Australian Mass Mobilisation (AusMM)

[plotinus]

One of the issues that needs to be considered with AMM media and messaging is the social psychology of climate change messaging and narratives that appeal to some yet alienate other demographics. For example, researchers have found that different framings of the climate crisis elicit difference responses from different voting demographics. This research could inform how we structure our messaging. It is imperative that XR is cognisant of this kind of research in our messaging if we wish to have broad and ideologically diverse appeal.

Below is an article from The Guardian as well as a study from Nature. First a quote from the Guardian article and then from the Nature article which outlines the research in the area in more detail:

Climate activists talk about saving the natural environment from “harm”, “caring” for the planet and working towards climate “justice”. Such language appeals to the left but antagonises the right. Researchers have found that conservatives heed messages about climate change when they are couched in values they hold dear – that means talking about saving the climate as obeying authority, preserving the purity of nature or defending your country. A recent study published in the journal Nature: Climate Change found that “interventions that increase angry opposition to action on climate change are especially problematic”. The only sound way forward was to “transform intergroup relations”. That meant being able to reach out beyond one’s political tribe and draw in other groups. You do that through their values, their language and their rituals.

And from the Nature article:

Of the climate science papers that take a position on the issue, 97% agree that climate change is caused by humans1 , but less than half of the US population shares this belief2 . This misalignment between scientific and public views has been attributed to a range of factors, including political attitudes, socio-economic status, moral values, levels of scientific understanding, and failure of scientific communication. The public is divided between climate change ‘believers’ (whose views align with those of the scientific community) and ‘sceptics’ (whose views are in disagreement with those of the scientific community). We propose that this division is best explained as a socio-political conflict between these opposing groups. Here we demonstrate that US believers and sceptics have distinct social identities, beliefs and emotional reactions that systematically predict their support for action to advance their respective positions. The key implication is that the divisions between sceptics and believers are unlikely to be overcome solely through communication and education strategies, and that interventions that increase angry opposition to action on climate change are especially problematic. Thus, strategies for building support for mitigation policies should go beyond attempts to improve the public’s understanding of science, to include approaches that transform intergroup relations.

In an Australian context messaging that appeals to both conservative and progressive voting demographics is important if we want to have both active and tacit support from the broader community. Action on climate change is something that is being demanded by certain conservative sections of the community such as regional farming communities - whose concerns on this issue align with more progressive demographics (although differences on other issues may be evident). In order to have broad appeal it would be good to think of messaging strategies that are common to these often ideologically diverse demographics. Lucinda Corrigan, the chair of Farmers for Climate Action, has outlined the position of regional conservative voting demographics on this issue:

Because being green is actually our agenda, it’s actually a conservative agenda, being a conservationist is a conservative agenda, it is not a green agenda, it has been taken from us and we actually want it back.

This approach would probably fall under what The Guardian article refers to as preserving the purity of nature or natural heritage preservation:

Extinction Rebellion’s call for “ecological justice” will appeal to people on the left, but it will miss out those in the centre and alienate folks on the right. If the rebels want to reach out, they could instead talk about “preserving the purity of nature” or “saving our national natural heritage”. Their tactics are also likely to push away many potential supporters. Acts of civil disobedience such as occupying bridges, guerrilla gardening and protest puppetry may appeal to seasoned activists, but are a turnoff for thousands of potential supporters who might walk past such occupations. If the rebels want to reach out, they should use social rituals which other groups are familiar with – instead of glueing themselves to DLR trains, they might hold tea parties at local fetes.

Hopefully this research can inform discussion on messaging strategies as we move forward:

The Extinction Rebels have got their tactics badly wrong. Here’s why | André...

The Lucinda Corrigan quote was from here:

Nationals MPs snub launch of farming group's climate change report

Here is a link to the full Nature article:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2507

[stefnstuf (Stef)]

Hey folks, I’ve set up a category for AMM and moved this topic, giving you a space to start new topics/threads relating to the project. Please let me know if any issues or questions.

[Vee (Violet CoCo)]

The XR working group Aus MM plans to introduce a schema that asks local groups to contribute every month to support full time employees of the rebellion to work on mobilisation. This is put forth with the honourable intent to support those who are willing to contribute many hours but cannot sustain financially to balance the hours they are willing to contribute and life’s expenses. This seems like a good idea and certainly logical to assume that this will equal the work being done. However, it could have the reverse effect.

This doc summarises moral concerns in relation to shifting people’s motivation to participate in Extinction Rebellion from intrinsic motivations to extrinsic motivations. This cultural shift can have wide and permanent effects like, decreasing participation and satisfaction, not just for the paid mobilisers but for the entire rebellion.

Nobody will argue that those who engage with Extinction Rebellion do so on the basis of values. We must consider the type of person volunteering their time for Extinction Rebellion. They are concerned with justice, so much so that they are willing to sacrifice to achieve justice. The Spring Rebellion provides evidence that people are drawn to us because of their values and are willing to mobilise given the opportunity.

The organising challenge is how to make people active once they have signed up. Currently, in Australia, we have very little evidence that paid organising will significantly increase our organising capacity.

On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence that what we are already doing on an unpaid basis is working very well. Our membership keeps increasing, as well as our active participation, and we have achieved organising success as demonstrated by active local groups and working groups within XR Australia as well as the highly successful Spring Rebellion.

Research tells us that we must understand the type of people we are activating not as economically minded consumers, but as people who are motivated by values. Right now, people participate in Extinction Rebellion because of intrinsic moral values – relating to right and wrong. These values lead to people feeling really good about the actions they take with the rebellion because those actions are inspired by these moral values. These values foster behaviours like:
• Empathy for others
• Community building
• A positive sense of self
• Dedication
• Being inspired by each other

On the other hand, when people are treated as consumers, they relate as consumers. I am very confident that XR does not want to relate to each other as consumers. Research shows that if we do make this transition, it could permanently shift the motivating factors for rebels – even the unpaid ones. Rather than being motivated by moral drives “This is a good action to take in itself”, the motivation becomes materialistic. This type of motivation sits under a different moral code socially and fosters behaviours like:
• Dissatisfaction
• Competitiveness
• Business for the sake of business
• Hierarchies
• Disengagement

Introducing a market (monetary value to the work) into XR and not thinking about the way that changes how people will view the work is naive… after all the pursuit of capital is the reason we are in this mess. Markets have their own motivators and we are not impervious to that.

I have seen people burn themselves out working harder than they have in their life for Extinction Rebellion – doing all kinds of laborious tasks. While I do not encourage over-work, I believe that paying people to work on the rebellion could see a drop in participation not an increase. The concern is that by paying people, you shift the incentive from doing this work to achieve our goals and save the planet, to engaging with the cause as a way to make money, eroding or crowding out the original incentive. Some case study evidence shows that this erosion of values to the market, can have permanent effects, even after the incentive is removed. This information is derived from 3 main sources, ‘Out of the Wreckage’ by George Monbiot, ‘Donut Economics’ by Kate Raworth and ‘The Age of Empathy – Natures Lessons for a Kinder Society’ by Frans De Waal.

I propose that we require dedicated, unpaid organising teams that are trained and supported. Providing clear pathways to training and connecting to rebels that they can mobilise with. Any money raised could be used to pay for training, regen and working spaces that have food provided. Many movements have mobilised successfully without paid workers, that is not to say that we don’t support each other.

I have seen within Extinction rebellion a very generous gift economy, from food, to rent free support and friendship bonds. Just this week when I mentioned in my local group that my house was draughty, a member dropped off some beautiful door snakes to keep out the wind, out of the goodness of his heart. In Queensland, they have 2 rebel homes next to each other than any rebel can seek refuge in. In Sydney there is a strong culture of free meditation courses. We take care of each other and that is one of the things that creates the bonds that build the movement.

Part of the truth is that Extinction Rebellions goal is to create a space for people to feel fulfilled as we watch the world burn. Paying them seems to not be the way to do that. Extinction Rebellion provides something much more important than an income, it provides a reason to live. One of the most valuable things a human can have, is a meaningful life, that is what we give to each other.

That’s not to say that a monetary contribution from local groups wouldn’t be a good thing. We could use the money for a variety of movement building purposes, but that is a separate discussion.

Thank you for you time.

[JaneM (Jane Morton)]

Conservatives, like everyone else are motivated by universal values - they want to be remembered for good relationships with those who are close to them and having left the world a better place. However, they make think that they made the world a better place by ‘cutting green tape’ and ‘growing the economy’.

The most strongly motivating messages - for conservatives- as for others - combine an intense personally relevant threat with proportionate action to take in order to avoid the threat. That is why the vast majority of public health campaigns take the form: “if you do x you could die, but if you do y you will be safe”. That’s why we have very frightening pictures on cigarette packets and advice to call Quit Line.

It’s unbelievable to me, but there are still messaging ‘experts’ arguing that ‘fear doesn’t work’. For example, the recent report by Australian Progress. As usual, when you look at the references at the back of the booklet, there is no evidence to support this view, or just one or two cherry-picked studies with dubious methodologies. Or a focus group. It’s hard to get the text that is tested in focus groups but the emergency message we tested in Darebin did very well whereas emergency messages written by others seem sometimes not to fare so well. (But often if you can get a look at what the researcher tested, it’s pretty obvious why.)

The research to show that fear works - and the research to back up all that I’m saying here is in Don’t mention the emergency? - particularly the end notes. I spent a year and a half researching it and I have a pile of journal articles, reports and books on this that is about a metre high! Happy to discuss at any time.

A lot of the climate messaging literature is based on the assumption that global warming is a slowly evolving threat that will affect only future generations and people in other countries and hence members of the public have to be cajoled into caring. It’s harder to get people to care about a threat that is not imminent and not personally relevant.

At lower levels of threat, the kinds of things that are experienced as a personally relevant threat may vary. Eg the cutting down of a forest may be seen as a personally relevant threat to someone who loves nature, but not to someone who loves ‘progress’ or timber mill jobs.

That is the importance of XR messaging - and climate emergency messaging more generally - relying on existential threat: death is universally feared. No one wants their children or themselves live through food and water shortages, or societal collapse and billions of deaths.

When a town is threatened by a flood or fire, you don’t see left-right divisions, you see everyone working on getting self and others to safety. And you don’t hear debates going on in the fire tower about whether residents should be told that a dangerous fire is approaching!

So, the good news is that we don’t need to adapt our language much to reach out to conservatives - in city or country areas. However, there is one more important variable that we do need to consider. The existential threat message must be delivered by a trusted messenger. For cigarettes, that trusted messenger, for most people is a doctor. Ideally, for the climate and ecological emergency, it would be a scientist. However, the fossil fuel industry and the disinformation machine they fund, have taught conservatives not to trust scientists. They have also done a lot of work to ensure that conservatives like John Hewson and Malcolm Turnbull, who recognise that we face an emergency, are seen as outsider extremists.

So, the initial challenge we face is finding trusted messengers who can go into conservative communities and credibly deliver the existential threat message.

Lock the Gate was very successful in achieving 95-98% support from Nationals-voting rural areas in Victoria for civil disobedience to keep gas mining out of their local area. I think we can learn a lot from them.

[Vee (Violet CoCo)]

Jane,
This seems to mostly be a post on messaging and not really addressing my concerns on the shift in psychology of the movement when adding paid positions.

I fully support emergency messaging and think it is one of our powerful assets that we tell the truth.

I am concerned that values change when we add a monetary value to a task, as described in the three books above. It can shift culture and erode the intrinsic motivation of all.

For example, neighbouring villages were asked to spend half a day working on school gardens.
In villages where people were offered a small payment to take part - 20% fewer people were willing to participate than villages where no money was mentioned at all.
Furthermore, those that were not paid for the work mentioned, overwhelmingly, that they were satisfied with the work, while paid workers reported high levels of dissatisfaction.

[ube]

Lets do a survey or a People’s Assembly on it!

Without that kind of evidence from the actual stakeholders, we’ll be able to show pros and cons for both sides of the debate, there are so many different contexts to any of the examples or research, either model implemented well will work, implemented poorly will fail.

I have been on a VLE in WA since November. The rate is higher than the dole, but about 1/4 what I could get in my profession. I quit a permanent public service professional job, to do this XR work. The VLE pays the rent and food for my family and that is about it - I am a supported volunteer, not a paid professional - there is a subtle yet large difference. I would be doing much of the work anyway, not because I’m being ‘paid’… but the strain of working a job, and doing the volume of work I was in a position to do was utterly unsustainable…I feel extremely grateful for the opportunity to have applied and received the VLE, and for people to have continued to support that arrangement.

There’s nothing glamorous in it, we do not have any money in the bank at the end of the week, but we are supported by the community, everyone knows the sacrifice, knows I am paid, knows that it is not ‘paid’…if that makes sense!

So far, I’m not aware of any discontent about our VLEs, people are always thanking me/us for the work we do and have done. However, being in a VLE might mean that I wouldn’t hear of that! Hence, lets do a big survey or Peoples Assembly!

The issue of people being disenfranchised etc exists with or without paid people, and comes back to good SOS, Ways of Working, Regen, training, having exciting, escalating actions, having ‘wins’, external factors like COVID, war, BLM - all that typical movement stuff. Other big movements in history had fulltime mobilisers - you bet they did! Supported either financially or directly with housing/food by their communities.

I do agree that an expectation that someone else will do the work is damaging - but I’d propose that applies regardless of VLEs or not. Again, good SOS, distribution of tasks and authority, empowering and enabling people to step up… these are the things that fix it. The Mass Mob is extremely ambitious and utterly impossible to pull off if there is the hint that the VLEs are driving it, or even a central core/clique of unpaid people - success will rely on collective vision, team spirit and actively supporting people to take roles and tasks on. I’d contend that almost every single high-level amateur organisation has paid people somewhere in there… be they book-keepers, coaches, umpires, priests, tax accountants - someone is being supported to do the hard grind work that others won’t do voluntarily, yet which is vital to the efficient and stable functioning.

There is certainly a danger to be avoided in embedding people into central roles… as we build up time, we also build up networks, contacts, skills that tend to make those people indispensible, rather than spreading that across more people, which is a more resilient way to do it. It’s important that VLE roles have a tight role/mandate, and that the accumulation of power is mitigated as much as practicable.

I disagree with the statements that we have little evidence that paid organising increases organising capacity - Lock The Gate amongst others (Forest groups, etc) have low numbers of organisers and have successfully kept fracking at bay here in WA at least, and have had several forestry wins in a row. Lock the Gate have been amazing at it. The volunteers are motivated by the cause, and are happy to have someone they can call who can answer their questions, or come and motivate or train them!

I also disagree that we have evidence that what we’ve done unpaid is working very well - firstly, because much of the XR resources we use in Australia have come from UK, from the work of VLEs, and secondly because so far, we have not had ‘success’ - we have had progress, but we are still headed off a cliff, all state Govts and Federal Govt are still actively developing fossil fuels and cutting down forests. We are still engaged in international diplomacy to reduce action on climate. No XR group in Australia has been able to mobilise to the point of forcing negotiation with our Demands. The only group in the world that has done that, has done it with VLEs who have dedicated to mobilising masses of people in well-organised actions.

I really think it important not to second-guess people here - if it really is an issue let’s just put it out there, ask them. Question might be:
“Based on some international experience, we think we need this many people to do this kind of work, to achieve this ambitious target- what do you think?”
“Do you think we can get that many people to commit to that volume of work without having their living expenses covered? Would you be willing to take on one of those roles without financial support?”

Thanks for the comments - it’s good to flesh these things out! Especially this one!

[plotinus]

Good points. I think one of the reasons the UK impelmenetd payment for volunteers is that some people do not have the financial resources required to devote time to XR. This meant that older people with savings were able to spend alot of time volunteering - which led to an age/demographic imbalance in representation of people working in XR. For example younger people who were extremely enthusiastic and motivated were constrained by the need to earn money for rent and food (often in precarious part time employment) - and consequnetly they could not contribute as much as older people with a lifetime of savings behind them. The living allowance was designed to help people in this category. It merely provides them with much more time to dedicate to XR by covering their basic living expenses. This also means that at the aggregate level a great deal more hours are being dedicated to XR and mass mobilisation. It also provides people who may be willing to donate (but not able to do very much work) to support others who do wish to dedicate more time but who lack the finacial resources to do so. But I agree this should be discussed further and potential problems thought through - but from what I understand it will provide a boost to XR and help us plan actions at the scale necessary to force the government to consider meeting our demands. That will require massive growth nationally to acheive - growth a living allowance I feell will help achieve.

[JaneM (Jane Morton)]

Yes my post makes no sense as a response to your points but it was in response to @plotinus not to you @Vee. It’s not very obvious but there’s a little arrow thingy at the side showing who I was talking to.

It would be good to have separate topics for the messaging conversation and the living expenses conversation but I don’t know how to do that.

But Lock the Gate (mentioned in my messaging post) does also have relevance to the question of Volunteer Living Expense payments.

The experience of Lock the Gate in Victoria has been very similar to that in WA and Lock the Gate is one of the campaigns most similar to XR in that it involved massive outreach to engage a wide range of people in being willing to undertake civil disobedience.

I very much doubt that Lock the Gate could have mobilised hundreds of communities (thousands of volunteers) across Victoria and won a ban on fracking from a conservative government without two wonderful paid organisers providing support to local groups. They worked for several years driving all around Victoria and working massive hours and I doubt they could have done it if having to worry about how to survive financially at the same time. And I know from speaking to local Lock the Gate groups how highly valued their expertise and support was. I doubt that there would be a single person who thought they were doing it for the money!

Also, I think we need to pay attention to the advice from XR UK that VLEs were central to organising the extremely successful April rebellion in London.

I’m sure that paid organisers can kill enthusiasm and I definitely don’t think people should be paid to do work that volunteers are happy to do, but there are some essential roles that are very hard to fill on an ongoing basis entirely with volunteers and supporting large numbers of local groups spread over considerable distances may be one of those roles.

[ManicMax (Max)]

It would be good to have separate topics for the messaging conversation and the living expenses conversation but I don’t know how to do that.

Just FYI - go to the AusMM category by clicking on it from the categories menu or at the top of this topic:

Then click on + New Topic.
Being able to separate threads of conversation into separate topics is one of the big advantages of the Base over Mattermost.

[rene.brisbane (Rene Wooller)]

I agree that the coercive associations of money are detrimental to people pursuing values based work of their own free will. However I also see that below the poverty line people will be physically unable to do the work, despite very much wanting to. Perhaps we need to try as much as possible to match people who are willing /able to provide housing/rent/food to people who need it. IE where possible have a kind of moneyless exchange. This way people can feel good about one another and part of a community.

I’m happy to start work on setting up an online ‘marketplace’ of giving as part of the Rebels Manager if enough people think that it would be useful.

BTW - this money thing goes deep - I remember hearing about some study where chimps that are paid in bananas to do tasks that they would otherwise do for free quickly lose interest in the tasks and become more interested in the bananas.

[ageorge (andrew)]

lol re: the bananas study!
Hey @rene.brisbane I was just thinking earlier today it would be awesome to set up an

IN KIND SUPPORT

Topic here on the base where people can, in an organised way (probably a wiki-editable post) add things that they can offer and where they are.

Personally I’m really looking for a house/room swap/ Rebel Rural Retreat option.

I’d suggest getting it going in the Anything Goes category but maybe we can just ask admins @ManicMax to make an ‘in-kind support’ topic ?

[ManicMax (Max)]

You can make the topic wherever you think appropriate, you don’t need to ask admins.

[Mad_Mattho (Peter Matthison)]

I suggest we reach out to the UK group, and find out their experience on this, as they have gone down this path, and it would have elicited all the fears and hopes there that are being discussed in this thread. Perhaps they would have someone from their relevant circle/group give us an overview (Zoom chat before/during a zoom people’s assembly ( @ube ) on how that happened there, the positives, the pitfalls, how they navigated that and arrived with working solutions and be able to answer the old “If we could go back, what would we do better…?” question? And perhaps imagine a scenario where “A LOT” of money arrived by a large philanthropist donation, vs a small trickle of cash that we fundraise, how would that influence our decision to essentially spend money on accelerating the project with paid positions, if it would alter our position at all…

[CassTaz (Cass Rea)]

Need to decide whether or not to use this option. Timeline now rolling and AN email almost ready to go.

[JaneM (Jane Morton)]

I think we should definitely use it. It’s working in WA and SA and highly regarded in the UK. But the main thing for me is trying to build a grassroots climate emergency movement in Australia for 13 years and how hard it has been without any financially supported positions. It has always seemed that we can get to a certain size and momentum with no $$ and then we ‘top out’, burn out takes its toll and we fall back, build up again, fall back …

In contrast, Lock the Gate, with just two Victorian organisers, mobilised a massive number of new groups and volunteers. The paid organisers were a massive support to new groups and volunteers and I never heard anyone complaining about their getting paid as they did a spectacular and heroic amount of work.

Their role was very similar to what is proposed for the AusMM mass mobilisers and I think/hope that these roles will work just as well - if we get the right people in them.

[CassTaz (Cass Rea)]

We in the Mobilisation WG are in direct contact with the UK mobilisers. The VLE experience has not been an issue there. It’s an enabling process. According to Roger H something like 20% of people required more than the basic VLE, 65% of mobilisers required the proposed VLE and 15% of mobilisers did not require any VLE. Phone and travel are separate from VLE.

[Greyhorse (Maggie Broom)]

Yes, this sounds much more like the regenerative activities pursued by people like Gandhi and Macy - community engagement and practices. Maggie

[karenj_briswest (Karen Jones)]

@Greyhorse I’m interested in your comment re this sounds like the regenerative activities of Gandhi and Macy, however I can’t find the thread your comment responds to so I’m not sure what you are referring to - can you please enlarge on this? Thank you

[Greyhorse (Maggie Broom)]

Hi Karen, I was replying to Renee’s comments I think. Will try and find
out where … and get back to you

Dr D M Broom
Grey Horse Growth and Learning
PO Box 218 Panton Hill Victoria 3759
greyhorselearning@gmail.com
0418 521 048