E.G.

Activists point at cases. Four illustrations:

(1) Black Lives Matter activists talk about Trayvon Martin, George Floyd, and a number of other Black people who have been killed in recent years.

(2) MAGA activists and other anti-immigrant activists talk about the killing of Laken Riley, and a few other such cases.

(3) Effective Altruists talk about people (example) who have chosen to give away large fractions of their income and who report being happy about this choice.

(4) Calf 269.

Why do activists talk about cases? There are two obvious answers to that question, and at least one further answer that I think is interesting and not-so-obvious.

First obvious answer: Cases (especially unusual or dramatic cases) are attention-grabbing.

Second obvious answer: Cases support generalizations. If you want to argue that there is a general pattern of violence against Black people, or a general pattern of immigrants committing crimes, or a general pattern of people feeling fulfilled when they choose extreme altruism, or a general pattern of animals being treated as mere things—then you might assemble your argument from cases that exemplify the general pattern that you are arguing for.

Third answer: Through the mechanism of prototype ostension, cases proffered in the context of a social movement function to determine, influence, explain, and negotiate what the movement is about.

If you want to explain to a child what a squirrel is, you can point at squirrels. After you've pointed at sufficiently many squirrels, the child will have the idea of a squirrel, will be able to reliably distinguish squirrels from non-squirrels, etc. This is the mechanism of prototype ostension.

Through prototype ostension, you can communicate an idea to someone without stating the idea in abstract terms. You can communicate an idea to someone via prototype ostension even if you are unable to state the idea in abstract terms. I am unable to define 'squirrel' in abstract terms, but I can still give the idea to a child by pointing at squirrels.

In a similar manner, I think cases used in activist messaging have the function of creating and communicating an idea of what the movement is about.

Prototype ostension used to communicate the idea of a squirrel
Q1: What's a squirrel? A1: That's a squirrel, and that's a squirrel, and…

Prototype ostension used to communicate the idea of what BLM is about
Q2: What's BLM about? A2: That violent incident (pointing at the killing of Trayvon Martin), and that violent incident (pointing at the killing of George Floyd), and…

Proposal: Social movements often (not always) rely on prototype ostension to determine what they are about. And this is so even when, and perhaps especially when, it is difficult to say in abstract terms what the movement is about.

In the case of BLM, for instance, I suspect that (a) there is general agreement among people in the movement that the movement is about a general pattern exemplified in the killings of Trayvon Martin, George Floyd, and others.

But I also suspect that (b) there is no general agreement among people in the movement about precisely how that general pattern can or should be understood in abstract terms.

Of course I am not denying that there are pieces of language that we use to refer to the general pattern in question. I take it that systemic racism is one such piece of language. But my proposal is that there will be disagreement within BLM about what this general pattern precisely is. So, I'm suggesting, one of the functions of cases is to circumvent abstract formulation and to non-abstractly create and share an idea of the general pattern.

I suspect that social movements can be put on a spectrum: Some are more case-based than others, i.e., some rely more heavily than others on prototype ostension to determine what they are about.

Effective Altruism seems to be on the less-case-based end of the spectrum. EA messaging does involve cases (as mentioned above) but I don't think the movement relies on cases to determine what it is about. There are certain general statements (e.g., statements contained in the books written by prominent EA leaders) that determine what the movement is about. But other movements are on the more-case-based end of the spectrum.

By the way, it isn't bad for a movement to be heavily case-based. For example, if it is easy to give an idea of what systemic racism is via prototype ostension, but difficult to produce an abstract definition of systemic racism that will be fully satisfactory to everyone and uncontroversial, then it may be that BLM ought to be a case-based movement. When someone asks you what a squirrel is, it's generally fine to reply by pointing at squirrels.