The following might be humorous. It’s not if you don’t laugh. Smiling only half counts.

It seems as if many of us want a movement. Some may want a social movement that is esoteric, some may want one that is nostalgic, and some may simply want certain kinds of change regardless of the form it takes, and some people just spend too much time reading blogs. We want many different kinds of movements and we work for many different kinds. It reminds me of all the different types of cup cakes at my bakery down the street. Some are nice and they are all cupcakes. But there is one thing that people here want, at least that it is clearly stated in the about of IGHIH. We want to stop/minimize/prevent… global climate change in a good way. No policies or frameworks coming from a think tank or NGO will create or engineer this alone. It must be derived by the words spoken by everyone. A movement must be evolved to; it must experience growing pains. This does not mean however that it must intentionally inflict itself with the hopes of it later producing a stronger unforeseen outcome. I don’t believe anyone here so far has intentionally done this. We must be deliberate in how we structure debate. As Matt Maiorana said: “Debate is generally good, but only when it’s productive.” While it can be difficult to predict the outcome of what might spark debate. We should go back to our core goals. I would “assume” that people have certain goals by posting something on IGHIH. If you intend to spark debate be clear about it! If you intend to nab people to your side say so! If you want to show someone how they are wrong say so! How we frame issues, sets up how they are misheard. We are ultimately the carriers of our messages. It is our responsibility to make sure they are heard right. Being misunderstood is ones own burden. We should not get so mad at those who misunderstand what we say. Instead, (as frustrating as it can be) let us understand those who don’t understand us and redress or sometimes even re-consider our own stance. We will reach times when we must reconcile with the fact that while we work for common goals we can be involved with ideologically/fundamentally different movements. This is okay. Yes, within the youth climate change movement there are fundamentally different movements…which may or may not be possible to unify. But, I would hope that we seek unity not in thinking but in a movement built around a cause. It looks like this is the purpose of this place… to serve the corroborating those stories, build collective dialogue, and to eat more blogs. We probably don’t want an echo chamber if we are trying to solve something, and a death chamber does not seem preferable either.

To consider:

1. Keeping our comments and postings as transparent as possible. We should not change or edit things after it has been out there. That should be reserved for grammar and factually inaccuracies. If you need to clarify something how about writing a follow up post? Or comment? Let’s be transparent so we can be clearer about our intentions.

2. It’s okay to stop and take some time to think. Seriously. With our instant communication sometimes we need to control of the rapid-fire responses. Put clear communication at the front!

3. Now for a slightly fun review of some words that we might have misunderstood/misused:

Debate and collaboration are two different things.
Arguing and arguments are two different acts.
Assumptions and presumptions are different attitudes.

4. We all make mistakes… my nursery school teacher told me so. Own up to them, people respect you for it.

To go back and try and make it appear as if Helen and BTG has not been met upon first reaction with stunningly close-minded negativity is to attempt to rewrite the course of debate this comment thread has taken.

One thing we have been careful not to do is question anyone’s convictions (directly or by accusing them of abusing privilege)–we all feel that people have signed on to the organizations they wish to be a part of for personal reasons, be they reasons of passion, deep thought or quality of experience. I have not seen the same courtesy afforded the 15 of us who have come to Oakland to kick start our own youth organization. Part of the Breakthrough Generation method is to examine assumptions–assumptions made by liberals, conservatives, market-fundamentalists, environmentalists, everyday Americans, politicians, businesspeople, public sector workers, private sector investors, our own directors, ourselves and literally ANYONE whose actions and the assumptions they are based on affects America’s and the world’s transition to a clean energy economy.

Helen has offered an incredibly insightful, well reasoned and thoughtful take on what these past few days on IGHIH might mean to us at BTG, the youth energy/climate movement, and progressive politics in general. Like every other person I have found myself working with this summer, her passion is coupled with and motivated by a deeply thoughtful, relentlessly analytic mind bent on finding answers and exposing unasked questions. I am proud to be working with them all.

Helen’s other goal on this post was to let you all in on why we have signed on with Breakthrough Generation and the Breakthrough Institute. Feel free to offer substantive, probing critique of our mission and our methods, but please do not make assumptions about why we are here.

I believe Arthur’s comment “no” was in reference to the headline that was posed as a question: “Does Unity Demand Uniformity of Thought?”

Reading through this has been super interesting to me and I’ve pulled out some excellent lessons:
1. Be very careful with tone and framing because those things can really piss people off.
2. There are some very fundamental world views and core opinions people hold - many times these wont change and it is best to learn to work despite them. Discussion on difference can and should continue, but it’s often more productive to focus on common ground.
3. Debate is generally good, but only when it’s productive - lets do our best to keep it that way.
4. A split in the youth movement is NOT what we want or need. There are incredibly smart people coming down on all sides of this issue. When it comes down to it, we need those people who just sit and think about the super complex issues all day, but we also need lots of people who are in communities getting shit done. The key is that these two groups need to work together and build on each others efforts - the opposite seems to be happening right now.
5. I love the youth climate movement, even when we fight. But seriously, lets be nice to each other.

I’m ready to work with Breakthrough on this issue. I would personally be sad to see Breakthrough leave IGHIH, but I would also be sad if things didn’t change in terms of post content and responses. I think both sides to the debate should make a concerted effort to rethink how they are approaching this discussion.

I want to add one stop on Amy’s list while you are in the Bay Area this summer–The Catalyst Project. They do a lot of good anti-racist work for white allies. If we want to move forward as a movement or a movement of movements, we need not repeat the mistakes of the past and leave historically oppressed communities behind.

Until you, and a lot of other people, come to grips with that, we’re probably not making a lot of progress.

Peace, Scott

a democracy is skewed for some voices over others when some have the privilege of a computer, a paycheck, an internship, air conditioning, etc. to put their voice out there and others don’t. just as it’s much easier for a white male to speak and have his voice listened to and respected because of privilege, it’s much easier for paid associates and interns of a think-tank to sit around blogging than it is for frontline communities and full time grassroots community organizers and workers to do so. that’s privilege in action.

i don’t know if it’s merely that y’all don’t want to acknowledge this or if it’s hubris or if you really just can’t see it, but as scott alluded to earlier, the breakthrough generation is exercising its privilege blindly. calling it democracy in action is just further muddying the situation. it’s not democracy. it’s privileged voices getting the most airtime because they have the privilege of time to spend on such things.

certainly, privilege and oppression are sticky subjects for which there are no easy, quick solutions (kinda like the climate crisis) and i certainly don’t speak from some kind of privilege vacuum, but i think it would behoove y’all to take the criticisms concerning privilege given here seriously and reflectively rather than just dismissing rhem. is it just that the rest of us can’t take criticism, or is it that y’all are refusing to engage in some quality introspection for the sake of the breakthrough ideology and institute. i can see how both may be taking place, but please, if you aren’t already, spend some time on your part, and i’ll take care of mine.

from the forest,
kodama

Wow. This is totally ridiculous.

Obviously the youth movement wants and needs constructive criticism, but the tone and approach taken by Breakthrough Generation and the fellows posting is not helpful and is not constructive. It has caused people to become deeply offended, it has hurt people and it has turned this blog into a sideshow, in my opinion. I am sure that is not the opinion of everyone.

The youth movement, and the climate movement as a whole, also obviously need unity. This is incredibly difficult to achieve and, once achieved, must be constantly tended to and maintained. Unity comes from long, long, long nights spent awake at conferences debating your colleagues and peers. Unity comes from sitting around a table with a bunch of young people from across the United States, or North America, or the world, planning for a movement and talking honestly and openly about the challenges to our movement and our joint goals. Unity is not some artificial handshake. It’s not a wink and a nod to someone across the room. It is a product of hours (several hundred hours) spent in debate. Unity is a product of hard work and tears. Unity is a product of complete and utter beakdowns within our movement.

So, no, unity does not demand uniformity in thought. However, it is not something to be messed with, or played with, or attacked without respecting or understanding the hard work and harsh, at times bitter, debating that has gone into achieving unity. Unity is fragile and needs to be treated as such.

I think the language and tone of Breakthrough Generation in regards to the youth climate movement is pretentious and assumptive. You don’t need to take your discussion elsewhere, you don’t need to stop bringing up criticisms and no one is asking you to stop challenging the youth movement. But please remember that you all have just as much potential as anyone else on this blog to be wrong in your approach and uninformed in your opinions. If you can keep that in mind and be respectful of the work and the individuals who have worked tirelessly trying to build a movement, then bring it on.

Additionally, to be completely honest to Breakthrough Generation, I really value your opinions and ideas and I think sometimes you all have some really great points and sometimes you don’t, but I don’t value them more than thirteen people anywhere else. An action is a result, many times, of more than thirteen people sitting around and talking about what is strategic and what is the most important use of time. People aren’t out there blindly doing things (for the most part, sometimes they are). They’re doing them because they think they will build the movement and get us closer to solutions. Sometimes the actions and campaigns don’t do that. As someone that has been organizing in this movement for the last five or so years, I know I have done a lot of things that weren’t strategic or smart. I also know that there are serious hurdles that the youth climate movement needs to overcome and that we could be far more strategic and effective. No one is going to disagree with that. That’s what we are trying to do, every day. But, I also know the youth climate movement has done a lot of things that were strategic and smart and got us far closer to the solutions we need. And when I make decisions in a campaign or within the movement, I’m going to pull from my lessons learned with this movement, from my organization’s lessons learned, from my own personal studies of organizing and from what I am hearing from the people that are a part of my organization whom I work for and with. I know their stories, I know what grounds them, I know their successes and failures and they know mine. And I think that’s how most organizers function. So, within this whole world of decision making and organizing, I’m going to value your ideas and perspectives and they’ll make me pause and think, but not more than anyone else. Certainly not any more than an action someone else took that makes me pause and think about whether or not it was strategic and smart, whether is got us close to the solutions. We’re all in this together, you know? We’re all trying to make this work. That’s the unity.

Lastly, about the blog itself… I used to read the blog every day. I used to post or comment. As of late, I have actually stopped reading it because I feel like it has turned into a forum for nit-picking, name calling and being mean to eachother. I used to come to the blog to learn about what the youth movement, and the climate movement, was doing. I used to come on here to assess if our actions were strategic, to learn about tactics and approaches that I did not use in my organizing, to hear the latest policy and climate updates and, when I was a student and this blog was just starting, to feel like I was part of a movement that was growing stronger every day. I can still do that on this blog, but I have to wade through posts where people are fighting and it’s just annoying. I know some people really get off on blog debates and that’s great, but I think they’re kind of a waste of time- even though I totally just participated in one.

So, now I’m going to get back to organizing (actually, back to cooking) and learning and failing and winning and I hope that maybe we’ll actually pull this whole movement thing off real soon.

The only privilege anyone is exercising here is the privilege of democracy. I can’t believe you would suggest that this free debate over vital questions is somehow an act of race and class privilege.

For you to suggest that our blog posts are somehow comparable to the history of oppression against people of color is totally outrageous.

Let’s recap what’s happened here. Breakthrough Fellow Rachel Barge posted a very thoughtful self-criticism of tactics that alienate the majority of Americans who, under our democracy, will ultimately determine what gets done and doesn’t get done on climate and energy issues. This provoked outraged calls by some on IGHIH that her post had crossed some “implicit or explicit line.” But read it again for yourself. She constantly referred to “we” – as in “we look stupid.” It was self-critique of “our” movement.

Next, Helen Aki posted on the importance of debate so that we can get climate policy right. Her point was that democracy is, in essence, a debate. That’s how democracy works. Free speech and participation is at the center. Her post was in essence a really long and kind invitation to IGHIH readers who might disagree with her. Please read it yourself and cite passages where you find something different.

The last line in Helen’s post wasn’t a call to arms or an attack but rather an invitational question:

So from here on out, I’m signing on for a “collaboration with friction at its heart”: exhaustively critical, yet dedicated to its vision, and determined to achieve its ends. Care to join me?

The first response she got was “No.” That was from Energy Action Coalition Digital Organizer Arthur Coulston.

What is most remarkable about your comment is how you said nothing of the issues at hand – the viability of a tactical, direct-action politics to creating a majority of Americans ready to take action on climate – and instead chose to attack my race and gender. Let the record show that you took a vital debate over tactics — “our tactics” — and turned it into a personal attack on things I have nothing to do with.

The only privilege that any of us have exercised is the privilege of participating on a democratic web site like IGHIH. This is a web site dedicated to getting the climate issue right, not just posting coverage of direct action. And that means debate.

Now, the great thing about this blog is that if you’re not interested in reading a self-critique of tactics, or a questioning post about the importance of debate within the youth energy movement, you don’t have to read those posts. It’s a town square — people are talking on soap boxes and having arguments. It, like our democracy, is something you don’t have to participate in. You wrote, “I want OUR blog back.” But your blog was never taken away from you. Rather, what’s happened is that new voices are speaking at the town square.

You note that “the vast majority of the people that I have talked to don’t find what y’all are doing right now helpful, constructive, or useful, and resent the domination of the blog. Please cut it out.” Well, guess what. In democracies, minority opinions are allowed to speak and be heard. I find it curious that you would suggest that because “the vast majority” of the people you know disagree with us that you think we should be silent.

That’s an ironic position to take for someone ostensibly concerned about the unfair exercise of power on this site.

I would like to have a substantive conversation with youth energy and climate activists. We will continue to try to have that here. I’ll ask Helen’s question of you, and will hope for a positive affirmation of dialogue, debate, and democracy.

So from here on out, I’m signing on for a “collaboration with friction at its heart”: exhaustively critical, yet dedicated to its vision, and determined to achieve its ends. Care to join me?

Teryn