Why Do Activists Do What They Do?
August 21, 2015 9:33 PM Subscribe
How can climbing a flagpole or hanging from a bridge reform society or improve our political system? How can marching down the street with a cardboard sign that reads “Black Lives Matter” do anything other than disrupt traffic? Why do activists do what they do?
I don't know. Will you do what looks good to you on paper? We will do what we must.
posted by eustatic at 10:07 PM on August 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by eustatic at 10:07 PM on August 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
There's an interesting thing I learned about in my college Psych course, which is the basis for membership hazing rituals: when someone has to do something uncomfortable or embarassing in order to join some sort of organization or group, they are far more likely to be dedicated to the group and far less likely to leave it.
The things you describe are extremely unlikely to make any overall difference or to convince anyone outside the movement, but they're really got at getting casual participants to become dedicated participants.
The real point here is to build a larger and larger core group of people fully dedicated to the cause.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 10:34 PM on August 21, 2015 [11 favorites]
The things you describe are extremely unlikely to make any overall difference or to convince anyone outside the movement, but they're really got at getting casual participants to become dedicated participants.
The real point here is to build a larger and larger core group of people fully dedicated to the cause.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 10:34 PM on August 21, 2015 [11 favorites]
"Critics claim these actions, along with marches and rallies, are a complete waste of time."
Apparently not movie critics, though, or they would have seen Selma last year.
Sometimes particular forms of protest strike me as unnecessarily, I don't know, rude I guess. It's not confrontational protests that bug me, but now and then a particular protest just strikes me as across some mental politeness line for fighting The Man. However, I confine myself to saying that X is "not my favorite form of protest" (if I must say anything at all) because "rude" or "inconvenient" or "stupid" or "confrontational" are basically tone arguments in the end. (And I am deliberately not saying which specific thing annoys me because, hey, it's still a valid forrm of protest.)
I do think it's valid to have discussions about whether a tactic is counterproductive, but you say your piece and you shut up unless you're one of the protest planners; views can differ on whether something is counterproductive, there's no need to beat it to death, everybody heard you. Now that I am a little older and have done my time in local politics, I have activist groups for causes I'm known to be sympathetic to come to me asking for advice on how to approach public officials about their goals. Especially if they are young or new to politics I will try to counsel them away from counterproductive strategies and explain why I think there will be a negative reaction, but I try not to push or argue, just give the advice they asked for and lay out my thoughts and let them decide. I'm not the God of local protests who knows exactly what will work. They're just opinions like anyone else's.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:42 PM on August 21, 2015 [13 favorites]
Apparently not movie critics, though, or they would have seen Selma last year.
Sometimes particular forms of protest strike me as unnecessarily, I don't know, rude I guess. It's not confrontational protests that bug me, but now and then a particular protest just strikes me as across some mental politeness line for fighting The Man. However, I confine myself to saying that X is "not my favorite form of protest" (if I must say anything at all) because "rude" or "inconvenient" or "stupid" or "confrontational" are basically tone arguments in the end. (And I am deliberately not saying which specific thing annoys me because, hey, it's still a valid forrm of protest.)
I do think it's valid to have discussions about whether a tactic is counterproductive, but you say your piece and you shut up unless you're one of the protest planners; views can differ on whether something is counterproductive, there's no need to beat it to death, everybody heard you. Now that I am a little older and have done my time in local politics, I have activist groups for causes I'm known to be sympathetic to come to me asking for advice on how to approach public officials about their goals. Especially if they are young or new to politics I will try to counsel them away from counterproductive strategies and explain why I think there will be a negative reaction, but I try not to push or argue, just give the advice they asked for and lay out my thoughts and let them decide. I'm not the God of local protests who knows exactly what will work. They're just opinions like anyone else's.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:42 PM on August 21, 2015 [13 favorites]
Hmm. I'm very much looking forward to reading this book.
My first try to explain the activism described in the examples would be:
Hang from a bridge: media stunt. Goal, draw attention to ignored issue.
Flag pole climb, same, with bonus of expressing symbolically, a community's outrage, to force dialogue on the symbolism of the offensive flag.
March in the street: to remind ourselves we are not alone, to demonstrate we have people power, to share solidarity after trauma. Surely, also, to disrupt, because daily life is violence for some, though some others may not yet see it.
All these actions seem sensible, even a form of kindness.
As a white person, I'd add that showing up to antiracism demos is also a form if bearing witness. I am most familiar with this as Quaker practice, but I am sure it grows from many traditions.
Thanks for the post. I think a lot about how my activism has changed with age, and I enjoy the question.
posted by chapps at 11:12 PM on August 21, 2015 [4 favorites]
My first try to explain the activism described in the examples would be:
Hang from a bridge: media stunt. Goal, draw attention to ignored issue.
Flag pole climb, same, with bonus of expressing symbolically, a community's outrage, to force dialogue on the symbolism of the offensive flag.
March in the street: to remind ourselves we are not alone, to demonstrate we have people power, to share solidarity after trauma. Surely, also, to disrupt, because daily life is violence for some, though some others may not yet see it.
All these actions seem sensible, even a form of kindness.
As a white person, I'd add that showing up to antiracism demos is also a form if bearing witness. I am most familiar with this as Quaker practice, but I am sure it grows from many traditions.
Thanks for the post. I think a lot about how my activism has changed with age, and I enjoy the question.
posted by chapps at 11:12 PM on August 21, 2015 [4 favorites]
The article speaks as if climbing a flagpole is roughly equivalent to helping slaves escape on the Underground Railroad. In the same moral ballpark.
Please.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 11:29 PM on August 21, 2015 [9 favorites]
Please.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 11:29 PM on August 21, 2015 [9 favorites]
What self-aggrandizing horseshit. WHAT IF THE FLAGPOLE WAS A NAZI FLAGPOLE NOT SO EASY TO MOCK THEN.
posted by klangklangston at 11:40 PM on August 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by klangklangston at 11:40 PM on August 21, 2015 [2 favorites]
Now that I have the snark out of my system:
This article is self-aggrandizing horseshit because it conflates all of activist actions under the rubric of ends justifying means, makes some pretty specious assertions (which wars did conscientious objectors end?), and uses that conflation to wrap every wobbly paper mache head in the aegis of The Third of May.
"How can climbing a flagpole or hanging from a bridge reform society or improve our political system?" is a fundamentally different question than "Why do activists do what they do," and providing a religious or faith-based analogy highlights one of the biggest flaws in activist culture. The answer for "How can climbing a flagpole … reform society" is that it's a singular, symbolic act that catalyzes public opinion toward the outcome of removing flags from the statehouses. It uses a mild amount of personal risk (compared to some activist methods) to demonstrate that the status quo is unacceptable. Newsome's a hero for that, sure, but she's not Harriet Goddamn Tubman, American Badass.
But this article substitutes the moral justification — which is inherently subjective and can (and has) been applied to nearly every cause, good or bad — to defend the practical, tactical question of actions that may or may not be effective themselves. I opposed the Iraq War as much as anybody, but the Die-In in my campus's student union did the square root of fuck all toward ending the war. It lacked an audience of people who could make changes, it lacked the ability to catalyze other people toward action, and it trivialized the actual dying going on.
Or, to pull a page from Dustin Axe's rhetorical book: He's doing exactly what ISIS is doing in justifying their actions (if ISIS isn't evil enough, substitute The Secret). Beyond just religious faith, they have both moved into the realm of magical thinking and a fantasy of changing the world justified by intentions.
I react so strongly against this shit because I had to work with so many goddamned activists who wanted to dicker endlessly about the subtle symbolism of their bullshit and not ask the most important guiding question: So fucking what? ('Who the fuck cares?' works too.) Newsome's protest worked because of the effect that it had, the direct, immediate effect. But history is lousy with the bones of "activists" who pissed their time away playing at Joan of Arc, and this feel-good pap in Counterpunch only encourages them to keep dicking around with drum circles against global warming.
posted by klangklangston at 11:58 PM on August 21, 2015 [34 favorites]
This article is self-aggrandizing horseshit because it conflates all of activist actions under the rubric of ends justifying means, makes some pretty specious assertions (which wars did conscientious objectors end?), and uses that conflation to wrap every wobbly paper mache head in the aegis of The Third of May.
"How can climbing a flagpole or hanging from a bridge reform society or improve our political system?" is a fundamentally different question than "Why do activists do what they do," and providing a religious or faith-based analogy highlights one of the biggest flaws in activist culture. The answer for "How can climbing a flagpole … reform society" is that it's a singular, symbolic act that catalyzes public opinion toward the outcome of removing flags from the statehouses. It uses a mild amount of personal risk (compared to some activist methods) to demonstrate that the status quo is unacceptable. Newsome's a hero for that, sure, but she's not Harriet Goddamn Tubman, American Badass.
But this article substitutes the moral justification — which is inherently subjective and can (and has) been applied to nearly every cause, good or bad — to defend the practical, tactical question of actions that may or may not be effective themselves. I opposed the Iraq War as much as anybody, but the Die-In in my campus's student union did the square root of fuck all toward ending the war. It lacked an audience of people who could make changes, it lacked the ability to catalyze other people toward action, and it trivialized the actual dying going on.
Or, to pull a page from Dustin Axe's rhetorical book: He's doing exactly what ISIS is doing in justifying their actions (if ISIS isn't evil enough, substitute The Secret). Beyond just religious faith, they have both moved into the realm of magical thinking and a fantasy of changing the world justified by intentions.
I react so strongly against this shit because I had to work with so many goddamned activists who wanted to dicker endlessly about the subtle symbolism of their bullshit and not ask the most important guiding question: So fucking what? ('Who the fuck cares?' works too.) Newsome's protest worked because of the effect that it had, the direct, immediate effect. But history is lousy with the bones of "activists" who pissed their time away playing at Joan of Arc, and this feel-good pap in Counterpunch only encourages them to keep dicking around with drum circles against global warming.
posted by klangklangston at 11:58 PM on August 21, 2015 [34 favorites]
Activism is more immediate, more satisfying, and more ideologically pure than decades of thankless bitter struggle in a political system that doesn't want to change for the benefit of oppressed people. Because, let's be honest, who wants to show up to every single Senate Subcommittee and sit through hours of testimony to act as an unpaid lobbyist to speak on behalf of people who shouldn't have to ask for this? How many hours of C-Span have you watched, or alternatively (if you live in the U.S.), state legislative sessions attended? Local town board meetings? You'll feel a lot better if you do something dramatic while cameras are watching you than if you take notes at meetings and keep going and making noise that you know nobody really cares about.
Or to quote Woodrow Wilson, "If you want to make enemies, try to change something." He would have known; the Senate thought that the League of Nations was a waste of time and never ratified the Treaty of Versailles. (It may very well have been, but Wilson probably had decent intentions)
The fact is, a lot of the most effective change isn't visible, because it either grinds slowly over time, or happens because people's opinions change. Witness all the reactionary movements today trying to erode the modest gains of the last 40 years.
Bluntly, I don't like incrementalism. But long term, it seems to be the thing that works most reliably. All the history I've known shows that people change most effectively when they come to an idea gradually with education and seeing something better instead of abrupt forcing (allowing time for bitter unchangeable old people to die off). Doesn't mean we shouldn't drag people into the future - we just have to be honest with ourselves about what that means.
Or, to finish with another quote from a more erudite person, Terry Pratchett wrote in Night Watch: "Don't put your trust in revolutions. They always come around again. That's why they're called revolutions. People die, and nothing changes." Revolutions are satisfying and immediate and dramatic, but they haven't got a great track record. Agonizingly slow, terrible compromises, on the other hand...
posted by Strudel at 12:01 AM on August 22, 2015 [31 favorites]
Or to quote Woodrow Wilson, "If you want to make enemies, try to change something." He would have known; the Senate thought that the League of Nations was a waste of time and never ratified the Treaty of Versailles. (It may very well have been, but Wilson probably had decent intentions)
The fact is, a lot of the most effective change isn't visible, because it either grinds slowly over time, or happens because people's opinions change. Witness all the reactionary movements today trying to erode the modest gains of the last 40 years.
Bluntly, I don't like incrementalism. But long term, it seems to be the thing that works most reliably. All the history I've known shows that people change most effectively when they come to an idea gradually with education and seeing something better instead of abrupt forcing (allowing time for bitter unchangeable old people to die off). Doesn't mean we shouldn't drag people into the future - we just have to be honest with ourselves about what that means.
Or, to finish with another quote from a more erudite person, Terry Pratchett wrote in Night Watch: "Don't put your trust in revolutions. They always come around again. That's why they're called revolutions. People die, and nothing changes." Revolutions are satisfying and immediate and dramatic, but they haven't got a great track record. Agonizingly slow, terrible compromises, on the other hand...
posted by Strudel at 12:01 AM on August 22, 2015 [31 favorites]
The article speaks as if climbing a flagpole is roughly equivalent to helping slaves escape on the Underground Railroad. In the same moral ballpark.
Please.
A black woman committed a property-crime* in front of a police officer in a country where police officers shoot black people in the back and walk free, because that's just how we do things here. And it wasn't just any property-crime*, either, it was the theft of a symbol of centuries-long and continued dominance of black people by white property owners. She put her life at risk, every bit as much as the ones who helped slaves escape — those caught were often hung at the end of a noose. Please yourself, maybe, but whatever. She has more bravery in her pinky nail than every coward in this thread and on this site sitting their passive asses in front of a computer screen and running their mouths, talking tough.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:29 AM on August 22, 2015 [43 favorites]
Please.
A black woman committed a property-crime* in front of a police officer in a country where police officers shoot black people in the back and walk free, because that's just how we do things here. And it wasn't just any property-crime*, either, it was the theft of a symbol of centuries-long and continued dominance of black people by white property owners. She put her life at risk, every bit as much as the ones who helped slaves escape — those caught were often hung at the end of a noose. Please yourself, maybe, but whatever. She has more bravery in her pinky nail than every coward in this thread and on this site sitting their passive asses in front of a computer screen and running their mouths, talking tough.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:29 AM on August 22, 2015 [43 favorites]
Surely the point of this article is that activism of a symbolic kind keeps ideas alive and inspires new people to keep grinding away at incremental change. And of course, many of the people who year after year are making submissions, writing papers, writing to legislators, whatever, are also demonstrating. These things aren't mutually exclusive; in my experience, they often go together.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 1:50 AM on August 22, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 1:50 AM on August 22, 2015 [7 favorites]
Also, think about what demonstration actually means. Demonstrations are how you demonstrate that your cause can actually muster people to turn out. It's not about winning. It's about sending a signal that you are a real constituency.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 1:52 AM on August 22, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 1:52 AM on August 22, 2015 [8 favorites]
The idea that activism and incrementalism are at odds is fallacious. They are part of the same process, and very often done by the same people. Activism can also often be incremental - e.g. stop that clothing shop discriminating again trans women, get that police force to inquire into its own racism.
But yes, this is not a very good article in my view. Human action is complicated both in motivation and effect. The idea that a distant spiritual goal is the ultimate motivation for activism seems far fetched.
All anyone of good conscience can do is consider and understand the facts as best they can, and then do what seems best to them. It provides no great spiritual or proud rational justification. It is merely a reflection of one's own psychology and tastes. We might be wrong, in goal, strategy or tactic, but it's the best any of us can do.
posted by howfar at 3:08 AM on August 22, 2015 [3 favorites]
But yes, this is not a very good article in my view. Human action is complicated both in motivation and effect. The idea that a distant spiritual goal is the ultimate motivation for activism seems far fetched.
All anyone of good conscience can do is consider and understand the facts as best they can, and then do what seems best to them. It provides no great spiritual or proud rational justification. It is merely a reflection of one's own psychology and tastes. We might be wrong, in goal, strategy or tactic, but it's the best any of us can do.
posted by howfar at 3:08 AM on August 22, 2015 [3 favorites]
I started to suspect this article when he said teachers teach based on faith that their action improve students lives. That's incorrect. They teach based on data from decades and decades of research that says XYandZ technique will have ABandC effect down the road.
What does the data say about protests? Which forms have the widest effect? Depending on the results desired and the demographic targeted which forms of protest or activism actually work?
posted by Potomac Avenue at 3:32 AM on August 22, 2015 [5 favorites]
What does the data say about protests? Which forms have the widest effect? Depending on the results desired and the demographic targeted which forms of protest or activism actually work?
posted by Potomac Avenue at 3:32 AM on August 22, 2015 [5 favorites]
Ironically, I am going to a demonstration today, against the Penn East Pipeline that the natural gas industry wants to run through preserved areas and beautiful rural farmlands in eastern PA and central NJ. They are threatening to use eminent domain to take land that is not given, under the guise of cheaper gas prices for local people, while at the same time they are connecting to stations that can convert natural gas to a liquid form to be sold overseas.
Why a demonstration, walking across a bridge on the Delaware River on a very hot and humid day? To bring media attention, and the attention of citizens in NJ and PA to this proposed rape of the land. Nobody thinks this will stop the pipeline today, but that it may draw more interest and support to an issue that affects many.
This is the first big visible effort against the pipeline, but individuals and groups have been working and will continue working on blogs, local meetings, information booths, and letter-writing campaigns, as well as researching every step of the process in order to present the case that this pipeline is not in the interest of the environment or the people.
I found the article inspiring, and did not feel that it dismissed incremental change and the hard boring behind the scenes work of social justice. It just highlighted how public gestures like demonstrations that do not change anything immediately and are futile by themselves can be part of attracting attention and support to causes; just one tool in the activist's bag, not the whole effort by any means.
posted by mermayd at 3:33 AM on August 22, 2015 [3 favorites]
Why a demonstration, walking across a bridge on the Delaware River on a very hot and humid day? To bring media attention, and the attention of citizens in NJ and PA to this proposed rape of the land. Nobody thinks this will stop the pipeline today, but that it may draw more interest and support to an issue that affects many.
This is the first big visible effort against the pipeline, but individuals and groups have been working and will continue working on blogs, local meetings, information booths, and letter-writing campaigns, as well as researching every step of the process in order to present the case that this pipeline is not in the interest of the environment or the people.
I found the article inspiring, and did not feel that it dismissed incremental change and the hard boring behind the scenes work of social justice. It just highlighted how public gestures like demonstrations that do not change anything immediately and are futile by themselves can be part of attracting attention and support to causes; just one tool in the activist's bag, not the whole effort by any means.
posted by mermayd at 3:33 AM on August 22, 2015 [3 favorites]
They teach based on data from decades and decades of research that says XYandZ technique will have ABandC effect down the road.
If only that were true. I mean, it sometimes is, because there is a good chunk of really good teachers and teacher trainers, but there are also a lot of bad data passed off as conclusive research in pedagogy. I've been wanting to get my mother (who, among other things, has assessed and assisted schools on both sides of the Atlantic) to do a piece on this with me for a long time, but as yet I've not found the time and location. But anyway, derail.
posted by howfar at 3:42 AM on August 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
If only that were true. I mean, it sometimes is, because there is a good chunk of really good teachers and teacher trainers, but there are also a lot of bad data passed off as conclusive research in pedagogy. I've been wanting to get my mother (who, among other things, has assessed and assisted schools on both sides of the Atlantic) to do a piece on this with me for a long time, but as yet I've not found the time and location. But anyway, derail.
posted by howfar at 3:42 AM on August 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
Just going to drop these reads here: The Age of Acquiescence by Steve Fraser (Naomi Klein review) provides some much needed context to modern day activism by contrasting the 19th century Gilded Age with our current circumstances.
Having finished that, I was inspired to revisit my youth and to reread Luxemburg's The Mass Strike.
Not going to weigh in on the article, in itself, but do want to suggest that this is a critical moment in our history. The emerging mantra of the Sanders campaign, "Enough is Enough", is highly suggestive of how broader layers of the population are truly getting fed up. Symbolic action? Great. Incremental action? Great. Previously not very actively political folks seeing some activists in action and having a genuine political response? Great.
Time to get outside of our skins.
posted by CincyBlues at 4:22 AM on August 22, 2015 [7 favorites]
Having finished that, I was inspired to revisit my youth and to reread Luxemburg's The Mass Strike.
Not going to weigh in on the article, in itself, but do want to suggest that this is a critical moment in our history. The emerging mantra of the Sanders campaign, "Enough is Enough", is highly suggestive of how broader layers of the population are truly getting fed up. Symbolic action? Great. Incremental action? Great. Previously not very actively political folks seeing some activists in action and having a genuine political response? Great.
Time to get outside of our skins.
posted by CincyBlues at 4:22 AM on August 22, 2015 [7 favorites]
The article speaks as if climbing a flagpole is roughly equivalent to helping slaves escape on the Underground Railroad. In the same moral ballpark.
I didn't really like the article (a bit hodgepodge for me). But anti-slavery folk were mostly ordinary people. They weren't on some unreachable plane of existence, and neither were their actions. Bree Newsome's action at the flag pole was a direct continuation.
posted by zennie at 4:39 AM on August 22, 2015 [5 favorites]
I didn't really like the article (a bit hodgepodge for me). But anti-slavery folk were mostly ordinary people. They weren't on some unreachable plane of existence, and neither were their actions. Bree Newsome's action at the flag pole was a direct continuation.
posted by zennie at 4:39 AM on August 22, 2015 [5 favorites]
The social signaling aspect of activism, especially the more theatrical expressions, can't be discounted. Participating in a dramatic action - especially one that involves social or physical risk - is a way for members of a group to signal to each other, and to society as a whole, that they are serious.
Occasionally, as in the Bree Newsome case, a dramatic action can create an inflection point and political or legislative change can occur. But even without actual change resulting, activists can create a dramatic news event for others to talk about (e.g. highway blockages, riots), and can build a stronger activist group for future action.
posted by theorique at 5:08 AM on August 22, 2015
Occasionally, as in the Bree Newsome case, a dramatic action can create an inflection point and political or legislative change can occur. But even without actual change resulting, activists can create a dramatic news event for others to talk about (e.g. highway blockages, riots), and can build a stronger activist group for future action.
posted by theorique at 5:08 AM on August 22, 2015
The emerging mantra of the Sanders campaign, "Enough is Enough", is highly suggestive of how broader layers of the population are truly getting fed up. Symbolic action? Great. Incremental action? Great. Previously not very actively political folks seeing some activists in action and having a genuine political response? Great.
This is especially interesting when you look at the recent video of how Hillary Clinton responded to the #BlackLivesMatter movement when confronted backstage by two activists who wanted to know what she would do to help that cause. via: Vox.com
This is especially interesting when you look at the recent video of how Hillary Clinton responded to the #BlackLivesMatter movement when confronted backstage by two activists who wanted to know what she would do to help that cause. via: Vox.com
- Activists should unite around a specific policy agendaposted by Fizz at 6:06 AM on August 22, 2015 [2 favorites]
- We should focus on changing laws, not just hearts
- Ideas for change need to be sold to the American people
Activism is more immediate, more satisfying, and more ideologically pure than decades of thankless bitter struggle in a political system that doesn't want to change for the benefit of oppressed people. Because, let's be honest, who wants to show up to every single Senate Subcommittee and sit through hours of testimony to act as an unpaid lobbyist to speak on behalf of people who shouldn't have to ask for this? How many hours of C-Span have you watched, or alternatively (if you live in the U.S.), state legislative sessions attended? Local town board meetings? You'll feel a lot better if you do something dramatic while cameras are watching you than if you take notes at meetings and keep going and making noise that you know nobody really cares about.
Well, you just repeated the biggest problem with the article: equating activism with visible protest. Serving as a watchdog for the government meetings and tracking legislation is also activism. So are doing education work in speaker's panels, doing your weekly shift for service needs, tithing to politically active congregations and organizations, doing door-to-doors, and sitting at a booth at the fair.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 6:15 AM on August 22, 2015 [10 favorites]
Well, you just repeated the biggest problem with the article: equating activism with visible protest. Serving as a watchdog for the government meetings and tracking legislation is also activism. So are doing education work in speaker's panels, doing your weekly shift for service needs, tithing to politically active congregations and organizations, doing door-to-doors, and sitting at a booth at the fair.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 6:15 AM on August 22, 2015 [10 favorites]
Assuming that when positive change follows activism the activism made it happen is post hoc reasoning. It's usually at least more complicated than that (did British women get the vote because of the suffragettes, because of the Fawcett Society, or because of WWI and its impact on the labour market?All of them, or none? Did the valid political case and improved education just make it inevitable, all the rest being mere froth?) and we know that much activism never achieves its goals. There's been plenty of activism in perverse and misguided causes.,Not that activism doesn't achieve things. I think Prohibition must be a particularly clear example just because it's generally negative - neither progressive nor truly popular - and so other factors are largely eliminated.
The interesting point for me is about what I perceive as a new kind of activism that has emerged in the last thirty years, an indirect form devoted to "raising awareness". Celebrity driven and characterised by people doing fun things with no direct connection to the aim except perhaps general fund-raising for generally-stated purposes, this sometimes seems to be more about the tyranny of the extrovert than about real engagement, and its value seems questionable in many cases.
posted by Segundus at 6:16 AM on August 22, 2015 [3 favorites]
The interesting point for me is about what I perceive as a new kind of activism that has emerged in the last thirty years, an indirect form devoted to "raising awareness". Celebrity driven and characterised by people doing fun things with no direct connection to the aim except perhaps general fund-raising for generally-stated purposes, this sometimes seems to be more about the tyranny of the extrovert than about real engagement, and its value seems questionable in many cases.
posted by Segundus at 6:16 AM on August 22, 2015 [3 favorites]
The news media is built around, "If it bleeds, it leads." So polite and $20 gets you a line in the community calendar. That doesn't mean that flag grabbing and paint throwing are the sum total of the current civil rights movement.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 6:28 AM on August 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 6:28 AM on August 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
Demonstrations are good for building an organization. They're big events in which everyone in the organization can participate and feel like they are having an impact. They help you gauge your community support, and because they tend to have a "bigger the better" aspect, they tend to get people working together. Having organized big and small demonstrations, I can say that there is a whole process that leads up to it that is very good for bringing a group of people together, and for drawing in and activating their periphery. When you get large-scale media coverage, that further helps you get your message out and build.
It's not really faith-based. Creating organizations means creating spaces that change people's ideas and, in some cases, exercises real power. Ideas about race, gender and sexuality among most people on this site were formed in the crucible of '60s and '70s activism and the more recent successors of the liberation movements of that period. People will say that the Vietnam War was lost primarily by the victory of the North Vietnamese and bad morale in the armed forces, but that itself was changed by the fact that the youth of the period were out protesting against the war. Even if you don't take power you can create enough pressure to make an impact.
Things don't always work as you intend them, of course. I was very involved in the antiwar movement of the prior decade, and remember how Cindy Sheehan's stunt of camping outside of Bush's ranch and then Bush's bungling of Hurricane Katrina were part of the shifting tide against the Iraq War, which climaxed in and subsided after Obama's election. And I mean, this was palpable when national antiwar demonstrations had 200,000 in 2007 and maybe 4,000 in 2009. The organizations we were trying to build didn't have as much funding and support under Obama, and that's left us unable to build similar pressure against things like drone warfare. I think we would've been better off if people had stayed out in the streets after Obama's election, but it's a reality that people won't protest someone they voted for. That's why they call the Democrats the "graveyard of social movements" – at a certain point movements get co-opted and lose their ability to generate pressure.
posted by graymouser at 7:16 AM on August 22, 2015 [2 favorites]
It's not really faith-based. Creating organizations means creating spaces that change people's ideas and, in some cases, exercises real power. Ideas about race, gender and sexuality among most people on this site were formed in the crucible of '60s and '70s activism and the more recent successors of the liberation movements of that period. People will say that the Vietnam War was lost primarily by the victory of the North Vietnamese and bad morale in the armed forces, but that itself was changed by the fact that the youth of the period were out protesting against the war. Even if you don't take power you can create enough pressure to make an impact.
Things don't always work as you intend them, of course. I was very involved in the antiwar movement of the prior decade, and remember how Cindy Sheehan's stunt of camping outside of Bush's ranch and then Bush's bungling of Hurricane Katrina were part of the shifting tide against the Iraq War, which climaxed in and subsided after Obama's election. And I mean, this was palpable when national antiwar demonstrations had 200,000 in 2007 and maybe 4,000 in 2009. The organizations we were trying to build didn't have as much funding and support under Obama, and that's left us unable to build similar pressure against things like drone warfare. I think we would've been better off if people had stayed out in the streets after Obama's election, but it's a reality that people won't protest someone they voted for. That's why they call the Democrats the "graveyard of social movements" – at a certain point movements get co-opted and lose their ability to generate pressure.
posted by graymouser at 7:16 AM on August 22, 2015 [2 favorites]
She has more bravery in her pinky nail than every coward in this thread and on this site sitting their passive asses in front of a computer screen and running their mouths, talking tough.
Wow. Just wow.
posted by blue_beetle at 8:09 AM on August 22, 2015 [2 favorites]
Wow. Just wow.
posted by blue_beetle at 8:09 AM on August 22, 2015 [2 favorites]
I think we should have more of the wrong type of public activists. More Trumps and KKK rallies.
Let the moderates see what the other side is really all about. A moderate seeing Bree Newsome take down the confederate flag says "oh that's a nice thing." A moderate seeing Trump call Mexicans rapists and angry white dudes scream obscenities about black people says "holy shit we've got to do something about that."
posted by M Edward at 8:45 AM on August 22, 2015
Let the moderates see what the other side is really all about. A moderate seeing Bree Newsome take down the confederate flag says "oh that's a nice thing." A moderate seeing Trump call Mexicans rapists and angry white dudes scream obscenities about black people says "holy shit we've got to do something about that."
posted by M Edward at 8:45 AM on August 22, 2015
If you were at all inspired by this I am actually in the middle of a very good book about effective activism.
I would also highly recommend Srdja Popovic's Blueprint for Revolution. It's a book on effective activism by a guy who was a major member of one of the most effective activist groups in modern history (Otpor!, the protest group which helped topple the Slobadan Milosivec regime) and who's dedicated his life since then to traveling the world training activists in nonviolent resistance tactics. It's the best book on activism I've ever read, and I've lent my copy to everyone I know who's interested in that kind of thing.
posted by Itaxpica at 8:49 AM on August 22, 2015 [5 favorites]
I would also highly recommend Srdja Popovic's Blueprint for Revolution. It's a book on effective activism by a guy who was a major member of one of the most effective activist groups in modern history (Otpor!, the protest group which helped topple the Slobadan Milosivec regime) and who's dedicated his life since then to traveling the world training activists in nonviolent resistance tactics. It's the best book on activism I've ever read, and I've lent my copy to everyone I know who's interested in that kind of thing.
posted by Itaxpica at 8:49 AM on August 22, 2015 [5 favorites]
People will say that the Vietnam War was lost primarily by the victory of the North Vietnamese and bad morale in the armed forces, but that itself was changed by the fact that the youth of the period were out protesting against the war.
What people? The Vietnam was was ended by Richard M. Nixon - a man who was hardly concerned with youth protests. Liberal hero LBJ was completely immune to youth protests and he only amped up the war in response.
I am however looking forward to Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia next year. There will be plenty of leftist malcontents causing trouble and I expect the circus will put the 1968 convention in Chicago to shame. Recall that the GOP was utterly destroyed in 1964, but four years later - because the spectacle of radical leftist activism - Nixon was in the White House.
So get out there and protest!
posted by three blind mice at 9:26 AM on August 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
What people? The Vietnam was was ended by Richard M. Nixon - a man who was hardly concerned with youth protests. Liberal hero LBJ was completely immune to youth protests and he only amped up the war in response.
I am however looking forward to Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia next year. There will be plenty of leftist malcontents causing trouble and I expect the circus will put the 1968 convention in Chicago to shame. Recall that the GOP was utterly destroyed in 1964, but four years later - because the spectacle of radical leftist activism - Nixon was in the White House.
So get out there and protest!
posted by three blind mice at 9:26 AM on August 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
“There is nothing rational about rebellion,” continues Hedges. “To rebel against insurmountable odds is an act of faith, without which the rebel is doomed.” In other words, activists are moved, not by the knowledge that they will succeed, but by the feeling of hope that what they do will make the world a better place.
For example, a symbolic protest lead to the American Revolution, the civil war over who would rule in the Thirteen Colonies. According to historian Robert M. Calhoon, "Historians' best estimates put the proportion of adult white male loyalists somewhere between 15 and 20 percent. Approximately half (emphasis mine) the colonists of European ancestry tried to avoid involvement (again, emphasis mine) in the struggle. The patriots received active support from perhaps 40 to 45 percent of the white populace, and at most no more than a bare majority."
According to T.H. Breen's The Marketplace of the Revolution, the 45% "were divided by religion and industry, but they shared a common identity as consumers of British products—and, increasingly, as wronged consumers, once Britain levied exorbitant tariffs and used America as a dumping ground for surplus goods. Tea, the Coca-Cola of its day, became a symbol of imperial overreach. "
Thwarted in their attempts to obtain justice through established channels, disgruntled consumers attacked that symbol in what at the time was called
the Destruction of the Tea in Boston, where a group of 30 to 130 men, some dressed in the Mohawk warrior disguises, boarded three vessels and, over the course of three hours, dumped 342 chests of tea into the water.
Reaction at the time was mixed. It did inspire copycat protests, however, which in addition to other actions, lead to the creation of a shared identity that allowed the disgrunted colonial consumers of British products to pivot into self-sufficient American Patriots. The rest is (American) history.
Or in other words, "Your faith in humanity will be restored when you find out how these cosplayers toppled an empire!"
posted by otherchaz at 9:37 AM on August 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
For example, a symbolic protest lead to the American Revolution, the civil war over who would rule in the Thirteen Colonies. According to historian Robert M. Calhoon, "Historians' best estimates put the proportion of adult white male loyalists somewhere between 15 and 20 percent. Approximately half (emphasis mine) the colonists of European ancestry tried to avoid involvement (again, emphasis mine) in the struggle. The patriots received active support from perhaps 40 to 45 percent of the white populace, and at most no more than a bare majority."
According to T.H. Breen's The Marketplace of the Revolution, the 45% "were divided by religion and industry, but they shared a common identity as consumers of British products—and, increasingly, as wronged consumers, once Britain levied exorbitant tariffs and used America as a dumping ground for surplus goods. Tea, the Coca-Cola of its day, became a symbol of imperial overreach. "
Thwarted in their attempts to obtain justice through established channels, disgruntled consumers attacked that symbol in what at the time was called
the Destruction of the Tea in Boston, where a group of 30 to 130 men, some dressed in the Mohawk warrior disguises, boarded three vessels and, over the course of three hours, dumped 342 chests of tea into the water.
Reaction at the time was mixed. It did inspire copycat protests, however, which in addition to other actions, lead to the creation of a shared identity that allowed the disgrunted colonial consumers of British products to pivot into self-sufficient American Patriots. The rest is (American) history.
Or in other words, "Your faith in humanity will be restored when you find out how these cosplayers toppled an empire!"
posted by otherchaz at 9:37 AM on August 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
For example, a symbolic protest lead to the American Revolution, the civil war over who would rule in the Thirteen Colonies.
Street protests, largely sparked by the showing of a nationalistic opera, also started the Belgian Revolution in 1830 and ultimately led to the creation of the modern country of Belgium.
posted by Itaxpica at 9:46 AM on August 22, 2015 [2 favorites]
Street protests, largely sparked by the showing of a nationalistic opera, also started the Belgian Revolution in 1830 and ultimately led to the creation of the modern country of Belgium.
posted by Itaxpica at 9:46 AM on August 22, 2015 [2 favorites]
Salt March
When Gandhi broke the salt laws at 6:30 am on 6 April 1930, it sparked large scale acts of civil disobedience against the British Raj salt laws by millions of Indians.[1] The campaign had a significant effect on changing world and British attitudes towards Indian independence[2][3] and caused large numbers of Indians to join the fight for the first time.posted by aniola at 10:19 AM on August 22, 2015 [5 favorites]
When you keep marching, soon, motherfuckers like me may just join in and not sit on the sidelines.
posted by clavdivs at 11:07 AM on August 22, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by clavdivs at 11:07 AM on August 22, 2015 [2 favorites]
She has more bravery in her pinky nail than every coward in this thread and on this site sitting their passive asses in front of a computer screen and running their mouths, talking tough.
That may be so, but I seriously don't think Newsome was ever in fear of losing her life for her stunt, despite being a black woman openly engaging in a property crime. If she seriously harbored that fear, I'd suggest her judgment is perhaps not the best. It's not like she was climbing the Berlin Wall while throwing rocks at the guards. Though I'm guessing we can find plenty willing to argue there's little difference,
Perhaps this highlights the self aggrandizing aspect of some activists/sympathizers, be they of the left/Newsome flavor or the right/Trump variety we're seeing lately. In the eyes of supporters, their actions can never be minimalized or even put in perspective in ways that depict the actions in a less heroic context.
posted by 2N2222 at 11:10 AM on August 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
That may be so, but I seriously don't think Newsome was ever in fear of losing her life for her stunt, despite being a black woman openly engaging in a property crime. If she seriously harbored that fear, I'd suggest her judgment is perhaps not the best. It's not like she was climbing the Berlin Wall while throwing rocks at the guards. Though I'm guessing we can find plenty willing to argue there's little difference,
Perhaps this highlights the self aggrandizing aspect of some activists/sympathizers, be they of the left/Newsome flavor or the right/Trump variety we're seeing lately. In the eyes of supporters, their actions can never be minimalized or even put in perspective in ways that depict the actions in a less heroic context.
posted by 2N2222 at 11:10 AM on August 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
Because politics is bourgeois and direct action is cool.
posted by Pirate-Bartender-Zombie-Monkey at 11:57 AM on August 22, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Pirate-Bartender-Zombie-Monkey at 11:57 AM on August 22, 2015 [2 favorites]
Protests get attention and attention gets results. For example, Americans' views on race have shifted.
posted by Obscure Reference at 12:23 PM on August 22, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Obscure Reference at 12:23 PM on August 22, 2015 [3 favorites]
Male sexual display. Breaking rules for your groups makes you more powerful and sexy.
posted by alasdair at 12:28 PM on August 22, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by alasdair at 12:28 PM on August 22, 2015 [2 favorites]
Love the people in here suggesting that what Bree Newsome did was not extraordinarily courageous. As if. I'm sure no one had ever tried it before because it's just a waste of time, or something? But hell, it's not that hard to sit on a bus. It's not that hard to go sit on a lunch counter stool. How brave can it really be to walk over a bridge? Why are people even mourning the loss of Julian Bond, anyways? Not like he was Harriet Tubman, either.
I put that picture of Newsome at the top of the pole with the unclipped flag in her hands in a place I see it every single day, because it reminds me to quit whining and go DO something. I'm sure I'm not alone.
I'll bet $20 we'll see a relic from that event in a museum before 2020. Alongside DeRay's blue vest. It's like some people think history only happens in books.
posted by sallybrown at 1:33 PM on August 22, 2015 [10 favorites]
I put that picture of Newsome at the top of the pole with the unclipped flag in her hands in a place I see it every single day, because it reminds me to quit whining and go DO something. I'm sure I'm not alone.
I'll bet $20 we'll see a relic from that event in a museum before 2020. Alongside DeRay's blue vest. It's like some people think history only happens in books.
posted by sallybrown at 1:33 PM on August 22, 2015 [10 favorites]
So there are roughly two kinds of public demonstrations you can do: one is a proper demonstration where you basically march to show solidarity and pride and power and say "Look folks, we're here if you need us and we aren't taking guff from the establishment. Join us!" This was how Gay Pride worked.
The other is a publication of grievances, or a "protest" if you will. This kind is more of a demonstration of powerlessness and is meant to engender sympathy. At its extreme it wants to expose atrocity, but more often it just ends up "raising awareness" about "causes". It takes a particular environment for that sort of thing to work, alas.
Climbing the flagpole is somewhere in between. "I'm not going to let their rules stop me: we're going to take down their symbols and go to jail for it." It doesn't have to foment revoution, but it will become a myth that gets handed down to the next generation. Perhaps lawmakers 40 years from now will remember it.
And yeah, a lot of activist stuff boils down to "The People's Activist Liberation Army of The Orange Julius sprayed 'fuck the man' on the Jack in the Box." I think you'll find some successful organisers got their start that way and remember it the way a certain generation remembered disco: "It was tacky and lame, but I guess it was fun at the time?"
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 1:53 PM on August 22, 2015 [2 favorites]
The other is a publication of grievances, or a "protest" if you will. This kind is more of a demonstration of powerlessness and is meant to engender sympathy. At its extreme it wants to expose atrocity, but more often it just ends up "raising awareness" about "causes". It takes a particular environment for that sort of thing to work, alas.
Climbing the flagpole is somewhere in between. "I'm not going to let their rules stop me: we're going to take down their symbols and go to jail for it." It doesn't have to foment revoution, but it will become a myth that gets handed down to the next generation. Perhaps lawmakers 40 years from now will remember it.
And yeah, a lot of activist stuff boils down to "The People's Activist Liberation Army of The Orange Julius sprayed 'fuck the man' on the Jack in the Box." I think you'll find some successful organisers got their start that way and remember it the way a certain generation remembered disco: "It was tacky and lame, but I guess it was fun at the time?"
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 1:53 PM on August 22, 2015 [2 favorites]
That may be so, but I seriously don't think Newsome was ever in fear of losing her life for her stunt, despite being a black woman openly engaging in a property crime.
Correct. She had a (white, male) chaperone, and there were a ton of us watching. I try to be keenly aware of the things that white cops do to black folks in SC and I never had a sense of danger.
That's not to say she's not awesome - and I had many an argument with folks, nonsensically, suggesting that literally taking the flag down was not a helpful way to take the flag down - but nobody's life was in any particular danger that morning.
posted by ftm at 2:17 PM on August 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
Correct. She had a (white, male) chaperone, and there were a ton of us watching. I try to be keenly aware of the things that white cops do to black folks in SC and I never had a sense of danger.
That's not to say she's not awesome - and I had many an argument with folks, nonsensically, suggesting that literally taking the flag down was not a helpful way to take the flag down - but nobody's life was in any particular danger that morning.
posted by ftm at 2:17 PM on August 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
One thing to consider about Newsome's protest is she and her co-protestor (James Tyson) didn't plan for it to be photographed - it was just the two of them, him standing at the base of the pole and her climbing it. We only have photographs because a photographer happened to be walking around the area that morning taking pictures. If we didn't have those images, would that have lessened the impact of her protest? I don't know -- I'd like to think not, but the pictures capture something really special about it.
Compare this to another (imo) heroic, symbolic protest -- Tommie Smith and John Carlos's black power salutes at the 1968 Olympics, which happened precisely because of the enormous amount of cameras they knew were trained on them. That that could be classified as a "publicity stunt" doesn't make it any less brave or influential, in my mind.
posted by sallybrown at 2:23 PM on August 22, 2015 [2 favorites]
Compare this to another (imo) heroic, symbolic protest -- Tommie Smith and John Carlos's black power salutes at the 1968 Olympics, which happened precisely because of the enormous amount of cameras they knew were trained on them. That that could be classified as a "publicity stunt" doesn't make it any less brave or influential, in my mind.
posted by sallybrown at 2:23 PM on August 22, 2015 [2 favorites]
"Love the people in here suggesting that what Bree Newsome did was not extraordinarily courageous."
You're falling into that same false dichotomy again. The linked article takes her action and combines it with disrupting a Sanders rally, rappelling off a bridge, "along with marches and rallies," Jeremy Hammond's Stratfor hack, "a white middle-class activist participating in the Black Lives Matter movement" to say that all of those things are "no different" from risking your life to free slaves or fight the Nazis. Folks are pushing back, saying that we can recognize that both are valuable without confusing MoveOn's list with Schindler's.
Or:
Likewise, it's reasonable to recognize that the structural violence of state-sponsored segregation is greater than the structural violence still inflicted on the black community today. That doesn't mean that the current structural violence isn't a problem or isn't worth fighting or doesn't literally kill black people every day, but the idea that it wasn't worse is at odds with the argument underpinning the piece — that activism made things better. If activism makes society better (and I do believe it does), if Rosa Parks and the rest of the Civil Rights movement actually did move us, then yes, Newsome's stakes were lower. Dustin Axe wants to pretend that every beardo slinging Worker's World outside the Trader Joe's is the same as Tank Man, and that erasure of personal stakes and overall effectiveness turns the article into a sermon rather than an argument.
posted by klangklangston at 2:34 PM on August 22, 2015 [2 favorites]
You're falling into that same false dichotomy again. The linked article takes her action and combines it with disrupting a Sanders rally, rappelling off a bridge, "along with marches and rallies," Jeremy Hammond's Stratfor hack, "a white middle-class activist participating in the Black Lives Matter movement" to say that all of those things are "no different" from risking your life to free slaves or fight the Nazis. Folks are pushing back, saying that we can recognize that both are valuable without confusing MoveOn's list with Schindler's.
Or:
"Bree Newsome taking down a Confederate flag is no different than Rosa Park refusing to give up her seat on a bus. Rappelling off a bridge to delay arctic drilling is equivalent to activists sitting down at a Woolworth counter and refusing to move until they are served. To casual observers, these might be meaningless stunts that do nothing more than cause trouble and get attention, but activists know that each act, along with millions of others, is part of a lager social movement that creates change."Which ignores that Rosa Parks (not Park, Jesus) wasn't a spontaneous action of civil disobedience (which is unfortunately the narrative which has been retconned onto her) but rather part of a deliberate campaign with a strategy, tactics and an understanding of how that symbolic act would further the interests of a broader cause. Just ask Claudette Colvin.
Likewise, it's reasonable to recognize that the structural violence of state-sponsored segregation is greater than the structural violence still inflicted on the black community today. That doesn't mean that the current structural violence isn't a problem or isn't worth fighting or doesn't literally kill black people every day, but the idea that it wasn't worse is at odds with the argument underpinning the piece — that activism made things better. If activism makes society better (and I do believe it does), if Rosa Parks and the rest of the Civil Rights movement actually did move us, then yes, Newsome's stakes were lower. Dustin Axe wants to pretend that every beardo slinging Worker's World outside the Trader Joe's is the same as Tank Man, and that erasure of personal stakes and overall effectiveness turns the article into a sermon rather than an argument.
posted by klangklangston at 2:34 PM on August 22, 2015 [2 favorites]
Again, I think that Newsome was brave and that her action was successful. But South Carolina is not Sobibor; Newsome is not Pechersky. That isn't a slight against her, but a recognition of context and consequences.
posted by klangklangston at 2:48 PM on August 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by klangklangston at 2:48 PM on August 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
Resume building.
posted by IndigoJones at 10:22 AM on August 23, 2015
posted by IndigoJones at 10:22 AM on August 23, 2015
« Older Travel the way your luggage does | Anti-GMO thinking Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Gymnopedist at 10:06 PM on August 21, 2015 [2 favorites]