Category Archives: Chapter 2: Why Protest?

Does organization stifle a social movement?

Posted on by

After reading Chapter 2 of David Meyer’s Politics of Protest, I found the five-step cycle of protests a unique way to look at previous social movements. In Molly’s post, she talks about how Occupy Wall Street could fit into this theory. I agree with her analysis, however to branch off of her idea, I have to disagree with the notion that OWS is an organization. After reading some of the articles from publications such as Vanity Fair and Time, what has been going on with OWS is more of a movement, than an organization. According to Meyer, “social movements are episodic” whereas the issues they deal with are much more persistent (23). This spontaneity that allowed for the OWS movement to begin and keep holding on without much organization shows that there are underlying, persistent issues of capitalism and a divide in social classes in the United States, and citizens are ready to take action.

One idea that I found interesting was what organizing would do for a social movement. In an October 2011 article by David Meyer, he talks about the Tea Party and how Occupy Wall Street could learn from that organization and use what they have done to help their own movement. (Read the article here) Although OWS is still young, there needs to be some organization within the movement in order for it to be successful. I don’t entirely agree with Meyer’s statement that social movements are episodic and the issues are persistent. In order for a movement to be successful and push the ideas to make a change, there needs to be organization within the episode of the movement to make a change.

In the beginning of the movement, protests were necessary to show solidarity within the nation and within the movement. However, now that the movement has been around for several months, it needs to move into the next stages of development: organization. Many involved directly with OWS say that they like that there is not a formal leadership aspect to the movement. Is there a way to have organization and demands of the protesters being met, without formal or hierarchical leadership?

Politics of Protest Chapter Two

Posted on by

Chapter Two of Meyer’s book focused on the cyclical nature of social movements and the commonalities shared between various movements (as well as the ways in which movements can differ). According to Meyer, organizations have in common a grievance to an existing policy or problem, a need to respond in accordance with American law and societal standards, political (and physical) space to organize, institutions that are either unresponsive or seem unresponsive to the cause at hand, and a tendency to “go public” with an expert from the field or an insider.

The Occupy Wall Street movement fits nicely into this definition because the activists have a clear grievance: the fact that 60% of our nation’s wealth belonging to the “1%”. Protesters also are responding to this grievance without stepping out of legal bounds or causing social upheaval: activists did their research and found a NYC park in which they could protest all night rather than a public park that would have to close. The organization has attempted to seek appropriate space for protest. They have been successful at organizing online but have run into trouble with the police in NYC. Do you think that NYC police and the government are fulfilling their constitutional duties to provide sufficient space for protest? I think the argument could be made that the police are infringing on activists’ First Amendment Right (specifically freedom of assembly) when they kick-out protesters for “sanitary reasons”. I think the case could be made that governmental institutions, and especially Congress have been unresponsive to their grievances because Congress has historically favored the 1% with tax breaks. Are there any other instances in which either Congress, the President, or other governmental institutions have appeared/been unresponsive to OWS grievances? The Occupy Wall Street movement, however, does not reflect the fifth and final aspect of Meyer’s definition of social movements because OWS has avoided elevating leaders and experts in the organization. OWS has adopted a more lateral organization in order to be more democratic and therefore it would be against their nature to choose one “insider” to represent their public interest. Do you think it is possible for social movements like OWS to fit some aspects of Meyer’s definition but not all?