Change Movements Come with Casualties
Haaland the Sportswashing Puppet, Pride, and the Architecture Rebellion
I was watching a press conference with a friend the other day. Erling Braut Haaland participated, and reporters asked him about sportswashing. About the owners of Manchester City. About human rights and unjustified imprisonment in the United Arab Emirates. My friend said it didn’t make sense to ask Haaland these questions - what difference would it make? He’s a soccer player, not a human rights activist? So why would he have a well-thought-through opinion about this? And why should we care about it?
I agree, but I still think it’s the right thing to do. I don’t believe Haaland is a human rights thought leader, and his opinions aren’t too important. At least not when it comes to policy change and real influence on the sportswashing-matters he’s asked about. The ones who can impact this are probably behind the scenes. The masters of the puppet show are not on the stage. But to get to them, I think you have to ask questions to those on-stage, to Haaland and the likes. Because to create a movement for change, you need people to buy into it. The more people that join a movement, the more powerful it becomes. And how many watches a press conference with Haaland compared to a press conference with the puppet masters? Magnitudes of difference.
I’ve had somewhat similar discussions with others on different topics. For example, a gay friend found the pride celebration too vulgar and extravagant and that it depicted all LGBTQ+ people as very “non-normal.” I fully respect this point of view, but I think it’s a strategy for getting what you want.
I think of it almost like a negotiation. If you ask for the lowest you can accept, you’ll get less than you want. And gradually, we have to ask for more and more and more when it comes to policy, mindset- and cultural change. But we always have to ask for more than what we’d be satisfied with receiving.
Another similar discussion was about a movement for more beautiful architecture in Norway, Arkitekturopprøret Norge. I was discussing this with a woman who felt poorly portrayed as an architect. She started explaining how the decision processes worked for construction projects and how architects had their hands tied by builders and project owners who wanted cheap solutions. And again, I believed her in that. But that’s not how you build a movement. It has to be crystal clear and easy to grasp for the masses. Most people who see ugly buildings think the architect did a lousy job. They don’t care much for the builders and project owners. And so architects become the puppets of the builders.
I get that people in these situations feel that it’s unjust to them. But simultaneously, you have to zoom out and see the big picture. It’s not about the individuals. Policy change is a big-scale thing. So Haaland’s answers at the press conference aren’t important at all. What’s important is that he’s being asked.