My understanding (non-expert) is that the inside game is whatever uses the system as is. Outside is things that try to break the system or put pressure in ways that the system generally does not legibly take as inputs. So, talking to existing officials to use existing ways of regulation is maximum inside game. Throwing a coup and enacting dictatorial powers in order to regulate is maximum outside game. Lobbying is more inside, and protesting is more outside. So when we say “target policymakers”, the question is how? Are you sending polite emails with reasoned arguments, or are you throwing buckets of computer chips at their car as they drive by? (I do not endorse doing this, and I say this for comedic effect :D )
Chloe Cockburn, who used to lead Open Phil’s criminal justice reform work, gives a useful definition here:
‘Mass mobilization and structure organizing make up the “outside game.” Those making change by working within government, or other elite or dominant structures, are part of the inside game.’
Using that definition, a coup feels very inside game. But I agree with your general characterisation, Dušan.
I also think it’s worth pointing out that the outside game is not just protesting. In the quote, Chloe refers to structure organising and mobilisation.
Here’s a contrast between the two:
Structure Organising:
Long-term Approach: It is a sustained effort that builds power over time through the development of leaders and the cultivation of dedicated members.
Hierarchy and Leadership: There’s a clear hierarchy with defined roles, responsibilities, and lines of accountability.
Defined Membership: Membership is clear and often requires commitment, leading to a strong sense of identity among participants.
Skill Development: Emphasis on training members and leaders to build their skills and capacities.
Relationships: Focus on building deep one-to-one relationships among members, fostering trust and shared commitment.
Clear Goals and Strategies: Goals are specific, and there’s a clear strategy in place, broken down into actionable steps.
Mobilisation:
Short-term Approach: It is often a burst of activity aimed at rallying people around a particular issue or event. Once the event or action concludes, the mobilisation effort may dissipate.
Broad Participation: Mobilisation casts a wide net, seeking to involve as many people as possible, often regardless of their prior involvement or commitment.
Event or Issue-driven: It is typically driven by a particular event, crisis, or issue that demands immediate attention.
Limited Training: There’s less emphasis on long-term skill and capacity building compared to structure organising.
Mass Communication: Use of broad communication strategies, such as mass media or social media, to reach and rally a large audience.
Immediate Goals: The goals are often immediate, such as turning out a large crowd for a protest or getting a specific response from decision-makers.
In essence, while structure organising focuses on building long-term power and capacity, mobilisation is about rallying people for immediate action. Both approaches have their strengths and can be complementary. For example, a well-organised group with a clear structure can mobilise its members more effectively when the need arises.
I’ve written more about the difference between structured organising and mobilisation here.
My understanding (non-expert) is that the inside game is whatever uses the system as is. Outside is things that try to break the system or put pressure in ways that the system generally does not legibly take as inputs. So, talking to existing officials to use existing ways of regulation is maximum inside game. Throwing a coup and enacting dictatorial powers in order to regulate is maximum outside game. Lobbying is more inside, and protesting is more outside. So when we say “target policymakers”, the question is how? Are you sending polite emails with reasoned arguments, or are you throwing buckets of computer chips at their car as they drive by? (I do not endorse doing this, and I say this for comedic effect :D )
Chloe Cockburn, who used to lead Open Phil’s criminal justice reform work, gives a useful definition here:
‘Mass mobilization and structure organizing make up the “outside game.” Those making change by working within government, or other elite or dominant structures, are part of the inside game.’
Using that definition, a coup feels very inside game. But I agree with your general characterisation, Dušan.
I also think it’s worth pointing out that the outside game is not just protesting. In the quote, Chloe refers to structure organising and mobilisation.
Here’s a contrast between the two:
Structure Organising:
Long-term Approach: It is a sustained effort that builds power over time through the development of leaders and the cultivation of dedicated members.
Hierarchy and Leadership: There’s a clear hierarchy with defined roles, responsibilities, and lines of accountability.
Defined Membership: Membership is clear and often requires commitment, leading to a strong sense of identity among participants.
Skill Development: Emphasis on training members and leaders to build their skills and capacities.
Relationships: Focus on building deep one-to-one relationships among members, fostering trust and shared commitment.
Clear Goals and Strategies: Goals are specific, and there’s a clear strategy in place, broken down into actionable steps.
Mobilisation:
Short-term Approach: It is often a burst of activity aimed at rallying people around a particular issue or event. Once the event or action concludes, the mobilisation effort may dissipate.
Broad Participation: Mobilisation casts a wide net, seeking to involve as many people as possible, often regardless of their prior involvement or commitment.
Event or Issue-driven: It is typically driven by a particular event, crisis, or issue that demands immediate attention.
Limited Training: There’s less emphasis on long-term skill and capacity building compared to structure organising.
Mass Communication: Use of broad communication strategies, such as mass media or social media, to reach and rally a large audience.
Immediate Goals: The goals are often immediate, such as turning out a large crowd for a protest or getting a specific response from decision-makers.
In essence, while structure organising focuses on building long-term power and capacity, mobilisation is about rallying people for immediate action. Both approaches have their strengths and can be complementary. For example, a well-organised group with a clear structure can mobilise its members more effectively when the need arises.
I’ve written more about the difference between structured organising and mobilisation here.