December 3, 2004

6:22 PM

Philosophical question regarding opposition: When is it appropriate to leave or boycott an organization when one disagrees with its policies, as opposed to actively working with or within the organization to change its policies to your liking? Recent posts regarding gay ministers and Boy Scouts make me wonder whether boycotting organizations is the best approach, or whether one should remain within an organization in an effort to reform it?
posted by Doohickie to (28 comments total)

well it depends how you make moral decisions, doesn't it?

personally, i'd say that if you've got a strong chance of changing things, and are good at convincing others, you should stay in and do what you can. but with some caveats - there should be a limit to the moral debit you can build up on the way to making things better (because such people tend to understimate the damage they're doing and overestimate their chance of success, in my experience; also i'm not sure that we're dealing with linear relationships (in this moral pseudo-calculus) and avoiding extremes is probably a good heuristic).

i'm pretty useless at people skills and the idea that i'd be able to produce change is laughable. so in my case i would leave (hmmm. and here?). and again, there's a caveat - if the other kind of person is making a stand, you might hang on in there as silent support.

that's a very utilitarian approach. if your morals are based more on, say, some sacred book, you'd need to look for guidance there.

of course, this has a problem with people who annoy the heck out of others but think they're popular and influential...
posted by andrew cooke at 6:38 PM on December 3, 2004

I guess if you think that you can have an impact on a group, and you are willing to invest the time and effort, you should try to work with the organization in question. I've had some friends who were involved in union organizing, which can be frustrating but rewarding work. Writing is another good way an individual can make a difference.

Boycotts are only effective if a lot of people participate - especially if a lot of people write to the company and tell them why they're boycotting them. The whole Sinclair Broadcasting Advertisers Boycott worked really well.
posted by sophie at 7:47 PM on December 3, 2004

It depends what kind of power, and voice, you have. Many organizations use those people within them that disagree to prove how "open-minded and welcoming" they are, when they're really not. (see the GOP big tent bullshit.) If you'll be used as cover for their hatred and bigotry, then get out. I haven't yet seen an organization that listens to the minorities whose lives are in direct contradiction to the official policies of the org.

And it's always appopriate to boycott any organization that is hurting you or those you love. See grapes in the 60s, orange juice in the 70s, Coors beer in the 80s-90s, etc...
posted by amberglow at 7:47 PM on December 3, 2004

If you're a low-level member, get out, and stop giving money/time/anything to them. Tell them why tho.
posted by amberglow at 7:51 PM on December 3, 2004

Well, the issue with the Boy Scouts is probably a bad example. My understanding is that the Mormon and Catholic factions of BSA (which make up a huge number of Troops) demanded the anti-gay statutes be put in place, or else they'd form their own organization. So, National BSA caved, not wanting to lose all that funding, and here we are. But, at least in California (and I assume other reasonable places), the rule is effectively more like a dont-ask-don't-tell. So, I suppose we are boycotting by not acknowledging those silly rules.
posted by anarcation at 8:15 PM on December 3, 2004

I think the Scouts do a lot of good; I was a scout leader for some time, but my sons are no longer involved, so I am not either. When they are out of the house, I may volunteer as a leader again. Nevertheless, I strongly disagree with some of their policies and how they enforce them, especially with respect to atheist and gay scouts.

Amberglow mentions how much power an opposition member holds. I think that staying on as a Scout leader would be worth it even if I were the last bleeding heart liberal there, as long as I could make a difference in a young man's life. I think hope of changing the organization is a good motivation, but there may be reasons to stay even if you don't think things will change.

The way I look at it, the Scouts could have 80% conservative and 20% liberal leaders and a strong argument could be made for the liberals to stay to keep the Scouts from turning into a totally conservative organization. And this can be done without great discord.

Boycotts have gotten popular lately, but such boycotts could be just what the extremists in the organization want. It is easy to sever ties, but staying engaged in an organization can be the best way to make sure it doesn't become even more extreme.
posted by Doohickie at 9:26 PM on December 3, 2004

In most of America the Boy Scouts may be dont-ask-dont-tell but that doesn't matter. A national organization has accepted a homophobic charter in order to get money. Even if they nudge nudge wink wink look the other way it is still bad. If the boy scouts had a similar "no black people can be scouts because black people are all child molesters" policy I doubt you would be as accepting of California scout organizations because they looked the other way at black scouts.

Oh and I say boycott, make it clear you are boycotting, and follow up by presenting alternatives. Don't just, say, boycott the scouts. Work with an alternative scout like group that has policies you agree with and help to make it a viable option for others. Boycott a church that is outspoken against gay ministers or marriage, let them know why, and then find another church that has a policy that you can agree with.
posted by aspo at 9:27 PM on December 3, 2004

Participation contributes credibility. Best to invest your time and money into organizations that you don't deem immoral.
posted by rushmc at 9:29 PM on December 3, 2004

In what the boys saw, I deemed the Scouts to be very moral. The vast majority of adult leaders realize they are there for the boys... all the boys. I just don't agree with some of their national policies.
posted by Doohickie at 9:56 PM on December 3, 2004

And Mussolini made the trains run on time...
posted by rushmc at 11:21 PM on December 3, 2004

> Best to invest your time and money into organizations that you don't
> deem immoral.

I doubt there's a single organization on the planet that I agree with 100.000% Leaving an organization over such disagreement comes down to the decision "Does the good this group accomplishes outweigh the harm I think it's also doing?" It's a classic judgement call, but then that's why we have the abillity to judge.
posted by jfuller at 6:31 AM on December 4, 2004

Deem "prodominantly immoral," then, if it makes you feel better.
posted by rushmc at 8:22 AM on December 4, 2004

I've also been troubled by the myriad recent gays-in-the-church threads, especially the posters who asked questions along the lines of, "Why would you possibly stay in an organization that hates you?" This oversimplifies and misunderstands the situation on several levels. First, to say that "the Church" (or "the Boy Scouts") hate gay people is an oversimplification to the point of absurdity--there's always a mix of opinion and conviction within any organization, even when the official positions are suboptimal. Plus, I think that we USAians have a peculiarly American penchant to pick up and leave a group and take our ball and go home the first time that things don't go our way. It's the application of consumer-driven capitalism to every area of our lives; the idea that if a community does something distasteful (or, yes, even harmful on some levels) to us, then we run out to the marketplace and find the next best option, or start our own. Trouble is, this kind of thinking doesn't take into account the notions of deep, long-term community or personal formation within that community. In other words, if you're brought up and socialized in a certain community, it's not such a simple matter to rip up your roots and go two doors down the street and start over again, tabula rasa.

This isn't to say, of course, that there aren't some times when leaving a group isn't warranted or necessary. I'm just pointing out that it's not as easy or even as necessary as some people make it out to be. Personal identity is intertwined with that of our peer groups and social structures in ways that we individualist, self-made-man Americans don't always like to acknowledge.
posted by ChrisTN at 8:24 AM on December 4, 2004 [1 favorite]

Speak for yourself. Some of us, through a mixture of choice and circumstance, actually manage to form a personal identity that doesn't belong to a given community (beyond say family). If you are one of those lucky ones, it becomes obvious that belonging to something does equal complicity. In that case, it is easier to turn away, but the observation does hold.

Then again, never underestimate the need of people to "belong," even when it harms them.
posted by dame at 9:07 AM on December 4, 2004

Speak for yourself.

I do.

Some of us, through a mixture of choice and circumstance, actually manage to form a personal identity that doesn't belong to a given community (beyond say family). If you are one of those lucky ones, it becomes obvious that belonging to something does equal complicity. In that case, it is easier to turn away, but the observation does hold. Then again, never underestimate the need of people to "belong," even when it harms them.

And my question is simply, what happens when even your family harms you? Sure, there are times when people need to turn away even from family in order to ensure their ongoing survival and well-being. That should go without saying. But my point is that it's not an easy or simple thing to turn one's back completely on a group that has helped shape you as a person, whether you're talking about family or Scouting or Church or quilting circle. YMMV.
posted by ChrisTN at 9:18 AM on December 4, 2004

Well, you weren't. You were generalizing your experience as though it were universal (ie, "it's not as easy or even as necessary as some people make it out to be."), when I find it perfectly easy and highly necessary in most cases. My high school (very small) shaped me plenty. But I don't have anything to do with it anymore, just because I grew up and moved away; frankly, I find the people who stay on in the alumnae association to be rather stunted.

You find it harder to leave, and I can appreciate that. But from this end of the plank, it's going to look like trading in self-respect for belonging, especially to people who don't hold traditional notions of "community" in high regard. I was just setting that opinion to meet yours in the cage of doom.
posted by dame at 9:41 AM on December 4, 2004

Yup. At what cost? is the important question to be asked. At the cost of your self-respect? sense of worth? etc...
posted by amberglow at 12:24 PM on December 4, 2004

I think that we USAians have a peculiarly American penchant to pick up and leave a group and take our ball and go home the first time that things don't go our way. I think that is what the Eagles song The Last Resort is all about.

it becomes obvious that belonging to something does equal complicity. Obvious to you, maybe. You make *your* statement like it is a general truth, but I disagree that this is a true statement. I think there is a personality dynamic going on here: Those who have invested their lives in belonging to society tend to want to stay with organizations and try to improve them from within, perhaps, while those who have turned their back on society value this independence. I'm not sure one or the other route is more just or moral; instead it is simply a morally neutral choice people make.

I think, after reading the responses submitted, the point is to do the best you can for the situation you're in.
posted by Doohickie at 2:05 PM on December 4, 2004

Those who have invested their lives in belonging to society tend to want to stay with organizations and try to improve them from within, perhaps, while those who have turned their back on society value this independence.

Your false dichotomy makes me giggle.
posted by rushmc at 2:08 PM on December 4, 2004

Doohickie: Take things out of context much?

Some of us, [blah blah blah] If you are one of those lucky ones, it becomes obvious that belonging to something does equal complicity.

Do you know what "if" means?
posted by dame at 3:13 PM on December 4, 2004

Well, you weren't. You were generalizing your experience as though it were universal (ie, "it's not as easy or even as necessary as some people make it out to be."), when I find it perfectly easy and highly necessary in most cases.

Speaking of taking things out of context. Go back and read the sentence before the one you quoted. Very well: all opinions stated by me are my own and are not meant to speak for all 6 billion people on the planet.

My high school (very small) shaped me plenty. But I don't have anything to do with it anymore, just because I grew up and moved away

Bad comparison. Schools are meant to shape people for a time, and then, to be left. If one stays in a school as a student (or as a hanger-on) for too long, that's a sign that there's something wrong with the process. Churches, civic clubs, families, etc., can often hold persons for lifetimes. Or not, depending on how badly a given individual wants out.

But from this end of the plank, it's going to look like trading in self-respect for belonging, especially to people who don't hold traditional notions of "community" in high regard.

Fine. From this end, it's going to look like your position involves aimless drifting from one group to another, staying with one community until someone hurts your feelings, at least from the way you're describing it. (At least, to those of us who hold community in high regard.)
posted by ChrisTN at 5:33 PM on December 4, 2004

The sentence you directed me to is not restrictive. Anyway, "hurt feelings" is a world away from self-respect. Then again, "belonging" always costs some of that.
posted by dame at 5:57 PM on December 4, 2004

True enough. Maybe that's where I'd draw the line, too, when you come to the end of the day. No self-respect? It's time to go.
posted by ChrisTN at 8:09 PM on December 4, 2004

If your moral qualms are extreme enough, it won't be a difficult decision to leave. Assuming they fall in a grey area where you disagree with an aspect of an organization's policies/principles but are not appalled by the organization on the whole, here's what you might consider:
1. Boycotts work well in certain circumstances. For example, when a large percentage of a local population is enthusiastic about boycotting a local organization. Sometimes these gain momentum and become regional/national, but I am skeptical about the efficacy of a single person or a small group boycotting a very large organization, unless you are very influential within it to begin with. Or if you can get a lot of media attention. And in that case:
2. Change from within works if there are others sympathetic to you to join you in enacting change, or if you yourself are influential. Or if the organization is set up in such a way that participants have a lot of autonomy.

The Boy Scouts is a good example of this, as are some churches. In both of those cases, those protesting within the organization are committed to its basic goals and have autonomy, and they believe that by staying they are doing good even if the organization as a whole does not change.
posted by mai at 8:44 PM on December 4, 2004

This oversimplifies and misunderstands the situation on several levels. First, to say that "the Church" (or "the Boy Scouts") hate gay people is an oversimplification to the point of absurdity--there's always a mix of opinion and conviction within any organization, even when the official positions are suboptimal.

I'd argue that the official positions matter and the mix of opinion within the organization do not, since one affects me and the other does not.

I don't think it is a simplification to see things in those terms.

If you're "just following orders" to get along, you are as culpable for the suffering that results as that org's leaders.
posted by AlexReynolds at 10:20 PM on December 4, 2004

Churches, civic clubs, families, etc., can often hold persons for lifetimes.

But this is in no way evidence that they were "meant" to. You're imposing your own value judgement here.

Or not, depending on how badly a given individual wants out.

It's not always (or even most often) a matter of "wanting out" but of being ready to move on and experience something new. What you call stability smells a lot like stagnation to me.

If you're "just following orders" to get along, you are as culpable for the suffering that results as that org's leaders.

Absolutely. You'd think this would be universally understood and accepted by now.
posted by rushmc at 8:53 AM on December 5, 2004

What you call stability smells a lot like stagnation to me.

OK. Long-term relationships aren't for everyone.
posted by ChrisTN at 1:28 PM on December 5, 2004

In a religion/'faithful' relationship, it isn't a 'we'll work this out' situation.

The so-called stability of religion depends on the blind following of the 'faithful'. The 'faithful' rarely question what's going on in their organization because, after all, it's their faith.

Not all stability stagnates either. You can have stability and still question the other's motives or actions, hopefully cementing the stability via educated discourse on whatever the subject at hand happens to be.

Agreeing to disagree on something doesn't mean the end, it adds to the depth of the relationship.
posted by kamylyon at 1:53 PM on December 5, 2004