The Peristaltic Testator (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} peristaltor) wrote,@ 2008-09-02 23:54:00 |
|
On The Effectiveness of Protest
bradhicks posed a question on his LJ a few days ago. He noted that, as far as he knew, no protest ever stopped a war, especially a movement and its supporting marches. I had honestly never considered the question, but when he posed it, it made sense. After all, millions across the country marched in protest of the Iraq invasion. No effect, and barely a blip on the media screen. Did the US pull out of Vietnam because of the civil unrest it caused? Nope. Instead, US forces stayed long enough to get their asses handed to them, culminating in a mad helicopter rush from the embassy to offshore carriers as (to paraphrase the headline at the time) Phnom Phen phell.
Why protest might not work -- and, more interestingly, why those that protest might continue to insist that it does work -- seem interesting questions to explore.
First of all, let's encapsulate "protest" within definitional boundaries. I am not referring to a protest one puts in a court of law. Someone in a casual conversation, likewise, might protest a line of conversation or point made by others; this person is registering a difference of personal opinion in a social setting. No, when I talk of "protest" as a failed medium of mass persuasion I refer to a movement designed to not only register the opinions of the participants to the general public, but to further persuade that public into changing its collective mind on a vital topic (like a war) and thus the "mind" of its leaders. We're talking about marches, sit-ins, choreographed disruptions and other tools of the guerrilla theater movement, not just cocktail party banter and formal legal proceedings.
Secondly, let me state for the record that for the most part I support the politics of protesters. That's what's galling for me. I see them marching to end one travesty or another, or to support a positive path for the future, but simply cannot fathom why they've taken a path that, as far as I know, has not only never worked, ever, but has in many cases galvanized opposition against my own beloved and cherished beliefs about What Is Right.
I was going to cite a few personal examples of protest, and may still. First, though, I think it would be more illustrative to think of protest in terms more of us can understand. Let's stipulate that protest is a means attempting to change a target audience's opinion on a given situation. Now, let's stipulate that this is fundamentally similar to persuasions aimed at others in far more mundane situations. Let's take the clearing of parking spaces, something to which most of us can relate. We've all been there. We're heading to our cars after shopping, eating, whatever, when in the crowded lot someone spies our impending departure. Seeing that someone else needs the space, do we help them by hurrying?
No. No we don't.
According to the author of a Penn State paper on the topic, "Most people think they leave faster, but in reality, they take more time to leave when another car waits near their space." And when the waiting car exhibits impatience, say, by honking? The departing driver actually slows.
To relate this to protest, we have stipulated that protest's goal is to change minds. People tend, though, to be very territorial about their opinions. A madding crowd marching through the streets -- and, importantly, impeding the progress of folks just trying to use those streets to go about business they feel is more important -- causes the bystanders not to change their minds about the issue at issue in the protest, but to harden their stance against the protester like someone would at a honking hothead in a parking lot.
I always wondered as a kid why the US military allowed Saigon to fall. Looking back on the situation, it's fairly easy for me to see the military leaders may have continued the impossible struggle just to spite the protests and derision leveled against them. "Fuck 'em," they seemed to say, "fuck 'em all."
To continue, why would protesters feel their involvement was other than effective? Here we get into the psychology of movements in general. For this, let's take another analogy, that of the religious missionary. When they turn eighteen, many religious affiliations send their young adherents out for a year or two to spread the Gospel. A sociology professor of mine from college specialized in the sociology of religions, and found the conversion rate most of these missionaries achieved was dismal, a small fraction of a percent of those they encountered while out in the wide world. By contrast, the conversion rate for friends, coworkers and relatives of the religious clocks at nearly 50%, especially when the faithful follow a tried-and-true 13-step process. In this process (IIRC) God is not mentioned until step 9.*
Why then do missionaries still leave the nest and spread the word when more statistically fruitful pickings can be found close to home? It turns out that those who went on mission had a far longer relationship with the church afterwards, with something like (again, IIRC) 60% fewer missionaries leaving the faith later in life. As one respondent to the research noted in a post-research interview with my prof, he had long since experienced doubts about the faith and church, but every time he thought of leaving the flock he would think of those people he did manage to convert on his mission. What kind of example would his leaving be for them?
Therefore, let me speculate that while protests do less than nothing for the causes they promote, they do everything for the participants -- like missions -- uniting them with a well-known cameraderie for the cause, an esprit-de-corps that may persist long after the marches end. This feeling of a job well done with friends well met might very well mask any evidence later presented to the contrary.
For further evidence, let me point out that one almost never hears about a right-wing protest march (except amongst the extreme edges of belief, most notably the lunatic fringe that march and picket against reproductive and sexual orientation rights). I believe that's not for lack of consideration. Rather, I feel the more effective right-wing radicals have dismissed protest marches simply because they don't want to be seen in the same light as the hippies they saw protesting wars. Instead, their protest takes a more practical turn. They don't hoist signs and bitch about the city council or the school board. Though they might have previously had no interest in politics before, they get elected in order to these organizations and change them from within. It's a strategy that has served them well since 1964, when Barry Goldwater told the John Birchers not to split from the Republicans, but to take it over from within. (BTW,bradhicks had an enlightening piece on how the evangelical movement switched sides and backed the 'Pube-licans after that convention. It should be required reading in schools.)
I anticipate one counter to the argument I've laid out above: What about protests that worked? Okay, I'll concede that point, but only to a point. You see, there is one more bit of the parking experiment we should mention.
Let's say you are a colonial power. Let's just say. Let's further say you've managed to levy at tax on something easily manufactured, and have made manufacture of that stuff illegal in order to promote your tax. What would happen if some upstart marched from point A to point B in defiance of your prohibition?
Ghandi brings the protest
How worried you should be about this protest depends entirely upon the size of the march and how much support it gathers. If a few dirty hippies schlep down a muddy road shouting, you can probably ignore it. If it becomes a movement that undermines the taxes upon which you depend, that's another story. Ghandi, it turns out, was the other story.
Getting back to the parking issue, look at this section of the synopsis:
A high-status car. Let's face it; men run most of the world. Therefore if someone with "high-status" backs a protest, or if sufficient numbers gather -- or both -- then the men in charge might just notice. They might just abandon their positions and reconsider their next move.
What the protesters of both yesterday and today seem to be missing is not the enthusiasm, the vision for change, but something they can take from political strategist Frank Luntz: "It's not what you say, but what they hear." The more I hear the strident on the left, the more I am absolutely certain they have not taken that message to heart. When asked why they do what they happen to be doing, they respond with a heart-felt string of experiential drama or self-important blather or news-ready stats and sound bites. They almost never appeal to those they are trying to reach in the language of those they oppose. Really, why should anyone not already part of the choir ever listen?
(In case you don't believe how effect Luntz has been consider this advice he just gave a few hours ago at the Republican Convention. He's cutting through the stupidity of this VP choice by aiming the focus on what no one can deny, even her opponents -- that she is a mother.)
So, folks, to wrap up, I thinkbradhicks might be on to something here. I honestly don't mean to galvanize opposition against me by suggesting the protest movement of the sixties and seventies was misapplied. Remember, for the most part I think they were marching for the right reasons. I'm only questioning their efficacy.
I'd also like to implore LJ to disable the crashy goo they put on Brad's page that locks up Firefox every time I try to call up his journal. That is really, really irritating . . . kinda like having someone honk at you when you're trying to leave a parking space.
*I got this information from a class I took over 20 years ago. While my friend still has the textbook (long story), I sold mine long ago. I'll try to re-check the remembered citations next time I'm over at his place.
bradhicks posed a question on his LJ a few days ago. He noted that, as far as he knew, no protest ever stopped a war, especially a movement and its supporting marches. I had honestly never considered the question, but when he posed it, it made sense. After all, millions across the country marched in protest of the Iraq invasion. No effect, and barely a blip on the media screen. Did the US pull out of Vietnam because of the civil unrest it caused? Nope. Instead, US forces stayed long enough to get their asses handed to them, culminating in a mad helicopter rush from the embassy to offshore carriers as (to paraphrase the headline at the time) Phnom Phen phell.Why protest might not work -- and, more interestingly, why those that protest might continue to insist that it does work -- seem interesting questions to explore.
First of all, let's encapsulate "protest" within definitional boundaries. I am not referring to a protest one puts in a court of law. Someone in a casual conversation, likewise, might protest a line of conversation or point made by others; this person is registering a difference of personal opinion in a social setting. No, when I talk of "protest" as a failed medium of mass persuasion I refer to a movement designed to not only register the opinions of the participants to the general public, but to further persuade that public into changing its collective mind on a vital topic (like a war) and thus the "mind" of its leaders. We're talking about marches, sit-ins, choreographed disruptions and other tools of the guerrilla theater movement, not just cocktail party banter and formal legal proceedings.
Secondly, let me state for the record that for the most part I support the politics of protesters. That's what's galling for me. I see them marching to end one travesty or another, or to support a positive path for the future, but simply cannot fathom why they've taken a path that, as far as I know, has not only never worked, ever, but has in many cases galvanized opposition against my own beloved and cherished beliefs about What Is Right.
I was going to cite a few personal examples of protest, and may still. First, though, I think it would be more illustrative to think of protest in terms more of us can understand. Let's stipulate that protest is a means attempting to change a target audience's opinion on a given situation. Now, let's stipulate that this is fundamentally similar to persuasions aimed at others in far more mundane situations. Let's take the clearing of parking spaces, something to which most of us can relate. We've all been there. We're heading to our cars after shopping, eating, whatever, when in the crowded lot someone spies our impending departure. Seeing that someone else needs the space, do we help them by hurrying?
No. No we don't.
According to the author of a Penn State paper on the topic, "Most people think they leave faster, but in reality, they take more time to leave when another car waits near their space." And when the waiting car exhibits impatience, say, by honking? The departing driver actually slows.
"Even though people were leaving the parking space, departing drivers took longer when someone else wanted the space than when no one else wanted the space," the sociologist said. "This reaction is counterproductive because it takes more time and the driver's entire goal was to leave the space anyway.
"But our research shows that people do become territorial in the face of another driver and become even more territorial when the driver acts very intrusively, such as honking the car," Ruback said. (Emphasis mine.)
To relate this to protest, we have stipulated that protest's goal is to change minds. People tend, though, to be very territorial about their opinions. A madding crowd marching through the streets -- and, importantly, impeding the progress of folks just trying to use those streets to go about business they feel is more important -- causes the bystanders not to change their minds about the issue at issue in the protest, but to harden their stance against the protester like someone would at a honking hothead in a parking lot.
I always wondered as a kid why the US military allowed Saigon to fall. Looking back on the situation, it's fairly easy for me to see the military leaders may have continued the impossible struggle just to spite the protests and derision leveled against them. "Fuck 'em," they seemed to say, "fuck 'em all."
To continue, why would protesters feel their involvement was other than effective? Here we get into the psychology of movements in general. For this, let's take another analogy, that of the religious missionary. When they turn eighteen, many religious affiliations send their young adherents out for a year or two to spread the Gospel. A sociology professor of mine from college specialized in the sociology of religions, and found the conversion rate most of these missionaries achieved was dismal, a small fraction of a percent of those they encountered while out in the wide world. By contrast, the conversion rate for friends, coworkers and relatives of the religious clocks at nearly 50%, especially when the faithful follow a tried-and-true 13-step process. In this process (IIRC) God is not mentioned until step 9.*
Why then do missionaries still leave the nest and spread the word when more statistically fruitful pickings can be found close to home? It turns out that those who went on mission had a far longer relationship with the church afterwards, with something like (again, IIRC) 60% fewer missionaries leaving the faith later in life. As one respondent to the research noted in a post-research interview with my prof, he had long since experienced doubts about the faith and church, but every time he thought of leaving the flock he would think of those people he did manage to convert on his mission. What kind of example would his leaving be for them?
Therefore, let me speculate that while protests do less than nothing for the causes they promote, they do everything for the participants -- like missions -- uniting them with a well-known cameraderie for the cause, an esprit-de-corps that may persist long after the marches end. This feeling of a job well done with friends well met might very well mask any evidence later presented to the contrary.
For further evidence, let me point out that one almost never hears about a right-wing protest march (except amongst the extreme edges of belief, most notably the lunatic fringe that march and picket against reproductive and sexual orientation rights). I believe that's not for lack of consideration. Rather, I feel the more effective right-wing radicals have dismissed protest marches simply because they don't want to be seen in the same light as the hippies they saw protesting wars. Instead, their protest takes a more practical turn. They don't hoist signs and bitch about the city council or the school board. Though they might have previously had no interest in politics before, they get elected in order to these organizations and change them from within. It's a strategy that has served them well since 1964, when Barry Goldwater told the John Birchers not to split from the Republicans, but to take it over from within. (BTW,
bradhicks had an enlightening piece on how the evangelical movement switched sides and backed the 'Pube-licans after that convention. It should be required reading in schools.)I anticipate one counter to the argument I've laid out above: What about protests that worked? Okay, I'll concede that point, but only to a point. You see, there is one more bit of the parking experiment we should mention.
Let's say you are a colonial power. Let's just say. Let's further say you've managed to levy at tax on something easily manufactured, and have made manufacture of that stuff illegal in order to promote your tax. What would happen if some upstart marched from point A to point B in defiance of your prohibition?
Ghandi brings the protest
How worried you should be about this protest depends entirely upon the size of the march and how much support it gathers. If a few dirty hippies schlep down a muddy road shouting, you can probably ignore it. If it becomes a movement that undermines the taxes upon which you depend, that's another story. Ghandi, it turns out, was the other story.
Getting back to the parking issue, look at this section of the synopsis:
Men and women drivers responded equally to intruding cars; men left their parking space faster when a high-status car was waiting in the lot, the studies show. (Emphasis mine.)
A high-status car. Let's face it; men run most of the world. Therefore if someone with "high-status" backs a protest, or if sufficient numbers gather -- or both -- then the men in charge might just notice. They might just abandon their positions and reconsider their next move.
What the protesters of both yesterday and today seem to be missing is not the enthusiasm, the vision for change, but something they can take from political strategist Frank Luntz: "It's not what you say, but what they hear." The more I hear the strident on the left, the more I am absolutely certain they have not taken that message to heart. When asked why they do what they happen to be doing, they respond with a heart-felt string of experiential drama or self-important blather or news-ready stats and sound bites. They almost never appeal to those they are trying to reach in the language of those they oppose. Really, why should anyone not already part of the choir ever listen?
(In case you don't believe how effect Luntz has been consider this advice he just gave a few hours ago at the Republican Convention. He's cutting through the stupidity of this VP choice by aiming the focus on what no one can deny, even her opponents -- that she is a mother.)
So, folks, to wrap up, I think
bradhicks might be on to something here. I honestly don't mean to galvanize opposition against me by suggesting the protest movement of the sixties and seventies was misapplied. Remember, for the most part I think they were marching for the right reasons. I'm only questioning their efficacy.I'd also like to implore LJ to disable the crashy goo they put on Brad's page that locks up Firefox every time I try to call up his journal. That is really, really irritating . . . kinda like having someone honk at you when you're trying to leave a parking space.
*I got this information from a class I took over 20 years ago. While my friend still has the textbook (long story), I sold mine long ago. I'll try to re-check the remembered citations next time I'm over at his place.
