Presentation short abstract

Indigenous movements may undermine their own effectiveness by relying on weak-tie networks for narrow messaging. This "solidarity trap" leaves external allies with moral support but lacking contextual depth to take meaningful action, despite possessing resources that could advance movement goals.

Presentation long abstract

We examine a paradox in contemporary Indigenous activism: movements may inadvertently sabotage their effectiveness by relying on weak-tie networks to communicate narrowly focused messages that fail to leverage existing relationships for substantive change. While scholarship celebrates weak ties for information diffusion, Indigenous movements face a distinct challenge when external actors receive only singular, issue-specific messaging that lacks strategic breadth necessary to activate meaningful alliance. Drawing on three cases of Indigenous movements opposing false climate solutions, we demonstrate how narrow communicative strategy produces "the solidarity trap": a configuration where external actors—positioned at geographic, social, or institutional distance—remain structurally incapable of contributing beyond moral support and symbolic gestures. Despite possessing resources, networks, and institutional access that could materially advance movement goals, these actors remain underutilised because weak-tie relationships do not provide the contextual depth, strategic nuance, or relational trust necessary for substantive intervention. This self-limiting pattern stems from protective impulses to control Indigenous narratives, assumptions about external audiences, resource constraints prioritising broad but shallow outreach, and insufficient attention to relational architecture required for effective alliance-building. The consequences are significant: external actors express solidarity but cannot challenge unjust contexts; movements exhaust themselves generating sympathy but not strategic support. We argue effective alliance requires strategically deploying strong-tie relationships for depth and weak-tie relationships for breadth, recognising that context-changing intervention demands relational infrastructure enabling external actors to become genuine political partners rather than distant witnesses.