Category Archives: Meyer, Politics of Protest

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>.

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?