Rethinking Protest: 5 Levels of Limitation to Influencing Sustainable Change

If you are like me, you never dreamed that you would see images from our country, like the images that came from the events at the Capitol. Taking it one step further, I never dreamed that I would see the images that we have seen over the past several months, related to protests going on across the country. It saddens me to see our country divided at what appears to be a point of no return. I am not here to discuss what inspired the protests that we witness this past week and this past year. What I am here to discuss is whether or not these style of protests have inspired the change that they were organized to inspire, and to call for a transformation in how we define protest in our country. Before I get much further in this, I would like to make it clear that I condemn any violence toward another human being and I condemn any destruction of another's property. What I believe we have seen this past year is large gatherings with people, who most of which truly believe in their cause, and who most of which want nothing to do with the violence and the destruction that we have seen. With that said, I believe these gatherings have provided a cover for a group of people who want nothing more than to see violence and destruction. So where does this leave us? Before rethinking how we protest, we must clarify why we are protesting. Do we want others to hear our voice? They have heard our voice, now what? Are we simply trying to educate, and that's it? Or, are we trying build on that education to make sustainable change? I am going to assume that most of those who are protesting, without violence or destruction in mind, are wanting to educate the public and to build on that education to make sustainable change. So if we can agree at this place, let's move forward. Now that we agree about the why, how do we agree about the what? This involves establishing common ground. Before we discuss establishing common ground, which I would like to discuss in my next blog, I would like to spend the rest of this post discussing the "5 levels" that make it hard for us to establish the common ground that is crucial in establishing sustainable change. Defensive/Unresponsive - This level involves a response from individuals who either are not moved by the change that is being called for, or they are outright defensive to the change. One of the potential causes of this level of response is that those calling for change and those on the receiving end of the call for change have 2 completely different life perspectives or moral compasses. For example, if you are a Christian calling for a non-Christian to change their lifestyle, throwing Bible verses at them will most likely not move them, due to the fact the receiver's moral compass and personal truth is based on something other than the Bible, and flat out rejects the authority of Scripture (a relationship/common ground must be formed before Scripture is used to call a non-Christian to change). Another potential cause of this level is the limited sources of information that is sought after or accessed by the receiving group. Moreover, if the receiving group is only accessing information through perspectives that share their beliefs and experiences, they will not only dismiss the merit of the change being called for, they will often see the change as a threat to their lifestyle. Inauthenticity - Calling for change in today's "cancel culture" climate usually involves a "line in the sand" social structure, where people either actively show their support and keep their audience, or they get "cancelled" because of the perceived lack of support exhibited through their passivity or active opposition to the change. This breeds an environment where individuals who are looking to keep public office, keep their job, keep their followers, or any other symbols of status that people hold dear, feel forced to make a decision to "fake it until they make it." Consequently, there are many out there who will support a call for change through active participation in the call for change or will support through agreeance. However, these same individuals will flee from the change at any sign that supporting this change becomes a risk to the aforementioned status symbols. We also see many who are non-confrontational or simply want to "keep the peace," who will support a call to change, just to flee the change at any sign that the change negatively influences their lives. Dismissal - This particular level is imposed on the receiving end of a call to change by the individual/group calling for the change. Moreover, there are individuals and groups who are in the position to become advocates for the change being called for, however, their role is dismissed due to the perception that they do not know what it is like experiencing life in the shoes of the individual or group who is calling for the change. The thought is if this person or group does not look like they have experienced adversity, than they will not know how to help me/us or quite frankly they can't help me/us. Another potential cause for dismissal is based on external observation, a person or group in the position to advocate looks or sounds like they are part of the problem. Burnout/Exhaustion - Those who start in a place of being willing and able can be dismissed so much based on their external appearance or other assertions made about them by the individual/group calling for change, that they can become burned out or exhausted. They may still be able to help, but their support may be tempered or limited by their exhausted state. At this level, you also have individuals/groups who are willing, able, and have not been dismissed who have simply worked so hard for "the cause" for so long, the support they are able to give is tempered. Limited - It is reasonable to assume that after filtering through each of the aforementioned levels, there is a significantly limited number of individuals left to provide strong support to the change being called for. In a world where our identity is based on our affiliations, what we support, who we socialize with, our lifestyles, our careers, and countless other categories that break people down into smaller groups, it is no wonder that making sustainable change in our world is so difficult. We must start looking to things that unite us, not divide us. Let's start with the fact that we are all human beings. In my next blog, I will discuss how we can establish common ground in the things that unite us, while still making changes to systems and policies that have contributed to, or influenced, the exploitation and degradation of our fellow human beings and fellow citizens.