I was aware of the pitfalls of leftwing activism (and the far leftwing perspective) when I was a schoolgirl. I thought it was incredibly obvious. I am likely to roll my eyes at someone just coming around to the realization far later.
She isn't the Anthea Lawson who writes all those bodice-busters also listed on Amazon, is she?
I just returned from a walk in the woods where I pondered and concluded that Activism seemed to be at the root of most of the things that are dividing us. I added "ism" to every thing I could come up with and got the feeling that each of those things was not serving to change things for the better, or that somehow they were manufactured to divide us. Not original thoughts. I was obviously struck by the title of this substack topic upon my return. Thank you, Iain, for sharing your words and research.
This resonates. Activism has become so politicized, but even below that, your comment got me thinking about how it seems to be almost inherently de-humanizing. I think advocacy can be very human, but once an issue has been carved out of and away from relational life and isolated as a 'cause' it becomes quite deadened and dogmatic. At least that's what I'm feeling in the moment.
I was in an online forum where someone introduced themselves as an activist for x cause. How might I respond without seeming combative? " Hi, my nane ix x and I am decidedly NOT an activist." There is a hidden dialectical argument here that I lack the wits and eloquence to set out right now but I know this self-claimed "activist" title smells funny. If it gets identified as a left brain emissary thing fine but I know IMcG does not align left brain with progressivism with which activism is strongly connected to. It would be interesting to see this untangled.
Activ-ism today declares WAR against the Activity, in the form it unfolds.
Usually, the solution brought to the table involves destruction.
It also involves replacing the Activity with another Activity, from the same level of thinking - within the same fundamental paradigms (or thought processes) as the systems it's trying to replace.
Reshuffling the deck chairs on the same sinking ship.
Yes. I wanted to say something of the sort, but you nailed it. I got only so far as name-calling it Anti-Activism-ism. Down for the count!
I have known of universities in North America promoting "Activism as a Career" to undergraduates, through Activist Programs. I have seen various schools advertise for students on the sides of city busses. Since the NGOs have been handing out funding like candy these past several decades, for leftwing activism.
It is how these NGOs seek to control society. They find the young gullible sorts (in need of a salary) and they lure them through their Achilles Heel. Which in the case of the young lefties, is their vanity of wishing to be seen as "saving the world.....the progressive way".
I'm excited for this and just ordered Anthea's book!
💜
This is an important and very timely discussion to have. I recall that recently you were with Rupert Read at the Climate Majority Project. And you are clearly aware that there are many people who are looking for a deeper connection with the sacred. Emerging out of that connection, many of the same people feel called into some form of engagement with the metacrisis ("the crisis within and between all the world’s major crises" [1] per Rowson) that itself derives from the "left hemisphere capture" of contemporary Western culture and civilization, as you've persuasively documented in your books and conversations. This capture that has shattered our world today, as it has done several times before. Activism can be sacred work, at its best. As you pointed out: "In the Judaic tradition it is our duty and obligation, but also our honor, to be the means for repair. That is why we are here: to repair what was shattered." [2] "I hope it's true the idea that I might be trying to affect, or succeeding in affecting, something of a paradigm shift." [3]
Anthea Lawson previously described activism as "trying to change things through either opposing what is already going wrong, creating new alternatives, or working to change the spiritual and psychosocial underpinnings of how we relate to each other." From the same conversation, she said (paraphrasing) "I'm encouraging anyone who's doing activism to think about the fact that we're not separate from the problem we're trying to change. It's not wrong to point out that many "captains of industry" are profiting off of the exploitation of working-class communities. But, when we speak to people who we want to join us, if we have a sort of morally superior "we've got the answer" attitude, that is extremely off-putting." [4] The sort of activism that is blind to how it might increase polarization is the enemy of the mass action for systemic change that it seeks to inspire. (Indeed, sowing such division is the tool of choice for opportunists.)
Rupert Read put it bluntly, "As long as we're inclined as activists to think we are the "pure ones," and those we are fighting are the "impure ones," then basically we've already lost... This is what I sometimes saw over the years, people choosing purity over success. They would rather kind of feel like "righteous losers" than have to in any way compromise and actually succeed in changing something, as if they were more interested in preserving their own personal purity over any kind of possibility of actually making a difference. The "frame" becomes so strong that it repels any evidence that doesn't fit it, which ironically is exactly what we were criticizing our opponents for. We become just as unwilling as they were to be evidence-based... We need to be inclusive of people who will not ever want to be identified as "activists," people whose politics do not agree with our own, whether that be on identity politics or on the left-right political spectrum. If we're not interested in that kind of inclusiveness then the reality is that we're not interested in building a truly mass movement for change."
This is where Lawson's notion of "entangled activism" comes in. (It also reminds me that only a few days ago Bayo Akomolafe wrote about "para-pragmatism." [5] Which may not be an entirely unrelated idea.) Anthea Lawson: "We need to be building movements that are as broad-based as possible so that everyone can speak among their own circles and connections. We can't place ourselves on a soapbox; we are part of an interrelated web of communication." Jonathan Rowson noted that perhaps one of the things people fear is a kind of "cultural assimilation" within an activist tribe, that they'll sort of disappear into the will of the whole, and that they have to parrot things that they don't feel like are entirely their own. So it's critical that people find the space to speak, to feel, and to discover their own interests and appetite.
[1] https://perspecteeva.substack.com/p/prefixing-the-world
[2] https://youtu.be/P35P74OUARw?t=3076
[3] https://youtu.be/knFbTu8UtTE?t=5350
[4] https://youtu.be/q3lDne57t1s?t=762
[5] https://www.bayoakomolafe.net/post/how-to-be-available-now-sidenotes-from-the-para-pragmatic
This is helpful. Thank you.
There seems to be a focus here on moving away from a divisive "identity politics," which invokes the frame of good and bad identities, friends and foes, and instead moving toward something much more like a "values based activism" so we can have conversations about the shared values that are important to all of us, regardless of whatever our personal identity may be, conversations about the values that bind our families, communities, and our nation together (participation in the "evolution of value" per Zak Stein, which should call to mind "McGilchrist's Wager").
Sarah McBride, for example said "I think that a politics that is rooted in opposition to an enemy is fundamentally regressive. We can put forward an aspirational politics that isn’t defined by who we are against, but by what we are for and about who we can be. And I think that is a more successful path than an enemies based politics, which so often devolves to anger. You can have effective politics, and good politics, and better outcomes, with an aspirational politics, with a politics that isn’t just about what it’s opposed to, but about what it can build and who we can be."
https://youtu.be/KlbNFsAGFRc?t=4624
What a thoughtful and thought-provoking discussion. I will return and watch all of it. Thank you, Eric.
"...perhaps one of the things people fear is a kind of "cultural assimilation" within an activist tribe, that they'll sort of disappear into the will of the whole, and that they have to parrot things that they don't feel like are entirely their own." Yes. When I was in my 20s, I was suckered into a couple of "movements" that tried to capitalize on my disgruntledness. The very first professional production I was in, several "seasoned" actors who were in that show with me decided that they were being treated poorly and encouraged the rest of us to rise up against the producer and director. They made demands and then ended up suing the company. We ALL had to go in on it or the message would not be sent. Well, that was devastating to me as a new actor. It destroyed the company and us actors were seen as liabilities to future productions. As a newbie, I had no idea I was being treated poorly. I was just doing my job and having a decent time at it. Later when I was getting my master's degree, fellow graduate students decided to do an uprising demanding more pay and benefits. They wanted me to join their movement, so I went to one of their meetings. They gave me a brochure and a button. None of it felt right. I kept thinking, if I were running a theatre or any other business, would I be able to withstand a group of discontent actors/employees? Everyone is trying to make a living, here. Each of these movements was an all or nothing endeavor. While I agreed with the premise of why they were wanting to highlight some significant issues, I found it to be way off base. They were out for blood. They wanted to bring the whole damn thing down. What good would that do? Now, no one would have a job. Companies are wary of employees who have a past with activism. And if they're not, they should be. So now, when I see injustices, I don't run to the nearest ACLU meeting. Private conversations are usually the best route. It may not make a splash, but change can be made.
Those are some great examples. In a culture captured by the left hemisphere, this is not an isolated story. I think this gets into a few of the practical applications for how Lawson's "entangled activism" can benefit us in these sort of situations. You've put your finger on precisely the predicament. As Lawson described above: "we're not separate from the problem we're trying to change." In any dilemma, everyone is working under certain real constraints. Rather than rapidly escalating a situation, there is a principle of proportionality to bear in mind, such that it is almost always going to be best to attempt to resolve disputes at the lowest levels of engagement that are available to us. Very often that is all that is required. A failure to recognize this can easily lead to lose-lose outcomes that benefit no one. Anthea Lawson again:
"For me, thinking about how we do activism is a lens for thinking about a much deeper question: How do we relate to everyone (and every thing and every being) who is not us? Most of the dilemmas in the world today come down to relationality. And for those of us in the West, the reason they are dilemmas is because relationality has been completely sidelined by Western culture."
https://allthatweare.org/2024/07/11/e215-unlearning-realities-with-helena-norberg-hodge-anthea-lawson-and-jae-spencer-keyse/
Well, this gets even better the more you share. The whole "relationality" is almost primordial. I got sick of the Arts world and all their radical causes. I went in a bit of the opposite direction and work in a church now. We have seen steep declines in attendance and membership. We've spent considerable time discussing how to reach people and we keep coming back to the need to be relational. People must feel like they are needed and included and this is of great benefit to them. I might be stepping past what you're talking about, so forgive me as I process this out loud. I'm kind of smiling that I stumbled upon this today. 😊
Thank you, Iain, for _your_ activism and mission to fix world to be a better place!
Thank you, Iain, for _your_ activism and mission to fix world to be a better place!