Published by Chuck on 21 Jun 2007
Five Ways to Stay Focused During a Decline in the Movement
All radicals go through ups and downs. It is exhilarating when you are part of a movement that is changing the world. You are in the news and influencing debates on issues that you care about; your relationships with friends (and enemies) become more impassioned; and unanticipated political and personal opportunities open up before you. All the years spent on the margins of political life seem to be vindicated. Suddenly everything makes sense.
But then there are the downs. Whether it is because of internal problems, an inability to respond to changes in the political landscape, or because you actually accomplished many of your aims, there is a sharp deceleration in activity. Attendance at your meetings drops, reporters stop calling, and your group turns inward. You are back on the fringes.
Although we “know” that our political fortunes will vacillate, dealing with a downward shift in movement activity is always tough. It is common to feel depressed, estranged from friends, and without a sense of purpose. In fact, many people drop out of politics altogether after a particularly sharp decline.
In my case, I struggled to remain focused after the disintegration of the environmental and anti-globalization movements (in the early 1990s and early 2000s, respectively). I got through it and remain committed, but it was a challenge.
During the process, I tried to reflect on what was happening and remain attentive to strategies that helped me cope. Below I’ve compiled a list of the five that I found most useful.
Continue Reading »

Despite this, 21st Century Dissent contends that anarchism has considerably influenced the modern political landscape. Giorel Curran explores the contemporary face of anarchism as expressed via environmental protests and the anti-globalization movement. She contends that anti-capitalist protest has propelled an invigorated – but reconceptualized – anarchism into the heart of 21st century dissent.
Contemporary theorists from Gilles Deleuze to Rochard Rorty have raised a radical question: on what grounds can we claim that any “representation”- whether scientific, aesthetic, or political – adequately stands for its objects, authorizing some of us to speak for others? While some hail this contestation as liberatory, others object that it leaves us bereft of viable practical alternatives, issuing in a general “crisis of representation.”