Comment pouvez-vous répondre de manière constructive à l’opposition aux mouvements sociaux ?

I don't like this question. Opposition to social movements is a given and it is the rare social movement that has majority support for the majority of its existence. The focus of the social movement should be on its constituents, not its opponents. The purpose of social movements is to change the status of the people participating and to help them wield power so they can change the rules that govern their lives. A movement should understand it's opposition because that will help its participants make strategic decisions. But the movement itself should focus on its supporters and on providing the impetus for changing the narrative of what's possible. When that happens, the movement creates the conditions to neutralize the opposition.

Understanding the power your opposition holds - their political, social, capital, capacity etc. First thing in organizing is don't pick a fight you can't win. And winning means you will have built up more people power and resources to sustain the fight. A good power analysis and action analysis is always necessary. Try to understand the networks the opposition holds, their resources and map out why they do what they do.

One thing I have found helpful is to start with an understanding that at the end of the day, and at the end of our lives we are all human. Start with what you have in common and what you share regardless of which "side" you are on.

Often times, people are willing to change their position or opinion on a matter. On the contrast, people rarely, if ever, change their values. They may heighten or diminish the important of varying values, depending on the situation. But most are unlikely to change them entirely. In addition, values are far more worth defending than opinions of the moment. Therefore, it’s important to understand what is most important to a person, in order to effectuate change. Bonus tip: if you can find a way to help them save face, while they change their position, but find alliance to a value they hold- you’re in a strong place to make change.

I agree and ++ To Nathan Henderson-James. Take Occupy Wall Street or Black Lives Matter or any large movement and it did not start out listening to the opposition, it started out building a core base of people who took deep action and eventually came, as movements, to grow majority public opinion and global actions.

It’s usually more effective to spend more time with someone who is only somewhat opposed than to spend any time with someone fully dedicated to their opposition. Remember most people will only become more entrenched in their own beliefs when confronted. Spend the majority of your time looking for folks that are actually open to the conversation and open to changing their opinions.

I agree and would further add that when ignoring, avoiding and bypassing it is imperative to understand the shifting dynamics as time changes situations. So be open to midcourse correction.

In my opinion, sometimes there isn't a choice. When our own human rights are under threat the luxury of "choosing your battles" might not exist - we might have to fight, fight and fight. However, in my experience we can find allies in every battle. This might not be the case for every social cause. However for some causes, like LGBTQI rights, there will be allies within Governments, religious groups, political parties etc. For every battle the goal becomes "finding and leveraging your allies", and that might be a luxury.

En fait je ne suis pas d'accord avec le fait que toutes oppositions ne valent pas d'être prise en compte, sinon elle ne sera pas défini ainsi. Il faut juste trouver la meilleure approche, le meilleur interlocuteur si nous nous sentons incapable et surtout ne pas laisser prospérer ce problème qui pour l'instant serais "pas prioritaires ou pas nécessaire" être surcotée et donc demandera plus d'efforts

Decide whether or not addressing opposition is 1) an effective use of your time and resources that doesn't detract from your real goals in the movement and 2) a move that brings about a productive end--whether that clearly up misinformation or convincing people of a different, more enlightened or informed, perspective. You don't *owe* a conversation to anyone--especially people or groups that are derogatory or harmful (physically or otherwise) to the people you represent or to the effectiveness of your movement message.

I second all of those tactics. I would also add silent diplomacy. Sometimes it is possible to engage in fruitful dialogues with "the opposition" if they are not confrontational/in the media. This does require a high level of trust and honesty from both sides. I love this strategy because it builds connections, understanding, space for reflection (and not reaction) and bridges from a place of safety. However, it is a long term game and it might not work for everyone.

The most powerful technology on the planet is - good STORYTELLING. Invest the time and effort to craft a compelling narrative and leverage aesthetics to elevate your message.

Generally, you address the opposition with the way they address you (e.g. fighting misinformation with information). Other times you might need to consider the impact of the opposition not just their approach and address both. For example, if a misinformation campaign has spurred protest, then you have to address both.

One has to diversify their approaches and plans. A one-size fits all strategy will not work and does not address diversity. It is through this, that we are able to show our true intention and eagerness to provide and be of service.

Tactics take time. Require momentum. And must anticipate Newton’s Law that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Don’t wait for it, anticipate it and govern yourself and your team accordingly.

One way for me to stay focused is by asking myself this question: "how is this action/campaign/project/meeting going to benefit the target group?" If I cannot answer that question, it means that I need to re-focus. Staying positive despite the backlashes and challenges can be hard. For me it is work in progress. What helps is having a team culture that promotes and celebrates successes. As individuals we might not feel that we win enough, but as a team that feeling gets better.

Positivity is not necessary. Efficacy and perhaps some level of morality are more than sufficient to address movement opposition.

Love works. Love yourself. Your people. All who need relief from harm and love justice. Love the world you know is possible when our best selves are free to be who we are. Laugh whenever you can and there is joy even in moments of sadness. Always look for it!

Learn from absolutely everything! Because all growth involves learning. Make the change map as concrete as possible and always allow everyone to be one of your teachers. Don’t assume. Always seek to know more.

We can learn a lot from our opposition: how they are structured, funded, and there is even more learning from their own "wins". Staying humble might help us recognise what the opposition does better than us, and up our game as a result.

I agree that opposition can be fertile ground for learning and growth if the parties are SEEKING growth and learning which is often not the case in movement work (as solely being concerned with the intellectual aspect of something is often a privilege reserved for academics). The stakes for movement workers are often higher than whether or not everybody "learned and grew" from it as a thought exercise. The stakes often involve people's lives and livelihoods.

In the face of opposition, social movements can pick out concrete lessons that can assist in achieving set goals. While the opposition may be negative, it is essential to take out possible areas of improvement from the noise. The criticisms can serve as a platform to evaluate work done while seeing new areas of execution.

The ancients believed we lived in "a talkative universe" with signs and guidance available to all. Take the time to listen to how "the world" responds to your campaigns and actions. Wisdom can be found in feedback, good or bad. Embrace the process of refinement.

Consider the force of grieving to counter the politics of grievance. Explore the emotional response in the resistance and offer spaces and strategies that support healthy grieving.

Addressing opposition to social movements, which are collective efforts to create positive & lasting change in society, involves, first, understanding the concerns & perspectives of those who oppose them & engaging in open dialogue. Often, opposition to social movements stems from misunderstandings or misinformation. So, it's important to provide accurate information & educate others about the goals & principles of the movement to address misconceptions. Creating space for constructive conversations helps bridge gaps & foster understanding. Also, finding common ground between the social movement & the opposition can help build bridges & create opportunities for collaboration. Changing hearts & minds takes time, so be patient & persist.

Do not confuse tactics with strategic. Tactics are means, not ends. It is essential to clearly & repeatedly express the what and why behind your work for yourself, your community, and the media. It has to be clear, compelling, repeatable & resonant. Tactics are just the “how.” To have strategy, you have to have clear, shared purpose. Investing time and energy into an action without deciding how success would advance purpose is a recipe for disappointment. When you know your what & why, it’s much easier to move effectively, so all of the pieces line up to advance your ultimate purpose. Ask: What is the purpose behind X action? How does that connect to our larger goals? Why do we believe that? How will we know we were successful?

Your opponents are by definition not your audience. You may be able to move the middle to your point of view but with the opposition your goal may be to only try to move them from active opposition to passive disagreement.

We don't need to change everyone's mind. There are the detrators, the changemakers, and those "neutral". Sometimes, it is worth focusing on neutralizing people instead of dealing with an aggressive opposition. If your "enemy" or opposite is under another cosmology, under another perception of the world, it will be a hardship to change their mind. So, could you focus on neutralizing those who are against you? Doing that can strengthen those with you, even if they are not the majority.