Following the (temporary) removal of protestors from Zuccotti Park in NYC, Josh Busby's post on Occupy Wall Street (OWS) alerted me to this earlier NY Times article about the impact and future prospects of OWS.
Absent an overarching goal and any strong leadership (in social movement terms, weak mobilizing structure and no master frame), the movement may fizzle. OWS would loathe to hear this, but they could learn a thing or two from the Tea Party.
Showing posts with label tea party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tea party. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Occupy Wall St
I've neglected the blog again. I was going to give my two cents worth, but more senior experts have chimed in. Sid Tarrow argues that Occupy DC is not a follow-up to the tea party. David Meyer talks about the need for an exit strategy.
Sid was one of my mentors at Cornell, and I'll have to say that I respectfully disagree with him. Yes, there are no stated policy goals. But just as the Tea Party began with ordinary people fed up with government excess, Occupy Wall St. (OWS) is about ordinary people fed up with corporate greed and growing inequities in a period of economic uncertainty. OWS is not necessarily a left version of the Tea Party, but they may have been inspired by the Tea Party's ability to mobilize and eventually put people into power. It remains to be seen whether the energies of the OWS can move towards this direction.
Sid was one of my mentors at Cornell, and I'll have to say that I respectfully disagree with him. Yes, there are no stated policy goals. But just as the Tea Party began with ordinary people fed up with government excess, Occupy Wall St. (OWS) is about ordinary people fed up with corporate greed and growing inequities in a period of economic uncertainty. OWS is not necessarily a left version of the Tea Party, but they may have been inspired by the Tea Party's ability to mobilize and eventually put people into power. It remains to be seen whether the energies of the OWS can move towards this direction.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Protests in India and America
India made headlines through Anna Hazare's high profile hunger-strike against government corruption. The movement is pushing the Indian government to implement greater transparency and accountability measures, such as the establishment of an ombudsman to investigate corruption charges over bureaucrats and the prime minister.
Such movements are a sign of participatory democracy. But do these protests undermine democratic institutions and processes? Can the people dictate Parliament's actions. Or, as the Post article above notes, is the brinkmanship of a hunger strike a form of blackmail that undermines democracy?
The second article is a good overview of contentious politics in American and abroad. Why don't we see more people taking it to the streets in the US? Of course, protests begin with anger and grievances. But these aren't sufficient conditions for protests. Meyer's puts a lot of weight on the role of organizers in channeling this anger. But I would also add that there has to be a psychological component. At the microlevel, individuals are either a) calculating the costs/risks of protesting based on the action of others and/or b) swept up in the moment. Either way, there's a cascading logic behind large street protests. At the macro-level, you also have to look at open political opportunities. There are key moments in history and politics - upcoming elections, the death of a leader, etc...which make moments ripe for protest.
So why aren't we seeing more protests in the US? As Meyers notes, the tea party is probably the closest thing to a social movement in our country. But b/c we live in a relatively open, democratic society, the tea party chooses to also work through formal political channels and institutions (i.e. vote or help get their preferred candidates elected) so it may not be necessary to take grievances to the public square 24-7. . Protesters in Syria or Egypt may have felt that they had no access to formal channels of politics, giving them no other choice but to take it to the streets. In London, many of the protesters were minorities on the fringe of society. Looters joining the foray probably sprung out of "mob mentality." It's more of a psychological rather than political argument. But hey, we should embrace multi-disciplinary accounts!
Such movements are a sign of participatory democracy. But do these protests undermine democratic institutions and processes? Can the people dictate Parliament's actions. Or, as the Post article above notes, is the brinkmanship of a hunger strike a form of blackmail that undermines democracy?
The second article is a good overview of contentious politics in American and abroad. Why don't we see more people taking it to the streets in the US? Of course, protests begin with anger and grievances. But these aren't sufficient conditions for protests. Meyer's puts a lot of weight on the role of organizers in channeling this anger. But I would also add that there has to be a psychological component. At the microlevel, individuals are either a) calculating the costs/risks of protesting based on the action of others and/or b) swept up in the moment. Either way, there's a cascading logic behind large street protests. At the macro-level, you also have to look at open political opportunities. There are key moments in history and politics - upcoming elections, the death of a leader, etc...which make moments ripe for protest.
So why aren't we seeing more protests in the US? As Meyers notes, the tea party is probably the closest thing to a social movement in our country. But b/c we live in a relatively open, democratic society, the tea party chooses to also work through formal political channels and institutions (i.e. vote or help get their preferred candidates elected) so it may not be necessary to take grievances to the public square 24-7. . Protesters in Syria or Egypt may have felt that they had no access to formal channels of politics, giving them no other choice but to take it to the streets. In London, many of the protesters were minorities on the fringe of society. Looters joining the foray probably sprung out of "mob mentality." It's more of a psychological rather than political argument. But hey, we should embrace multi-disciplinary accounts!
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
A Tea Party Activist and Cycles of Protest
This was the first article I read this year from the Lorian Hotel & Spa in Alexandria. It's a good example of a social movement at a crossroads between informal (i.e. popular) and institutional politics. Or in Tilly's vocabulary, the line between transgressive and contained politics. Here we see the evolution of the tea party movement: informal discussions at the gym to nascent organization to national movement. But how will the movement evolve as power holders (i.e. the state) respond and tea party activists acheive their own goals. What effect did the 2011 midterm elections have on the future direction of the Tea Party?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)