Categories
Activism Obituaries Smugosphere Social Movements

Mobilisation versus Actual Movement Building

“This summer’s extremes have left a lot of people frightened and angry. That feeling needs somewhere to go.

Hope the coming months bring a new wave of #Climate mobilisation, so politicians finally feel the heat over their inaction!

This summer's extremes have left a lot of people frightened and angry. That feeling needs somewhere to go.Hope the coming months bring a new wave of #Climate mobilisation, so politicians finally feel the heat over their inaction!

Dr. Aaron Thierry (@thierryaaron.bsky.social) 2026-08-18T07:12:13.437Z

My reply

“We need actual movement building, not just constant mobilisations”

So what IS “Actual Movement Building”  (AMB) and how is it helped and how is it hindered by “constant mobilisations”?  There’s other work I should be doing (should have been doing for ages), so this will necessarily be brief.


What is a social movement?

For me,  it is a network (thick multiple links)  made up of individuals and groups all trying to move society (inc culture, politics, economics) in a certain direction. These individuals and groups have got knowledge (that they need – who has the power, what events/decisions are coming up etc) and skills (group maintenance etc) that matter, and know how to share their skills etc. 

N.B. A “movement” is NOT a single organisation, no matter how big and gaudy its brand might be at a given time. (Yes, looking at you, “Extinction Rebellion” and all the people who glugged the Kool-Aid, who really ought to know better but were drunk on a momentary sense of relevance.)

What is “actual movement building”?

AMB is about strengthening yourself (more skills, more knowledge, more relationships), the groups you are part of (skills audit and plugging gaps [HOLDING DECENT MEETINGS, for example. Sorry for shouting, [not sorry]), minimising your group’s pathologies around recruitment and retention) and ALSO undertaking “services for the movement” – offering practical help, advice, constructive critique, encouragement, introducing individuals and groups to each other, etc etc.

Crucially, this takes willingness to face up to past and present failures. It can’t happen if you can’t or won’t see what is missing (as per James Baldwin – “not everything that can be faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced”). 

All of this requires us to take the harder road, away from (only doing) the big symbolic spectacular stuff that gives a sugar rush and cooks your pancreas.

What does AMB require?

Time (which we don’t have, won’t have)

Expertise (which we don’t have, won’t have)

Space (“third spaces” where people can get together and think.  NGOs sometimes have these, but in my experience expect the best part of the meeting to be taken up bending the knee to them).

Intellectual courage (which we seem to have as individuals, but not in collectives, not once we start policing each other.)

People willing to step beyond their “guard rails”, and with the understanding that there are bad ways to organise/act.

Other actors not deliberately getting in the way to fuck shit up. (they will always be there, always determined to stop progressive movements by any means necessary, from smears and demoralisation through harassment to all forms of violence.)

What are the barriers to AMB?

There are many barriers, but time and attention are short, so I will stick to three.

  1. There are easier ways to feel “impactful”

We have an easier way of meeting our psychological needs – by doing the things that we know how to do – marches, petitions, camps, getting arrested – because we know how to do them (smugosphere).

Keeping on doing the same thing and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity.

The problem with constant mobilisations is that it’s like being on a fucking hamster wheel.  Round and round, never actually getting anywhere, but jacking up on short-term hopium.

  1. We don’t want to look into past failures.  We just don’t. ESPECIALLY when we both should and COULD have acted differently back when it might have mattered..  

“It’s a sad story, hard to tell — 

Which one of us likes to talk about his failures? 

I’ll tell the truth and nothing but the truth, 

For if one does fail, there’s a touch of glory 

In having tried at all.”

Book 9 of Ovid’s Metamorphoses “Achelous and Hercules”

Yes, but there’s not any touch of glory in doing the same thing over and over again  when you know it is not going to work.  And there is no glory at all in chiding people who point this out as “doomers” (looking at you, Julia).

  1. The field is “stable” and the costs of new entrants – both organisations and repertoire of behaviour are prohibitively high.  

See what happened to XR, when it tried to contest the Greenpeace-FoE duopoly!

More Fundamental Attribution Error-ly, the people “in charge” don’t have the willingness (ability?) or incentive to take a look at themselves and their organisations  (see my blog post Cher, incentive structures and our inevitable doom, especially for the  Carl Rogers at the end.) 

To those who think we can break these chains, I ask who is the Agent of Change, the Modern Prince who are supposed to do this movement building?

“Established” activists, who know how the game is played and are winning at it. They can’t even see the need for innovation.

Burnout out/super-annuated activists who got out/were pushed out? Why? Where is their energy coming from, their credibility?

The utter newbies who don’t know what’s been tried, are new to everything and have no hinterland, who is taking their cue from the established activists?

The Alien “Activist Adjudicators” from Sigma IX? They don’t exist.

What is to be done?

Fucked if I know.

I have some various answers to the “little” stuff (how to hold meetings, how to hold film showings etc), but in terms of building and sustaining mass movements that avoid being co-opted, repressed, exhausted as we stare down both barrels of a loaded shotgun when Mother Nature has an understandably itchy trigger finger? Nah, that one is beyond me.  But, you know, pay me some money for food and books, and I might come up with something.

UPDATE – this doggerel.

We have a stable “greenie” system

With grooves and habits: we can’t resist ’em

These repertoires are then repeated

The acts of those again defeated

But who will break these ancient chains?

It won’t be those receiving gains

Not those aware of rules of t’game

With jobs, or niche, or minor fame.

Nor those who fled the field of battle

With wounds and runes and grim death rattle

Nor those who fear we cannot change

Those regarded old or wrong or strange

Nor those who landed just last week

With vim, and on a winning streak

And rightly leery of gramp’s advices

When gramps’s failures brought us crises

We never learn: the State keeps tabs

The future once was up for grabs

It’s crumbling, broiling; the owl will hoot

And on our face – here comes the boot

Further Reading

2019: How we blew it, again | Peace News “ (written in 2017)

“Dear new Climate Activist.” (written in 2018)

The costs of collusion with activist bullshit and hype cycles (written in 2017)

Mobilisation “versus” Movement Building |  (written in 2011)

Movement-building: Insulin and unlocking energy (written in 2012)

Categories
Smugosphere Social Movements

“Like a Keystone around our necks…” On the responsibilities of large organisations within social movements

Ten days ago I went to the latest in a long long line of excruciating activist events (1).  I wrote a cathartic blogpost which was liked by about half the people who read it (i.e. it was liked by two people). 

Catharsis is fine, but then the question comes up – what should we expect of big organisations that act (whether they understand that or not) as a Keystone Species (2)?  

Before you say, yes, I know that it is dodgy af to import ideas from biology/ecology into discussions of human activities, but hey, a) we all do it and b) life is short – so here goes.

Keystone species have a ‘disproportionate’ role in the shape/size/day-to-day actions of the ecosystem they function within. Not ‘deliberately’, because (most) creatures don’t (most of the time) have intention beyond eating/avoiding being eaten/fucking.  But if you have enough of the keystone members, then they create a kind of dynamic stability (3).

So, there used to be a phrase (perhaps still is?) “check your privilege” , which sought to remind people that they often walked around with advantages that shaped the social interactions they took part in (4). Anyway, privilege applies not just to us white able-bodied middle-class hetero men but also to organisations.  If you are a big outfit, that has been around a long time, and has got a media profile you have a kind of  ‘heft’, a kind of – well, privilege. Crucially, you may not feel this, because there are always budget worries, always policybattles you are losing because you are outnumbered and outgunned by the lobbyists for the EFTAs (Evil Fuckers Trade Association). You are always being smeared by stenographers to power in the right-wing press. It doesn’t FEEL like privilege, but then that’s the point – it never does.

So, after a decade and a half  of having seen these Big Outfits put together various events and claim to be “building a movement” while absolutely failing to do so, I’ve grown a little cynical (see also “smugosphere”, the smugotariat, “emotacycle”, “ego-fodder”, “potemkinclusivity”, Sophisticated Hopium Ignoring Trajectories, etc).

The purpose of this blog post is to outline five things Big Outfits could do to be better keystone species.  I am not expecting any of this to happen (see below). If two of the five happened, that would be quite amazing. I reckon if four of these happened, it would be transformative within that Big Outfit’s wider ecosystem (while still, obvs, merely being deckchairs-on-the-Titanic of a global ecosystem being apocalypsed by hairless murder apes with opposable thumbs).

So, drum-roll please.

  1. Set a good example

Obvious, huh? In practice this means –  

  • Start meetings on time. Nothing screams “unserious hippy” like unexplained delays to start-times, especially if you then cry off the advertised activities because of “lack of time.”
  • Don’t waste time with endless blandishments and self-promotions. If you have specific information to impart then a) the internet and b) some dead-tree format leaflets for those who don’t use the internet.
  • Keep your promises (so, to choose an example entirely at random, if you advertise something as a Q&A, then do a Q&A. This is not rocket-science
  • Avoid cringe displays of emotional virtue-signalling.  Especially in situations where first nations peoples are being shat on from a great height. 
  • I could go on. But the apocalypse is at hand.
  1. Convene (for weak ties)

“The less I say, the more my work gets done” Philadelphia Freedom.

Make sure that when you create an event, you are making it easy for new relationships to form, for new “weak ties” (as per Granovetter) to form.

That is to say, make it possible for various individuals to find each other on the basis of their shared interests, age, geography.

Obviously there are dangers here which need managing.  Women, especially, will worry about being compelled to engage with strangers (esp male) who may then get the wrong idea.  If you open a space for these relationships to form, you also run the risk of various political sects and groupuscules to try to recruit during your events. These are not, however, insurmountable difficulties. 

 Big Outfits could lead by example (see above) by designing events so that they are not (always) the goddam centre of attention, sucking up all the oxygen and attention. They could keep comments by their staff and guests to a reasonable length and then then implement the design effectively (there’s no point designing an event and then – because of the lack of skill/awareness of the facilitator/compere – you revert to the bullshit).

So, for example, between the end of speeches at a Q&A and opening the floor to questions you could give people two minutes to compare notes/hone questions etc and then ‘accidentally’ select some – gasp – women to ask two of the first three questions.

There is also a crying need for structured skill-audits and skillshare events, so that people who have skills can share them with people who want them, and organisations that realise they have either a single-point-of-failure or an absolute gap can get help to plug those gaps.

  1. Innovate

Big organisations could investigate/invent/borrow/steal ideas for better events (marches, rallies, meetings etc) and test them out. Big organisations are more likely to be able to take people a little bit outside their comfort zones.

This would require some courage (not selected for within most formal organisations, obviously)  but would set the tone – that responsible innovation is essential.

  1. Remember the past

We live in a perpetual present, where the lessons of yesterday are forgotten, and ancient victories (the fucking Franklin Dam? Really? Invoking that in 2026? WTAF) are stripped of their context and turned into myths.

Part of the problem for social movements is that so much of what happens is never recorded, or recorded and then lost.  Memories shift, fade, and useful tactics and tools have to be endlessly re-invented.  Big Organisations could at least try to be a repository for broader memory work.


There are costs (not-insurmountable) and dangers, but without memory we are living in Punxsutawney without remembering the day before. That ain’t no comedy, it’s a tragedy.

Practically – this could mean digitising old posters and content, doing periodic oral history interviews. These may not hit the dizzying heights of ‘academic’ practice, but srsly, who gives a damn – is it USEFUL?

  1. Help people and small organisations think about the future(s)

Big Organisations could do better “horizon scanning” for the current trends, so that smaller groups/individuals get the opportunity to think strategically.

Periodic workshops involving scenarios, role-plays etc.  Yes, most of the people who come will be the usual suspects, but not all of them, and in any case, skills and knowledge can percolate.

See here – 

https://peacenews.info/node/8767/2019-how-we-blew-it-again

These – and it isn’t an exhaustive list – all these amount to “services to the movement.” 

They are things that individuals and small organisations struggle with (or don’t even try to do). 

What “we” – as social movements/civil society/a species killing itself –  require is a) the repeal of some laws (mostly laws of physics) and

b) Big Outfits within the “movement” to do things that the smaller organisations – and individuals – can’t do.  If they don’t do them, then these things won’t get done and you don’t have a movement, just a bunch of Brownian motion billiard balls, going nowhere fast. 

The problem is – well, imma just quote myself:

It comes down to what your definition of “movement” is.  

If you believe, as Adam Bandt and his colleagues seem to, that a movement is a bunch of people from a Big Organisation, jetting in from their HQ and standing on a stage, offering “hope,” authenticity and validation to ranks of people who are sat mutely in rows, wanting their (begging) bowls filled up, then Friday was another success in a long line of successes.

If you believe, as I and a few (many?) other people do, that a movement is made up of individuals, small groups, large groups, pulling mostly in the same direction, as frenemies, helping each other out, learning from each other, sharing ideas and resources, then Friday night was another catastrophic shit-show/missed opportunity in a world that can’t afford any more missed opportunities.

What is to be done?

They (the Big Outfits) are not going to do any of this themselves. There is no money in it, it’s not in their direct short-term interest, and those running the show have built careers on being on the stage doing the right talking and public displays of emoting.  


There’s a hole in my movement, dear Liza.

So, if we want these big organisations to act as decent keystone species, then sorry, but it has to be persistently and insistently EXPECTED of them.  Publicly.  (I know, I know,  “activism about activism” – as if we have time for this shit… But also, as if we can get anywhere useful without this shit. We truly are caught in a trap…)

Apply what pressure you can. Explain that you will not be participating in ego-fodder events. Privately – and publicly – call out exploitative and extractive behaviour by Big Outfits. Offer practical suggestions – training, etc etc – for how to do things better.

But dammit, this is so hard. Knowing that everything is falling about. That no matter what we do, Punxusatawney is getting warmer. 

None of this will happen.  It is a stupid fantasy. We are all going to die horrible premature deaths. Oh well.

Footnotes

  1. Living where I normally do, I don’t have many opportunities for “hate attending” (a variation on hate-following).

(2) As per wikipedia –

A keystone species is a species that has a disproportionately large effect on its natural environment relative to its abundance. The concept was introduced in 1969 by the zoologist Robert T. Paine. Keystone species play a critical role in maintaining the structure of an ecological community, affecting many other organisms in an ecosystem and helping to determine the types and numbers of various other species in the community. Without keystone species, the ecosystem would be dramatically different or cease to exist altogether. Some keystone species, such as the wolf and lion, are also apex predators.

The role that a keystone species plays in its ecosystem is analogous to the role of a keystone in an arch. While the keystone is under the least pressure of any of the stones in an arch, the arch still collapses without it. Similarly, an ecosystem may experience a dramatic shift if a keystone species is removed, even though that species was a small part of the ecosystem by measures of biomass or productivity. It became a popular concept in conservation biology, alongside flagship and umbrella species. Although the concept is valued as a descriptor for particularly strong inter-species interactions, and has allowed easier communication between ecologists and conservation policy-makers, it has been criticized for oversimplifying complex ecological systems.

NB These should NOT be confused with foundation species. Thanks to HS for the distinction, which I will try to follow-up in a different post.

(3) If we’re abusing ecology (and clearly I am) we could argue that civil society organisations have become “functionally extinct” after 45 years of neoliberalism.  That is, there are still isolated shell-shocked individuals staggering around, but they don’t “do” the things they used to. But that’s another blog post.

(4) At which point, as a white hetero able-bodied man I can say “I did, it’s still there, and it’s fabulous!”). 

(5) Very non-complete list of blog posts about this here –