Assignment 3

This post will examine social movements in the context of the tactics they employ. Specifically, I will look at 1) whether any of the “radical” tactics and practices used by movements are acceptable; 2) under what circumstances “radical” protest might be a valid option; and 3) what the political or social circumstances are that make it viable for a movement to engage in “in your face” actions.

One very successful example of “radical” tactics was employed by “movement activists” at the anti-World Trade Organization (WTO) protests in Seattle in 1999. There, tens of thousands of people from across the U.S. shut down the WTO with mass nonviolent direct action and sustained street resistance all week in the face of martial law, police and national guard violence, arrests, tear gas, pepper spray, and rubber bullets. Some of the “radical” tactics used by activists included blocking streets, vandalizing property, and forced mass arrests. Finnegan, W. (2003) Affinity Groups Against Corporate Globalization, The Social Movements Reader, (p. 215) West Sussex, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.; Solnit, D. Seattle WTO Shutdown 9 Year Anniversary: 5 Lessons for Today, published: November 30, 2008, retrieved June 23, 2009 from http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/11/30-6; Cabrera, L. US: Seattle WTO Protests Mark New Activist Age, published: November 25th, 2000, retrieved from http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=314.

A big part of the success of this particular protest was that it was largely coordinated online. The Internet brings about a sense of camaraderie which is important to the movement activists, many of whom had spent the last several years feeling isolated. Carl Pope, Executive Director of the Sierra Club, remarked that “Seattle was the first time where you saw multigeneration, multiclass and multi-issue in the streets together." This feeling of solidarity grew online long after the debris from vandalized Starbucks, Nike, and Gap stores had been cleaned up. After the protest, movement activists were sharing digital photos of police brutality, reading articles on media brainwashing, and posting tips on how to defend against pepper spray. Not only did these activists succeed in effectively shouting down and embarrassing the gathered WTO representatives and otherwise disrupting their meeting, they also had a direct impact in helping foster a rebellion of sorts by Third World delegates at the meeting who refused to enter into agreements authored by rich countries and which were adverse to their own interests. Perhaps most importantly, the Seattle activists inspired hundreds of millions around the globe to fight back against the evils of corporate globalization. Finnegan, W. (p. 211, 215); Kirn, W. The new radicals, April 17, 2000, retrieved June 23, 2009 from http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/2000/04/17/radicals.html; Parrish, G. Is This What Failure Looks Like?, published: November 24, 2004, retrieved June 23, 2009 from http://www.seattleweekly.com/2004-11-24/news/is-this-what-failure-looks-like/.

Some of the training in preparation for the anti-WTO protest was provided by The Ruckus Society, an organization that has been described as specializing in “nonviolent guerrilla action”. The training they provided consisted of not only traditional forms of civil disobedience, but also more “radical” tactics such as rappelling from buildings in order to hang banners, how to form human blockades, and how to “lock down” in groups by linking arms together in specially constructed plastic tubes. Certain groups such as The Ruckus Society and others who advocate the use of “radical” and aggressive tactics have been labeled anarchist extremists by the U.S. government. A recent report from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security lists the following movements as Leftwing Extremists: the Animal Liberation Front, the Earth Liberation Front, Earth First!, and The Ruckus Society. It is interesting to note that the “face” that The Ruckus Society presents to the public seems far from that of an anarchist extremist organization:

We are living in a time of extreme challenges: stopping the war in Iraq, thwarting climate change catastrophes, reclaiming the commons from corporations, conquering our addiction to oil, and protecting human rights. In order to effectively meet these challenges, now, more than ever, environmental and social justice organizers must develop winning strategies that are creative, nonviolent, and take their lead from impacted communities. By building on the traditions of leaders like Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., we, at The Ruckus Society, provide our partner organizations and activists with the tools, training, and support necessary to tackle these problems and achieve their goals.

Finnegan, W. (p. 213-214); Leftwing Extremists Likely to Increase Use of Cyber Attacks over the Coming Decade (Unclassified), U.S. Department of Homeland Security, January 26, 2009, retrieved on June 23, 2009 from http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/hsa-leftwing-extremists-increase-in-cyber-attacks-dated-26-january-2009.pdf; The Ruckus Society, retrieved on June 23, 2009 from http://www.ruckus.org/section.php?id=3.

So, are the “radical” tactics employed by The Ruckus Society and others ever acceptable? This, I believe, is a very difficult question to answer definitively. Certainly, in a broad sense, techniques of civil disobedience like those advocated by Martin Luther King, Jr. are acceptable, whereas Malcolm X’s cry of “by any means necessary” can, and often does, lead to unacceptable conduct. It is in between these two boundaries that things can get fuzzy.

One way to judge whether tactics are acceptable is whether they are legal. However, this presents problems. Activists who participate in civil disobedience, regularly, and often intentionally, get arrested. But if their actions are in fact “civil” (meaning adequate in courtesy and politeness, or mannerly), the risk of injury to people or property should be very low. So even though their actions may technically be illegal, I believe, nonetheless, that it is an acceptable form of protest. Merriam-Webster OnLine, retrieved on June 24, 2009 from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civil.

However, when so called “civil disobedience” or “nonviolent” action results in, or has a very high likelihood of resulting in, personal injury or property damage, then such action is not acceptable. We like to think of ourselves as living in a democratic and “civilized” society. As such, the rule of law must be respected, or else the possibility of societal chaos and anarchy greatly increases, and may in fact become inevitable. We have laws that are meant to protect us from personal injury and damage to our property. Accordingly, “radical” tactics that do, or have a propensity to, break such laws, are not acceptable. This is especially true where, in a society such as ours, there are other genuine forms of “civil” protest available to activists, ones that will in all likelihood not injure the activists, police, or nonparticipating citizens, and which will not cause property damage.

I think my hypothesis is supported both by common sense, and the public’s perception and reaction to “radical” tactics. Although the anti-WTO protest was called a positive “critical event” and activists succeeded in their goal of effectively shutting the meeting down, at what cost did they do so? Setting aside the costs to clean up and repair the property damage caused by vandalism, the “radical” tactics used cost the activists in the public’s eye. For instance, the confrontations with the police discouraged and angered middle-class, family-oriented activists who’s participation in protests lends credence to the cause in the public's eye. Furthermore, the vandalism committed by anarchists became validation in the American public's mind for aggressive law-enforcement actions that lead to further limit the public's sympathy for future protests. Parrish, G., retrieved June 23, 2009 from http://www.seattleweekly.com/2004-11-24/news/is-this-what-failure-looks-like/. To be more effective, movements should seek to garner the public’s support, not alienate them.

There are certainly other “radical” tactics and practices, such as the Clothesline Project, sidewalk picketing by the pro-life movement, and “outing”. The Clothesline Project is a program that addresses the issue of violence against women by allowing women affected by violence to express their emotions by decorating a shirt which is then hung on a clothesline to be viewed by others as testimony to the problem of violence against women. An issue arose regarding the Project in 2007 at the University of Maryland-College Park when the school banned from its campus any shirt that included the full name of an alleged assailant out of fear of reprisal lawsuits. Retrieved June 23, 2009 from http://www.clotheslineproject.org/; Beachum, L. Students Against Violence Take a Stand, Refuse to Be Silenced, National Organization for Women, October 25, 2007 (p. 1).

While I sympathize greatly with women who have suffered from violence, and believe that criminals who perpetrate such crimes should receive the toughest sentence allowable, I believe that publicly displaying the full name of an alleged assailant is not an acceptable tactic. A big part of our criminal justice system is based on the principle of “innocent until proven guilty”. I believe that when we say or directly imply that a person is guilty of a crime before he is convicted, we find ourselves on a slippery slope that could lead to the erosion of this basic right. However, if the alleged assailant is indicted (which necessitates at least a minimum of evidence of guilt), and certainly if he is convicted, then I find this tactic acceptable.

Certainly, as noted above, these types of questions are difficult to answer definitively. As an example of such complexity, I would offer a comparison of this issue to that of pro-life activists who carry signs stating that Dr. John Doe is a “murderer”. Clearly, Dr. Doe is not a murderer in the legal sense in that he has not been convicted of the crime of murder. Nonetheless, these protestors are legally permitted to state their “opinion” that he is a murderer, but which opinion, like calling someone a rapist, has a negative connotation and stigma attached to it. As such, I find this type of action unacceptable as well. However, the complexity of determining whether these different, yet similar, tactics are acceptable, is evident.

Another tactic employed by the pro-life movement is their use of sidewalk picketing or, as they call it, “Sidewalk Counseling”. This consists of standing on the sidewalk outside an abortion clinic and counseling women and couples on their way inside. While I personally do not agree with this type of tactic, and actually get annoyed when someone invades my personal space and disrupts me with something I am not interested in, this is an acceptable tactic. However, several years ago, after two workers at abortion clinics in Massachusetts were murdered, a debate ensued among religious leaders over whether pro-life activists should pull back from sidewalk protests and turn instead to prayer. Niebuhr, G. Anti-Abortion Tactics Debated By Nation's Christian Leaders, The New York Times, published: January 9, 1995, retrieved on June 24, 2009 from http://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/09/us/anti-abortion-tactics-debated-by-nation-s-christian-leaders.html?scp=3&sq=social%20movement%20tactics&st=cse&pagewanted=1. Unfortunately, due to the existence of the Sidewalk Counseling website, the debate appears to have been short-lived. Although sidewalk counseling may be acceptable, I find their argument for this tactic disingenuous, in that they claim they “care about the women being exploited by the abortion industry”. Retrieved on June 23, 2009 from http://prolifeaction.org/sidewalk/. Setting aside the fact that I am pro-choice, I cannot objectively see any such “exploitation” and, therefore, find their use of such tactic suspect.

The last “radical” tactic to be discussed is “outing”, which is the public disclosure of the covert homosexuality of a prominent person by homosexual activists. Merriam-Webster OnLine, retrieved on June 24, 2009 from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/outing. Although not illegal, I find this tactic highly offensive and insensitive and, as a result, unacceptable. Citizens in this country are afforded the right to privacy, especially in the highly personal area of sexual preference. “Outing” someone results in a violation and invasion of that privacy. Again, I see this issue as another slippery slope in that if we condone this tactic, we run the risk of sliding down the slope toward the erosion of our rights. Furthermore, I question the success of such a strategy. Arguably, “outing” a prominent person may result in some short term gains. However, the damage done by the intrusive nature of the tactic, and the likely reluctance of the “outed” person to get involved in the movement, outweighs any benefits. People should be free to state their sexual preference or not. They should not be forced or subjected to defend or explain their choice merely because a movement wishes to advance its agenda. It would seem that the more practical tactic would be to approach the individual and ask if they would lend their name and voice to the movement. And if the answer is “no”, accept it and honor that person’s right to privacy.

This is not to say that “radical” tactics are never warranted; they are, in limited circumstances. And a great example of when such tactics are warranted is playing out right now, before our eyes, in the so called “democratic” election in Iran. The current political and social circumstances in Iran are such that radical protest is not only warranted, but necessary. The Iranian citizens have been oppressed for years, especially Iranian women, who are treated like second class citizens. People are denied basic civil rights that we take for granted: the right to personal liberty, the right to assemble and protest, freedom of the press, and freedom of speech. The government affords them no avenue to protest this and other unjust treatment. When people became dissatisfied and disillusioned with their government, because of its support for a clearly fraudulent election, they sought to protest. However, the government is responding by breaking into homes, arresting people for no cause, and even murdering activists.

It is this kind of situation, in an undemocratic society in which government continually and systematically represses its own people, and where citizens are afforded no other choice because it is “illegal” to demonstrate peaceably, that radical protest is warranted. Anything goes, or as Malcolm X stated, “by any means necessary”. In fact, I would argue that what the citizens of Iran are doing is not “radical”, but a normal, natural, and rational reaction as a result of suffering for years under a brutal regime. And I support them.