genetiX snowball (gXs) is experimenting with methods which are relatively new to the ecological movement. We are being very cautious and reflective since we do not know whether they are really appropriate; but given the track record of these methods in the peace movement, we thought it is well worth a try.
If we are to progress our ecological movement with a keen radical edge we will need to be adventurous and creative in trying out different methods, strategies and tactics — and we will need to foster a culture in which we encourage and support each other in our efforts. Our critics say that gXs is detrimental to the radical ecological movement — if gXs is condemned before it has even had the chance to try out its newly fledged wings, who will dare to try out new ways to fly in the future?
We acknowledge that we tread a very fine line in terms of getting the crops out of the ground in the best possible way and we are treading carefully. Radical change, unfortunately, lies exactly on that very fine line. There is a tension between pushing the boundaries of openness as far as we can and still managing to pull up the GM crops. We encourage people to be flexible and adaptable, to stay in touch with what has been possible so far, but to make their own decision (within the criteria of our ground-rules) about how open to be in advance of the action.
When we explain our removal of GM crops to the company, we also confront them with the consequences of their actions. We also explain our actions to anyone else who wants to know about it since they could be affected by the GM crops and we want them to understand our campaign; this includes the police if they are present. We explain the danger that the police may pass on addresses to the company, who may serve an injunction; it is up to each snowballer to decide what to do about this.
One difference in views between gXs and our critics seems to centre around what constitutes "effective". We can probably agree that getting GM crops literally out of the ground is a good degree of effectiveness; but the constancy of that effectiveness surely depends on keeping the crops out of the ground; and that depends on how much the issue is raised in the public eye and generates some good public debate. If we manage to involve many people in literally getting the crops out of the ground then we will have achieved both kinds of effectiveness in a participatory and democratic way. "A very high turn- over" of people taking action is essential since we cannot achieve our aims alone. We need people to help us and we want to create a culture of mutual aid. We will all need to participate if change is to be either radical or long lasting.
We ask people to accept the consequences of their actions because, paradoxically, our power lies in our preparedness to be vulnerable in the face of danger. It is true that people may be put off because of the risks; but still we maintain that there can be no revolution without people taking risks. "Where there’s fear, there’s power" — we become immensely powerful when we are prepared to move through our fears in reaching for our visions.
But again, we tread a fine line. If the state comes down too heavily, stopping us from taking action or mashing us, then we have good reason to adapt our methods accordingly. They will have forced us to be less open through their own repressive measures and have only themselves to blame for it. Until then — and let’s hope that day doesn’t come — we can continue to pressure them to be more open and accountable by our own example.
I agree with Anonymous Bob [see p13] that arguing a case in court legitimises the legal system; and certainly some successful civil disobedience campaigns (eg The Welsh Language Society) have chosen not to participate. However, there are some advantages to participating in the legal arena: it is arguably an easier route to take if you are new to nonviolent action since it may keep you out of prison; it is also an effective way of letting the public know about our actions. Although we provide information for navigating the legal system, going to court is not in our ground-rules.
Whilst we do not agree with legitimising the state, neither do we want to demonise the companies involved with GE. Seeing the companies as The Enemy only underlines their power and feeds the myth that the enemy is something entirely external and separate from ourselves. It also suggests that companies such as Monsanto, Novartis, Zeneca — all transnational giants — can be easily identified and pinned down. Corporate networks are extremely complex and opaque so that tracking their accountability is extremely difficult. We aim to expose and challenge the bad practices of the companies but we will also need to reach the real people with beating hearts, as opposed to faceless corporations, who are implicated either actively or passively by allowing it to happen.
The argument that involvement of new people will not go any wider into the ecological direct action movement or that gXs is appealing only to the liberal middle classes does not carry much weight in the light of the condition of the ecological movement. The fact is that our movement is small and young; it lacks diversity and although women are present so are patriarchal values; we have much to learn from other radical movements both historically and geographically. On the other hand, it is true that the ploughshares tradition (which has inspired gXs) has largely failed to counter "the spectacle of the few committed activists being cheered on by their totally passive supporters". gXs attempts to counter this tendency, attempting (somewhat unsuccessfully) to lower the risk in the interests of encouraging greater involvement and support from a diversity of people.
There is a very clear distinction between taking power (direct action) and giving power away (lobbying). We do fly a little close to the wind when we suggest that people write letters, but only alongside — not instead of — nonviolent direct action. Also, our aims in this respect are to open up dialogue, which isn’t exactly giving power away, more like sharing it out by opening up the debate. Co-option of our campaign by the state is a possible hazard to be wary of but certainly so far the indications show that it is highly unlikely: Monsanto’s injunctions after the first action are hardly a strategy for co-option!
One of our concerns before launching gXs was that we would get the same kind of "eco-terrorist" publicity as covert actions. Surprisingly this has not been the case: the press has mistakenly described most actions as open and reports have otherwise improved, becoming more accurate and representative. Far from dividing us, thankfully this seems quite helpful in creating a united movement.
Possibly we have created excessively tight boundaries around our campaign, this being a reflection of our caution in taking our first tentative steps along that fine line of radical change. Paradoxically, it seems that our tight boundaries have made our methods more accessible to other activists who, disagreeing with certain aspects of our campaign, are now experimenting with various degrees of openness and different shades of accountability in other actions. If this is the case, it is a very good spin-off which hopefully will contribute richly to the debate about methods and where we should draw our boundaries. gXs is one possible way forward for the ecological movement; hopefully others will build on any progress we make.
This site is hosted on the Free Range Activism Website