Monthly Archives: February 2012

Media’s role in Social Movements: Stand up for Ellen

Posted on by

Today, I found an article in the Huffington Post that serves as a great example of the power of media in social movements. Last week, One Million Moms (an affiliate of the American Family Association) attacked JCPenny for hiring Ellen DeGeneres based on her sexuality. In the “Gay Voices” section of the online newspaper, activist and blogger Scott Wooledge, gives reasons why the smear campaign will actually be ammunition for the LGBT community:

“The LGBT community owes a great big thanks to the “One Million Moms” (actually, closer to 40,000) for launching the best LGBT-friendly public relations blitz the community has seen in ages, and battering Christian conservative’s image in a way the LGBT community could never hope to do.”

The fact that One Million Moms is using moral judgement as grounds for employment discrimination has even gotten Bill O’Rielly talking. (In the article, there is a clip of O’Rielly passionately defending non-descrimination in the workplace.) In addition, GLAAD, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, has started a campaign in response, called “Stand Up for Ellen”.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-wooledge/million-moms-ellen-jcpenny_b_1272420.html

 

Thoughts?

Next Steps for the Occupy Movement?

Posted on by

Sunday’s New York Times  featured this article about the different avenues the Occupy Movement is taking — planning larger protests to draw in more people to their movement, renting office space, organizing general assemblies and work groups.  The activists they quote in the article have experience participating in other social movements.

The article quotes David Meyer, the author of The Politics of Protest. “’Some of the stuff you do to get attention often puts off your audience,’ said David S. Meyer, a professor at the University of California, Irvine, who studies social movements. ‘It’s a delicate balance, being provocative enough to get attention and still draw sympathy.’”

In what ways does the article reflect other themes in Meyer’s book?

Also pay particular attention to the activists quoted by the reporters.  How is the New York Times portraying the Occupy Movement?

 

 

Chapter 6: Civil Disobedience, A Fact Sheet

Posted on by

In a word: Versatile.

In a sentence: Civil Disobedience is a tool of social movements used by an individual or group to protest a law or common practice, and can change over the course of the movement from a spark of ignition to a unifying action.  

In a picture:

The OWS Student Strike in NYC (Rights owned by me, so no copyright issues)

 

Types of Civil Disobedience:

Individualistic-Often dramatic, and in accordance with an individual’s own ‘higher law,’ individualistic Civil Disobedience is an action of one or a few who find a present practice or law against their beliefs—religious, secular, or otherwise—and take action. Meyer’s example is of a woman who bars all other women entrance to an abortion clinic.

 

Collective-In acting not against a law or for a ‘higher law,’ collective Civil Disobedience relies on disagreement with a common practice that goes against the ‘collective value’ of a large group. Meyer’s example is of a fictional play in which women withhold sex and chores until war ends. Though not breaking laws, they are breaking customs. See ‘Famous Users’ for more.

 

Primary uses of Civil Disobedience:

Bring attention and inspire action-At the beginning of a movement, Civil Disobedience can bring media attention to an issue and inspire involvement by previously dormant citizens. Case in point: Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat on the bus. (spark)

 

Unify a campaign- In the course of a movement, Civil Disobedience can serve as a common thread linking protestors, leaders, and events. Case in point: MLK and Ghandi used non-violent civil disobedience to gain the moral high ground and control the direction and methodology of protests.

 

Famous users/uses of Civil Disobedience:

Women and Prohibition-Though Meyer’s does not mention this in his fictional account of women withholding sex, many women in America actually did withhold sex, cease household labor, and acted generally against the grain in a response to the obscene drinking of the early twentieth century. The result: prohibition. This illustrates perfectly collective Civil Disobedience.

 

MLK and the Civil Rights Movement-Referred to constantly my Meyer’s and used by analysts around the world, the Civil Rights Movement illustrates both individualistic Civil Disobedience and Collective Civil Disobedience in the ways written about through the piece.

 

The Take-away

The key to understanding the different uses of Civil Disobedience lies not in the result or the people involved, but the origin of the action. In assessing whether or not a movement is effectively using Civil Disobedience at the right moment in the course of a movement, one must look at why it occurred. Did a single person or small group act in favor of a ‘higher law’ or a ‘collective value’?

 

With that in mind, how is Civil Disobedience used by the Occupy movement? Which kind? At what time? How about the Tea Party?

Chapter 6: Civil Disobedience

Posted on by

There are several important takeaways that the author wishes us to absorb from chapter 6 on civil disobedience. The first is that the term “civil disobedience” is described and defined very broadly by its famous users to incorporate many behaviors. These more famous users include the likes of Henry Thoreau, Ghandi, and MLK. Their definitions range from “to wash one’s hands of [an enormous wrong]… and not give it practically his support,” to disobeying an “unjust” law because it violates a “higher law,” such as moral conscience, the constitution, or the bible.

The next point of absorption is that due to this vagueness of terms, civil disobedience can be can be overused, both as a term and a practice, and be employed by both sides of the same argument. This becomes problematic because anything can be rationally justified as civil disobedience and Americans tend to view it as the trademark of a justified cause, which can lead to misconceptions. For example, the author uses the example of pro and anti-abortion demonstrators and how they both use acts of “civil disobedience.” If I were an American with a positive stigma towards “civil disobedience” due to our countries history of it, I would not be able to rationally choose, with those definitions, which side of the abortion argument was truly civil disobedience and which one was a protest of a justified practice or non-practice. Also because users of civil disobedience appeal to “higher laws” the users believe, sometimes falsely, that no secular authority can ever disagree with them. In other words, labeling something civil disobedience is highly subjective.

Next, the author wishes for us to recognize the many instances of successful use of civil disobedience. MLK’s tactics, the story of Lysistrata, and Ghandi’s practices are the most famous. The author also wants to point out several characteristics of these usages. The first is people who did not otherwise have voice in society carried them all out. This shows that civil disobedience is often a last resort and a way for an outsider or marginalized person to affect the status quo. After all, “Dissidents are unlikely to march outside the White House if the can have a meaningful audience inside.” (114) The second is that civil disobedience was not the cause of the positive results of each movement; civil disobedience was used to generate publicity that eventually got the people who could change the status quos to change them. This is significant because it reveals that even though civil disobedience itself goes outside of a system to affect it, the real actual act of changing the system still comes from within. Thirdly, Civil disobedience is the most effective when the participants have strong emotional or personal connections to each other. I found this interesting because OWS does not have this characteristic.  Finally, civil disobedience can be adapted and employed in any number of social movements with good affects, however, they tend to be more successful when they share the above characteristics.

So, keeping in mind the main ideas of this chapter, I was wondering what the forum has to say about civil disobedience and anything else the chapter discussed. Is “civil disobedience” overused? Do you think Americans have been overexposed to those types of actions and don’t take them as seriously as they once did? Does anyone have good answers for the questions that the book poses on the bottom of page 111? “Do the politics and government of the United States encourage the development of certain kinds of strategies for social movements? Do the dominant strategies change over time? Are there certain kinds of constituencies who will choose to use civil disobedience, or are there certain issue areas for which the tactic is most relevant?” (111)

 

-JP Shannon

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

Civil Disobedience

Posted on by

In Chapter six, David Meyer discusses and analyzes civil disobedience and how it relates to protest and social movements. The chapter looks into two different forms of civil disobedience. One form of disobedience is through a collection of people and the other is more individualistic, which is justified through some form of “higher law.” Collective disobedience goes through cycles, which is similar to most movements in America because there areso many people with different beliefs and values. In order for someone to disobey the law they have to have some passion for the cause they are protesting over. Now, a citizens level of civil disobedience depends on how passionate they feel towards what they are protesting, which can make variate and create cycles of protest where sometimes the protests are strong and powerful and other times not so much. According to David Meyers, the difference between individualistic and the collection of disobedience is that individuals chose to work alone because they have a seperate set of beliefs that relate to a “higher law.” For example, a protestor could believe that a constitutional law is contigent rather than absolute because they believe that people should answer to a higher judge, such as God or the word of the bible. This individual protestor could work in a group, but would need to find people who share the same beliefs to the same extent as they do.

When the writers of the Constitution gathered together to discuss the government of the United States, they agreed on the idea that they wanted to “Stop the development of divisive and potentially disruptive political conflict between the government and its challengers” (113). However, the American government allows access and it also suggest interpretation can be made from the citizens within the United States. Citizens can view a law unjust and decide to protest for what they believe in, but the government regulates its citizens and wishes that people challenge the government less. Civil Disobedience is unwanted by the government and even other citizens, but does civil disobedience suggest that the American government needs to regulate how open the laws are to interpretation and questioning by the citizens?

Ben Edwards

Becoming an Activist

Posted on by

Meyer’s Chapter Three focuses mainly on who and why individuals become active in social movements. The basis of his argument lies in the fact that “movements are always comprised of a wide range of people-people who have an equally wide range of reasons for engaging in social action” (45). It is important to recognize how the perception of those who become involved in social movements has changed over time from a collective behavior theory where participants are recognized as crazy and irrational to a more accepted notion of those who have deep rooted interest in social justice and a cause for their commitment. However, it is interesting how the development of the Occupy movement has made the collective behavior theory re-emerge. While some think that the people participating in Occupy Wall Street are a bunch of crazy hippies and poor people, the demographics show that protestors actually cover a wide array of people who are truly commited to left-wing politics-opposition to corporate capitalism. Instead they strive for radical redistribution of wealth, intense regulation of the private sector, and policies that would protect American jobs from moving overseas.  These facts and statistics proves one of Meyer’s other points that “Activists in social movements are disproportionally advantages in terms of education, resources, familial support, and social connections” (47). This idea resonates really closely with what we’ve learned about Ella Baker in the sense that she also came of a black family that was considered to be privileged during the Civil Rights movement. Meyers also discussed that individuals may dedicate their lives’ careers to social movements, often movement professionals, who are often ignored. Likewise, history of social movements and it’s participants,  especially that of the Civil Right movement, has been distorted. For example, many people think that Rosa Parks was a random woman who challenged the bus system, when in reality she was one of the main women behind the scenes and actually worked for organizations like t he NAACP. An important question to ask here is: Why do those who already have advantages in society feel the need to take it upon themselves and struggle for those who do not? Are there really enough or even any benefits in it for them?

Meyers does indeed identify some reasons why individuals become involved in movements from becoming active in community groups to engaging in new commitments to making them feel as though they have made a difference in the world. But personally, I believe that none of these are enough of a reason. Especially now that our society has been growing into such an individualized culture. In the end, I believe that benefits must be clear and outweigh the costs of participation in any movement. This is when the discussion of the different types of incentives (purposive, material, and solidary) offered by a movement become most relevant. In terms of OWS, it is clear that they have established a high level of solidarity (mainly through the extensive use of social media), but they seem to be failing in terms of purposive and material incentives for their participants, which is probably why the overwhelming public has been discrediting much of the movement’s work. What can OWS do to raise the level of purposive and material incentives? Would listing more specific demands of the US government be enough? What does this offer for those who are involved in the movement and benefitting from the current economic system as it stands?

— Brittney Quinones

The Protesting Pedigree

Posted on by

Analysis of social movements through protests has centered on the notion of grassroots, community-based organizing. Movements from Civil Rights to disarmament are steered by people impassioned by their causes. The true galvanizers of any movement must be equipped with a toolset that allows them to navigate the execution of the protest, which often lends the form of education, financial stability, and membership in exclusive networks, according to David Meyer (48). Meyer solidifies his notion of the necessity of possession of this toolset with examples of Martin Luther King, who had both a college and professional degree, and Rosa Parks, who held a post in her local NAACP branch and was well known among organizers (49). Amended to this list would be Ella Baker, graduate of Shaw University, New York NAACP officer, and SCLC staffer.

Kurt Andersen, author of “The Protester,” agrees the majority of current protesters are youth armed with education and overwhelmingly middle-class backgrounds (Anderson 3). Why is this so? Meyer offers the explanation that organizers build movements by garnering support from people they encounter regularly through extracurricular and community involvements which is often influenced by rearing (Meyer 47-48). Engaging people who already know one another acts as a source of comfort for members and aids in attracting new members of similar caliber. This method of entry into social movements, however, hinders the advancement of protests by limiting who has the right to join (47-48).

For the Civil Rights movement, the people passed over were those distant from the centers of action and unequipped with the knowledge of how to mobilize.  Because face-to-face interaction was relied upon to entice engagement, those with greater distance from the movement were essentially excluded.  Occupy Wall Street, which was driven by social media particularly in its initial mobilization stages, excluded lower classes. Social media by its instantaneous nature is geared toward smartphone users, who are predominately middle-class people. The initial organizers then for OWS were young, middle class, and socially connected, similar to those who mobilized the Civil Rights movement.

The elitist nature of social movements seems to oppose the very nature of social movements, which most often seek to promote some form of “the betterment of society for all.” Can the very movements that tote themselves for overthrowing exclusion and unfairness adequately represent the voices of all through systemic exclusion of some? Or does such organization only perpetuate the marginalization of the poor, working class, elderly, disabled, etc.? Alanis Morissette would agree it’s all a bit ironic, maybe.

Here’s a video that spoofs OWS, which relates to my blog post.

— Sarah Bowers

 

Works Cited

Andersen, Kurt. “The Protester.” Time 14 Dec. 2011. Web. 7 Feb. 2012. <http://time.com>.