What is strategy & tactics strategy of rulers & strategy of ruled strategy as "perspectives for social change"
3 variables of social change ideas social forces individuals
3 schools of social change strategy liberalism - individual, ideas (argument) anarchism - individual, ideas (action) marxism - working class (collective power, creative basis and co-operative capacity)
Eight stage developmental model A development model; that is, it shows how movements may evolve, step by step. In essence its a "fit-one, fit-all" pragmatic liberal model, with all the obvious advantages and disadvanatges of such. 1. Business as Usual 2. Failure of Established Channels 3. Ripening Conditions/Education and Organising 4. Takeoff 5. Perception of Failure 6. Winning Over the Majority 7. Achieving Alternatives 8. Consolidation and Moving On
Six stage campaign planning framework (Martin Luther King, Jr.). Radical liberal (& anarchist) model. (1) Gather information; (2) Do education and leadership development; (3) Negotiate with target; (4) Increase motivation and commitment for the struggle ahead; (5) Direct action; (6) Create new relationship with opponent. which reflects the new power reality.
Five stage revolutionary movement framework This framework assumes that for revolutionary change a movement (or coalition of movements) needs to work on many levels at once and in a cyclical way. For simplicity, the five stages are presented in sequence which shows how each preceding stage builds capacity for the next stage. This framework assumes that conflict strongly increases in society as the movement(s) develop. The five stages are: (1) Cultural preparation; (2) Organisationbuilding; (3) Confrontation; (4) Mass noncooperation; (5) Parallel institutions which can carry out the legitimate functions formerly carried out by the Old Order (economic, maintaining infrastructure, decision-making, etc.).
Adversaries, Constituents and Allies In most social change situations there is a struggle between those who want the change and those who don't. Among those you want change there is both "natural constituents" (those who have a direct stake in the change, and "potential allies", those who have no interest in blocking your change and may even indirectly or in the longer run benefit from it also. Societies (or cities, communities etc) usually include a range of groups/sections that can be considered to range on a spectrum from "natural constituents" through to those who "directly oppose" the campaign's objectives (adversaries).
Think of an example of a demand the advocates might have (say, free public transport) and consider who in society might be considered a: * "natural constituent" * potential ally * less likely ally * likely enemy * definate enemy Good news: In most social change campaigns it's not necessary to win the opponent to your point of view, even if the opponent is the powerholders. Complication: Sometimes polarization happens, and those closest to the opponent move away from you and toward the opponent. You can still win, if enough of society takes a step in your direction.