Changing dominant institutions
Changing dominant institutions
The Ayni Institute framework of “movement ecology” says that there are multiple ways to approach social change.
Any organization is based on (usually, one) theory of change, and successful movements include many organizations with differing theories of change working together in synergy.
One of the 3 major approaches to change is “changing dominant institutions.”
“Those who hold this theory of change believe that by reforming dominant institutions -- such as governments and corporations -- they can change life more significantly and for more people than by other means. Structure-based organizers and mass protest activists, alongside policy advocates, lobbyists, and lawyers focused on impact litigation, all subscribe to this theory of change.” -Momentum participant guide
Mass protest vs. structure-based organizing
The field of dominant institutional reform contains multiple approaches within itself. The following information about those approaches is adapted from the Momentum training participant guide:
Two major and distinct paradigms that have organically evolved, cooperated, and clashed throughout struggles for social justice are structure-based organizing and mass protest.
Connected to the traditions of labor unions, Ella Baker, and Alinskyite community organizing,structure-based organizing (or ‘structure’) builds power and resources through long-term organization, develops leadership through 1-on-1 relationships and committee building, and believes that campaigns are won primarily through leverage over primary and secondary targets. Leverage is gained through bringing people together who share common self-interest and using that collective power to build pressure towards a certain demand.
Conversely, the various ‘moments of the whirlwind’ that have emerged (most recently with Arab Spring, Occupy, Black Lives Matter) are best understood through the paradigm of mass protest, in which organizations or movements build power by using a series of repeated, nonviolent, and escalating scenarios to create political crises that gradually generate a majority ofactive popular support for national reform or revolution.
Over the last century, various leaders have noted the emergence of these two major traditions within the field of dominant institutional reform and called them by different names:
We understand “organizing traditions” to be formal and informal methodologies of organizing people, passed on by lineages of leaders and communicated in key texts. These practical traditions exist within broader paradigms of social change that answer questions such as: How do we build power? How do we develop leadership? How do we generate organizational resources? How do we win?
This chart outlines some of the key differences between the 2 traditions we are calling structure and mass protest:
| Elements | Structure | Mass Protest |
|---|---|---|
| Trainers | Midwest Academy, New Organizing Institute, Wellstone Action | CANVAS, Training for Change, War Resisters League, Einstein Institute |
| Thinkers | Saul Alinsky, Ella Baker, A. Philip Randolph, Marshall Ganz | Gene Sharp, Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., James Lawson, Frances Fox Piven |
| Theory of Change | Build leverage over primary & secondary targets to win concrete institutional change | Build critical mass of active public support for reform or revolution by staging escalating, nonviolent events that dramatize a moral choice and invite people to choose a side and get involved |
| Campaign Demands | Instrumental: concrete improvement in people’s lives | Symbolic: builds public support for larger changes (changes the political weather) |
| Campaign Goals | Win specific concessions & incremental reforms; build organizational power | Build public support for transformational societal change through symbolic victories |
| Tactics | Lower risk, gradual escalation, focused on creating real leverage and using resources for leadership development | Prioritizes higher levels of escalation, nonviolence; nature of action is primarily symbolic and expressive to build movement’s profile with the public |
| Resources | Consistent, long-term fundraising from constituents, foundations, donor base, membership dues, grants, and email lists | Ad-hoc fundraising spikes during peak events; large one-time donations, church & union offerings. Volatile, rapidly rises and falls. |
| Leadership | Systematic development of leaders. Recruitment via mapping & targeting, developing indigenous leadership through 1-on-1 relationships, apprenticeship. | Recruited via actions and peak events; developed via mass trainings and actions; collective action in affinity groups. |
| Historical Examples | NAACP, labor movement and unions, Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF), ACORN, PICO | Bloody Sunday, Birmingham in 1963, Nashville Campaign, Ferguson, Occupy, SCLC, Otpor!, Seattle in 1999, Gandhi’s Salt March, Clamshell Alliance |
| Power | Organized base of constituents, organized money, connections to elected officials and long-term coalitions | Ability to continually launch mass actions with high levels of escalations; ability to generate multiple, consecutive crises via nonviolent action. |
| Mobilization | Primarily through relationships & leadership structure. | Primarily through prophetic promotion, media attention, and activation of large networks. |
From experience, we can see that these traditions are in fact two poles of a spectrum.
Momentum = a hybrid model between mass protest and structure
“I have been in many countries in this time after failure of a mass protest. It is in this time when they have the revelation. They need both protest and organization. This is when they have a breakthrough. One of the most important things my training can help give them, is that revelation – that they need a hybrid between mass protest and organization.” – Ivan Marovic
Once we are able to see the 2 dominant traditions – structure-based organizing and mass protest – we can also see the strengths and weaknesses of each. Following the lessons of the civil rights movement, the Indian independence movement, and the Colored Revolutions (the wave of social movements throughout the former Soviet Union that overthrew dictators in the 90s and early 00s), Momentum advocates for a hybrid model that integrates the best of both traditions. Momentum mixes elements of structure-based organizing with elements of mass protest to formalize a new tradition of organizing in the U.S.
Check out Overview: What is Momentum? for more on how Momentum was developed.
Inside game, outside game, & game-changing
Because the work of seeking to reform dominant institutions is so complex, there is another way to think about organizations with that theory of change.
So, let’s review – we’ve got an organization that is primarily based on a “mass protest” or “structure-based” theory of change. The theory of change is the core idea of how change is expected to happen in society.
In addition – no matter the theory of change – each organization has strategies and a set of tactics it uses to accomplish those strategies. (See glossary for more on strategies vs. tactics.)
You can describe the strategies of an organization working to change a dominant institution in 3 ways:
Inside game
Outside game
Game-changing
Playing the Inside game means working through established channels of power - for example, challenging an unjust law in the courts or trying to get someone who shares our values and will advocate for us into political office.
Playing the Outside game generally means standing outside of the typical halls of power and using our leverage as constituents, consumers, etc. to pressure politicians, corporations, and others to make a change. This particularly is relevant for electoral work - i.e., ‘we will organize to vote you out of office if you don’t get better on X issue.’
Game-changing means using massive protests and “small actions” to shift public opinion on an issue and completely change what would be in the realm of possibility to win through inside game and outside game strategies. This is essentially “changing the political weather.”
There is also more explanation and examples of inside game, outside game, and game-changing in the recently released Resistance Guide by Paul Engler and Sophie Lasoff of the Ayni Institute.
Of course, there is overlap between inside game, outside game, and game-changing work, just as some organizations may have a primary theory of change but run campaigns or dabble in activities that reflect another theory of change.
An example of the latter would be a solar company that also does lobbying work to promote renewables, i.e. an alternative institution organization that also works to reform dominant institutions on the side.