Skip to main content

How can we do activism if we don't have community?

This week I went to a climate action meeting. Over fifty people gathered and there was an organised conversation for two hours about the climate crisis and environmental issues. The discussion covered so many different things: food waste, recycling, vegetarianism, nuclear weapons, education.

But what does it add up to? A list of things that "we" could do, or that "someone" could do. The trouble is I come out of such meetings thinking "we" haven't really committed to take any definite action, because no one said "I will do this (with some help)." I didn't say that either. So there's just a list of things "we" could do, and no one to do them. The meeting ended and we all went home. So what was the point? My cynicism is partly due to the fact that I went to a very similar meeting about two months ago, organised by a different organisation, that did almost exactly the same thing. Again, without any actual outcome.

And it's not so much that it's ineffective that's my problem. It's that I'm not sure it's good for us. I wonder if such things just add to a sense of guilt and paralysing despair, as they just create a list of things that need doing, without them getting done.

I feel like we should be both more ambitious and less ambitious in what such a meeting could achieve. More ambitious in the sense that dealing with the climate crisis will need something close to a revolution, and less ambitious in a sense that the first step of that might be just breaking bread together and saying, "How are you doing?"

I'm starting to believe that what prevents effective activism is an absence of community. Without community I think that activism can lack both coherent structures and a deeper sense of trust in working together to achieve things. We can gather and be opinionated about the kinds of things that could happen. But we lack both the emotional and the organisational capacity to do them.

On reflection I wish what could have happened in the meeting was just a meal and a chance for a conversation about what we're doing and how we're feeling. I feel like I would have preferred to have seen at the end of the night, not a list of things on a flipchart that "we could do" (but we won't). But just the beginning of a process of loving and trusting each other. A chance to grieve, and be angry, and share and be supported. Although this might seem wishy-washy I actually think it will eventually lead to more effective action that is rooted in trust, in friendship, in community, in a deeper sense of responsibility to each other. I think it's that that effective movements are actually made of.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Drop the Free Christian!

Let me preface what I'm going to say by first saying this: I am a Christian. It's taken me a long time to be able to say that, and to know what I mean by that, and I'm very lucky that in the Unitarian church I have been given the space to come to that decision in my own time, on my own terms. But I am a Christian, I'm more Christian now than I have been for years. Now: I want us to drop this "Free Christian" from our title. It's a silly phrase that we need to get rid of. Why? "The General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches" is a long and unwieldy title. It would be much better if we traded under something like "Unitarians in Britain." It gives the impression that there are two separate and distinct groups: "Unitarians" and "Free Christians," this is not the case. It's not that there are Unitarians (who are not Christians) and "Free Christians" who are not Unitarians. There are not two dif...

Clergy-wear during protests

OK, I'm wandering into the territory of Beauty Tips for Ministers here, but a couple of recent conversations have brought up the issue of what clergy should wear for protests. I know a number of Ministers who only wear clerical collars for protests. The logic is that it's important to identify as a Minister when you're supporting something society doesn't expect clergy to. So Ministers will wear a collar at gay prides or pro-choice rallies to make this point. Now I could understand this if it you wore a collar going about your general business, and also did during a protest, but I'm quite uncomfortable with the idea of wearing clerical wear ONLY for protests. The seems to be something worth exploring. I have said before that I'm not in favour of special titles or clothing for religious leadership, mainly because Jesus explicitly said this was a lot of nonsense. Religious leaders should not need these articial crutches. I have no problem with certain liturgical c...

Is humanism theologically tolerant?

OK, well this might be controversial, but I feel the need to say it. Is humanist tolerant? Please note I'm not asking about humanism within society. Clearly humanism certainly believes in tolerance within society and I'm forever glad they are often the only people in the media calling for a separation of church and state. No, what I'm talking about is descriptions of Unitarianism like this and adverts like this , discussed at Peacebang here , which say that humanism is one option, Christianity is another, God is one option among many. The trouble is, humanism, by definition is theologically opposed to theism. This is very different from the relationship between Christianity and Buddhism. These two traditions may be vastly different, but Buddhism, by definition , is not opposed to Christianity, and Christianity, by definition , is not opposed to Buddhism. But humanism is consciously defined in opposition to Christianity and theism. So to say that humanism and theism can bot...