
It Takes More Than Mass Protests to Drive Change - atlasunshrugged
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/it-takes-more-mass-protests-drive-change
======
rudiv
>“With the rise of the internet,” Soule says, “modern movements can mobilize
constituents through their websites and social media. If your end goal is to
get 500,000 people to turn up on the Mall in Washington, D.C., Twitter is
great at that. Facebook is great at that. But if your goal is to actually make
lasting change in the system, you have to work within the system — to
essentially get a seat at the table.”

>“Occupy Wall Street,” she continues, “mobilized a lot of people and got a key
point across about income inequality in the U.S. But did it result in real
change? Unfortunately, no. Had there been a nice set of organizations able to
get access to the political and economic system that the movement criticized,
the changes may have been more enduring.”

The idea that OWS could have worked within the system to get the changes they
wanted seems misleading to me.

~~~
JulianMorrison
There's no way inside the system because it's the system OWS wanted to change
(And Extinction Rebellion wants nowadays).

There's no nonviolent way outside the system because the police are violent if
you actually inconvenience the system (which marches don't do but occupations
do).

The problem basically is the fetishization of nonviolence.

Revolution can change the system.

~~~
perfunctory
Extinction Rebellion is strictly non-violent and they seem to be very
successful afaict. Or do we different definitions of "nonviolence"?

Also, what do you think about "The success of nonviolent civil resistance"
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJSehRlU34w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJSehRlU34w)
?

~~~
SuddsMcDuff
We certainly seem to have different definitions of violence, yes.

If 'violence' has been re-defined to the extent that mis-gendering someone is
an 'act of violence' ([https://everydayfeminism.com/2017/01/misgendering-
trans-peop...](https://everydayfeminism.com/2017/01/misgendering-trans-people-
is-violence/)), then you could certainly argue that ER have acted violently.

 _EDIT_ I see I'm being downvoted. Are we not allowed to have a conversation
about re-defining words and being intellectually consistent with the re-
defined meaning?

~~~
pjc50
If you want to make that argument, you have to spell it out and engage
seriously with what people mean. At the moment it's not even clear whether
you're in favour of or against mis-gendering trans people, let alone what
argument you're making about violence.

~~~
SuddsMcDuff
OK, I'll try to be more coherent.

It seems these days that the word 'violence' has been re-defined such that it
no longer requires there to be any abusive physical contact between the
perpetrator and the victim. As such, merely using words that may cause an
individual some emotional discomfort is considered an act of violence.

I don't agree with that definition, and for me abusive physical contact is the
defining characteristic of violence. But if that's the general consensus now
then that's what I'll use. We can't have a debate if we're all speaking a
different language.

Given that 'violence' no longer requires any physical contact, one could make
the argument that some of the activities that ER have engaged in could be
considered violent. The many ER road-blocks have very real consequences for
all the people who are unable to go about their daily lives without being
disrupted. When ER blocks a bus full of people in traffic, it's distinctly
possible that those people were on their way to job interviews, doctors
appointments, meetings with long-lost relatives, charity fundrasiers or any
number of other things. This kind of disruption might easily cause significant
emotional distress, I would argue at least on par with the emotional distresss
suffered by an individual being mis-gendered. So why should one be considered
violence and the other not?

That's not even getting to the topic of Ambulances being caught up in ER road-
blocks, which has been documented numerous times. ER even address that issue
explicitly in their FAQ ([https://rebellion.earth/the-
truth/faqs/](https://rebellion.earth/the-truth/faqs/)). They attempt to hand-
wave this problem away by saying that ambulances can be re-directed away from
the road-blocks. It hardly needs to be said that time is often a critical
factor when an ambulance is transporting a patient to hospital. The additional
time spent avoiding ER activists could easily be the difference between life
and death. Is this not a form of violence?

~~~
MaxBarraclough
> Is this not a form of violence?

By your own definition, the answer is clearly no.

~~~
SuddsMcDuff
Do you need to re-read my post? The entire point is that there are now
multiple definitions of 'violence'. We mustn't pick and choose definitions to
fit a particular narrative.

One definition of violence appears to be used when describing ER as 'non-
violent'. But another, very different definition of violence appears to be
used when declaring that mis-gendering someone is an act of violence.

~~~
MaxBarraclough
Sorry for the very late reply. You're right, I must have skipped the rest of
your comment.

My answer to this is to insist on the 'proper' definition - the one you
yourself prefer - and to push back whenever the term is misused (I find this
is generally done as a smearing tactic).

The alternative is to yield ground and to start saying 'physical violence'
whenever one means 'violence'.

------
wsxcde
A related point made by Zeynep Tufecki is that mass protests in the past used
to be show of force. If you could get half million people to travel to
Washington and participate in a mass protest, that meant these people cared
enough to take time off from work for a few days, spend money on travel and
participate in a policitically and socially risky activity. It also meant you
had several tens of thousands of organizers in diverse parts of country who
managed the logistics of getting so many people to come together for the
protest. The implication was clear -- give us what we want, if you don't, we
definitely have the votes to take you down.

In the age of Twitter and Facebook, protests are a lot more convenient and a
lot less difficult to organize. It is not clear that half a million people
protesting in NYC or DC means much in terms of actual electoral consequences.
Whether they can articulate it or not, politicians definitely know this and
react accordingly.

~~~
pjc50
I think after OWS, and before that the various "G20" etc anti-globalization
protests, it became very clear that the police could effectively contain and
suppress mass protest and that it would not be allowed to change anything.

And with better gerrymandering and voter targeting, the votes of protestors
could be made irrelevant as well.

(There is a history that needs to be written of how "anti-globalization" moved
from a left position to a right one, along the way changing from focusing on
goods to focusing on immigrants)

~~~
wsxcde
I think we disagree on this. I interpret the failure of OWS et al. as the
inability of the protestors to take their ideas mainstream. While
gerrymandering, voter targeting and propaganda via mass media do dilute the
protesters' votes, change is clearly possible. We saw this with the Arab
Spring where the protesters were up against a much more authoritarian and
anti-democratic state.

If I had to guess, I'd say the problem facing the American left is
complacency. A lot of people still think things are going reasonably well and
simply do not empathize with the concerns of OWS or the sunrise movement or
the BLM movement. It's hard to move the needle politically if a significant
minority simply do not believe that there's a crisis worth reacting to.

------
einpoklum
> If your goal is to get 500,000 people to turn up on the Mall in Washington,
> D.C., Twitter is great at that. But if your goal is to make lasting change,
> you have to work within the system.

That's partially true, but it is still more false than true. Stand this
statement on its head:

> If your goal is to tweak the current state of affairs with minor reforms,
> you should probably seek a seat at the table. But if your goal is to make
> fundamental change, you have to work outside the system.

That is to say, the author assumes that power relations in society are static,
and therefore one can either shout at established power from outside or join
it - never deconstruct, topple or replace it.

~~~
empath75
Yeah the whole thing has a “Let them eat cake” sort of vibe.

Oh, just get a seat at the table WHY DIDN’T WE THINK OF THAT

~~~
admax88q
A lot of people didn't think or that though. So many people would prefer to
yell from the sidelines evey now and then about how politicians are all the
same and don't reflect the will of the people. How many of them have actually
joined a political party p ran for office and even _tried_ to get a seat at
the table.

~~~
sokoloff
“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end
up being governed by your inferiors.” — Plato

~~~
yesenadam
Didn't at all sound like Plato so I checked. I guess it's this (my italics) :

“Well, then,” said I, “that is why the good are not willing to rule either for
the sake of money or of honor. They do not wish to collect pay openly for
their service of rule and be styled hirelings nor to take it by stealth from
their office and be called thieves, nor yet for the sake of honor, for they
are not covetous of honor. So there must be imposed some compulsion and
penalty to constrain them to rule if they are to consent to hold office. That
is perhaps why to seek office oneself and not await compulsion is thought
disgraceful. _But the chief penalty is to be governed by someone worse if a
man will not himself hold office and rule._ It is from fear of this, as it
appears to me, that the better sort hold office when they do, and then they go
to it not in the expectation of enjoyment nor as to a good thing, but as to a
necessary evil and because they are unable to turn it over to better men than
themselves or to their like. - Republic, I 347.

[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%...](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0168%3Abook%3D1%3Asection%3D347b)

~~~
sokoloff
Given that Plato didn't originally write in English, it seems fair to say
that's a "more or less within the margin of error" quote of his?

------
valgor
Protesting is about bring awareness and education to the public over topics
the media was not airing. For example, the media was not talking about income
inequality before OWS protest started happening. OWS shifted national
discourse for a lot of people. That means it was a very successful protest.

So yes, real change has to happen somewhere else. Newly educated people could
drive that change, new alliances could be formed, or next steps like boycotts
could be organized. Those things could have started at a protest, which is
another reason why protesting is valuable.

~~~
chippy
It's funny how one of the aims of a protest is about getting their story in
the media because the media is not paying attention to it. It basically means
that a protest has to play by the medias's games. There's always critical
commentary after a protest about the amount of coverage given to it. Coverage
becomes the aim rather than the actual aim. The media for their part do cover
them - they have to play their side - but they won't be on the protest's side!

Focusing on the media, marketing, communications and influence also means fake
news, propaganda, Russian troll armies etc are also important. It's the medium
and the message and not the aims of the movement that's most important. It
over plays the media's hand and down plays how effective a protest movement
could be.

------
thecleaner
"Seek a seat at the table."

A very undervalued tool for making lasting change. It would have been great if
someone from the Occupy Wall Street movement had run for mayor of New York.

~~~
empath75
Unless your goal is to flip the table over...

------
perfunctory
> But if your goal is to actually make lasting change in the system, you have
> to work within the system — to essentially get a seat at the table.”

Did civil rights movement work within the system?

Did Suffragettes work within the system?

~~~
sokoloff
As compared to a revolution or doing nothing, yes the civil rights movement
worked within the system.

If instead of gathering people and motivating them with eloquent and carefully
constructed arguments, Martin Luther King had led violent protests, he’d have
likely changed nothing. He (and others) worked within the system of laws and
public behavioral mores so as to not forfeit the right to be heard.

Rosa Parks sitting in the front of bus was exactly the type of action that was
needed, not burning the bus. I see that as 80+% working within the system.

The civil rights leaders earned a seat at the table. They got publicity during
the Apollo moon launches. They had meetings with important leaders who held
the original seats at the table. They did it by being peaceful, strategic,
unrelenting, and incredibly savvy.

I can’t imagine how frustrating it must have been to live as a disfavored
racial minority prior to the civil rights era. To have leaders exercise the
strategy and patience they did is almost unthinkably impressive to me.

~~~
srean
Much that my naive self wants believe that nonviolence works and violence
doesn't. Often its the potential for violence that the powerful even starts a
token conversation with the ignored and the powerless. Its then they start
preaching that non-violent means needs to be adopted and there needs to be a
negotiation.

~~~
sokoloff
Yes, I think the peaceful civil rights leaders we think of today were
benefited by the _threat /spectre_ of violence combined with overt actions and
communication on their part to declare the violence not part of their plan.

~~~
perfunctory
I believe (hope) you guys are mistaken. For example, what kind of "potential
for violence" from a starving student was King’s College afraid of when they
agreed to divest fossil fuels? [0]

[0] [https://londonstudent.coop/kings-college-agree-fossil-
fuel-d...](https://londonstudent.coop/kings-college-agree-fossil-fuel-
divestment-following-student-hunger-strike/)

~~~
sokoloff
When I said "peaceful civil rights leaders we think of today", I meant "ones
we readily recall today based on their actions in the 1950s and 60s", not that
the threat of violence is a _required_ element in the system.

I can see how that could very easily be read as "peaceful civil rights leaders
of today", so the error is on me as the author, but that was not my intended
usage.

------
IfOnlyYouKnew
From what I remember of Occupy Wall Street and similar topic, the headline
will find a receptive audience here at HN.

BUT I won't tire of pointing out that protests sometimes have _dramatic_
effects. So much so that I'm still not sure about the exact mechanisms.

It seems so obvious that a government with all the guns should not be scared
by unarmed protesters, right?

Yet there is no shortage of examples showing the opposite. In Ukraine, it was
some low five-figure number of protesters on a single square in the capital
that brought down the government. Across the middle east, "Arab Spring"
rebellions deposed of quite a few entrenched autocrats. Hong Kong, right now,
is entirely peaceful and mostly students, and has China closer to a nervous
breakedown than Trump ever will.

Even Occupy Wall Street, favorite target of derisively dismissing "Hippies"
and the left, has had significant impact: How often do you now see arguments
framed as "The 1%" vs "The 99%". If that doesn't count as impact, your
expectations are probably off.

I got to experience this first-hand when the G20 meeting happened in Hamburg,
Germany: Every single interview with one of the politicians attending that I
saw mentioned Climate Change. If that wasn't the result of the protests
happening outside, I don't know what did it.

The Arab Spring especially has obviously not resulted in the sort of change
people had hoped for. But to suggest it did not have an impact is simply
wrong.

