Thanks for all these thoughts Ben. A few scattered thoughts in response:
I don’t have a view on your third challenge, but it’s a good point.
Regarding your first two challenges: I agree with you, Thom and James on all of these. Reflecting on my intent in outlining short-term pragmatism, I think I ultimately wanted not to critique individual organisations or people, but the movement-wide dynamic/mindset that seems to have arisen. I.e...
While many orgs have a clear ToC, there don’t seem to be many spaces where movement-wide theory of victory gets discussed/debated/refined—at least not spaces that influence actual important decisions (well, not that I’m aware of… it may well be I’m just completely unaware of “the rooms where it happens”).
While many orgs/people want a diversity of tactics, I have a soft sense that our funding priorities could reflect this better. Given the young and clueless nature of our movement, I think we should be funding a very diverse spread of interventions, and more highly valuing interventions that build power.
100% agree with your thoughts about evaluating both validity and likelihood of milestones. I really struggle to see how we can be an effective movement without at least investing a small amount of resource into this.
Appreciate you flagging the point about “theory of failure” mapping, that’s a useful update for me!
Thank you for the link to Milan’s post about doing good while clueless! I think “steering capacity” is a great concept and very relevant here, and I like how it’s broken down—that could be a really useful tool for people wanting to take a “visionary pragmatist” approach going forward.
Thanks for all these thoughts Ben. A few scattered thoughts in response:
I don’t have a view on your third challenge, but it’s a good point.
Regarding your first two challenges: I agree with you, Thom and James on all of these. Reflecting on my intent in outlining short-term pragmatism, I think I ultimately wanted not to critique individual organisations or people, but the movement-wide dynamic/mindset that seems to have arisen. I.e...
While many orgs have a clear ToC, there don’t seem to be many spaces where movement-wide theory of victory gets discussed/debated/refined—at least not spaces that influence actual important decisions (well, not that I’m aware of… it may well be I’m just completely unaware of “the rooms where it happens”).
While many orgs/people want a diversity of tactics, I have a soft sense that our funding priorities could reflect this better. Given the young and clueless nature of our movement, I think we should be funding a very diverse spread of interventions, and more highly valuing interventions that build power.
100% agree with your thoughts about evaluating both validity and likelihood of milestones. I really struggle to see how we can be an effective movement without at least investing a small amount of resource into this.
Appreciate you flagging the point about “theory of failure” mapping, that’s a useful update for me!
Thank you for the link to Milan’s post about doing good while clueless! I think “steering capacity” is a great concept and very relevant here, and I like how it’s broken down—that could be a really useful tool for people wanting to take a “visionary pragmatist” approach going forward.