My good friend Morgan Trowland, who along with Marcus Decker, climbed the QE2 bridge and shut down M25 for two days, reminded me of an excellent passage from Victor Hugo the other day, which got me thinking about alternative theories of change.
Morgan and Marcus climbed the QE2 bridge to highlight the disastrous consequences of continuing to burn fossil fuels. They served 14 months and 16 months respectively for their efforts, with Marcus’ imprisonment being the longest sentence ever for a peaceful protest in British legal history.
Morgan and Marcus clearly believe that protest is an effective theory of change, whereas my preference has always been to be pro-active and to focus on creating alternative solutions rather dwelling on the problems. But Morgan’s recent message made me revisit my assumptions about alternative theories of change.
He reminded me of the first book of Les Miserables – Saint-Denis, in which Hugo writes about the French revolutionaries, that can easily be compared to the XR and Just Stop Oil protesters of today. Here’s the quote:
In ’93, according as the idea which was floating about was good or evil, according as it was the day of fanaticism or of enthusiasm, there leaped forth from the Faubourg Saint-Antoine now savage legions, now heroic bands.
Savage. Let us explain this word. When these bristling men, who in the early days of the revolutionary chaos, tattered, howling, wild, with uplifted bludgeon, pike on high, hurled themselves upon ancient Paris in an uproar, what did they want? They wanted an end to oppression, an end to tyranny, an end to the sword, work for men, instruction for the child, social sweetness for the woman, liberty, equality, fraternity, bread for all, the idea for all, the Edenizing of the world. Progress; and that holy, sweet, and good thing, progress, they claimed in terrible wise, driven to extremities as they were, half naked, club in fist, a roar in their mouths. They were savages, yes; but the savages of civilization.
They proclaimed right furiously; they were desirous, if only with fear and trembling, to force the human race to paradise. They seemed barbarians, and they were saviours. They demanded light with the mask of night.
Facing these men, who were ferocious, we admit, and terrifying, but ferocious and terrifying for good ends, there are other men, smiling, embroidered, gilded, beribboned, starred, in silk stockings, in white plumes, in yellow gloves, in varnished shoes, who, with their elbows on a velvet table, beside a marble chimneypiece, insist gently on demeanor and the preservation of the past, of the Middle Ages, of divine right, of fanaticism, of innocence, of slavery, of the death penalty, of war, glorifying in low tones and with politeness, the sword, the stake, and the scaffold. For our part, if we were forced to make a choice between the barbarians of civilization and the civilized men of barbarism, we should choose the barbarians.
The comparison between today’s richest 1%, and the men that sit at a “velvet table” and politely espouse barbarism is palpable! As is the comparison between the revolutionary barbarians, who forgo politeness in an effort to dismantle structural inequalities, and today’s protesters.
The barbarians and the protesters share the same theory of change; That when the injustices of the world becomes so apparent and overwhelming, and all other form of recourse lead to nothing, it is entirely justifiable and, they might argue, necessary, to go “wild” in an attempt to encourage change.
It’s a great quote, right? And you can see why Morgan would like it! However, that’s not where the passage ends, because Hugo goes on to say:
But, thanks to heaven, other choice is possible. No abrupt fall is necessary, forward more than backward. Neither despotism nor terrorism. We desire progress with gentle slope.
With this final section, which Morgan amusingly omitted when he sent me the quote above, Hugo is highlighting the fact that there is a third way; an alternative theory of change.
Hugo is explaining that the violence of the revolution, though perhaps understandable, is essentially futile, and that an alternative theory of change which he refers to as “the gentle slope towards progress”, is more desirable. This, I believe, is a critical observation.
Morgan and I have debated theories of change for some time.
My personal philosophy is to follow the advice of Buckminster Fuller, who said:
“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
I like this theory, because I have evidence that it is true, which I have seen manifest in my lifetime. For example, Encyclopedia Britannica did not disappear because somebody burned all the books. Wikipedia provided a new, more effective model which made Encyclopedia Britannica obsolete.
CDs did not disappear because somebody smashed up all the discs. The MP3, a new model for distributing music, made the CD obsolete.
So, my theory of change differs radically to Morgans. I respect what he did (and that he used his time inside to extend his literary prowess!) but ultimately, what change did his actions deliver? At best they raised awareness of the criminal behaviour of our government for licensing new oil and gas fields in the north Sea. At worst, they inconvenienced a whole bunch of people and alienated a large section of society from the environmental cause.
Whether my theory of change has been any more effective is not clear. I have invested countless years in trying to develop and instigate new models which make existing models obsolete, and it is hard to see any genuinely tangible benefits from this work.
My work promoting platform co-ops, which provide a new, more equitable, model of ownership and governance for corporations, does not seem to have delivered wholesale change to the corporate world! My work promoting micro entrepreneurship, to deliver pay as you go solar in rural Africa, has hardly lit up the continent overnight. And my efforts to transform local economics through Mutual Credit have not yet made the financial system obsolete!
However, I have had some wins. The lobbying campaign we ran for the solar feed-in tariff in the UK (that features in my Digital Marketing Essentials course) definitely helped contribute to the switch towards renewable energy, the crowdfunding campaign I worked on for Highlands Rewilding raised over £1.2 million for nature based solutions, and I’m sure that some of my other impact marketing endeavours will come to fruition, because systems change rarely happens overnight.
The best explanation I have seen to help determine which ideas are most effective at delivering change is the Overton Window, as proposed by Joseph Overton, who suggested that an idea’s viability depends mainly on whether it is acceptable to the mainstream population at a given time. Again, I have seen evidence that this is true through changes in my lifetime, from renewable energy policy through to gay marriage and numerous other ideas which were only adopted once they became acceptable to the majority.
The key lesson from Overton is in regards to timing. Whether an idea is accepted or not depends on when it is delivered. A lot of my systems change work has been way outside that Overton window and as a result, not immediately effective. But I take solace in the fact that I have documented my efforts, open sourced the materials, the software and protocols I have developed, and that at some point in time, when the ideas are more acceptable to the mainstream, the efforts I have made will make it easier for future change-makers to build on my work to deliver positive systems change.
The collaborative, pro-active development of alternative solutions is, I believe, the kind of gentle slope which Hugo was referring to as the most effective path for progress out of all the alternative theories of change. But, considering the magnitude of the problems effecting society right now, I’d say any theory is better than no theory at this point…. and, given the consistent lack of urgent action from our government on climate change, perhaps we should all go wild and demand an end to the tyranny?
