EA should take seriously its shift from a lifestyle movement to a social movement.
The debate surrounding EA and its classification has always been a lively one. Is it a movement? A philosophy? A question? An ideology? Or something else? I think part of the confusion comes from its shift from a lifestyle movement to a social movement.
In its early days, EA seemed to bear many characteristics of a lifestyle movement. Initial advocates often concentrated on individual actions—such as personal charitable donations optimised for maximum impact or career decisions that could yield the greatest benefit. The movement championed the notion that our day-to-day decisions, from where we donate to how we earn our keep, could be channelled in ways that maximised positive outcomes globally. In this regard, it centred around personal transformation and the choices one made in their daily life.
However, as EA has evolved and matured, there’s been a discernible shift. Today, whilst personal decisions and commitments remain at its heart, there’s an increasing emphasis on broader, systemic changes. The community now acknowledges that while individual actions are crucial, tackling the underlying causes of global challenges often necessitates a coordinated, collective effort. Effective Altruists are now engaging in policy advocacy, research to address large-scale global issues, and even the founding of organisations dedicated to high-impact interventions.
This transition towards the hallmarks of a social movement has implications for the leaders within the EA community. As the movement grows in scope and influence, community leaders are tasked with the responsibility of not only guiding individual decisions but also shaping collective strategies. This requires fostering collaborations, engaging with external stakeholders, and navigating the complexities of systemic change. Moreover, there’s an increased need for inclusivity and representation to ensure that the movement addresses diverse perspectives and challenges.
In conclusion, whilst EA might have originated in lifestyle choices, it’s blossoming into a robust social movement. For community leaders, this means adapting to new roles and responsibilities, aiming not just for personal improvement but for broader societal transformation.
Sure! Ultimately, I think we should be aiming for a movement that looks something like this.
In terms of behaviours that would signal people taking this seriously, an example might be a rebalancing of how community building work is evaluated. Currently, the main outcome funders look for is longtermist career changes. This encourages very lifestyle movement-y community building. I would like to see more weight being given to things like the generation of passive support, e.g., is the public shifting support towards the movement? Is the movement’s narrative being elevated in public discourse?
To use terminology I’ve used elsewhere, this change would encourage more ‘mobilising’ and less ‘organising’. It would also encourage a rebalancing of our ‘social change portfolio’ in such a way that we become a slightly more outward-facing movement, one that spends more time talking to and working with the rest of society to achieve shared objectives and less time talking to ourselves.
EA should take seriously its shift from a lifestyle movement to a social movement.
The debate surrounding EA and its classification has always been a lively one. Is it a movement? A philosophy? A question? An ideology? Or something else? I think part of the confusion comes from its shift from a lifestyle movement to a social movement.
In its early days, EA seemed to bear many characteristics of a lifestyle movement. Initial advocates often concentrated on individual actions—such as personal charitable donations optimised for maximum impact or career decisions that could yield the greatest benefit. The movement championed the notion that our day-to-day decisions, from where we donate to how we earn our keep, could be channelled in ways that maximised positive outcomes globally. In this regard, it centred around personal transformation and the choices one made in their daily life.
However, as EA has evolved and matured, there’s been a discernible shift. Today, whilst personal decisions and commitments remain at its heart, there’s an increasing emphasis on broader, systemic changes. The community now acknowledges that while individual actions are crucial, tackling the underlying causes of global challenges often necessitates a coordinated, collective effort. Effective Altruists are now engaging in policy advocacy, research to address large-scale global issues, and even the founding of organisations dedicated to high-impact interventions.
This transition towards the hallmarks of a social movement has implications for the leaders within the EA community. As the movement grows in scope and influence, community leaders are tasked with the responsibility of not only guiding individual decisions but also shaping collective strategies. This requires fostering collaborations, engaging with external stakeholders, and navigating the complexities of systemic change. Moreover, there’s an increased need for inclusivity and representation to ensure that the movement addresses diverse perspectives and challenges.
In conclusion, whilst EA might have originated in lifestyle choices, it’s blossoming into a robust social movement. For community leaders, this means adapting to new roles and responsibilities, aiming not just for personal improvement but for broader societal transformation.
P.S. This quick take was inspired by this post.
Could you describe this would look like? What behaviors/actions from people in EA what convince you that they are taking this seriously?
Sure! Ultimately, I think we should be aiming for a movement that looks something like this.
In terms of behaviours that would signal people taking this seriously, an example might be a rebalancing of how community building work is evaluated. Currently, the main outcome funders look for is longtermist career changes. This encourages very lifestyle movement-y community building. I would like to see more weight being given to things like the generation of passive support, e.g., is the public shifting support towards the movement? Is the movement’s narrative being elevated in public discourse?
To use terminology I’ve used elsewhere, this change would encourage more ‘mobilising’ and less ‘organising’. It would also encourage a rebalancing of our ‘social change portfolio’ in such a way that we become a slightly more outward-facing movement, one that spends more time talking to and working with the rest of society to achieve shared objectives and less time talking to ourselves.