Daily Archives: February 14, 2012

Meyer Chapter 5

Posted on by

Joseph Harris
Dr. Fergeson
Blog Project
2/14/12
“Chapter 5: The Strategy and Tactics of Social Protest”
Meyer describes the process of deciding the strategies and tactics of a social movement as an interrelated cyclical process that has to be taken into account before the movement takes any actions because each action has a different impact on the multiple audiences. Meyer defines a strategy as “a combination of a claim (or demand), a tactic, and a site (or venue) (82). Since movements are comprised of multiple organizations competing for attention, the most effective way to developing a strategy is by examining organizations one at a time in order to match an organization with an appropriate tactic based on an organization’s relationship with its audience and other social movement organizations. The tactics of a social movement have to embody the movement’s demands that “need to appear actionable enough to avoid being dismissed, yet challenging enough to inspire attention” (83). Meyer poses three different tactical choices that each has their own unique set of pros and cons that will be interpreted by its different audiences. The first tactic described by Meyer is a candlelight vigil that shows the commitment of the activists and communicates to bystanders, but are easily dismissed by politicians. However, the second tactic of disruptions identifies an enemy and demands a response from authorities, but depending on how it is perceived by the other audiences can detract some bystanders. The third tactic projects the demand in an artful and political way which is less aggressive than disruptive tactics and builds coalitions within the movement and can change support from bystanders who sympathize with the movement. Meyer notes that’s multiple tactics must be undertaken by social movements in order to reach its audiences and doing so effectively requires a critical analysis of “how people think about engaging in social movement activism as both an alternative to and an addition to move conventional political activity,” in order for an organization to present its argument that relates to the social culture (84). Meyer stresses the importance of organizations using this model because taking this approach assists organizations in implementing tactics that aren’t going to require excessive risk than is necessary. Meyer brings up again how examining someone’s identity shapes the resources available to them because their social standing impacts the tactical choices and available rhetoric in order to get an audience to listen. Self-examination is a critical step in determining tactical approaches because it impacts the perception the audience will have of the social movement. In addition to individual identity constraint, organizations have to examine their own identity constraints because of “how a range of outside actors sees the organization” (87). Establishing the foundation of an organization will help not only provide answers to its audience, but more importantly will show the organization its strengths and weaknesses. In communicating the intentions of an organization, Meyer identifies four audiences: authorities, activists, bystanders, and media while encouraging organizations to sometimes broaden their issue in order to effectively reach each audience. In reaching out to authorities, organizations have to take on a political perspective and evaluate how their action will cause sympathizers and antagonistic authorities also keeping in mind that “the authorities who make the decisions about the matters of policy that activists generally protest are often far away from the site of protest” (88). Identifying appropriate communication to activists, the organization has to chose a tactic that “speaks to their experiences and not suggest actions that find abhorrent,” in order to make people identify with the movement and believe that they can make a difference. The third audience comprised of bystanders is most effectively reached by choosing a tactic that generates meaning and draws attention from how the other audiences respond in order for them to choose sides on the issue. The media plays a large role in how organizations communicate to their audiences and in order for organizations to gain the responses they want from their tactics, they have to be aware of how the media dynamic operates. Media focuses on publishing stories based on what people want to read which usually consists of some sort of conflict, celebrities, and drama. Activists can overcome their disadvantage by outlining their demands in correlation to media operation and more importantly protecting themselves from having their message distorted in the meaning causing the movement to lose traction.

Considering Meyer’s approach in identifying strategies and tactics looks good on paper, but do you think it could expose the organization of being criticized for being on both sides of an issue and if so how do you think that impacts the movement’s traction?

Chapter 5: Strategies & Tactics of Social Protest

Posted on by

I thought that chapter 5, The Strategy and Tactics of Social Protest, was actually very interesting. Just like the title says, this chapter focuses on different strategies and tactics that various social movements have employed over time. First, the author defines a strategy as, “a combination of a claim (or demand), a tactic, and a site (or venue)” (82). He then goes on to define three common types of tactics. The first is a candlelight vigil, which demonstrates commitment to a cause. The second type can be called disruptions. These are usually impossible to ignore, and demand a response from others. The third example of a tactic that the author gives is something like The Quilt used to protest AIDS. This category is somewhat like a candlelight vigil, but gives participants something concrete to show in protest. These are only three of the many tactics that may be used, and the author says that often, social movements “employ multiple tactics at the same time” to work towards their goal (84). The context and situation determines which strategies will be most effective and which are even possible (the “match of tactics to resources is critical”) (86).

The author then goes on to describe 4 distinct audiences for social movement tactics: authorities, activists, bystanders, and the media. He says, “a tactic sends a message to authorities about a group’s commitment, size, claims, and potential to disrupt. A tactic also sends a message to activists about the same things. And a tactic sends a message to bystanders about a group’s concerns, intentions, and worthiness. In every case, activists hope and plan for responses” (87).  He also asserts that the bystanders are the most important audience for a social movement. Do you agree?

The end of the chapter focuses on the role of the media in social movements. Social movements generally rely on the media to disperse their ideas and let others know about what they are doing. As many of us probably already know, the media tend to cover breaking news and dramatic events rather than societal conditions or issues. Thus, activists and social movements sometimes need a news opportunity, or “news peg,” in order to talk about these things.

This chapter had a lot of information in it, and brought up some other questions for me as I was reading:

1. What do you think about the use of violence in social movements? Is it sometimes necessary or should violence never be used as a means to an end?

2. Of the three main tactics that the author presents, which do you think is usually most effective?

3. The author says, “although such dramatic action can sometimes draw attention to the issues activists care about, it also carries the inherent risk of deflecting attention away from those very issues” (97). What do you think? Is dramatic action good or bad for a movement?

4. The very end of the chapter brings up the idea that there are distinct patterns in the tactics that social movements use over time, and movements do not tend to use a wide variety of strategies. Why do you think this is?

–Kristen Bailey

More of the Same, for Better of Worse – Ch. 4

Posted on by

What struck me the most in Chapter 4 of David Meyer’s Politics of Protest was how similarly a social movement organization looked and behaved like a political campaign. In the beginning of the chapter, Meyer outlines the three goals of a social movement organization: “to pressure government to affect the policy changes it wants; to educate the public and persuade people of the urgency of the problems it addresses and the wisdom of its position; and to sustain a flow of resources that allows it to maintain existence and efforts” (61). Is this not what Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul are all trying to do right now? Are political parties not just big, flexible coalitions?

Meyer discusses the ebb and flow of social movement organizations in their attempt to maintain supporters and stay true to their original goals while also trying to build influence and gain members. For some types of social movement organizations, “it’s better to be right than large,” but for others, its better to be less politicized and appeal to a broader audience (67). Organizations have to balance their messages so that they are not only ideologically tight, but marketable.

To me, after reading Chapter 4, the social movement organization looks an awful lot like the radical twin of the political party. What I haven’t worked out, however, is if this is a good thing or a bad thing. As Meyer describes, social movements have been classified by some scholars as groups that function outside of the polity (74). In many ways, this is true. There are no elections for social movements. There is not designated date in which to vote and change the balance of power. The power of the social movement organizations is powered by the people, and their support can fall just as easily as it is built, unlike elected officials who we can be stuck with until the next election.

However, it seems that the popular structure of social movement organizations in the United States function too similarly to a political party for my own comfort. Part of this is due to government regulations. Social movement organizations are subject to taxation, with the exception of educational organizations. Educational organizations, however, are only qualified for exemption from taxation by submitting to further regulation and compliance. Thus, as seems all to common with power, civic speech is all too closely tied to the government’s wallet. How can an organization truly try to shift government power if it is forced to pay that power?

Part of the problem, however, lies with us. Meyer has pointed out several times that the level of political engagement in the United States is quite slim. Thus, the only organizations that get our (or should I say the media’s) attention are the larger ones that have amassed political power through goal shifting and coalition building. Is this democracy or some sort of political capitalism? Are marginal social movements important or should we constantly be compromising and building coalitions?

Amanda Lineberry