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
I think you raised a really interesting question about OWS’s incentives when you asked: “What can OWS do to raise the level of purposive and material incentives? Would listing more specific demands of the US government be enough?”
For me, OWS has been kind of hard to take entirely seriously as a movement with potential longevity because Occupiers have not laid out clear-cut policy goals. I understand that it may not even be feasible this early on in the movement to come up with a solution to a really complex issue that has been brewing for years and years. But, I think that if OWS started to developed clearer demands of the US government, those demands could provide OWS with both purposive incentives (for obvious reasons of providing substantive policy goals) and solidarity incentives because other people who may be skeptical of OWS protests may be more willing to support the defined goals.
It’s a bit cynical to think that helping others or improving the overall well-being of humanity is not an incentive in and of itself. I may be a bit of an idealist, but I hope that at least some of the people involved in OWS are not involved primarily for personal benefit, but instead societal benefit. Also, I’m not sure that OWS is attempting to assume a political role in which it has specific, legislative demands. In my view, the movement was more about a shift in thought, changing the way the American people think about economic inequality. If so, economic equality does not need to be a cause only for people who will materially benefit from wealth redistribution. Economic equality is beneficial for all, in ways that can’t necessarily be measured materially. If you’re interested in seeing just how economic inequality does have real effects on ALL in our society, including the richest of the rich, check out this TED talk by Richard Wilkinson:
http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html
I think you pose a really interesting question about why average people become activists for various causes. Often, as we were saying in class, there is self-interest in pursuing a particular social movement or cause. I also think that beyond just trying to “do good” activists become involved in a myriad of movements during their lifetimes because they understand that at the end of the day it isn’t the cool apps on our iPhones that make us happy. Finding a greater purpose in life, I believe, is one of the greatest recruiting factors in social movements.
I think examining the role of incentive for each protestor offers a unique perspective of the OWS movement. While the grievances are known, there is no clear set of demands from the protestors. So what is driving their participation? The thrill of involvement? The hope of Sallie Mae debt forgiveness? While several smaller movements have popped up across the nation, I wonder the number of University of Richmond who would be involved if the movement was in walking distance of Zuccati Park. Though it may seem cynical, I believe that some of the protestors really are protesting just to say that they were part of the movement and to prove their membership in the 99%. I suppose, though, as long as the protest continues and grievances and demands are aired, the incentive for protesting is irrelevant.
I thought this chapter was a little over-complicated for the issue it discussed. I simply believe that anyone who becomes tired with a system or is prodded by injustice to the point of action becomes involved in a social movement and becomes an “activist.” It doesn’t have to matter if the that person is directly being affected by the system or injustice. When we examine the Occupy Movement, we see people who didn’t become involved in the Occupy Movement until they lost everything. On the other hand, we see otherwise well-off people with low tolerances for injustice in the Occupy Movement. These people may be highly educated, gainfully employed, or may have even benefited from the injustices of the system the movement is protesting. Ella Baker and social workers would belong to the latter group. While there is no shame in being the former, especially because many cannot act until they are unemployed or desperate, I believe that people, if they have the means, should be the latter and have a low tolerance for injustice.
I think some of the comments you made about the reasons why people become activists in your last paragraph are interesting. I also agree with Amanda in that I think that many people do simply become an activist for the overall well-being of humanity. I would say that there are many people who join social movements when they really don’t have much to gain by them, or they know that their ultimate goal may come well after they’ve lived their life. OWS isn’t really a great example because we can’t look at what the outcome is yet. But with Ella Baker and the social rights movement I would say that she was a great example of someone who was really working for the good of others, with not much benefit in it for herself. She grew up educated, and wealthier than most black families of the time, so she could have lived a fine life (relatively speaking) without having to get involved at all.
And really, how can someone quantify satisfaction? When does someone reach the point where they say, “Ok, all those hours of protesting were worth it.” I think that many people go into social movements and activism knowing that they will end up putting in more than they expect to get out. But that’s a sacrifice that they are willing to make for the rest of humanity. After all, who can rightly say that Ella Baker received a just reward for all that she did?