I've either done or trained at least a little for all of these roles except Builder (I do help with work days though!). My ability in any of them is limited by various factors, though, and I don't know which one I should try to specialize in. The only one I currently have community support for developing my skill in is Fighter, but I'm risking my life just by practicing martial arts due to a genetic condition, and no one in my community seems to know how to do the things that might be most helpful right now—or isn't talking about it due to the danger. I think I'd like to be a Connector and Mediator if I can find more opportunities to actually practice those roles (and if I can work through some of my triggers making the social stress overwhelming at times). I feel a lot of shame about not being on the frontlines though.
There's no shame in not being on the frontlines. The frontlines collapse if there's on one behind them, and we have nothing to offer if all we know how to do is destroy
I love when you put out your polls! I find them really fun. I consider myself a builder, but I have some fighting and connecting skills (I know that seems contradictory). The last question was interesting because I answered lack of people to connect with, but I’ve recently found a new network and started building a chapter up island with other folks. For anyone reading those comment and curious visit the link below!
Good question. I do think it’s helpful if we can be familiar with all of these roles, so that if the need arises, we can potentially play any one of these roles. Being familiar with self-defense I think is vital, in particular, because anyone can be attacked and there’s no guarantee a comrade who’s trained or considers themselves to be a fighter will be nearby to defend that person.
My main obstacle is not knowing enough people to work with though I’m making some progress in that respect. Part of that is on me for being a bit closed off, not knowing where to find like-minded people, and I think part of the reason for it is some radical circles tend to be cliquish and distrustful of outsiders because of an understandable need for security. But I think we should all make more of an effort to broaden our circles and make more connections in the real world.
I have pivoted mostly to healer, but in the sense pf emotional/psychological healer in the last years.... before I developed mostly skills in organizing, coordinating and igniting spirits for action.
We're working at creating a gifting economy in our community. I find that after 30+ years of setting up our little orchards we have more food than we can eat and so gifting to neighbors, food banks, the local youth clubs weekly free cook up is rewarding. It's quite a remote area but we do have a radical edge as there is extractive forestry corp. to battle and a large Indigenous population to ally with, in fact they lead the forestry resistance. The gifting does work, it's important to try to not think of it in a transactional way (takes time) but we do see a good return and it builds social solidarity even with people of a conservative leaning.
I suppose this fits in your "builder" category but there's also a bit of everything else blended in to varying degrees.
Being honest, this framework seems very horoscopic or cosmo personality quiz and hard to take seriously. It's fun to be like "I'm a pisces but a virgo rising and leo moon" but are there no better ways to think through people's different characteristics without bringing it back to the self? I say this as someone who's spent their entire adult life in complex, interdependent, antagonistic-to-capital social environments. If there's one thing that I've learned or would say is important about these structures, it's the opportunity, the gift of stopping seeing yourself as a discrete identity at all. And of stopping valuing self-development as an end unto itself, and any narrative that leads back to "enrich your identity" as a goal. The self, obsessive concern over the self, finding the self so so meaningful, is the tide of capital seeping into people. So I get really skeptical when there's a need to parse out "who" each person is or their roles.
I've seen it give people an out for destructive behavior when they say "well, that's just MY role, MY whole thing," whether it's being a "fighter" with an extractive orientation toward others, or being a "caretaker" who can't mind their own business and justifies it that way. I don't think it's enough to identify with a role and then add, "but of course, the purpose of this is to build a diverse ecology of interdependent, complimentary roles." Instead I just advocate skipping identity entirely and going right into, what is this complex cluster of relationships producing, how is it moving, where is it going? People organically just are different, irreducably different, I'm skeptical of focusing on it so much in "self" terms.
I guess I don't understand how you arrived at that interpretation. This isn't about identity, this is about creating real and complex collectives by finding ways we can all complement one another. It's also about recognizing the profound skills we need to self-organize, to be a revolutionary movement, and not just a social scene.
That's why I encouraged people to read about roles they *don't see themselves as playing, not the roles they do feel drawn towards. It's not identitarian, it's about understanding how we fit together and the things we all need to get better at, collectively.
In that case, and to that end, I prefer other stuff you and others have written about the collective dynamics, intentions and projects people have produced in different times and places--with the focus on shared trajectories.
You asked pretty directly for feedback on this one, and my point is that separating "roles" so cleanly that they can even be put into a poll centers the individual and invites a focus on personality.
In the cultural landscape we seemingly share, where avatars and self-presentation is everything and is everywhere, this kind of framing will end up turning your intended point into a D&D character design activity even if you don't intend that. I really think if you want to talk about or encourage collective skill development it's probably best to specifically avoid centering the individual or inviting even that level of literalism, of named roles.
My friends and I were just talking about this last night! There’s a guilt in not being part of the frontline, but every role supports each other, so we should honor all contributions to the movement.
Maybe this is one of the two you didn’t mention, but I would add Thinkers/Visionaries also, as the people who are able to put into words abstract concepts and ideals to inspire others to take action and reinvigorate the revolutionary zeal.
I've either done or trained at least a little for all of these roles except Builder (I do help with work days though!). My ability in any of them is limited by various factors, though, and I don't know which one I should try to specialize in. The only one I currently have community support for developing my skill in is Fighter, but I'm risking my life just by practicing martial arts due to a genetic condition, and no one in my community seems to know how to do the things that might be most helpful right now—or isn't talking about it due to the danger. I think I'd like to be a Connector and Mediator if I can find more opportunities to actually practice those roles (and if I can work through some of my triggers making the social stress overwhelming at times). I feel a lot of shame about not being on the frontlines though.
There's no shame in not being on the frontlines. The frontlines collapse if there's on one behind them, and we have nothing to offer if all we know how to do is destroy
I love when you put out your polls! I find them really fun. I consider myself a builder, but I have some fighting and connecting skills (I know that seems contradictory). The last question was interesting because I answered lack of people to connect with, but I’ve recently found a new network and started building a chapter up island with other folks. For anyone reading those comment and curious visit the link below!
https://anarchistnetwork.info/
Not contradictory at all!
I'm glad you're finding people, good luck strengthening those connections
Good question. I do think it’s helpful if we can be familiar with all of these roles, so that if the need arises, we can potentially play any one of these roles. Being familiar with self-defense I think is vital, in particular, because anyone can be attacked and there’s no guarantee a comrade who’s trained or considers themselves to be a fighter will be nearby to defend that person.
My main obstacle is not knowing enough people to work with though I’m making some progress in that respect. Part of that is on me for being a bit closed off, not knowing where to find like-minded people, and I think part of the reason for it is some radical circles tend to be cliquish and distrustful of outsiders because of an understandable need for security. But I think we should all make more of an effort to broaden our circles and make more connections in the real world.
Coordinator, organizer, builder, ready for the revolution!
Rats! I missed the polls. Let’s hear it for diversity of tactics and of people! And let’s get on it! Time’s a-wastin’!
I have pivoted mostly to healer, but in the sense pf emotional/psychological healer in the last years.... before I developed mostly skills in organizing, coordinating and igniting spirits for action.
I feel the call to combine these two more now....
We're working at creating a gifting economy in our community. I find that after 30+ years of setting up our little orchards we have more food than we can eat and so gifting to neighbors, food banks, the local youth clubs weekly free cook up is rewarding. It's quite a remote area but we do have a radical edge as there is extractive forestry corp. to battle and a large Indigenous population to ally with, in fact they lead the forestry resistance. The gifting does work, it's important to try to not think of it in a transactional way (takes time) but we do see a good return and it builds social solidarity even with people of a conservative leaning.
I suppose this fits in your "builder" category but there's also a bit of everything else blended in to varying degrees.
Being honest, this framework seems very horoscopic or cosmo personality quiz and hard to take seriously. It's fun to be like "I'm a pisces but a virgo rising and leo moon" but are there no better ways to think through people's different characteristics without bringing it back to the self? I say this as someone who's spent their entire adult life in complex, interdependent, antagonistic-to-capital social environments. If there's one thing that I've learned or would say is important about these structures, it's the opportunity, the gift of stopping seeing yourself as a discrete identity at all. And of stopping valuing self-development as an end unto itself, and any narrative that leads back to "enrich your identity" as a goal. The self, obsessive concern over the self, finding the self so so meaningful, is the tide of capital seeping into people. So I get really skeptical when there's a need to parse out "who" each person is or their roles.
I've seen it give people an out for destructive behavior when they say "well, that's just MY role, MY whole thing," whether it's being a "fighter" with an extractive orientation toward others, or being a "caretaker" who can't mind their own business and justifies it that way. I don't think it's enough to identify with a role and then add, "but of course, the purpose of this is to build a diverse ecology of interdependent, complimentary roles." Instead I just advocate skipping identity entirely and going right into, what is this complex cluster of relationships producing, how is it moving, where is it going? People organically just are different, irreducably different, I'm skeptical of focusing on it so much in "self" terms.
I guess I don't understand how you arrived at that interpretation. This isn't about identity, this is about creating real and complex collectives by finding ways we can all complement one another. It's also about recognizing the profound skills we need to self-organize, to be a revolutionary movement, and not just a social scene.
That's why I encouraged people to read about roles they *don't see themselves as playing, not the roles they do feel drawn towards. It's not identitarian, it's about understanding how we fit together and the things we all need to get better at, collectively.
In that case, and to that end, I prefer other stuff you and others have written about the collective dynamics, intentions and projects people have produced in different times and places--with the focus on shared trajectories.
You asked pretty directly for feedback on this one, and my point is that separating "roles" so cleanly that they can even be put into a poll centers the individual and invites a focus on personality.
In the cultural landscape we seemingly share, where avatars and self-presentation is everything and is everywhere, this kind of framing will end up turning your intended point into a D&D character design activity even if you don't intend that. I really think if you want to talk about or encourage collective skill development it's probably best to specifically avoid centering the individual or inviting even that level of literalism, of named roles.
I guess I can see where you're coming from, with all these individualistic pressures in our cultural landscape.
Naw the rev is an RPG chose your class.
My friends and I were just talking about this last night! There’s a guilt in not being part of the frontline, but every role supports each other, so we should honor all contributions to the movement.
Maybe this is one of the two you didn’t mention, but I would add Thinkers/Visionaries also, as the people who are able to put into words abstract concepts and ideals to inspire others to take action and reinvigorate the revolutionary zeal.