If there’s one thing that’s shaking the political landscape faster than you can say “diversity,” it’s the so-called “diversity of tactics.” This phrase, primarily seen during activist movements and protests, describes a strategy that encourages a wide range of methods to be used in pursuit of a single goal. Originating on the ground during various social movements worldwide including Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter, ‘diversity of tactics’ became mainstream around the early 2010s, where activists from different cities like New York, Seattle, and London began organizing large-scale disruptions. But, what exactly does it mean, and why do some argue it’s more divisive than unifying?
In a nutshell, ‘diversity of tactics’ is about encouraging different forms of engagement, from peaceful protests to more aggressive forms of activism. You can thank the myriad of activist groups standing around with their placards screaming for change as the concept’s cheerleaders. Imagine a situation where peaceful protesters march hand-in-hand while others decide that smashing store windows is an equally valid form of protest. Under a one-size-fits-all tactic umbrella, holding hands is as admirable as throwing Molotov cocktails. Where’s the accountability in that?
Let’s call this what it is—a no-holds-barred mix-and-match approach to activism that is more about chaos than cohesion. It essentially morphs organized protests into a pick-your-own-adventure of disruptive activities. These tactics are then shielded under the guise of a legitimate, unified movement; essentially giving a pass to those who would rather wreak havoc than wave flags. It’s like being at a carnival where one kid just wants to ride the Ferris wheel, and another wants to set the dunk tank on fire. Sure, it’s diverse, but at what cost?
And the cost, oh it’s there. Financially, societally, and even on ethical grounds. Think about the strain on law enforcement, local businesses, and taxpayers who are left to pick up the pieces—literally and metaphorically. For instance, when protesters take ‘diversity of tactics’ to mean vandalizing storefronts, who foots the bill? Surprise, it’s not them. It’s the shop owners and community members who have to face the consequences. Yet those advocating for ‘diversity of tactics’ don’t seem to be holding bake sales to cover the damages.
Moving beyond the dollar signs, let’s talk about the sociopolitical fabric. What happens when a movement transitions from a clearly goals-oriented peaceful assembly to a free-for-all? You start losing support, not gaining it. Instead of rallying public opinion, it polarizes it, much like certain unnamed political ideologies. One group’s ‘heroic resistance’ becomes another’s ‘unruly mob’. Instead of fostering an environment where people want to join the cause and advocate for change, you’re potentially alienating moderate supporters by associating your movement with mayhem.
Still not convinced it’s a bad idea? Well, consider this: trying to corral an array of tactics means willingly allowing elements that don’t align with core values. It’s organizational anarchy. By failing to set boundaries, you risk having your movement hijacked by the more violent or extreme fringes, effectively steering the narrative away from its original purpose. Imagine being invited to a lovely garden party, only to find a mosh pit erupting in the corner. The reading of poetry gets overshadowed by crash cymbals.
And speaking of extremities, let's not gloss over the moral implications. Isn’t there something to be said about standing your ground—in a literal sense? Why endorse a buffet of tactics when there’s dignity and power in singular, unified action? It seems contradictory to be fighting for justice with unjust acts. Yet, ‘diversity of tactics’ proponents might argue it offers options. But at what moral cost? Can vandalism be justified under the same canopy as peaceful protest when both are viewed as equally supportive in achieving change?
The dangerous notion here is that ‘diversity of tactics’ dilutes the impact of organized movements. When anything goes, it’s harder to grasp the focus of the cause. It’s the political equivalent of a cat chasing a laser pointer. Whereas previously, a march could draw attention to a human rights issue, under ‘diversity of tactics,’ what becomes the highlight? People cheering seems less effective than individuals swinging on streetlamps.
To sum it up, ‘diversity of tactics’ might sound like a trendy catchphrase, but in reality, it’s much closer to an anarchic free-for-all than an effective strategy for change. While offering multiple avenues of engagement is commendable, endorsing chaos is not. Those who want true progress would do well to remember: ‘united we stand, divided we fall.’ And nothing says division quite like a fractured movement under the pretense of tactical diversity.