Famed environmentalist Bill McKibben speaks of what he thinks can make modern movements victorious in his article “Movements Without Leaders,” which looks at today’s activism in a similar way to how Charles Duhigg analyzes past fights.  The two authors agree that strong ties are needed to begin a movement, and that diversity in perspectives can be beneficial.  Concerning the former, McKibben tells readers that the fight against the infamous Keystone Pipeline was only able to begin because he’d “…gotten a dozen friends…” (“Movements Without Leaders”) to join first, much like Duhigg’s mention of the Montgomery bus boycott starting with Rosa Parks’s close friends sticking up for her.  As for diversity, both authors find it helpful but in different ways.  Either Duhigg’s idea of diverse weak ties can inform people of opportunities to join campaigns outside their circles of close friends, or McKibben’s idea of diverse groups participating in general can create a stronger “full-spectrum resistance” (“Movements…”) than just one group with which fewer people can relate (or both strategies could work for one movement).  Also, while McKibben don’t mention anything about peer pressure to join the battle against climate change, we can infer that it’s occurred within the diverse groups.

But concerning leadership, the two authors’ ideas become more complex and diverge a bit.  Duhigg claims movements require that “…[L]eaders give participants new habits that create a fresh sense of identity and a feeling of ownership” (87).  He provides a prime example of this when he speaks of Martin Luther King’s inspiring speech to his African-American followers during the Civil Rights Movement about how they must continually forgive their white oppressors, inspiring them to follow his nonviolent lead.  King’s words then “…[C]onverted participants from followers into self-directing leaders” (102), and others followed their lead in turn.  Essentially, through his words, King as the overall leader created more minor leaders to spread his message.

According to “Movements Without Leaders,” McKibben supports the idea of these minor leaders, which he refers to as “little-l leaders,” but dislikes the idea of all-encompassing leaders or “capital-L Leaders,” like King.  He explains that having a single leader can block new ideas from other contributors, and that nowadays “Our attention is dispersed” (“Movements…”) making it difficult to bring everyone together under one person’s guidance in one place anyway.  This is why in the battle against climate change, he encouraged “…24 hours of rallies around the planet” (“Movements…”), allowing for more diverse and distant groups to speak up, rather than taking on the role of leader himself.  McKibben admits that “Communities…will probably always have some kind of hierarchy,” with some contributing to the community/movement more than others.  However, he then asserts that “…these aren’t exactly ‘leaders’…They are not charting the path for the movement to take”  (“Movements…”).  McKibben refers to them as “elders” or “small-l leaders” that are more like guiding figures the rest can either agree with or go against.  Therefore, we can conclude the main difference between his and Duhigg’s approaches are that Duhigg believes one major leader is required to create “small-l leaders” who spread the word in their areas, while McKibben simply believes these more minor figures can rise on their own and are more beneficial as they can still provide structure or advice without drowning out others’ words.

Works Cited