Daily Archives: February 7, 2012

Becoming an Activist

Posted on by

Meyer’s Chapter Three focuses mainly on who and why individuals become active in social movements. The basis of his argument lies in the fact that “movements are always comprised of a wide range of people-people who have an equally wide range of reasons for engaging in social action” (45). It is important to recognize how the perception of those who become involved in social movements has changed over time from a collective behavior theory where participants are recognized as crazy and irrational to a more accepted notion of those who have deep rooted interest in social justice and a cause for their commitment. However, it is interesting how the development of the Occupy movement has made the collective behavior theory re-emerge. While some think that the people participating in Occupy Wall Street are a bunch of crazy hippies and poor people, the demographics show that protestors actually cover a wide array of people who are truly commited to left-wing politics-opposition to corporate capitalism. Instead they strive for radical redistribution of wealth, intense regulation of the private sector, and policies that would protect American jobs from moving overseas.  These facts and statistics proves one of Meyer’s other points that “Activists in social movements are disproportionally advantages in terms of education, resources, familial support, and social connections” (47). This idea resonates really closely with what we’ve learned about Ella Baker in the sense that she also came of a black family that was considered to be privileged during the Civil Rights movement. Meyers also discussed that individuals may dedicate their lives’ careers to social movements, often movement professionals, who are often ignored. Likewise, history of social movements and it’s participants,  especially that of the Civil Right movement, has been distorted. For example, many people think that Rosa Parks was a random woman who challenged the bus system, when in reality she was one of the main women behind the scenes and actually worked for organizations like t he NAACP. An important question to ask here is: Why do those who already have advantages in society feel the need to take it upon themselves and struggle for those who do not? Are there really enough or even any benefits in it for them?

Meyers does indeed identify some reasons why individuals become involved in movements from becoming active in community groups to engaging in new commitments to making them feel as though they have made a difference in the world. But personally, I believe that none of these are enough of a reason. Especially now that our society has been growing into such an individualized culture. In the end, I believe that benefits must be clear and outweigh the costs of participation in any movement. This is when the discussion of the different types of incentives (purposive, material, and solidary) offered by a movement become most relevant. In terms of OWS, it is clear that they have established a high level of solidarity (mainly through the extensive use of social media), but they seem to be failing in terms of purposive and material incentives for their participants, which is probably why the overwhelming public has been discrediting much of the movement’s work. What can OWS do to raise the level of purposive and material incentives? Would listing more specific demands of the US government be enough? What does this offer for those who are involved in the movement and benefitting from the current economic system as it stands?

— Brittney Quinones

The Protesting Pedigree

Posted on by

Analysis of social movements through protests has centered on the notion of grassroots, community-based organizing. Movements from Civil Rights to disarmament are steered by people impassioned by their causes. The true galvanizers of any movement must be equipped with a toolset that allows them to navigate the execution of the protest, which often lends the form of education, financial stability, and membership in exclusive networks, according to David Meyer (48). Meyer solidifies his notion of the necessity of possession of this toolset with examples of Martin Luther King, who had both a college and professional degree, and Rosa Parks, who held a post in her local NAACP branch and was well known among organizers (49). Amended to this list would be Ella Baker, graduate of Shaw University, New York NAACP officer, and SCLC staffer.

Kurt Andersen, author of “The Protester,” agrees the majority of current protesters are youth armed with education and overwhelmingly middle-class backgrounds (Anderson 3). Why is this so? Meyer offers the explanation that organizers build movements by garnering support from people they encounter regularly through extracurricular and community involvements which is often influenced by rearing (Meyer 47-48). Engaging people who already know one another acts as a source of comfort for members and aids in attracting new members of similar caliber. This method of entry into social movements, however, hinders the advancement of protests by limiting who has the right to join (47-48).

For the Civil Rights movement, the people passed over were those distant from the centers of action and unequipped with the knowledge of how to mobilize.  Because face-to-face interaction was relied upon to entice engagement, those with greater distance from the movement were essentially excluded.  Occupy Wall Street, which was driven by social media particularly in its initial mobilization stages, excluded lower classes. Social media by its instantaneous nature is geared toward smartphone users, who are predominately middle-class people. The initial organizers then for OWS were young, middle class, and socially connected, similar to those who mobilized the Civil Rights movement.

The elitist nature of social movements seems to oppose the very nature of social movements, which most often seek to promote some form of “the betterment of society for all.” Can the very movements that tote themselves for overthrowing exclusion and unfairness adequately represent the voices of all through systemic exclusion of some? Or does such organization only perpetuate the marginalization of the poor, working class, elderly, disabled, etc.? Alanis Morissette would agree it’s all a bit ironic, maybe.

Here’s a video that spoofs OWS, which relates to my blog post.

— Sarah Bowers

 

Works Cited

Andersen, Kurt. “The Protester.” Time 14 Dec. 2011. Web. 7 Feb. 2012. <http://time.com>.

Does organization stifle a social movement?

Posted on by

After reading Chapter 2 of David Meyer’s Politics of Protest, I found the five-step cycle of protests a unique way to look at previous social movements. In Molly’s post, she talks about how Occupy Wall Street could fit into this theory. I agree with her analysis, however to branch off of her idea, I have to disagree with the notion that OWS is an organization. After reading some of the articles from publications such as Vanity Fair and Time, what has been going on with OWS is more of a movement, than an organization. According to Meyer, “social movements are episodic” whereas the issues they deal with are much more persistent (23). This spontaneity that allowed for the OWS movement to begin and keep holding on without much organization shows that there are underlying, persistent issues of capitalism and a divide in social classes in the United States, and citizens are ready to take action.

One idea that I found interesting was what organizing would do for a social movement. In an October 2011 article by David Meyer, he talks about the Tea Party and how Occupy Wall Street could learn from that organization and use what they have done to help their own movement. (Read the article here) Although OWS is still young, there needs to be some organization within the movement in order for it to be successful. I don’t entirely agree with Meyer’s statement that social movements are episodic and the issues are persistent. In order for a movement to be successful and push the ideas to make a change, there needs to be organization within the episode of the movement to make a change.

In the beginning of the movement, protests were necessary to show solidarity within the nation and within the movement. However, now that the movement has been around for several months, it needs to move into the next stages of development: organization. Many involved directly with OWS say that they like that there is not a formal leadership aspect to the movement. Is there a way to have organization and demands of the protesters being met, without formal or hierarchical leadership?

Politics of Protest Chapter Two

Posted on by

Chapter Two of Meyer’s book focused on the cyclical nature of social movements and the commonalities shared between various movements (as well as the ways in which movements can differ). According to Meyer, organizations have in common a grievance to an existing policy or problem, a need to respond in accordance with American law and societal standards, political (and physical) space to organize, institutions that are either unresponsive or seem unresponsive to the cause at hand, and a tendency to “go public” with an expert from the field or an insider.

The Occupy Wall Street movement fits nicely into this definition because the activists have a clear grievance: the fact that 60% of our nation’s wealth belonging to the “1%”. Protesters also are responding to this grievance without stepping out of legal bounds or causing social upheaval: activists did their research and found a NYC park in which they could protest all night rather than a public park that would have to close. The organization has attempted to seek appropriate space for protest. They have been successful at organizing online but have run into trouble with the police in NYC. Do you think that NYC police and the government are fulfilling their constitutional duties to provide sufficient space for protest? I think the argument could be made that the police are infringing on activists’ First Amendment Right (specifically freedom of assembly) when they kick-out protesters for “sanitary reasons”. I think the case could be made that governmental institutions, and especially Congress have been unresponsive to their grievances because Congress has historically favored the 1% with tax breaks. Are there any other instances in which either Congress, the President, or other governmental institutions have appeared/been unresponsive to OWS grievances? The Occupy Wall Street movement, however, does not reflect the fifth and final aspect of Meyer’s definition of social movements because OWS has avoided elevating leaders and experts in the organization. OWS has adopted a more lateral organization in order to be more democratic and therefore it would be against their nature to choose one “insider” to represent their public interest. Do you think it is possible for social movements like OWS to fit some aspects of Meyer’s definition but not all?