Comments on: DIRECT ACTION AND INDIRECT ACTION IN OUR MOVEMENT

By: Eric Blevins

Eric Blevins — Mon, 25 May 2009 06:09:57 +0000

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.

By: links for 2009-05-18 - Kevin Bondelli’s Youth Vote Blog

links for 2009-05-18 - Kevin Bondelli’s Youth Vote Blog — Mon, 18 May 2009 18:30:22 +0000

[...] DIRECT ACTION AND INDIRECT ACTION IN OUR MOVEMENT « It’s Getting Hot In Here [...]

By: rachel f.

rachel f. — Mon, 18 May 2009 13:41:11 +0000

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)!

By: Cascadia Brian

Cascadia Brian — Mon, 18 May 2009 04:07:13 +0000

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.”