For the past months I have been experiencing what I call an “activist existential crisis”.

It has been difficult to see all the wrong things happening in the world, from the lack of action on climate change, to continued violence against indigenous peoples, and the growing hateful rhetoric against migrants and refugees everywhere in the world.

I love being part of collective actions and learning with and from people. Still, I often feel that some actions do not lead to concrete results -despite the passion and dedication from activists and organizations.

So, I keep asking myself, how can we achieve real and sustainable change? How can we inspire people to take action? How can we use the resources we have efficiently and effectively?

Hours of reading about the topic leave me with one conclusion: we need more people who support our causes. And to get more people to care, we may need to engage with people that may not agree with us.

Embed from Getty Images

I know that many people reading cannot imagine engaging with people that have the complete opposite values to the ones we try to defend.

However, in the real word, these people are part of our society and have the right to vote and/or run for office.

Tell me about any social issue you care about; the truth is that strong laws that protect people- especially vulnerable communities- are vital for achieving real and sustainable change.

And to have these laws we need enough people caring or at least supporting our cause. More people in our side means more people voting representatives that care about these issues.

Embed from Getty Images

And to illustrate this, I want to reference two articles which give great examples of how we can make activism more efficient and effective.

The first article is called When Does Activism Become Powerful? by Hahrie Han.

Hahrie and their team are studying “successful” campaigns and/or movements with the goal of finding out if what do these movements have in common.

According to their study, what all these “winning” campaigns have in common is that they see people – regardless of their ideology /beliefs- as the source of their power.

 “People in these organizations acted not as outraged ideologues but instead as human, connected to one another, seeking a better world”

Hahrie Han

The article gives the example of a a ballot initiative in Cincinnati to implement a new tax which would significantly benefit poor black communities. Cincinnati is one of the most racially dived cities in the U.S

The strategy of AMOS (the organization behind the campaign) was to develop a six-week racial reconciliation program in which participants listened to each other and reflected on their racial biases.

Once trust was built, the movement was unstoppable: the initiative won by 24 percentage points, the largest margin of any new education initiative in the history of Cincinnati.

Embed from Getty Images

The second article “How to talk someone out of bigotry” by Bryan Resnick also makes the argument that to change people’s beliefs we need to be willing to talk to them.

The article talks about a new activism strategy called “Deep canvassing”, that consists primarily in engaging in conversations with people that oppose your cause.

Canvassers listen respectfully to the reasons why people oppose an issue and after the “opponent” tells their story, the canvassers then shares a story of their own (usually about the issue in matter).

The goal is to find common ground between people that think differently and to inspire the feeling of empathy based on a heart -to heart conversations.

Embed from Getty Images

 Yikes, right? But is seems to work.

The articles include the case study of a campaign where LGBTQ activists achieved to win a ballot to keep a law that protects the rights of trans people in Massachusetts.

These group of activists used “Deep canvassing” to start healthy conversations with people that did not support the law:

“If they met a voter who wanted to get rid of the law, they wouldn’t call them out… they did something more radical: They listened, non judgmentally, and began a conversation”

Bryan Resnick

Studies are showing that “calling people out” only makes people more adverse to your cause mostly because they feel “threatened”.

Deep canvassing works because you treat the person across you with respect. And instead of trying to make them change their mind, you are only trying them to feel empathetic towards your cause.

“The new research shows that if you want to change someone’s’ mind you need to have patience with them… Its not about calling people out or labeling them fill-in-the-blank- phobic”

Bryan Resnick

As a way of concluding this post I want to say that while I find these articles and the debate they are opening interesting and enriching. For many people who experience are affected by racist, xenophobic and other discriminatory practices, talking to the people that contribute to their pain is simply not possible.

Having said this, I do believe in the power of words. I am still open to talk to people who are willing to have conversations based on mutual respect.

What do you think ? 😊