On Diversity of Tactics: A Response to “The futility of activism using violence as catharsis”

AW@L--May 2, 2010:

Following the direct actions taken against the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver, and in the organizing lead up to the G8/G20 in June, the debate over effective tactics and forms of action continues. There is no doubt a myriad of perspectives on the possibilities and potentials of different forms of resistance and certainly constructive debate should be actively encouraged. We would like to take this opportunity to clarify our position as AW@L on this matter in hopes of moving beyond some sticking points in the debate.

As an organization we have received comments on some of our members’ views on engaging in diversity of tactics as a core component of movements for social and ecological justice. In particular, a former professor at Wilfrid Laurier University (currently at Queen’s), Adam Davidson-Harden, has taken issue with Alex Hundert’s response to Judy Rebick’s article and Alex’s stance on diversity of tactics. We wish to formally respond to professor D-H’s cathartic writings.

Prof. D-H asserts that our comrade Alex promotes and propagates a violent tactic of resistance as a cathartic and wholly self-serving exercise which does not take into account others in the broader social and ecological justice movements. Prof. D-H may not be in touch with the grassroots of these movements in Canada, for if he was, he would know that Alex Hundert is a well respected organizer with deep connections to many communities all across Turtle Island. Alex’s understanding and application of solidarity and responsibility has inspired and challenged many activists, academics, and community members. His respect for diversity of tactics and his ability to embrace and explain this cornerstone of contemporary activism is a clear example of comprehension and praxis.

Far from cathartic, neither Alex nor AW@L undertakes actions expressly to relieve ourselves of some stress or emotional baggage, we do these things as we have embraced our responsibilities under the Two Row wampum and as products of colonialism – this embrace demands action. We do not qualify the success of our actions on how good we feel at the end of the day, our successes are framed by positive outcomes (for example: the change we want to see in the world) and momentum in our communities and for our allies.

With that in mind, it seems pertinent to specifically define what is meant by diversity of tactics. In our view, a diversity of tactics implies respect and recognition that different groups engage in different modes of action which they deem to be most appropriate to their individual context and circumstance of struggle. This encompasses all forms of action from petitions, workshops, peaceful marches and militant confrontation as forms of direct action. To be clear, diversity of tactics acknowledges a continuum of tactics that range from passive to the confrontational. Diversity of tactics means that we struggle in different ways and acknowledge the right of others to determine their appropriate forms of resistance. Diversity of tactics is not bound by dogmatic adherence to either an overtly pacifist or violence-based form of action.

To characterize a notion of diversity of tactics as blind, unthinking and dogmatic endorsement of all forms of violence is patently false, and derails the possibility of debate over which tactics themselves may be most effective. We do not, and would not endorse wholesale killing or violence as a dogmatic and unthought-of strategy for revolutionary social change. Diversity of tactics means diverse forms of action can be applied to the diverse circumstances in which struggle and resistance occur. There is no strict adherence to one specific strategy or type of action.

The commitment and understanding of a diversity of tactics is observed in practice in the actions and forms of organization that occur within the newest movements of grassroots action and resistance. In the organizing that is leading up to the G8/G20 resistance in Toronto there is agreement between those involved that a diversity of tactics will be upheld and respected. This includes groups that engage in a variety of different forms of direct action, and groups that work on a number of diverse and complex issues and struggles. In the post-Seattle era of activism and resistance there is an understanding in the grassroots that diversity of tactics is the only acceptable means of organizing. It is those activists and organizers that are embedded within social movements themselves that advocate for such diversity, as they know diversity strengthens resilience. These are the folks who are in the meetings, on the street and the ones who will feel the brunt of the state security apparatus. In essence, diversity of tactics springs from the activists themselves, not some imposed top-down mentality.

The Community Mobilization Network, which is the umbrella organization facilitating opposition to the G8/G20, has put forth a Statement of Unity (http://g20.torontomobilize.org/SolidarityRespect) agreeing to a diversity of tactics. The endorsers of this statement include a wide variety of social justice groups as well as the Peoples Summit, which is an initiative focusing on debate and engagement around the G8/G20 and not on carrying out direct actions itself. The Peoples Summit, is an amalgamation of NGO groups (such as the Council of Canadians, the Canadian Labour Congress and CUPE) and academics who recognize the need for diverse forms of resistance to the policies of the G8/G20. They state as one of the principles guiding their organizing, “To respect a diversity of tactics, for which individual organizations will be responsible.”

In this light, the most fundamental components of conceiving of a diversity of tactics are the daily meetings, outreach, education, publication, independent media, community building, dialogue and consciousness awakening. It is absurd to characterize a diversity of tactics as not involving these core components of political struggle and resistance. Diversity of tactics, and it must be said again, encompasses all forms of resistance, action and engagement that are required for a vibrant, dynamic and effective social movement.

Part of a diversity of tactics is the engagement with the academic realm around debate and critique of social movements and their practices. Any movement ought to welcome constructive criticism and debate on the effectiveness of its practices and methods. Academia has much to contribute to developing effective forms of resistance. It is, however, not enough. We must also strive to put our theories and words into practice. We must take action. And we must take the action that is most appropriate and effective and available to the situation in which we find ourselves.

It has not been, as a general comment, the academy that has taken a leading role in the organizational capacity of social movements and their resistance efforts. This has come, again generally, from the younger grassroots and community-based activists. Organizing around the G8/G20 has itself mirrored this model. There is a noticeable lack of academics in the organizational committees and the time, resource, and sanity consuming prep work of laying the ground work for resistance to the G8/G20. This is not to say that academics have not participated in any capacity, but rather that mobilization and organizational roles are undertaken by those embedded within social movements and not those in their offices. Perhaps academia can assist in breaking the dogmatic commitment to singular forms of action in the tradition of critique and engagement.

In our view, therefore, diversity of tactics seeks to break away from rigid and debilitating allegiances to singular forms of action. We believe that for a healthy movement we must employ the wealth of skills, perspectives and possibilities that act as parts of the overall movement. We believe dogmatic “non-violence” as well as violence are both unproductive as means of engaging in struggle and resistance. Part of this view recognizes the inherent violence that exists within society.

Violence is an inescapable reality of human existence, whether we like it or not. This is not to say that there are aspects of life where we can limit the effects of violence and cultivate alternative forms of being and relating, but rather that violence is a frequent part of life. This includes both physical and overt forms of violence and those that are less obvious as systemic and indirect forms. We must recognize that many of our actions have violence attached to them. When we buy something the earth is destroyed, and frequently someone is exploited in the production process. When we sell our labour there is a violence of the system at work. When we live under capitalism and the statist system there is the oft-repeated violence of the state and police that hangs over us. This culture relies on violence for its continuance and we must recognize that violence permeates so many of our social relations.

In Vancouver, for instance, brave people fought off the police who were trying to abduct their friends, lovers, and allies to the violence of a prison, and the economic punishment of the court system. When the system you live in does not support the ideals of justice, is it not your responsibility to help defend those at risk of persecution?

To say that an action is “non-violent” negates the systemic violence, the privilege that exists and the effects that may be felt by any and all parties in the exchange. A sit-in blocks traffic or slows business, which means some person is deprived of their economic means. A banner drop uses materials from the earth, has the potential for arrest and jail time and carries a disruptive potential. Even “non-violent” action has violent repercussions in a systemic sense, but we cannot discount these methods as unjustified or ineffective. The point is that we undertake these methods to resist the greater violence of the system. The point is that we begin to think about what is justified and necessary for such resistance. Resigning ourselves to the debate of “non-violence” vs. violence does not allow us to think about what is necessary and effective, it simply negates the material realities of the systems in which we live.

We are not here to dictate the tactics and strategies of resistance that communities must undertake. To do so would be to reinforce the hegemonic nature of our privilege on to others. We are here to allow for a multiplicity of perspectives and actions in order to strive for social justice and recognize the ability for diverse communities, in diverse contexts, to undertake diverse forms of action. Colonialism exists when one community impresses its views upon another with an air of self righteousness. We want to break that cycle and strive for community empowerment and autonomy, while recognizing that we are all in this for a better and more just world. A diversity of tactics acknowledges this view and allows for a diverse set of means to achieve such an end.

The Zapatistas are perhaps one example of a diversity of tactics. They have used a diverse number of forms to create autonomous space for their communities and have used militant confrontation to defend their communities when necessary. They have also engaged in community building projects, alternative media, and “non-violent” action in order to fight for social justice. They have used solidarity to draw links between a variety of struggles and their own. Their success, we think it is fair to say, has been a direct result of the willingness to engage with a diversity of tactics. Perhaps the same can be said for Indigenous communities here in Canada, which Oka as one example where a diverse number of tactics were used, including more militant ones, with success and justification. Diversity of tactics means that we acknowledge the need for self-determination of communities in all forms, including their means of resistance and that such efforts should be supported, or at least not publically condemned by supposed allies in the social and ecological justice movements.

A diversity of tactics means that we are committed to respect, solidarity, mutual aid and support of allies who are engaged in struggle. It centers our focus in acknowledging what is necessary for resistance in self-determining communities. It commits us to engagement and dialogue around what forms of resistance are effective and therefore ought to be employed. It means we acknowledge that we must care about what others think and work together to create a better world. It also acknowledges that disagreements will occur, but that such disagreements will not hold our movements back. AW@L does not feel that we have any place in limiting or condemning someone for how they respond to social and ecological injustices.

A diversity of tactics acknowledges that there are diverse communities, in diverse contexts with a need to engage in diverse tactics. It acknowledges that we don’t have all the answers and that our tactics and strategies must evolve, moving beyond the paralysis of dogma. A diversity of tactics means that we are committed to doing what is necessary to resist injustices and support others who do the same.

-AW@L