Rather than fearing polarization, organizers should seek to understand how they can use it most effectively. This involves recognizing that, while collective action undertaken in pursuit of a good cause typically results in positive outcomes, not all protests have identical effects or produce equal benefits.
Central to harnessing the power of polarization is appreciating that, by its nature, it cuts both ways: the same actions that create positive polarization — drawing more active supporters into movements and convincing previously neutral or undecided observers to at least passively sympathize with the cause — will also have negative effects, turning off some people and firing up the opposition. The goal of movement participants is therefore to make sure that the beneficial results of their actions outweigh the counterproductive ones, and that they are shifting the overall spectrum of support in their favor.
So how, then, can movement participants predict how a given protest will polarize? And how can they work to improve their skills in designing effective actions?
It’s easy. Don’t do it.
I support protesting and free speech. I do not support disruption. In fact, it shouldn’t even be called a “protest” in the first place. Adding that tries to legitimize theft. (Yes, denied use is legally theft.) You don’t always get your way in democracy and throwing a tantrum doesn’t work.
What does is voting and education. It’s harder, but the right thing to do.
I used to have this stance as well.
But my opinion on the situation changed when I noticed the ways that one class is waging war on the other classes in my country. There is real damage being done, real violence being perpetrated. Wage theft, poisoning the environment, suppressing voting and certain kinds of speech. Limited access to healthcare, limited access to education, limited access to the jobs that confer greater respect or mobility. Some people are living in a kind of hell and dying earlier because of it.
And those doing the violence are usually protected from the consequences of their actions by others in society saying just what you’ve said. “It’s okay to protest, but don’t inconvenience anyone while doing it”. “It’s theft to deny me the use of the road that you’re blocking with the protest or the building that you’re protesting in front of”.
I used to think that protests where everyone remained polite were the only ones I could respect. Other kinds of protests, where people were being disruptive were just hooligans acting out. I used to say those things.
Maybe this way of thinking helps to preserve in some small way the politeness of society. I doubt it’s effective at doing that in a meaningful way. And if there is a class of people who are oppressing another class, ending that oppression would be the most effective way of increasing the politeness of society as a whole, even if certain kinds of disruption was needed to get there.
One thing that I do know is true is that saying these things does help the bully class to continue doing what they are doing. They aren’t going to stop just because someone asked nicely. They are being protected by words like this. And that’s not okay.
It’ll take me a while to respond to this, but it is hilarious you would refer to a voice for decorum and patience as “bully class” in an article/discussion about organizing obstructionists for maximum appeal.
History disagrees with you. The truth is that regular protests can be ignored, and voting may not always be very accessible (in non-democracies or because of voter suppression) or effective as a means to achieve change where you live (the US and similar countries because of first past the post voting systems). Direct action is absolutely a necessary and important tool for democracies to be functional whatsoever, and is in fact part of how we ensure good workplace conditions and good wages here in Norway (we have regular strikes as part of bargaining with businesses and the state). Hoping and waiting for things to improve is at best a recipe for nothing to happen.
It seems you think that disruptive protests need to be violent or damaging? Strikes are disruptive and harmless and very effective at changing things for the better.
Disruption is an important tool, and often a morally justified one, but who and what you’re disrupting matters. Slave revolts are disruption, certainly. Germans who sabotaged rail infrastructure during WW2 were causing disruption. Taking disruptive, or even violent, action off the table entirely means you are taking the position that all of the actions of a given government and society are moral beyond the point where force is justifiable. And I don’t even get the impression you were talking about the same level as these, you seem like you’re just talking about people blocking traffic for a bit and whatnot. The threshold for that is obviously much lower.
What does is voting and education.
Putting movements in front of people’s eyes is education. Just like we don’t let children choose not to go to school, protest actions are sometimes about not allowing people to look away, by getting in their way. As the article is discussing, sometimes people react well to that education, and sometimes they don’t.
Good point about slave revolts actually. That didn’t cross my mind. Voting wouldn’t have helped much on that front.
As for the morally justified angle, that is highly subjective. Your ideals may not align with mine. Does that mean I need to counter-obstruct obstructism I disagree with? That sounds like rapid escalation.
I did read that article, reflecting on recent perspectives, and as it is written for modern times, it raised concern; to have a outline/playbook to organize obstructionists in this climate is woefully tactless when masses are so easily enraged.
That said, there are many ways to get your message out. Websites, pamphlets, signs, heck we are Ad ridden everywhere. There is no excuse. Changing laws isn’t glamorous, isn’t fast, and isn’t easy. But the right way has no shortcuts.
Second, (in the USA) your rights end when they infrige on anothers’. To impose my needs selfishly at the expense of yours is not only infringing your rights, but possibly accruing damages.
This is not victimless behavior regardless of cause. It absolutely should not be encouraged.
Does that mean I need to counter-obstruct obstructism I disagree with? That sounds like rapid escalation.
Activism is, intrinsically, against the status quo. If you are for the status quo, you can counter-protest, but the police are the ones whose “job” it is to employ pro-staus-quo force. If you are for a different change, it very much depends on what the movement you’re opposing is trying to do. It may well be necessary to obstruct it.
to have a outline/playbook to organize obstructionists in this climate is woefully tactless when masses are so easily enraged.
We are living in an age of capital consolidation unlike any time before. Our wealth disparity (and therefore, power disparity) is greater than even in the days of the Robber Barons. I think the masses need to be enraged. If you actually mean, “taking their rage out on the wrong people”, I’d agree, but that’s far more likely to happen due to political actors and news media (e.g. Jan 6th) than it is by local protests.
That said, there are many ways to get your message out. Websites, pamphlets, signs, heck we are Ad ridden everywhere. There is no excuse. Changing laws isn’t glamorous, isn’t fast, and isn’t easy. But the right way has no shortcuts.
The entire Civil Rights Era was riddled with forceful activism, and wouldn’t have been able to make the changes it did otherwise. The threat of, “if you ignore us this will go badly, so work with us” was a critical component of the movement. MLK wouldn’t have been given a seat at the table if Malcolm X hadn’t been in the background (and just look at what happened to them to see how the status quo protects itself).
That said, there are many ways to get your message out. Websites, pamphlets, signs, heck we are Ad ridden everywhere.
And protests too!
And all the ones you listed either require money to do, or require the complicity of the (big money) platform owners. If you have little or no money, and e.g. Facebook takes down your posts, your list leaves no other routes.
Second, (in the USA) your rights end when they infrige on anothers’. To impose my needs selfishly at the expense of yours is not only infringing your rights, but possibly accruing damages.
If someone is illegally detaining you or injuring you, that is certainly an infringement on your rights. But you don’t have a right to go to a specific place, or drive on a specific road. You don’t own any bridges, so their use can’t be stolen from you anyways. Don’t conjure up false rights in the name of your own convenience.
