The chapter was a bit choppy in my opinion, so I’ll do my best to discuss what I thought were the major points. Myers uses chapter 9 to discuss the complex and multi-dimensional relationship between social movements and public policy. Myers outlines how public policy can be both a cause and response to social movement. The examples Myers juxtaposes to illustrate this point are the expansion of the draft during the Vietnam War and the distribution of benefits as a result of the Bonus March following WWI. The expansion of the draft played a pivotal role in inciting the anti-war movement. Myers uses this example to generalize that “changes in policy provide the concerns that drive people into mobilization” (171). The distribution of benefits to veterans returning from the war was the culmination of the Bonus March and years of protesting for well fare. This example is used to demonstrate how the policy process “responds to social movement” (171). The key point Myers tries to make is that public policy influences social movements, and social movements influence public policy.
Myers dives deeper into how social movement effects policy by describing four ways in which social movements alter policy networks. In summation, social movements can
- Lead to the replacement of existing political figures, meaning “throwing a rascal out and putting and ally in office instead” (173).
- Lead to the conversion of beliefs where existing political figures change their beliefs on policy to benefit the movement
- Lead to the creation of a completely new policy area, agency, habit, or institutional setting
- Lead to the reconfiguration of current policy monopolies by introducing to new individuals to them
The key question I asked myself when I was reading all of this was whether policy should even be the desired outcome of social movement. Myers briefly hints at this at one point in the chapter on page 170, but I wish that he had explored this issue more. History has shown that public policy is not always capable of achieving societal change. The Emancipation Proclamation is just one of many policies in our country’s history that epitomize the principle that policy cannot change hearts. In order for policy to have its desired effect the mindsets and values of those it affects have to change as well. Therefore, the most important outcome of social movement is not one of the aforementioned changes to the policy networks, but rather changes in societal values and beliefs. I feel that this aspect of social movements is often ignored in favor of striving for direct policy changes.
What are all of your opinions on this issue? Am I downplaying the power that policy changes can have or is changing public values and opinions as important as I think? I feel as if I would be remiss in my blog duties if I didn’t mention OWS, so do you guys think that the OWS movement needs to change public opinions on wealth distribution in order to accomplish its broad goals?
I’m interested in what you mentioned as being the key question of this chapter which is that policy change is the desired outcome of a social movement. I also liked your idea of changes in societal values as being pivotal for social movements success. After reading other blog posts and reading Meyers’ book, I think that a tangible goal such as policy change is important towards the success of a movement but that there needs to be a social change as well. I also think that there cannot be policy change without social change but that there can be social change without a policy change. In my mind, any social movement involves social change and that is just a given. A policy change or something much more tangible needs to be changed as well in order for society to see the benefits of the social movement.
Although I understand that in this text Meyer is focusing on the politics of protest and therefore that implies an emphasis on institutional and mainly policy change, I feel as if it is not possible to discuss social movements without taking into consideration activists’ ability to create social change. I agree with Kate that there cannot be policy change without first social change and therefore I would like to get a better understanding on how movements effect social change, not just change within the system. All that said I did find it very interesting that not only can social movements effect policy change but that policy change also has a great effect on the movements and their tactics.
The question you bring up kind of reminds me of the chicken and egg situation. What comes first? Social change or policy change? To echoe Kate and Molly’s comments, I also think that they depend on one another, i.e. social change drives policy change and policy change drives social change.
As I have said before in class and probably somewhere on this blog, I think that OWS will need to present more clearly defined goals in order to gain and maintain support in attempting to reach the aspiration of tackling economic inequality.
I think the role of policy change can help broaden change in societal values beliefs when the movement takes advantages of the capabilities offered by the policy provision. Many people already have the internal capabilities that motivate their demands, but their exclusion doesn’t allow them public recognition of those capabilities. Policy reform gives activists more flexibility in achieving their capabilities and in the pursuit of such opportunities can reach even more bystanders in the movement’s audience. However, Meyer mentions on multiple occasions the slow process of policy reform as intended by Madison so I think it would be helpful for social movements to gauge the political demographics to anticipate their chances of gaining their attention. To address your question I think when many people judge the success of a social movement, they tend to do it in terms of how effective the movement was in changing policy. In relation to the OWS movement, I think superpac contributions make it increasingly difficult to change public opinions on wealth distribution in the wealthiest country in the world. OWS has a better chance of changing public opinion on wealth distribution, but the advantage they have in the U.S. would be that parts of their demands could be included in new job proposals or development programs so the government primarily can save face as Meyer mentions by not directly addressing their needs.