Mabli Jones on Direct Action, Policing Protests and Movement Ecologies
The Director of Social Change Lab discusses Armistice Day protests, hostility from the Home Secretary and whether movements like Just Stop Oil are moving the needle.
I spoke to Mabli Jones, Director of Social Change Lab, a few days ago. They research social movements, their impact in society, and the barriers along the way. This felt like a particularly relevant chat given my interest, often explored in this newsletter, on the question of how societal change happens. But it was also relevant in the context of the protests calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, which were happening across the country this past weekend (and several weeks before).
On that topic, here's a brilliant tool where you can (in 2 minutes) find and email your MP ahead of tomorrow’s vote on a ceasefire in Gaza. And here’s another if you’d like to tweet them.
As always, give this a share and subscribe to the free tier to get interviews every other week. I’ve now booked interviews all the way to January, but am very keen to open up the selection process a bit after that. So, tell me, who should I interview next?
I’m gonna start with a big question: how does change happen?
On a broader level this is the question that led to Social Change Lab being set up. There’s not always been a massive amount of research to get concrete evidence on that. We’re trying to paint a bit of a fuller picture about how change happens. There are very elitist ideas… the ‘great man’ theory of history. However, I personally believe that when you look at some of the really big changes, a lot of that has been driven from below: suffragettes, civil rights, trade unions… But it’s quite difficult to isolate one thing that leads to social change, we believe there are many routes. Movements are most effective when they’re kind of broad; doing a variety of tactics in what is called a movement ecology. You need all of those tools to make change happen.
SCL did a piece of research with Apollo Surveys on social change and protests. Most experts seemed to identify that non-violent disruptive tactics were effective when it came to issues that had high awareness and high public support. Do you feel like movements like Just Stop Oil are moving the needle in a positive way?
It’s such a key topic, as we’ve seen an increase of these non-violent disruptive tactics by climate protests in particular. Social Change Lab has done some research on this, which goes back to that idea of a movement ecology, we looked into what’s been described as the radical flank effect. That's the concept that movements have this radical flank to them, like Just Stop Oil, that’s willing to go out and use non-violent disruptive tactics. We did some research on Just Stop Oil (blocking of motorways) and it showed that people who had been exposed to the tactics may not have liked those tactics - and Just Stop Oil may not be that popular themselves - but support for more moderate organisations increases [after those experiences]. We found evidence for a positive radical flank effect. The example we used was Friends of the Earth, who use more moderate tactics like lobbying politicians, their support went up quite significantly.
That’s fascinating. If we were playing pool I’d call this hustling; not revealing where you want the situation to end up and then making it seem like your intended outcome is actually a compromise.
Yes, people have compared it to negotiation techniques too. If you look at the civil rights movements, their use of sit-ins and blocking roads were very unpopular at the time. But they won a lot of their demands, and interestingly now (60/70 years later) we venerate the leaders of that movement. If you see the public opinion polling of Martin Luther King Jr. at the time, he’s extremely unpopular. The use of those tactics might be unpopular at the time but they’re helping to shift the agenda.
Over the last 15 years or so, there seems to be an increase in protests, demonstrations and large scale social movements. Meanwhile, elected representatives seem to be increasingly unwilling to commit to important climate measures, seriously tackle inequality, etc… Why is this inverse dynamic happening?
I think you’re right that there seems to have been an increase in social movement activity, some of it might be generational, some of it might be that it’s easier to mobilise people on a global scale. Also, the world is facing some difficult challenges, people are responding to real things happening. But we haven’t necessarily seen that reflected in politics, there’s a big gap between the popular pressure from below and the actions of governments. A really stark example we’ve seen in the last few weeks are the mass protests and mobilisations calling for a ceasefire in Palestine, while the Government is not reflecting the popular opinion.
Even opposition parties in the UK and US are failing to represent that call for a ceasefire, which I find so interesting.
There’s a genuine democratic deficit at that point. The same thing we see about climate change, all the polling shows that [tackling the climate crisis] is something people support (albeit to varying degrees). In general, people do care and want to see change. We’ve seen these mass movements coming out of Extinction Rebellion being able to get so many people out in the streets. Also, Fridays for Future and the school strikes. There’s so much public support but anyone can see that the gap between that and what governments are doing is big. That’s a genuine problem if you claim to be a democracy.
We are speaking a few days before Armistice day. There’s a planned march for a Ceasefire that has been criticised by [former] Home Secretary Suella Braverman. Her words seem like the kind of crack down on public demonstrations that I have not seen in a while from a Government official. Do you read this as a crackdown on freedom of speech? Should we be worried about this level of hostility?
I think it is real. When we look at the introduction of the Police, Crime and Sentencing Act, the Public Order Act, and when you read what organisations like Liberty or Amnesty or civil rights lawyers have said about those pieces of legislation there is a general curtailing of protest rights, something that should be a fundamental right in a democracy. We’ve definitely seen a massive crackdown in the last few years - much harsher sentences, including two protesters who got 2.5-3 years which are the longest sentences peaceful protesters have ever been given in the UK. This is really happening and there are so many court cases going through, so many people being jailed. And like you said the rhetoric around it is intensifying and there’s a curtailing of peaceful means of protest; like speaking out in a public role or preventing organisations to use boycott/divestment sanctions - things that have been part of the peaceful protest toolkit for decades.
“…there is a general curtailing of protest rights, something that should be a fundamental right in a democracy.”
I talked to Meg Bishop, from Living Rent, and she has done some research on this idea of activist housework - those invisible tasks that become some people’s assumed responsibility as part of a movement. In successful movements, do you notice a pattern about how they appoint leaders, share tasks, etc?
We did a survey of social movement organisations and their barriers to success - it was called the movement bottle-neck survey. One of the top things that came out was the issue of inner conflict. I’ve been involved in a lot of social movements and, yeah, it is a huge issue. I think some groups seem to deal with it better, others do fall apart. Movements that do well have a culture of valuing everyone’s contribution. You can’t do a rally with a thousand people if someone wasn’t there doing the invisible labour that needs to happen. And that invisible labour happens on top of jobs, caring responsibilities, etc… I think taking conflict and mediation seriously is really important too, people need to be encouraged to resolve issues. Extinction Rebellion, for example, has a team that works on conflict mediation. There is going to be disagreement, which can be productive, but it needs to be managed well.
Any examples of great social movements that flew under the radar?
I can talk from my own experience. I've been involved with the Welsh Language movement, the organisation Cymdeithas yr Iaith (The Welsh Language Society), which was started in 1962 and is a non-violent direct action campaigning group for the Welsh language. It used to block roads, pull down monolingual English signs - it’s actually interesting to see the parallels with the climate movement now. It also does lobbying, rallying and a huge amount of campaigns. It managed to get Welsh recognised as the official language of Wales, for public services to be offered in Welsh, and the increase of Welsh-medium education. All of that is thanks to campaigning of over 60 years and lots of people who made sacrifices and were sent to jail. Outside of Wales it’s not very well-known, but people have made the argument that objectively it’s probably one of the most successful protest movements in British History.
On a personal level, how do you not get disheartened when you’re looking so closely at things not changing for a long time?
I think like anyone who’s done a lot of activism or campaigning for progressive causes, there’s always that dynamic of hope and despair. For my previous job I was campaigning for reform of the Asylum system in the UK. I’ve got to say, that can be pretty depressing… Things have just gone from bad to worse when it comes to policy. Politics and media are so hostile to the cause. But there’s a good book by Rebecca Solnit called Hope in the Dark, where she just spells it out so well. She says the pessimist and the blind optimist make the same mistake, they both think the future is fixed.
I love that book. I love that notion of optimism being the idea that things will get better, while hope is the idea that they could get better, but it takes work.
Yes! The future is formed by what we do today. If you’re going to maintain that sense of hope you need to remember that the future is changed by what people do today.
If I died today and left this newsletter to you in my inheritance, who would you interview next?
This is so hard. I think maybe Rebecca Solnit, she’s got a lot of interesting things to say. Maybe another classic would be Noam Chomsky - he’s got such a wealth of experience and has been so consistent in his values.
What’s inspiring you at the moment?
To be honest, like a lot of people I found the last few weeks quite distressing in terms of what’s happening in Gaza. But what I found inspiring is seeing these protests happen in pretty much every country in the world. You do not see a lot of issues do this. I’ve been listening to a two-part episode podcast interview with Vincent Bevins, who wrote If We Burn, an analysis of what happened to the social movements in the 2010s - why some failed and why some succeeded.