What is a reasonable outside view for the fate of social movements?
score: 26 (6 votes) ·
My method was reading the Wikipedia page and answering the following questions:
1. Was the movement succesful as a community?
- 0: nope
- 1: to some extent / ambiguous.
- 2: clearly yes.
2. Did the movement produce the change in the world which it said it wanted?
- 0: nope
- 1: not totally a failure / had some minor victories / ambiguous.
- 2: clearly yes.
3. Was it succesful at changing laws? | Was that its intent?
4. Is it fringe (0), minority (1) or mainstream (2)?
5. Bias: how sympathetic am I to this movement?
- 0: I am unsympathetic.
- 1: I am not unsympathetic
- 2: I like them a lot.
I feel that for the amount of effort I'm spending on this, I'm going to have to rely on my gut feeling at some point, and that the pareto principle thing to do is to have well defined questions.
In case I or someone else wants to develop this further, a way to improve on question 2 would be:
- a) Identify the three most important objectives the movement claims to have.
- b) For each, to what extent has it been achieved?
I excluded "Salt March" because I saw it as doublecounting "Nonviolence", and excluded "Reform movements in the United States" because it was too broad a category. I kept "Student Movements", though.
Anyways, you can find a .csv table with the results here or a Google Drive link here. I might play around with the results further, but for the moment:
Socially, the average movement does pretty well, with an average of 1.3/2, distributed as: 16% are 0s, 36% are 1s and 48% are 2s . With regards to effectiveness, the average is 0.72/2, distributed as: 44% are 0s, 40% are 1s and 16% are 2s.
on [deleted post]
Thank you for your polite reply.
This means that the tree that falls in the forest doesn't truly make a sound because there's nobody around to have the insight that it makes a sound.
Precisely! This is really unsatisfactory. However, it is still sometimes useful to think in those terms, to not distinguish between knowledge and truth, or to ignore truth and focus on knowledge. The question "How can I find a way to rethink the following insight in terms of maps and territories?" is not rethorical, and wasn't meant as a dismissal: I really do have a hard time rephrasing something like that in terms other than that the student is beginning to grok, or beginning to develop a relationship with European History in the same way that he might develop a relationship with a friend. I understand that this might be a crutch, and therefore I asked that question.
By joint-carvey ontologies I mean ontologies that carve reality at its joints. Divisions that point at something significant.
The middle half of your commentary leaves me confused, because I don't see what prompted it.