[Written by Helen Aki, with contributions from Rachel Barge, Alisha Fowler, Lindsey Franklin, and Jesse Jenkins.]
Over the past few days, controversy has been stirred up on “It’s Getting Hot In Here” over a number of posts written by members of Breakthrough Generation, a new progressive youth organization founded by the Breakthrough Institute. While the controversy has focused on perceptions of Breakthrough’s agenda, it reflects a larger question, which is: what is the role of conflict and debate in terms of forming an effective movement for change? This post is my attempt to illuminate Breakthrough’s intent in sparking such debate, as well as to address this larger question. In the spirit of dialogue and growth, I look forward to your critical and substantive responses.
Here in Oakland, for the past week and a half, we fellows have been vigorously pointing out the flaws and weaknesses of the Breakthrough Institute: everything from time wasted arguing with environmentalists, who aren’t really our enemies, to insisting that Breakthrough needs to garner more public support, make the movement bigger, and clarify our mission statement. I think each of the fellows could speak at length about what they would like Breakthrough to do better or differently, and what things they take issue with.
To the credit of Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, the Breakthrough founders: they’ve welcomed our criticisms, listened to us, and done a good job responding to our various concerns. What has been curious to me since the beginning is this: the thirteen fellows who sit in the Breakthrough office every morning, reading and writing and engaging in dialogue with an intensity that astonishes me after two years of college classes, are all here because we resonate strongly with the message of “The Death of Environmentalism” and the Break Through book. We’re here because we believe in it.
So why are we so eager to critique Breakthrough: its strategy, its rhetoric, and its accomplishments? And if we are internally conflicted, how can we hope to convince those who might already be skeptical or downright disagree with us? Does it bode ill that the thirteen people most convinced by and committed to the ideas and visions set forth by Breakthrough are still full of doubts, questions, and concerns?
Absolutely not. Because we care, because we are committed, we are critical. When it comes to ideas, strategies, and paradigms, conflict—the right kind of conflict—is good. Productive. It’s probably even essential to getting it right.
Social scientists and historians have long understood that friction is the basis for social and cultural change. Anna Lowenhaupt Tsing wrote a wonderful book called Friction: An Ethnography of Global Connection, in which she studies instances where oppositional forces (ideological or otherwise) collide and create “friction.” She writes about the value of “collaboration with friction at its heart,” and insists that “collaboration was not consensus making but rather an opening for productive confusion.” David Brooks made a similar assertion about the conservative right in his famous essay, “A House Divided, and Strong,” where he argued that the movement’s internal divisions gave it the strength to change the face of American politics for decades. And let’s not forget the obvious (if cliche) division between Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, and the diverse wings of the anti-war and civil rights movements.
I think Breakthrough Generation sensed that change does not occur in a room full of people who think the same way and are in perfect agreement. Our rush to find fault with our own employers and their strategy rose from the understanding that, if we were content to reside in our enthusiasm for Breakthrough and said nothing more, we wouldn’t go anywhere. Nothing would be accomplished.
From this understanding comes our desire to engage with others in the same way. Our criticisms of the youth energy movement are motivated by a deep commitment to the actualization of its goals. After all, even if we disagree on some (or many) things, don’t we have the same agenda: averting the catastrophic effects of anthropogenic global warming? At the end of the day, aren’t we all deeply committed to building a more sustainable, just and prosperous future?
At the same time, the response we’ve gotten from folks on It’sGettingHotInHere has given us pause. Although we’ve been trying to write in the spirit of initiating dialogue, we’ve been reprimanded for sponsoring “intentionally inflammatory attacks.” We’ve been told that, for the sake of the movement, we need to provide a front of unity. If IGHIH’s purpose is to portray to outsiders an image of the youth energy movement which is uniform in thought and approach, this is a reasonable request. But is that really what this space is for? Does unity demand uniformity of thought, or can our commonalities be strong enough to encourage internal debate?
We need to recognize that our movement is still growing, experimenting with tactics and coming into its own political identity. I feel that a call for unity and agreement which avoids questions or addressing people’s concerns can stunt our maturation as a movement. If there is no agitation, no dissent, there is no incentive for improvement.
The truth is, I do believe that there are significant problems with the paradigm and approach embodied by pollution-oriented strategies to combat climate change. In the weeks to come, I will participate in a process of sincere, rational and thorough critique, because I am convinced that constructive criticism—if acknowledged, internalized and applied—is a strategy for achieving excellence. Simultaneously, it will be critical to create a compelling vision for what these improvements will look like. We hope that by engaging other activists and intellectuals, who are able and willing to thoroughly examine their beliefs and ours, we too can be subjected to substantive debate. Being challenged by competing ideas means that we must constantly strive to become better. This will require taking a good hard look at all of our assumptions and getting rid of what doesn’t work. And it means listening intently to those who critique us.
Perhaps we should have stated this from the beginning. We may have taken people by surprise in our recent writing, and been clumsy about addressing these important concepts. Breakthrough Generation is still finding its voice and identity, and we would like to invite constructive debate throughout our process of emergence. We are living at a critical point in time. There is a lot that needs to be done. Throughout this process, let’s remember that the strength of our mutual respect (and, in many cases, friendships), as well as our overarching unity of purpose, should allow space for internal debate.
So from here on out, I’m signing on for a “collaboration with friction at its heart”: exhaustively critical, yet dedicated to its vision, and determined to achieve its ends. Care to join me?
