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
Hey Kristen! Great blog post. It covered all of the main points of the chapter and your questions do a good job of relating the book to modern circumstances.
Question 1.) I personally am not a person of violence. I believe for almost every instance that violence is not the way to solve a problem. Therefore, I believe violence in social movements is not necessary. Nothing is ever really achieved through it and people have to deal with the side effects. However, I am a believer in Ella Baker’s theory of nonviolence/violence. While she dismisses violence as well, she understands that sometimes violence must be used for self-protection. For example, the incident at UC Davis where police pepper-sprayed protesting students was absurd and that is a time in which violence for self-protection is necessary. A social movement is not the same as war. The goal is not to completely defeat another body, it is to reach an understanding and make positive change. The best way to do so is through verbal and nonviolent physical communication. I believe the tactics Meyer highlights are a prime example of acceptable physical protests.
2.) Of the three tactics Meyers list, I believe the most effective is disruptions. Although I appreciate the uniting effect of candlelight vigils and the creative expression associated with the third tactic (I still don’t know what Meyer would call that category), disruptions seem to have most potential. The example in the text “ACT-UP” is an actual organization of people with a policy agenda and certain demands. It also offers potential leadership opportunities in which people can make direct contact with state and federal government as well as health clinics. I believe organization and social engagement is key to accomplishing anything. The other two tactics are a great way to get publicity and followers but disruptions actually makes political progress.
I personally am not a fan of violence ever in any circumstance. But I guess other people think that it grabs the attention of the media and politicians and thus helps the cause. However, I think it burns to many bridges and in the long run is not beneficial to the cause or society in general.
Going along with what I addressed above, I believe that the first tactic is most effective because one can stay committed to the cause without offending anyone. It is peaceful yet powerful.
I think the type of dramatic action that is effective is one that draws the attention of the bystanders, media, politicians, other activists but does not disturb the general public or harm any individuals rights.
I think that activists see that a certain pattern has worked in the past and thus they demonstrate using those specific tactics. However, not every issue is the same so certain tactics are not as successful in creating social change. Thus the cycles.
One of the incentives for organizations to go through the 3 step process is to assess what actions are available that minimize risk to the organization’s movement. The process helps them avoid unnecessary actions contingent upon the position of the movement in relation to the rest of society, especially to avoid negative responses from the four audiences they communicate too. So in most circumstances I’d say the use of violence gains negative responses from most of the audience and is an easy way for the organization to become a constant target of criticism, especially in the media since they’re attracted to publishing stories involving conflict. However in some circumstances of severe injustice such as the ongoing conflict in Syria where a dictator is deliberately oppressing the people by killing unarmed men, women, and child violence can be justified on behalf of certain groups. In this situation the citizen use of violence has been effective in gaining worldwide attention especially from the United Nations. This is an example of Meyer’s description of how people in power tend to be removed from the ongoing movement, but is necessary for the movement to keep their attention.
To answer your query in question 3, I would disagree with the author in relation to the quote. I cannot think of any instance where dramatic action actually deflected attention away from an event. Yes, uprisings or large protests may cause some sort of disdain or disapproval, but it doesn’t cease to attract attention whether that be positive or negative. The point of social movements isn’t to tickle the ears of the nation, it’s to create some sort of loudness that is unavoidable. If your needs are not being met, be bold and make them readily known and unable to be silenced.
An examples of dramatic action on our own campus is the article by Brendan Rhatican on female dress that was written last semester in the Collegian. His article was very frank about the issue of immodesty and the lack of respect that he has for women who don’t respect themselves with their clothing choice. While this was extremely blunt and offensive to many, it still allowed a conversation to begin on campus, a conversation which may have changed the mindsets of men and women alike. Even if most of the attention he received from the article was negative, it was attention nonetheless and was not about to be deflected.
I completely agree with Lucie’s ideas for question 1. I also do not believe that violence is the right decision to make, since it can draw attention away from the movement and causes. That being said, I think that “violence” in the form of self defense is another matter. I think that it is only natural to defend yourself, so if that requires violence, so be it.
When it comes to the different kinds of tactics that Meyers proposes I believe that the disruption tactic is the best one. The reason I beieve this one is the best is because, like Meyers said, it usually creates a response and action from the opposing side. If a movement takes a stand that is impossible to ignore then that movement is moving forward with its intentions. I am not saying that it is necessary to for a movement to do something drastic or act out in a violent manner, but it is always positive for a movement to get recognition.