I’ve been studying transnational social movements for about a decade, and in my research I have found one of the most used strategies ENGOs tend to use is public protest. I’ve been fascinated by some organizations’ choice of disruptive techniques not because I think they are particularly effective but because I always wonder its effectiveness. In my research, I have found that many ENGOs that use lobbying, letter-writing, sitting on intergovernmental panels and providing advice as influencing strategies are much more effective than disruption.

There has been a substantial amount of discussion in the online realm on the effectiveness of Critical Mass (a bicycling flash-mob-type of gathering once a month where bikers take the streets in an effort to raise awareness about the need for sustainable modes of transportation – aimed to reduce car usage). While I can fully see the value of a movement like this to raise awareness, and I am a big cycling as a mode of sustainable transportation, lately the perception of its impact on Vancouver has been that it has become less effective in elevating the discourse to issues of sustainable transportation and has become more disruptive.

I fully support the core principle behind Critical Mass but I disagree fundamentally with its disruptive nature. Let me make three points.

First, the flash-mob nature of the movement diminishes the degree to which participants are accountable. Without clear leadership, nobody is accountable for the impact Critical Mass can have on people’s lives (for however short period of time). What will happen if somebody is in an ambulance heading towards St. Paul’s Hospital and Critical Mass disrupts traffic and the patient dies? Who should be held accountable and who would be responsible? Nobody, since Critical Mass has “no leader”

Second, the degree to which disruption occurs has diminished its effectiveness as an awareness-raising event. It has become unruly social disorder. Disruptive mobilizations have a place in social movements, but when Critical Mass’ mandate has been overshadowed by the general perception that it alienates people, making drivers furious and leading to confrontations, then it’s time to change the strategy.

Third, the non-cooperative approach of the movement creates confrontations. These face-offs between drivers and bikers preclude finding any solid, sustainable approaches to increase awareness. A sustainable transportation policy by nature requires stakeholders to negotiate points of agreement and common ground. But given that there is no apparent leadership and no accountability, there is no way to create common ground amongst actors.

I asked online – “when is the tipping point? when does disruption become unruly social order?”. I think Critical Mass creators and their proponents should re-think this and their strategies. A democratic society is a collaborative society, not a confrontational one.

I would appreciate your thoughts about Critical Mass in the comments section. Let’s begin the dialogue.