This post is a challenge to all those who continue to insist – in the face of evidence, and with seeming great annoyance at me even broaching the subject – that a ‘big tent’ mentality will allow those individuals believing their selves to be working for the objectives of a social movement to bring about ‘freedom’, champion ‘truth’ or oppose ‘war’.
To be clear what I mean about a ‘big tent’ mentality, I will boil it down to a single, simple, understandable definition: working with, or otherwise supporting, other individuals – with whom one has clearly identifiable differences of principle. I will not include in the definition the reasons for adopting the mentality, since there do seem to be various motives involved, and I think it would be incredibly helpful if some of the people concerned chose to explain their thinking to us.
For now, I will leave out my suspicions and existing analysis, and simply pose questions:
- Do you not think that an agreement on fundamental principles is not the most basic prerequisite to any collaboration? Should it not be the main reason for you to work with them in the first place? I get that you may be ‘joining forces’ because you feel you both share the same objective, but do you not think that joining with those who have a common methodology and a common approach is more likely to help you bring about that end goal than working with those on whom you disagree with on a deep level?
- What happens when that objective is reached? Let’s just imagine that the disagreements have not caused sufficient friction along the way to fracture your ‘movement’ and break down your operation. Now that you have both got what you want, do you not think that those principles will lead to completely different prescriptions as to what ought to happen next?
- Is it better to uphold truth and principles, and fail to spread one’s message, or to be ‘practical’ and make compromises for the sake of imagined gains? Are you happy selling out 5% of your principles for the sake of ‘small victories’? Does compromise not mean that you are actually just accepting the arguments of those with whom you differ? Do you not think this will come back to haunt you (see Qn. 2) ?
- If your answers to all of the above questions have been to defend the ‘big tent’ mentality, then why do you bother pretending this is a moral battle at all? If you’re more concerned with results than maintaining a methodological approach that values integrity above popularity, why not pursue any means possible to bring about your end state?
- What would you ask of someone, such as myself, who explicity rejects the ‘big tent’ mentality? What is there about our stance that you do not understand fully?
I hope your answers enlighten us all.