To succeed, movements must overcome the tension between rationality and emotion
Class and the academy push trainers to privilege rationality and ignore the wellspring of emotion. Direct education in the solution to this tension.
George Lakey	July 29, 2015
Creative Commons Created with Sketch.
When it comes to action, we are pulled by two tendencies that seem compatible but in practice are often in tension. We want our movements to be rational – that is, to strategize well, use resources efficiently, and stay nimble. Yet, on the other hand, we may also want the products of emotion: to experience solidarity, to let empathy connect us with those who haven't joined us, and to tap the righteous anger that goes with caring about injustice.
In my lifetime social movements have increasingly turned to trainers to increase their learning curve and make actions more effective. However, a movement's wish to draw on the power of both rationality and emotion poses a challenge for trainers, who are influenced by middle-class bias and traditional education. Class and the academy push trainers to privilege rationality and ignore the wellspring of emotion.
Fortunately, action reasserts the need for both, and training is learning to respond. The movement story in the United States shows the tension, and begins with the civil rights movement of the 1960s.
The civil rights movement didn't solve this for everyone
The civil rights movement made more breakthroughs than today's activists have yet caught up with, but that movement's practice is not a complete answer for us today. I was a trainer in the civil rights movement and saw brilliant use of role play and other experiential tools for preparing to take on white segregationists and brutal police. The tools were helpful in bringing emotions like fear and anger to the surface and, by normalizing them, making them easier to manage.
The fullest positive use of emotion, however, was in the South where black church culture was strongest. Black preachers sought to be charismatic and many were expert in surfacing emotion, mobilizing what they called soul force for the nonviolent struggle. We see this in the film "Selma."
Some civil rights activists at the time saw the charismatic leadership model as problematic, and in any case the black preacher tradition is not available for most of today's movements. A practical organizational alternative for mobilizing emotion, however, was unclear. After the civil rights movement faded a few of its members joined others to form in 1971 the Movement for a New Society, or MNS.
In the early days we in MNS discovered "Pedagogy of the Oppressed," a breakthrough book by the best-known initiator of popular education, Brazilian educator Paolo Freire. Popular education takes sides in the class struggle and honors the wisdom of oppressed people, assisting them through dialogue to name their experience, connect the dots and encourage each other to take action. The tools reassure people who have been told they can't think well, partly through the facilitator asking questions and showing respect, and partly through the experience of thinking out loud and noticing that others in the group are paying attention.
Our trainers enthusiastically used Freire's approach, finding that it did elicit more fully the rationality of a group. When MNS combined popular education with the action training born in the civil rights movement, our trainers became in demand around the United States and elsewhere. MNS helped the nonviolent anti-nuclear power movement win its remarkable victory in the late 1970s.
However, a curious phenomenon began popping up in MNS workshops: emotional revolts of participants that most often were expressed at the facilitator team, but also at each other. The workshops' empowerment tools focused on the rational dimension of the participants. In these mini-revolutions, the group's emotional life was demanding more attention.
A group in Starhawk's attic yearns for solidarity
The 1999 Battle of Seattle over corporate-led globalization led to a series of mass confrontations with power holders in the United States and elsewhere. Nonviolent trainers went from city to city, facilitating workshops at each convergence. After a few years, leading activist Starhawk and I called trainers together to take stock of how we were doing. We met in her attic in San Francisco.
Trainers reported multiple successes at working in the midst of chaos, as well as limitations. They also raised strategic questions about the value of mass confrontations that had no concrete or achievable goals.
We turned to skill-sharing, which was fun, and comparisons of analytical frameworks. Suddenly the amicable bunch of trainers turned crabby. We found fault with each others' comments, but especially distrusted the person who happened, by rotation, to be occupying the facilitator's chair at the time. Participants urged solutions to our unhappiness: "Let's go into pairs." "We need a break." "We should never have left that earlier point of disagreement." "Maybe a group song would help."
Nothing worked. I was as lost as anyone while a storm raged within the group. The facilitator looked flattened. One of the participants lost it, dramatically. Then a respected group member expressed vulnerability. Suddenly, the sun came out, we hugged whoever was near us, we laughed and paused for tea.
Only then did I realize we'd experienced an emotional process that sometimes shows up in groups. We started with our "honeymoon" period when everyone was making nice, then began the raw conflict when people showed more of themselves while peacemakers tried the impossible: to find rational solutions to our pain. Finally, we experienced the breakthrough into community and became, to use organizational development jargon, a "high-performance team."
I remembered that a group generates a storm when its members want to experience acceptance for the deeper layers of themselves, including differences that they have been, up until then, keeping under wraps. In short, they want closeness, because human beings happen to be social animals.
The rational model suggests that group members could state differences and negotiate common ground in order to gain the solidarity needed for action. True enough, for low-risk, low-stakes action. However, movements often have high stakes that require members to endure fatigue and high stress, execute detailed teamwork, take big risks and draw deep support from their comrades. Nearly everyone has seen this in movies, including sports and war movies, in which a team or platoon that includes members who could never get along back home have together gained a win.
Movements often state goals that require this level of struggle to achieve, and so attract participants who expect to find the support to "go there" — but do not find it. Middle-class control trumps effectiveness in those movements, having only its rationality to offer. In Starhawk's attic those present would not have asked, in so many words, for that bonding — it would have seemed corny or naïve. Instead, we created it emotionally, by storming.
The good news is that facilitators can be trained to recognize the early signs of a storm brewing and techniques for supporting the storm when it comes. The bad news is that facilitators rarely seek that training, or the other techniques for assisting groups to access their unconscious resources. As with traditional education, popular education did not go there.
Trainers invent direct education to support solidarity-based action
The group of activists who founded Training for Change in the 1990s developed over time a training practice that could make the most of what happened in Starhawk's attic, and harnessed other group dynamics that support empowered action. Training for Change trainers knew the tools of the civil rights movement and the popular education used by MNS, so we started there. However, we also turned to the resource of emotion, incorporating insights on group dynamics reflected in, among other places, Starhawk's book "Dreaming the Dark" and psychologist Arnold Mindell's book "Sitting in the Fire." My book "Facilitating Group Learning" summarizes a decade of discoveries about both the rational and emotional life of the group, and shares methods that work best across many cultural boundaries. Significantly, this was the action training approach that attracted the widest range of groups, from religious organizations to anarchists to nonprofits to labor unions.
Direct education gets push-back from those who limit learning to the conscious, rational realm, including those who believe that social change happens through wielding abstract academic language like "code-switching" or "intersectionality."
Our experience is that, when groups bring forth real-world conflicts in the training room, participants get the chance to go to a deeper place and experience the behaviors that abstract words were invented to represent. Supporting conflict in the moment even helps some participants to un-hook from the class-formed attachment to words and become more present to what's really happening. Actions that flow from such a process are more likely to have an impact on the real world of injustice, because those actions come from experience rather than words.
But what about 'triggers?'
Conflict-friendly pedagogy contradicts a current assumption in anti-oppression circles that the goal in, for example, achieving racial justice is protection. That assumption gives the facilitator the job of outlining rules to prevent conflict. In some classrooms professors are asked to give "trigger alerts" when material is coming that might in some way be experienced as oppressive.
I believe this trend is anti-liberation. It further empowers power holders, asking authorities (in this case, teachers) to take even more responsibility to monitor and control. It disempowers those who have suffered oppression, by assuming they can't stand up for themselves when an insult appears. It excuses facilitators from the task of supporting participants to develop the muscles to fight for their own liberation.
The vision implicit in the current trend is to produce hot-house plants who can bloom only with shelter, called a "safe place." That vision leaves me indignant: my gay and working-class self has grown in personal power in the real world where micro-aggressions abound. In fact, living in the real world helps motivate me to fight for broader change rather than retreat into yet another version of privilege where I will be insulated from the real world.
This well-meaning vision is, because of its classist roots, a version of the gated community.
Trauma survivors need and deserve support. Checking with the facilitator ahead of time might devise options that empower. Depending on the person's own degree of healing, a particular workshop may or may not work for them. That may especially be true of train-the-trainer workshops, because new trainers need to unlearn reactivity and stay present with aggression that surfaces in a learning group.
The origin of direct education, with its roots in the civil rights movement and its use among oppressed groups that do stand up, insists on a distinction between safety and comfort. In a workshop the facilitator assists members of a group to be both safe and uncomfortable, because discomfort is where the greatest learning and growth are.
Needless to say, today's movements need the steepest learning curve they can generate.
George Lakey has been active in direct action campaigns for over six decades. Recently retired from Swarthmore College, he was first arrested in the civil rights movement and most recently in the climate justice movement. He has facilitated 1,500 workshops on five continents and led activist projects on local, national and international levels. His 10 books and many articles reflect his social research into change on community and societal levels. His newest books are "Viking Economics: How the Scandinavians got it right and how we can, too" (2016) and "How We Win: A Guide to Nonviolent Direct Action Campaigning" (2018.)
Tags: Civil rights movement, Training, United States
More By George Lakey
Can now really be the best time to be alive? A dialogue across generations
Why doesn't American political culture understand the power of direct action campaigns?
How movements build strength through training
Curt Day says:
If I were to summarize why it seems that rationality and emotion collide in activism is that we have relied too much on simplifications. And the first instance of that reliance is our deficiency in reading what has been done in the past. In particular, we have discarded the nonviolent approach taken by Martin Luther King and others. And while some will dispute that claim of having discarded nonviolence because of movements like OWS, we should note that King not only preached against outward violence, he preached against the internal violence of the spirit that leads to hate and verbal assaults. We forget that King sought to win his opponents over and those who refused to be wooed he sought to control through the law.
The complexity of the nonviolent approach of King and others is described in the history books and in the participants' own words. But from what I have observed in my activism experiences, we never went to protests prepared by reading the wisdom of those who preceded us. Rather, we preferred to be lazy so we could immediately lash out at our enemies as if they were completely wrong or evil. We should note that acknowledging internal violence assumes that we too have faults. And that simplification of people as being either good or evil rather than looking at all as being a mixed bag is the ultimate simplification.
Yes, the more we simplify, the more energy we can create amongst ourselves. But energy is all that we have created since any undecided observer can clearly see what we can't, that things are more complicated than we let on.
George lakey says:
I agree with you, Curt, that simplification can sell ourselves short (humans being complex beings) and render us less effective. That's one reason why Earth Quaker Action Team (EQAT) routinely does a training before action. (We did 125 actions to gain our recent win in forcing the seventh-largest U.S. bank into giving up mountaintop removal coal mining, and nearly all of those actions were preceded by trainings!) Every time we do a training, however brief, it results in the group's changing the plan in some respects and/or reflecting more deeply afterward on what was really going on, inside ourselves as well as among our adversaries. Group reflection empowers us to go beyond crude simplification and enables us to get a bigger picture AND to become more precise in focusing our power toward our goal. That practice enables a small group to take on a big bank, while mobilizing thousands in episodic bursts can be utterly without impact. Of course best of all is to combine the power of training with the power of mass participation, and that's one reason to look to the civil rights movement as a model. The good news in my article is that the field of training has since the 'sixties gone beyond the civil rights movement, and inventing "direct education" can support movements to become even more powerful.
erika thorne says:
This article captures some of my experience as a white woman working for racial justice over the last 30 years. When co-facilitating coalitions across race, class, and gender identity, we must address the kinds of emotional processes and interactions that Lakey cites in the article. The more familiar I've gotten with direct education tools and approaches, the more I'm able to support the kinds of storms and re-grouping which strengthen our ability to move forward as a coalition and take effective action on our common goals. Direct ed is invaluable for the tough work we face in 2015 such as state violence targeting black and brown people, global climate destruction, rampant economic inequality.
john hoggett says:
this speaks to me as someone who is used to large group work – specifically Scott Peck Community Building – and also a lot of activist work.
Activist groups I have been in seem to find conflict difficult and often either suppress it or organise it out of existance instead of facilitating till it is dealt with.
Anthony Kirke says:
I agree with John Hoggett. Just in case you haven't heard of Scot Peck's Community Building, he writes about it in his book "The Different Drum" and it is practiced by "Community Building in Britain".
Thanks to both John and Anthony for your shout-out to Scott Peck's "The Different Drum." I've learned much from it, as well as other writers who have noticed this developmental pattern in groups. I found Peck's book to be especially helpful in coaching me on how to be as a facilitator while the group is going through what can sometimes be dramatic moments! In my book "Toward a Living Revolution" I tell a story from one of those dramatic storms when I confronted a football player larger than me to keep him in the room so the group could push through to the other side. Probably Peck was more subtle than I managed to be.
Andrew wg says:
I once led a day-long training for a fifteen rural immigrant organizers in northwestern Virginia, using direct education to help them learn about campaigns. Mostly men, they were used to being "led" by one person wielding a PowerPoint; it will surprise no one reading this that their ability to develop strategies to stop police-ICE collaboration (among other things) was seriously hampered by this approach. It became clear during our first activity, a review of the day's agenda, that some group members had trouble reading, so I changed up my plan, and gave them time after each activity to tell each other what they had appreciated or learned (or ask questions if they hadn't understood; there was a strong stigma against "outing" yourself as pre-literate). A few others came became much more animated when we did activities that required movement, even simple "spectrum" activities involving lining-up along an imaginary spectrum of opinion. But the group really got to work during Stepping Stones, in which they split into two, and had to cross an imaginary river using "stepping stones" (sheets of paper). This group challenge surfaced many tensions in the group around decision-making and leadership, and we debriefed to discuss how solving this challenge had been like their (failed) efforts at bringing justice to their community.
Which is all to say, direct education is about so much more than bringing in the emotional side of movements! Direct ed has provided me a framework for using activities that reach different learning styles, as with the kinesthetic activities described above. And activities that both create new experiences, like Stepping Stones, and help groups to reflect on their lived experience, which we did during the debrief. These elements and others help groups to become more nimble and self-aware. They're part of the "steep learning curve" of direct ed, too.
BILLY pilgrim says:
I'm not a trainer bit a veteran of almost fifty years od activism. I remember driving to teach in the Chicago west side ghetto school the morning after Dr.King was shot. A National Guard truck pulled in front of me way north of the Loop, and stayed there all the way to the school. They had set up camp in the park right across the street. All the way there, they were laughing, having a great time.
That image is permanently burned into my awareness. There is no possible way to change that complex, self-referential and self-supporting blindness, already armed to the teeth against a perceived threat and ready to kill at any provocation, with the politics of emotional expression, the venting of rage, or any other approach that claims to have "gone beyond" the disciplined, soul-to-soul nonviolence of Ghandi and King, when in fact it hasn't even been understood.
It's not just a matter of rationality vs emotion, but practical vs theoretical thought, the fundamental distinction. Effective movement building and the righting of social wrongs are entirely practical matters. The violent, conflicted mind occupies itself with the abstractions, isms, and positions of a theoretical purity aimply.not present in the real world. Chief among these is the absurdly irreconcilable and trrminally boring difference between Left and Right.
Sorry, comments are now closed.
New collective injects performance art into Black Lives Matter in New York
Ashoka Jegroo
While the Amazon burns, Brazil's indigenous peoples rise up
Marina Martinez
Remembering the Bonus Army — prefigurative politics that actually built long-term power
How Weatherman confused violence with militancy and triggered the downfall of SDS
Jonathan Lerner
Thank you for your interest in republishing this story. You are are free republish it so long as you do the following:
You have to credit us. We prefer with a note at the top of the article that says it originally appeared on Waging Nonviolence with a link back to the original page where it appeared. For example, at the top of a republished article, a sentence like this should be included: This article was originally published on Waging Nonviolence.
If you're republishing online, you have to link to us and to include all of the links from our story, as well as the code for our Matomo tracking pixel.
You can't edit our material, except to reflect relative changes in time, location and editorial style. (For example, "yesterday" can be changed to "last week," and "Portland" to "Portland, Ore." or "here.")
You can't sell our material separately.
You can republish images only if they are clearly cited as creative commons (Wikimedia, Flickr, etc.) in the caption. You can't republish any other images without specific permission. To do so, email: contact@wagingnonviolence.org.
<div class="getty embed image" style="background-color: #fff; display: inline-block; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; color: #a7a7a7; font-size: 11px; width: 100%; max-width: 594px;"> <div style="overflow: hidden; position: relative; height: 0; padding: 61.111111% 0 0 0; width: 100%;"><iframe style="display: inline-block; position: absolute; top: 0; left: 0; width: 100%; height: 100%;" src="//embed.gettyimages.com/embed/129276251?et=rtMgZArsQyRtyzRFRX9fjw&amp;viewMoreLink=on&amp;sig=e0zzYC9qKAzWZyB_menmsjyPq_uKC2jxS81yHeEhrB0=" width="594" height="363" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe></div> <div style="padding: 0; margin: 0 0 0 10px; text-align: left;"><a style="color: #a7a7a7; text-decoration: none; font-weight: normal !important; border: none; display: inline-block;" href="http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/129276251" target="_blank">View image</a> | <a style="color: #a7a7a7; text-decoration: none; font-weight: normal !important; border: none; display: inline-block;" href="http://www.gettyimages.com" target="_blank">gettyimages.com</a></div> </div> <p>When it comes to action, we are pulled by two tendencies that seem compatible but in practice are often in tension. We want our movements to be rational – that is, to strategize well, use resources efficiently, and stay nimble. Yet, on the other hand, we may also want the products of emotion: to experience solidarity, to let empathy connect us with those who haven't joined us, and to tap the righteous anger that goes with caring about injustice.</p> <p>In my lifetime social movements have increasingly turned to trainers to increase their learning curve and make actions more effective. However, a movement's wish to draw on the power of both rationality and emotion poses a challenge for trainers, who are influenced by middle-class bias and traditional education. Class and the academy push trainers to privilege rationality and ignore the wellspring of emotion.</p> <p>Fortunately, action reasserts the need for both, and training is learning to respond. The movement story in the United States shows the tension, and begins with the civil rights movement of the 1960s.</p> <p><b>The civil rights movement didn't solve this for everyone</b></p> <p>The civil rights movement made more breakthroughs than today's activists have yet caught up with, but that movement's practice is not a complete answer for us today. I was a trainer in the civil rights movement and saw brilliant use of role play and other experiential tools for preparing to take on white segregationists and brutal police. The tools were helpful in bringing emotions like fear and anger to the surface and, by normalizing them, making them easier to manage.</p> <p>The fullest positive use of emotion, however, was in the South where black church culture was strongest. Black preachers sought to be charismatic and many were expert in surfacing emotion, mobilizing what they called soul force for the nonviolent struggle. We see this in the film &#8220;Selma.&#8221;</p> <p>Some civil rights activists at the time saw the charismatic leadership model as problematic, and in any case the black preacher tradition is not available for most of today&#8217;s movements. A practical organizational alternative for mobilizing emotion, however, was unclear. After the civil rights movement faded a few of its members joined others to form in 1971 the Movement for a New Society, or MNS.</p> <p>In the early days we in MNS discovered "Pedagogy of the Oppressed," a breakthrough book by the best-known initiator of popular education, Brazilian educator Paolo Freire. Popular education takes sides in the class struggle and honors the wisdom of oppressed people, assisting them through dialogue to name their experience, connect the dots and encourage each other to take action. The tools reassure people who have been told they can't think well, partly through the facilitator asking questions and showing respect, and partly through the experience of thinking out loud and noticing that others in the group are paying attention.</p> <p>Our trainers enthusiastically used Freire's approach, finding that it did elicit more fully the rationality of a group. When MNS combined popular education with the action training born in the civil rights movement, our trainers became in demand around the United States and elsewhere. MNS helped the nonviolent anti-nuclear power movement win its remarkable victory in the late 1970s.</p> <p>However, a curious phenomenon began popping up in MNS workshops: emotional revolts of participants that most often were expressed at the facilitator team, but also at each other. The workshops' empowerment tools focused on the rational dimension of the participants. In these mini-revolutions, the group's emotional life was demanding more attention.</p> <p><b>A group in Starhawk's attic yearns for solidarity</b></p> <p>The 1999 Battle of Seattle over corporate-led globalization led to a series of mass confrontations with power holders in the United States and elsewhere. Nonviolent trainers went from city to city, facilitating workshops at each convergence. After a few years, leading activist Starhawk and I called trainers together to take stock of how we were doing. We met in her attic in San Francisco.</p> <p>Trainers reported multiple successes at working in the midst of chaos, as well as limitations. They also raised strategic questions about the value of mass confrontations that had no concrete or achievable goals.</p> <p>We turned to skill-sharing, which was fun, and comparisons of analytical frameworks. Suddenly the amicable bunch of trainers turned crabby. We found fault with each others' comments, but especially distrusted the person who happened, by rotation, to be occupying the facilitator's chair at the time. Participants urged solutions to our unhappiness: "Let's go into pairs." "We need a break." "We should never have left that earlier point of disagreement." "Maybe a group song would help."</p> <p>Nothing worked. I was as lost as anyone while a storm raged within the group. The facilitator looked flattened. One of the participants lost it, dramatically. Then a respected group member expressed vulnerability. Suddenly, the sun came out, we hugged whoever was near us, we laughed and paused for tea.</p> <p>Only then did I realize we'd experienced an emotional process that sometimes shows up in groups. We started with our "honeymoon" period when everyone was making nice, then began the raw conflict when people showed more of themselves while peacemakers tried the impossible: to find rational solutions to our pain. Finally, we experienced the breakthrough into community and became, to use organizational development jargon, a "high-performance team."</p> <p>I remembered that a group generates a storm when its members want to experience acceptance for the deeper layers of themselves, including differences that they have been, up until then, keeping under wraps. In short, they want closeness, because human beings happen to be social animals.</p> <p>The rational model suggests that group members could state differences and negotiate common ground in order to gain the solidarity needed for action. True enough, for low-risk, low-stakes action. However, movements often have high stakes that require members to endure fatigue and high stress, execute detailed teamwork, take big risks and draw deep support from their comrades. Nearly everyone has seen this in movies, including sports and war movies, in which a team or platoon that includes members who could never get along back home have together gained a win.</p> <p>Movements often state goals that require this level of struggle to achieve, and so attract participants who expect to find the support to "go there" &#8212; but do not find it. Middle-class control trumps effectiveness in those movements, having only its rationality to offer. In Starhawk's attic those present would not have asked, in so many words, for that bonding — it would have seemed corny or naïve. Instead, we created it emotionally, by storming.</p> <p>The good news is that facilitators can be trained to recognize the early signs of a storm brewing and techniques for supporting the storm when it comes. The bad news is that facilitators rarely seek that training, or the other techniques for assisting groups to access their unconscious resources. As with traditional education, popular education did not go there.</p> <p><b>Trainers invent direct education to support solidarity-based action</b></p> <p>The group of activists who founded Training for Change in the 1990s developed over time a training practice that could make the most of what happened in Starhawk's attic, and harnessed other group dynamics that support empowered action. Training for Change trainers knew the tools of the civil rights movement and the popular education used by MNS, so we started there. However, we also turned to the resource of emotion, incorporating insights on group dynamics reflected in, among other places, Starhawk's book "Dreaming the Dark"<i> </i>and psychologist Arnold Mindell's book "Sitting in the Fire."<i> </i>My book "Facilitating Group Learning" summarizes a decade of discoveries about both the rational and emotional life of the group, and shares methods that work best across many cultural boundaries. Significantly, this was the action training approach that attracted the widest range of groups, from religious organizations to anarchists to nonprofits to labor unions.</p> <p>Direct education gets push-back from those who limit learning to the conscious, rational realm, including those who believe that social change happens through wielding abstract academic language like "code-switching" or "intersectionality."</p> <p>Our experience is that, when groups bring forth real-world conflicts in the training room, participants get the chance to go to a deeper place and experience the behaviors that abstract words were invented to represent. Supporting conflict in the moment even helps some participants to un-hook from the class-formed attachment to words and become more present to what's really happening. Actions that flow from such a process are more likely to have an impact on the real world of injustice, because those actions come from experience rather than words.</p> <p><b>But what about &#8216;triggers?&#8217;</b></p> <p>Conflict-friendly pedagogy contradicts a current assumption in anti-oppression circles that the goal in, for example, achieving racial justice is protection<i>. </i>That assumption gives the facilitator the job of outlining rules to prevent conflict. In some classrooms professors are asked to give "trigger alerts" when material is coming that might in some way be experienced as oppressive.</p> <p>I believe this trend is anti-liberation. It further empowers power holders, asking authorities (in this case, teachers) to take even more responsibility to monitor and control. It disempowers those who have suffered oppression, by assuming they can't stand up for themselves when an insult appears. It excuses facilitators from the task of supporting participants to develop the muscles to fight for their own liberation.</p> <p>The vision implicit in the current trend is to produce hot-house plants who can bloom only with shelter, called a "safe place." That vision leaves me indignant: my gay and working-class self has grown in personal power in the real world where micro-aggressions abound. In fact, living in the real world helps motivate me to fight for broader change rather than retreat into yet another version of privilege where I will be insulated from the real world.</p> <p>This well-meaning vision is, because of its classist roots, a version of the gated community.</p> <p>Trauma survivors need and deserve support. Checking with the facilitator ahead of time might devise options that empower. Depending on the person's own degree of healing, a particular workshop may or may not work for them. That may especially be true of train-the-trainer workshops, because new trainers need to unlearn reactivity and stay present with aggression that surfaces in a learning group.</p> <p>The origin of direct education, with its roots in the civil rights movement and its use among oppressed groups that do stand up, insists on a distinction between safety and comfort. In a workshop the facilitator assists members of a group to be both safe <i>and </i>uncomfortable, because discomfort is where the greatest learning and growth are.</p> <p>Needless to say, today's movements need the steepest learning curve they can generate.</p>
Why we need to move closer to King's understanding of nonviolence
Kazu Haga
Nonviolence is not simply the absence of violence, but about taking a proactive stand against violence and injustice, and working to repair the harm.
How Generation Z is leading the climate movement
Nick Engelfried
From the rise of organizations like Zero Hour to Greta Thunberg's Fridays For Future, the youth climate movement is only just getting started.
'Music is a living thing' — a conversation on movement music with the Peace Poets
Loretta Graceffo
The Peace Poets' hip-hop and poetry about the power of the people has led them to the front lines of social movements around the world.
WNV's top stories of 2019
George Lakey and Yotam Marom
How a rising anti-mining movement is challenging Portugal's 'white gold' rush
WNV Top Reads
It's time we celebrate Ella Baker Day
Why the climate movement's next big target is Wall Street
Earther
Women's March 2020: What's next for the movement?
Labor 101 for undergraduate workers seeking to unionize
The Indian left is going on the offensive