Hi, I'm Paul Vesure and together with my colleague Jana Bettnard,
we're speaking with Nina Agarwal-Hardin about collaboration in grassroots protest organizations.
Nina is a political and partnership strategist with the Sunrise Movement and
Know Your Nine and a freshman at Yale University.
So welcome, this is Paul Vesure with my colleague Jana Bettnard for the Convergent
Science Network podcast in collaboration with the Ernst Sturmband Forum,
and today we're with Nina Agravall-Hardin. Welcome, Nina.
Thank you. So, Nina,
how we always start our discussions is just with the person we're speaking to,
to give a short description about their trajectory that brought them where they
are now in really the middle of a,
complex collaborative process called the Sunrise Movement. one.
And I would be happy to do that. So for anyone who is unfamiliar with Sunrise,
the U.S.-based and youth-led movement and organization was mandated essentially
to stop climate change and create millions of good jobs in the process.
Sunrise is responsible partially for pushing ideas like the Green New Deal into
the mainstream here in the United States.
And currently is working on co-governing with the Biden administration as we
sort of enter this era of climate action in America.
As for my personal trajectory, my dad's family has a roots in rural northern
India in Bihar, and my mom's parents have a home in rural Appalachia in East
Tennessee, nestled in the Great Smoky Mountains.
And both of these places growing up have been places that have been vulnerable
to climate disaster and where I've seen challenges like chronic poverty and
also social inequalities exacerbate the difficulty of recovering after a climate disaster strike.
So that's sort of the...
The way the climate crisis showed up for me growing up and when I found Sunrise,
what excited me about the movement was that it was a collaboration between people
from, you know, sort of frontline communities and people from, yeah,
just very different organizing backgrounds as well.
So people from, you know, fossil fuel, anti-fossil fuel infrastructure fights,
people from divestment, campus divestment fights,
people from financial sector divestment fights, people who had been,
you know, working on lobbying and politics for a long time.
And so the sort of combination of the regional diversity and the relative racial
socioeconomic and social diversity as compared to other parts of the climate
movement and then that diversity of experience is really what drew me to Sunrise.
So with that, now you described a little bit the Sunrise Movement as a movement
and how you discovered that movement,
but you're also active in the Sunrise Movement as a political and partnership strategist, it says.
So how did you end up in that role?
Yeah, so I started out organizing locally with the Sunrise Movement in Ann Arbor,
Michigan, which is where my parents and I are based and where I just graduated high school.
And gradually, as this 2019 Global Climate Strike Movement, which was an international collaboration,
got underway, way, I began to represent Sunrise in the National Coalition of
Youth-Led Organizations that was working on planning and executing that strike
mobilization at the national level in the United States.
And I was asked to assume that role in part because I was a high schooler, in part because,
I have, you know, strong roots both in the United States and internationally, nationally,
and in part because I had been organizing with Sunrise for some time then and
had a good sense of the movement's sort of core mission and how to advocate
for that mission in this coalition space.
And so I sat on that coalition representing Sunrise with a friend of mine,
a colleague, for about a year.
And when it became clear that mass in-person mobilization wasn't going to be
possible for a while because of COVID-19, I sort of started to do other political
and partnership work for the movement.
And so particularly looking at our partnerships with Gen Z and high school-led
organizations, and also looking at how we make our political communication accessible
to that age group, that demographic.
But if you speak of the Sunrise Movement, before we delve into the specifics
of collaboration, what should we think?
What's the scale of this organization? How is it really organized?
Yeah. Sunrise has, I think, now over 500 of what we call hubs across the United States of America.
And these hubs can range in membership.
They can have anywhere from, you know, three members to 30 or 63 or even some
have 300 members engaged. aged.
So they really vary in terms of their size, but they organize under a common
set of principles and often they're working together or working on a campaign
that the national movement leadership.
Has helped to design.
So Sunrise, the organization, as we call it, is a set of national staff members
who work full or part-time on setting up support resources and devising strategic
campaigns for hubs to use as needed.
And hubs are also encouraged to create
their own strategic goals that are applicable in their local context.
And they kind of can choose, you know, where to put their energies in that way.
In terms of other work that the national organization does, as of late,
we've done a lot of work with the Biden administration.
Our executive director was on President
Biden's task force for um climate policy
unity and climate policy but um when when
he was running in the lead up to the general election
and really helped to craft some of that policy which was wonderful and so now
we're sort of working on enacting that clear so okay so so so now how would
you define also within this the sunrise move how would you define collaboration
what is it and what is it good for.
Um, well, you know, I remember I was at a Sunrise training a year and a half
ago, and there was a module on power.
And, you know, we had this classic discussion of the distinction between power over and power with.
And so I think in the context of Sunrise,
I would define collaboration as an effort to build power with other young people
towards a common goal, you know, in order to win a common goal.
And that common goal is Green New Deal legislation and is, you know,
a mass mobilization to combat the climate crisis in a way that is in line with
what science and justice demand.
So that's how I would define it, is young people working to build power with
each other towards that goal.
But then if we want to build power with, then of course you have to shape that, right?
You have to build your organization, you have to engage people and bring them in.
So what are the real steps you would take there? What's the method then to build
power with, also in your experience?
Well, Fenris' theory of change can really be broken down into two pieces.
One of those pieces, and we, you know, teach this in almost all of our introductory
trainings, and this is really something we disseminate to as many people as
we can within the movement's network.
Work um so the theory changes two pieces first
is people power um and by
people power we mean sort of two things the first is mass mobilization but the
second is and direct action and and you know protest and but the other is actually
just talking to our communities that's really i think core to what sunrise says
um and and trying to relate to people who may not already be engaged
in the movement on a personal level, through our personal stories or through,
you know, narratives that are anchored in the places that we care about.
Whether you're in a hub or whether you're on the national staff.
So that's the first is sort of building people power and absorbing new people
into the movement and then activating existing members to take action,
protest or contact government representatives or, or whatever else might make sense at that moment.
But getting them energized to do that. And then the second is political power.
And, you know, When Sunrise was founded,
the basic idea beyond that political power piece was to get fossil fuel money
out of our elections as much as possible and to vote out leaders who are beholden
to the interests of fossil fuel executives and instead vote in leaders who are
aligned with the movement.
And the theory of change is that with those two pieces combined you can really change the.
Government agenda the dominant government agenda in the places we call home
and win the legislation we want to tackle the climate crisis those are the two pieces,
people power, political power that we talk about but do you see them as independent
pieces or do you see them as interlinked.
Very interlinked.
Sunrise absolutely believes that our political leaders are responsive to mass
protest and to, you know, popular action and popular ideas.
And certainly, you know, if you're able to activate young people at the voting
block, then that's going to be helpful when it comes to building political power.
And certainly, if your mainstream political leaders are talking about your movement's
ideas, more people are going to get involved. So they're very connected.
Because we should bring in the fact that most of your membership is too young to vote. Is that right?
Because you couldn't do anything at the ballot box.
Yeah. So you mean, what is it about working with Sunrise that was empowering to me or?
No, although I'm sure a lot. But so what is it?
Since you can't yet vote, are you are you trying to reach those who can vote?
Are you trying to build up some sense of purpose among young people who then
once they can vote will express that?
And so it's kind of like a promissory action in the future.
And through that, it's going to influence politicians.
Or is it through the protests that you think, you know, for those who can't
yet vote, is that where their real power is?
I see uh you know i
think the answer is sort of yes to all of the above so sunrise
has done a lot of voter registration work and a lot of work to turn out young
people at the polls and turn out people who are concerned about the issue of
climate change um i think absolutely you know peaceful non-violent protest moral
protest holds a lot of power and sunrise often looks to examples
of that kind of protest from the past, like the civil rights movement, um, for inspiration.
And it's particularly inspired actually, but I think by these past examples of collaboration,
um, personally, I've done a lot of independent study of the ways in which civil
rights leaders collaborated with each other in order to, um,
you know, when legislation like the civil rights act of 1964.
Um, and so I, I think, yes, absolutely. As someone who can't vote,
being able to show up in that way, um, has been critical.
And, um, yeah. And I think, you know, also it is about.
Helping young people develop a political consciousness even before they can
vote and, you know, combating sort of climate anxiety and, yeah,
a really pessimistic or even fatalistic view of the future that many,
many young people are starting to develop because of the climate crisis by saying,
hey, look, it also presents an opportunity to build something better if we can
work together well enough to make that happen.
And so to all of the things you said, I think, yeah, yeah, I've felt power come
from all three of those sources.
But now, Nina, so what you emphasize a lot now in your analysis is this very
central concept of power, right? Power over power with.
Now, that's not necessarily a straight line, right?
Because in some sense, by developing power with your membership,
you do try to develop power over, right? The opponents that you face from the
fossil fuel industry, for instance, and their associated politician.
So how do you balance that? Because whether you like it or not,
and whether you find power with your overarching value,
through that, you're trying to exert power over. So how do you balance that?
Such a good question. and one that I remember sort of grappling with that day
at that training I mentioned where that idea was introduced.
I think, you know, one of the things about being in a movement setting with
people who share your values is that you're trusting each other to hold each
other accountable to the goals of the movement and the values of the movement.
And I think that's That's what makes it less intimidating to have power over
anyone, even if those people are, you know, corporate executives and wealthy
politicians who historically have held a lot of the power in our society.
Society um and yeah i
would so i would say for me personally the idea
that you know the the people who i work with are fundamentally want the same
things i want for the same or similar reasons that i want them right want a
society that works for everyone that takes care of everyone that is
more equitable and that has a sustainable future makes me much more comfortable
with the idea of power over because it makes me feel like if,
If we overstep our bounds or if we do something that exists outside of those
values, then we can correct that because we're working together.
Yeah, I'm not sure if that entirely answers your question. Feel free to ask a follow up.
Well, OK, so you feel that the movement is self-correcting, right?
But so there are a number of issues that then crop up that I find that are interesting
follow-ups here, because then I could say, well, but by exerting power over,
you also set up a dialectic that helps you to build your power with,
because now you pointed out an enemy. It's us against.
So it's not us for, it is us against. So in that sense, the power over is almost
a necessary ingredient to then build your power with.
And that would then, of course, the power with also make it intrinsically possibly instable.
Or do you think my interpretation is unnecessarily negative and cynical about that?
Um no i think it's a really interesting point and i think i mean i would push back slightly on um,
or i would add i guess to this idea of pointing out an enemy because i think
sunrise from the very beginning has been very intentional about yes naming a
few wealthy executives executives,
as an obstacle to the world we want to build.
But it's actually always been much more about the world we want to build.
I think, you know, with, for example, the storytelling and public narrative
that Sunrise incorporates into its work, it's never really about this person
or this demographic has wronged me or wronged my community. And now it's time to.
Take back the power or exact revenge. It's always about, this is what I envision
my community looking like if we could pass this legislation,
or if we could begin to think about this in a different way.
You know, and whether that's about sustainable, locally grown,
fresh produce accessible to everyone, or clean water coming out of the tap,
no matter what code you live in, or, you know, et cetera, et cetera.
But it's very much about this vision for a better world. At least in my eyes,
it's been much less about antagonizing, you know, corporate executives and instead
has been about, you know, being candid about what the obstacles are,
but not dwelling on who's responsible and how we punish them.
So I guess I would want to make that clear. But I think you're,
yeah, I think you're right that inherently there is some, you know,
some component of the work that is about building power over those who have
historically held power.
Right. But then we can now switch the objective from going from the power over
and against to the power for.
As you were describing some elements what
you are for and that would defend an end goal that you would see that would
mean also a world where something like a Green New Deal has been realized so
what does that world look like that you would then be for as a Sunrise Movement.
You know I can I didn't...
Sort of anchor it in the places I'm familiar with, I think, a little bit.
So, you know, in the state of Michigan,
for example, where I've grown up, I would want to see Indigenous populations regain control of,
you know, much of the land and water and natural resources here and resume a
rightful role as stewards of, you know, this place.
I would want to see public education funded much more equally across racial
and socioeconomic divides.
And I would want to see our public education include case-based education about
the state and its natural resources environment and how we can properly take care of it.
I, of course, would want to never see something like the Flint water crisis happen again.
Again, I would want to see Detroit residents be taken care of and not be bankrupted
if their homes flood because of, you know, excessive precipitation or other
climate-related disasters.
You know, the list goes on and on and on and on, right? I would want to see
some of the most polluted zip codes seen in depth.
Similarly, in somewhere like Appalachia, where my mom's parents have a home,
I, again, would want to see Indigenous people regain a lot of control of the
land and resources there.
I would want to see, you know, some alleviation of the chronic poverty there
and certainly some investment in better infrastructure.
And yeah, the list goes on, but I think it boils down to a society in which
we take care of the land and the environment,
and we are taken care of also by our neighbors and by our government.
So is that program defined somewhere for the Sunrise Movement?
There's a statement on that, on that outlook?
I would say that the Green New Deal resolution lays out a lot of that.
And then also the organizing principles I mentioned earlier.
This is fascinating because it's such a complex platform or vision.
And it was interesting to listen to you, Naina, as you were describing it,
because you switched and you said, I, I would like to see.
Um so to what how is
it within your organization uh and
and we should also talk about different scales right because the organization
operates at a local scale you said i think you you referred to the cells as
hubs is that right um yeah and and at a national scale um so how at either one of those scales,
how does the organization form a vision, its goals?
What is that process like?
Such a wonderful question. So each hub or many hubs have distinct processes
for, you know, developing things like demands,
if they're going to, you know, hold a nonviolent action, or if they're going
into a meeting with a local politician or, you know, whatever the occasion may be.
And so, you know, some of those processes involve the entire hub membership
getting together virtually or in person and going through some kind of process
where everyone talks about what's important to them to get out of the meeting,
get out of the action or have accomplished a year from that point.
And then, you know,
they sort of work together over time to develop a list of demands or a broader
vision for how they want to transform the place where they're anchored.
Does the hub need to do this with the national office? Yes.
Absolutely not, as long as it exists within the organizing principles,
which I would be happy to share later on.
But essentially, they say we are nonviolent in word and deed and talk a bit
about being inclusive in the movement of all kinds of different backgrounds. Yeah.
Then they're fine. They can they can do and they should do whatever makes sense.
The national organization, at least in a in a perfect world,
does not presume to know, you know, more about a local context than the people who live there.
So hubs do not have to get permission from from from national.
So, again, some processes at the local level have everyone involved.
Some processes are spearheaded by what we call a hub coordinator,
who's sort of responsible for overseeing the function of the hub.
Others are spearheaded by maybe a hub political director.
Each hub sort of structures itself differently, and that's fine.
Many hubs, you know, are connected online via Slack workspace or some other
way, you know, social media often.
And we'll share documents or insights or get on the phone, two leaders will
get on the phone with each other and say, you know, this is what worked for
us when we were developing our vision or our demands.
This is the process we used. You're a similarly sized hub. You have a similar,
you know, local context.
Maybe we both organize in very conservative areas, or maybe we're both in big
cities, whatever the through line may be.
And we'll sort of share their wisdom and share expertise when possible,
which, which is really cool.
So yeah, they're, they're sort of on the local level. And then at the national level, yeah,
Obviously, again, people are bound together by this shared theory of change
I mentioned earlier and by this set of principles that we organize under.
At the national level, I think, you know,
one of the difficult and one of the great things about Sunrise is that decision
making and visioning processes change pretty regularly based on what, you know,
the staff of the organization has identified as strengths and weaknesses in our approach.
But it is almost always collaborative and whether that collaboration looks like,
you know, one or two people drafting a document and then many people giving
feedback and revising and honing,
whether it looks like, you know, a series of six meetings where people are getting
together to share thoughts, feelings, emotions,
hopes, fears about what comes next for the movement or what comes next for the
country, and then putting that into a shared action plan.
Really, the list goes on and on and on of ways that that process can unfold.
But it is both locally and nationally, I think, almost always a collaborative one.
But Nina, what I find interesting is that you're saying almost always collaborative.
So when is it then not collaborative and why not?
I think there are probably instances where, because of group dynamics,
academics, often at the local level, I would say nationally,
because people are employed, there's a little bit more structure to the collaboration.
But locally, I think it's possible that, for example, a small hub of,
say, five people, four of them start to get burnt out, and then one of them
is sort of calling shots and organizing on their own.
Or similarly, you know, sometimes maybe one person has a lot more experience
or a lot more confidence than everyone else in the group and until the group
dynamic can sort of accommodate that and the,
other four however many there are can um
yeah sort of see that their contributions are also valued that one person is
still sort of you know collaborating in name but um not in in practice um and
i think that's pretty rare like i think generally things work as they're supposed
to but But it's always a possibility.
And I think it does happen. What you're pointing to, Nina, here,
which is always very difficult to regulate, is how do you resolve conflict? So you have your nodes.
You have a dynamic inside nodes. You have a dynamic within nodes.
And then in some hierarchical relation to a central node.
So how do you deal with conflict in the end?
Is that formalized in some way? Do you have a process for that,
even to identify conflict?
Well, at the local level, I have seen hubs share wisdom and knowledge on this topic as well.
So, you know, if a hub is having conflict over whether it makes sense in their
local context to engage in mutual aid or whether they should stick to legislative work,
Or they might reach out to another hub who's had that same debate and say,
you know, how did you guide your discussion?
How did you, you know, which is interesting, right? Like when collaboration
is difficult within the hub, collaboration with another hub can come in and
sort of help resolve that, which is fascinating to me.
Um and i think um you know if there's a an interpersonal conflict like you know
someone has committed harm against another hub member sunrise national does have human resources um,
and and you know hired personnel who can help with that and and the local members
have access to those people should they want that that kind of help um or that
kind of intervention um so it sort of depends if the conflict is like about
members clashing or injustice that has happened,
or if it's about, you know, the ideas themselves or the mission itself.
Um, at the national level, uh, yeah, I mean, I, I would say that the process
for dealing with conflict has evolved and changed many times over the years as well.
And in general, we've, um, you know, worked and are continuing to work towards
a culture that's not conflict avoidant, but rather can respond to conflict in
a way that's productive for everyone involved.
And that's, you know, that's easier said than done, but it's definitely a goal
I've seen people talk about very openly.
And again, you know, we have, it is an organization that is a 501c3 with a 501c4 arm.
So, you know, we have human resources and we have staff members whose job it
is to help resolve conflict within the movement.
And we also have many, many, many task forces, committees, and sort of teams
who are addressing these.
Big conflicts that are not interpersonal but are about where
is the future of the movement going how do we ensure that black people
for example are at the forefront of where our
movement is headed um and are are listened to and respected um where our movement
is right now for example like that's been a big thing we've worked on over the
past um year and a half two years and uh there have been many teams that have
arisen internally to collaborate towards answering some of those questions.
But again, I wish I could give like a, you know, this is the process and the
truth is that it changes all the time based on feedback.
So you're talking a lot about structure and we're getting a clear sense that
this is a very decentralized organization where,
so much is happening within the hubs that have a lot of autonomy, right?
And you've talked about how the movement has used that decentralization as a
strength, that it's been able to define goals locally because, as you said,
the national organization says, no, you at the local level, you know the ground
game much better than we do.
That's fantastic. And then also the sharing of information from one hub to another.
What are the downsides of this radical decentralization of the movement?
Well, you know, for one, there is, of course, tension sometimes between our
local hubs and our national organizations.
I myself have, you know, been a local organizer are at moments where there's
a lot of work, a lot of motion sort of happening in the national organization,
and it can get overwhelming, hard to stay caught up to date if the communication.
Isn't, you know, crystal clear.
And these are humans at the end of the day, right? Like, who are staffing the
national organization and trying, you know, doing their best.
But of course, sometimes it doesn't, it falls short of where it needs to be.
So, yeah, it can get overwhelming, it can get confusing, or it can feel too
directive at times, or it can feel not supportive enough at times, right?
Like, for example, I think, you know, some of our, some of our national leaders
are frequently meeting with, at this point, with,
you know, people from the Biden administration, and how do you maintain security
and privacy and discretion,
but also communicate candidly about complex policy dilemmas to a network of
500 plus local hubs and without also seeming, you know,
like you, you, you at the, at the, at the top of the national organization, um.
Yeah, are somehow better or more important than a local organizer, right?
Like, that's a really hard question, you know, and the back to this idea of
power, like, how is our, how is some of our proximity to power,
how does that translate to all of us building more power instead of fighting with each other?
I think Sunrise does a good job of that, but it's, of course, a
challenge to overcome um and so
i yeah i would say a drawback or
or a challenge um is that
the tension between that can arise between local grassroots
organizers and national staff when there's a disconnect in communication um
or a you know an imbalance of it either being too directive or not directive
enough from the national the national org for sure what about Because you have
some principles, some guiding principles,
and probably,
even though it's a very complex vision,
for sure, when the national organization is consulting with the Biden administration,
there is a clearer platform and a vision that they're proposing.
To what extent do you think that the decentralization is a hindrance to making
progress toward some bigger goals?
Well, I would say on balance, it's much more of an asset.
Like, I think that the fact of having this huge decentralized movement who,
by and large, care about the same thing, backing,
you know, various movement leaders as they go into these meetings in the halls
of power is much more of an asset than anything else.
But I would say, you know, we have to be really intentional about how we create strategy.
And there have been times in the movement's history where local and grassroots
organizers have stood up and
said, we had no hand or we did not have an adequate hand in creating this,
you know, strategy that our movement is now posting about on its social media
and is now organizing national mobilizations around, and that's not okay.
And then the processes have had to be refined. And so, you know,
sometimes national staff members will hold a role that's entirely about scheduling,
facilitating, and documenting calls with grassroots leaders that are open to
anyone where, you know, questions are asked or feedback is given on an upcoming campaign proposal.
Or just, you know, where sort of there's an exchange of ideas in the early stages
of crafting the next phase of strategy.
So, and that has helped, but again, you know,
we have to just we have to engage in
that before we ideally we do engage in that
before we um you know move on on
the on the scale of federal policy making or co-governance um and so i actually
i don't think that's a drawback either i think um it's probably also a value
um but it but it takes time and it takes a lot of energy and it and it doesn't
always go the way you want it to the first time, and that can be hard.
And I also think, you know, and I actually haven't seen so many instances of
problems like this, but in my, during my time at Sunrise, but I can imagine scenarios in which,
you know, and I'm sure there have been scenarios in
which someone on our national political team is having a complex and sort of
precarious conversation with a congressperson,
and then that hub targets that congressperson or one of their close allies,
and then that interferes with that national negotiation, right?
And so there's always that possibility because hubs have so much autonomy.
How do you respond? How's the organization respond when you have this kind of problem like that?
I mean, honestly, like you would probably have to ask a political staff person
for an example, like from their actual work, because it's never happened to me.
But I will say, I think a lot of times we lean on relationships.
So, you know, ideally our, you know, quote unquote, highest level or highest
rank, which I am like loathe to even use those terms.
But ideally, those staff people of
the national organization have significant relationships with members of our
strongest hubs or hubs in regions that are of personal importance to them and
can sort of lean on those relationships in moments of crisis or miscommunication and lean on built trust.
And so I think that's the ideal like if a situation like that did arise I think the ideal,
path forward would be for you know whoever was engaging in the national negotiations,
to talk to someone they have a relationship with in the hub and say look we
know each other we trust each other I have to say I'm doing this thing is there
any way you could back off and maybe the hub says,
no like we know what we're doing we've been engaging in this campaign for longer
than you've been in your negotiation can you please back off and that's you
know something that they would have to figure out using that relationship and trust.
So I think that's usually the best way, of course.
But again, you'd probably have to ask someone who's had that specific thing happen.
So Nina, we looked a little bit at where things can go wrong.
But can you give us some examples where it really went right,
where you would say, look, by virtue of the way we work, we really achieved
a success that no one else managed to achieve previously.
So can you give us sort of some of these outstanding examples of impact?
Yeah, I can use an example from Ann Arbor, Michigan, actually, to start us off. So.
About two years ago, the Ann Arbor Hub of Sunrise launched a campaign to persuade
Congresswoman Debbie Dingell,
who represents our district in House of Representatives,
to co-sponsor the Green New Deal resolution. revolution.
And, you know, the campaign started off with, you know, meetings with the congresswoman,
sort of informational discussions about what the Green New Deal was.
But as time progressed, it escalated towards, you know, nonviolent direct action at her office.
And I think even a couple hub members were arrested in the fall of 2019.
And, you know, it was a very tense
relationship that the hub held with the congressman for quite some time.
Eventually, we had a meeting which defused some of the tensions and,
you know, sort of behind closed doors and credit to the congressman for being
willing to engage with us in that setting.
And, you know, one actual challenge that we had was that, you know,
I think it was hard for the congresswoman,
and this is totally understandable, but I think it was hard to grasp who was
the key negotiator, whether it was, you know, legislative and policy at the national level,
or whether it was the people who were planning the mobilizations that the hub was engaging in.
And, of course, in that And in that setting, it would have been the hub leaders
because the national leaders had nothing to do with the creation of this campaign
arc that was manifesting in protests at her office.
But, you know, that that made communication hard because.
You know, how was she to know who to talk to in this complicated network of
movement, Sunrise Women Leaders?
But once that was clarified, you know, I think one of the results of the campaign
that we launched was that the congresswoman became,
and I, you know, I really want to say this in a way that is appreciative of her.
But she became much more receptive to hearings from young constituents who were
previously angry and, you know, even said,
perhaps we should set up a, you know, quarterly meeting with the hub and myself
to talk about what it is that I'm doing on environment that's working and what's
not and what ideas you guys have.
And she also became someone that the national movement was really able to work
with in productive ways.
She has wonderful and unique relationships to the auto industry and to many
labor unions that are really critical to our national work.
And, you know, sort of in response,
in part in response to the protest that the hub launched at her,
at her doors for several months intermittently,
she really, I think, became even more invested in working with the national
organization on things like town hall events,
things like the Thrive Agenda, which was a legislative package we felt was in
line with the Green New Deal, which we worked with many members of Congress on. through the Q&A.
Also helped you know work behind the scenes to really think through these questions of how
labor how the auto industry can sort of come together
under something like a green new deal vision um and so i i hope that's a clear
explanation i don't want to go on and on about it but um yeah it was hard in
the beginning and now she's a really key ally to the movement in part because
this local hub launched this campaign that then um but nina what's interesting about your example,
is that you say, look, we found the supporter of the movement, right?
But my real question was, what was the impact outside of the movement and actually
moving towards the realization of these objectives of the Green Deal?
Yeah, and I would say, you know, to have Congresswoman Dingell convening conversations
with labor unions and auto workers and leaders in those sectors is moving us
toward where we need to be because it's expanding the circle of collaboration
in really critical directions.
And what made it happen? What was the critical feature that the Sunrise Movement
brought to the table to make that happen?
Was it because of the constituents, the mainly young people who speak with her
in a more constructive way, let's say? Was that a decisive factor or was it,
let's say, the collaborative approach? What made the difference?
Well, I think it's hard to pinpoint one thing.
I think, yes, young people have a unique moral authority, especially when it
comes to the climate crisis, that grabbed attention and that certainly helped.
I'll speak now not just with regard to the situation with Congressman Dingell,
but sort of generally about the movement's impact. So yes, young people's moral authority.
Also, I think Sunrise, you know, fundamentally was founded to shape American politics.
But it's not a, it's not a lobbyist organization.
The way that Sunrise strives to get elected officials' attention is not through
scheduling closed door meetings with their legislative aides,
not that there's anything wrong with that approach.
It is by, you know, protesting outside of their offices or, you know,
specifically calling them out with signs that say their name and big black letters,
you know, that show up in the press.
And the point is, right, it is public. Yeah, exactly.
And I think, you know, the moral authority young people have actually is part
of what what makes that strategy work. So these things are really connected.
But yeah, you know,
How easy would it be for young people to get the attention of some of our nation's
most powerful political leaders if they weren't engaging in mass mobilization? Maybe not as easy.
In the past, it certainly hasn't been. So, yeah. Right.
But then we can also look at the other side. Like, what was the biggest failure
so far? Here we have a success, it worked, it works also because of what you
call the moral authority of young people.
But on the other hand, on other occasions, I'm sure, things did not work out the way it was planned.
So could you give an example of that and the underlying reasons?
Yeah.
I'm taking a minute to think, not because there's any sort of disdain.
The standardized movement never fails.
Yeah, so, I mean, I would say we,
I would say that this is a failure that was recovered from well,
but it was one that I, in my mind, I'm thinking, like, what had the biggest
emotional impact on the movement?
And this is something that comes to mind. So, you know, Sunrise endorsed Senator
Bernie Sanders in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary here in the U.S.
And really, you know,
the grassroots members of our movement really became invested in,
many of them, really became invested in that campaign and in its mandate.
And when Senator Sanders pulled out of or dropped out of the race,
when it came time for him to do that,
it was hugely impactful on the whole youth climate movement,
I think, here in the US, and on sunrise,
especially because we had endorsed him.
You know, I think it was, yeah, I think it was really hard for people to get
excited about campaigning for President Biden after so many months of working
to draw the distinction between him and Senator Sanders. standards.
And, you know, in the end, Sunrise made, gosh, I don't even,
I should know this number off the top of my head, but many, many,
many phone calls for President Biden's campaign and worked,
I think, pretty constructively with his team to create a platform that we felt better about.
And we're now working to co-govern with him. And that's wonderful.
But I would say They, for a long time, the national movement or the national
organization was, you know, moving ahead with crafting a better platform.
And, you know, yeah, I was sort of processing together as a staff and,
you know, figuring out where our next political footsteps should fall.
But the grassroots was not quite, you know, not quite there yet.
The grassroots was like, we are not ready to help that other guy win this election.
And they got there eventually, right? But there was a significant disconnect
that I think, you know, lost us some time and lost us some trust, too,
where the grassroots really had a hard time with the fact that the national staff was moving,
you know, forward at a pace that maybe wasn't. wasn't.
What they would have wanted it to be um and and
that compromise and trust in the national staff and i
think it also um was just difficult like it was difficult for people to come
back from so maybe not a failure but a drawback so the failure i think definitely
the failure wasn't picking the wrong candidate right because that's that's not
a failure the The failure was,
correct me if I'm misunderstanding,
the failure was either the organization's framing of the significance of this
candidate and the uniqueness of this candidate in being the only vehicle for
you to be able to pursue your goals.
Maybe that was true. Or was the failure that reality struck,
you have to switch horses, you know, mid-race,
and the national team was able to get behind Biden, but failed in its ability
to communicate that to the local teams.
So what, to you, how would you label the failure? What was the failure?
I would say you articulated it well with the second thing you said,
the failure to align around the next step in the wake of disappointment before moving forward.
And I touched on that earlier, too, of this need to be, by virtue of our structure,
this need to be very intentional about how we design our steps forward.
And you use the word trust. Can you tell us a little bit more about the role
that trust plays in your organization? Thank you.
There's a saying in Sunrise and in many other organizing spaces I've been in,
which is, you know, we move at the speed of trust.
And I think that's very true. I mentioned this example of, you know,
relationships and trust built between local and national organizers to diffuse
tension and solve conflict when it arises. recognizes.
But I also think just in day-to-day work, there are so many little ways in which
if you trust your collaborators, even if you don't know them on a very personal
level, but you trust their intentions.
We also all have a saying, you know, assume best intentions.
You can move much more quickly because, you know, there's less of a need to.
To explain and explain and explain where things are coming from.
And, you know, I think that's really good sometimes.
And I also think it's good to sort of take a step back and reevaluate and actually
work to earn and build trust, like work at that instead of just having it sort of there.
But yeah, we move at the speed of trust. It's something we say a lot. I think it's very true.
But now isn't part of the
shock in this period that
you were sort of were on the knife edge between the black
deal in the sense of coal and and more fossil fuel driven by by trump and his
friends or a green deal wasn't part of this emotional shock also that is the
discovery that the Sunrise Movement is not only about an ideological objective,
but it's also practically a political move.
Wasn't that the realization that sort of set in and that needed to be translated to the grassroots?
Like, hey, yes, we have our goals, we have our ideals, but where the rubber
meets the road, that's called politics.
And these are different things, right? So was that not part of the emotional shock?
I think it may have been. I also think, um, yeah,
So Sunrise is, you know, pretty responsive to scholarship and literature, which suggests,
or which sort of asks us to think about movements as ecologies,
which I think is so interesting.
But, you know, to think about different organizations, individuals,
even theories of change as distinct organisms that work together in this ecology,
make it make it function so that it can, you know, flourish and achieve its goal.
Um and i think
one thing that has arisen over the
past year or two as i mean sunrise was conceptualized 2016 early 2017 really
took off in 2018 and has you know honestly had a huge impact given how young
it is um it's a youth movement it's a young youth movement um but uh you know,
there have been growing pains with that. And there have been missteps.
And I think one thing that we're thinking about now is that the movement ecology for Green New Deal.
Is populist in one sense, because I think the Green New Deal encompasses so
much racial justice work and immigration justice work and gender justice work.
And, you know, we see it that way.
But, you know, you're right when you say Sunrise fundamentally is a political organization.
And so So these other, you know, potential facets of the Green New Deal,
like mutual aid and any organizing that exists sort of outside our dominant
institutions and in settings to build alternative institutions,
but also even just like social justice organizing that's not,
you know, explicitly about climate, even if it is very connected to the climate crisis, you know.
I don't think Sunrise can hold all of those different pieces of the Green New
Deal, which is, for anyone who's familiar with it, you know,
it's a very broad and very ambitious set of goals and vision for the future.
And so, yeah, as that idea has become popularized and as it has become more
politically possible, I think there is this sense that, you know,
Sunrise cannot be the only movement,
the only organization in the movement ecology for Green New Deal.
We need more organizations that are collaborating with Sunrise,
you know, as whatever Sunrise Next becomes.
Maybe it is still very focused on politics or maybe it's something else.
But collaborating with Sunrise on these issues of like, well,
what does it look like to fight for indigenous sovereignty and maybe even this
idea of land back under this vision of a Green New Deal or whatever you want to call it?
But what does it look like to talk about police reform or defending the police
or these ideas that have come into the mainstream through the lens of combating the climate crisis?
And how did those things work together? And the list goes on and on and on.
But the bottom line is that maybe we need a more populist ecology to meet this moment.
And maybe Sunrise is the political organization. and that's where its expertise
should be, or maybe it's somewhere else, but it's probably not big enough and
it probably doesn't have enough expertise to do it all.
And so I'm really interested to see how Sunrise will collaborate with other
organizations and other demographics of people that isn't just, you know, youth,
but as other constituency groups that have a stake in combating the climate
crisis in an equitable and just way as we move into the
sort of next political era in America and this next era of.
Yeah, dealing with climate disaster as it intensifies. Right. Nina.
Okay. So it's killing me because we've actually run to our end time,
but Paul and I both, like we have many, many, many more things we want to ask you.
I'm going to ask you, I'm going to call it one question, but it isn't, it's really several.
But because you've just raised something that is hugely important, right?
You're, you're now talking about the need to collaborate with other organizations.
Organizations, what I'm going to ask you about is, again, on trust.
And it's on how you think.
Trust in organizational culture, right, within the Sunrise Movement.
How do you build that trust within the movement?
What is it that you do intentionally to create, to foster that trust?
So that's part one of my single question.
And then if we're talking about collaborating with other organizations,
of course, the real possibility is that you become competitive in a way with
these other organizations because they might not have exactly the same goals, right? Right.
So how could you take this sense of trust that you're building and you're building,
by the way, within an organization that has a temporary membership because people
are turning over because you age out of. Right.
And so how do you build it within and then how could you see building this trust
relationship so that your interaction with these other organizations remains
collaborative rather than becoming a little bit competitive? Right.
Sorry, that really wasn't a fair number of questions that I'm calling one.
No, you're fine. I will do my best to answer them concisely.
And I think they're really good, good questions.
So to your first question, what do you do to build trust individually?
I want to paint you guys a picture, actually.
Let's go back to summer of 2019.
And I was at my first ever Sunrise training in person. And it was the Midwest summit.
So people from all over the Midwest had come to be trained by national trainers.
And we were in this movie theater in Detroit, this very retro movie theater.
Everyone was sort of sleeping on sleeping bags on the floor and eating,
you know, bagels and peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for lunch.
Lounge and, you know, sitting in the movie theater seat and watching slideshows
and trainers, you know, training all day. It was hot.
And, you know, there were big ideas that we were grappling with.
And, you know, the movement's executive director was there, our organizing director was there.
Many of the sort of highest ranking national staff people were there.
I had been in the movement for just a couple months.
And I remember thinking at that moment in time, there should be more high schoolers
here. There should be more teenagers here.
And, you know, I was able to just talk to Varshney, our executive director,
about that in that moment. I'd never met her before.
She, you know, was in town for just a couple days. She had many,
many closer, close friends, closer friends, certainly than me at that event.
But she just sat down and we just talked about it. And I think that is,
you know, that kind of gathering where you're all, you don't know each other,
but you're trusting each other with things like preparing each other's meals,
or you're sleeping in the same room as people you don't know,
because you, you share values.
And you're like, well, I trust that this is going to go okay.
And I trust that there are systems in place to support me if it doesn't.
It's huge for like, collectively building trust. And then I think that,
you know, that act that kind of access to the movement's top leaders,
for someone like me, who, you know, had been around for a couple months,
and had a lot to to learn again this is
my first training um really made me
trust the national organization more as a local organizer this
is before i really started nationally holding a
national role so um yeah there's like on the individual level like those kinds
of gatherings and that kind of those kinds of practices and that kind of culture
i think really helps build trust um both among local organizers and with national
organizers and then in terms of this idea of like.
How do you avoid competing with other organizations in the movement ecology?
One thing that's been interesting to see is that as people have aged out of
Sunrise, they've joined other what we call movement adjacent endeavors.
So maybe that's like working for a policy think tank that is,
you know, helping to push out what the Green New Deal looks like in practice.
Maybe that's working for a polling firm, like, for example, Data for Progress,
which does a lot of the polling that summarizes references as we craft campaign
plans or as we write press releases, etc.
Maybe it's working for a firm like New Deal Strategies, which helps us with
our communication, helps to train our spokespeople, etc., etc. et cetera.
Maybe it's even getting, you know, you know, an academic job where you're studying
implementation of ideas in, in the Green New Deal.
Or maybe it's working at a legal practice that's, you know, ready to defend
pro bono people who face legal consequences for protesting.
Whatever it might be, there are so many movement adjacent roles and there are
also movement organizations where, you know, it's not, it's not all about youth, right?
Like I've learned so much from Indigenous elders who are on the front lines
and, you know, Indigenous water protectors who are much older than me and have
so much wisdom to impart.
And so, yeah, sort of like, you know, movement veterans can still be really
critical to crafting strategy.
And so I think one way of avoiding that sort of competition is to have a movement
ecology where the relationships still exist, even if they're not no longer within
the same organization, but rather across different organizations or, um,
you know, across slightly different, um.
Pieces of the movement's broader aim. So Nina, I'm really impressed with how
you speak about the Sunrise Movement with a lot of confidence and poise.
And as if you really got the theory fully mastered, right?
And that's impressive. it so i obviously
will challenge to to shake that theory a little bit and
see you know how stable that really
is um one issue that that comes
up through through our discussion now is the duality in the movement as you
also sketched that earlier we spoke about potential conflict that you have your
grassroots nodes right and you also describe that as let's say with a biological ecological metaphor.
We think about the organization as an organic whole, which would imply there's no central ordination.
Yet, you do have a central master node in Washington.
When we spoke about possible conflicts, it was also between these levels of
organization having different objectives, different understanding,
different commitments and responsibilities.
So that means it's really fair then to speak of the organization in these organic terms.
I know it sounds nice, and it fits very well with the ideas about the Green New Deal.
But you could also say, well, actually, it's a very centrally guided political
organization who just needs grassroots to actually exert its political power.
Yeah, I don't run the pushback at all. And I, you know, it's funny,
like I have yet to take my first intro to political theory classes in college,
you know, that's that'll come in a couple weeks.
Um, but I would say, I would say the,
the, the reason I don't think it is entirely true that it's,
you know, a centralized political organization that has a grassroots to back
its aim is because the grassroots increasingly, but always has played a big
role in defining the national organization's path forward. word.
And, you know, I think it is clear that if the national organization makes too
far a step without consulting the grassroots,
it will not have the grassroots to back it anymore.
Hubs will change their name and they'll keep organizing for the same principles,
same sets of values in their communities without having any affiliation to Sunrise National.
I think Sunrise National is very aware that they are accountable to this network
and there are mutual benefits to being in this relationship together,
but they don't have to be.
Hubs can organize their communities without Sunrise National's influence.
And Sunrise National could be a lobbying organization or have some other purpose
that's not backed by grassroots.
But as of right now, they're not.
Generally both feel that there's some benefit to being intertwined in the way that they are.
But so I do think there's a sense of accountability to the grassroots that requires
consultation and requires that.
Right. I get it. That's very good. But now, the other side of the story is also
how do we deal with the commons?
So there is, let's say, the common good in this case, and we speak of ecological
common good and avoiding climate catastrophe.
On the other hand, we also see many examples around us where this common good
is then again instrumentalized by others, as for instance, recently was put
forward in this seaspiracy documentary, for instance,
on how the organizations that are supposed to certify that fish that's salt
in the supermarket is caught in an ecological sustainable way are actually in
cahoots with the fishing industry and in that sense have instrumentalized that
common of ecological, in this case, fishing.
So how do you see that for these ecological concerns?
So how much of a risk do you see there is for this kind of instrumentalization
of this common interest in sustainability and avoidance of climate collapse.
LYN ALDEN BROOKS- Can you restate the risk you are referring to?
PETER DIAMANDIS- Well, I can start any movement and collect money and say,
oh, we're going to save the planet.
Please give me all your money. I'm going to save the planet.
Now I have instrumentalized the comment. As long as I'm a slick communicator,
I'm sure I'm going to be successful with it.
Right so you're asking like what are the yeah what's ensuring that this,
yeah use of resources is efficient accountable and doing what it says it's going
to do well you are competing as as the sunrise movement you could argue you
have an ideological objective you have different mechanisms in place to assure
that you adhere to these ideals in a proper and ethical way.
However, you might have competing organizations in that same space who have
instrumentalized that comments for, let's say, personal gain.
Do you see that development as a risk of the current interest that people have
in our society in realizing something like a green,
Even the oil industry is jumping on it, we're green.
How do you deal with that risk?
You know, I think there, so I think part of it is drawing a distinction,
like what lies within the movement ecology and what does not.
And I think if you ask most sunrisers, they would say, you know,
something like a company like Exxon or Shell is not, you know,
in the movement ecology in the sense of like working towards the same goal.
Even if they may say that they are. And there are definitely people who would
disagree with that, like people outside of Sunrise, maybe even some people in
Sunrise, who would say, well, if they want to join us, let them join us.
And that's, you know, an ideological debate that people can have among themselves.
But drawing the distinction, you know, between who is our teammate and who's not is one thing.
And then I think for the second piece of within the movement,
I am of the belief that most of the organizations within the movement.
If they are successful, if they have an engaged base, it's because they're offering something.
And maybe with a more established sort of big green organization,
that something is lending credibility to younger activists'
ideas or having access to particular political leaders who might not meet with younger activists.
But there's something that each organization can bring to the others,
even if they are competitors or even if, you know, one has more resource,
more financial resources than the others.
I don't know if I'm quite getting at your question, though. But but,
yeah, I would say recognizing the particular thing that each organization can
offer to the others and then taking advantage of that as a broader movement.
Feel free to ask follow-up if I haven't quite gotten there. Well,
maybe to sharpen it, I can change it also a little bit.
Like, for instance, you could say, well, we have to go for solar power.
However, in the meantime, we also know that China is the main supplier of the
components that we need to largely deploy solar power systems.
So that would mean as the more you push for your Green Deal,
the more, in some sense, you also support, in that sense, a country and an economy
that's not necessarily adhering to all your values.
So how do you deal with these kinds of potential conflicts in the ideological
objectives that you have?
Yeah. I think it's a lot of inter-movement dialogue.
I think it's a lot of, like, you know, recognition that the systems that we
operate under are actually pretty,
pretty far from being aligned with the values that our members hold.
And so that requires our members to be in conversation with each other all the time about,
you know, what is the least harmful or most promising path forward,
given the constraints of the world we live in and the systems under which it operates.
And there is no, I mean, at least in my mind, there is no right answer.
There's no way out of those ideological dilemmas.
But we can move forward in ways that more people feel good about or that more
minds have sort of thought about and thought of as sound if we talk to each other.
So you have that communication here, which I understand.
Now, to finish it up, I have two questions for you. So I think I can guess the
answer to the first one, but I'm not going to say it.
So do you believe that humans on this planet, on the global scale,
will be able to develop and maintain sustainable collaboration?
I think, you know, do I believe we will?
I don't know if I can say with confidence that we will, but do I believe we can?
I definitely think we can. Okay.
And we will? You're not convinced whether we will. You're not sure about that?
I'm not sure. But I definitely think we can.
But then the last question is, if I give you a magic wand, right,
and you can change anything you want about humans, right, their genome,
their metabolome, their brain, anything you want, What's the one thing you would
change in order that they will be able to collaborate?
Um um i wish i had more eloquent terminology to to refer to this um but i think um,
i would make it to that they're not operating from a scarcity mindset and instead you know,
have faith in in abundance and because i just think that um you know both in
a movement context experts, like, oh, there's only so much recognition,
success, and credit that can be distributed among the movement's organizations
that creates competition and hinders collaboration.
Between organizations, between people, whatever. But also at the much bigger scale, you know,
in places like Appalachia, like Bihar, where my family's from,
it's like, you know, when flooding incomes, when fire strikes,
are people going to come together across socioeconomic divides,
race divides, gender divides, whatever, and help each other out and trust that
there can be enough food, enough clean water, enough clean air, enough space,
enough shelter for everyone to thrive if they lean on each other?
Or are people going to close themselves off, divide along these lines of race,
class, gender, whatever,
and try to protect what's theirs and not help their neighbors,
both at the neighborhood level, but also at the international level,
right? Like our country's going to help.
So that's what I would change is I would make it, and of course that requires
systems change too, but make it so that instead of operating from a place of
scarcity, we're operating from a place of abundance.
Very good. Nina Agrawal-Aydin, thank you very much for this conversation.
Hi, you listened to one of our podcasts in the series on collaboration,
produced by the Ernst Trommel Forum and the Convergent Science Network.
You can find more episodes on our website.