Transition and activism: my response to Rob Hopkins
A real head-scratcher of a post from Rob Hopkins over at Transition Culture:
I think that Transition has been quite skilful over the last 5 years in creating an approach and a vision that appeals beyond the usual suspects. While “compost loos, vegan food and democratic decision making structures” may inspire those who go to Climate Camp, they may well have the opposite effect on those we are actively trying to engage. We talk of people being ‘hard to reach’, but often the language activists use, the way they communicate, dress, speak, and present their arguments means, ironically, that they make themselves ‘hard to reach’ for most ordinary people.
Likewise, “sharing … all our self-education that includes Marxist theory, Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, the history of Levellers and Diggers” is almost certain to relegate Transition to being seen as yet another deep green, left wing campaign group. If Transition groups are expected now to make space for the sharing of such insights, are we also prepared to create space for sharing for those who come from very different cultural backgrounds, as well as those who enjoy ‘Top Gear’, who work in industry, or who drive trucks for a living? For me, a Transition group comes together to pursue an explicit mission, to make their community more resilient, more viable, more diverse, more entrepreneurial and happier. That’s the focus, not explicitly on each person’s personal political influences. If it were, we might just as likely have Transition groups that are only open to people who like particular genres of music or support particular football teams. Charlotte argues that not incorporating an explicit role for activism in Transition “risks fragmenting” it, my very real fear would be that the opposite is far more likely.
My response to him:
Hmm.
Point one: What Rob is arguing for here is a very political act. He’s calling for what’s called ‘triangulation’- presenting oneself as above left and right, to appeal to those not already in one’s constituency (in Rob’s case, the activists whose appearance and speech he seems to find so distasteful!).
The problem with triangulation, as the Lib Dems found out at the recent Scottish Parliament and English council elections, is that if you take your ‘base’ for granted, you’ll get wiped out: and your ‘new’ partners you’ve so carefully cultivated hold you in contempt as useful idiots.
This idea of having a full wardrobe of “hats” to switch between is political cant of the highest order, straight from the Mandelson playbook. The problem with always wearing an extensive hat collection is that you begin to forget which hat you originally wore in the first place.
Never think that concealing your true beliefs for political expediency is a wise move: it’s inauthentic and duplicitous- and everyone can see right through it immediately (as the wise Totnes Times letter writer did).
Point two: Although the Diverse Roots to Belonging conference had much useful exchange of ideas, it’s clear from the tone of Rob’s post that the Transition movement isn’t seriously looking at social class and inequality yet. This isn’t just because of Rob’s political triangulation (“don’t mention the poor- it might upset Totnes Chamber of Commerce!”): it’s because of a massive blind spot in which Rob’s elusive “ordinary people” (working class people, indigenous people, ethnic minorities) are seen as the ‘constitutive other’- the exotic great unwashed species, seldom seen in the wild in Totnes and certainly not the safe Transition in-crowd elites. With such othering taking place, is it any wonder that “ordinary people” usually steer well clear, when it’s obvious Transition is not for them, or by them?
Believe me, people who “dress and speak” in ways that would be beyond the pale in the genteel streets of Totnes are listened to and respected in Glasgow in a way that a suited-and-booted spinmeister with a mouth full of doublespeak and a lovely collection of different hats for every occasion never would be. It’s about authenticity.
It’s not enough just to link to Danielle’s research- it’s necessary to also understand the sort of thing she’s pointing out. The language and political naïveté displayed here suggests there’s a long way to go- if you’re not careful Rob, you could end up being the Nick Clegg of energy descent! C’mon, you can do better.
my additional comment over at Transition Culture:
like any political group, Transition has diversity of values and beliefs. But Transition is almost entirely ‘green meme’ in Spiral Dynamics language although Spiral Dynamics is worthless in my opinion- even Wilber doesn’t use it any more- but you get what I mean (btw check out Esbjorn-Hargen and Zimmerman’s Integral Ecology if you haven’t yet- the only integral theory worth reading since SES- and Wilber himself is not useful on ecology.)
I agree of course on valuing different perspectives, and speaking to different people, but my point is that in my experience, this is helped not hindered by being frank about our own beliefs. ‘This is my truth, tell me yours’. Being slippery or vague about this is not helpful- and yes, that is what we’re talking about in my opinion.
This notion that Transition is non-partisan, bilateral, and non-political is a misleading idea propogated by Hopkins and others- for understandable reasons. Transition is a radical, bottom-up political program for transforming energy, infrastructure and food production, in oppositional relation to the status quo- with a political strategy of triangulation to make it more likely to succeed. This is entirely understandable and reasonable, but let’s call it what it is. Any openness to other points of view seems strategic- real openness means willingness to change ideas and that does not seem to happen easily with Transition! Both a strength and a weakness of the movement, although I accept of course as Rob says that there is diversity of views within Transition- as there is in any activist group, political party or campaigning organisation.
Anyway, if hat-swapping does prove to be an effective long-term strategy to further Transition’s aims then more power to you, although appropriate behaviour and communication for different audiences is just common sense- as long as the core message is communicated with integrity. Maybe it’s just not for me, but let a thousand flowers bloom.