Why do people bother protesting?

Great Debates
1

Has anyone ever changed their mind because of an organized protest? Did all of the organized protests against Bush make a difference in the last election? Has a single person watching the news decided to like Muslims more and the Danes less? Did all of the protestors weeping outside of abortion clinics ever change a state law? Really, except for the benefits of flat-out intimidation (for example, PETA freaks outside of Nordstrom stopping Mrs. Howell from buying a new fur), what is the value of protest?

It may be useful in a few cases where mere visibility of a cause is helpful, but with most major issues “public awareness” is not the problem, and protest isn’t the solution. Yet, anyone with a political cause thinks they’re supposed to demonstrate somewhere, and can’t think of anything else. It’s interesting that however different these groups are, they are all completely consumed with the notion that protest is what they’re supposed to be doing. They have this fanciful notion that most Americans are ignorant but open minded, and will be all at once informed and won over because, hey, we’re holding up signs and chanting rhymes!

I think that protests are quite evidently passe. At the best, they’re merely ineffective. But they are often worse then ineffective. It just entrenches the cause, furthers the division between sides. The protestors are met with counter-protest, get angrier, start yelling… maybe turn violent. They look like lunatics on TV and hurt their own cause. People opposed to them certainly don’t change their mind, and I don’t think the fence-sitters do either. Backlash is far more likely an outcome.

Please, people, consider alternative strategies than clogging up the streets.

2

For one, I think you’re underestimating the number and variety of protests; you seem to be limiting your point particularly to large events (e.g., Bush protestors). I’d think that protests on the local scale (e.g., the local chapter of a union picketing) are much more numerous than the ones that you actually know about and notice.

Second, I think you’re underestimating the potential impact on the large-scale audience. For instance, take Cindy Sheehan. No matter what your view of her current standing, it seems like she was the impetus for a sea-change of opinion against the Iraq war. Certainly, some people’s views became more entrenched; I think many, many others saw her and rethought their stance.

Third, I think you’re also underestimating the potential impact on those “in power”. Protesting is, I think, one of the only means of exerting large-scale social pressure, reinforcing social norms on a not-personal level. A “tut-tut” that causes embarrassment may work in a one-on-one situation, but to draw attention on a local/state/national level takes larger measures.

Fourth, what else would you suggest in lieu of protests?

Finally, you’re not taking into account personal empowerment. In some sense, it can be very much like a funeral – not so much for the person who died, but for those who are attending. Again, what other method do you suggest for people to make their viewpoint known? Which is exactly why the idea of “free-speech zones” is so abhorrent; in establishing them, politicians are removing the one (hopefully) peaceful method for people to express themselves in large numbers.

Perhaps you’re right, though. Perhaps in this era of saturated mass-media, protests do more harm than good. Although I’d think that on the whole, that’s not the case, as even a small protest now has the potential for wide dissemination of opinion due exactly to the saturated mass-media. At the end of the debate, it just seems to me that the overriding question is: what other method of expressing your dissatisfaction with the status quo is acceptable?

3

Anti-war protests seemed to have an effect on President Johnson.

4

Women (and a few men) protesting to get the vote for women was fairly successful.

Protesting for civil rights worked.

Protesters for government inspection of meat packing plants (as well as Upton Sinclair publishing The Jungle) were effective.

The thing about protesting is it takes time and repitition. It’s like any form of advertising - you have to get your message out there dozens or hundreds of times before it begins to sink in. That can take years or even decades. So I think your examples in the OP are too recent - it’s too soon to tell.

(And you and I aren’t the target audience for Muslim protests against Denmark, really. Other fence-sitting Muslims are.)

5

Protests of various sorts can have a large impact on what your neighbors think of as acceptable behavior/positions. When enough people speak up, others, who might be like-minded but aren’t willing to stick their neck out on their own, realize that more people than they thought share their viewpoint.

Two examples by me: there was a vigil to support Cindy Sheehan and protest the war last year. A website had been set up to let people find local vigils they could join. Going on the web site, it was astonishing to see how many local groups were hosting such events, and how many of my neighbors, even, were hosting vigils at their homes. I never thought there was that much support for such things in my area.

Second: A large industrial plant was going to be built in our area; it would have been an eyesore, dramatically increased air pollution locally and in nearby states, was certain to use dirty coal-burning technology, and would only create one new job. And it seemed certain that it was going to go through, since–in such an economically depressed area–people love big business and industry. But, soon, you started seeing signs on people’s lawns protesting the creation of this plant, and within a year or so, they were everywhere–everyone, white collar and blue collar, seemed opposed to this plant. Seeing one sign up made you realize that it was OK for YOU to put a sign up and show your opposition. The continuous push by ordinary people and a handful of dedicated protestors raised the opposition’s case to such a level that the state governement couldn’t ignore it, and they finally refused to allow the project to go through.

Peer pressure works for both positive and negative things.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”
-Margaret Mead

6

Yes. :smiley:

To expand on that a bit, I suspect you have never been to France, where very large and noisy protests of everything from pay levels for hospital staff to demands for more bicycle paths are a regular weekend fixture, and where the government routinely makes concessions or modifies policy in response to sufficiently large demonstrations.

I suspect also that you are too young to remember the street protests that in part brought down the Marxist governments of Poland and East Germany, amongst others. And you must certainly be too young to remember the protests against US involvement in Viet Nam, which did have some effect on US policy. I’ll be the first to agree that protest is a rather blunt and often ineffective instrument for change, but to say that it has never changed anything, as you seem to imply, is to ignore history.

  1. It is a ritualized means of demonstrating the relative strength of opposition to a particular policy or issue

  2. Rightly or wrongly, it is a way to circumvent bureaucracy to effect direct action on an issue

  3. It is a social event where like-minded people can meet and greet.

I couldn’t disagree more. From the standpoint of the persons protesting, public awareness of their chosen issue IS indaequate, otherwise there wouldn’t be an issue to protest in the first place.

A rather sweeping statement, unsupported by any facts presented so far. In my experience, most of the persons who regularly attend protests on a given issue are also working in numerous other ways to raise awareness and get things changed more to their liking.

This would be an excellent time to describe some of these alternatives, as you see them.

Or, upon review, what Digital Stimulus said.

7

I agree with the OP to a large degree. Protesting may have had some successes but that doesn’t mean it is an effective tool for an yahoo that wants to throw some people together. The American public in particular is very jaded towards the “Hey Hey! Ho Ho!” protesting style that the passionate but generally fuzzy minded people tend to engage in. There are more ffective ways to direct energy for any real issues and protesting has risks.

We have had people on this board that admitted that they protested because they liked pretesting stuff. I knew two people like that in college too. They would just look for protests when they decided that was going to be their recreational activity. I don’t think that speaks well to the genuineness of many protests.

I have worked for large companies that attracted protesters. I know for a fact about how management felt out it. They don’t, it is completely irrelevant. They have spent their lives exposed to those issues. They aren’t going to listen to a 22 year whose total exposure to the issues involved are activist meetings and change their well though out policies based on a people yelling.

My gut reaction is usually turn against protesters and the issues that they support to some degree and I suspect that I am not alone. Most protesting simultaneously appears immature, ill-informed, bullyish, and self-centered. Unions are vulnerable to this type of public backlash.

8

This is the first time I’ve seen someone else express this thought that I have held for years.

I too, consider protesters boorish, naive and uninformed. I don’t think I have ever seen a demonstration of this nature that advocated something I believe in.

9

While I have no real way to measure effectiveness, it is one of the only ways “an yahoo” has to make their opinion known.

10

That type of thinking is one of the reason that those particular “yahoos” have no power. They have regressed to a state below their state in the first decade of their life. They absolutely and most certainly do but it requires some thinking and strategy and a lot of common sense.

Any group that you can name has the power to organize something powerful from it. It could be door-to-door campaigns or it could devloping influence with elected officials. That is built through trust and integrity and it may take time.

It depneds on the group and their goals that decides what they do.

11

I agree that historically, protests might have been effective, but to an extent that just underscores how ineffective they are now. Does anyone really think the sight of striking workers inspires anyone? It’s generally preaching to the choir.

I know I’m painting with a broad brush, but I just got to thinking “out loud” because I feel the act of protesting has played itself out. People are too jaded to care.

I think in a bigger way, I’m just very tired of the whole notion of making the world a better place by complaining.

12

Then perhaps you should protest them. :wink:

13

Ah, but you are after all the “Evil One” right? :wink:

The protest to prevent the building of a Garbage Incinerator in Monmouth County worked very well. A dozen Non-profits **stopped Westinghouse ** and their paid for politicians from building the Proposed Incinerator.
You can try this Google Search if you want to read about it.

Jim (Yes, I was part of that protest)

14

I will concede that I’ve lost this argument, but I still think an awful lot of people should put down their signs and find something better to do.

15

Well I wish the Anti-abortionist would stop their protesting too, but it looks like they might also be winning.

{cue the patriot music}
I am damn **Proud & Happy ** to live in a country where we have the right to protest and speak our minds. Even when I disagree with the protest in question, I support their right.

{excepting Nazi’s and KKK, they should be stopped as the criminals and enemies of freedom they are}

Jim

16

I don’t think you lost the argument. I know I didn’t I am on the same side as you. I am the type that evaluates the arguments on their own merits without reaching to a foregone conclusions and protesting doesn’t fit well into that type of thinking. From talking with lots of other educated people, they don’t respond well to that type of thing either.

In a way, I guess it is OK though. It gives the clueless a way to vent energy with a perception of making a difference when it is just wasted air.

It sure gets annoying though and I firmly believe that disruptive and destructive protesters should face the same penalties as any everyday citizen doing the same thing outside of protesting.

17

This implies you believe protesters receive preferential treatment when they break the law. Care to give some examples?

18

Personally I think protesting is a mixed bag. It can be effective, it can also be incredibly worthless. It’s really a case by case thing. In general however protesting definitely generates some backlash, especially from people who are just trying to go about their day to day lives, really don’t care about political issues, and have to be subjected to noisy and traffic-causing protests.

I think protesting was definitely more effective back in the 18th and 19th centuries when it was much more likely to turn into violent riots (for example there was something like 56 major riots in London just in a few year span of King George III’s reign.) The establishment definitely had to take protesters seriously when protests were quite likely to turn into a riot that threatened the establishment.

I tend to look down on protesting because I view it as the political activist version of warfare. It’s brutish, often achieves little at great cost to many, and in general is a reflection on our basest instincts as opposed to our refined intellect.

I think advertising, direct-mail campaigns, pamphleting and et cetera are probably more effective. They just aren’t near as fun for the participants and I think that is a big thing when it comes to protests.

Protests are IMO so popular because they’re like a big group catharsis. It’s sort of like voting. Everyone recognizes that in the grand scheme of thing any individual vote really doesn’t mean anything, but collectively these votes decide some pretty important things. They decide who governs. And just like no individual protestor, and no single protest will typically decide anything, it’s all part of a given greater political movement which may actually effect some change (although typically not primarily because of protesting, but partially.)

19

I do protest them…by playing the game of life well enough that I don’t need to stand in the street and scream.

20

That last Paragraph sums it up pretty well. Protests do give people a good feeling that “we are doing something”. Many Protest are just simple Signs and legal assemblies and don’t stop anyone traffic or anything else. Brutish is a little strong. In my limited experience the brutish factor is limited to Pro-Lifers and PETA. Even Greenpeace usually just assembles and makes a point without disrupting traffic flow.

I understand this may be different in DC however.

Jim