Building the Muscle for Experimentation

The ecosystem for human rights is under real strain, and yet it is still alive with possibility. This is what dozens of campaigners, experts, and funders have been telling us across months of conversations. Activists are pointing to the way that the institutions, organizational models, and strategic approaches that have delivered human rights advances for decades no longer seem fit for purpose. Almost everyone said that they are already exploring how to adapt to this new paradigm, but we also heard that people feel like they are doing this in isolation. Guided by these insights into their contexts and needs, the Mapping Adaptation Project (MAP) is working to help strengthen the ecosystem’s muscle for the kind of collective learning and experimentation that is needed to move successfully into the future.

What MAP Is

We are a group of human rights practitioners, guided by an Advisory Circle of human rights activists from around the world. We are united by a shared worry about this moment of disruption but also a common belief that the human rights ecosystem has always had to innovate and adapt to persevere in the face of injustice, and it has what it takes to do so now. We think of the human rights ecosystem as the networks of individuals and organizations working across geographies, struggles, and approaches to defend and advance the human rights of people all around the world. MAP exists to harness the energy we see in that ecosystem to help create new ways of working for what comes next.

We began by listening to that ecosystem by interviewing over 80 practitioners across more than 30 countries and from a wide range of rights and justice fields. We spoke with international organizations headquartered in global capitals, national groups doing rights work in every region, networks of activists working at the grassroots, donors and funder collectives, and academics and independent experts. The picture that emerged is sobering but, at the same time, energizing.

What Activists Are Facing

Many of the people we spoke with described a human rights ecosystem under immense pressure, with activists operating in what seems like perpetual crisis mode. They talked about a relentless stream of negative events, combined with constant attacks against the rights advances they have fought for, against their activism, and even against themselves. The “survival mode” that they are forced to operate in has left them without the space, time, or resources to think about how to thrive again. Across regions and issues, people told us they feel stretched thin, anxious, and alone.

Interviewees described a seismic shift underway. Almost every practitioner we spoke with, 96 percent, raised concerns about fundamental changes in what interviewees called the "power map," the political and economic landscape that shapes how advocates can advance rights. As one commentator put it, “while the old system did not work, it was a system. Floating in a non-system is really hard.” We heard that multilateral institutions that once backstopped human rights are “crumbling.” Activists described how the tremendous concentration of economic power is undermining rights and their work. Many said that human rights issues have become flashpoints for polarization. They argued that human rights are too often being defined by the actors that oppose them, with one person saying, “this language has so much power, there is urgency to claim it before it is further coopted.” A separate concern was that human rights advocacy has “over-inflated the legal framework at the expense of the moral underpinnings.” One practitioner summarized, “We are living in a world where we lost trust.” 

Nearly as many practitioners, 91 percent, told us that the problem is not only external. They described organizing models that have grown increasingly brittle and siloed, competing for visibility and engagement in a fast-changing information ecosystem. Activists talked about a resource mobilization model that seems increasingly outdated in the face of a shrinking donor base. As one activist put it, the NGO model was “inherited from corporations, vertically integrated, specialized, and highly professionalized,” a structure that “actively discourages collaboration” and “produces organizations too rigid to adapt.”

What Activists Are Asking For

Despite this challenging context, we encountered a genuine appetite for learning and experimentation. Activists want to build connection, reflect, and test new approaches that let the human rights ecosystem address the issues they face and shape what comes next. 

Seventy-five percent of all the interviewees coalesced around the following three areas as key for the renewal of the human rights ecosystem:

Building political power. Practitioners told us that the “apolitical” stance is no longer feasible. One interviewee warned that “the other side erased that line, and we have to incorporate this shift.” They want to see a rights movement that builds constituencies through political strategy, leads with a propositional vision not just reports on violations, engages political moments without being captured by them, and helps protect the guardrails of democratic processes.

Adapting organizing models. Many activists pointed to structures that have grown “too bureaucratic, with too much focus on perpetuation” often at the expense of relevance. They want leadership and governance models that are built for adaptability, pooled assets and shared infrastructure that reduce duplication and enable collaboration, and room for new structures to emerge as older ones wind down. Many also underscored the need for new pathways into activism that reach other parts of civil society and new generations.

Reconnecting with people. Another concern was that the focus on building effective organizations with the capacity to engage policymakers had come at the expense of engaging the public on human rights issues. As one practitioner put it, “we pretend we have popular support and we do not spend enough time trying to change people’s minds.” Activists spoke about sustaining cross-movement relationships beyond single-issue campaigns, opening the ecosystem to voices beyond traditional rights actors, and showing up in service of communities already organizing.

What We Are Doing

Understanding the challenges is only a first step; what is needed now is the room to explore what comes next. Nearly all the practitioners we spoke with, 89 percent, called for what one interviewee described as a “sandbox,” a supportive, low-risk space to experiment and adapt. As one activist explained, the field needs a kind of “exposure therapy” to fresh ideas, a dedicated platform to try new things with “permission to fail.”

That is exactly what MAP is working to build, a peer-led community to help strengthen our collective muscle for experimentation. We are launching a series of cohorts: groups of up to twelve practitioners learning and experimenting together over six months. Rather than following a set curriculum, participants will bring their own emerging ideas; refine them into small, time-bound experiments designed for rapid learning; and test them in their own contexts with support from facilitators and peers. Along the way, they will document what they discover and feed it back into the field’s collective knowledge.

The participants lead the work. MAP provides light facilitation, coordination and momentum to help carry it forward. Our interviews underscored that activists are already aware of what is wrong, and do not need another report detailing it. What they asked for was somewhere to imagine and test what comes next. That is what MAP is for, and we are just getting started.

Interested in joining a cohort, or know someone who should be? We would love to hear from you. Please get in touch using our Contact page.