3 ms·
You listed a few examples of individuals who effected great change and were civil. (Mostly civil. Gandhi, King, and Mandela were each accused by their detractor
by mcherm 8y ago
You listed a few examples of individuals who effected great change and were civil. (Mostly civil. Gandhi, King, and Mandela were each accused by their detractors of being insufficiently civil.)
I could easily list examples of individuals who effected great change and were NOT civil. Neither list would prove anything. An actual analysis of leaders who were then classified according to their civility and rated on their effectiveness would tell us a lot, but I haven't seen such an analysis.
I'm not saying civility is a bad idea -- it is the approach I usually use. But you haven't convinced me of anything by listing 3 famous names.
- ethbro 8y agoMy broader rationale goes like this: - The objective of any movement is to effect a change - The number of people pro- or anti- change is always dwarfed by the number of ambivalent or mostly-ambivalent bystanders (aka those who don't really care) - The shortest path to the object is therefore converting the bystanding mass to your side - You convert people more easily if you don't scare them - Overthrowing the system and militancy always scare people I don't have my books on designing effective protest movements in front of me, but I'll post the names when I'm home later. The above ideas are all cribbed from reading. PS: Not that militancy doesn't have a place. But unless you're willing to start a civil war and have substantial economic and popular backing before initiating hostilities, the state is always going to have more power (see point about silent bystanders).