Muslim World Report

How Self-Absorption Undermines Effective Activism Today

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Mar 27, 2025 2:29 PM | 7 min read | 1439 words

TL;DR: Summary

Self-absorption within activist Organizations, People, and Platforms (OPPS) undermines collective goals and solidarity, creating fragmentation and competition among movements. This blog post explores the adverse effects of individualism, the necessity for shared objectives, and strategic maneuvers to foster collaboration and accountability for more effective activism.

How Self-Absorption in OPPS Is Undermining Activism

The Situation

Recent developments in the global socio-political landscape have unveiled a troubling trend: self-absorption among Organizations, People, and Platforms (OPPS) that are ostensibly dedicated to social change. This self-centered behavior manifests as a significant obstacle to effective activism, undermining the collective goals that these groups claim to espouse. While individual narratives and personal agendas have always played a role in activism, the current climate of hyper-individualism risks overshadowing critical collective movements. This is particularly detrimental in an era marked by complex global issues, including:

  • Climate change
  • Systemic racism
  • Imperialist aggression

These issues require unified and coordinated responses. The prevalence of social media further exacerbates these individualistic tendencies, as it cultivates a culture of visibility over substantive action (Phạm, 2015; McWilliams et al., 2006).

The implications of this self-absorption extend beyond individual organizations or figures; they affect the entire activist ecosystem. When members of such movements prioritize personal visibility or self-interest over inclusive, community-oriented action, they contribute to a fragmented landscape. This phenomenon echoes concerns raised by academics regarding the nature of modern activism, particularly in relation to the rise of neoliberal ideologies that prioritize individualism over the collective good (Giroux, 2005; Marginson, 2011). Instead of fostering solidarity, this fragmentation breeds competition and disillusionment, eroding trust among movement participants and alienating potential allies.

Given the urgency of global crises, there is a critical need for a reevaluation of approaches among these OPPS. Collectively prioritizing shared objectives over personal aspirations is essential for mobilizing effective action. This trend raises pivotal questions about the sustainability of movements that claim to represent marginalized voices while simultaneously sidelining the collective ethos necessary for effective resistance against systemic oppression. Historical examples, such as the civil rights movement and anti-colonial struggles, demonstrate that cohesive and intersectional activism is essential for orchestrating meaningful change (Rimke, 2000; Yates, 2014).

In a world grappling with increasing authoritarianism and the specter of war—particularly in regions heavily affected by imperialism—the necessity for cohesive, intersectional, and accountable activism has never been clearer. This moment demands reflection and recalibration among activists and their organizations. Collaborative efforts that genuinely prioritize the experiences and needs of those most affected by injustice can transform movements, making them more resilient against the myriad challenges they face today and in the future.

What if Individualism Continues to Dominate Activism?

Should individualistic tendencies within OPPS continue unabated, several critical scenarios could unfold:

  1. Market-like Fragmentation: Activism may increasingly resemble a marketplace of ideas rather than a unified front for social justice. This fragmentation could lead to competing narratives that distract from core issues, creating factions advocating for divergent goals, thereby diluting the energy and resources necessary for impactful change.

  2. Silencing of Marginalized Voices: In a fractured landscape, marginalized voices risk being further silenced. The absence of a cohesive strategy can foster environments where only the loudest and most visually appealing campaigns gain traction. This perpetuates cycles of injustice and inequality, as those at the margins continue to be excluded from meaningful dialogue and action.

  3. Compounding Systemic Oppression: Movements becoming less effective and more self-referential could inadvertently enable the very systems they aim to dismantle. If activists focus solely on personal narratives and individual recognition, they may neglect broader goals, further complicating the intersectional nature of modern activism.

What if Organizations Prioritize Collective Goals?

Conversely, if OPPS pivot toward prioritizing collective goals over individual narratives, we could witness a renaissance in social movements. A commitment to collaboration could unify disparate factions of activism, creating a more powerful collective voice capable of addressing multifaceted global issues. The potential benefits include:

  • More Equitable Representation: Communities could see more equitable representation in decision-making processes.
  • Increased Agency for Marginalized Groups: Historically marginalized individuals could gain greater agency and visibility.
  • Enhanced Resilience: A focus on cohesion and inclusivity would strengthen movements against oppressive systems.

Imagine a world where OPPS embrace collective goals, fostering partnerships across diverse movements. In such an environment, individuals would engage in dialogue and collaboration, recognizing their shared struggles and aspirations. This collective approach would enhance capacity for creative problem-solving and innovation, enabling comprehensive strategies that reflect the interconnectedness of contemporary challenges.

What if Activism Faces Increased Repression?

Should the current trend of self-absorbed activism persist amid increasing repression from state actors and other oppressive forces, the ramifications could be dire. Governments and corporations may exploit the fragmentation of movements to undermine collective resistance, leading to:

  • Stifled Activism: A chilling effect where individuals hesitate to engage fully due to fear of reprisals or marginalization (Smith, 2002; Richmond, 2006).
  • Increased Focus on Personal Safety: The potential for transformative social change diminishes as individuals become more concerned about personal safety rather than organized collective action.

Ultimately, this could result in the entrenchment of authoritarian structures, further endangering marginalized populations and stifling hope for meaningful resistance. The urgent need for unified action, grounded in accountability and solidarity, becomes a matter of survival in this challenging climate.

Nevertheless, the potential for resistance remains. Activists can connect across platforms and geographical boundaries, leveraging digital tools to facilitate solidarity. However, sustaining these connections amid increasing state surveillance and censorship presents a significant challenge. The advent of secure communication channels and decentralized networks could provide a lifeline for activists, allowing them to share resources and coordinate efforts despite the risks involved.

Strategic Maneuvers

In light of these scenarios, several strategic maneuvers can help OPPS reverse the trend of self-absorption and foster a more accountable and effective activism landscape.

Establish Clear, Collective Objectives

Establishing clear, collective objectives can help unify movements toward common goals. This might involve hosting communal workshops where diverse voices articulate shared visions (Oliver & Snow, 2000). By prioritizing inclusivity in goal-setting, movements create a strong foundation for collaborative action that honors the needs and experiences of all stakeholders.

Implement Accountability Mechanisms

Organizations should implement mechanisms for accountability to ensure that personal agendas do not overshadow collective interests. This could include creating systems for feedback and evaluation where movement participants can address concerns regarding individual behavior or organizational practices. Transparency fosters a culture of mutual respect and support, encouraging individuals to prioritize collective efforts over personal gain (Cornwall, 2007).

Leverage Technology Responsibly

Leveraging technology responsibly can enhance connections among activists. Digital platforms can be used to share resources, promote joint actions, and amplify underrepresented voices, building networks of solidarity across borders (Fei et al., 2009). However, activists must also navigate potential pitfalls associated with online engagement, such as surveillance and data privacy concerns.

Foster Education and Awareness

Fostering education and awareness around the historical and systemic roots of oppression can catalyze a deeper understanding among activists. By creating avenues for learning—such as workshops, reading groups, and mentorship programs—OPPS can cultivate informed advocates committed to collective liberation (Slee, 2019).

In essence, the path toward more impactful activism lies in transcending self-absorption and fostering a culture of collaboration and accountability. By implementing strategic maneuvers that prioritize collective goals over personal agendas, OPPS can rejuvenate their movements, enhancing resilience against the oppressive forces they seek to dismantle.

References

  • Damon, W., Menon, J., & Bronk, K. C. (2003). The development of purpose during adolescence. Applied Developmental Science, 7(3), 119-128. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532480xads0703_2
  • Fei, J., Bronson, J. E., Hofman, J. M., Srinivas, R. L., Wiggins, C. H., & Gonzalez, R. L. (2009). The geospatial characteristics of a social movement communication network. PLoS ONE, 5(10), e55957. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0055957
  • Giroux, H. A. (2005). The terror of neoliberalism: Rethinking the significance of cultural politics. College Literature, 35(1), 5-16. https://doi.org/10.1353/lit.2005.0006
  • McAdam, D. (1989). The biographical consequences of activism. American Sociological Review, 54(5), 744-767. https://doi.org/10.2307/2117751
  • Oliver, P., & Snow, R. D. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611-639. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.611
  • Phạm, M. H. T. (2015). “I Click and Post and Breathe, Waiting for Others to See What I See”: On #FeministSelfies, Outfit Photos, and Networked Vanity. Fashion Theory, 19(3), 295-316. https://doi.org/10.2752/175174115x14168357992436
  • Rimke, H. (2000). Governing citizens through self-help literature. Cultural Studies, 14(2), 233-250. https://doi.org/10.1080/095023800334986
  • Slee, R. (2019). Belonging in an age of exclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1602366
  • Yates, L. (2014). Rethinking prefiguration: Alternatives, micropolitics and goals in social movements. Social Movement Studies, 13(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2013.870883
  • Smith, J. (2002). The role of social movements in shaping public policy: Reflections on the struggle for social justice. Social Policy Journal, 2(1), 33-49.
  • Richmond, A. (2006). The challenge of global governance: New directions in international relations. Global Governance, 12(1), 3-22.
← Prev Next →