Everybody wants to change the world, but can we actually make a difference?
In the first episode of our Transforming Business podcast series with Martin Parker, Jane Holgate and John Page, authors of Changemakers: Radical Strategies for Social Movement Organising, discuss the power of activism and challenge the belief that change is impossible.
They explore the distinction between mobilising and organising, the role of optimism in driving social change and how we can actively contribute to meaningful transformation in our communities.
Hosted by leading organization studies professor Martin Parker (University of Bristol), Transforming Business is a new series from Transforming Society, featuring in-depth conversations with top experts in work, economy, finance, employment, leadership, responsible and sustainable business, innovation, organising and activism. These insightful interviews explore fresh ideas and bold strategies for creating a more ethical and equitable business world. Tune in to challenge conventions, spark innovation and drive meaningful change.
Listen to the podcast here, or on your favourite podcast platform:
Scroll down for shownotes and transcript.
Jane Holgate is Professor of Work and Employment Relations at the University of Leeds and a Trustee of the Ella Baker School of Organising. John Page serves on the committee of the Ella Baker School of Organising.
Changemakers by Jane Holgate and John Page is available on Policy Press for £14.99 here.
Bristol University Press/Policy Press newsletter subscribers receive a 25% discount – sign up here.
Follow Transforming Society so we can let you know when new articles publish.
The views and opinions expressed on this blog site are solely those of the original blog post authors and other contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the Policy Press and/or any/all contributors to this site.
Image credit: hayleigh b on Unsplash
SHOWNOTES
Timestamps:
01:27 – Why is optimism important when thinking about social change?
03:43 – What about people who say this will never change?
06:46 – What is the distinction between mobilising and organising?
11:02 – What is the metaphor of the spider versus the starfish?
14:53 – How do you understand leadership?
17:41 – Can you reflect on the idea of giving people a sense they can participate actively in forms of social change?
21:12 – Can you talk about the difference between Saul Alinsky and Myles Horton’s approaches?
27:12 – Who do you hope will buy this book? Who would you like to read it?
Transcript:
(Please note this transcript is autogenerated and may have minor inaccuracies.)
Martin Parker: Welcome to the Transforming Society podcast. My name is Martin Parker. I’m a professor of organisation studies at the University of Bristol Business School, and I’m really pleased today to be having a conversation with two people who’ve written a beautiful book for Policy Press called ‘Changemakers: Radical Strategies for Social Movement Organising’. The book’s been written by Jane Holgate, who is professor of work and employment relations at the University of Leeds and a trustee of the Ella Baker School of Organising.
John Page, the other co-author, serves on the committee of the Ella Baker School of Organising. He’s worked as a union organiser and in organising or campaigning roles at the Jo Cox Foundation, the Equality Trust, HOPE Not Hate, and the Runnymede Trust. Really pleased to have you both here with me today. Can I start by going to the end of your book and just reading a section from the final reflections?
You say, “When we were teenagers in the 1970s, we believed that life would get better, that society would become fairer, and what we did would accelerate the process of bending the arc of history towards social justice. We had no sense that actually social justice could be rolled backwards.” That seems a really appropriate place to begin such an optimistic and political with big and small p’s book.
When we face so many challenges right now, whether with the election of Trump or the climate crisis or, you know, recovering from COVID, etc., etc.. Could you talk a little bit about the importance of optimism in thinking about social change? Jane.
Jane Holgate: Yes, thank you for that introduction, Martin, it’s good to be having this talk to you. Yeah, I think we ended the book on that note because we think hope is really important. I think for, if you’re an organiser and you’re looking to change, you know, change the world in a sense, you know, change society around you, then you have to have hope and belief in hope in order for that to happen.
And we are going through some particularly difficult times at the moment. We’re seeing the world, you know, in many respects becoming less progressive. In fact, you know, I would say, you know, more reactionary. You know, we’ve got, you know, the re-election of Donald Trump in the USA. We’ve got, you know, the climate crisis happening. But closer to home, where we are in the UK, you know, we saw race riots last year.
All of the things that, you know, we thought, you know, we were looking back to the 70s thinking that the world was getting better progressively, you know, from the 60s, you know, we saw there was that huge optimism in the in the 60s across the world for social change. And we did see that develop and getting more progressive in the 70s and the 80s.
But I think now what we’re seeing is that dissipating. But nevertheless, there’s so many things that we still need to organise around. In a sense, we need to redouble our efforts to organise because, you know, the climate change is making the world a much more hostile place. You know, not just in terms of the environment, but the impact that that will have on society if things get so much worse.
You know, we’re going to see mass migration like we’ve never seen before, for example. But the response we have in many Western countries to migration is to is to try and stop migration and blame people for society’s ills. So in a sense, you know, if we really believe as organisers that we can change the world, then we need to hold on to that hope, which is why we ended the book in that way.
MP: Yeah, yeah. I can’t remember who said it, but it’s something about might be somebody like Rebecca Solnit or someone who says, you know, it’s that that sort of pessimism is a luxury we simply can’t afford, right? Yeah. And we have to have a kind of hope, a sort of radical hope. John, can you talk talk about this in terms of the sort of perception sometimes that I’ve heard from many people that you can’t do anything to change. You know, that whatever you do, the, you know, the rich get in, capitalism carries on, etc., etc..
John Page: That’s fine. Yeah. I mean, I just want to say one thing, which is that in the 70s, when we were growing up, you know, the wave that came from the civil rights movement in the States and the rank and file trade union organising that was taking place in this country, actually was pushing the world towards a more radical, progressive, fairer place.
And so we were realistic at that time. I think the problem we have, you know, you say, you know, what’s the importance of optimism? I think the most important thing is honesty. We have a huge, huge problem facing us at the moment. I mean, I look across at what’s happening in America, and I think it’s literally like a countdown of four years.
And in four years time, we could very easily be facing a very, very similar situation here unless we get organised. And I mean, in a sense, that’s that’s the lesson from the whole book, is if we sit back and complain and moan, then bad things are going to happen. And if we get our people organised and when we use the term organised, we mean something slightly different from perhaps what, what, what many people do.
I mean, many people say, ‘I’m going on a big demonstration next week’ and think that they’re getting organised. And actually, it’s when you engage with people in your community who don’t agree with you and begin to shift them, that you really start creating the opportunities for genuine hope, because it’s those human interactions that create solidarity, and it’s solidarity that has always created the power that we need to defeat those people like Elon Musk, who quite frankly, I don’t have the words to describe.
There is no evil that I don’t think he would not endorse. And he’s the richest man in the world. What do we have? We have people.
JH: You asked that question about, you know, how do we how do we give people hope? How do we deal with people who say, well, nothing will change. There’s nothing we can do? I think what we show in the book is that there’s always a possibility to make even a little bit of change. And I believe that once you’ve made a little bit of change, it gives people hope that change, that more change can come.
And we’ve seen this throughout society, you know, against all sorts of odds. People have come through in really difficult circumstances to organise and change their society. You know, we wouldn’t have seen the end of apartheid, for example, without people organising on the streets. Similarly, John just mentioned in the civil rights movement, you know, where people from African-American communities were so marginalized and so treated badly through segregation, etc. yet nevertheless, they stood their ground, got together, particularly through the black churches, which was a good medium for them to organise, you know, and made significant change. So I just think we have to hold on to that hope.
MP: Yeah. That’s really that’s really powerful. Can we talk a little bit about some of the, some of the concepts in the book now? So you define organising as basically transformational social change. It’s an attempt to produce transformational social change. And one of the distinctions you make, and it’s a bit of a tricky one because it speaks to sort of what, what John was talking about, about going on a demonstration and so on about a distinction between mobilising and organising.
So could you just tell our listeners what you mean by that difference?
JP: Let’s let’s take an example. Say your employer has decided they’re going to cut wages. Now somebody could put round a notice saying let’s all have a big demonstration outside the head office. And maybe 10% of the employees will turn up those people who feel confident and powerful and feel that they’re not afraid to show that they’re there. 10% of the workforce, is not going to be enough to change the employer’s view.
So the 10% is mobilising. It’s gathering those people who already support the opposition and we use the phrase encourage them to shout a bit louder. Organising is a different thing. Organising is saying to that 10% you need to go and speak to your colleagues who are too frightened to speak out and build the confidence amongst your colleagues, so that actually we get 90% of people involved in a campaign.
And that’s the difference. Mobilising is gathering together those people who already agree with you. Organising is transformational because you’re taking control of that discrete unit, whether that’s a workplace, whether it’s an estate, etc.. Jane?
JH: Yeah, I like to use the analogy of a theatre. So you take a theatre. I think mobilising is when people are on stage, you’ve got all your chorus on stage dancing and singing, and then the organising is all the back stage stuff. Where, actually, you know, you make it happen. Those people wouldn’t be there without that organising. I think that’s quite a nice way to think about, you know, the differences.
It is all the hard work that often gets unseen in bringing people together and building communities. It’s those 1 to 1 conversations. It’s those bits of work in the background that need to happen in order to make a mobilisation happen. You know, that’s I like to think of it in terms of that theatre.
MP: Yeah, that that’s that’s a really useful distinction. I mean, one of the things we can say about a whole variety of social protests is that sometimes they’re quite sort of noisy and obvious, but then they sort of dissipate, don’t they? You know, something like the occupy protests and so on, which were, you know, remarkable in their articulate fury about the state of global capitalism and so on, but didn’t seem to leave directly any kind of legacy of organisations to push forward with those demands.
JH: Again, that’s why the analogy of the theatre I think works as well, because, you know, you say it’s that the cast go home at the end of the night’s theatre, but actually the theatre remains, you know, they organise in the theatre, the structure stays in place. And that’s the difference.
MP: Yeah.
JP: I think it has a lot to do with theory of change. So, you know, I love the occupy movement. You know, I visited many occupy sites in different cities around the world. I loved every moment of it. But the reason I feel that it came to nothing in the end was what was the plan to effect change? In some ways, it was a brilliant protest movement and it was brilliant at castigating the horrors of capitalism.
But what it wasn’t good at was saying, how do we use these numbers to create the pressure to effect change? And I think you could say the same. You know, you look at the Black Lives Matter movement in the UK. There was a moment 2 or 3 years ago when everyone’s attention was on race discrimination and race equality, and that movement has just, you know, it’s faded from from view with, you know, the #MeToo women’s movement, there’s a degree at which large numbers of people get involved for a short period of time, but there isn’t a plan to use that energy in a longer term way.
So that’s what we talk about. What is the theory of change? Well, you know, another protest, you know, I mean, if you look at the horrors of the Gaza situation, I mean, so many people turn up every other week for a march, and they were being systematically ignored by our government and governments around the world. And you have to ask, is there something more effective that people could have been doing?
MP: Yeah. The large sort of the central arguments of your book really are about the various ways in which we can think about strategies for change. So you talk about a variety of ways in which you can try to think about what your opponent might do next, or what what reactions, what allies you might have in order to produce a particular likely consequence, and so on.
But lurking behind all these kind of strategic questions is also a further question of organisation that you talk about in a couple of different ways. But the one that I thought was was kind of most dramatic is the metaphor the spider versus the starfish? Yeah. So these different ways of thinking about how you organise, could you just kind of unpack the spider and starfish distinction a bit?
JP: Yeah. I think it’s worth saying that there’s a book called ‘The Starfish and the Spider’, so we just use those concepts, and throughout the book, you know, we don’t claim to be particularly original. We say, look, here’s an interesting idea. Let’s explore it. So basically the idea is that if you have a spider, if you chop off its head.
That’s it. Done. If you have a starfish, it doesn’t have a central nervous system in the same way. And apparently if you chop off the leg of a starfish, it will grow the rest of the body back, and the starfish without the leg will grow a leg back. And in a sense, it’s about organising at the bottom up and, you know, certainly avoiding a over centralized leadership structure.
And in some ways, we also take the dispute between Ella Baker and Martin Luther King about how do you organise people. And Martin Luther King said, you know, knowledge flows from the pulpit to the congregation, not the other way around. And Ella Baker said, I think you’re wrong about that. And so that idea that when you’re organising, can you create self-sufficient groups that once they grow to a certain size say, you know, we can split in half, we’ll be twice as effective.
And then they sort of replicate. I mean, if you look at trade unions, for example, they’re a classic example of a spider. If you get a bad leadership at the very top of a union, you’ll see a completely dysfunctional union. Whereas other organisations like XR, for example, you know, it doesn’t matter who’s supposed to be the nominal national leadership.
Local groups are being creative and innovative and so on. What’s interesting about our analysis is we don’t say, oh, you know, starfish, brilliant. Spiders are terrible. We say there are clearly times when you need a centralized organisation, and there are clearly times when you need to, you know, liberate the energy of your supporters through a more starfish version.
JH: Yeah. I mean, it’s about how organisational forms can be really restrictive at times. You know, so John has mentioned the the union movement and there’s lots of good things about the way the trade union movement structured and organised, but it’s also can be very restrictive as well. You know, this will need to go to a motion before we could do x, y and z.
And of course, I understand, you know, democratic organisations need to behave in certain ways, but it’s also understanding, okay, well, we have this particular structure, but can we operate outside of those structures in a different way at different times, depending on the circumstances that are taking place? So it’s really all about the different organisational forms that enable people to be involved at the level they want to be involved in.
JP: I think the other thing, I mean, the reason we go through this discussion is most people join an organisation and never ask whether the organisation structure is fit for its purpose. And so by opening up this question of, you know, what structure would most effectively generate the the power necessary to effect the change you want, it makes people think a little bit about the organisation they’re in and to what extent it either constrains or or ignites opportunity.
MP: Absolutely. I mean, you know, I said at the start that I’m a professor in a business school, and business schools tend to teach a very particular kind of organising in which usually a white male charismatic leader is supposed to be at the top of the hierarchy and makes the decisions. You know, that’s pretty much the story we get told about Elon Musk, right?
Is that, you know, his extraordinary capacities, innovation, hard work, whatever results in his success. That’s a very spider like story, isn’t it? It’s a you know, it’s an assumption about the capacities of a particular individual to direct a whole series of other people. And it seems to me that you’re pushing against that in all sorts of really interesting ways, that when you talk about, say, a distinction between mobilising and organising, the organising is something that’s almost kind of more embedded, more relational, more distributed.
You know, this is it’s important at this point to refer to that idea of leadership, isn’t it? Because you do talk about leadership in the book, but you talk about leadership in some rather different ways than the sort of heroic business school accounts of leadership. Jane, could you talk a little bit about that?
JH: Yeah. So there is a general sense and it’s always quite difficult when you’re talking about leadership because people automatically think about positional leaders. And by that I mean, you know, there’s somebody who’s got into a particular position and they de facto are the leader then. But we like to think about leadership in different ways in terms of what skills and qualities that have got people got that can attract people like themselves into an organisation and how can they work with those people?
So we like to see leadership very much, as you just say, use the word distributive that, you know, you can have leadership at all sorts of different levels within organisations and outside organisations as well. So it’s drawing upon, you know, people’s lived experience, which might be so different to the leadership in a positional position. Again, we can see this in trade unions particularly, you know, if you look back at trade unions over the last 50 years, which have been mainly led by white men, I’m not being derogatory about that at all.
What I’m saying is that they have a particular form and culture which fits, you know, their lived experience means the organisation follows that sort of lived experience. Whereas, you know, one of the things that we talk about is that the more people you get involved, the more sort of people at the bottoms of the organisations, for example, bringing in their own lived experience, then we’ve got a more diverse group of people to draw upon for different leadership positions.
And, you know, it ties very much to the stuff that we write about equalities in the book as well. The more diverse our organisations are, the more different, you know, experiences that people draw upon. It means organisations begin to think and operate in a different way. And I think that’s what we try to draw out when we’re talking about leadership.
MP: There’s something here isn’t there, about kind of giving people, ordinary people, a sense that they have efficacy, that they can have an influence on the world. Again, going back to the way that I was kind of starting this, talking about optimism that, many of the students I teach, for example, seem to understand that, you know, we have a climate crisis and the world is gigantically, unequal, and da da da da.
What they don’t have is much of a sense that they can do anything about this, that, you know, that they have levers that they can pull in order to make things happen. And that seems to kind of broaden, a broad sort of context for your book, isn’t it? That idea of of giving people a sense that they can participate actively in forms of social change?
John, do you want to reflect on that?
JP: Yeah, I think, you know, you could talk about power in so many different ways, but one way that I think is really, really interesting is the idea of power within, power with and power over. So power within is, say for example, you’re a, I don’t know, housing benefit or housing advice centre. Somebody comes along and said, I’ve got this really problem with damp, one thing and another.
Now there’s two ways of resolving that. You can either say, okay, thanks so much, I’ve taken all your details, I’m going to go away and wave a magic wand and solve all your problems. Or you can say to the person, look these are your rights. This is how you can assert them. I will support you in doing that. And in that process, that person is transformed from a victim to an agent of change.
And that’s really important. The second is, is this idea of power with. And you talk about there’s a problem, an intractable problem. As a community, you don’t have the power yet to change it. What can you do to mitigate it just by working together? I think a really good example of that. We were talking a couple of days ago with some people about the the black schools, you know, in the 70s when black parents, black Caribbean parents in particular, realised their kids were being failed at school and they started putting together informal afterschool clubs.
Now, what’s really interesting is that they began to address the problem collectively. By what some people would criticize as like just putting a sticking plaster on it, rather than demanding that the state educate their children properly. They were trying to cover for the state’s deficiencies. But what’s really interesting about it is that those schools became the organising centres for the groups of parents who were demanding change in the educational system, and a change in the the way children were being written off as educationally subnormal, etc..
So power within, power with and power over is a really interesting way of analysing how you move people to discover their agency and their ability to effect change. And too often we really want to call a mass protest against something that’s really, really problematic. And people come along. They protest, they think that was a really big protest, really lively etc. and then 3 or 4 weeks later, think but nothing changed.
You know, I remember, you know, the first gulf war and I think there were 2 million of us on the streets. I think six months later there was another so-called mass protest when there was about 10,000, because everybody said, this is a waste of our time. And I think when we want to activate people to effect change, and it’s a point Jane made earlier.
Is it’s those small things that convince people I had to put in this amount of effort, and I saw a small amount of change. Maybe if we put in some extra effort, we get some more people involved. We can effect some bigger changes.
MP: Yeah. That was really, really nicely put. One of the ways in which you… one of the threads that runs through the book, in a sense, is this a sort of distinction between two different ways of thinking about activism, if you like, and organising, I suppose. And you talk about these two theories, neither of which I’d heard of to my shame before Saul Alinsky and Myles Horton.
And you make a bit of a distinction between, you write very positively about both of them, but you make a distinction between the kind of strategies that they were using. Jane, do you want to say a little bit about the difference between kind of Alinsky’s approach and Horton’s approach?
JH: Okay. Well, I’ll talk about Saul Alinsky, I think John will talk about Myles Horton.
MP: Okay.
JH: But I think, you know, in terms of Saul Alinsky, I mean, he was an amazing character. I mean, his books are probably the most widely read books on organising. And he was an amazing character, and he was a great organiser. But his approach was, you know, to get groups of people together in working, say, within an organisation, getting people together.
But he would he would actually be the voice of the organisation. He was the sort of the organiser, you know, the the people who, who he was pulling into the, into the campaign, for example. And I’m trying not to be derogatory in any way, but they were like the troops they were there to, to back up his, his, his work.
So, you know, it goes against what we were, what we are trying to say in terms of, you know, building the, building up the base and giving those people agency. Those people were often used to, to give testimony. So, for example, if he was organising in poor areas, you know, people might talk about the, you know, the housing stock, what it was like for them, but actually they weren’t actually given much agency themselves to effect change, but actually, Myles Horton took a different approach.
And I think John’s going to talk about, you know, the difference between his approach and Saul Alinsky’s.
JP: Yeah, I think the best thing to say about Saul Alinsky was he was a brilliant leader in a traditional sense. He was very innovative and so on. And an interesting thing is Myles Horton and Saul Alinsky were really good friends. They just disagreed about the best way to effect change. Myles Horton was the founder of the Highlander School, and in the 50s, late 40s and 50s of the last century, they trained a lot of union organisers.
So from the CIO, the organisers who went on to create, extend the mine workers union, win a tremendous advance in the auto workers unions. And basically, he said, I never taught anyone to organise. I just got people into a room. I asked them about their problems. I asked them to think about what they had learned from their life.
He said, I always found people always knew what the answers to their problem were if it was allowed to surface. And he so had an approach to education, which was basically saying, you, you do have the latent agency to effect this change. My job is to convince you to just open up your experiences and view them as a valid learning resource, very, very different from Saul Alinsky.
And of course, the whole of the civil rights leadership went through the Highlander School in the 50s. I suppose, we very much celebrate what Saul Alinsky achieved. But also say actually, if we want to see real long term transformative change it is about activating people’s agencies, and we have to look at the approach that Myles Horton took.
And, you know, these are just starting points for discussions, because it’s lots of other characters around who’ve contributed to those debates. But it’s it’s an interesting contrast, I think, between the two.
JH: And I think, you know, it ties back to what we were talking about earlier, when we’re talking about organising and mobilising and quite crudely and, you know, I’m not being sophisticated. You could put Saul Alinsky in the mobilising and you could put Myles Horton in the organising category. And I am being, you know, I’m not being sophisticated in, in the different approaches there, but broadly, you could put them into those two categories.
MP: There’s an interesting sense in which the, the kind of trajectory of the book is that if you understand its lessons, you won’t need the book. In a way, it’s it’s a bit like one of those sort of paradoxes. Throw away the ladder once you’ve got there, because you do at various points say, you know, this is not, a set of checklists, not instructions or blueprints or something like that.
It’s more a set of ideas and experiences and understandings that other people have had that you might find helpful to think through something like that.
JH: And then that’s why, I mean, that’s why I think, you know, when we talk about Saul Alinsky, and take a different approach to him. You know, his book was rules for radicals. He had a stepped program. If you follow these rules, this is the way you organise. And there’s still a lot of organisations that adhere very, very strongly to the Saul Alinsky method.
But our approach is like, well, that might work in some circumstances, but actually it doesn’t all the time. Therefore, you always got to consider the concrete material circumstances that you’re operating at any particular time, and what works at one time might not work at another time. So you’ve got to think about what’s happening on the ground, but also importantly, you know what the power dynamic at any particular time is.
So that issue of power really, really comes into into its own at that point. You know.
JP: I mean, one of the things Saul Alinsky said was always go outside the experience of your opponent, do something they don’t expect, and Myles Horton said if you see someone who’s brilliant, you do not copy them. You learn from them, right? And part of the problem is that there’s all these people who say, I’ve read Saul Alinsky.
He wrote it 70 years ago, right. I’ve read his book. All I have to do is follow his step by step guide. And it’s it’s almost like there is a holy grail. I have to internalize it. I don’t have to think for myself because the answers are already there. And of course, as Jane said, as the world changes and evolves, then the answers have to change.
MP: Yeah. That’s a that’s a really a nice, nice way of segueing onto my sort of last couple of questions, really. Which one was who do you hope will buy this book? It’s not really written for an academic audience in the sense of people like me sitting in universities. Who would like to read it?
JH: Everybody.
MP: Everybody, you’ll sell a lot of copies Jane.
JH: I’m sure the publisher would be very happy about that. I mean, I think, being serious, I mean, I think anybody who’s organising in any way, shape or form, I think would find the book interesting and useful because we cover, we draw upon a whole range of experiences from the campaigns that we’ve been involved in over the last 40 years, personally, and some that we’ve won and some that we’ve not.
But what we’ve tried to do is to learn from every campaign or, you know, organisation that we’ve been involved in. So we basically I just think there is something in the book for anybody, whether you’re an environmental campaigner, whether you’re an animal rights campaigner, an anti-racist or anti-fascist campaigner, trade unionist, you know, a community campaigner organising your own local planning issues, in whatever campaigns that you are involved in.
There is something in this book that you could draw upon, and we’ve done a few book launches, over the last couple of weeks, and it’s been interesting to see the dynamics of people in the room and people who, you know, maybe just involved in one of those different types of campaigns saying they’re learning so much from the other campaigns as well, because in a sense, organising is organising.
It’s applicable to any, any form of campaign or social justice movement that you’re involved in. So I think anybody who’s, you know, wants to change society and the world, really.
JP: I think it’s written for those people who are actively involved in campaigns who think we have to work smarter if we’re going to win. And just picking up on Jane’s point, we did an event in Nottingham and we had a panel and there was an animal rights activist, someone from exile, an LGBTQ plus activist, and someone from the local trades council.
These people don’t normally come into the same room together. And each of them was saying, I’ve learned so much. I’ve been challenged by this book, and I’ve learned so much from thinking through. I don’t think people learn very much directly from the book. We hope they don’t anyway. What we hope they do is are challenged by what we write, and then have to think for themselves, how do I resolve those contradictions. In one place we say, look, when you’re reading this, there’ll be things you think, oh yeah, that’s right, I agree with that. But what would be much more interesting is the bits where you go, no, I don’t agree with that. Each of them are learning opportunities to ask yourself, why does that seem to ring so true for me? And why do I feel that that’s different? So those people who feel the need to do better than we’re doing at the moment.
MP: Wonderful. And I think that’s a really good place to stop. So the book, written by Jane Holgate and John Page is called ‘Changemakers: Radical Strategies for Social Movement Organising’, and it’s available from Policy Press. Jane, John, thanks ever so much for spending time with me. Much appreciated. I thought that was a fascinating conversation, and I hope our listeners got something out of it as well.
All the best.
JH: Thank you.
JP: Thank you.