What I enjoyed most about Robin D. G. Kelley’s article “‘We Are Not What We Seem:’ Rethinking Black Working Class Opposition in the Jim Crow South,” was that it brought an unexpected and refreshing new angle to the world of social movements. I was beginning to think of social movements as a game between institutions and organizations. Those in power would make their move, and then those who had organized to fight the power would make another move to influence the next move made. Kelley radically redefined that by showing me that while coalitions are undoubtedly important, they do not have to be made quite as consciously as I previously thought. They can form organically through friendships, community, and culture.
This approach I believe more effectively acknowledges the earlier constraints on social movement by African Americans. As Kelley points out, “when thinking about the Jim Crow South, we need always to keep in mind that African Americans, the working class in particular, did not experience a liberal democracy.” (110) This means that working with the institutions of power was not an option, at least not initially.
African Americans who did not have even the most remote access to power created their own power through civil disobedience and deviance. This was displayed particularly in the work place. Black men and women created a defiant culture by working together to control the pace of work in exploitive working conditions. Black women were subjected not only to racism by white male employers, but also to sexism, and supported each other through creating “networks of solidarity” (98). Public space also functioned as a forum for expression of frustration with race relations, especially public transportation. Individuals began to protest racism in the public transportation before it ever became an issue for social movement organizations like the NAACP. The people set the agenda for what to change, not the institutions.
While organization and structure are undoubtedly important to the progression of a social movement, I appreciated how this article put the power of social movements back into the hands of individuals. It recognized the importance why the movement started and not how it moved. Why the movement started undoubtedly frames how it plays out, and I appreciated Kelley’s emphasis on where the unrest unfolded and how resistance organically materialized from that.
Again, however, I think the most important takeaway from this article is that individual African Americans made their own power through civil disobedience in the workplace and in public spaces (although still within a strong community with communal purpose). The “unorganized, seemingly powerless black working people brought these issues to the forefront by their resistance, which was shaped by relations of domination as well as the many confrontations they witnessed on the stage of the moving theater” of public transportation (109). Without these rebellious individuals to create a culture of protest, even on a small scale, could organizations like the NAACP even begin? In the end, which is more important: the protest culture or the protesting coalition?
Amanda, I think you raise a really interesting question at the end of your blog post about protest culture and protesting coalition. I do not think that one can be deemed more important than the other. The way I see it is that a protesing coalition depends upon an existing or the beginnings of the protest culture. Simultaneously, the protest culture can only really take hold in the long run given the development of a protesting coalition.
I agree with Brittany that a protest culture and protest coalition work hand in hand. However, I don’t necessarily think that a protest coalition needs a protest culture to exist. Amanda, like you said, Robin D. G. Kelley argues that small acts of disobedience really can make a difference (especially when these small acts take place in a united front, aka protest coalition). As you said, coalitions don’t always have to be formal organizations as we imagine them to be: “They can form organically through friendships, community, and culture.With this said, what I got from your blog post is that a protest culture is a good start, but without a protest coalition, no true change can take place. It takes the small acts of individuals, combined with significant policy changes and engagement with the law, for progress to happen.
Caitlin,
I think the end of your post makes a good point about small acts being combined to really make a difference and I think it really goes back to our discussion last week about Houston’s efforts to combine litigation with community leadership and support from black organizations. He realizes that there will not be enough progress in one area if the other area is lacking. Obviously, this really goes along with what we’ve been talking about with Ella Baker because her philosophy of leadership was similar by focusing on making community members into leaders. I think it’s also interesting because when Houston resigns, he states that the framework was in place, so he was no longer needed. I think building a strong foundation among those who you know should support such an issue (as the NAACP began to push more in this direction) is the most important part of what it takes to keep a movement going. I think then that Kelley’s article is saying something similar that these people didn’t necessarily need the movement because their inner protesting spirit would led them to challenge the system regardless of what the NAACP was doing.
While protest culture and protesting coalitions are not necessarily mutually exclusive, I believe that the relationship between protesting culture and coalition is quite clear, and part of the same process, with neither being more important. The protest culture must be present in order for the protesting coalition to be successful. After all, if no-one wants to protest then can there even be a protesting coalition? A protesting culture without a protesting coalition, on the other hand, could be disorganized and unfocused.
Protesting culture does not have to preclude a protesting coalition. In Mississippi, a protesting coalition, the NAACP, fought to create a protesting culture, even though a protesting coalition normally is created by a protesting culture. However on the macro-scale, the NAACP would not have started without its founders becoming fed-up with the injustices and developing a protesting culture.
I agree with Amanda and enjoyed how Kelley showed that social movements are not necessarily consciously planned, but rather grow from the community and culture. It is easy to want to quantify exactly how movements are started and exactly how they function, but I think they are much more fluid and hard to define than that. Amanda points out that “the people set the agenda for what to change, not the institutions,” and I tend to agree. The informal, everyday acts of resistance and dissatisfaction are what get the institutions to act and take on causes. From the article, I got that the informal acts inform the agenda of the formal and organized part of movements. Another point that I agree with Amanda on is her opinion that, “While organization and structure are undoubtedly important to the progression of a social movement, I appreciated how this article put the power of social movements back into the hands of individuals.” I think that, while one individual is not usually capable of a huge, movement-changing action, these acts of infrapolitics taken together can have a huge impact.
In answer to your questions, I think that without public unhappiness and a culture of protest, organizations would not begin. Organizations arise because they see that society is unhappy enough to start doing something for change. Without seeing this, people would have no need to start an organization for social change. For your second question, I think that both are vital to a social movement. The protest culture and the protesting coalition each have different potentials and can achieve different things within a movement. They both work together towards the same goals but in different ways.
I am so glad you brought up this idea that was touched upon in the article. I know we talked about it a lot in class on Wednesday, but I want to discuss it a bit more. To answer your question I believe that these individual acts are the initial spark to a movement as well as the continual driving force behind the movement. They initiate the process or express their feelings first. What I found most important is the relationship between the individuals at the local local level and the corporate headquarters. The idea of leadership only functions if their is a solid relationship between leaders and their followers. SO this idea of recruiting at the grass roots level really demonstrates this individualized approach to leadership. Relationships are much more personalized and so a greater trust is form. Not only are strong relationships between leaders and followers vital but also the relationships among the followers. These relationships create strong communities and thus are more empowered to be a part of civil disobedience.
At the end of the day, once the grass-roots are organized, a centralized organization needs to be established in order to gain the attention of the government. Basically, both need to be established because both are vital to a movement.
It seems pretty obvious now that both a protest culture (initially) and a protest coalition (consequently) are necessary to propelling a movement forward. I appreciate the comments that challenged my desire to pick one over the other both on this post and in class. I guess I over-focused on the initial creation of a protest culture through individual acts of disobedience in public space because the thought that the powerless can create their own power fascinates me. However, this power is, of course, limited. While defiant acts are courageous, they wouldn’t amount to as much without the protection of a greater organization like the NAACP. The Rosa Parks example that we discussed in class demonstrates this. Rosa Parks was an individual who created her own power through her act of protest in the ‘moving theater’ of the Montgomery bus system. The protection and support she received from the NAACP allowed that action to turn into the monumental Montgomery Bus Boycott.
Thanks for your comments!
Amanda