I’ve been trying to figure out what I find a little uncomfortable about 1-3, as someone who also has links to both communities. I think it’s that I personally find it more productive to think about both as frameworks/bodies of work + associated communities, more so than movements, where it feels here like these are being described as tribes (one is presented as overall better than the other; they are presented as competing for talent; there should be alliances). I acknowledge however, that in both EA/SJ, there are definitely many who see these more in the movement/tribe sense.
Through my framing, I find it easier to imagine the kinds of constructive engagements I would personally like to see—e.g. people primarily thinking through lens A adopting valuable insights and methodologies from lens B (captured nicely in your point 4). But I think this comes back to the oft-debated question (in both EA and SJ) of whether EA/SJ is (a) a movement/tribe or (b) a set of ideas/frameworks/body of knowledge. I apologise if I’m misrepresenting any views, or presenting distinctions overly strongly; I’m trying to put my finger on what might be a somewhat subtle distinction, but one which I think is important in terms of how engagement happens.
On the whole I agree with the message that engaging constructively, embracing the most valuable and relevant insights, and creating a larger, more inclusive community is very desirable.
On a technical note (maybe outside the context of this conversation or comparing EA/SJ) and a slight tangent, I think calling EA and SJ movements is useful and informative if you’re level of discourse is thinking about broad-level EA movement building. I know the phrase movement has a lot of connotations in common discourse, but I think at it’s core a movement is a group of people achieving goals through collective action.
These groups of people are often tribes, and tribal ties motivates movement membership but they are distinct things.
The value of this categorization:
EA is a much more consolidated, controlled and purposeful movement than SJ. SJ is more diffuse, lacks centralization but is quite recognizable in terms of topics and kinds of discourse.
Given this diversity, appeals to broad SJ movement tend to reduce complexity of arguments (low fidelity models) that wouldn’t work well with EA high fidelity models. So I think it’s useful to know this to know why we engaging with SJ on a movement level is not the ideal situation. So on that high level thinking it’s probably useful to think about movements to get a big picture of the situation.
Of course, SJ (and EA) are not only movements. They are also communities, bodies of knowledge, networks etc. as you mention. These aspects feed into the structure of the movement in important ways. If your level of discourse is different (i.e. thinking about specific cases for collaboration or comparing the frameworks used by the two movements) then thinking on this level is useful.
I agree that SJ is more diffuse and less central—I think this is one of the reasons thinking of it in terms of a movement that one might ally with is a little unnatural to me. I also agree that EA is more centralised and purposeful.
Your point that about what level of discourse suggests what kind of engagement is also a good one. I think this also links to the issue that (in my view) it’s in the nature of EA that there’s a ‘thick’ and a ‘thin’ version of EA in terms of the people involved. Here ‘thick’ is a movement of people who self-identify as EA and see themselves as part a strong social and intellectual community, and who are influenced by movement leaders and shapers.
Then there’s a ‘thin’ version that includes people who might do one or multiple of the following (a) work in EA-endorsed cause areas with EA-compatible approaches (b) find EA frameworks and literature useful to draw on (among other frameworks) (c) are generally supportive of or friendly towards some or most of the goals of EA, without necessarily making EA a core part of their identity or seeing themselves as being part of a movement. With so many people who interact with EA working primarily in cause areas rather than ‘central movement’ EA per se, my sense is this ‘thin’ EA or EA-adjacent set of people is reasonably large.
It might make perfect sense for ‘thick EA’ leaders to think of EA vs SJ in terms of movements, alliances, and competition for talent. While at the same time, this might be a less intuitive and more uncomfortable way for ‘thin EA’ folk to see the interaction being described and playing out. While I don’t have answers, I think it’s worth being mindful that there may be some tension there.
Thanks all! This is a good, useful discussion. I wanted to clarify slightly but what I mean when I say EA is the “better” ideology. Mainly, I mean that EA is better at guiding my actions in a way that augments my ethical impact much more than SJ does. They’re primarily rivalrous only insofar as I can only make a limited number of ethical deliberations per day, and EA considerations more strongly optimize for impact than SJ considerations.
“There are definitely many who see these more in the movement/tribe sense”—For modern social justice this tends to focus on who is a good or bad person, while for EA this tends to focus more on who to trust. (There’s a less dominant strand of thought within social justice that says we shouldn’t blame individuals for systematic issues, but it’s relatively rare). EA makes some efforts towards being anti-tribal, while social justice is less worried about the downsides of being tribal.
I’ve been trying to figure out what I find a little uncomfortable about 1-3, as someone who also has links to both communities. I think it’s that I personally find it more productive to think about both as frameworks/bodies of work + associated communities, more so than movements, where it feels here like these are being described as tribes (one is presented as overall better than the other; they are presented as competing for talent; there should be alliances). I acknowledge however, that in both EA/SJ, there are definitely many who see these more in the movement/tribe sense.
Through my framing, I find it easier to imagine the kinds of constructive engagements I would personally like to see—e.g. people primarily thinking through lens A adopting valuable insights and methodologies from lens B (captured nicely in your point 4). But I think this comes back to the oft-debated question (in both EA and SJ) of whether EA/SJ is (a) a movement/tribe or (b) a set of ideas/frameworks/body of knowledge. I apologise if I’m misrepresenting any views, or presenting distinctions overly strongly; I’m trying to put my finger on what might be a somewhat subtle distinction, but one which I think is important in terms of how engagement happens.
On the whole I agree with the message that engaging constructively, embracing the most valuable and relevant insights, and creating a larger, more inclusive community is very desirable.
On a technical note (maybe outside the context of this conversation or comparing EA/SJ) and a slight tangent, I think calling EA and SJ movements is useful and informative if you’re level of discourse is thinking about broad-level EA movement building. I know the phrase movement has a lot of connotations in common discourse, but I think at it’s core a movement is a group of people achieving goals through collective action.
These groups of people are often tribes, and tribal ties motivates movement membership but they are distinct things.
The value of this categorization: EA is a much more consolidated, controlled and purposeful movement than SJ. SJ is more diffuse, lacks centralization but is quite recognizable in terms of topics and kinds of discourse.
Given this diversity, appeals to broad SJ movement tend to reduce complexity of arguments (low fidelity models) that wouldn’t work well with EA high fidelity models. So I think it’s useful to know this to know why we engaging with SJ on a movement level is not the ideal situation. So on that high level thinking it’s probably useful to think about movements to get a big picture of the situation.
Of course, SJ (and EA) are not only movements. They are also communities, bodies of knowledge, networks etc. as you mention. These aspects feed into the structure of the movement in important ways. If your level of discourse is different (i.e. thinking about specific cases for collaboration or comparing the frameworks used by the two movements) then thinking on this level is useful.
Thanks Vaidehi, these are very good points.
I agree that SJ is more diffuse and less central—I think this is one of the reasons thinking of it in terms of a movement that one might ally with is a little unnatural to me. I also agree that EA is more centralised and purposeful.
Your point that about what level of discourse suggests what kind of engagement is also a good one. I think this also links to the issue that (in my view) it’s in the nature of EA that there’s a ‘thick’ and a ‘thin’ version of EA in terms of the people involved. Here ‘thick’ is a movement of people who self-identify as EA and see themselves as part a strong social and intellectual community, and who are influenced by movement leaders and shapers.
Then there’s a ‘thin’ version that includes people who might do one or multiple of the following (a) work in EA-endorsed cause areas with EA-compatible approaches (b) find EA frameworks and literature useful to draw on (among other frameworks) (c) are generally supportive of or friendly towards some or most of the goals of EA, without necessarily making EA a core part of their identity or seeing themselves as being part of a movement. With so many people who interact with EA working primarily in cause areas rather than ‘central movement’ EA per se, my sense is this ‘thin’ EA or EA-adjacent set of people is reasonably large.
It might make perfect sense for ‘thick EA’ leaders to think of EA vs SJ in terms of movements, alliances, and competition for talent. While at the same time, this might be a less intuitive and more uncomfortable way for ‘thin EA’ folk to see the interaction being described and playing out. While I don’t have answers, I think it’s worth being mindful that there may be some tension there.
Thanks all! This is a good, useful discussion. I wanted to clarify slightly but what I mean when I say EA is the “better” ideology. Mainly, I mean that EA is better at guiding my actions in a way that augments my ethical impact much more than SJ does. They’re primarily rivalrous only insofar as I can only make a limited number of ethical deliberations per day, and EA considerations more strongly optimize for impact than SJ considerations.
“There are definitely many who see these more in the movement/tribe sense”—For modern social justice this tends to focus on who is a good or bad person, while for EA this tends to focus more on who to trust. (There’s a less dominant strand of thought within social justice that says we shouldn’t blame individuals for systematic issues, but it’s relatively rare). EA makes some efforts towards being anti-tribal, while social justice is less worried about the downsides of being tribal.