Category Archives: Meyer, Politics of Protest

Social Movements and Public Policy

Posted on by

Following up on our discussion today about the relationship between social movements and public policy, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell withdrew his support of the latest bill requiring a woman to have a transvaginal ultrasound before having an abortion.  Was his change of heart due to public protest and media attention or due to his own political aspirations?  Hard to tell.

See the New York Times latest coverage of the issue here.  That article also describes some of the social movement organizations on both sides of the debate.

See John Stewart’s The Daily Show coverage of the issue here.

Fox News has an article describing the protest on Monday.  Read that here.

You can also read the AP News story about the protest here.

This image comes from the Rachel Maddow blog.  You can read the blog here.  The people standing in the far left of the picture include a faculty member and students from Longwood University.

 

Chapter 9: The Policy Connection

Posted on by

In Chapter 9: The Policy Connection, Meyer addresses the interaction of movements and the policy process.  Using the Bonus Army as an example, Meyer highlights specific techniques employed by protesters in social movements that impact the movements effect on policy.  These techniques include: personally carrying their claims to Washington to bring them to the direct attention of policy makers, not giving in to intimidation or efforts to suppress their demonstrations, and using the media to gain allies across the nation.  Meyer describes effective demonstrations as an expression of a cause, the representation of a constituency, and the analysis of what should be done.

 

One of the main points Meyer highlights throughout this chapter is that social movements influence, develop, and affect politics over a long period of time and often in unexpected ways (165).  Social movements often get criticized for not having specific goals and showing no focused means of obtaining their goals or enacting specific changes.  However, much of this criticism stems from the issue that social movements cannot create immediate change.  Meyer points out that Madison and the other founders purposefully created our political system in a way that slows the process of political change (168).  The political policy changes that social movements bring about take a long time to pass through the system and much of the process occurs behind closed doors.  Unfortunately, by the time these changes come about, the social movements that called for them are not always given due credit.

 

Meyer presents an example of this slow political process using the antiwar and antidraft movements of the 1960s.  Although draft regulations did not change much during the Vietnam War, they have changed drastically since then.  The political fallout resulting from the antiwar movement affected the United States foreign policy for nearly thirty years (167).  It also led to more hesitancy before committing troops to foreign missions.  In addition, antidraft movements led policy makers and the military to improve the quality of life of military personnel in an effort to attract and accommodate a stable volunteer military force.  By the time these changes came about, little credit was given to the activists who participated in those social movements.

 

Keeping these issues in mind, it is interesting to think about what social movements that have occurred recently and are currently in progress will bring about political change in the future.  The OWS movement has been heavily criticized for not having any specific goals and not petitioning for specific changes within the system.  However, it is possible that major changes stemming from this movement have yet to be seen.  What policies may come about that began as reactions to the Occupy movement?

— Laura Bailey

“Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.” -George Bernard Shaw

Posted on by

Chapter 10 in Meyer’s book leaves in the hearts and minds of the readers, this idea of the continuation of protest. We see in this chapter his opinion on protests, mainly his belief in the power of protest and its vital place in our political society. I think he sends a strong message to his listeners about the importance of their role in politics. What I took mainly from this chapter was that the citizen should always be active. They should not fear rejection or change; rather they should desire to voice their opinions and act upon them in protest. The great thing about our nation is that it is a democracy. We declared that we should be given the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Later, we turned these dreams into policies of justice and freedom in our bill of rights. Meyer brings to our attention this fact because he believes it has been somewhat lost. He suggests that some citizens have begun passive or cynical about politics and thus retreat to their private lives. But we are blessed with the gift of free speech yet how can we expect our voice to be heard without protests.

In three famous examples, with recurring themes about voting rights he demonstrates the change created by our historical involvement in social movements, as well as one example from the present. This idea that American citizens including soldiers, African-Americans, and women were at one point in time denied the right to vote, is astonishing for any present day American to even fathom. We are lucky to have both the freedom to voice our opinion in protests and elections. Not every person around the world has this right. So use it! Exercise your rights. Instead of complaining about the government, be an active citizen. A great example, Meyer gives us are the protests against George W. Bush’s resurrection. These protests, like OWS, and the civil right movements give us hope for the future, as long as citizens with “collective standings” as Meyer defines it, continue to come together and fight for these common grievances, our country can rebuild itself.

As I have reflected above upon this chapter, I have been able to look at my own role in politics or lack their of. I have a lot of work to do in being more of an active and informed citizen. I have realized through this book and class the importance of protest. Although, I may not believe in every trivial issue, I do believe in the broader theory behind voicing these issues.  Protests keep us all in check. They remind us of how privileged we are to live in the land of the free and they bring justice. My first step to improve my own civic responsibility is to vote.

1) Do you think eventually the OWS protests will create change? Or do you think that our politics are so corrupted that their efforts will go unanswered?

2) What steps can you take to be a better citizen? How can you avoid becoming ignorant and inactive? What are some of your own grievances towards American government? Or more specifically, the Richmond government and community? What injustices do you see?

3) Do you think Meyer is too idealistic and simplistic to say that creating change is as easy as being a courageous citizen who accepts political responsibilities by protesting with others?

Eliza McLean

Chapter 8- Professional Organizers, more necessary today?

Posted on by

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

Chapter 7: Playing Within the Rules of the Game vs. The Consequences of Challenging the System

Posted on by

In Meyer’s Chapter 7, we see him address not only the process of institutionalization but also the effects that it has on the different factions of a broad social movement. He suggests that these three complementary processes are cooptation, marginalization, and demobilization.

The first brings the one part of the faction to move into institutional politics as it moves from beyond the “borders of mainstream politics to the inside of the political arena” (130). We see this kind of association within social movements today as they try to gain momentum by playing within the rules of the already existing game. In this way, they can establish themselves “legitimately” as they follow the rules, routines, procedures, and norms of mainstream politics. Many new movements are vulnerable to cooptation as it is the safer route to take as they set their prospective achievements being attained in smaller steps as they have to follow all the red tape and rules that has already been established.

The second process is for groups that have been forced outside mainstream politics and their culture has been marginalized. A way that this can be achieved is through repression and forcible exclusion; however, this is sometimes a good thing for groups as they have no one to compromise their stances on their issues of concerns. This can be compared to how we see political candidates compromising their pure stances to nourish internal relationships and appease their constituents. If the groups aren’t worried about gaining access to larger audiences, then this process is actually allowing them to “speak their truths as clearly as possible, albeit to smaller audiences” (Taylor 1989). But we can see this kind of marginalization in our government’s history as social movement leaders of the 1880s onward have been threatened by secret police and sometimes sentenced to extended prison terms for exercising their right to express their opinions that just happened to be different than those of mainstream politics.

Lastly, sometimes when issues lose the spotlight and attention of mainstream politics, their supports and activists demobilize. However, as we talked about in class and as we read in Chapter 3, we know that there are movement professionals who don’t necessarily protest visibly on the streets everyday or rally the troops to sustain the movement, but are quietly and less visibly supporting their cause while sustaining a more career-oriented lifestyle. Although there are some movements who fall of the map as their supports demobilize there are many more that take what they have learned from the experience and pursue other more focused protests. For example, many movements include multiple factions that recognize that it is mutually beneficial to be seen as a one movement, but when the broad movement is demobilized, many individuals “turn their attention to other issues that now seem more pressing, more promising, or more in line with their core mission” (131). Meyers gives the example of the nuclear freeze movement that included multiple different groups, and when the movement faded, these groups didn’t just stop supporting their causes, but instead they turned their attention to their narrower focuses that held them together.

And so as I was reading, I was wondering what you guys thought are the “worst” or “best” fates of movements as they fall into the processes of institutionalization. Personally, I don’t necessarily think that it is a bad thing when super large groups demobilize after becoming marginalized because I think that in many scenarios, politics deludes the true intentions of groups and a reorganization of people with the same core mission once in awhile is a good thing.

Furthermore, I think that Meyers brings up an interesting point of how when these three wings develop in a movement and for example, the institutionalized wing looses momentum, the other two wings become less interested to stay strong as well. Do you guys think that factions are the reasons that movements fail? Or do you think that factions are what truly focus a movement? Do you think the factions of the Occupy Wall Street Movement will help or destroy its momentum?

Why Everyone Protests (Why Nothing Gets Done)

Posted on by

Firstly I would like to provide a summary of the key points of this chapter for review. Meyer begins this chapter acknowledging the power of incorporating politics into social movements. Protesting at social movements, for example the Democratic national convention in Chicago in 1968, is a great way to gain the attention of the federal and state governments but also to gain political allies. Originally Meyer states that political protest was greater in the past than now, and contrastingly fewer issues were protested about in the past than are now. This increase of issues protested about alludes to JP’s question as to whether civil disobedience has become overused. Meyer admits in this chapter that the increase of social movements has created a “cluster of issues” (146) and each issue receives less attention as a result.

From there, Meyer then moves on to discuss the double-sidedness of political protests. Meyer uses the examples of abortion and civil rights to present the case that each political movement has a countermovement. He briefly states that although these movements may be the direct opposite of one another, they still often use the same tactics as mentioned in Chapter 5. Political protests have so many components to them due to the fact that each one has a countermovement. Meyers writes “Activists on more than one side of an issue must deal not only with each other, but also the outsiders drawn into the conflict” (150). Activists not only have to worry about organizing and promoting their side of the issue, but also have to stay on top of the counter movement’s plans and rebut their statements.

Not only is there countermovement to every movement, but also there is bipartisanship within both the state and federal government. So therefore you have the two sides of one issue fighting against each other, Republicans and Democrats fighting against each other, and the state and federal governments fighting against each other as well. It’s no wonder political protests never make any real progress. Political protests often have more resources than non-political protests because they engage politicians with power into the equation. These politicians can act as representatives for each side of the issue and make sure their opinions are debated in government meetings. However, because the state and federal governments often have different rulings and do not come to similar conclusions on rulings, there is a lot of gray area within these hot button issues. For example with abortion, Roe v. Wade ruled that a women can terminate her pregnancy during the first trimester, the state holds power in the third trimester, but during the second trimester, there needs to be a “balancing of rights” (152). This balancing of rights leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Take gay marriage, the federal government does not recognize gay marriage, yet they give states the right to make their own individual decisions. Well not all states have the same policies, so there again is a gray area of indecision.

In conclusion, Meyer states that the reason why political protests take so long to resolve, or might never be resolved is because of the split in government and the continued existence of movements and countermovement. Also, because political protest has become more commonly accepted in the present, people risk less by joining a movement. Therefore, there are more issues being debated and lots and lots of clutter.

Okay now for the fun part…some questions for you to think about:

1.)    Going back to JP’s question has the increase of political issues being debated taken away from their overall meaning? Would it be more conducive to focus on only a few hot button topics (gay marriage, abortion) at a time?

2.)    In what ways does a bipartisan government create standstills for social movements? Are these standstills necessary to keep the peace? Could these standstills ever realistically be removed somehow?

3.)    Is there a countermovement to Occupy Wall Street? If so, does that mean OWS is a political protest? If not, does that mean OWS does not qualify to be a political protest?

– Lucie Dufour

Social Movements, Too Legit to Quit? Ch 7 – The State and Protests: Institutionalization

Posted on by

In this chapter, Meyer details the pattern of political institutionalization of social movements that has come to characterize some movements in the United States.  He uses the antinuclear movement of the 1970s, the longer term US populism and agricultural movements, and US labor movements as the exemplars for explaining the patterns and mechanisms of institutionalization.

Meyer provides an operational definition of institutionalization as “…the creation of a stable set of relationships and procedures such that the politics of an issue becomes routine, that is, repeatable for all concerned with minimal uncertainty or risk… The boundaries of possible reforms are reasonably clear to all concerned and are limited” (126).  He then outlines several mechanisms of institutionalization:

  1. “…policy makers can incorporate movement concerns by offering consultation, formal or informal, with representatives of a movement” (126)
  2. “…elected officials can offer social movement activists a platform or a venue for making their claims” (127)
  3. “…government can set up more permanent venues for consultation, formally adopting the concerns, and even sometimes the personnel, of a challenging movement” (127)
  4. “government can institute procedures that give an actor or claimant formal inclusion in a deliberative process” (128)
  5. “…policy reform can afford activist concerns a place in the process and resources attendant to that place” (128)
  6. “institutionalization includes norms and values, not only in government, but also in the broader culture” (128) *noted as critical by the author*

What struck me the most about this chapter was the indirect, implicit discussion of legitimacy.  To me it seems that at the foundation of this process of institutionalization is a search for the right place, a sense of permanence, the right people, and recognition for the need and the possibility for reform.  What the process of institutionalization does for a social movement is accommodating the needs of the cause while providing them with a form of legitimacy.  Following this train of thought, if this particular cause is being welcomed into the political system then it must have a legitimate claim to be taken seriously.  In the title of this blog post, I ask in jest “Social Movements, Too Legit to Quit?”.  But, I think this question has resonance with what Meyer discusses in this chapter because there seems to be a catch-22 with institutionalization.  The process does not just fuel the activistism and/or activist participation.  The social movement becomes institutionalized and gains legitimacy but gaining legitimacy may prompt activists to question what else they can do for their cause.  Can institutionalization make a movement “too legit” and make the activists quit?

After reading this chapter, I’m left considering the following questions which I now pose to you:

  • Is the process of institutionalization as described by Meyers just another way of phrasing the process of negotiation? Or is it a grander process of gaining legitimacy? Or is it simply selling out?
  • Do you think that institutionalization is necessary or even inevitable?
    Can you imagine OWS engaging in institutionalization? Or would that be completely antithetical to the cause?

 

Brittany Mangold

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