This stage is the journey in which change is forged. It can sometimes be a long process with many challenges, which we will address here. As the previous one, this stage also has two parts: one on personal and one on interpersonal challenges.
Personal challenges
Tiredness
With all the technology around us these days, we probably work more than ever (especially if working in the US or Japan). This is not an accident – it serves the system well. If people are kept busy all the time, they will find it difficult to think and question, let alone do something about the system in which they live. After long working hours and taking care of the home and kids, it is not surprising that, at the end of the day, the vast majority just want to slump in front of one or another screen. But this, of course, doesn’t get us anywhere. Fortunately, it is possible to rest and still contribute. Rest is primarily about a change. If you have spent all day in front of a computer, a good way to rest is to do something physical, which can also be productive and useful. For example, growing your own vegetables, helping your neighbours, taking a shift at a local soup kitchen, running an activity with local kids, delivering leaflets, etc. Your kids would benefit from including them in some of these activities. On the other hand, if your work is physically demanding, you could do something sedentary, such as online projects or activities.
Idleness
Nowadays, it is not only easy to be lazy but also to justify laziness. All the props that surround us, such as television, social media, easily accessible games, gambling and porn sites, encourage us to be passive or provide us with an illusion of activity. Overcoming this hurdle is difficult at first, but it becomes easier over time, as being socially proactive is ultimately more satisfying. If inertia is pulling you down and away from doing anything, acknowledge it, but don’t surrender to it immediately. You can say to yourself something like “I will give [an activity] a go for 10 minutes and carry on only if I feel like”. Start with something small and manageable, and take on bigger projects as your confidence increases. If possible, get involved with other like-minded people, exercise your creativity, and make what you do fun rather than another chore. You won’t even notice that idleness is gone.
Indulgence
The late 1960s were truly evolutionary. But within a few years, free love descended into sexual debauchery and abuse; a genuine desire to expand consciousness ended up in banal drug misuse; and yearning for more freedom was quenched by a greater variety of consumer products that were little more than ego trips. This shows how easy it is to succumb to the hedonistic part of our nature, especially when the system titillates and encourages it. Satisfying our needs is necessary, and enjoying life is energising, but indulgence induced by consumerism is different. We not only get addicted to certain things; we get addicted to pleasure itself. The first step of dealing with this challenge is to recognise that the system has got under your skin. Keeping the bigger picture in mind and setting your priorities helps you fight temptation. This is not to say that all pleasures and conveniences should be disregarded, only that your choices should not be driven solely by them.
Self-neglect
Our attempts to make a difference in the world cannot be a justification for neglecting our own mental and physical health. Creating change is often like a marathon that requires being in good physical and mental shape. As they say on planes, “In case of an emergency, put the oxygen mask first on yourself.” You can find resources on maintaining activist well-being here: https://commonslibrary.org/10-great-resources-on-activist-wellbeing/. That said, wellness should not become a trap. You don’t need to be perfect in every way before contributing. Some (such as the regressive influencer Jordan Peterson) insist that people put their own house completely in order before attempting to change the world. This is often no more than a cynical ploy to discourage people from engaging, as, of course, the ‘order’ can never be perfect (Peterson himself didn’t seem to follow his own advice). What we really need is to balance self-care with social engagement, as they depend on and can support each other. You may find not only that being in good shape can make you contribute better, but also that your contributions can enhance your own well-being.
Fear and anxiety
Some measure of fear and anxiety is natural and can even stimulate us, but if we succumb to them, they can be paralysing and make us miserable. However, fighting or suppressing these feelings is hard and energy-consuming, but we can learn to use them instead. Let’s take fear first. For example, if you fear losing your job, you can turn that fear into motivation to do what you can to prevent it and to prepare for such an eventuality. In this process, you may even find that losing your job may not be that bad and may be conducive to making further contributions.
We will address anxiety separately because it involves uncertainty rather than an imminent danger, as in the case of fear. For example, uncertainty about responses to making a stand on a social issue or uncertainty about the outcome. There is no answer to uncertainty; we just need to learn to live with it. Whatever you do, whatever you choose, uncertainty will be there, in one form or another. But that’s not bad. As long as there is uncertainty, there is hope. Likewise, anxiety is bad only if it gets out of control. The best way to regulate anxiety is to develop competence and be well prepared. If you can’t beat waves, learn to ride them like a good surfer.
Anger
How can one not get angry when seeing what’s going on in the world? When seeing how politicians that are supposed to represent us and the media that are supposed to inform us are corrupt and biased? When the rich and powerful manipulate the masses to blame the poor and weak for everything? When seeing that they risk the future of humankind for their short-term, selfish ends? Anger is understandable, but it makes it harder to contribute constructively to social change. In a social context, anger arises when we perceive injustice and unfairness and don’t know how to remedy it. These are two ingredients for anger. If either is absent, anger is unlikely to take hold. We cannot make unfairness and injustice suddenly disappear. Even if, by some magic, we could, it would not necessarily be a good thing. A sense of unfairness and injustice may be a driving force of our collective development. On the other hand, we don’t need to carry the sense of powerlessness with us. We can get rid of it by doing something constructive. This can help channel its energy away from its (self)destructive tendencies. Ronaldo Lemos, a lawyer who oversaw a successful legislative crowd-sourcing campaign in Brazil, summarised it brilliantly: “In the end, I think, anger is helpful – but you shouldn’t respond only by being angry, you have to transform that into a constructive proposition and alternative to what you are angry about” (Whitford, 2016). So, if you are angry, don’t wait for a perfect opportunity. You will benefit from doing something even if it doesn’t change the world.
Love
If your loved ones share your passion for social change, it can enhance your motivation and multiply your contribution many times (the whole can be much more than the sum of its parts in this case). Likewise, the sense of partnership or comradeship adds great depth to a relationship. Appreciate all that, and don’t be petty about other, less important things. However, if your loved ones are not on the same page with you, love can compete with your passion for social change. You may try to bring them closer, but do not push, as it may have the opposite effect. A ‘truce’ is sometimes the best outcome. For that, both sides need to love each other for what they are rather than for what they want the other side to be. What you are may include your desire to make the world a better place, and what they are may include not prioritising it at that point.
Ego trips
We are all born into and live in a system based on the zero-sum game. It is not surprising that many expect something in return and feel entitled when they invest in social change, particularly when they succeed. This is a well-known phenomenon: people who feel they have been very good in one way make allowances for themselves in other ways. Thoughts such as “I am doing so much for others, so I deserve some special treatment” are common, but they easily spoil good work. So, how do we deal with this? Depreciation and false modesty do not handle the excitement of success well. You can try something like this instead: “I did a very good job. I am happy that I lead a meaningful life, and I am not going to risk losing it for a meaningless indulgence. I am going now to enjoy a nice cuppa and a good night’s sleep. Tomorrow is another day.”
Failures
Failures are a normal part of the process and are hardly avoidable. As Robert F. Kennedy said, “Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly.” However, failures may trigger a host of negative feelings, such as resentment or self-pity, which can kill motivation. If you are going in that direction, stop. We can never fully know the consequences of our actions. What we consider failure may not be. Don’t ruin the potential effects of your actions by assuming that you have failed, because if you do, others are likely to follow. According to the legend, Jesus had only a few disciples when he was crucified. If he thought of himself as a failure, it is unlikely that his following would have grown much.
If you are also interested in personal development that can help you make some evolutionary changes in your own life please visit personalsynthesis.com
Interpersonal challenges (among the engaged)
Those who are engaged usually form or join groups, communities, and movements, which is important, but can create various interpersonal challenges. We address here the most common ones of that kind (practical challenges such as money, time, space, and organisation are not discussed, as they differ from case to case, so general comments on them would not be of much use).
Activist righteousness (AR)
Activism involves passion for a cause, but that passion gets the better of some activists when it turns into righteousness. When the whole movement is affected, it creates another form of oppression. It condemns well-meaning individuals and groups who may have the same goal, but take a different route. As Frances Lee, an activist himself, concludes, “I am not the first nor the last to point out that these movements for liberation and justice are exhibiting the same oppressive patterns that we are fighting against in larger society.” This happens because AR is more interested in establishing local power and control than in helping society as a whole evolve. Those who display AR see no need for self-reflection and prefer their monologue to dialogue — fear and intimidation, rather than inclusiveness and cooperation, rule. Moral conviction is weaponised to shame or silence others.
A cautionary example of devastation that AR can cause when unleashed on a large scale is the so-called Cultural Revolution in China (1966-1976). It was carried out mostly by young people who saw themselves as, and in many ways were, grassroots activists. China’s leader at the time, Mao Zedong, used and encouraged them in a fight with his own Communist Party after his economic reform led to mass starvation. However, things got so out of control that he had to quickly stop this destructive force, send young people to the countryside for ‘re-education’, and establish a de facto military dictatorship. AR has never gone nearly that far in the West, but it still plays into the hands of the system there. As Lee points out, the tactics AR uses (call-outs, mobbing, shunning, shaming, cancelling) “…hold back movements by alienating both potential allies and their own members”. Furthermore, AR is not only internally disruptive and divisive, but it also gives the other side ammunition.
So, what can be done about it? As with other forms of righteousness, dealing with AR is tricky because its adherents challenge but do not allow to be challenged. We suggest that a ‘hard boundaries with a soft core’ approach is the only feasible option:
- Hard boundaries are created by defining values that set limits to methods of achieving social change and standing firm in upholding these values. They may include, for example, not oppressing or discriminating against anyone (even those we oppose), forging rather than imposing consensus through dialogue, and equality and freedom to share one’s views without fear of retribution. In other words, making clear that achieving an end by means of physical, emotional or verbal abuse and the dictatorial imposition of one’s own views is unacceptable.
- The soft core implies engaging with those who are taken by AR with empathy and compassion, as long as they remain within the boundaries. A dialogue, if they are willing to engage, may include discussing inherent contradictions and negative consequences of AR, that demanding immediate perfection may slow large-scale social change, and that winning hearts and minds rather than imposing our way leads to lasting change. If they are not willing to engage, AR must be isolated to prevent its spread and minimise potential damage.
Revolutionary zeal
There will always be activists who want to see quick change. Revolution may appeal to them more than evolution. These are those who would rather fight than create. It is, of course, worthwhile trying to reason with them, but talking may not always work. If this is the case, it may be better to let them go than to try to contain them. History shows that revolutionary zeal can be too dangerous to give a chance to take over. However, if possible, those people shouldn’t be alienated either. When the forces behind the existing system start lashing out (see below), revolutionaries may play an important role not so much in overthrowing the old (which can be left to spontaneous processes), but in protecting the new. Protecting projects and initiatives that are part of the evolution may be necessary. Even if we don’t fight the system, it will retaliate against any alternatives, as it sees them as a threat.
Power
Power can become an issue that affects the dynamic between leadership and the grassroots. Both are important and depend on each other. There is no movement without the grassroots, but leaders also matter as they can steer the movement in a consistent direction and also bring on board potential allies and ‘undecided’ as it is easier to relate to an individual than a faceless movement (it can be telling to compare, for example, the civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King in the US in the 1960s and the more recent Black Lives Matter movement).
However, charismatic leaders can be intoxicated by power. It is known that power produces natural opiates in the brain. This can lead to wrong decisions and alienate those outside their close circle. Leaders may also feel under siege, not only from their enemies but also from supporters and friends. The concern that their hard work might be hijacked is often justified. The trouble is that they can hijack social change themselves, too. An example of that is the Islamic Revolution in 1979 in Iran; the revolution, ignited by secular, educated Iranians as a protest against the Shah’s dictatorship, was hijacked by Islamic clerics led by Ayatollah Khomeini. The first victims of the new regime were the students and others who started the revolution in the first place. This is why a balance of power is crucial.
Leaders may have a vision and charisma, but neither they nor those around them should assume they are always right. They need to be transparent, delegate, remain open-minded, and, most of all, balance leading with listening. This is not easy. There are always many more grassroots than leaders. Even if the movement is small, it may be impossible for leaders to engage individually with everybody, so they must be selective. Delegating selection to others, asking for executive summaries, or engaging in random, informal interactions with grassroots are ways to keep the door open without compromising other priorities. In turn, activists who feel that the leadership could do a better job should not start by challenging them personally, as this can create a split within the movement or make the leaders more entrenched. It is more constructive to outline an alternative, gauge its traction with other activists, and then present it to the leadership for consideration.
Debating
Debating matters, not only to find the best ways forward, but also to balance power. However, excessive debating has led to the demise of numerous initiatives and movements, particularly on the left. Some cooperatives, for example, have failed for this reason. Debating too much can make decision-making prohibitively slow and even paralyse it. It also consumes time and energy and can kill the enthusiasm of those who are more interested in action than in words. For these reasons, some checks and balances might be necessary:
- The greater the number of participants in a debate, the stricter the time limit needs to be. Two people may debate all night without much harm, but if fifty people are involved and the debate drags on, many will get disgruntled.
- Some people just like talking. In a group of about fifteen, there will be at least one person who will try to dominate the debate. Such people need to be contained by giving everyone an equal chance to contribute, reining in any digressions and, if necessary, imposing a time limit on individual contributions to the debate. Also, those who have not spoken can be prioritised over those who already have (the old-fashioned practice of raising a hand before talking may be invaluable for this purpose). Such boundaries may lead to losing one or two people, but they help keep many more.
- If you are thinking of participating in a debate, it is a good idea to think first which point you want to make is the most important. A debate topic usually involves many interrelated issues, which is why debates frequently go off on tangents. Try to unpack them – this is like unclenching your fist, noticing the five digits and then focusing on one of them. Once you decide which point you want to home in on, park the others until that one is sufficiently addressed.
Disagreements about how to move forward
They can be resolved by voting, but unless the vote is overwhelming, many of those who lose may be left unhappy. To avoid that, the group can be split into two or more teams that try different ways to achieve the goal. This may sound counterintuitive. Isn’t fragmentation bad? Yes, but overt splitting is less likely to lead to fragmentation than covert splitting (which usually happens when a substantial minority is forced into line). Furthermore, internal competition in action rather than in debate may be more useful. Practice will show which way is better or that the two ways can complement each other. When this happens, people get together again without being forced to.
Disunity
Many good initiatives fail because opposition to the existing system is disunited. Rather than changing the system, they fight each other. To prevent this, we need to tolerate diversity as long as it doesn’t undermine the shared direction. Some groups and individuals may differ, sometimes substantially. But we need to ask ourselves if these differences are so important as to make us lose sight of the greater prize. We sometimes must compromise on small things to avoid the main priority being compromised. It needs to be accepted that not everybody (including ourselves) will ever be happy about everything. Once the change is made, there will be plenty of opportunities to iron out details.
Isolationism
Some people reject mainstream social life and seek to create their own local paradise, often in a remote place. Although they may not directly contribute to change, such experiments can still have great value, as much can be learned from their experiences. Isolationism is more often, though, manifested as inward-looking, self-ghettoisation within wider society, which can lead to an ‘us v. them’ mentality (‘them’ being everybody else). In extreme cases, this can turn into a community akin to a sect or cult. To avoid such closures, every group needs to be somewhat fluid. In other words, there should be some degree of permeability between the inside and the outside. Connections and collaboration with other groups and multiple belongings can go a long way towards avoiding a largely unhelpful in-group / out-group attitude, as well as black-and-white thinking.
Excessive optimism (utopianism)
Even the best Ideas are not going to make an impact if they are not carefully applied. Wouldn’t it be great if we all switched to renewable energy suppliers? Yes, but even the most determined customers will give up if it takes an hour for their customer service to answer a call. It’s an unfortunate fact of life that things rarely run smoothly. Even with a perfect system (and there is no perfect system), things would not run smoothly, because it would require perfect people, and we can’t expect those born into and living in a dying system to be perfect. Hope is essential, optimism is good, but excessive optimism is a recipe for failure. It is important that any organisation or movement is prepared for reality to kick in and for challenges along the way.
