![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
flexibeasti just read a great article on AlterNet entitled "A March To Irrelevance". In it, the author levels some much-needed criticism at those who think that major social / political change can be achieved merely be attending a march or two:
The crucial thing when considering methods to achieve change is: How much work does it require individuals to undertake? Because those in power measure how much people care about an issue by the amount of effort they're willing to expend on it.
Take a petition. Signing it requires minimal effort. Nowadays, with online petitions, people don't even need to leave their chairs. 10,000 people can sign a petition, but that doesn't really say much, because it hardly required an effort on their part. And from experience, the powers-that-be know that 10,000 signatures doesn't necessarily mean that those 10,000 people are willing to do anything more than sign that petition.
Now take 10,000 people in a protest march. That's more significant, because it requires more of people than a line of writing or a few keystrokes and clicks; it requires people to make an effort to attend and participate. So it sends a stronger message to the powers-that-be, that people are willing to expend more time and energy in support of change.
However, the point made in the above quote still stands: if all people do is attend a couple of mass protests but do nothing else except wait for the next election, it still sends the message that people are resigned to hoping that they can elect a government that will do what they want. Which is pretty naïve, considering that the Australian Labor and Liberal parties have a track record of sticking to their election promises like oil sticks to water. (Just as the US Democrats talked big before the US midterm elections, but have subsequently shown themselves to be unwilling to truly challenge the Bush / Cheney regime.)
What, then, is required? Not just lobbying, not just mass protests, but mass movements. One excellent discussion of the sort of mass movement needed to achieve change can be found in the article "Out of the Past: What Anti-Poverty Groups Can Learn From the American Legion". It discusses how, even as progressive movements let themselves be seduced into thinking that they needed to become more 'respectable', to leave working for change to 'professionals' (i.e. lobbyists), the religious right was itself turning to grassroots organising - grassroots organising involving generous amounts of both patience and enthusiasm. The religious right has built up its influence over decades; it hasn't expected change to occur as a result of two or three rallies and a bit of lobbying1. It's why Federal ALP leader Kevin Rudd felt compelled to address the Australian Christian Lobby: the ALP is fundamentally a populist party, meaning it orients itself towards movements with large numbers of passionate people. It's no co-incidence that Gough Whitlam, a member of the ALP Right2, was perhaps the most progressive prime minister this country has yet known - during a time of progressive social upheaval. Whitlam knew which way the wind was blowing, and acted accordingly.
Rodney Croome recently asked "Why won't Kevin Rudd address the GLBT community?" It's because, overall, the GLBT community in Australia is less politically passionate, less active, less organised, less cohesive than the Christian Right in Australia. Whereas many queer lobbyists are worried about losing the ALP's ear, the ALP is worried about losing the ear of the Christian Right. The Christian Right isn't worried about losing the ear of the ALP, because their lobbyists are backed by a strong social / political movement. Queer lobbying, however, is currently dominated by the twin campaigns around same-sex marriage and same-sex relationship recognition and benefits: other issues within the queer community are being given short shrift (as they are in the US, as per this post to![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
queer_rage). Why should Kevin Rudd care about the 'T' in the GLBT community when there are no major actions being undertake by queers around specifically 'T' issues?
This is a crucial point. Mass movements need to be inclusive. Mass movements try to find common ground - such as queerphobia - and invite people in with relevant experiences and concerns; they don't say "We'll get to your specific concerns later". Mass movements privilege similarities over differences.
Nor do i do think violent acts, such as the rioting and bombings mentioned in the above AlterNet quote, are productive or useful when trying to build a mass movement (i actually think that such actions are usually counterproductive.) However, in addition to lobbying and rallies3, there are many other things that can be done to build a mass movement around a particular issue, some of which are:
Compared to many people in the countries who lives are affected, and sometimes ended, by our government's policies, most (non-Indigenous) Australians are in a very privileged position. We are relatively wealthy, and we don't (yet) need to put our lives, or the lives of our families, on the line in order to achieve social / political change. Are other people's lives and welfare not worth a relatively small sacrifice of our time and resources?
1. In fact, i would suggest that asking people to do nothing else but attend mass rallies and then leave the rest up to lobbyists can end up becoming demoralising. Once the government realises that there's no real political will behind the rallies, i.e. no will to do anything apart from attending rallies on occasion, they can call the lobbyists' bluff, the campaign doesn't make any gains, some people become dispirited and fail to attend further rallies, which consequently become smaller in size, the campaign goes nowhere, and people come to feel that change is impossible.
2. An article in Green Left Weekly points out that
Protests can now be ignored because our media has learned how to dismiss them, because our police know how to contain them, and because our leaders now know that once a protest is peacefully held and concluded, the protesters simply go home and sit on their asses until the next protest or the next election. They are not going to go home and bomb draft offices, take over campuses, riot in the streets. Instead, although there are many earnest, involved political activists among them, the majority will simply go back to their lives, surf the net and wait for the ballot. Which to our leaders means that, in most cases, if you allow a protest to happen... Nothing happens.Indeed. Mass marches and/or protests are only one component of a mass movement, which is what is necessary for significant social / political change. Lobbying politicians is another component, and is in fact the 'respectable' and 'preferred' method of achieving such change. It's preferred by those in power because it doesn't get large numbers of people active, and is thus easier to 'contain'; it's preferred by many people because it doesn't require them to do much themselves apart from paying their dues to a lobbying organisation, and perhaps to vote once a year for their lobbyists.
The crucial thing when considering methods to achieve change is: How much work does it require individuals to undertake? Because those in power measure how much people care about an issue by the amount of effort they're willing to expend on it.
Take a petition. Signing it requires minimal effort. Nowadays, with online petitions, people don't even need to leave their chairs. 10,000 people can sign a petition, but that doesn't really say much, because it hardly required an effort on their part. And from experience, the powers-that-be know that 10,000 signatures doesn't necessarily mean that those 10,000 people are willing to do anything more than sign that petition.
Now take 10,000 people in a protest march. That's more significant, because it requires more of people than a line of writing or a few keystrokes and clicks; it requires people to make an effort to attend and participate. So it sends a stronger message to the powers-that-be, that people are willing to expend more time and energy in support of change.
However, the point made in the above quote still stands: if all people do is attend a couple of mass protests but do nothing else except wait for the next election, it still sends the message that people are resigned to hoping that they can elect a government that will do what they want. Which is pretty naïve, considering that the Australian Labor and Liberal parties have a track record of sticking to their election promises like oil sticks to water. (Just as the US Democrats talked big before the US midterm elections, but have subsequently shown themselves to be unwilling to truly challenge the Bush / Cheney regime.)
What, then, is required? Not just lobbying, not just mass protests, but mass movements. One excellent discussion of the sort of mass movement needed to achieve change can be found in the article "Out of the Past: What Anti-Poverty Groups Can Learn From the American Legion". It discusses how, even as progressive movements let themselves be seduced into thinking that they needed to become more 'respectable', to leave working for change to 'professionals' (i.e. lobbyists), the religious right was itself turning to grassroots organising - grassroots organising involving generous amounts of both patience and enthusiasm. The religious right has built up its influence over decades; it hasn't expected change to occur as a result of two or three rallies and a bit of lobbying1. It's why Federal ALP leader Kevin Rudd felt compelled to address the Australian Christian Lobby: the ALP is fundamentally a populist party, meaning it orients itself towards movements with large numbers of passionate people. It's no co-incidence that Gough Whitlam, a member of the ALP Right2, was perhaps the most progressive prime minister this country has yet known - during a time of progressive social upheaval. Whitlam knew which way the wind was blowing, and acted accordingly.
Rodney Croome recently asked "Why won't Kevin Rudd address the GLBT community?" It's because, overall, the GLBT community in Australia is less politically passionate, less active, less organised, less cohesive than the Christian Right in Australia. Whereas many queer lobbyists are worried about losing the ALP's ear, the ALP is worried about losing the ear of the Christian Right. The Christian Right isn't worried about losing the ear of the ALP, because their lobbyists are backed by a strong social / political movement. Queer lobbying, however, is currently dominated by the twin campaigns around same-sex marriage and same-sex relationship recognition and benefits: other issues within the queer community are being given short shrift (as they are in the US, as per this post to
queer_rage). Why should Kevin Rudd care about the 'T' in the GLBT community when there are no major actions being undertake by queers around specifically 'T' issues?This is a crucial point. Mass movements need to be inclusive. Mass movements try to find common ground - such as queerphobia - and invite people in with relevant experiences and concerns; they don't say "We'll get to your specific concerns later". Mass movements privilege similarities over differences.
Nor do i do think violent acts, such as the rioting and bombings mentioned in the above AlterNet quote, are productive or useful when trying to build a mass movement (i actually think that such actions are usually counterproductive.) However, in addition to lobbying and rallies3, there are many other things that can be done to build a mass movement around a particular issue, some of which are:
- Create and/or distribute alternative sources of news, such as flyers, about the issue. People who get their news solely from commercial television, for example, are desperately in need of decent information.
- Join and/or support a group based around the issue. Ask what you can do to help out.
- Create art about the issue - songs, cartoons, plays, stand-up comedy, and so on. Look for creative ways to convey the issue and its most salient aspects.
- Provide financial support to people doing the above things.
- Talk about the issue in your workplace and/or educational institution. Don't let it get drowned in talk about the weekend sport or "Australian Idol".
- Write a letter - not a form letter! - to local politicians about the issue. If possible, make an appointment to talk to one or more of them in person. Demonstrate that you're willing to put more energy into this issue than simply signing something.
Compared to many people in the countries who lives are affected, and sometimes ended, by our government's policies, most (non-Indigenous) Australians are in a very privileged position. We are relatively wealthy, and we don't (yet) need to put our lives, or the lives of our families, on the line in order to achieve social / political change. Are other people's lives and welfare not worth a relatively small sacrifice of our time and resources?
1. In fact, i would suggest that asking people to do nothing else but attend mass rallies and then leave the rest up to lobbyists can end up becoming demoralising. Once the government realises that there's no real political will behind the rallies, i.e. no will to do anything apart from attending rallies on occasion, they can call the lobbyists' bluff, the campaign doesn't make any gains, some people become dispirited and fail to attend further rallies, which consequently become smaller in size, the campaign goes nowhere, and people come to feel that change is impossible.
2. An article in Green Left Weekly points out that
Whitlam was always on the right wing of the ALP; in 1970, he carried through federal intervention in the Victorian ALP to overthrow its elected left leadershipand the Wikipedia article on Whitlam notes that:
[t]hrough the 1960s, Whitlam's relationship with Calwell and the right wing of the party remained uneasy. Whitlam opposed several key Labor policies, including nationalisation of industry, refusal of state aid to religious schools, and Calwell's continued support for the White Australia Policy. His stances brought him into direct conflict with the ALP leadership on several occasions and he was almost expelled from the party in 1966 because of his vocal support for government aid to private schools, which the ALP opposed.3. Fortunately for people such as myself, whose health issues usually prevent us from physically attending rallies, marches etc. - as is the case with today's National Day of Action around same-sex relationship recognition.
no subject
Date: 2007-08-13 12:49 (UTC)I was around for the mass movements way back when, a member of the Labor Party in the progressive days (from 1970!), on a student union -elected twice- and all that jazz. Who knows how many marches, how many posters I painted myself, how much drivel I typed? Lots.
It *worked*, what we did.
It worked *well*.