On culture, I didn’t look into the data but I went to a Melanie Joy talk this year and she estimated we spend a significant amount of movement resources on infighting (I think it was around 20%). I guess this comes in a variety of forms—whether orgs at a country level competing for funds and having different theories of change, or big disagreements on whether Animal Rising should go after the RSPCA. I’d love any real examples of how you’ve seen people across the spectrum of strategies collaborating in meaningful ways!
I haven’t seen the data she is referencing but 20% seems way too high—that implies like we spend $50-60M as a movement annually on infighting, which doesn’t make any sense at all?
I’m also not sure we should consider organisations fundraising for their own work as infighting—that seems to broaden the definition far further than is useful / what most would consider as infighting.
(I agree the Animal Rising campaign against RSPCA is both regrettable and an example of genuine infighting but I think that’s the most major case recently and I can’t imagine there has been more than $0.5-1M spent on it collectively).
In terms of collaboration, some recent positive examples:
ICAW & Animal Activism Collective doing grassroots cage-free work together
Revolutionist’s Night & VARC in the UK being a nice crossover of people from the more grassroots-y + NGO sides of the animal movement
Eva from Pax Fauna and Dave CH talking about AVA about the benefits of grassroots and corporate work together
Wayne Tsuing and Lewis Bollard doing a talk at AVA about reconciling each other approaches to help animals and showing respect for each other
Yep, 20% does feel too high to me. But I think it’s hard to define infighting. The RSPCA stuff is an obvious example of it, but depending on how far you broaden the definition I feel some sympathy for the view that a fair amount of energy is wasted on it. I think Melanie Joy has worked with a number of orgs and gotten insight that others might not get in their positions, especially granters.
Things coming to my mind on this are a bit more day-to-day/mundane than your things:
- I think groups competing for funds at a country level, regional level and global level does create resentment in those that get more funds or support, and this can result in groups working together less well or not getting on because they view each other as competitors - In some campaigns it is not clear who ‘won’ due to multiple orgs targeting companies, with many wanting the recognition/credit, or to be the first to announce it to supporters/media. It’s plausible that this creates tension among orgs, that is not helpful - Groups disagreeing on theories of change, for example where we should put resources—some might think everything should go on accountability and try and turn others against orgs that disagree with this. Or some might be annoyed that other groups are too nice and won’t give up their ‘good’ relationships with companies, seeing them as threatening important co-campaigns, which can fracture collaboration - Departmental disagreements within orgs, with corporate engagement teams not wanting campaign teams to go after companies, causing fragile relationships and resentment with teams unable to properly advance their work. In my experience this has happened in non EA style orgs.
I’m not arguing strongly that infighting is a huge problem. But I do think it’s plausible that the above scenarios are not very rare, and even if individually some feel insignificant I think they are likely unhelpful collectively
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
On culture, I didn’t look into the data but I went to a Melanie Joy talk this year and she estimated we spend a significant amount of movement resources on infighting (I think it was around 20%). I guess this comes in a variety of forms—whether orgs at a country level competing for funds and having different theories of change, or big disagreements on whether Animal Rising should go after the RSPCA. I’d love any real examples of how you’ve seen people across the spectrum of strategies collaborating in meaningful ways!
I haven’t seen the data she is referencing but 20% seems way too high—that implies like we spend $50-60M as a movement annually on infighting, which doesn’t make any sense at all?
I’m also not sure we should consider organisations fundraising for their own work as infighting—that seems to broaden the definition far further than is useful / what most would consider as infighting.
(I agree the Animal Rising campaign against RSPCA is both regrettable and an example of genuine infighting but I think that’s the most major case recently and I can’t imagine there has been more than $0.5-1M spent on it collectively).
In terms of collaboration, some recent positive examples:
ICAW & Animal Activism Collective doing grassroots cage-free work together
Revolutionist’s Night & VARC in the UK being a nice crossover of people from the more grassroots-y + NGO sides of the animal movement
Eva from Pax Fauna and Dave CH talking about AVA about the benefits of grassroots and corporate work together
Wayne Tsuing and Lewis Bollard doing a talk at AVA about reconciling each other approaches to help animals and showing respect for each other
Yep, 20% does feel too high to me. But I think it’s hard to define infighting. The RSPCA stuff is an obvious example of it, but depending on how far you broaden the definition I feel some sympathy for the view that a fair amount of energy is wasted on it. I think Melanie Joy has worked with a number of orgs and gotten insight that others might not get in their positions, especially granters.
Things coming to my mind on this are a bit more day-to-day/mundane than your things:
- I think groups competing for funds at a country level, regional level and global level does create resentment in those that get more funds or support, and this can result in groups working together less well or not getting on because they view each other as competitors
- In some campaigns it is not clear who ‘won’ due to multiple orgs targeting companies, with many wanting the recognition/credit, or to be the first to announce it to supporters/media. It’s plausible that this creates tension among orgs, that is not helpful
- Groups disagreeing on theories of change, for example where we should put resources—some might think everything should go on accountability and try and turn others against orgs that disagree with this. Or some might be annoyed that other groups are too nice and won’t give up their ‘good’ relationships with companies, seeing them as threatening important co-campaigns, which can fracture collaboration
- Departmental disagreements within orgs, with corporate engagement teams not wanting campaign teams to go after companies, causing fragile relationships and resentment with teams unable to properly advance their work. In my experience this has happened in non EA style orgs.
I’m not arguing strongly that infighting is a huge problem. But I do think it’s plausible that the above scenarios are not very rare, and even if individually some feel insignificant I think they are likely unhelpful collectively