The journey of social movements is riddled with complexities. Consider the March of Dimes, initially founded to combat polio. Once polio was effectively neutralized, the organization redirected its efforts towards other health challenges. While this pivot showcases adaptability and commitment, it also opens a broader discussion on what drives such movements forward after achieving their primary goals. This phenomenon is often labeled as the ‘March of Dimes Syndrome’ and raises pertinent questions about the motivations and future of social activism.
In the not-for-profit realm, there’s often discussion about the ‘Shirky Principle’, which posits that institutions will preserve the problem to which they are the solution. In my experience within internet governance and other non-profit sectors, we frequently see institutions fight to maintain their relevance. Commenters, like ggm, touch upon this frequently, identifying a reluctance in organizations to eliminate the very issues that justify their existence. This inclination to seek perpetual relevance becomes a focal dilemma for many activist organizations that succeed in their initial mission but then face the need to stay pertinent.
Analyzing the ‘Shirky Principle’ alongside the ‘March of Dimes Syndrome’ offers an intriguing juxtaposition. While the former suggests stakeholders will hinder problem resolution to remain indispensable, the latter explores how organizations might actually solve their core issue and then embellish peripheral problems to maintain operation. According to tpoacher, this leads activists to not just elongate the problem but to magnify what remains. This dynamic, as cynical as it may sound, is also a natural progression in a world where societal issues are rarely static. Living in a complex social fabric means that problems evolve, and so must the solutions.
The responses to major social movements like #MeToo, BLM, and the ongoing fight for LGBTQIA+ rights offer vivid examples of how activists must continuously adapt. As pointed out by quantified, the rise of reported hate groups and perceived regression in racial attitudes despite progressive milestones illustrates a paradox in social campaigns. From a broader perspective, this reflects society’s evolving standards—what was once acceptable becomes intolerable as social awareness grows. While many might scoff at what appears to be ‘moving the goalposts,’ others see it as necessary adaptations to address deep-rooted, systemic issues that aren’t solved by a single milestone.
It is worth noting that activism is not a one-way street. Aloha notes that conservative groups exhibit similar behaviors, shifting focus and intensifying efforts on matters such as abortion laws and gun rights regulations. This isn’t merely a tactic confined to progressive activism but rather an activist trait across the spectrum. Analyzing this, it’s clear that organizations, regardless of ideology, seek relevancy and perpetuation by amplifying their causes and finding new battles within or adjacent to their original missions.
However, not all align with these views. Some argue that the core motivation behind activism remains unchanged—to genuinely resolve issues, not perpetuate them. Lupire highlights that anti-racism and anti-abortion movements are fundamentally about termination rather than mitigation. The notion that activists simply drift to new causes in a ‘disorderly’ manner is more reflective of responsiveness to new or uncovered issues rather than a sign of strategic overstretch. As societal needs shift and new challenges emerge, the continuity in purpose rather than the redundancy in mission becomes clearer.
In addressing these dynamic shifts and continuation arguments, it’s essential to incorporate nuanced viewpoints. As zzo38computer argues, laws and societal behaviors must reflect pragmatic flexibility. Whether it’s accommodating evolving definitions of discrimination in commerce or understanding the fluidity in sports and gender identity, society must tailor its laws and ethics to serve an ever-growing understanding of fairness and inclusivity. The debate over custom services, such as cake baking for same-sex marriages, underscores this tension between legal obligations and personal beliefs, revealing a microcosm of broader societal debates on justice and equality.
Ultimately, understanding the implications of ‘March of Dimes Syndrome’ involves appreciating the complex matrix of societal evolution and institutional behavior. Whether viewed through the lens of the Shirky Principle, or from a pragmatic understanding of ongoing social needs, recognizing these patterns helps in better framing the roles and responsibilities of activists and their organizations. What remains constant is the need for organizations to adapt constructively without losing sight of their mission to promote tangible and lasting social good.
Leave a Reply