Monthly Archives: February 2012

Social Movements and Public Policy

Posted on by

Following up on our discussion today about the relationship between social movements and public policy, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell withdrew his support of the latest bill requiring a woman to have a transvaginal ultrasound before having an abortion.  Was his change of heart due to public protest and media attention or due to his own political aspirations?  Hard to tell.

See the New York Times latest coverage of the issue here.  That article also describes some of the social movement organizations on both sides of the debate.

See John Stewart’s The Daily Show coverage of the issue here.

Fox News has an article describing the protest on Monday.  Read that here.

You can also read the AP News story about the protest here.

This image comes from the Rachel Maddow blog.  You can read the blog here.  The people standing in the far left of the picture include a faculty member and students from Longwood University.

 

Chapter 9: The Policy Connection

Posted on by

In Chapter 9: The Policy Connection, Meyer addresses the interaction of movements and the policy process.  Using the Bonus Army as an example, Meyer highlights specific techniques employed by protesters in social movements that impact the movements effect on policy.  These techniques include: personally carrying their claims to Washington to bring them to the direct attention of policy makers, not giving in to intimidation or efforts to suppress their demonstrations, and using the media to gain allies across the nation.  Meyer describes effective demonstrations as an expression of a cause, the representation of a constituency, and the analysis of what should be done.

 

One of the main points Meyer highlights throughout this chapter is that social movements influence, develop, and affect politics over a long period of time and often in unexpected ways (165).  Social movements often get criticized for not having specific goals and showing no focused means of obtaining their goals or enacting specific changes.  However, much of this criticism stems from the issue that social movements cannot create immediate change.  Meyer points out that Madison and the other founders purposefully created our political system in a way that slows the process of political change (168).  The political policy changes that social movements bring about take a long time to pass through the system and much of the process occurs behind closed doors.  Unfortunately, by the time these changes come about, the social movements that called for them are not always given due credit.

 

Meyer presents an example of this slow political process using the antiwar and antidraft movements of the 1960s.  Although draft regulations did not change much during the Vietnam War, they have changed drastically since then.  The political fallout resulting from the antiwar movement affected the United States foreign policy for nearly thirty years (167).  It also led to more hesitancy before committing troops to foreign missions.  In addition, antidraft movements led policy makers and the military to improve the quality of life of military personnel in an effort to attract and accommodate a stable volunteer military force.  By the time these changes came about, little credit was given to the activists who participated in those social movements.

 

Keeping these issues in mind, it is interesting to think about what social movements that have occurred recently and are currently in progress will bring about political change in the future.  The OWS movement has been heavily criticized for not having any specific goals and not petitioning for specific changes within the system.  However, it is possible that major changes stemming from this movement have yet to be seen.  What policies may come about that began as reactions to the Occupy movement?

— Laura Bailey

“Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.” -George Bernard Shaw

Posted on by

Chapter 10 in Meyer’s book leaves in the hearts and minds of the readers, this idea of the continuation of protest. We see in this chapter his opinion on protests, mainly his belief in the power of protest and its vital place in our political society. I think he sends a strong message to his listeners about the importance of their role in politics. What I took mainly from this chapter was that the citizen should always be active. They should not fear rejection or change; rather they should desire to voice their opinions and act upon them in protest. The great thing about our nation is that it is a democracy. We declared that we should be given the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Later, we turned these dreams into policies of justice and freedom in our bill of rights. Meyer brings to our attention this fact because he believes it has been somewhat lost. He suggests that some citizens have begun passive or cynical about politics and thus retreat to their private lives. But we are blessed with the gift of free speech yet how can we expect our voice to be heard without protests.

In three famous examples, with recurring themes about voting rights he demonstrates the change created by our historical involvement in social movements, as well as one example from the present. This idea that American citizens including soldiers, African-Americans, and women were at one point in time denied the right to vote, is astonishing for any present day American to even fathom. We are lucky to have both the freedom to voice our opinion in protests and elections. Not every person around the world has this right. So use it! Exercise your rights. Instead of complaining about the government, be an active citizen. A great example, Meyer gives us are the protests against George W. Bush’s resurrection. These protests, like OWS, and the civil right movements give us hope for the future, as long as citizens with “collective standings” as Meyer defines it, continue to come together and fight for these common grievances, our country can rebuild itself.

As I have reflected above upon this chapter, I have been able to look at my own role in politics or lack their of. I have a lot of work to do in being more of an active and informed citizen. I have realized through this book and class the importance of protest. Although, I may not believe in every trivial issue, I do believe in the broader theory behind voicing these issues.  Protests keep us all in check. They remind us of how privileged we are to live in the land of the free and they bring justice. My first step to improve my own civic responsibility is to vote.

1) Do you think eventually the OWS protests will create change? Or do you think that our politics are so corrupted that their efforts will go unanswered?

2) What steps can you take to be a better citizen? How can you avoid becoming ignorant and inactive? What are some of your own grievances towards American government? Or more specifically, the Richmond government and community? What injustices do you see?

3) Do you think Meyer is too idealistic and simplistic to say that creating change is as easy as being a courageous citizen who accepts political responsibilities by protesting with others?

Eliza McLean

Chapter 9- The Relationship Between Social Movement and Policy

Posted on by

The chapter was a bit choppy in my opinion, so I’ll do my best to discuss what I thought were the major points. Myers uses chapter 9 to discuss the complex and multi-dimensional relationship between social movements and public policy. Myers outlines how public policy can be both a cause and response to social movement. The examples Myers juxtaposes to illustrate this point are the expansion of the draft during the Vietnam War and the distribution of benefits as a result of the Bonus March following WWI. The expansion of the draft played a pivotal role in inciting the anti-war movement. Myers uses this example to generalize that “changes in policy provide the concerns that drive people into mobilization” (171). The distribution of benefits to veterans returning from the war was the culmination of the Bonus March and years of protesting for well fare. This example is used to demonstrate how the policy process “responds to social movement” (171). The key point Myers tries to make is that public policy influences social movements, and social movements influence public policy.

Myers dives deeper into how social movement effects policy by describing four ways in which social movements alter policy networks. In summation, social movements can

  1. Lead to the replacement of existing political figures, meaning “throwing a rascal out and putting and ally in office instead” (173).
  2. Lead to the conversion of beliefs where existing political figures change their beliefs on policy to benefit the movement
  3. Lead to the creation of a completely new policy area, agency, habit, or institutional setting
  4. Lead to the reconfiguration of current policy monopolies by introducing to new individuals to them

The key question I asked myself when I was reading all of this was whether policy should even be the desired outcome of social movement. Myers briefly hints at this at one point in the chapter on page 170, but I wish that he had explored this issue more. History has shown that public policy is not always capable of achieving societal change. The Emancipation Proclamation is just one of many policies in our country’s history that epitomize the principle that policy cannot change hearts. In order for policy to have its desired effect the mindsets and values of those it affects have to change as well. Therefore, the most important outcome of social movement is not one of the aforementioned changes to the policy networks, but rather changes in societal values and beliefs. I feel that this aspect of social movements is often ignored in favor of striving for direct policy changes.

What are all of your opinions on this issue? Am I downplaying the power that policy changes can have or is changing public values and opinions as important as I think? I feel as if I would be remiss in my blog duties if I didn’t mention OWS, so do you guys think that the OWS movement needs to change public opinions on wealth distribution in order to accomplish its broad goals?

Chapter 9 – How and Why Social Movements Achieve Influence

Posted on by

The Bonus Marchers' camp outside Washington D.C.

In Chapter 9 Meyer opens with the example of the Bonus Marchers of 1932, which I find particularly interesting being a member of Army ROTC. The basic idea behind the Bonus Marchers was for WWI veterans march to Washington D.C. and persuade the government to give them their monetary bonus for serving in the war immediately, instead of waiting till 1945, when it was originally scheduled to be paid. Their “Bonus Bill” was shot down in 1932, but in 1933 when Franklin Delano Roosevelt became president, they returned to protest again. Finally, by 1936 the Bonus Marchers’ continual protest was rewarded as Roosevelt agreed to pay the bonus ahead of schedule.

There are two things that I’d like to highlight in this story. First, that protest can affect policy. This is the theme of this chapter in looking at how exactly this happens. Second, this is an example of a social movement that fully achieved their goal. Unlike many of the social movements that we’ve looked at so far, the Bonus Marchers actually accomplished what they set out to do, and when they finished, they disbanded and went home. This will become important later on in this post.

Let’s look at the first topic, how exactly can protests affect policy? Meyer seems to point to a few different reasons, all leading up to the fact that in order to change policy, social movements have to go through the government in order to get their reforms enacted. Meyer talks about how the Bonus Marchers had contacts in government, and how they had their “Bonus Bill” heard in congress. But ultimately, everything has to go through government. Protests serve to gain attention, to spread the concerns to a wider audience, and then, once enough people are upset, the politicians have to do something about it.

Now why does this matter? What do we care that hundreds of people are camping out in Washington D.C. for a bonus that they’ll get paid eventually anyway? Meyer says that “When a mobilized effort demonstrates strength and commitment, it can make the current policy course untenable or make long-simmering ideas appear suddenly viable” (Meyer, 172). When enough people are upset it looks poorly for those in command. President Hoover had to explain why he didn’t favor helping the veterans when there was an unemployment problem already. The key seems to be numbers and persistence.

Finally, another way that I thought was key to this issue, and wasn’t really talked about very much in the chapter, was the fact that the Bonus Marchers had an achievable goal. It seems common sense that if you want to achieve your goal, you want to make your goal achievable. This is how I would critique some of the movements that just strive for “social equality” or to even out the wage dispersion like OWS wants. How is one ever going to fully achieve social equality? Or how can we ever make everyone have exactly equal pay? It just seems that sometimes smaller goals can get heard and made into policy more than the larger ones.

I’ve said a lot in this post that was hopefully provocative in some way. If you agree or disagree, please let me know by commenting. Thanks!

Ch. 9 Policy & Protest

Posted on by

In Chapter 9, entitled “The Policy Connection,” Meyer describes the reciprocal relationship of policy and protest. He showed how activists respond to government policy in many situations, and inversely how policy addresses the disruption that mobilization causes in others.The two examples he used to demonstrate both sides of the democratic connection between policy and protest were the Bonus Bill movement and the antiwar movement against Vietnam.

The Bonus March movement involved a series of marches and demonstrations from veterans who had been displaced from World War I. They were desperate for work and the government had only promised a measly $1,000 service bonus to each of them. The Veterans were fighting to pass a bill called the Bonus Bill which would offer them much more money and support. When the veterans’ encampment and marches failed to convince government to pass the bill, the marchers extended their cause to a wider audience to include many more people who were in need. When relief for more people became the focus, and the movement grew larger and unavoidable, Roosevelt eventually passed the bill in response to their grievances. This is a fine example of policy responding to protest. In the other example, the antiwar movement in the 1960s, the movement was a direct response to policy that was passed. There had already been growing hatred for Nixon’s use of nuclear weapons in Vietnam, but after he passed a policy which extended the draft to eighteen-year-olds, a new movement erupted. This example shows the other side of the relationship in which a group was given a reason to join other groups who already opposed the war; it was protest in response to policy.

In this chapter, Meyer asserted that changes in policy are usually incremental by way of marginal adjustments. So, although he has given instances in which policy has changed due to protest, the outcome is certainly not always in the favor of the activists. Not only is policy change too slow to be satisfactory to the urgent concerns of activists, but it often does not change enough to accomplish the end goals of the movement. He had an interesting quote saying, “There is a mismatch between political rhetoric that emphasizes absolutes and a political process that prizes compromise and incrementalism” (Meyer 177). Our governmental system will never meet all the expectations and address all the grievances of a movement, so people will always experience some sort of disappointment. This reminded me of Barbara Ransby at her lecture about MLK Jr. and the Civil Rights Movement. She said that if Ella Baker and MLK Jr. were here today, they would be pleased with progress, but they would not feel like their goals had been reached. There is always more work to be done.

“At what point can movements claim victory? Is there ever at point at which they can say that they have won, even when there is always more work to be done? Even if policy does not change in response to a movement, can the visibility of new issues be enough to satisfy the constituents?”

Chapter 8- Professional Organizers, more necessary today?

Posted on by

Chapter 8, “When Everyone Protests,” is way to start thinking about both sides of a protest and movement-countermovement dynamics.  I thought Lucie did an excellent job of giving an overview of Myer’s points, so I won’t re-state those.  Among other specifics in the chapter, such as getting the attention of people with political power, I was most interested in Meyer’s take on the importance of professional organizers in movements. Especially as we being to think about countermovements and the necessity of responding to the “other side,” professional organizers might be vital to the success and impact of a protest.  As Lucie mentioned in her post, activists must put energy into their own movement, but also engage with the countermovements and publicize rebuttals.

Meyer first introduces professional organizers in Chapter 3, Becoming an Activist. There, he gives a good background about who becomes an activist, and the different types of activists that exist. Specifically, Meyer notes that  “movement professionals” are people who support themselves through organizing and political efforts.  These people do not just view the movement as a hobby, but as a lifestyle; there is always something to do that could be advancing the cause within the movement. Meyer says that movement professionals “develop a stronger vested interest in the survival and well-being of their organizations than will the rank and file activist” (55).

As we think more about countermovements, it’s good to acknowledge all the work that goes into managing the movement’s own message as well as incorporating responses to media coverage of the countermovement. Considering the bigger picture, Meyer points out that movements have become more complicated in general: “Whereas protest was the province of those without other means to make political claims effectively, it is now an add-on or component of the political strategy of an increasingly broad range of groups” (159).  Today, instead of all attention going into the protest, there are not a lot more considerations, such as current policy, lobbying, outreach campaigns to other organizations, e-mail and telephone communication, applying for police permits and posting bail.

Here are some questions I’ve had. What do you think?:

  • OWS not only has no professional organizers, but no identified leaders.  Is the absence of “professional organizers” a detriment or an advantage to the movement? Do every day citizens act as “movement professionals” in any way?
  • Has OWS engaged with a countermovement of any kind? How so?
  • What would Meyer say about OWS’s lack of engagement in the political process? Do you think the movement ever try to brand itself with politics or an existing power structure?

-Caitlin Manak

Chapter 7: Playing Within the Rules of the Game vs. The Consequences of Challenging the System

Posted on by

In Meyer’s Chapter 7, we see him address not only the process of institutionalization but also the effects that it has on the different factions of a broad social movement. He suggests that these three complementary processes are cooptation, marginalization, and demobilization.

The first brings the one part of the faction to move into institutional politics as it moves from beyond the “borders of mainstream politics to the inside of the political arena” (130). We see this kind of association within social movements today as they try to gain momentum by playing within the rules of the already existing game. In this way, they can establish themselves “legitimately” as they follow the rules, routines, procedures, and norms of mainstream politics. Many new movements are vulnerable to cooptation as it is the safer route to take as they set their prospective achievements being attained in smaller steps as they have to follow all the red tape and rules that has already been established.

The second process is for groups that have been forced outside mainstream politics and their culture has been marginalized. A way that this can be achieved is through repression and forcible exclusion; however, this is sometimes a good thing for groups as they have no one to compromise their stances on their issues of concerns. This can be compared to how we see political candidates compromising their pure stances to nourish internal relationships and appease their constituents. If the groups aren’t worried about gaining access to larger audiences, then this process is actually allowing them to “speak their truths as clearly as possible, albeit to smaller audiences” (Taylor 1989). But we can see this kind of marginalization in our government’s history as social movement leaders of the 1880s onward have been threatened by secret police and sometimes sentenced to extended prison terms for exercising their right to express their opinions that just happened to be different than those of mainstream politics.

Lastly, sometimes when issues lose the spotlight and attention of mainstream politics, their supports and activists demobilize. However, as we talked about in class and as we read in Chapter 3, we know that there are movement professionals who don’t necessarily protest visibly on the streets everyday or rally the troops to sustain the movement, but are quietly and less visibly supporting their cause while sustaining a more career-oriented lifestyle. Although there are some movements who fall of the map as their supports demobilize there are many more that take what they have learned from the experience and pursue other more focused protests. For example, many movements include multiple factions that recognize that it is mutually beneficial to be seen as a one movement, but when the broad movement is demobilized, many individuals “turn their attention to other issues that now seem more pressing, more promising, or more in line with their core mission” (131). Meyers gives the example of the nuclear freeze movement that included multiple different groups, and when the movement faded, these groups didn’t just stop supporting their causes, but instead they turned their attention to their narrower focuses that held them together.

And so as I was reading, I was wondering what you guys thought are the “worst” or “best” fates of movements as they fall into the processes of institutionalization. Personally, I don’t necessarily think that it is a bad thing when super large groups demobilize after becoming marginalized because I think that in many scenarios, politics deludes the true intentions of groups and a reorganization of people with the same core mission once in awhile is a good thing.

Furthermore, I think that Meyers brings up an interesting point of how when these three wings develop in a movement and for example, the institutionalized wing looses momentum, the other two wings become less interested to stay strong as well. Do you guys think that factions are the reasons that movements fail? Or do you think that factions are what truly focus a movement? Do you think the factions of the Occupy Wall Street Movement will help or destroy its momentum?

Why Everyone Protests (Why Nothing Gets Done)

Posted on by

Firstly I would like to provide a summary of the key points of this chapter for review. Meyer begins this chapter acknowledging the power of incorporating politics into social movements. Protesting at social movements, for example the Democratic national convention in Chicago in 1968, is a great way to gain the attention of the federal and state governments but also to gain political allies. Originally Meyer states that political protest was greater in the past than now, and contrastingly fewer issues were protested about in the past than are now. This increase of issues protested about alludes to JP’s question as to whether civil disobedience has become overused. Meyer admits in this chapter that the increase of social movements has created a “cluster of issues” (146) and each issue receives less attention as a result.

From there, Meyer then moves on to discuss the double-sidedness of political protests. Meyer uses the examples of abortion and civil rights to present the case that each political movement has a countermovement. He briefly states that although these movements may be the direct opposite of one another, they still often use the same tactics as mentioned in Chapter 5. Political protests have so many components to them due to the fact that each one has a countermovement. Meyers writes “Activists on more than one side of an issue must deal not only with each other, but also the outsiders drawn into the conflict” (150). Activists not only have to worry about organizing and promoting their side of the issue, but also have to stay on top of the counter movement’s plans and rebut their statements.

Not only is there countermovement to every movement, but also there is bipartisanship within both the state and federal government. So therefore you have the two sides of one issue fighting against each other, Republicans and Democrats fighting against each other, and the state and federal governments fighting against each other as well. It’s no wonder political protests never make any real progress. Political protests often have more resources than non-political protests because they engage politicians with power into the equation. These politicians can act as representatives for each side of the issue and make sure their opinions are debated in government meetings. However, because the state and federal governments often have different rulings and do not come to similar conclusions on rulings, there is a lot of gray area within these hot button issues. For example with abortion, Roe v. Wade ruled that a women can terminate her pregnancy during the first trimester, the state holds power in the third trimester, but during the second trimester, there needs to be a “balancing of rights” (152). This balancing of rights leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Take gay marriage, the federal government does not recognize gay marriage, yet they give states the right to make their own individual decisions. Well not all states have the same policies, so there again is a gray area of indecision.

In conclusion, Meyer states that the reason why political protests take so long to resolve, or might never be resolved is because of the split in government and the continued existence of movements and countermovement. Also, because political protest has become more commonly accepted in the present, people risk less by joining a movement. Therefore, there are more issues being debated and lots and lots of clutter.

Okay now for the fun part…some questions for you to think about:

1.)    Going back to JP’s question has the increase of political issues being debated taken away from their overall meaning? Would it be more conducive to focus on only a few hot button topics (gay marriage, abortion) at a time?

2.)    In what ways does a bipartisan government create standstills for social movements? Are these standstills necessary to keep the peace? Could these standstills ever realistically be removed somehow?

3.)    Is there a countermovement to Occupy Wall Street? If so, does that mean OWS is a political protest? If not, does that mean OWS does not qualify to be a political protest?

– Lucie Dufour

Social Movements, Too Legit to Quit? Ch 7 – The State and Protests: Institutionalization

Posted on by

In this chapter, Meyer details the pattern of political institutionalization of social movements that has come to characterize some movements in the United States.  He uses the antinuclear movement of the 1970s, the longer term US populism and agricultural movements, and US labor movements as the exemplars for explaining the patterns and mechanisms of institutionalization.

Meyer provides an operational definition of institutionalization as “…the creation of a stable set of relationships and procedures such that the politics of an issue becomes routine, that is, repeatable for all concerned with minimal uncertainty or risk… The boundaries of possible reforms are reasonably clear to all concerned and are limited” (126).  He then outlines several mechanisms of institutionalization:

  1. “…policy makers can incorporate movement concerns by offering consultation, formal or informal, with representatives of a movement” (126)
  2. “…elected officials can offer social movement activists a platform or a venue for making their claims” (127)
  3. “…government can set up more permanent venues for consultation, formally adopting the concerns, and even sometimes the personnel, of a challenging movement” (127)
  4. “government can institute procedures that give an actor or claimant formal inclusion in a deliberative process” (128)
  5. “…policy reform can afford activist concerns a place in the process and resources attendant to that place” (128)
  6. “institutionalization includes norms and values, not only in government, but also in the broader culture” (128) *noted as critical by the author*

What struck me the most about this chapter was the indirect, implicit discussion of legitimacy.  To me it seems that at the foundation of this process of institutionalization is a search for the right place, a sense of permanence, the right people, and recognition for the need and the possibility for reform.  What the process of institutionalization does for a social movement is accommodating the needs of the cause while providing them with a form of legitimacy.  Following this train of thought, if this particular cause is being welcomed into the political system then it must have a legitimate claim to be taken seriously.  In the title of this blog post, I ask in jest “Social Movements, Too Legit to Quit?”.  But, I think this question has resonance with what Meyer discusses in this chapter because there seems to be a catch-22 with institutionalization.  The process does not just fuel the activistism and/or activist participation.  The social movement becomes institutionalized and gains legitimacy but gaining legitimacy may prompt activists to question what else they can do for their cause.  Can institutionalization make a movement “too legit” and make the activists quit?

After reading this chapter, I’m left considering the following questions which I now pose to you:

  • Is the process of institutionalization as described by Meyers just another way of phrasing the process of negotiation? Or is it a grander process of gaining legitimacy? Or is it simply selling out?
  • Do you think that institutionalization is necessary or even inevitable?
    Can you imagine OWS engaging in institutionalization? Or would that be completely antithetical to the cause?

 

Brittany Mangold