Movements and Manipulators

The major news story in Canada this week is a convoy of people who might be mostly truckers converging on Ottawa to protest or demand something.

I don’t intend to diminish the cause by being vague. The thing is, despite being an active follower of news on several forms of media, I’m really not sure who these people are or what they want. And I’m pretty sure they don’t all agree with each other.

As with several other movements in recent years (and throughout history I’m sure) the intents of the originators are being manipulated and misinterpreted by some who see the energy of what’s happening and see it as an opportunity to forward their own priorities.

This leads to both confusion and magnification.

Each new vocal minority brings with it more people joining the movement, and more of their opponents clamouring to discredit it. But what it is all about is constantly churning into less and less coherence. The power of social media to amplify noise without clarity makes it worse.

Adding the relatively lax controls of social fundraising sites brings the seductive strength of profit to this already unpredictable mix.

Since the loudest voices are most easily heard and the most provocative get the strongest response, decentralized movements and protests easily become more about polarity than purpose. It’s like a dog barking and bouncing without understanding anything except that the humans are excited. The point of it all is highjacked by skilled manipulators and blowhards, if indeed they weren’t the ones to start it in the first place.

That’s not to say that those involved in this, or any other, movement necessarily have selfish or sinister motives. Only that the inherent volatility makes it very difficult to do anything but impose our own bias and assumptions on what we see or join.

This is a challenging difference between a movement and an organization. In organizations we can define the boundaries of in and out. We can include or exclude with a significant degree of clarity. And we can exert some degree of control over people to keep them aligned. An organization can have accountability.

A movement is fundamentally vulnerable to the power of charisma or media savvy to take over and tell a different story. The ideals of grassroots activism are all too often unable to withstand the bullying power of those who are intent on co-opting their energy. Even those with sincere objectives that are angularly connected to the original cause can create enough confusion to undermine desired outcomes.

So is an organization the better way?

It is if you have the resources and the clarity to take on a well specified mission. It’s a more defined form of leadership and one that can usually know whether it is succeeding or not. That’s a significant advantage.

But a movement has the ability to tap immediately into a moment, or even create one, and unleash dramatic energy. It demands attention that few organizations can hope to access.

For me, the dangers of having my intent lost and my purpose misunderstood makes most movements hard to embrace. But for those hardy souls who are willing to ally themselves with uncertainty it may be just the outlet they are seeking.