The Grand Illusion
I have mixed feelings about protests. While I definitely support non-violent protests and the right to speak out under the provisions of the first amendment, I have to confess I’m skeptical about the effectiveness of non-violent protests. At the same time, it’s fairly clear that non-violent protests that result in violent suppression efforts by authorities have sometimes been effective in moving society, not always for the better, and sometimes seem to have had little or no impact.
In my life, I’ve been involved in exactly one protest at a single time. In 1965, when there were more than a few antiwar protests on college campuses, and I was a senior in college, four or five of us decided that the motivations of quite a few of our contemporaries who were protesting were, shall we say, less than pristine. In our youthful ‘wisdom,’ we organized a counter-protest just to prove that one could get attention with only a few people and a catchy slogan.
So, we — all five of us, as I recall — invented the “Student Committee for Restricted Escalated Warfare in Vietnam” or SCREW in Vietnam, as an attempt to point out that even a few students with a ridiculously oxymoronic name could get publicity. We had just five people, two posters, and a few hangers-on while we protested the protestors, just once.
That one single counter-protest received mentions in the local college paper and TIME magazine, and I didn’t realize it until much later.
I’ve often thought of that over the years, especially when seeing how large and even well-funded non-violent protests often seem to have little or no effect, even when there’s significant public outrage.
The trick to get a protest to make real change seems to me to be similar to how to get a song to be a hit, a novel to be a best-seller, or for a dark-horse candidate to win.
You need to catch on to what the zeitgeist is, and where it’s heading, and then come up with an angle that resonates with people.
The Twilight novels/movies, Taylor Swift, and even going back in history to Uncle Tom’s Cabin, if you can figure out what matters to people and express it for them, you can make a major difference.
Of course, saying all that is the easy part. *Doing it* is another thing altogether. That’s why I’m still an anonymous guy on the internet. (But at least I’m okay with that.)
Well, one never knows whether getting involved in a protest will “matter”, but at least people ought to try to be heard. Otherwise, from the outside, that society would surely be branded as suppressed by the existing government. Maybe the protests don’t provide obvious reversals in policy, but I’m pretty sure they can change the rate of change in a government’s efforts.
As to whether they ever matter, I believe they can. Unfortunately it’s usually when violence is associated with a particular protest and most often when the government over reaches and perpetrates that violence.
Protests against individual businesses have resulted in policy changes by that business because it hits them in the wallet. I wouldn’t say shame is much of a factor nowadays, though.
Like many questions, this one has been studied. In “Why civil resistance works: the strategic logic of nonviolent conflict (2011) Chenowith and Stephens felt that a diverse group of protesters comprising about 3.5% (12.25 million in the US) of the population is enough to start shifting the public mood and start defections from the party in power. This was based mainly upon the strikes and protests in Poland in the 1980s but also on the protests against the Vietnam War in the 60s and 70s. The way that public opinion turned against the Vietnam War was startling. It did not seem so at the time, but going from 59% supporting the war in 1965 to 28% in 1971 was a profound change.
The last No Kings rally in March supposedly had 8 million participants and that was before our current war with Iran and the resulting price increases. I am really curious about what No Kings 4.0 will look like.
Whoops! TheMarch No Kings event was after the Iran war started. Never mind that part.
Non-violent protesting is as much for the protesters as it is to change people’s opinion. Doing something changes your perspective. Instead of suffering in silence, the protester has said “No!” They have chosen a side. They have engaged the enemy. Protesters will also find like-minded people.
In these situations, not everything is equal. A deciding vote may be changed because of a single act such as a protest or who protests. Protests are chaotic situations and unpredictable things happen in chaotic situations.
If a protest is massive enough, it’s hard to argue that it won’t have an effect. I’m thinking of the various ‘color revolutions’ in central and eastern Europe after the fall of the Soviet empire, with hundreds of thousands of citizens shaking their keys in the streets. Certainly the existing governments saw the handwriting on the wall and chose to abdicate.
Of course, that’s not always the result. Ask the citizens of Iran.
The Baltic Way was a particularly notable one in the Baltic States. More than 2 million people made a human chain across three countries in 1989, roughly a quarter of the total population. It was a strong image and a powerful boost to their independence movements.
To paraphrase Bill: I know they won’t change. I protest so they won’t change me… So much.
Violence is spawned when people, a person, lose all hope in their present and futhre situation. Sometimes, one _must_ do something. When a person will not commit violence, maybe protest offers a way of keeping the soul alive. A kind of prayer to help stay the course on track… In the presence of others.
Your blog is a beacon of light in the often murky waters of online content. Your thoughtful analysis and insightful commentary never fail to leave a lasting impression. Keep up the amazing work!