• When Social Change Lab did a survey of 100+ political scientists and sociologists, something that cropped up was the importance of having achievable demands.
• A lack of wins means you lose activists lose motivation and leave
• People like joining winning campaigns
• Defined campaigns build in natural cycles of intensity and rest
• In addition to the mobilisation benefits mentioned above, I believe campaigns that are either clearly time-bound (e.g. due to elections, votes or ballot initiatives) or provide clear feedback by other means (e.g. a company policy, change in institutional behaviour, etc.) are important for reasons for seasonality.
• I’ve come around to thinking that if campaigns don’t build in some cycles of intensity, followed by rest, then it’s a fast track to burnout for activists.
• Now, you might be thinking: "But what about movements like Extinction Rebellion or Occupy Wall Street? They achieved significant impact without highly specific or achievable demands." This is a fair point which I think is worth covering.
• There's a crucial drawback of these more symbolic goals: these groups often struggle with longevity. In my experience, without concrete wins to sustain motivation, these movements tend to experience a high turnover of volunteers and soon enough, declining participation.
• Once groups like Extinction Rebellion have done the groundwork of establishing climate change as a key issue in the UK and shifting discourse, Just Stop Oil can step in to achieve some tangible legislative victories.

AI suggested related notes

These notes appear semantically similar based on Smart Connections embeddings:

• When small campaigns against zoos and animal testing labs are useful (similarity: 65.5%)
• social change misc (similarity: 61.2%)
• Animal Think Tanks theory of change (similarity: 61.1%)