Skip to main content

A tale of two protests

I was at two different protests recently. Both were in the middle of Cardiff, and both at points were on exactly the same routes. One was a protests, organised by the Cardiff People's Assembly, protesting the cost of living crisis. The other was a procession between two Anglican churches in Cardiff as an act of witness to pray for peace in Ukraine.

Now of course those issues are very different, but at the same time it really struck me that I seemed to be the only person who was at both of these different events. Both in the middle of Cardiff, both virtually in the same place, just a few days apart. I was the only person at both the left wing cost of living protest, and the Christian pray for peace in Ukraine event.

It really got me pondering - why do I often feel like I'm the only person who goes to these different things? Why is there so little crossover?

Now these are two separate things. But I also find it hard to believe that people who care about the cost of living don't also care about peace in Ukraine, and that people who care about peace in Ukraine don't also care about the cost of living crisis. So I'm left puzzling about why I was the only person (as far as I could see) at both of these events.

I think part of the answer is that these things happen in silos. There's the left wing activist community silo and the (mainstream) Christian community silo. And never the twain shall meet. 

But it's not just that. The reality is that people will often go to events organised by their own organisation, but won't go to events organised by other organisations. So if Anglican Christians create an event led by Anglican Christians praying and protesting for peace in Ukraine, then Anglican Christians, people in those networks will turn up to it. And yet if you organised an event not lead by those people, probably people wouldn't turn up. In fact they probably won't even know about it.

Extinction Rebellion people turn up at Extinction Rebellion events. Friends of the Earth people turn up at Friends of the Earth events. Muslims turn up at Muslim events. Christians turn up at Christian events. Socialists turn up at socialist events. Trade unionists turn up at trade union events. Everyone wants everyone else to turn up to their events, but they are less likely to turn up to other organisations' events.

Why? Well sure, there are only so many hours in the day, and you have to discern what to give your energy to. And you also have to work out if you feel like you will be comfortably welcome in some spaces. Black people and people of colour have to decide if they have the energy to turn up in mainly white spaces. And we all have to make those kinds of decisions. 

But I also think there's something of organisational ego, or sectarianism going on here. I want my organisation's event to be successful, because then I/we will feel successful. I'm not saying people don't have good intentions as well. I'm noticing these thought patterns in myself as well. We're all a mix of different motivations, aren't we? I am accountable for what I do, professionally, and the fact is, if I produce a report that says "I organised and event and X people turned up" that sounds much better than "I attended/supported someone else's event and X people turned up." I feel better. My organisation feels better. I feel like I'm achieving something. 

But are we achieving much, each operating in our different silos? Ralph Waldo Emerson said, "There's no limit to what can be accomplished if it doesn't matter who gets the credit." 

The opposite of that is that maybe we're not accomplishing what we need to because we are pre-occupied with who gets the credit. 

How do we get better at networking? At bringing together all groups fighting for a better world? Sure, we won't all agree on everything, but can we agree on enough to achieve more? Can we at least communicate better, so we know about everything going on?

Can we step back and ask - what are we aiming for, and how can we collectively get there? How could we build peace and justice in our city and in the world in a collaborative way?

Maybe this sounds like a recipe for more meetings. That would be a depressing conclusion. There's no easy answers but perhaps part of the solution is not to exist in social silos. Maybe if we just were friends with each other, we would know what's going on in each other's communities and feel more like supporting each other. Maybe if the Christians were friends with the socialists it would make a difference (and you can of course, be both - I am!, but perhaps we often operate in primarily tribal ways in the circles we move in). Maybe if the environmentalists were friends with the trade unionists. Maybe if the anti-nuclear activists were friends with the anti-poverty activists. 

Perhaps that is naive. But I just hope for a time when I don't feel like I'm the only one who goes to different types of protests/events, where it all feels more networked, more connected. 


Popular posts from this blog

From liberalism to radicalism

I've been reflecting recently on the journey I've been making from liberalism to radicalism, and how I'm beginning to see it as a necessary evolution if you're not going to get stuck in a kind of immature liberalism that fails to serve both you and the world. By liberalism I mean ideas and movements that emphasise personal freedom and not being restricted by the patterns of the past. By radicalism I mean ideas and movements that emphasise justice, solidarity, and liberation from oppression. Yes, I'm using broad categories here. Let me give an example. Let's talk about sexual liberation in a Western context for example. We can talk about women getting more agency over their bodies; gay and bi people being able to have sex with one another and marry one another; we can talk about the work of overcoming shame around sexuality. All of that is liberalism. It's good stuff. It's still ongoing. So we might ask the question "where next for sexu


When I started this blog nearly 4 years and nearly 300 posts ago one of the labels I used for it/me was "radical." Perhaps I used it a little unreflectively. Recently I've been pondering what radical means. A couple of things have made me think of this. Firstly this blog series from my friend Jeremy, which explores a distinction between "radical progressives" and "rational progressives." There is also this definition of radical, liberal and conservative from Terry Eagleton quoted at Young Anabaptist Radicals : “Radicals are those who believe that things are extremely bad with us, but they could feasibly be much improved. Conservatives believe that things are pretty bad, but that’s just the way the human animal is. And liberals believe that there’s a little bit of good and bad in all of us.” What interests me is finding a way to express the tension I feel sometimes between myself and the wider Unitarian movement. One way to express this is to say I

Am I an activist?

  I remember being at some protest outside the Senedd once, and someone introduced me to someone else, and said, "Stephen is an activist." I remember thinking - am I? I don't know. What does it mean to be an activist? Who gets to use that title? Am I an activist because I turn up at a few protests? Or do I have to be one them organising the protest to be an activist? Do I have to lead? Do I have to do the organisational work to be an activist? Because the truth is that since I moved to Cardiff I have kept myself at the periphery of a lot of activist groups. I go to meetings, I hear about things, I turn up at protests, but I have rarely got really fully involved. Why is that? It's not for the reason that I don't have time. I do, in fact. But often I sit in these meetings and protests and think "Is this effective? Is it worthwhile? Is it going to produce something at the end of it all that is worth the effort?" I suppose, coming from the world of church I