On intra-movement criticism

Lately, I’ve been depressed and scared about the state of our national politics and frustrated with my personal activism, which seeks to advance cellular agriculture through the political process. In this headspace, I’m increasingly tempted to focus on criticism of my fellow leftists. It’s a temptation I imagine many progressive campaigners deal with and must try to avoid.

There are a lot of reasons why the left splintered in 2016, allowing Donald Trump to win the presidency. The biggest, in retrospect, is we were in the beginning of a once-in-a-generation political realignment. The progressive and conservative coalitions were changing, and, as a result, activists with diverse and at times conflicting ideologies were thrown together for the first time.

Friction was inevitable. It continues as we adjust to the new faultlines. However, I believe this friction was more damaging than it needed to be, in part because of our norms around intra-movement criticism. There was no limitation on such attacks. Vitriol was rewarded by social-media algorithms and our human desire for conflict. I certainly contributed to this negative dynamic.

Of course, I still believe intra-movement debate is necessary, but I place more value on how it’s carried out than I did before. Some people respond to harsh, yet fair criticism by stepping back, reassessing, and adjusting their approach. They should be praised. However, many do not. Unfortunately, I’ve seen lots of people drop out of politics or move to the right in the face of such judgement.

So how do we create more healthy norms around debate on the left? One of the most important things, in my view, is cultivating a radical forgiveness of individuals. Religion helps with this, in my limited experience, but you can get to the same place from a secular perspective. After all, if we truly believe we’re tackling systemic problems, we should treat them as such.

I don’t consider myself an effective altruist, but I appreciate their focus, in the animal movement, on helping the largest number of nonhumans. I recently stumbled across an interesting post on a utilitarian message board by one Holly Elmore, which argued criticism needs to ‘pay rent.’ I read this to mean those who criticize the actions of others should be engaged in actions of their own.

“The only truly safe position in EA/rationality is as a gadfly,” Elmore wrote. “Well, I have a criticism: It sucks that gadflies are protected and doers are punished in EA. It is lazy, it destroys morale, and it does not serve impact. A lot of criticism just isn't that valuable, and we need to have the courage to realize this.” I think the idea that criticism needs to pay rent is a good rule of thumb.

I’d add, when you’re thinking of criticizing other left-wing activists, as opposed to the political right, you should engage in at least a momentary bit of self-reflection. Are you doing this as part of a genuine effort to improve the left, or are you doing this to improve your personal standing within it? I frequently realize my desire to criticize other leftists has more to do with the latter.

If you decide your criticism is worthwhile, one way I’ve found such a feedback is received more constructively is to employ a rhetorical device I call the shit sandwich. The shit is criticism. Compliments are the bread. You hide the shit in the bread. For instance, you might say, “Activist X is really great. I disagree with them on this issue. But, again, Activist X is wonderful.” Compliment, criticism, compliment.

Now, I fully expect this column to be shoved back in my face in the not too distant future, when I don’t live up to my own advice. I hope I’ve made clear the temptation to engage in unnecessary infighting very much effects me. The best we can do is try to be gentle with each other and, when we are criticized, not allow it to push us into inaction or toward the political right. We are all flawed.