I would like to discuss Tom Murray’s questions around the notion of Integral Activism –
What has been lacking in activism historically, or still is lacking in activism “in general” that requires a new kind of activism, or a new approach to activism, that we are broadly naming as integral?
If we can articulate more precisely what integral activism has to contribute above and beyond the substantial efforts made by activists so far … then we can move forward in a more focussed way.
It occurs to me there are two ways of looking at this question. One way is to ask what is special about integral activism. The other way is to ask what kinds of capacities does integral activism have, that other approaches don’t.
So for example, I think what is special about integral activism is that it understands the role of the other as part of the solution. In other words, it has the capacity to engage the other in the process of change. I am thinking of integral activism as having the capacity for transformative change that is evenÂ more than bi-directional — I envision the process asÂ coming from a “center” of a whole that radiates in all directions.
What do you think?