> I could hardly disagree more with the premise that activism is anti-fellowship.
If you are doing activism, in the workplace, that runs against the beliefs and opinions of (some of the) the people you work with. How could this be anything but anti-fellowship?
Which beliefs and opinions? What if I'm arguing that our non-white employees are being passed over for promotions, and our women employees are all chronically underpaid compared to the men? How would that be more anti-fellowship than your fellows not being paid equitably?
What if you're arguing that women should stay at home, or that climate change is fake, or immigrants are a blight on society?
It works both ways I'm afraid. And many people will think that those opinions are somehow good for society and that they're being good team players by pushing them.
It does not work both ways when the things I'm arguing for are directly impacting my fellow coworkers, and are the results of direct decisions by the higher ups. It's not a question of society at that point, it's a question of what's good for the company.
OP loves his fellowship analogy, but you can't have a fellowship where the halflings are only getting half-rations and Gandalf refuses to let the Dwarves participate in half of their endeavours.
I see that many assumptions are made about the value of fellowship and the effects of activism. And this is why I disagree with the premise -- I can't start with those assumptions.
If you are doing activism, in the workplace, that runs against the beliefs and opinions of (some of the) the people you work with. How could this be anything but anti-fellowship?