Using our gut even when it’s gut-wrenching to realize our changemaking efforts may be misdirected
My heart was broken again last week. Yours probably was too, cutting through the scar tissue once again. I felt cautious writing this post because I do not have personal experience with gun violence. I write for changemakers, and could there be anything more visceral than the desire to stop American gun violence full-stop, but especially in schools? Imagine harnessing all the time, energy, and money that surges after each tragic occurrence. Once harnessed, imagine swinging it (knocking down the mailboxes of all the lawmakers who refuse to pass common sense gun laws) to topple a root cause that is anything other than passing laws.
Laws and Regulation Work, But…
Let me repeat that. Gun laws and regulation work. States have proven that background checks, waiting periods, and bans on certain weapons, reduce violence. Unfortunately, the power balance is off. It’s not just about money flowing into the gun lobby. Some estimates are that the gun lobby paid somewhere between $US 2-3 million last year to elected officials. OpenSecrets estimates over US$ 6 million per year. On the flip side, Everytown for Gun Safety had revenues of more than US$ 80 million in 2019 and a low in recent years of just over US$20 million in 2020 (source: 990 filings on Guidestar).
Time to Tap Out?
The question becomes: when does the pursuit of common-sense gun regulation become irrefutably futile. The adage of “never quit” and “hold the line” is noble and there are movements which have succeeded because of persistence. How can we figure out when to keep fighting for laws versus exploring other actions?
Back in 2014, two researchers published work to show that average citizens’ opinion has little to zero effect on public policy. Sometimes the average American gets the type of policy they want, but that’s only because the economic elite or a powerful interest group wants the same policy. It hurts to read. Alas, it sadly validates something many of us have felt in our gut.
Deciding When to Pivot
Advocacy and policy movements don’t have a standard, proven method to decide when to stop. That’s not true in other industries. Many traditional sales trainings teach three outreaches before spending no more effort on a lead. Any health or fitness journey continues if someone can feel, see, or measure results in their body. Every business plan has an exit strategy.
Social change movements often decide to continue or pull back based on funding or the number of people showing up. This is where action to reduce gun violence gets tripped up. We’re justifiably angry and we’re going to stay angry. Every time violence occurs, people ask themselves how they can make it stop. We sign, donate, and advocate anew. Well-intentioned energy, time, and money pours into the pursuit of legislation that won’t pass or will be made ineffectual after it passes. This cycle signals continuation because there isn’t agreement on how to decide which other signals should guide our efforts.
Exploring Less-Charted Territory
If we're willing to consider that our current approach might not be the most effective, we enter uncharted territory. Things could get uncomfortable, but potentially transformative. If we are willing to commit to no further action, that’s one way to conserve energy. It can be ok to be angry and passive if we’re honest about it. I prefer an honest anti-feminist man rather than one who makes me figure it out by blocking my progress behind the scenes. If we do want to do something, what ideas come to your mind? For me, each of these feels small but directionally supportive of change.
Addressing one root cause, there are psychological studies connecting humiliation and violence. Funding or support to counselors or social workers who offer trauma-informed care chip away at the glacier that is unmet emotional needs in America. Secondly, reducing violent cultural references is a daily action. Games, movies, toys, and news stories have tons of violence. Language is full of violent idioms (bullet points, shoot from the hip, and pull the trigger). Could we remove these from every business meeting in our future? Third, any building of human connections across a divide, formal or informal, is adding a teeny tiny weight to the “good” side of the scale.
Or Not
Many people fighting for gun laws will consider what I’ve written in the last paragraph insufficient or misguided. In spirit, I understand the motivation for legislative solutions. In reality, I’m looking around and acknowledging how much effort is poofing into the stratosphere. The question for changemakers is how badly we want something to change. When the hard truth is that the method we’re fighting for isn’t working, who will lead us to change course? Money may not be finite, but time and energy are. This isn’t about shifting to “thoughts and prayers.” It is a call to action to allow changemaking movements to shift course with true progress as the guide.
I’m curious about critically examining our strategies, even when it's uncomfortable. It's time to consider what would happen if efforts were redirected. It’s not about giving up – it's about opening up to new ways to create meaningful change in the face of a complex problem’s obvious solution facing hurdles that may never lower to a height we can jump.
Comments