To continue with the trend of Dan Savage related blog posts, here is mine. The purpose of any protest is to bring about some sort of change in a society. However, can any change be possible without a specific reason to be protesting? I think many successful protests are so because of their one common aim. My initial question with regards to Dan Savage talk protest and the administration’s decision was, what was the purpose of the protest – not examples of the many issues that motivated the protestors but what exactly was the protest protesting? What I took away from our discussion was that the purposes of the protestors were individualistic without one common goal, that is there were many small goals within that group of protestors.
Do you think that takes away from the effectiveness behind any protest?
The scene at Rhodes with regards to Dan Savage and MTV as well as the Administrative decision is similar to two situations at Wells College in Aurora, New York.
Here is what happened there:
1. From: Education Resources Information Center: The Wells College Protest against "Playboy" Magazine: A Case Study of the Media and General Education.
“Examines the culture at a women's college that led to a united protest against "Playboy" magazine's request for female students to pose for its publication. Describes student protests through the media, and opportunities afforded for students to exercise leadership and communicate their ideas in an actual rather than theoretical context.” (DMM)”
The Wells College against Playboy case was in 1992 and shows the school's concern for media's involvement.
2. “Students at all-women Wells College in N.Y. protest decision to admit men” Posted on Sunday, October 03, 2004 11:12:11 PM by SmithL
AURORA, N.Y. – “More than a third of Wells College's all-female student body protested trustees' decision admit male students Sunday, sleeping in the lobby of the administration building or in the 15 tents set up on the lawn outside.
About 170 students protested for a second day after Saturday's decision to admit men to the 400-student school beginning next year.”
Obviously there are differences like Wells College is an all girls school and so forth- small, irrelevant differences. The point of the Wells College protests and that at Rhodes, against media and administration, is that the student felt like they were not included in the decision process ; I think that Wells College have a clear idea of what they wanted though which made their protests be more effective. In the first scenario, the women won against Playboy through their protests. In the second protest, the women could not reverse the trustees’ decision which shows administrative power. All protests cannot bring about the results that we want. However, it is crucial to know exactly what result we want to bring about.
Can a protest be effective when the people participating in it are unclear on ONE aim and ONE goal that they are protesting for or is it necessary for a protest to have a unified purpose in order to be effective?
I believe that a protest can retain power without a definitive demand. The Occupy Wall Street Movement, which has recently been appearing more I the news, serves as an example of this idea. One of the strengths of this movement is that there are no demands or leaders. The growing numbers of people are gathering to display their agitation against the 1% for many different reasons. This rebellion brings to light a number of broad issues, in spite of the diversity of interests represented in it.
ReplyDeleteOWS displays the power of a movement without detailed agenda. This form of protest, however, must maintain a level of peace. Should these protestors act out in anyway, the movement as a whole would become associated with violence and hippie ideals. Should the protestors maintain peace, however, the movement will be capable of expansion and recognition.
I would like to come back to what you said right at the beginning of your post. You asked, if I think that the effectiveness of a demonstration or a protest is influenced by the fact that the protestors have very diverse reasons to participate in that particular action.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I believe that we cannot bring up any example that would show a case in which people did not have way different reasons but ended all up doing the same or similar things. In every protest that happened, people think differently, come from different backgrounds, have different goals and needs. The only thing, they have in common in this moment is the way they attempt to reach their goals.
For example, even if we talk about a revolution such as the one called the "arabic spring", the opinions of the freedom fighter differ very much from one another, although they risk their lives in the same fights.
Nevertheless, I totally agree that the WAY in which people try to achieve their aims needs to be clear in order to be effective.
If I'm reading your post correctly, you are asking if a protest movement must have a common vision for the change they want to implement in order to be effective. I don't think that it is necessary.
ReplyDeleteAs you stated, protests try to bring about social change. The first thing that I would point out is that the act of protesting brings about change regardless of whether it is legislative change. I'm talking about the dialogue that emerges as people react to the protestors. I see this as a form of social change caused by protests.
Next, protests can bring about change by making society more aware of what motivated the protestors to action. This heightened social awareness would be a change in itself, and is capable of spawning further changes. Therefore, protestors can bring about change even if they do not have any one unifying goal in mind.
I'll give a quick example of what I'm talking about: the Occupy Wallstreet's movement designation that they are the 99%. I think it's safe to say that the amount of Americans that agree on any specific idea of economic policy will never be anywhere 99% of the population. The 99% label, then, must be trying to represent something more general, perhaps that the majority of Americans have been adversely affected by recent economic conditions. Their movement is effective, regardless of whether it has unifying ideologies, because it causes dialogue and it raises awareness. It causes change whether or not that change is legislative.
Seems like we are all reading different things from what you wrote here Manali, so I am going to respond to what I think you are asking.
ReplyDelete"Can a protest be effective when the people participating in it are unclear on ONE aim and ONE goal?"
CAN it? well maybe yes, but personally I cannot seem to picture it. I do not know of one protest where participants did not have a main goal (and this includes the protest our campus witness last week).
That being said, having a main goal for a specific protest does not mean that that's the main goal for the individuals. As Flo mentioned above there are no protest in history in which participants did not have different motives or reasons for joining a specific protest. let me use an example so as to clarify my statement.
Imagine a remote community where the main source of employment is working in a mining industry (I know, I know ... very typical but bear with me). All of a sudden the company's management changes, there is a new boss, there are new regulations, and the work site is going to move.
Now you may have people that are not at all bothered by the new regulations, but just hate the new boss because he is this northerner who thinks he's all that (or so they think), or you may have people that do not disagree with all new regulation, but are just dead against some of them, or you may have people who counted on the work shop being where it is now, and having it move could pose a transportation problem.
Now all these people get together obviously with different goals, but when protesting they don't just go around screaming their individual goals, but demand to be heard by the board or whatever. In this case, being heard is the main goal of the protesters, not necessarily the demands themselves. They want a chance to have an audience with the people in power where they can THEN express their individual demands, and maybe come to an agreement/compromise.
So to come back to your blog, it seems logical to think that each individual would have a personal interest/goal in a protest. But that being said, they together do need a common purpose. Which is why really good protest never stand alone, they are one of many/a series of protests ........ of a movement.
I think this is a good question to ask Manali. I think that there must be a solid, coherent message for a protest to be effective. That doesn't mean *one* message. But, if there are 2+ they have to be complimentary to one another.
ReplyDeleteThe danger of an un-unified voice/message is what we're seeing with the Occupy Wall Street movement. I understand their anger, but they need cohesiveness and a single, coherent message to communicate. Otherwise, it looks like people are just protesting for the sake of protesting. That's something we have to be careful of.
For instance, i've heard some whispers of an Occupy Memphis movement. That. is. Stupid. Given that Memphis is the poorest large metro area in the entire country, given that we don't have a "financial district", given that there aren't Wall Street fat cats anywhere near Memphis, those people are wasting their time
As for the protesters outside Rhodes, I admire their enthusiasm but they need better communication. That way, they will be more unified, coherent, (and therefore more effective), next time.
First off, I want to apologize for not replying. I have had issues with the blog and have been unable to post comments back for a while.
ReplyDeleteHere are my replies. Thanks for the comments!
Victoria-
Thanks for your comment. Here’s the thing will OWS, if I was to ask the group what that group as a whole were protesting they would be able to summarize their cause in one or two short sentences. Let me say that I am not asking whether a protest should or not have people with various reasons to protest- sorry about the confusion. People within a protest will of course I have their own reasons to protest but in successful movements, there is always ONE main reason for the protest. OWS has a very definite agenda with passionate people. Like you said, “the growing numbers of people are gathering to display their agitation against the 1%”- that is their main reason to protest. I agree that there are many different reasons but the agitation against the 1% is the focus.
At Rhodes, that is what I think was lacking and that lead me to question the protests. If I was to ask the protestors at Rhodes why they were protesting- there was not one reason – some said that it was for Dan Savage exploiting the interviews, other claimed that they wanted administration to hear what the students have to say. All of these are valid reasons but do not fit under one common umbrella. The reason for the protests at Rhodes could not be explained in one simple sentence was my point. I think there was confusion in the way that I may have presented it though.
Flo,
I really liked that idea of the Arabic spring. Like you said, with regard to the Arabic spring, I think that the fight that they risk their lives for must be clearly defined- not by referring to the different people’s reasons for being there. Again, as a said to Victoria, I am not denying that the protestor have their own reasons for protesting but the overall motive needs to be clear in order for it to move forward. Thus, in your words, “the WAY in which people try to achieve their aims need to be clear in order to be effective” which is only possible if the reasons behind the individual protestors can be defined by one reason for protesting. Again, the diversity in thought, goals and needs hold but the lack of one AIM and one reason could dissolve that diversity in thought in protest from being effective.
Mills-
ReplyDeleteAs I have said to Flo, and Victoria, sorry about the misunderstanding and confusing claim. I am not trying to say that the protestors must have unified ideologies- I am saying that there must be one clear view in order for the protest to be effective. Again, with regard to Occupy Wallstreet- I think that, like you said, you could identify their purpose by claiming that "majority of American were adversely affected by recent economic conditions." That would mean that they are fighting for one particular thing with regard to their own ideologies. So I agree with you in that protests that are not successful can build awareness but I am not sure if they bring about change because of their lack of unification. However, you do make a strong point that protests do bring about dialogue among people that could potential lead to making a difference atleast through raising awareness.
Nellie,
I liked your example of the mine workers and I think it fits well with my blog spot. The mineworkers were protesting to be heard by the board because of the unfair actions of their new boss. However, I think the difference is that the Rhodes protest was not clear whether they were protesting Dan Savage or the administration decisions or both or other issues like exploitation of the interviews. This is where I was confused about the effectiveness of the protest itself. I may wrong in my understand of the Rhodes's campaign but this is what I thought after we left class.
Thomas,
I completely agree that we should make sure we are not protesting for the sake of it or giving that impression. I think the Occupy Wallstreet protest is a bit better structured than the smaller occupy movements in various cities. Such movements like Occupy memphis etc seemed to be fall into the trap of seeming like they are protesting for the sake of protesting- you make that point well in your comment.
I think you make a very important point that communication is the key to more unified success in the protests. Communication would raise awareness, to speak to Mills' point about awareness and dialogue, as well as help flesh out a main idea so that we can more clearly and precisely understand the purpose of a protest.