It's OK to be a "one issue person"
Time is limited. Like in economics, we have an unlimited number of
wants, but a limited number of resources. I know I'd love to save the
world in a million ways, but that's simply not feasible. I'm a student
and I have a job. We all have obligations - that's understandable.
However, that doesn't mean that we can't do anything at all. Choose a
few issues that call to you, and work with those.
If people spread themselves out evenly between each issue that meant
anything to them, they wouldn't get aynthing done, because there would be
no one involved enough with any issue to get anywhere. Movements require
both "core" people and "peripheral" people. The core people must make
this issue their prime issue, and do much planning work. The peripheral
people participate in events.
The ideal situation is to have everyone working on some prime issue so
that there is momentum within each movement, but that people lend
themselves peripherally to other causes that interest them. If everyone
did that, we'd have a great network of people working to get stuff done.
If people fault you for being "one-issue", tell them it's better than
being "no issue". You can then explain the concepts of limited time and
main causes versus peripheral ones.
Related Pages
The Perfect Standard and why it's bad
Don't wait for the ideal issue
Get as involved as you can
It's all interrelated
So you're ready to start a movement
Republished with permission from
Activism 101 by kerig@sas.upenn.edu
