How can we build a "movement of movements?"

Now is the time for coalescence and moving toward coherence

image source

For movement strategists this has always been the Holy Grail. Our strength is in our diversity and pluralism; this is also our weakness: movements divided cannot stand. How can we connect our movements so that the sum is greater than the parts? How can we connect across difference, and move toward coherence?

This question has obsessed me for as long as I can remember. And I think we’re finally getting close to some answers, recognizing the interconnectedness of our work. As Loretta Ross noted:

Even though we have many causes we have one struggle.

So today I want to talk about what it takes to build a movement-of-movements, and why I think for the first time in history we actually have a shot at pulling it off. I want to explore this question through the lens of emergence: the science of how complex systems transform.

Here’s where I’m coming out (TL;DR): Emergence (the transformation of one system to a new system) proceeds in phases: disruption > experimentation > coalescence > coherence (a new paradigm/system). I believe the moment is ripe for coalescence: to consolidate our gains, to build on what we’ve learned, and to invite everyone working to build a better world to find their place in a shared narrative. I think we finally have a common aim (captured in the language of liberation and belonging), and even more importantly we have common ways of being…. the emerging coherence I see uses means that are in integrity with our desired ends. Connecting and amplifying these “islands of coherence” feels to me like the essential work of this moment.

---

Emergence is how systems transform… and human transformation requires human agency

I’ve always been obsessed with the question of how transformation happens… and specifically how transformation happens at scale. As I discussed here, I believe the most compelling answer to that question is the phenomenon of emergence. There are many properties of emergence that I find compelling and relevant for social change work, but the insight relevant to today’s post is about the stages of emergence. I understand it as follows:

Whoa! My first experience using Claude/AI to generate a graphic: way better than my skills!

In natural systems this happens organically and in some cases even predictably: water subjected to heat becomes steam, a new equilibrium. In human systems, however, I think the process of getting to coherence—systems transformation—requires human intervention at every stage. What I want to emphasize here: there is an essential role for agency. We have the power—and therefore, I believe, the responsibility—to transform systems.

And we all have different roles to play. Bill Moyer famously identified four roles of social activism; Deepa Iyer offers an expanded version with 10 roles; I explored a few other frameworks here. I’ll adapt/offer my own synthesizing of the field for the purposes of this post: Disruptor, Innovator, Weaver, and Builder. What’s important to flag here: all roles are essential. Each is necessary and on its own insufficient to achieve transformation; only together can we transform systems.

Disruption is the first stage of transformation: without it nothing else is possible. This is confrontation and calling the question, as exemplified by powerful social movements like Black Lives Matter and #MeToo. This is a time for Disruptors (what Moyer calls Rebels). They are often the first to the frontlines, and essential to igniting the spark that can spawn a movement.

Experimentation comes next: self-organizing across the system to try something different. This is a time for Innovators, creators and entrepreneurs who plant seeds, prototyping new models for the new system that has yet to emerge.

Coalescence is the third stage: beginning to identify patterns across experiments, seeing connections, identifying the common threads that can become the basis of the new system. This is a time for Weavers, for connectors and bridgers, to help find coherence amid chaos.

Coherence: At last the new system has arrived and is taking shape: a new equilibrium is reached built on new principles which coalesced in the previous stage. This is a time for Builders, for synthesizers and stabilizers, people committed to ensuring that the new paradigm is rooted and durable.

Now is the time for coalescence

This is the move from divergence—what emergence practitioner Peggy Holman calls Differentiation—to convergence.

Many social change agents (myself included) have found resonance with this quote from Nobel-winning chemist Ilya Prigogine:

“When a complex system is far from equilibrium, small islands of coherence in a sea of chaos have the capacity to shift the entire system to a higher order.”

Yes: this is the transformative potential of coalescence—finding those successful experiments that can move the system from disruption (chaos) to the new equilibrium. It is a hugely catalytic role. As systems change practitioner Charles Leadbetter notes:

Coherence, making sense of how many threads come together and how they could be woven differently, is the main leverage that system shifters have; it is how a small initiative can have an influence over a much bigger system, especially one which finds itself at sea.

There are three different points I want to call out here.

1. The experimentation stage leads to multiple potential new paradigms. That is, there are different “islands of coherence” that correspond to different potential pathways we could take. This means that the new system is not inevitable: there is an essential role for human agency to catalyze that shift. To move from islands of coherence to systemic coherence (a new paradigm) requires coordination and intervention: it is about organizing emergence. This is the work of coalescence.

2. The first step in coalescence (the shift from divergence to convergence) is assessing ripeness: are the conditions right to begin moving toward coherence? I strongly believe that we have reached a moment of ripeness (indeed, I fear we’ve waited too long): there has been enough experimentation to illuminate clear patterns across diverse systems. I believe it’s time to call the question and move toward coherence.

3. I think there are two emerging paradigms currently vying to become the new equilibrium: the first is what I call authoritarian: a supremacist worldview of domination and ownership. Unfortunately this is currently ascendant and claiming structural power around the world. The second I call indigenous—an ecological worldview of right relationship with each other, the land, and all beings. Each of these paradigms is currently reflected in many “islands of coherence”: different nation-states are experimenting with different versions of authoritarianism (Russia, the U.S., Hungary, Israel, etc.), just as different communities are experimenting with different versions of right relationship at different scales (indigenous collectives of water protectors, bioregional regeneration in Colombia, urban initiatives like Cooperation Jackson, networked transnational initiatives like Transition Towns, etc.)

Here’s the problem. Steve Bannon and others are actively organizing the ethno-nationalist far right, an explicitly international effort to consolidate power at the national level. They are seeking to shift the system toward authoritarianism as the new equilibrium: a new age of empire. Which means we can’t afford to wait any longer: if we want to have a chance at shifting the system toward the indigenous worldview… we MUST start coalescing and moving toward coherence.

Why now? What’s different?

Calls for a “movement of movements” have been around for decades. Dr. King took to the pulpit in 1967 to decry the “three evils,” explicitly seeking to link the Civil Rights Movement, the anti-poverty movement, and the anti-war movement. This insight was the basis for his launch of the Poor People’s Campaign, which he explicitly conceived of as a shift from reform to transformation, declaring:

We have been in a reform movement… But after Selma and the voting rights bill, we moved into a new era, which must be the era of revolution. We must recognize that we can’t solve our problem now until there is a radical redistribution of economic and political power.

This idea of course was deeply threatening to the existing status quo, as satirized in this 1968 comic:

The status quo successfully fought back the challenge through oppression and state violence (including the assassinations of Dr. King, Fred Hampton, and RFK, three figures who explicitly envisioned multiracial/multi-class movements) to usher in the neoliberal era: a new equilibrium.

That equilibrium survived until the first wave of global protests challenging the neoliberal era kicked off with the anti-globalization WTO protests in Seattle in 1999… momentum that evolved in the post-9/11 era to reboot the global anti-war movement. This led some to call again for a “movement of movements;” a book with that title was published in 2004 trying to call the question around neoliberalism and linking it to the anti-war movement. But those efforts didn’t successfully challenge dominant power in a fundamental way until the current wave of movements, kicked off by Occupy and the Arab Spring in 2011, and finally bringing the missing intersectional lens with the arrival of Black Lives Matter, Standing Rock, and MeToo in 2013, 2016, and 2017 respectively.

So we once again have powerful social movements disrupting the status quo, and as with the late 1960s there is a growing recognition that our movements are connected. I think three key things are different that make this moment of coalescence possible in a way it wasn’t in the late 1960s.

1. There is greater awareness and understanding of intersectionality, and a broader and deeper analysis of how we got here. Where in the 1960s we talked of racism and economic exploitation, today social justice advocates identify the underlying systems of white supremacy, capitalism, and patriarchy. Dr. King was widely pilloried for coming out against Vietnam; today activists (especially Gen Z and Millennials) share a broad critique of American imperialism. This broader (and deeper) intellectual awareness is essential… and knowledge alone is insufficient.

2. The thing that really gives me hope is that for the first time in history, I think our movements are increasingly embodied. We are finally taking responsibility for healing trauma in ourselves and our movements, for building the relational skills necessary to navigate conflict and repair, and recognizing that how we show up is inextricably connected to what we want to change in the world. As bell hooks wryly observed:

   When you’re fucked-up and you lead the revolution, you are probably going to get a pretty fucked-up revolution.

   This to me is the primary distinction between the movements of the 1960s and the movements of the last decade: we now recognize the fundamental importance of inner work… and many more people have access to the resources to do it. Today we are finally integrating Gandhi’s exhortation to be the change, following the lead of elders like Grace Lee and James Boggs.

3. We are better prepared to resist the inevitable oppressive violent backlash of defenders of the status quo (or the authoritarian worldview). First, we have intentionally cultivated “leader-ful” movements: it is more difficult to decapitate a movement that has no clear head. Second, because of the two points above, we have far more resilience and solidarity across movements than we have in the past. No Kings Day summoned an incredible diversity of people and causes to the streets: popular pushback against ICE raids has also come from people not traditionally involved in (im)migration justice. Third, after Trump 1 and because of learnings from other countries dealing with state-sponsored violence (I personally drew huge inspiration from the 2014 Umbrella Movement in Hong Kong, and its evolution toward “be like water” in 2019), we have become more sophisticated in responding to state-sanctioned oppression. In the face of Trump 2.0, this is more important than ever.

Of course these three changes aren’t nearly widespread enough, but I don’t think they have to be. If a dedicated minority transforms ourselves, I believe the ripple effects of that in our movements and systems will prove transformative. This is another insight from Emergence theory: scale (and transformation!) is fractal, not linear.

From emergence to resonance: toward a movement of movements

The good news: many of us are sensing the same thing, feeling the same calling, following the same imperative. Just this week alone (during which I’ve been trying to create time and space to put these thoughts to paper) friends have sent me two different resources playing with similar ideas and reaching similar conclusions:

1. Systems change practitioner Jennifer Brandel introduces the beautiful role/concept of “interstitionaries”:

Interstitionaries are people who operate in the connective tissue of society — between roles, institutions, disciplines, and identities. They’re natural triangulators, cross-pollinators, and weavers of coherence in fragmented times.

Yes! I feel so seen! (hat-tip to fellow interstitionary Sean Andrew for the share). This is putting lesson one into action: working to create connections across movements and systems, recognizing their fundamental interdependence.

2. The good folks at CoCreative put out a report on “the human heart of systems change” (with thanks to Julia Roig for the share). They echo Brandel’s insight—naming what they call the “interstitial paradox” that leaves these essential weaving roles under-resourced—and name that function as essential to the broader work of moving from emergence to resonance. They call this work “Harmonizing the “Social Symphony,” and close with an inquiry around how we can build a “Coalition of Coalitions.” This is putting lesson two into action: explicitly naming love, connection, and inner work as essential to systems transformation.

This is what organic coalescence looks like in action: the co-arising of similar conclusions across diverse systems. What’s missing/what we’re seeking: the energetic effort—and resourcing!—to intentionally convene/connect these systems at the scale and with the speed necessary to respond to this moment of threat and opportunity.

The symphony will not be conducted… yet the music must be harmonized

This is the bad news: we aren’t yet coordinating/organizing/coalescing with the speed and scale we need. There are good reasons for that: we are not Steve Bannon. We rightly reject top-down command-and-control efforts. We don’t want to make ourselves visible and risk being targeted by an oppressive state with access into our digital lives.

We are still searching for a metaphor, one that is aligned with the world we are trying to co-create. The orchestra/symphony isn’t quite it; we reject the idea of a single conductor, one individual directing a collective.

In her foundational work Emergent Strategy, which introduced the concept of emergence to activists involved in movements for social change, adrienne maree brown invoked the metaphor of a murmuration of starlings. It’s a gorgeous image, with important implications for action: focus on what is within our control, adapt quickly, and if each individual follows simple principles the collective will thrive. In the early stages of experimentation, it’s a great way to be in collective relationship.

And yet: I fear it’s the wrong metaphor for our current moment, for our purpose is now different. Scientists don’t fully understand the purpose of murmurations: the prevailing theory is they are designed to help avoid predation (confusing would-be predators with large numbers and coordinated action, like a school of fish). But our goal is not only survival: our goal is liberation. We have a destination in mind, and now—thanks to successful experimentation by a range of innovators and creatives—we have the practices for how to get there. In a time of coalescence, I am drawn to a different metaphor: geese flying in V formation.

Because the fact is, there ARE better ways of doing things. Some strategies and tactics are more effective than others. Geese MUST fly south to survive the winter: they are not agnostic as to direction. They fly in V formation to reduce drag and conserve energy. And they take turns in the lead. To continue experimenting with different formations at this point is to ignore what we’ve learned: it is to waste energy and leave us vulnerable. In the face of the authoritarian threat, I fear we can’t afford to do that any longer.

Here are the lessons I want to draw:

1. We know where we’re going. While in the early days of disruption we were rightly focused on what we were against (white supremacy, patriarchy, colonialism etc. and their expression in racialized violence), we now have a vision of what we’re moving TOWARDS. We want liberation. Justice. Belonging. A world that works for everyone, in right relationship with the land and all other beings. It is time for us to fly in the same direction.

2. We know how to get there. I don’t mean we know the path (there isn’t one); I mean that we know how to create the path while walking. I mean we know how to be the change. In the days of experimentation we tried many things, exploring different ways of being, relating, healing, and organizing. Now we have enough data and success from those experiments. We now have the collective wisdom about how to be in right relationship: the work now is to practice. We can be leader-ful (rejecting the false binary of the unitary leader or the fiction of leaderlessness). We need to fly in a V formation.

3. We all have a role to play. What I love about the geese metaphor is it invites all of us to play our roles, inside of constraints. The direction and the mode of travel are set; how we navigate the obstacles along the way is up to us to solve as a collective. Each of us will take a turn in the lead, according to our strengths. There are times we may need the Disruptors to take the lead; other times we may need to follow the Builders. (And there may still be times in the face of threat where we may need to move into murmuration). But the important thing to remember: we all belong. None of us without all of us.

I’m suggesting that at this moment we need to listen to the weavers and the bridgers, and follow their lead to connect with our kindred spirits in adjacent and distance spaces. As Alanna Irving reminds us:

There is no such thing as “self-organizing”—there is always work to be done and a skillset required to coordinate people to move together toward a larger shared goal.

To be clear: I don’t mean our disparate flocks all have to fly together. Like geese, we can stay in whatever family units and flock formations best serve us. What I am saying is that whatever flock we’re part of (the movement for Palestinian liberation, women’s liberation, climate justice, etc.) we need to be heading in the same direction and following the same principles. There is still room (and a need!) for a diversity of tactics, and even strategies… as long as we recognize our common aim.

---

I’m curious if this resonates, and what others are seeing: do you agree that it’s time to coalesce? What do you see as the emerging coherence? This post from 2019 was my first effort to try to illuminate the emerging “system of systems” and tease out some common threads.

There’s more to say about why it’s been so hard to coalesce, and why our movements resist coherence. I believe a big piece of the story is that coalescence requires integration: it requires us to confront our shadows, to move toward wholeness. That inner work is incredibly difficult… and essential. More on that for a future post. I also think this is the work of narrative and cultural strategy: providing the superstructure within which we can see ourselves.

In community,

Brian