(Photo credit: Jane Goodall Institute Canada)

Known as the “Mother Theresa of Nature,” biologist Jane Goodall has left an indelible mark on the world through her tireless advocacy and conservation efforts that continue to this day (Goodall is in her 80s). In the documentary Jane Goodall: The Hope, producers chronicle her journey from biologist to reluctant activist and in the process highlight a distinct feature of her advocacy that drove its success.

Goodall—unlike some contemporary activists—recognized the strategic importance and advantage of working with opposing interests to change hearts and minds from within rather than vilifying and attacking those on the opposite ends of the ideological spectrum. Here, the opposing interest was Conoco (now ConocoPhillips), a large oil company that was operating in Africa; and it is through her unconventional relationship with company executives that she was able to realize some of her practical aims in protecting one of the forest’s most endangered species.

After witnessing chimpanzees languishing in deteriorating conditions in an African zoo, Goodall decided to work with Conoco to build a sanctuary that would provide a dignified home for these animals in their final days—even befriending the company’s country CEO whom she still visits to this day. In the documentary, she revealed her initial concern around the optics of extending an olive branch to a resource extraction company in this way, but reconciled this with the reality that it was only a company such as Conoco—with significant financial capacity—that could build such a desperately needed facility in one of the world’s most poverty-stricken regions. The ends justified the means; and by embracing pragmatism rather than ideological purity and the antagonism that is so often attendant, Goodall reveals a keen insight into how change actually happens in the real—and imperfect—world. Altering hearts and minds must happen from within, where one can reach members of an opposing group by appealing to shared values and emotion.

Jane Goodall: The Hope is available on National Geographic channel (Disney+), iTunes, Amazon Prime or Google Movies

This approach and openness to dialogue lies in stark contrast to much of modern day activism, which has coalesced around aggressive opposition and “direct action” fueled by anger (and sometimes violence) where reaching out to the other side is considered a betrayal of a movement’s values. The documentary hints at the counter-productiveness of “movement purity,” which maintains that one is not a true member of a movement unless they faithfully cling to the orthodoxy of beliefs and ideas espoused by its most extreme members. It is this same movement purity Goodall rejects. It is because of this—rather than in spite of it—that she succeeds in putting the environment and conservation at the forefront of the international stage and winning tangible change and real-world impact.

There is an element of this approach—seeking change from within an existing, dominant system—that relates to what Harvard scholar Erika Chenoweth underscores in Civil Resistance: What Everyone Needs to Know. Chenoweth identifies several key facts for social movements to succeed, and one of them is winning converts (or as she describes them, “defectors”) from an established regime’s supporter base. In effect, that is what Jane Goodall was doing when she cultivated trust and relationship with oil and gas executives whose company was extracting natural resources from the earth.

TAKE ACTION: Donate to the Jane Goodall Foundation

But much of modern-day activism adopts an opposite approach: rigid opposition and an aggressive rejection of opposing views to the point where dialogue is impossible. Road blockades and destruction of art as a protest to fossil fuel investment serves to raise awareness but also erodes support. As one study has revealed, acts of extreme protest can actually backfire.

This intransigence shuts the door to dialogue and progress and is most evident in North America’s harm reduction activist communities, which represent the most extreme edges of the progressive movement. Here, activists often refuse to work with or engage police or business owners who highlight public safety as a concern in connection to supervised injection sites and homeless encampments. In so doing, they isolate themselves from potential supporters closer to centres of political power and resources that could dramatically advance policy change. Allegations of obstructing police have even surfaced, which serve to further alienate activists from the mainstream public—a key demographic whose support is essential for policy change. Countless studies have demonstrated the important role public support plays in influencing politicians and political elites.

Contemporary activists would do well to carefully parse Jane Goodall’s approach to advocacy as she has been able to achieve a level of awareness, support, and policy reform few of them can lay claim to. Her theory of change exists at the opposite end of the activism spectrum: It is quiet, calm, and potent—not angry and performative. It builds public support rather than break it down; and through her disarmingly gentle approach, Jane Goodall reveals the time-tested wisdom that it is not the loudest voice that create durable change, but rather what those voices are saying. It’s not the volume, but the message.