Ours is a diverse movement, and it is important to resist environmental and social injustice with many strategies and tactics, while not condemning the strategies and tactics of others simply because you do not perceive them to be as effective as your own.
One important distinction that is important to understand is “direct action” and “indirect action.” While different individuals and groups have different concepts of what constitutes direct action and what does not, for our purposes here, I hope most people can accept the following definitions and examples:
DEFINITIONS
Direct Action – directly acting to create the change you wish to see in the world.
Indirect Action – asking someone else (often someone in a position of power) to make the change you wish to see in the world.
EXAMPLES
Direct Action – starting a community garden, blockading a coal mine road, learning and teaching people how to identify local edible plants
Indirect Action – writing a letter, lobbying, signing a petition
The need for this discussion became apparent to me at the last Power Shift conference, where it seemed that the line between direct action and indirect action was becoming blurred. I heard that “lobby groups” were being called “affinity groups,” and “affinity group” is a term that has long been associated with direct action to refer to a group of people that work together to perform a direct action or one part of a direct action.
Whether this was actually happening at Power Shift I do not know because I did not participate in any of the lobbying or lobby training, but after hearing this I started to notice the blurring of this distinction other places in the movement. Please keep in mind that I am not saying that the blurring of this distinction is a good or bad thing, but I think it is an important thing to be aware of as we work to create the kind of world we want to see.
I witnessed one example of this blurring at the recent action in Charlotte, NC at the Duke headquarters protesting the Cliffside coal plant. Over 40 people were arrested for crossing a line on the sidewalk in front of Duke’s building. Some indirect aspects of this action consisted in us appealing to (1) those in control of the mainstream media to cover this action, (2) those in control of our electricity production to stop using coal and building coal plants, and (3) those in control of the government to enforce existing regulations and make stricter regulations for major polluters. Some direct aspects of this action consisted in us (1) creating and distributing our own media to spread the word of this action, (2) yelling the truth about the injustice that is occurring in the streets, and (3) forcing Duke to put energy and resources into dealing with our presence at their headquarters and coming up with propaganda to counter our morality.
The Cliffside action is a wonderful example of how to bring diverse groups of people together for an empowering action by including many tactics and points of focus. The more we come together in this way, the more we learn from and empower each other.
While there are many indirect actions that are still valuable tools for us to use in this movement, I think we should focus on shifting the movement more towards direct action and away from indirect action if we don’t want oligarchy (rule by the few) to remain how our society is controlled. Anarchy means “without ruler” and I think we should move towards a society without rulers that seeks the empowerment of every individual and the whole in as close to equal measure as possible. I think we have seen enough of how much power over others corrupts.
While it is important to appeal to those in power to do the right thing with that power as long as such great power imbalance exists in our society, we should move away from this power imbalance as much and as quickly as possible if we want to include as diverse a range of opinions, ideas, and experiences as possible in the decision-making that affects our lives. My experience has demonstrated to me that direct action is much more empowering than indirect action, and self-empowerment is one of the most important parts of our movement because empowered people are not apathetic and complacent towards the injustices and dangers we face.
As a direct action trainer and direct action activist, I’m not quite sure there is such a simple (and narrow) agreed upon definition of direct action as the one you provide. It’s certainly an interesting conversation to have…and it frustrates me to when the term direct action is thrown around very loosly (indeed I’ve heard lobbying reffered to as direct action).
Ultimately however, I’d rather see people focus on questions like “what is strategic in the long term” and “what pushes the envelope” and most important “what promotes a radical (root cause) analysis of issues” rather than “what is direct action” – I guess it’s function over form that’s important to me.
Anyhow, here is another definition of direct action, from SmartMeme, which came out of the environmental “direct action” movement, which I use in direct action trainings:
“Direct action is an age-old method of taking action to make positive changes in the world, from a community putting up their own radio transmitter to give voice to local residents, to mass civil disobedience to shut down a corporate war profiteer. Direct action is a general term for any action where people step out of their traditional, scripted roles (be it as passive consumers, marginalized nobodies, or apathetic spectators) and challenge the dominant expectation of
obedience. When a direct action intervention is effective, it shifts power relationships in the moment it is happening and also builds lasting movement by leaving an imprint in our imaginations of new possibilities. Direct action is often a tactic within a broader strategy, but it also represents a political ethic of creating fundamental change at the deepest levels of power
relations.”
Though this entry began w/ a statement about the importance of employing diverse methods to resist injustice & “not condemning the strategies and tactics of others” due to perceived efficacy, it seems the writer then proceeds to stray from this idea by essentially minimizing the value of “indirect action” vs. “direct action”.
Yes, there are differing opinions about what constitutes indirect / direct action, but the writer’s motive for providing helpful definitions of the two types is suspect. Despite claims to the contrary, the essay’s underlying tone is ultimately dismissive of indirect action. The author’s primary concern – the “important distinction that is important to understand”- seems to be convincing others that indirect action is inferior to the effective direct action in which he is primarily involved.
It seems petty and counterproductive to focus on what constitutes indirect or direct action, as both involve some sort of ACTION (instead of silence, indifference, or passively hoping for change)!
Rachel F., the point of this is that if we lived in a society without power imbalance there would be no need for any indirect action because we would all be empowered to directly affect any change we want. But as I said above, “it is important to appeal to those in power to do the right thing with that power as long as such great power imbalance exists in our society.” Far from belittling indirect action, I call it important. But it is important because we have power imbalance, and if we did not have power imbalance there would be no need to plead with the powerful to use their power justly.
And Cascadia Brian, I don’t understand why you think my definition of direct action is narrow. I can think of many actions that fit within my definition, including everything that is in the wonderful definition you gave. And I never said my definition was agreed upon by anyone. It’s a definition I came up with based upon my experience.