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>.
First of all love the Alanis Morisette comment, major points in my book. Second of all, that video had me laughing out loud in the quiet section of the library, sorry I’m not sorry. Anyways….
I want to first comment on your question about why it is that young, middle-class people are often the ones to make up the largest population of a social movement. Meyer talks in Chapter 3 about how a protestor has to give up a lot of their own personal needs and wants to attain the goals of the group. The people who are capable of doing that are often young, middle-class, educated people as Meyer also comments. This is because they have received formal education, or at least more than the lower class, and understand what is going on in current events. They are also not a part of the upper class and therefore feel the negative effects of a movement more than the upper class, mobilizing them in greater numbers. This middle class also has the most to lose or gain in regards to the movement. These issues and the decisions reached about them will impact their lives the most because they will be alive to feel the effects.
Back to the amazing video…I really enjoyed the satire of the skit because in essence, OWS really does not have one major goal. Meyer would criticize this part of the movement because one of his criterions of a movement is a unified goal. There are so many different agendas and grievances from the OWS protestors that nothing has been accomplished. Until people sit down and create a policy agenda, I believe OWS will never make advances towards creating change.
Your post makes me wonder why students at UR become activists here on campus. For the most part we are all between 19 and 23 years old, all attend the same University, and come from similar socio-economic backgrounds (compared to the economic difference between all Americans). Why is it that some of us choose to philosophize about social issues in our classes while others take those conversations one step further with community activism? The first few things that come to my mind are that A) some UR may have been raised in very proactive households where being idle in the fact of social unrest is unacceptable and B) that once involved in one social action organization on campus it becomes natural to connect with other activist-types and join more causes.
I also loved the video link, it was very funny (and sadly mostly because it’s true!).
In response to your blog, it is a great point that social movements end up excluding people when the whole purpose is to be inclusive most of the time. While it would be great, and probably very productive, if every single person that identified with a movement had the ability to participate, it is just not realistic. Most people have jobs that they need to support themselves, or classes to go to, or just don’t have the resources to physically get to where the movement is occurring. Despite this, social movements still end up taking place.
Another point that your blog made me think of is the difficulty of getting people engaged in your movement. People tend to be apathetic (as the video link humorously shows), so reaching out and getting people to care can be a big struggle. I would say for most people it takes being in the right place at the right time to hear about the movement, and then being in a position in life where you can relate to the cause and actually have the ability to do something about it. This is a special circumstance that probably does not happen very often, so it amazes me how some movements can literally attract hundreds of thousands of people to work for their cause.
First of all, can people change their userID? because I can’t really tell who is saying what.
Anyhow, Sarah I think this is very well written. It’s really interesting how I’ve done so much research on OWS already, but I have never come across this point about how the very nature of a social movement actually excludes those who OWS is trying to reach out to. While the skit kind of pokes fun on how these people need smartphones to be in the know, I really think that we have to be careful to discredit their use of social media. I personally think OWS has done a really good job of attempting to get a number of people who were uneducated about such issues actually out on the streets. I actually happen to know two individuals who are very involved in OWS, and I am pretty sure they had no idea about any of these issues prior to this, but through social media, they found out about OWS and are now active members. Although it may be harder for those with limited access to computers and smartphones, there are so many ways to get access to them somehow and I think those that have become very interested in this are now finding ways to do so. I think that even though social movements tend to be elitist, i don’t think it is absolutely necessary to have these people for the success of the movement.
And Liz, do we really think that OWS doesn’t have one major goal? I think that although economic injustice is a really broad goal, it is their main target.
Also, I am not sure that so many students at UR can be considered to be community activist. Is the fact that someone volunteers considered community activism? I think the term should extend a little further than that.
I cannot agree more with your post. My biggest issue with the OWS movement is that those who are involved with the movement seem to be disenfranchising others through what they are protesting. Are they protesting that ALL citizens of the U.S. actually be represented? I’m not sure they really are. I know it seems impossible for them to be fighting for everyone’s personal cause, but until they mobilize the most isolated and marginalized citizens, as did Ella Baker, the OWS movement will not truly reach it’s goal of representing the 99% of Americans.
In response to Lucie’s comment, I completely agee with what your saying and your thoughts made me think a little deeper. When Meyer discusses what it takes to be a successful and cooperative protester within a group, I agree with the fact that people need to put to group before themselves. Like Lucie said, young educated people, such as ourselves are the people who can make that happen because we are studying the struggles and needs of people across the entire world in our leadership classes. Before, I was in a leadership class, i barely knew anything about half of the struggles that are going on across the world, but now i feel entitled to make a difference through my education and experiences. That is how all activist start off their careers. By learning about something that care deeply about and trying to make a difference. Great post and comment
This is a great post, Sarah, I especially like what you said near the end about the social media and how that plays a role in social movements. I’d like to pose a few questions for thought on this issue.
It does seems kind of elitist for everyone in OWS to have to have a smart phone in order to organize, but doesn’t that by definition make them not elite? And while many of the protesters do have significant connections to social media (either by smartphone, computer, etc.), is that really the factor that brings them all together? I would like to pose the idea that there may be a third factor that may be overlooked. To look at this another way, if these people were not connected through social media or didn’t have smart phones would they still mobilize? Would their issue with the 1% suddenly disappear if they didn’t have these connections?
I know this is sort of a “correlation doesn’t necessarily equal causality” argument, but I think it’s important to think about.
Meyer stresses the importance of competent protestors and the necessary toolset they need in order to be effective in building those outside relationships in their community to spread word of their cause and hopefully win over some outsiders. The middle class majority which has partially been a result of previous social movements and mid twentieth century investment into the manufacturing industry have the toolset necessary to execute an effective movement plan, but I think the over usage of social media in comparison to other movements has neglected the effectiveness of some of their strategies. This class has introduced me to the OWS movement and although I see a flat style of leadership similar to Baker’s participatory democracy, I think it is necessary to have a formal leader. Meyer highlights the importance of building coalitions and I think a leader is a necessary factor in gaining support from prestigious people, but more importantly the mobile middle class members who can’t be reached by grassroots activists. I believe in the flat style of leadership being promoted within the OWS, but it can’t gain the support it needs without a leader because the rest of society doesn’t share operational similarities to enough of the outside world which I think is why it needs a leader. The practices within OWS can stay the same, but I think a figure head would be beneficial to outsiders by using that norm to generate a connection between their lives and the movement.
Thanks so much for pointing out this issue Sarah. I honestly never thought about how the lower socioeconomic classes have been excluded from the protesting process due to their lack of resources. Although the voice of the middle class is important, the voice of the poor is even more vital to hear in terms of correcting this issue of inequality. But at the same time if they were able to participate, how well informed would they be? In order for the government to take a protest seriously, the activists need to know what they are talking about and have the information to back up their claims. With this in mind, I wonder what the severely impoverished in America think about OWS if they have even heard of it. I think if there was a way that we could provide equal education for all we could solve a lot of these issues of inequality and allow for the poor a way to participate. Nonetheless, in the state we are in now, I feel that the OWS protestors must advocate not just for themselves but for those less fortunate than them. For the most part, I think they have in a sense achieved this by simply addressing the government and there need to restructure their priorities specifically the economy.
In response to the last comment, I think we have to search only as far as Ella Baker for the answer to this. People do not necessarily have to be educated or have the same amount of resources in order to participate in a movement, and in this case specifically, voices from the oppressed group better legitimize the cause. There is still “uplift ideology” saying that the more advanced leaders with education and resources can hold the speaking positions and provide access for the lower members to reach a shelf of leadership. I think it’s important to include all members of society, ESPECIALLY the ones who are most affected by the system they are fighting.
In addition, we discussed the importance of having numbers in a movement, having more bodies physically at the protests to make a larger statement. Including more members, no matter their level of education, may not necessarily add expertise to the group, but it could add force in numbers.
After reading the comments on this post, I really do believe that the reason that social movements are so inspiring is because it they bring together so many diverse backgrounds and experiences. No matter the idea or topic that is being protested, not a single demonstrator has the exact same reasons and motives for joining in, and that is the beauty of it.
Our personal experiences are what motivates many of us to support or protest and Meyers points out in chapter 3 how this often leads to social movements being extremely sloppy affairs. He says that in any collective action, there “will be a range of people with a range of motives and understandings of what’s going on and of what their goals might be” and “organizers are faced with the challenge of harnessing the energies of diverse people and styles of action into a whole. And so yes, there is strength in numbers, and yes, there are challenges to overcome when bring diverse peoples together, but I think that the biggest challenge is also a movement’s largest strength. Uneducated, educated, wealthy, poor, all bring in valuable experiences that might shed light on situations that previously were being viewed through a narrow scope. Because I think a lot of times we like to think that what we experience, what we think, are the overwhelming standard, but through bringing together different perspectives, everyone learns.