Muslim World Report

Activism's Divide: The Illusion of Unity in Protest Movements

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Jun 15, 2025 9:35 AM | 12 min read | 2556 words

TL;DR: The recent “No Kings” protest highlights the fractured state of contemporary activism, revealing internal contradictions within movements purportedly opposing authoritarianism. To drive meaningful change, activists must strive for genuine solidarity and address systemic inequities rather than engaging in performative opposition.

The Protest Predicament: Navigating Activism in a Fragmented Landscape

The recent “No Kings” protest, held on June 10, 2025, epitomizes the fractured state of contemporary activism, where the line between genuine opposition and performative displays has become increasingly blurred. Attendees gathered ostensibly to challenge rising fascist ideologies; however, a notable incident highlighted the tensions within activist circles:

  • A Trump-supporting attendee confronted by protesters was met not only with resistance from some voices but also unexpected defense from fellow protesters.

This moment starkly reveals a growing unease: while activists aim to resist authoritarianism, they often grapple with internal contradictions regarding inclusivity and the effectiveness of their tactics (Thimsen, 2022; Dynel et al., 2020).

Fragmentation and Internal Struggles

The significance of this protest lies in its reflection of a broader struggle within movements that assert to oppose fascism and authoritarianism. Protests traditionally serve to raise awareness and generate dialogue; however:

  • Without a clear revolutionary rhetoric, they risk becoming nostalgic calls for a return to pre-fascist norms rather than striving for systemic change.

Participants in the protest exhibited a pattern of performative activism; while they rallied against fascist supporters, they often overlooked the need for a cohesive, transformative message that directly addresses the roots of oppression in society (Arnfred, 2005; Thimsen, 2022). As one participant noted, the challenge lies not just in opposing the GOP but in recognizing that the entire system is complicit in perpetuating injustice.

As global political dynamics become increasingly polarized, the implications of this protest extend far beyond local activism. They highlight a crucial issue: if activists fail to unite around a shared vision of social justice and structural change, they may inadvertently enable the very ideologies they seek to dismantle (Collins, 2015; Kessler, 2010). The nuances of this protest provoke a necessary reassessment of strategies employed by marginalized groups.

The world is watching, and the question remains: can activist communities rise above division to present a formidable front against authoritarianism?

What If an Empowered Grassroots Movement Emerges?

What if the discontent experienced during the “No Kings” protest catalyzes a more organized and empowered grassroots movement? In this scenario, activists would:

  • Prioritize building coalitions with a clear, unified message that transcends mere opposition to fascism.
  • Recognize the limitations of performative activism and focus on fostering community engagement aimed at transformative change (Sexton, 2016; Dynel et al., 2020).

Such a movement could sweep across local and national scales, emphasizing concrete policy proposals that address the systemic roots of oppression. Calls for dismantling oppressive institutions would gain traction alongside advocacy for reallocating resources to marginalized communities (Mawdsley, 2011; Kouri-Towe, 2020).

This shift could challenge dominant narratives and compel mainstream political entities to reckon with the voices of those historically marginalized. However, this scenario requires overcoming significant hurdles, including the need for activists to engage in difficult dialogues about intersectionality and inclusion (Ahmed, 2007).

If factions within the movement can unite around common goals, they may harness the power of collective action to challenge systemic injustices (Gao, 2022). An empowered grassroots movement would likely attract broader support from individuals disillusioned by traditional political avenues, potentially reshaping the political landscape (Kourí-Towe, 2020).

Conversely, if activists fail to transcend their divisions, this scenario may remain an unattainable ideal. The risk of fragmentation looms large, as factions could continue to prioritize their own agendas over collaborative efforts. This disunity could lead to a further entrenchment of authoritarianism, as the lack of cohesion dilutes the power of resistance (Musinguzi et al., 2020).

The Role of Organization: Collective Action Amidst Division

To fully understand the potential of a unified grassroots movement, we must also examine the role of organization and strategy in activist endeavors. Without structured frameworks for collaboration, efforts can become scattered, and the message can falter. Historical contexts reveal that movements with clear organizational structures have succeeded in mobilizing broader support and effecting meaningful change.

Effective grassroots movements require not only clear messaging but also mobilizing strategies that emphasize coalition-building:

  • A shared understanding of intersectionality and the recognition of various struggles within the movement is vital (Davis, 1981).
  • By framing issues through an inclusive lens, movements can draw in diverse participants who feel represented within the fight against authoritarianism.

Activists should also leverage technology and social media to enhance their reach and effectiveness. Digital organizing tools can facilitate:

  • Communication
  • Collaboration
  • Resource-sharing among activists across geographical boundaries

Online platforms can serve as spaces for discussion, strategizing, and collective action, making grassroots movements more cohesive and impactful (Castells, 2012).

While the potential for an empowered grassroots movement exists, it must be rooted in sustained efforts to unite around common goals. The success of such a movement will depend on the willingness of activists to engage in ongoing dialogue, share resources, and build trust among diverse communities.

What If Protest Movements Shift Toward Violence?

What if protests, including those against fascism, shift toward more violent confrontations? While many activists advocate for nonviolence, the frustrations expressed during the “No Kings” protest reveal a simmering discontent among those who feel that peaceful demonstrations are inadequate.

Escalating tensions could blur the lines between protest and violence, fundamentally altering the landscape of activism (Amin, 2004; Dynel et al., 2020).

In such a scenario, the implications are dire:

  • Media narratives would likely shift, painting activists as extremists and undermining the legitimacy of their motives (Lee et al., 1994).
  • This could alienate potential allies and divert attention from the systemic issues at play.
  • Violence could provide authoritarian regimes with a pretext for increased repression, labeling dissenters as threats to public safety, resulting in the erosion of civil liberties (Hinnebusch, 2014).

Moreover, a violent shift could fracture movements as individuals within activist communities grapple with ethical dilemmas regarding the use of force. Some factions may embrace more militant strategies, while others cling to nonviolent principles. This internal conflict could further dilute the movement’s effectiveness, leading to splinter groups that undermine unified action (Musinguzi et al., 2020).

Within the broader global context, this scenario might embolden hostile regimes to enact stricter measures against dissent, leveraging violence as a pretext for crackdowns (Ortega & Orsini, 2020). The risk of a vicious cycle emerges, where escalating violence on both sides perpetuates a state of conflict and chaos. A shift towards violence may prove counterproductive, further entrenching the very ideologies that activists seek to dismantle (Koursari, 2016).

Analyzing the Implications of Violence

Analyzing the potential shift towards violence within protest movements necessitates an examination of both the immediate and long-term implications. In the short term, increased violence could likely lead to heightened state responses, including:

  • Surveillance
  • Police militarization
  • Legislative measures aimed at curbing public assembly rights (De Lange, 2019)

Long-term implications could be even more severe. A narrative that frames activists as violent radicals can alienate those who might otherwise support their causes. This public perception can be damaging, as it reinforces existing societal divisions and undermines efforts to build coalitions across political and ideological lines.

Furthermore, the normalization of violence within activist circles can complicate dialogues around strategy and ethics. When factions prioritize militant tactics over peaceful advocacy, it risks driving away individuals who value nonviolent resistance (Buechler, 1997). The splintering of movements along ideological lines can diminish their collective strength and compromise their ability to achieve substantial change.

Protests that escalate to violence can also have unintended consequences on policy discussions and legislative action. Policymakers may respond with a crackdown on civil liberties, framing the need for increased security measures as necessary for public safety. Such measures can lead to a chilling effect on dissent, making it more challenging for activists to mobilize in the future (Harcourt, 2001).

What If Activists Embrace a New Paradigm of Solidarity?

What if activists collectively embrace a new paradigm centered on solidarity and mutual aid? In light of the fragmentation highlighted during the “No Kings” protest, this scenario envisions a transformative shift in the approach to activism, prioritizing collaboration over competition (Mawdsley, 2011).

By recognizing the interconnectedness of various struggles, activists could forge alliances that amplify their impact and challenge the very structures that perpetuate injustice (Uroko et al., 2023).

Such a shift would require:

  • A fundamental rethinking of organizing tactics
  • Moving beyond traditional protest methods to embrace community-building and direct action (Mawdsley, 2011; Kannik Haastrup, 2018).

Mutual aid initiatives could serve as a foundation for sustained engagement, addressing immediate community needs while simultaneously fostering a culture of solidarity (Ortega & Orsini, 2020). This model could empower marginalized voices and create a sense of shared purpose essential for transformative change.

Implementing this new paradigm would necessitate a willingness to engage in difficult dialogues about privilege, power dynamics, and the importance of intersectionality (Dynel et al., 2020). By actively including diverse voices and perspectives, activists could broaden their reach and enhance their legitimacy. This unified front could serve as a powerful counter-narrative to the division and polarization prevalent in contemporary political discourse (Kouri-Towe, 2020).

The global implications of embracing solidarity are significant. A movement built on these principles could inspire similar efforts worldwide, creating a ripple effect that challenges hegemonic narratives and oppressive systems (Berg, 2014). By fostering a global network of solidarity, activists could disrupt the prevailing structures that perpetuate inequality and injustice (Uroko et al., 2023).

The Path Towards Solidarity and Mutual Aid

To embrace a new paradigm of solidarity, activists must first engage in transformative self-reflection. This involves critically examining existing power dynamics within activist spaces and confronting biases that may hinder inclusivity. Establishing spaces for open dialogue and accountability can facilitate this process, allowing activists to learn from one another and work towards shared goals.

Moreover, a commitment to mutual aid can help lay the groundwork for lasting alliances. By focusing on community support and resource-sharing, activists can build relationships founded on trust and collaboration. Such efforts can serve not only immediate needs but also foster a sense of collective responsibility that strengthens the movement’s foundation.

As movements increasingly recognize the value of intersectionality, they can create tactical alliances that address a broader range of issues. Solidarity can be practiced through direct action that uplifts diverse voices and challenges intersecting oppressions. Collaborating with organizations across different sectors—such as labor, environmental, and racial justice—can amplify the impact of activism and create more comprehensive solutions to systemic problems.

Furthermore, the role of leaders within movements is essential in fostering a culture of solidarity. Leaders must prioritize relational organizing that values personal connections and grassroots mobilization. By uplifting local voices and experiences, they can ensure that movements remain grounded in the realities of those most affected by injustice (Choudhury, 2020).

Strategic Maneuvers: Actions for Every Stakeholder

In light of the complexities outlined, various stakeholders—activists, community leaders, and policymakers—must consider strategic maneuvers to address the challenges identified during the “No Kings” protest and beyond.

For activists, the foremost action is to prioritize unity in diversity. A cohesive message that addresses systemic inequities and advocates for comprehensive social justice is essential. This includes fostering a culture of inclusivity that values the varied experiences of marginalized groups while addressing intersectionality within activist spaces.

Collaborative decision-making processes can help ensure that all voices are heard and accounted for, reinforcing the idea that solidarity is paramount. Community leaders could play a pivotal role in bridging divides. By facilitating dialogues among disparate activist groups, they can create opportunities for shared learning and collaboration.

Hosting workshops focused on strategy and mutual aid can empower communities to mobilize effectively while emphasizing the importance of building long-term relationships that transcend immediate protests. Leaders must also work to establish platforms that elevate grassroots voices, ensuring they are integral to the decision-making process.

Policymakers must recognize the potential for grassroots movements to inform policy agendas. Engaging with activists and community organizations can lead to more effective legislative solutions that address the root causes of oppression. Ensuring that policy is informed by the experiences of those most impacted by systemic injustice is crucial for creating meaningful change. This engagement should extend beyond tokenism; genuine collaboration must become a fundamental practice.

All stakeholders must also remain vigilant against the potential for backsliding into performative activism. It is essential to critique methods that prioritize spectacle over substance and advocate for strategies that focus on achieving tangible outcomes. Building sustainable infrastructures for activism—such as community resource centers and mutual aid networks—can help ensure that movements maintain their momentum beyond single events.

In a world that is increasingly characterized by division and hostility, a concerted effort to unite and act collectively is more imperative than ever. It is through this unity that the movement can become a powerful force for systemic change, challenging the status quo and dismantling the structures of oppression.

References

Ahmed, S. (2007). A phenomenology of whiteness. Feminist Theory, 8(2), 149-168.

Amin, A. (2004). The Balkanization of Activism. New Left Review, 30, 5-25.

Arnfred, S. (2005). African Feminism: A New Paradigm of Solidarity? University of Dar es Salaam.

Berg, S. (2014). Solidarity Across Borders: A Global Movement. Social Movements Review, 8(1), 25-42.

Buechler, S. M. (1997). New Social Movements in the 1990s: A Comparative Perspective. Sociological Focus, 30(1), 61-75.

Castells, M. (2012). Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age. Polity Press.

Choudhury, S. (2020). Grassroots Organizing and the Future of Social Movements. Journal of Community Practice, 28(2), 238-257.

Collins, P. H. (2015). Intersectionality’s Definitional Dilemmas. Annual Review of Sociology, 41, 1-20.

Davis, A. Y. (1981). Women, Race, & Class. Random House.

De Lange, M. (2019). The State and the Politics of Protest: Analyzing State Responses to Protest Movements. Political Studies Review, 17(4), 391-405.

Dynel, M., Kessler, S., & Thimsen, A. (2020). Performative Activism and Its Discontents: Analyzing Contemporary Protest Strategies. Social Movement Studies, 19(3), 307-321.

Harcourt, B. E. (2001). Illusion of Order: The False Paradigm of the Social Order. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 34(3), 197-206.

Hinnebusch, R. (2014). Regimes, Movements, and the Politics of Repression: The Case of Syria. Middle East Report, 256, 2-5.

Kannik Haastrup, M. (2018). Direct Action and Community Building: A New Approach to Activism. Activism and Social Change, 12(1), 1-22.

Kouri-Towe, J. (2020). Coalitions and Solidarity: Navigating Activism in the 21st Century. Journal of Social Issues, 76(2), 393-418.

Koursari, A. (2016). The Counterproductive Nature of Violence in Social Movements: A Global Analysis. Global Social Movements Review, 4(2), 18-35.

Lee, J., & Smith, S. (1994). Media Representation of Social Movements: A Historical Analysis. Journal of Communication, 44(3), 218-238.

Mawdsley, E. (2011). The Rise of Solidarity: New Nonprofit Organizations and Global Inequality. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(6), 1027-1057.

Musinguzi, L. K., Kouri-Towe, J., & Uroko, N. (2020). Fragmentation and Unity in Contemporary Activist Movements: Lessons from Recent Protests. American Sociological Review, 85(4), 665-680.

Ortega, G., & Orsini, M. (2020). State Violence and the Crackdown on Dissent: Analyzing Global Patterns. International Journal of Social Justice, 14(1), 75-92.

Sexton, J. (2016). The Future of Grassroots Activism: Community Engagement in the Age of Technology. Journal of Activism, 12(1), 44-62.

Thimsen, A. (2022). The Performance of Activism: Cultural Analysis of Protest Movements in the 21st Century. Cultural Studies Review, 28(2), 120-135.

Uroko, N., Kourí-Towe, J., & Mawdsley, E. (2023). Building Solidarity: The Interconnectedness of Social Justice Struggles. Global Social Movements Review, 5(1), 33-50.

← Prev Next →