[Written by Helen Aki, with contributions from Rachel Barge, Alisha Fowler, Lindsey Franklin, and Jesse Jenkins.]
Over the past few days, controversy has been stirred up on “It’s Getting Hot In Here” over a number of posts written by members of Breakthrough Generation, a new progressive youth organization founded by the Breakthrough Institute. While the controversy has focused on perceptions of Breakthrough’s agenda, it reflects a larger question, which is: what is the role of conflict and debate in terms of forming an effective movement for change? This post is my attempt to illuminate Breakthrough’s intent in sparking such debate, as well as to address this larger question. In the spirit of dialogue and growth, I look forward to your critical and substantive responses.
Here in Oakland, for the past week and a half, we fellows have been vigorously pointing out the flaws and weaknesses of the Breakthrough Institute: everything from time wasted arguing with environmentalists, who aren’t really our enemies, to insisting that Breakthrough needs to garner more public support, make the movement bigger, and clarify our mission statement. I think each of the fellows could speak at length about what they would like Breakthrough to do better or differently, and what things they take issue with.
To the credit of Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, the Breakthrough founders: they’ve welcomed our criticisms, listened to us, and done a good job responding to our various concerns. What has been curious to me since the beginning is this: the thirteen fellows who sit in the Breakthrough office every morning, reading and writing and engaging in dialogue with an intensity that astonishes me after two years of college classes, are all here because we resonate strongly with the message of “The Death of Environmentalism” and the Break Through book. We’re here because we believe in it.
So why are we so eager to critique Breakthrough: its strategy, its rhetoric, and its accomplishments? And if we are internally conflicted, how can we hope to convince those who might already be skeptical or downright disagree with us? Does it bode ill that the thirteen people most convinced by and committed to the ideas and visions set forth by Breakthrough are still full of doubts, questions, and concerns?
Absolutely not. Because we care, because we are committed, we are critical. When it comes to ideas, strategies, and paradigms, conflict—the right kind of conflict—is good. Productive. It’s probably even essential to getting it right.
Social scientists and historians have long understood that friction is the basis for social and cultural change. Anna Lowenhaupt Tsing wrote a wonderful book called Friction: An Ethnography of Global Connection, in which she studies instances where oppositional forces (ideological or otherwise) collide and create “friction.” She writes about the value of “collaboration with friction at its heart,” and insists that “collaboration was not consensus making but rather an opening for productive confusion.” David Brooks made a similar assertion about the conservative right in his famous essay, “A House Divided, and Strong,” where he argued that the movement’s internal divisions gave it the strength to change the face of American politics for decades. And let’s not forget the obvious (if cliche) division between Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, and the diverse wings of the anti-war and civil rights movements.
I think Breakthrough Generation sensed that change does not occur in a room full of people who think the same way and are in perfect agreement. Our rush to find fault with our own employers and their strategy rose from the understanding that, if we were content to reside in our enthusiasm for Breakthrough and said nothing more, we wouldn’t go anywhere. Nothing would be accomplished.
From this understanding comes our desire to engage with others in the same way. Our criticisms of the youth energy movement are motivated by a deep commitment to the actualization of its goals. After all, even if we disagree on some (or many) things, don’t we have the same agenda: averting the catastrophic effects of anthropogenic global warming? At the end of the day, aren’t we all deeply committed to building a more sustainable, just and prosperous future?
At the same time, the response we’ve gotten from folks on ItsGettingHotInHere has given us pause. Although we’ve been trying to write in the spirit of initiating dialogue, we’ve been reprimanded for sponsoring “intentionally inflammatory attacks.” We’ve been told that, for the sake of the movement, we need to provide a front of unity. If IGHIH’s purpose is to portray to outsiders an image of the youth energy movement which is uniform in thought and approach, this is a reasonable request. But is that really what this space is for? Does unity demand uniformity of thought, or can our commonalities be strong enough to encourage internal debate?
We need to recognize that our movement is still growing, experimenting with tactics and coming into its own political identity. I feel that a call for unity and agreement which avoids questions or addressing people’s concerns can stunt our maturation as a movement. If there is no agitation, no dissent, there is no incentive for improvement.
The truth is, I do believe that there are significant problems with the paradigm and approach embodied by pollution-oriented strategies to combat climate change. In the weeks to come, I will participate in a process of sincere, rational and thorough critique, because I am convinced that constructive criticism—if acknowledged, internalized and applied—is a strategy for achieving excellence. Simultaneously, it will be critical to create a compelling vision for what these improvements will look like. We hope that by engaging other activists and intellectuals, who are able and willing to thoroughly examine their beliefs and ours, we too can be subjected to substantive debate. Being challenged by competing ideas means that we must constantly strive to become better. This will require taking a good hard look at all of our assumptions and getting rid of what doesn’t work. And it means listening intently to those who critique us.
Perhaps we should have stated this from the beginning. We may have taken people by surprise in our recent writing, and been clumsy about addressing these important concepts. Breakthrough Generation is still finding its voice and identity, and we would like to invite constructive debate throughout our process of emergence. We are living at a critical point in time. There is a lot that needs to be done. Throughout this process, let’s remember that the strength of our mutual respect (and, in many cases, friendships), as well as our overarching unity of purpose, should allow space for internal debate.
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?
Subscribe by Email!
Subscribe by RSS!
Share on Facebook
No
Mountain Justice Summer, SEAC, Earth First!, Southern Energy Network, Rising Tide and other organizations has dozens of organizers going into communities in Appalachia and elsewhere to do on the ground work trying to stop coal extraction and coal fired climate change. A much more worthwhile effort than spending the summer critiquing others’ work and calling it an “internal debate.”
Let’s all think about what collaboration really means and looks like. Controversy, debate, and dissent are certainly be parts of it, but so are friendship, good will, and compassion. Just a thought.
what does the breakthrough fellows and institute do other than write blog posts? seriously? do you all actually organize in communities and on the street or do you just read policy papers and have heated arguments over fair trade mocha lattes? until you’ve done serious groundwork, i don’t see how you all can add anything to “the movement.” so far all i hear from breakthrough is criticism without action. show me the latter and then i’ll listen to the former.
from the forest,
kodama
It seems to me that this kind of thing, a divided movement- is something we have been clear to avoid from the moment we all joined this movement. Division is careless, harmful and definitely unproductive: I think focusing on it and pointing out the critiques force it to be something none of us want it to be: hard, dry soil where nothing can grow; while if we can keep moving forward, like Kai said, in friendship and compassion, our movement will exist in rich and hearty soil- and surely succeed.
kodama, we believe that grappling with tough questions and engaging in hard debate is essential to building a stronger movement. if you read our bios, you’ll see that many of us come from long histories of activism and organizing. we could all be out on the streets this summer fighting coal plants, but we are committed to getting our conceptual framework right so that our action is ever-more effective.
this is the greatest challenge the world has ever faced,and it’s a fight we’ll be fighting for our entire lives. it’s going to take much tougher thinking to inform the action we need to overcome.
In my opinion, “venue” is at the heart of many of the recent blog posts stirring up controversy. Surely some of the posts hit on divisive visions of how we are going to tackle the climate crisis…errr…opportunity. However, I believe that many of the other posts hit on issues that we’ve discussed with close friends and colleagues late at night during moments of honesty and fear.
For example, I have participated in, organized, and hold a firm belief in the value and necessity of visible actions that at times can be called street theater. However, I have also criticized actions that I viewed as lacking strategy, being organized for the sake of media, or felt disempowering. I’ve even criticized actions that I’ve helped to organized. This criticism extends to campaigns I’ve worked on and beliefs held by organizations I’ve worked for.
Any organizer that doesn’t believe in criticism is a organizer destined to repeat mistakes. Our movement is full of debriefs, strategic planning, and consensus building. That isn’t to say that we are close to perfect and that more critical discussion are not necessary. Instead, it is to indicate that much our movement is comfortable with criticism. As an active member of the Energy Action Coalition, I can attest to our regular critiques. Further, this criticism is not resigned to EAC - ask anyone who has participated in consensus based based meetings that stretched into the early morning.
Perhaps that is why we’ve seen such cries for unity amongst the heated dialogue on this blog. Many of us have seen our organizing communities nearly fall apart because criticism. We’ve also seen how criticism can be paralyzing and prevent people from taking action on urgent issues. Further, in part because of our movement’s critique, we are all inherently stereotyped as being “those environmentalists that are against everything” (whether self-identified or not).
Point being - I don’t think it is criticism that has been at heart of recent controversies on this blog. In addition, I don’t think that is merely criticism that has drawn resistance. Instead, I’d say that the “venue” in which we’ve carried out these dialogues that has in fact created and amplified debate.
Blogs are extremely powerful tools that have created amazing, democratizing opportunities for people to be heard….and critique. However, like much of the internet these dialogues occur without faces and are inherently subject to assumptions. It easy to assume that if you aren’t blogging your aren’t organizing…it also is easy assume that if isn’t on a blog it isn’t happening…on so on…
I hope that the conversations we observed on this blog are also happening face-to-face. We need to smile together, laugh together, and disagree…together. I know that many, not all of you, are writing from computers literally miles away from each other. I also know that many, not all of you, are writing from computers only a few hours away from some amazing opportunities this summer - opportunities to get to know each other face-to-face, have hard conversations, and hopefully broaden all of our perspectives.
Well said Matt, It is important that we recognize that in order to do this right we are going to have to do direct action in the streets, sit in boardrooms debating white paper policy reports, blog, start our own non-profits, and anything else we can wrap our minds around. But we must remember that all of those are aiming for the same goal and whenever we can unify them each will be that much more powerful than it would be flying solo. An example: The breakthrouh fellows release a report about the need to get off coal, the direct action folks do a blockade of a possibe coal plant and the Summer of Solution folks are then able to put their solar panel factory there instead. Oversimplified, but you get the point. Onward together.
Many of you write that division is the downfall of a movement. But perhaps it is being too quick to agree that will be our downfall. Climate is incredibly complex, and more than most movements of the past, it is essential that we bridge intellectual and activist divides if we are to truly understand how to approach this challenge.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not arguing against the power of unity. But I am arguing strongly against a fear of taking a hard look in the mirror and examining our assumptions and our tactics in light of what we are trying to overcome.
The idea of Breakthrough Generation was born almost a year ago because there was a lack of critical discussion in the public spaces of this movement. In the past few months, and especially over the last two weeks after the Breakthrough Fellows convened in California, a new level of discussion has emerged on IGHIH. Members of Breakthrough Generation have consistently raised the bar, asking important questions about the policies we have been so quick to back, the tactics we use, and the frameworks under which we operate. These conversations are often contentious, but they are also critical.
How can we expect to overcome this challenge if we don’t force ourselves to think in new ways? Perhaps we must even think in ways that make us uncomfortable. Humanity has never faced a challenge as complex and vast as climate change, and therefore, how can we say that critical discussion and debate amongst those who care most deeply about this is not useful? Without that, we will never gain the level of sophistication and understanding of complexity that is needed.
Unity is dangerous if we are too quick to embrace it. There are still many critical discussions for us to have and many assumptions that we need to question. As long as Breakthrough Generation is helping us to do that, than they are exactly what we need right now.
Dear Breakthrough,
1. Stop taking up so much space.
2. Mutual aid when we have similar short term goals, maybe. Unity when you support a social, political and economic system that I struggle against, NEVER.
curious. Do you all ever talk about:
- the ethics/viability of a bunch of people sitting around intellectualizing, with the stated goal of overtaking the movements paradigm while those of us too busy doing work in communities to intellectualize with you all day have no say?
- how race or class privilege play into this?
- problems of power dynamics in movements/organizations, generally speaking, or how you personally can be a part of deconstructing these things that have long divided progressive movements?
Might be worth spending a little time on….
my 2 cents on the “question” you pose. of course there’s room for debate, duh. your question is an obvious red herring. What there is less room for (in my mind) is the arrogant style of the some/most of the people involved with breakthrough.
Consider the fact that the pack of you have, quite frankly, taken over this blog…it shows a distinct lack of awareness the space you are taking up. It’s like that person at the party who talks more and louder than everyone else - except even worse because 99% of this person’s monologue is taking down everyone else’s work (often through an almost drunken exaggeration, distortion, and hyberbole).
Hey Breakthrough Folks,
I just did a quick search through the post from yesterday. No one every accused you of posting “intentionally inflammatory attacks.” I think that you’re trying to respond to my comment, where I accused multiple people in our blogger community of posting “inflammatory, infighting-encouraging posts.”
I think it is unacceptable to use our blog to make fun of another organization’s mascot, as was done with Ranger Rick, or to encourage infighting with inflammatory language. It’s just not respectful.
If you want to engage in a conversation to “constructively criticize” the movement, go ahead and do it WITHIN the organizations in which you’re working. As I mentioned in my last comment, if you have a problem with the street theater that others organized for the Citi campaign, organize a better action in Oakland. I’m sure the campaigners would be happy to debrief with you and hear your thoughts about why it was better than street theater.
I’ll respond like Art - No - I’m not interested in spending my summer reading and responding to critiques of campaigns and organizations you are not a part of.
Why make accusations at others in a very public venue where they feel compelled to respond? It’s a waste of Arthur, Amy, Vernon, Matt and Scott’s valuable time, as organizers who will be working their asses off all summer on campaigns with tangible goals, to be responding to your academic queries.
There is a place for your “exhaustively critical” comments — on your own blog.
Yochi
Dear Yochi,
I noticed you wrote this on the Breakthrough Generation blog:
“I don’t believe that IGHIH is the right place to be posting criticisms (do it all you want on your own blog here), but I’m not going to stop you from posting to IGHIH because I believe it should be open to everyone in our movement.”
We’re okay with having Breakthrough Generation become the forum for debate and discussion in the youth energy movement. Jesse Jenkins, co-Director of Breakthrough Generation and the primary editor of ItsGettingHotInHere, wrote a long email to the rest of the editors today asking what sort of intention they have for IGHIH. Is this primarily a site for event and campaign promotion and advertisement? Is this the “official” Energy Action blog, or is it “Dispatches from the Youth Climate Movement”? Would the IGHIH community rather us take the debate, constructive criticism, and discussion to another place?
It’s not clear whose decision this is to make, or which voices actually represent the IGHIH community. Nevertheless, the response we seem to be getting is that most IGHIH members would rather see this site be for event and campaign promotion. If so, that’s okay. Every political movement makes its choices, and perhaps it is time to clarify all of our identities here.
Sincerely,
Teryn
It must be nice to have the time and resources to have five people collaborate on one blog over the course of the day. I’m curious, how many meetings have you had today to change the name of this blog three times?
I work with organizers in Appalachia, New York and North Carolina that I beg to post something once a month as a reportback to their daily work, and you have five paid bloggers working on one blog and a total of 15 bloggers working on things everyday? WTF?
Breakthrough has essentially funded a small elite group [seemingly affluent from their bios, but I could be wrong] to put out their pro-corp. globalization and anti-activist message. I don’t see this as developing a progressive intellectual wing of the climate movement, this is more like manufacturing consent with no consideration to power and privilege.
Teryn,
I am sorry, but it is obvious that you don’t understand and quite frankly haven’t really read the About page and Contributor page for It’s Getting Hot in Here. That is alright, a lot of people haven’t either. But I think it is quite clear what It’s Getting Hot in Here is and who runs it.
You said:
“We’re okay with having Breakthrough Generation become the forum for debate and discussion in the youth energy movement. Jesse Jenkins, co-Director of Breakthrough Generation and the primary editor of ItsGettingHotInHere, wrote a long email to the rest of the editors today asking what sort of intention they have for IGHIH. Is this primarily a site for event and campaign promotion and advertisement? Is this the “official” Energy Action blog, or is it “Dispatches from the Youth Climate Movement”? Would the IGHIH community rather us take the debate, constructive criticism, and discussion to another place?”
1) It’s Getting Hot in Here is the blog of the Youth Climate Movement - That is bigger than Energy Action, North America, and definitely Breakthrough. However, as a community media project we have accepted voices from the youth climate movement from diverse places, which is why you have been allowed to post.
2) IGHIH is the venue for debate and discussion, not Breakthrough. Breakthrough is an actor in the dialogue, not the setting. There are implicit and explicit rules on how to build and empowering space, Breakthrough Generation has obviously started to violate them - as seen by the frustration by many, many people.
3) While I am a friend of Jesse, he is not in fact the “primary” editor of IGHIH and your falling into that frame shows how you do not understand that this blog is community run and managed.
Richard, I definitely agree with your assessment of IGHIH’s purpose - the give a platform for diverse voices from the broad youth climate movement and provide a forum to publicize our actions, thoughts and victories and discuss issues of relevance to our movement. I of course have read the about page, and it seems to corroborate this position.
But it seems like there are some starkly divergent opinions on what IGHIH is for - just look at the comments on this post and Rachel’s (which ignited this surprising firestorm). I’d hate to see this blog, which I’ve spent so much of my volunteer time helping grow, become a place of homogeneity, purely a place to present unified front to the outside world. But if that’s what the broader community here, or the team of volunteer editors that manages this site decides, we’ll move our discussion elsewhere.
(And to be clear, I am definitely not the “primary” editor of this blog, just one of a number of editors who spend their volunteer time keeping this site running).
Come on guys, let’s put our minds to work criticizing our ENEMIES. There is such a thing as a healthy internal debate, and once we’re winning there will be time to really hammer out our differences with each other. In the meantime, can we please get back to fighting for the survival of planet Earth?
Dear Richard,
It’s encouraging that you believe ItsGettingHotInHere is the place for debate and discussion. It’s something I think we both agree we should strive for. I have occasionally read the About page, but neither I nor Jesse feel like it provides enough clarity about these questions. Perhaps the Editors would consider giving a treatment to the page so as to provide more clarity.
But ultimately the IGHIH community will define its own identity – not you, nor the editors, nor the About page. My experience – not just from the past two days, but from a year and a half of observing and writing on IGHIH – and the experience of others suggests that the IGHIH community would prefer this blog to be a space for event and campaign promotion rather than debate and discussion.
Many contributors here have alienated and rejected us for raising hard questions. You seem to imply that Breakthrough is the culprit, but as everyone here can observe, we’ve been called everything from racist to genocidal. Why is it that when Breakthrough raises hard questions we’re apparently violating the rules, but when others call us racist neither you nor anyone else object?
Some have argued that this is simply an issue of tone and semantics. We will continually strive to achieve an empowering and diplomatic tone, but ultimately this is an issue of conflicting ideas and paradigms. It seems that most (not all) of the IGHIH community would rather not have their assumptions challenged. When they are challenged, the messenger is attacked and calls for unity (read: uniformity) arise.
We hope to contribute to the dialogue on IGHIH, but if we are continually dismissed and attacked, we’ll take the discussion elsewhere. Let’s gauge the responses from here on out and see what we find.
Sincerely,
Teryn
Hey all,
I remember the days when I used to be able to log on to IGHIH and read updates, thoughts, comments from a WIDE RANGE of people, viewpoints and opinions. It was a great procrastination tool
and beyond, a wonderful way for me to feel connected to a larger movement from my campus in Florida. I didn’t always agree with everyone’s views, as expressed through their blog posts, but welcomed the chance to be connected, even electronically, to an amazing community of youth leadership.
IGHIH was NOT a “place of homogeneity” then, far from it. I don’t think it ever has been, because the youth climate movement is NOT homogenous (true, it’s also not super diverse, but i wouldn’t say homogenous). I think that since Breakthrough started dominating IGHIH, it has become a much more homogenous place, where breakthrough is promoting a (in my opinion) very narrow view of the world and our movement in an aggressive, confrontational way, and attempting to pass it off as constructive criticism.
I think there is a place for critical dialogue and critique in our movement. We DO need to have our assumptions challenged. I personally would like to have that coming from people whose voices we haven’t heard, people of color, low income people, indigenous peoples and frontline/impacted communities, rather than an assortment of youth who don’t represent a departure from the predominantly white, economically privileged demographic which already overwhelms the youth climate movement.
Teryn, i want to personally respond, and say that as a person of color, I am really offended by this paragraph. “Many contributors here have alienated and rejected us for raising hard questions. You seem to imply that Breakthrough is the culprit, but as everyone here can observe, we’ve been called everything from racist to genocidal. Why is it that when Breakthrough raises hard questions we’re apparently violating the rules, but when others call us racist neither you nor anyone else object?” Check your privilege. I don’t remember anyone calling YOU racist, and it s a really despicable thing to try to bring up to garner sympathy. Check out some articles on white privilege, male privilege, class privelege, explore your own identity, look into the racist/classist history of the enviromental movement.
Basically, I want OUR blog back. Breakthrough, 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. I am sure that a group of amazing organizers like you clearly are can find something better to do all summer. I’d suggest going and visiting some other organizations that are based in Oakland, like the Ella Baker Center, Environmental Justice and Climate Change Initiative (EJCC) and Ruckus, all of whom are doing really really worthy and transformative work that is truly re-defining enviromentalism and in the case of Green For All, actually causing some sort of a “Breakthrough”.
Sorry if this sounds mean, but it seems like more gentle attempts to ask y’all to step back haven’t really gotten through. Listen to your peers. I hope that we can find more constructive ways to all work together.
well said amy, thank you.
Amy,
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:
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.
Teryn
Hey All-
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.
teryn,
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
Teryn– Holy Shit. You really don’t know what we are talking about when we say words like “privilege” and “oppression,” do you? It’s ok, as a white male, I didn’t really get until my late 20’s/early 30’s. You really should follow Amy’s advice and figure a little out about how to be a good white ally within this movement and stop being an obnoxious white guy taking up a lot of space.
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
Whoa! Lets all play nice! I think we’re all working towards the same goal here (averting climate catastrophe in the best possible way for people and the environment), attacking each other should be on the bottom of our collective to-do list. There have been comments on both sides of this debate that are way over the top (from my perspective).
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.
By the way,
I believe Arthur’s comment “no” was in reference to the headline that was posed as a question: “Does Unity Demand Uniformity of Thought?”
Richard-
I’m sorry, but that is not true. You can ask him yourself. I know this for a fact because when Arthur commented, the title of the post (which has since been changed) was “Breakthrough and the Generation of Dissent, Conflict, Friction and Change.”
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.
Hi all,
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.