Read on Twitter
Well, one thing we learned at Occupy was that there are going to be leaders, whether or not you call them that.
Without leadership structure, white dudes end up using their privilege to make themselves effective leaders and silence marginalized people. https://twitter.com/_Chris_Real/status/1278751567311785986
Without leadership structure, white dudes end up using their privilege to make themselves effective leaders and silence marginalized people. https://twitter.com/_Chris_Real/status/1278751567311785986
This happened in marginalized working groups, too-- I know several Black women who straight up left after being attacked for expressing frustration with the misogynoir they were experiencing within the Occupy Philly Black caucus.
Women who stuck around in informal leadership roles were attacked *constantly.*
I've written about men there who physically threatened me, plotted to piss on my tent in the night, tried to get my electronics stolen and tried to pay an unhoused comrade to beat me up.
I've written about men there who physically threatened me, plotted to piss on my tent in the night, tried to get my electronics stolen and tried to pay an unhoused comrade to beat me up.
It's absolutely true that when we have one or two permanent figurehead leaders, it's all too easy for them to end up shot, disappeared, or bribed, and for that to effectively kill the movement.
That's real.
That's real.
But when we hold up leaderlessness as an ideal, what we're really reinforcing is an informally arising leadership that's unaccountable and often unrepresentative of the actual movement.
Often these folks use manipulation & privilege to claim that informal leadership unfairly.
Often these folks use manipulation & privilege to claim that informal leadership unfairly.
The best movement leadership model I've ever seen I saw at the Mauna Kea encampment and consisted of two bodies, a movement elder advisory council and a democratically elected decision-making body.
I call the elder council "advisory," but not in the governmental/nonprofit sense.
In govt/ngo contexts, advisory isn't a particularly powerful role.
It's sort of the consolation prize for not having made it to the actual decision-making role.
In govt/ngo contexts, advisory isn't a particularly powerful role.
It's sort of the consolation prize for not having made it to the actual decision-making role.
At Mauna Kea, the elder advisory council was made up of movement legends.
It was made up of elders who were the recognized heroes of Hawaiian indigenous liberation work, the folks who had put in the work over decades and decades.
It was made up of elders who were the recognized heroes of Hawaiian indigenous liberation work, the folks who had put in the work over decades and decades.
As it was explained to me, the elder council was actually the much more powerful body, because it commanded extreme respect.
The decision-making body COULD go against the advice of the elder council, but it's pretty much unheard of.
The decision-making body COULD go against the advice of the elder council, but it's pretty much unheard of.
It's a structure that allowed movement elders to move aside without a loss of identity, and without removing their wisdom from movement.
It allowed new leaders to lead and make their own decisions without leaving them dangling by their own inexperience.
It allowed new leaders to lead and make their own decisions without leaving them dangling by their own inexperience.
Importantly, the elder council wasn't expected to chime in on every little detail.
Part of the weight of their words came from their selectivity about where they spoke up and how.
They showed respect by giving the decision-making council room to make decisions.
Part of the weight of their words came from their selectivity about where they spoke up and how.
They showed respect by giving the decision-making council room to make decisions.
I *love* this model for a ton of reasons, a big one being that it allows movement to adapt and bring up new, empowered leaders and allow them to gain experience, while still deeply honoring the wisdom and experience of movement elders.
It recognizes that more than one kind leadership exists, and that our movements are strongest when they're leaderful, not leaderless.
Occupy really shook me off the idea that leaderlessness is a healthy style of movement.
It also really woke me up to the fact that a lot of people lead in a lot of different ways, but we tend to only honor/respect traditionally masculine leadership styles & roles.
It also really woke me up to the fact that a lot of people lead in a lot of different ways, but we tend to only honor/respect traditionally masculine leadership styles & roles.
I don't want to lure anyone into some romantic Rousseau bullshit about magical pure indigenous culture or whatever.
There are advantages and disadvantages to every model, and no model will in and of itself eliminate all oppressive behavior and dynamics.
There are advantages and disadvantages to every model, and no model will in and of itself eliminate all oppressive behavior and dynamics.
Point is, I don't think there's a magic bullet, but i think both leaderlessness and Great Man Theory single hero-centered movement have shown themselves to be unsustainable models.
Leaderfulness to me captures the best and most strategic parts of both, though.
Leaderfulness to me captures the best and most strategic parts of both, though.
Conveniently, intersectionality helps us understand, value, and name leadership styles that have been historically ignored and unrecognized in movement.
The more we learn to do that, the more intentionally leaderful we become.
The more we learn to do that, the more intentionally leaderful we become.
To me, the goal is for everyone in movement to find a space to lead in a way that suits their skillset and at the capacity they're able, and to feel recognized, respected, and valued in that leadership role.
That means getting better about recognizing and naming leadership, not pretending it doesn't exist.
When we pretend we're leaderless, we almost always end up with self-appointed leaders.
Often, they're leaders who self-appoint for the wrong reasons.
When we pretend we're leaderless, we almost always end up with self-appointed leaders.
Often, they're leaders who self-appoint for the wrong reasons.
Tl;dr is, leaderfulness means we can be intentional about movement leadership without concentrating power in one person, and practice some level of horizontality without setting the scene for informal, unaccountable, self-appointed leadership to emerge.
A leaderful movement is a movement where people feel a sense of ownership, empowerment, and commitment.
That's a movement built to survive and thrive!
(The end!)
That's a movement built to survive and thrive!
(The end!)
