I've been thinking a lot recently about how to be a good advocate or evangelist for an idea, movement, or cause. The short version is, you gotta have a Malcolm, and you gotta have a Martin. I've used the phrase before in referring, of course, to Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr., but more broadly to the idea that change requires both revolution and evolution.
Any cause or effort starts with people who are suggesting that we tear down the old and replace it with the new. But most causes actually succeed when someone who's more conciliatory helps make the change seem palatable, or even better, inevitable.
The downside of a movement requiring both an extremist and a moderate in order to advance is that many times, those two viewpoints, even though they share a common goal, can tend to see each other as their worst enemies. This is why a lot of more radical efforts are plagued by infighting and big egos. Progressives tend to be the worst in this regard -- instead of seeing the establishment or conventional wisdom as their enemy, they fight hardest against the person that's 99% in agreement with them. I guess that last 1% can seem like a big deal sometimes.
Now, this idea is pretty obvious to a lot of people. But I'm always surprised how often people don't realize they're playing one of these roles and are unwilling to consider the importance of their complement. The other thing that's surprising is how often people switch; It's often noted that by the time Malcolm became El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz, he was closer in words and spirit to Martin Luther King, Jr.'s ideas than to where he started.
This is true in much more mundane realms than civil rights, of course. It can be as simple as trying to get people to pay attention to work you're doing, or to care about an issue that matters to you. Be aware whether you're the moderate progressive or the radical revolutionary, and recognize the value of those who have the same goals but are taking a different path. Being effective at persuasion is a really tricky thing.
But as I mentioned in my post the other day, you need to have someone hold an extreme position to get a moderate change. And whether you're being an extremist or not, you have to have pretty thick skin. The hard part with both of those constraints is that they make it easy to lose perspective when you're trying to make an argument.
I'm still a beginner at this stuff, but I thought it might be interesting to share what I've figured out so far. It helps me when I'm talking to a group of people and want to make sure I'm not antagonizing them or alienating them with my own position. And I figure having jotted this down here means I can refer to it in the future myself the next time I forget.
You know, I always thought the conventional wisdom on the difference between Malcolm and Martin was a bit skewed. Martin's vision of equality and integration has always seemed far more progressive, radical, and uncompromising to me. By comparison, separatism seems reactionary and defeatist. Even the means of non-violence is a more revolutionary one than violence, which has been used to solve human conflict for millenia.
Also, I've been fascinated by the way people who have more in common than not can treat each other as the bitterest of enemies. I recently discovered that Freud actually came up with a name for this phenomenon: the narcissism of minor differences.
I think you've overstated, however thoughfully, the need for polarization.
The thing change agents need is influence, and the attention of those with power can be the seed. But there are many ways to get attention without calling for the burning of Rome. In tough politics it's often the subtle, quiet, backchannels where the real work is done by those with enough power not to need the limelight.
But for those without real power, taking radical positions are an available way to draw attention. But it's the attention that's sought as the asset, not necessarily the radical position (which explains the tendancy towards moderation many radicals slide into).
(btw: On the whole, revolution is an entirely overstated and abused ideal, since the history of revolution, and radical change, has a lousy track record. Real revolution is typically a dice throw. Throwing eveything away and starting over is a lot easier conceptually than making sure what you replace the old with will actually be any better - And besides, revolutions themselves evolve.. they take years, not days).
For example: if I have the ear of the CEO and half the VPs (or senators), do I need the drama of radical position to be effective? I don't. But if I don't have any power or influence, I might need to get radical and confrontational to get enough attention to be heard.
I think ego, as you mention, is the primary reason for clashes among people seemingly on the same side - it takes a big ego to lead a cause, and it's easy to miss the distinction between wanting to lead and wanting the cause itself to succeed. Joining forces puts leadership egos in terrifying jeopardy.
As a history major of old I can tell you that the ideas attributed to the icons you mention are more glorification and simplification than anything else. We tend to strive to define folks just as you have...easy and simple. When in truth, these guys were far from that. They were mavericks in their own way and yes it was a way that evolved through their careers (albeit too short for both) To me Anil this was a very human/real post. I've subscribed for a while but never really felt compelled to write a response until now. I think you're on to something because I think you're on to something deeper than this medium will ever be able to hold. That alone is noteworthy and whereas all the "bloggers" will cry foul for one reason or another, I applaud this effort! Bravo!
Tom
I read something similar arguing why people like Chomsky are useful, despite most people thinking he's a radical. By being so far left he delimits where radicalism is, and allows others to appear more moderate. (The same can be said of O'Reilly, etc. on the other side.)
If you are making a choice between a Malcolm and a Martin then you are working with assumption that you are already qualified to take at least one of the jobs.
Hmmm.
Common Pre-reqs for both jobs:
(1) Passion ... your core beliefs really really do float your boat and truly fire all your cylinders (I can't explain your nuttiness).
(2) Conviction ... you do not question your core beliefs anymore because you figure someone has to take a stand ... if not you, who? if not now, when?
(3) Articulation ... can you really say what's on your mind? And can you etch dreams with words?
Put all three together. You are a dream-weaver with passion in your eyes and conviction in your voice.
That gives people HOPE. And if you can give people Hope, then, omigosh, you are a HERO. People love to follow someone who knows the way and knows it well. And that shows. The funny thing is that people will follow LEADERS with such qualities anytime ... I am tempted to cite examples from Europe's turbulent past.
So moderate or extremist, you better start with the pre-reqs for this class.
Well... The extremist is probably good for making the moderates looks good and tempting.