2023-05-02
Attracting mass public and media attention and engaging in conversations
By Rob Delves, Green Issue Co-editor
About ten years ago, my partner and I were wandering aimlessly through Venice, mainly trying to find even a few square metres without other tourists. We stumbled onto the main ferry and ship canal near Ponte Longo – actually we were drawn to it by very loud chanting coordinated by a very loud PA system.
Our activist souls can spot, sniff or hear a protest anywhere, and this was very clearly a big one in full swing. Although we couldn’t understand a word, it was obviously a protest against the impact of huge cruise ships on Venice, because two real monsters were being blocked from leaving by about ten canoes spaced in a line across the approx. 200 metre-width of the canal. Plus the hundreds of people lining the Fondamenta Zattere al Ponte Longo weren’t exactly engaged in goodwill waving goodbye to the 5000+ people on each ship.
A few minutes later the water police roared out in about six little motor boats and ushered the canoeists peacefully, but very slowly, towards the embankment. However, as soon as they cleared the canal, another set of protesters – this time on paddleboards – replaced their departing brothers and sisters.
Looked like enormous fun, so we settled in for what we hoped would be the long haul. There were four repeats, the last to block the canal were swimmers. The water police were remarkably calm and appeared happy to tolerate the very deliberately slow departure of each fleet of protesters. No sign of anyone being pushed into a paddy wagon, either – I’m guessing the Water Carabinieri shared the protesters utter distaste for what the endless churn of monster ships was doing to their home town. After the fourth roundup, the two cruise ships started tentatively moving down the canal, accompanied by a significant increase in the chanting, drumming and PA ranting.
This contribution to Green Issue is about what campaign strategies work well or not so well – and I’d give this Italian Job at least an 8 out of 10, because it ticks lots of boxes labelled Success. As I’ll go on to argue, these boxes include big numbers participating in a well-organised, joyous, imaginative, mischievous, totally peaceful, disruptive action opposing a manifest wrong.
I group a range of possible campaign strategies or actions under two broad headings.
1. Campaigns to attract media attention and pressure the government to change course.
Four successful examples I’ve been involved in are demonstrations against the invasions of Vietnam and Iraq, and the 2018-19 Climate rallies/marches organised by Extinction Rebellion (XR) and School Strikes for Climate. Their success begins by identifying a major wrong being done, with no action taken to correct it, in fact often clearly making the problem worse. Then they deliver a protest that is well-organised, joyous, colourful, mischievous, noisy, energetic, totally peaceful, disruptive. Add imaginative and humorous – some of the posters and banners at the Student Climate Strikes are a joy to behold. The media love them.
Our XR Grandparents Group have hit on an “imagination and humour” winner in the shape of Napoleon Boneyparts: a skeleton accompanied by a sign “Still Waiting For Action On Climate Change” that we cart around to marches, rallies and demos. We’ve got Napoleon wired up with a speaker behind his only item of clothing (a wide tie) and we can use a phone up to 20 metres away to have Napoleon converse with people. It’s massive fun, especially at our vigils outside Parliament House, where Napoleon sits in a chair outside the South Entrance and arriving MPs are greeted with friendly warmth ‒ for example “Good morning, Handsome, what are you going to do in there today to deal with climate change?” Most people respond by cracking up with laughter – and then go inside and legislate punitive taxes on fossil fuel companies and a ban on all new projects (we love to dream).
Some of the XR campaign actions include the added – and controversial ‒ dimension of breaking the law and inviting arrest, for example a mass die-in at a major intersection at the end of a march. Obviously such actions may produce a negative backlash, but I support them for several reasons.
Lawrence Kohlberg’s study of hundreds of responses to moral dilemmas of moral reasoning led him to propose that there are five levels of Moral Reasoning, starting with Level One which is pure selfishness (what’s in it for me). Level Four is total obedience to and respect for the law. The highest level of moral reasoning is being prepared to take disruptive action to oppose a manifestly unjust law or government decision – but with a commitment to being absolutely peaceful/non-violent and being prepared to accept whatever legal or other consequences that flow from that direct action.
This fifth level of moral reasoning was made famous by Gandhi and Martin Luther King, two social justice heroes whose moral compass was set at the highest possible standard. Here in Australia, Bob Brown and Jo Vallentine became giants of Greens history because of their commitment to these principles.
It is resoundingly clear that there are two unequivocal truths with regard to climate change: we face a climate emergency and the response from our leaders has been totally inadequate. Taken together, these truths oblige me to do everything I can to pressure for meaningful action to halt global heating – and this will include disruptive action from time to time. Indeed, at the conclusion of the film Giants, Bob Brown issues this challenge to action, particularly to older people (the gist, not the exact words):
We are certain that climate change is an existential threat to the survival of life on Earth. So, how will you respond in future years when your children and grandchildren ask: “You knew what was happening, what did you do about it?”
2. Strategies to enable/encourage conversations with as many people ‒ and as wide a variety of people ‒ as possible.
‘Democracy is the conversation amongst equals to determine what constitutes good life and the good society’
This quote from a 2006 book, The Good Society, by Rutherford and Shah, sums up the importance and power of conversations – and their perfect alignment with Greens values. I’m convinced that one-on-one or very small group conversations are the best of the best as far as campaign activities go. They are better at changing hearts and minds than listening to lectures or public debates, mainly because they respect and include the other persons as absolute equals in the activity. Two successful examples I’ve been involved in are the campaign that Rachel Siewert coordinated against the 2014 Abbott-Hockey budget and Max Chandler-Mather’s current campaign to pressure Labor to strengthen its response to the housing crisis. Both rely heavily on doorknocking, which is also our major “Conversation Strategy” in election campaigns.
We make use of stalls and phonebanking to engage in conversations. It’s important that we provide a variety of campaigning options, as our members and supporters are a varied lot and therefore will be more encouraged to get involved if they can find something that best suits their skills and personality from a choice of activities.
However, in my opinion doorknocking is the most effective. What do I like so much about this way of generating conversations? Firstly it ensures contact with a very wide variety of people. This is an important contrast with stalls and public meetings which overwhelmingly involve talking with the converted or at least those with some attraction to Greens values and policies. Secondly, I like the fact that it’s face-to-face and begins with offering a flyer, which most people are happy to accept and is often the source of points to talk about (“Is there anything there that you strongly agree with, or don’t agree with?”).
Doorknocking’s downside is that it can be difficult to persuade large numbers of members and supporters to participate: the first time takes you out of your comfort zone, with fears that you are invading people’s private space and may encounter hostile or even unsafe reactions. Therefore it’s essential that newcomers are always paired with an experienced doorknocker and stay in that observer or assistant role for as long as they want. In my experience, The Greens (WA) have always delivered on this.
From over 20 years of participating in doorknocking and observing/listening to the ideas of dozens of others who are brilliant at this activity, I suggest there are five key principles to get the best results from conversations:
1. Listen as much as or even more than you speak.
2. Seek common ground, always starting your own talking from things they say.
3. Know your main message but embed it in your own story and use your own natural style of conversation.
4. Learn to read the emotional response you are getting, particularly the crucial difference between apathy, which is worth one or maybe at a stretch two further attempts to promote a conversation, and hostility, which should be a “thanks and goodbye” situation.
5. Remember as a Greens ambassador, your priority is to give the best possible positive impression of what Greens members and supporters are like. We’re trying to win hearts even more than minds, so a ruthless rational demolition of the other person’s ideas is a total no-no (“Thanks for showing me how stupid my ideas are – now I’ll be certain to vote for you!”).
It’s important to remember that conversations happen all the time in our daily lives. Therefore it’s possible to initiate conversations about the Issues That Matter into everyday life. For example, checkout staff at our local small supermarket love to chat with customers and are happy to let the talk roll for several minutes if there’s no-one else in the queue. So, my response to “How’s your day been so far?” is to describe a protest action (e.g.: “I was participating in a street theatre protest called the Greenwashing Line”). This hopefully invites something like “what’s that and why are you doing it?” – and we’re away, usually to their bewilderment and amusement.
‘Kitchen Table Conversations’ are another possibility. This model was very successfully employed by Cathy McGowan, the Independent candidate for Indi in 2013. It overwhelmingly involved women and the model is described as revolving around one simple idea: that engaging people in the kind of open and honest dialogue that women have had around kitchen tables for centuries has the power to create real change. Basically a team of people train to be hosts whose role is to organise and facilitate kitchen table conversations on election issues involving up to ten people – friends, neighbours, workplace acquaintances, etc... Maybe something The Greens could try?
A Summary and a Problem
Get large numbers onto the streets and large numbers involved in conversations as often as possible. To my mind these are the two that standout as proven to be the most successful change strategies. The challenge we face is how to encourage many more people to participate. For example, recently we had two Climate rallies and marches in Perth (Student Strike and XR's Perth Stops for Climate). They did all the right things: they were very well organised, colourful, joyous, noisy, imaginative – but each only attracted about 300. Why not at least 600? Indeed, why not 3000? We celebrate a weekend Housing Campaign doorknock in which 20 people participate. Why not at least 40, or 200?
Header photo: Napoleon Boneyparts lecturing at the Perth Stops for Climate Rally on 17th April.
[Opinions expressed are those of the author and not official policy of Greens WA]