for context, the discussion was originally about subversive uses of absurdity / nonsense
Kerry Thornley's quote (in the OP) highlights some of the problems with naming yourself as a Movement. According to that manifesto, many of the people in his subculture thought it was over as soon as the magazines declared them the Hippie Movement.
subverting the dominant paradigm generally only works as a group effort! One lone weirdo is too small scale to change big things. She cannot generate consensus on hre own. Unless she gets really lucky or has access to really great resources. So to be effectively subversive you do need to coordinate your efforts with others, dontcha think?
I mean, we can't take that "we must stick apart" command too literally, it'll hamstring genuine efforts at coordination.
Well, I see a difference between group actions and a movement. The Great Googlie Mooglie Cabal has, on a number of occasions pulled off nonsense as a group and they are successful (in some sense). HOWEVER, and this is where I see the distinction, there is not a recruitment goal... there isn't a "We did this and if you join us you can too!" aspect. We simply do it. Now, once done, I have found that we end up with more friends wanting in on the fun... but not because we're making a movement, but rather because we're DOING SOMETHING FUN... and they want to as well.
I think my aversion to movements, tend to be tied to my aversion to evangelism in any form. One of those damned bars in my BiP, eh?
It does not feel good, to leave a 'movement' because you decide its wrong and bad... only to realize that the dozen or so people you convinced to join the movement are still stuck in it and now regard you as apostate. I 'studied' (converted) a young family once, about 6 years before I left the JW's. Recently, I found out that one of their kids went to the hospital and nearly died, while the doctors were trying to find someone to work on him without the use of blood transfusions. If he had died, I think, in some sense, I would have felt responsible.
So, I suppose my perception of any movement has been colored by those experiences. I re-read Little Brother a couple weeks ago and it kinda reinforced that concept... M1k3y started xnet with the idea that he was doing right/good and in some sense he was. However, he also ended up enticing/encouraging/inspiring very silly young kids to do very stupid things and they got caught. Since it was a story, M1k3y ended up saving the day and was a hero... so it was justifiable in the end. If, however, the story hadn't ended with his heroic WIN... would the 'movement' have been worth the lives and freedom of all those kids?
Discordian pranks I pull seem unlikely to reach the levels of 'interest' Little Brother did. If they do, however, I'd just as soon it be a prank I was pulling alone or with a group of people that knew the risks and what they were getting into. If it were part of a 'movement', who knows how many kids might take the risk without realizing it?
Maybe that's a poor way to look at it, I don't know. Maybe I should assume everyone is responsible for themselves and let it go at that. But, I still have trouble doing that with the past, maybe I'm just not ready to do it again....
Cram it, Damnulus! Stop making me reflect on this sort of thing!