Chapter 8, “When Everyone Protests,” is way to start thinking about both sides of a protest and movement-countermovement dynamics. I thought Lucie did an excellent job of giving an overview of Myer’s points, so I won’t re-state those. Among other specifics in the chapter, such as getting the attention of people with political power, I was most interested in Meyer’s take on the importance of professional organizers in movements. Especially as we being to think about countermovements and the necessity of responding to the “other side,” professional organizers might be vital to the success and impact of a protest. As Lucie mentioned in her post, activists must put energy into their own movement, but also engage with the countermovements and publicize rebuttals.
Meyer first introduces professional organizers in Chapter 3, Becoming an Activist. There, he gives a good background about who becomes an activist, and the different types of activists that exist. Specifically, Meyer notes that “movement professionals” are people who support themselves through organizing and political efforts. These people do not just view the movement as a hobby, but as a lifestyle; there is always something to do that could be advancing the cause within the movement. Meyer says that movement professionals “develop a stronger vested interest in the survival and well-being of their organizations than will the rank and file activist” (55).
As we think more about countermovements, it’s good to acknowledge all the work that goes into managing the movement’s own message as well as incorporating responses to media coverage of the countermovement. Considering the bigger picture, Meyer points out that movements have become more complicated in general: “Whereas protest was the province of those without other means to make political claims effectively, it is now an add-on or component of the political strategy of an increasingly broad range of groups” (159). Today, instead of all attention going into the protest, there are not a lot more considerations, such as current policy, lobbying, outreach campaigns to other organizations, e-mail and telephone communication, applying for police permits and posting bail.
Here are some questions I’ve had. What do you think?:
- OWS not only has no professional organizers, but no identified leaders. Is the absence of “professional organizers” a detriment or an advantage to the movement? Do every day citizens act as “movement professionals” in any way?
- Has OWS engaged with a countermovement of any kind? How so?
- What would Meyer say about OWS’s lack of engagement in the political process? Do you think the movement ever try to brand itself with politics or an existing power structure?
-Caitlin Manak
To answer your third question Caitlin I think that Meyer would disapprove of OWS’s refusal to participate in cooptation with government institutions. I understand that Occupy Wall Street protesters do not want to cooperate with people in a system that they think needs to be changed but I also think that this refusal could be detrimental to their cause in the end. At first American bystanders to this movement were intruiged by the movement and their tactics of public disruption in NYC. Now I think even people who are sympathetic to the idea that there is something wrong with a democratic nation in which 1% of the population owns 60% of the wealth are confused and sometimes unwilling to lend support to OWS because they associate a refusal to work within the system with a plateau in movement progress. I think Meyers would say that OWS , now that it has gained awareness and ideological support from bystanders, could benefit from cooptation and would make more progress as a movement if they utilized institutional forces.
Molly, I think your response represents a lot of opinions in our class. After reading Meyer’s book thus far and when I posed those questions, I was leaning in the same direction as you. However, since looking around on some blogs, I’m wondering if institutionalization would change OWS irreparably. An article that’s circulating on a bunch of blogs, called “Don’t Let Occupy Be Occupied” argues that the movement would be domesticated and loose a lot of it’s meaning if it began to work within the system and became legitimized. I wonder now, if OWS would have more of an impact by maintaining its symbolic message rather than being watered down and diminished by joining mainstream politics.
Check out the article here: http://theoccupymeme.blogspot.com/2012/01/dont-let-occupy-be-occupied-6-ways-to.html
After reading the posts and after what we had discussed in class, I have found that when I am torn between whether or not institutionalization is necessarily a “good” or “bad” thing. Earlier, when I posted my own blog post about Chapter 7, I felt that institutionalization might damage the integrity of an organization, however, in class, I became aware that our democratic society is somewhat dependent on cooptation and the “system” or else we would have political gridlocks all the time and nothing would get done. However, after reading Caitlin’s comments, I feel that in OWS’s case, institutionalization would be detrimental and they are being effective by NOT working within the system to bring attention to their cause. I feel like they are gaining attention that they would never have been able to acquire if they had been trapped by the endless red tape and mundane movement of the “correct” channels.
When thinking about what countermovement OWS is involved in, I would reframe the question to be what is OWS protesting against? I don’t necessarily think there is any specific countermovement that they have come up against, but the political processes and the way in which the government operates is the countermovement they are against. I also don’t think OWS has really done a good job of engaging with that countermovement. They seem so want to radically change the entire system which seems quite impossible and also unreasonable. It would be interesting to see them work with the current system and set up some of their own goals and have their grievances met in a way that would be more beneficial towards what OWS claims they are fighting for.
Kate, your re-framing of the question is interesting. I’d agree that there isn’t necessarily a counter movement to OWS, rather OWS is the countermovement to different aspects of government today. I would have to agree with Vivian though, in arguing that OWS is being more effective by bringing attention to their causes rather than trying to water them down and join the system. The point you raised about OWS “wanting to radically change the entire system” is pretty on target. For this reason, I’m not even sure if they could pick a few arguments that could be worked with in the current system. They are calling for an overhaul, in the name of social justice, of the whole government. This is unrealistic, but definitely raises discussions in the media.