Moving beyond “Resistance”
I wish we could move beyond the term “resistance.” It has been and is being used all over the world. “Resistance” is about being “against” whatever system is in the way of real human government, loving treatment of the environment, the end of oppressions, and so on. It is an “inside the box” metaphor. It brings to mind a mule digging its feet into the ground—that is not a forward-moving picture.
We need a term that jumps out of the confines of the “box” and at least aims for a vision of the kind of world we want. There could be interminable argument over exactly what that vision should include. But the idea of having a vision and aiming toward it would give the “resistance” movements a substantial boost.
Corvallis, Oregon, USA
Dear Marjorie,
Thanks for starting this conversation!
I think the term “resistance” accurately reflects the rigid distress patterns of being “oppositional,” rejecting the “oppressive system,” and so on, that are currently widespread among activists. Therefore, I suspect the solution is not going to be simply finding a new term but rather holding out a better idea, offering confidence and contradiction [to distress], and providing concrete ways for people to move toward the vision. In other words, we have to tackle the underlying distress patterns among those working for change.
I’ve been hearing more and more conversations, among social change activists in a number of different countries, about the need to move from movements built on “opposing” something to movements focused on “building” something.
I’m also finding that more and more people are thinking about the need to transform our relationships with each other, how we think about “community,” and what our commitments to each other are. (By “relationships” I mean both with people we know personally and with the billions of others on this planet whom we may never know.) Transforming our relationships and communities is a necessary foundation for achieving a world in which all humans (and all life) can thrive—whatever else our visions include. (This idea is not new, of course, or unique to RC.)
At the same time, I also hear (a lot!) that most people who agree that we need to transform relationships are not sure how to do that.
Different people are trying different things. We in RC have important ideas and skills that can contribute significantly to this work. Sometimes I take important parts of our theory and practice for granted. I have to continually remind myself that when I raise RC ideas and model how to do them, many people are eager for more.
I lead non-RC social-change-oriented programs and workshops. Participants always say that they’re surprised by how connected they feel to other people in such a short time, and they continue some of the relationships afterward. They sometimes think “we got just the right mix of people in the room,” with “so much in common.” But as they notice it happening over and over in different groups, they start to ask, “How did you do that?”
The answer, of course, is that I do many of the same things in my non-RC work that I do in RC: I show people that I like them and believe in their intelligence and power. I offer hopeful perspectives and build in as many contradictions as I can. I create “listening pairs” and give people opportunities to show something about themselves. I invite people to share stories from their life, think deeply about what they care about, and make decisions to act in new ways. And so on.
For a long time I just did these things, with good results, but it was hard for people to grasp why we got those results. Now I am getting better at naming what I do and why, so I can more quickly teach others how to do it, too.
Groton, New York, USA
Reprinted from the RC e-mail discussion
list for leaders of wide world change