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
I found the comparison you made in your blog post between social movement organizations and political parties (especially evident through the campaigns) really interesting. You point out that there are obvious differences in how they function and the specifics of each group but they still seem to operate with similar underlying intentions/ goals.
I’m not as discomforted by the similar goals as you were; although I do find the irony you pointed out about taxation to be really valid support. I do not know if the similarity in goals is necessarily a good or bad thing or should be judged as such. To me, the comparison is more descriptive – merely stating that the goals are similar – rather than prescriptive – saying that the goals are similar and that is how it needs to be or should be. I also think that the goals are similar because, in the end, that’s how changes to the system can be made.
After our class discussion, I am not as discomforted with the similar goals either. I realized by the end of class that my definition of social movements was actually closer to a definition of revolutions. My response to Brittany’s comment and the quotation she provided (below) explains that a little more. Thanks for commenting!
– Amanda Lineberry
Hey Amanda, as I was reading Meyer’s Chapter 8: When Everyone Protests, I saw a short quote that made me think back to our discussion in class as prompted by your questions about social movements and power (especially the Tea Party). Not sure if this quote will help clarify or muddy the waters even more but I wanted to share it with you.
“It’s appealingly simple to think about protest movements as the province of those who can’t win in any other way and who are working in opposition to a reasonably unified government representing some kind of policy consensus of those interested and relevant to the issue. In reality, however, life and politics are more complicated, particularly in the United States, where the separation of powers and federalism ensure the a broad range of groups is likely to find both allies and opponents in goverment” (151).
Thanks Brittany! The quotation is illuminating in that points out that power is not necessarily the enemy in social movements. It can often be a matter of just one piece of aggravating policy. Chapter 8 definitely helped show that social movements are a form of interacting with the government used by everyone and anyone for a variety of purposes and even counter-purposes. At the end of class, I came to the conclusion that I am mixing up social movements with revolutions. A revolution is more about complete changes in and structure of power. I’m curious to see if Occupy Wallstreet, with its revolutionary conceptions of power, will attempt to convert from social movement to revolution like its sources of inspiration in the Arab Spring.
– Amanda Lineberry