Benefits of Conflicts in Movements?

Like all movements, the Objectivist movement has suffered conflicts. The drawbacks of conflicts are easy to identify, but are there benefits that rational individuals can gain from them?

Wherever two or more individuals associate, conflicts can occur. A movement is a group of individuals, a group defined only by a common goal of changing the world in some way. If all the members of a movement were to act as isolated individuals, conflicts would not arise. However, most members of movements do associate: They communicate; they trade; and they form networks, ad hoc organizations, and institutions. They differ in their senses of life, strategies, tactics, communication styles, personalities, level of knowledge, social skills, level of morality, and degree of mental health. Conflicts arise.

Within a movement, a conflict is a disagreement between two or more individuals that leads at least one of them to devote resources to making a change that ends the disagreement -- one way or the other.

Conflict is not merely the presence of different viewpoints, such as differing opinions about the style of clothing one should wear to a formal dinner for local members of the movement. A conflict, as I am using the term, is a disagreement that lasts long enough and is painful enough, at least to one side, that the aggrieved side takes action to change the situation. The other side reacts. Tension flares.

Example changes one side might seek are: persuading other members of the movement to donate or stop donating to certain projects; convincing members of the movement to adopt a particular strategy or tactic for achieving the movement's goals; and ostracizing a destructive individual from the movement.

DRAWBACKS. The potential drawbacks of conflicts within a movement are clear. Conflicts take attention and resources away from directly supporting the common, defining goals of the movement -- as when time and effort spent gathering evidence about a member's behavior might have been spent advocating the movement's principles to the society outside the movement. Second, conflicts can lead to schisms (refusals to associate), which might reduce the effectiveness of the movement. Third, conflicts can destroy friendships. Fourth, for those individuals who choose to become involved in them, conflicts are emotionally draining and can lead to abandoning the movement.

BENEFITS? Are there any ways in which rational individuals might gain from conflicts? I am basing my answer here only on personal (not systematic, scientific) observation of the Objectivist movement for fifty years, plus observations of other movements for much shorter periods. (I was briefly a participant in the movements against the Vietnam War, against the military draft, and against restrictions on abortion; and for several years, I was a member of the conflict-ridden libertarian movement.)

When disagreements cannot be resolved amicably, I see several potential benefits of conflicts within a movement. First, if the conflict is mainly about ideas, conflict can lead to more individuals within the movement becoming aware of the ideas at issue. Conflicts involving debate over fundamental principles of the movement can help educate members of the movement and thereby make the movement more effective in the long term.

Next, and closely related, is the benefit that comes from considering, discussing, and debating background issues. An example background issue is standards. In a conflict over a particular individual's behavior, what is the proper standard of judgment?[1] Another example background issue is method. If one member of the movement makes an accusation against another individual within the movement, what method should he use to present his accusation? How much evidence does he need to provide? How detailed should his argument -- the chain of inferences connecting the evidence to the accusation -- be for his particular audience?

A third benefit for many members of the movement is learning more about the individuals involved in the conflict. Individuals acting under the stress of a conflict may reveal aspects of their psychology or level of skills that were unknown before. Is a particular individual thoughtful? Does he do the research required to reach an informed judgment? Does he listen to those who might know more than he does? Does he present his evidence, proof, and conclusion for an objective audience or does he appeal to emotionalists? Negative answers to those questions may disqualify some individuals from being leaders, organizers, or consultants -- but positive answers may qualify them for a greater role in future projects.

A fourth potential benefit is greater long-term effectiveness. Quality control matters. A movement that regularly sheds individuals who do not in fact share the defining principles of the movement is a movement that stays focused. With those individuals out of the movement's network, the movement may be able to concentrate more on the key issues that define the movement and less on internal friction.

WHAT ABOUT AN HONEST MISUNDERSTANDING? In all conflicts that I have seen, there are individuals on both sides who act irrationally: emotionalists, moralizers, bomb-throwers, and the arsonists who pour gasoline on the flames of ideational conflicts that degenerate into personal conflicts. Their presence, in itself, is not automatically an indictment of the side they choose to support.

Other individuals, honest ones, sometimes make errors in judgment because of inadequate information or because of flawed methods of judging. Will a movement die as a result of honest errors that lead to a split? It should not. If individuals on both sides genuinely support the defining principles of the movement, then those individuals will continue working toward the original common goals even after an unfortunate and unnecessary split. While there might then be two smaller streams, with little socializing between them, they might be even more effective in changing the society around them. The reason is that after a split there would be two sets of voices calling for essentially the same changes in society. An increase in the number of voices advocating a certain idea will, other factors being equal, improve chances of success.[2]

EFFECT OF SPLITS. From the sidelines, I have witnessed several "splits" in the Objectivist movement. The seemingly most destructive was the split in the late 1960s following Ayn Rand's disavowal of Nathaniel Branden. The Nathaniel Branden Institute at that time was the only institutional voice for Objectivism. It closed at the very time that the communist and other irrationalist movements were marching victoriously around the world. Objectivist social networks fractured, friendships ended, and heated conflict erupted. Yet, through all of that turmoil, dedicated students of Objectivism -- led by the example of Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff -- continued working to articulate the philosophy of Objectivism and to change the culture around them. Their successes have accumulated through the decades.

CONCLUSION. Internal conflict itself does not cause a movement to fail. The most rational and skilled individuals in the movement can even gain from conflict when it does emerge but cannot be amicably resolved.

Burgess Laughlin

Author, The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith, at www.reasonversusmysticism.com

[1] A comment from Betsy Speicher reminded me of the importance of always asking: "By what standard?" [2] Yaron Brook and Onkar Ghate, of the Ayn Rand Institute, make the point about multiple voices, not splits, in their excellent 4.5-hour series of lectures, "Cultural Movements: Creating Change," at aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=participate_arc_activism.

Should a movement have watchmen?

A movement has no gatekeepers. That means there is no way to stop destructive individuals from entering the movement. Yet, there must be quality control at some level to prevent damage to efforts to reach the goals of the movement. To detect dangers, a movement needs watchmen as lookouts.

JOB REQUIREMENTS. The individuals who choose to be watchmen and exercise quality control, in some manner and at some level, are necessarily "self-appointed." Such a function is open to anyone who sees a danger worthy of action and has the skills to take appropriate steps -- which means mainly the ability to present an objective argument proving his charges against other individuals in the movement.

Objectivity means drawing all ideas logically from facts of reality. To be objective, an indictment of one individual by another must present facts as well as an argument leading from those facts to the indictment. The facts must be presented with specificity; pointing in the general direction ("Look at his writings!") is not specific. The argument must cover the steps required to move from evidence to conclusion. The indictment must be clear.

Debates among various watchmen are inevitable and desirable. The accusers are akin to prosecuting attorneys. There are defendants, rightly or wrongly accused. There are also the ladies and gentlemen of the jury: anyone who studies the issues, makes a judgment, and acts accordingly. However, there is no judge to set rules of procedure. Nor is there a bailiff, a policeman, or a jailer.

EXAMPLE APPROACHES. There are many optional approaches available to watchmen who are ready to make charges. Here are two examples to consider for their particular methods:

(1) http://www.dianahsieh.com/ff

(2) http://www.checkingpremises.org/

They are widely separated in time. In some ways, they are different in their purposes and methods. The first consists mainly of an annotated list of links to the author's own discussions on particular topics of false friends of Objectivism. The second, in most (but not all) of its tabbed pages (as of the day I viewed it), also consists mainly of links to other writings critiquing individuals the accusers think are pseudo-Objectivists. (The second site is new and the content is evolving.)

A third effort to consider is an apologia, a coherent essay which offers a defense against charges:

(3) http://blog.dianahsieh.com/2012/01/on-some-recent-controversies.html

I have identified the particular writings above because of their virtues, whatever faults they might also have (which must be judged within the context of each project's purposes). Generally, in the links cited both sources are serious and dignified. They deal with issues, which here means individuals and their ideas. They eschew foul language, "hot headed" outbursts, hyperbole, street talk, and other symptoms of profane culture.

CONCLUSION. Does a movement need watchmen? Yes, to protect the movement's efforts to reach its goals. The responsibility of being watchmen is heavy. It requires diligence in research, thought, and argumentation. It also requires the strength to withstand scrutiny.

PERSONAL NOTE: A BRIGHT FUTURE. I judge a movement by the actions of its best individuals, which includes, in part, their efforts to (1) set an example for rational behavior and (2) discourage violations of etiquette. (By "etiquette" I mean principles and rules of behavior that facilitate trade among individuals in a society.)

I have been a student of Objectivism for fifty years. In looking at the best behavior of particular individuals in recent controversies, on both sides, I see some signs of increasing personal maturity and interpersonal civility -- both of which are prerequisites for the trade of ideas, a trade that strengthens a movement. I also keep in mind a generalization: In controversies, the best individuals in a movement are often quiet until they are ready to make a thoughtful statement, if one is even worth formulating.

In preparing to write The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith, I read about conflicts in several movements (such as the movement to overthrow the Enlightenment). Compared to those movements, the Objectivist movement is healthy and growing stronger. For this and other reasons, I am objectively hopeful for the future of the Objectivist movement.

Burgess Laughlin

Author, The Power and the Glory:The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith

P. S. -- I "know" some of the individuals involved in the controversy above, but only through the internet. For personal reasons, I dislike a few and I have ceased communicating with them. The issues in the sites above, however, are not personal issues, but issues of individuals accused of misrepresenting or otherwise damaging the Objectivist movement.

What is democratic culture?

This is the first in a series of three posts sketching my preliminary understanding of democratic, sacred, and profane culture.

Understanding a culture in a particular period involves identifying not only the elements of that culture, but their interrelationships too. Are there patterns among the cultural elements? Which of the elements are causes and which are the effects?[1] This post is a sketch of one pattern among many in the overall culture of America today.

ORIGIN. The democratic movement is the movement of individuals who are striving to establish and expand a democratic society.[2] The term "democracy," for these individuals, names a concept that covers far more than only a particular form of government. One democratic activist, Yale University professor of constitutional law Jack M. Balkin, explains his view of democracy and identifies the root of the democratic movement:

The ultimate goal of our constitutional order is not merely to produce democratic procedures but a democratic culture: a culture in which all citizens can participate and feel that they have a stake, a culture in which unjust social privileges and status hierarchies have been disestablished. . . . Democracy inheres not only in procedural mechanisms like universal suffrage but in cultural modes like dress, language, manners, and behavior. Political egalitarianism must be nourished by cultural egalitarianism.[3]

Democratic advocate Randy Fullerton Sardis, an admirer of Balkin, elaborates:

Democratic culture is about individual liberty as well as collective self-governance; it concerns each individual's ability to participate in the production and distribution of culture. Removing the political, economical, and cultural elitists from their thrones and allowing everyone a chance to participate in the production of culture, sounds like a wonderful idea in my opinion.[4]

Culture, in its broadest meaning, refers to all those artifacts which can be produced by individuals in one generation and bequeathed to later generations. Democratic culture is the set of cultural elements produced by members of the democratic movement as part of their effort to create democracy.

EXAMPLES. Examples of democratic culture include: magazine articles calling for "net neutrality"; rap music lyrics berating the "elite"; Harvard philosophy professor John Rawls's book Theory of Justice (1971); a progressive income tax used to fund redistribution of income from the most productive to the least productive; "stakeholder" organizations who try, in corporate stockholders' meetings, to influence business policies and products to benefit "the people"; tax-funded "public" libraries that give everyone equal access to information; and support for folk art or the "everyday art" of "the people."

PHILOSOPHICAL ROOTS. Certain institutions are also examples of democratic culture. An institution is an organization designed to continue operating even after the resignation, retirement, or death of the founding members. For instance, consider one particular institution, The Center for Democratic Culture, which is housed in the Sociology Department of the University of Nevada. Its CDC Mission Statement reveals the institution's underlying philosophy:

The Center for Democratic Culture ... derives its philosophy from American pragmatism, which regards democracy as an ongoing experiment in collective living and institution building. Democracy, according to [philosopher of Pragmatism] John Dewey [1859-1952], begins at home in a neighborly community, and is first and foremost a quality of experience.[5]

"Quality of experience" is a euphemism for life in an all-encompassing culture and society of egalitarian collectivism. And that is what democratic culture is: the culture of egalitarian collectivism.

Next post in this series: "What does 'sacred' mean?"

Burgess Laughlin, author, The Power and the Glory:The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith

[1] For a brief explanation of the principle of cultural detection: Leonard Peikoff, Ominous Parallels, hardcover, pp. 143-144, the first one and a half pages of Ch. 7. [2] For the nature of a movement: "What is a movement?," July 5, 2008, on Making Progress, at aristotleadventure.blogspot.com/2008/07/what-is-movement.html. For an objective definition of political "democracy," as a dictatorship by the majority of a society, see: aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/democracy.html. [3] Jack M. Balkin, "The Declaration and the Promise of a Democratic Culture," 1999, pp. 6-7 of my printout, www.yale.edu/lawweb/jbalkin/articles/declar1.htm. (Caution: The text duplicates some paragraphs.) [4] Randy Fullerton Sardis, "What is a Democratic Culture?," Feb. 3, 2009, p. 3 of my printout, on the weblog at atuuschaaw.blogspot.com/2009/02/what-is-democratic-culture.html. [5] For the CDC's mission: www.unlv.edu/centers/cdclv/mission/index2.html under Mission/Statement in the upper left corner.

Best approach to disputes in a movement?

If I had another lifetime to live, I would like to study social movements -- for example, how they form, how they expand without losing their original purpose, and how individuals respond to the inevitable disputes among members. Intriguing movements of the past were the anti-slavery movement in the 1700-1800s, the movement to break down trade barriers in the 1800s, the movement to abolish the draft in the 1960-1970s, and the movement to abolish prohibitions against abortion, also in the 1960-1970s.

I have been a student of Objectivism and a member of the Objectivist movement for almost fifty years. I have seen conflicts arise and fade away. I am learning that there is a proper procedure for outside individuals -- those who are not directly involved -- to approach these conflicts. Part of that procedure consists of asking and answering these questions:

(1) Does the dispute deserve my attention, that is, is there justification for taking time away from pursuing my highest personal values -- my central purpose in life, my friendships, and my favorite and much needed recreational activities?

(2) Exactly what is the conflict? Is it philosophical, personal, something else, or a combination?

(3) Exactly what is the issue in dispute? If there are several issues, in what order should I resolve them?

(4) Is all the evidence available that I need in order to make a decision about which side, if any, to support? Have I waited long enough -- usually months or even years -- for all the relevant facts to emerge? Do I have the facts straight about who did what? Are my sources -- primary and secondary -- reliable?

(5) Do I need to make a decision now or at any time? If so, why?

(6) If I do decide to investigate a dispute and if I uncover enough information to form a judgment, should I take a stand (which entails time and effort to formulate, present and defend), either in private or in public?

The main lesson I have learned is to wait until I can answer such questions with confidence. A secondary lesson is that Objectivism (which is a fixed set of ideas) remains unchanged no matter what happens between individuals in the Objectivist movement.

What other approach would you suggest?

Burgess Laughlin
Author, The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith

A Study Group for Intellectual Activists

Would you like to improve the world in which you live? The four-week "Cultural Movements: Creating Change" study group (CMCCSG) might be the right place for you to start. Within a few weeks, the CMCCSG will begin in SGO at: http://www.studygroupsforobjectivists.com/

Every SGO study group is focused on a particular text, but as an experiment the "text" here consists of videos of the three lectures Yaron Brook and Onkar Ghate presented at the 2008 Objectivist Conference (OCON).

The CMCC lectures examine three 20th Century movements that were at least partly successful: free-market economics, environmentalism, and religious fundamentalism. (For the nature of a "movement," see the July 5 and July 14, 2008 posts.) The two speakers then draw from what they learned about those movements to suggest techniques for the Objectivist movement.

CMCCSG is a very short-term study group for anyone who wants to improve our world in the decades ahead. For long-term students of history, an added benefit of studying these lectures is seeing the value of applying lessons from history.

To join this study group, (1) register as a member of SGO, and (2) click on the home page link ("All") for the "Cultural Movements: Creating Change" study group. That link will take you to the "Details" page, which describes the study group and allows you to participate. 

Burgess Laughlin
Author, The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith

In-line vs. off-line activism

[For this post, I assume my readers have studied Ayn Rand's most important philosophical work, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, especially Chs. 1-5.]

As a preliminary step toward clarifying the differences between in-line and off-line activism, consider five imaginary examples of intellectual activists--individuals taking action in society to disseminate philosophical principles as they apply to current social or political issues.

(1) A physicist, Dr. A, works for a nuclear power-plant management company. He works 8 am to 5 pm, five days per week. In his spare time, in the evenings and on weekends, he writes a long article for a popular magazine. In the article, Dr. A argues for liberation of the nuclear-power industry. In support of his theme, he offers ethical principles (e.g., the moral right to property), political principles (the only function of a proper government is protecting rights from aggression and fraud), and technical knowledge (nuclear power does not cause neighbors to glow in the dark). Dr. A also occasionally meets informally with investors, power-plant managers, and others to convey to them his philosophical and technical views. He hopes to give them the information they need to clamor for liberating the nuclear-power industry. Dr. A is a scientist, not a professional intellectual, that is, his central purpose in life is not in the area of the humanities.[1] Besides being a scientist, he is also an in-line intellectual activist.

He is an activist because he is taking action in society to improve his world. He is an intellectual activist because he is applying philosophical principles to the culture in which he lives. (He is, in some measure perhaps, also a political activist if he takes steps to change his government in particular ways.) He is acting in-line because he is disseminating information that he has gained, directly or indirectly, through his efforts to achieve his central purpose in life, which is, in his particular case, "to facilitate the production of energy through nuclear power," or some similar statement of purpose.

(2) A second physicist, Dr. B, has essentially the same central purpose in life but is now retired from working for an income. She writes a series of articles, pamphlets, weblog posts, and books--some written to the general public and some to her scientific peers--calling for the deregulation of the nuclear-power industry. Capitalizing on the many contacts she made while working, she also occasionally meets with investors, power plant managers, and others to convey her philosophical and technical views, in hopes of giving these powerful individuals the ethical, political, and technical "ammunition" they need to fight for liberating the nuclear-power industry. She too is an in-line intellectual activist. Dr. B differs from Dr. A in that she can work full-time at her activism.

(3) A third physicist, Dr. C, has essentially the same central purpose in life as Drs. A and B, and he works for a nuclear power-plant management company 8 to 5, five days per week. In his spare time on one weekend, Dr. C writes a letter to the editor of the local, small-town newspaper. The subject of the letter is a protest against the local police department wasting time arresting prostitutes and heroin addicts in the town. Dr. C writes the letter in favor or abolishing victimeless-crime laws. He uses moral arguments (e.g., the right to liberty), political arguments (e.g., the proper function of government), and financial arguments (half the police budget goes for victimless crimes, while rapists and robbers run free). In this project, Dr. C is an off-line intellectual/political activist.

(4) Dr. D is a professional historian. Her particular central purpose in life is to "promote understanding of our past." She is a professional intellectual.[2] So far, her career has consisted mostly of publishing her own historical research and teaching in academia. She chooses to spend some of her weekends and evenings preparing philosophical arguments (e.g., about the nature of objectivity) and other arguments to persuade local public school board members to adopt more objective history texts for middle-school students. Dr. D is, in this respect, an in-line intellectual and political activist. If, instead, she chooses to devote some of her evenings and weekends to working with a local, ad hoc group trying to stop a proposed sales tax, then she is, in that respect, an off-line intellectual activist.

(5) Mr. E is a carpenter. His central purpose in life is to use wood--which he loves in all its many forms--for making things that improve life, such as houses, boats, conference tables, and model planes for the children of his friends. He is not a member of a carpenter's union, so he works only on nonunion jobs. On the side, he likes reading about and discussing basic philosophy. He has also invested some time into reading the laws of his city and state as they apply to unions. When he works as a carpenter, he works long hours. Between jobs he writes letters to the editors of newspapers and of magazines for carpenters. In these letters, Mr. E cites fundamental principles, stated in his own words, as support for a free market in labor. In particular, he opposes restrictions on immigration and laws that regulate relations between corporate management and laborers, particularly in the construction business. Mr. E is an in-line intellectual activist.

The preceding five examples illustrate this point: The defining characteristic of an in-line activist is the special relationship between his work (physics, history, or carpentry) and his intellectual activism: The two areas have the same general subject matter, at least in part. An in-line activist is an intellectual/political activist in his field, which is the field of his beloved central purpose in life.

An off-line activist, by contrast, is active in a field outside the field of his central purpose in life. Whether the off-line activist spends only a few minutes or 60 hours per week at his activism is not an issue here. What makes him off-line is the fact that the subject matter of his activism is outside ("off") the field of his beloved central purpose in life.

NONDEFINING CHARACTERISTICS. In defining ideas, the thinker should set aside nonessential characteristics. Examples of nonessential characteristics for in-line activism are: the amount of time the activist invests in his activism; whether the activist is a professional intellectual; whether or to what degree the activist needs to increase his communication skills; and how much (if any) research the activist needs to do for particular activist projects.

(1) In-line activism can be a full-time activity, as in the case of a retired person who maintains the same central purpose in life but perhaps in a different form, one not requiring that he work a regular job. Or in-line activism can be part-time. Likewise, off-line activism can be either full-time or part-time. How much time an activist spends on his activist projects is not an essential (causal, explanatory) characteristic. As in the formation of concepts generally, measurements are omitted in the formation of the idea of in-line activism.

(2) One need not be a professional intellectual in order to engage in intellectual activism, either in-line or off-line, just as one need not be a professional politician in order to engage in political activism, and one need not be a professional scientist in order to advocate that schools teach the scientific method. In the Objectivist movement, as Ayn Rand explains, the "New Intellectuals" are "those who will take the initiative and the responsibility [for applying Objectivism to life]: they will check their own philosophical premises, identify their convictions, integrate their ideas into coherence and consistency, then offer to the country a view of existence to which the wise and honest can repair."[3] The New Intellectuals of the Objectivist movement need not be professional intellectuals.[4]

(3) A need to improve one's skills in objective communication is common to both in-line activists and off-line activists--and even individuals who are not activists at all but who want to succeed in the advanced levels of their careers.[5] So the need to improve one's communication skills is not a characteristic that distinguishes in-line from off-line activists.

(4) Both types of activist may need to do additional research for some of their activist projects, but not for other projects (e.g., those projects that involve only a quick statement of position, backed up by a very simple argument). A need for research and a potential need to substantiate all assertions with citations are not distinguishing characteristics of either in-line or off-line activism.

SUMMARY. In understanding the idea of in-line (versus off-line) activism, it is very important not to define the idea by any characteristic other than the relationship between the activist's field of beloved work and the subject matter of his intellectual/political activism. The amount of time invested in an activity, one's professional status, one's skill in communication, and the amount of research required are all inessential and therefore nondefining characteristics of either form of activism.

The essential defining characteristic of in-line activism is the positive relationship of the activist's area of activism to the field of his central purpose in life. In-line activism means intellectual (or political) activism that is "in-line" with--drawn from, congruent with--the work he has done to fulfill his central purpose in life.

Burgess Laughlin
Author, The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith

[1] For central purpose in life: posts for May 20 and June 5, 2008. [2] For "professional intellectual," see: Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual, p. 25 (hardback) or 27 (paperback); or see "Intellectuals," The Ayn Rand Lexicon, first excerpt. [3] For a description of the New Intellectuals of the Objectivist movement: Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, p. 59 (hardback). [4] For the nature of a movement, see the July 5, 2008 post. [5] For a series of lectures and practical exercises (performed by audience members) on objective communication, suitable for anyone who communicates as the core of his work, but especially for the New Intellectuals: Leonard Peikoff, "Objective Communication," an audio recording of a long series of lectures, available from The Ayn Rand Bookstore.

Quality control in movements?

Within a few years I hope to look at one or more movements that have contributed to Western Civilization. (For the nature of a movement, see the July 5, 2008 post.) Examples in the USA are movements to abolish slavery; secure property rights for women; spread the theory of evolution; abolish alcohol Prohibition; and repeal "Jim Crow" laws. Following are preliminary notes for this project; the notes are mostly questions at this beginning stage.

WHAT IS QC? In the electronics industry, from which I retired twenty years ago, quality control is the active, purposeful, and organized effort to make sure that a company's products and services meet the company's standards--and the customer's expectations. The main positive motives for QC are pride in the products and higher profits; negative motives include reducing complaints from customers and the expense of handling returned products.

QC IN A MOVEMENT? What would be QC in a movement, that is, in an effort--especially through advocacy--by various individuals to improve their society in a certain way? Consider the individuals in the movement as individuals acting on their own. (Organizations within a movement can set rules for quality of their own membership and quality of their own product.) QC would consist of individuals examining, not only their own products (lectures, essays, and conversations), but also the products of other individuals in the movement, and then taking action to remove or improve poor quality products. In a free or semi-free society, the control in QC would be peaceful and honest.

MOTIVATIONS? Why examine the products of other individuals in a movement? One example of a member of a movement who might deserve scrutiny is an individual who is influential but is spreading a mixed or erroneous message (an "abolitionist" who wants merely to improve the living conditions of slaves), thereby undercutting the work of other individuals who have perfected their understanding of the issues involved. A second example is an individual who is advocating the correct position of the movement but whose personal behavior is an embarrassment--for instance, destructively poor grammar, foul language, or public displays of mental illness--that might reduce the movement's chances of succeeding.

TECHNIQUES FOR "CONTROLLING" QUALITY? Are such aberrant individuals actually a problem, that is, do they actually threaten the success of an objective movement, one whose goals are drawn logically from facts of reality? If they are, have past movements identified such individuals as a threat? If they have, how have concerned members of those movements handled such problems? Based only on brief personal experience and observation of contemporary movements, I would expect to find, in historical movements, a range of tools being used by some members of a movement to improve the quality of the movement overall. Possible QC tools for individuals who are trying to minimize the effect of counter-productive members of a movement might include the following.

1. Shunning is disassociation. On a personal, face-to-face level, an example of shunning is refusing to speak to a certain person at a party or even refusing to attend the party. Blacklisting, a tool of shunning, is compiling a list, written or not, of individuals to avoid for any kind of formal association such as hiring them or accepting them as members of organizations. Boycotting, a special type of shunning, is specifically economic, neither selling to certain individuals nor buying from them.

2. Criticism is an alternative to shunning. Criticism is pointing out defects either in the person or in his products and then offering a superior alternative. Criticism may be either public or private.

3. Pre-emption is a second major alternative to shunning as a dominant strategy. Pre-emption can take several forms. In one form, a member of a movement may tell his general, non-movement audience that the individuals in the movement agree on the one goal that they all seek, but that otherwise they are as diverse as individuals in the remainder of society, so do not be surprised if you meet a wide variety of individuals bearing the same message. In a second form of pre-empting, a member of a movement might steer listeners who are outside the movement to the best sources of information about the movement's goals. This "positive" approach publicizes superior sources and thus indirectly draws attention from inferior sources of information about the movement's goals. In a third form of pre-empting, a member of a movement might single out particular false representatives of the movement and tell his audience why those individuals are false representatives as a contrast to the true representatives.

In summary, when I research particular movements, I will be looking for evidence, if any, that, outside of organizations, at least some members of each movement considered quality control to be important enough to take action. If they did take action to ensure quality, my next step will be to see what techniques they used. Last, I will try to assess the effectiveness of such efforts.

Burgess Laughlin
Author, The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith

What is a movement?

In the late 1100s in Paris, various educators were inspired by a new idea, the unity of knowledge: A fully educated man is not only an accomplished specialist in a particular career (the lucrative arts of Law, Medicine, and Theology), but he also has fundamental knowledge applicable to everyone's life (the liberal arts). This idea of the unity of knowledge became an ideal--that is, a goal worthy of action, including advocacy to others.[1]

Individually each Parisian educator, in his own manner, was taking steps toward ensuring that his students benefited from this new approach to education, and he was advocating that others do likewise. Considered together, these educators were a movement, that is, they were individuals taking action (including advocacy) toward a common goal of changing certain conditions in which they lived. By contrast, if one thousand people separately and coincidentally decide to paint their houses white, out of personal preference, they would not be a movement. To create a movement for painting houses white, the individuals would need to be motivated by a desire to change their society or culture, and they would need to advocate that idea to others.

The individuals in a movement need not know each other personally or even be aware of each other as individuals. A "movement" is thus a mental grouping of physically dispersed, socially unconnected individuals. Often, however, in a particular society when individuals realize they can achieve a common goal faster through cooperation, these individuals form actual groups, that is, sets of individuals who interact with each other in one way or another for a common purpose. Groups within a movement can take various forms.

In a network, Mr. Adams knows Ms. Beaumont, who knows Mr. Carter, who knows Mr. Daniels; but Mr. Daniels need not know Mr. Adams or Ms. Beaumont. A modern example is a network of neighbors who want to reduce crime in their neighborhood by watching out for each other. In an ad-hoc organization, individuals structure their relationship to achieve a particular, but short-term goal. An example would be a group of individuals who select a chairman and a treasurer for a political campaign to support a mayoral candidate who will fight to reduce crime. When the election is over, the group disbands. In an institution, which is a second kind of organization, individuals structure their relationships to achieve a goal that might require an effort longer than the lives of the founders. An example would be a group of individuals who want to make their neighborhood safe for themselves, their children, and their grandchildren, so they form The Institute for Safety in the Southside.

In Paris in the late 1100s, the advocates of unity of knowledge in education were a successful movement. They networked in the city that was the hub of the kingdom of France. They formed particular organizations to express their views. They eventually founded an institution: a guild of all members of the faculties of liberal arts, theology, law, and medicine. This guild fought for its members' goals. The Latin word for guild was universitas. The institution they created was the University of Paris, the world's first university, a unique invention of Western Civilization, the civilization whose foundation is a philosophy of reason.

In the United States, in our own time, an example of a movement is the conservative legal movement, a group of conservatives who want to see conservative views of the law presented in the top universities, in competition with leftist views of the law. The conservatives have rapidly achieved partial success.[2]

In conclusion I would say that a movement, as a group of individuals in a certain time and place, has two essential, defining characteristics: (1) a common goal of changing social conditions through (2) advocacy and other individual actions.

Burgess Laughlin
Author, The Power and the Glory: The Key Ideas and Crusading Lives of Eight Debaters of Reason vs. Faith

[1] See Stephen C. Ferruolo, The Origins of the University: The Schools of Paris and Their Critics, 1100-1215, Stanford University Press, 1985, especially the Introduction. [2] See Larry Salzman's book review of Steven M. Teles, The Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement: The Battle for Control of the Law, in the Summer 2008 issue of The Objective Standard (http://www.theobjectivestandard.com).