I strongly disagree with one of the core arguments of the article. The article describes “concentric circles of caring” - a person caring more about friends than acquaintances than compatriots than others. It then characterizes top-down action as trying to change from the outside in while bottom-up changes from the inside out.
This seems very clearly false. There are many top-down initiatives, like national welfare plans or child support subsidies, that try to work from the inside out. And there are many bottom-up initiatives, like veganism or supporting undocumented refugees, that try to work from the outside in.
As such, the question of outside in and/or inside out bears no relation to top-down or bottom-up. The conclusion of plurality of tactics remains intact, but only because it is the best position in a zero information scenario. (aka: throw spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks).
I strongly disagree with one of the core arguments of the article. The article describes “concentric circles of caring” - a person caring more about friends than acquaintances than compatriots than others. It then characterizes top-down action as trying to change from the outside in while bottom-up changes from the inside out.
This seems very clearly false. There are many top-down initiatives, like national welfare plans or child support subsidies, that try to work from the inside out. And there are many bottom-up initiatives, like veganism or supporting undocumented refugees, that try to work from the outside in.
As such, the question of outside in and/or inside out bears no relation to top-down or bottom-up. The conclusion of plurality of tactics remains intact, but only because it is the best position in a zero information scenario. (aka: throw spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks).
…