3 page reflection .
wan113
week_12.pptx“Does protesting ever change anything?”
External outcomes - changes in policy, media coverage, media frames, change in leadership.
Internal outcomes - movements on movements - spillover, diffusion, waves of protest, changed frames, movement generations, changed repertoire, changed organizational form, capacity, resources.
Outcomes
External outcomes - changes in policy, media coverage, media frames, change in leadership.
Internal outcomes - movements on movements - spillover, diffusion, waves of protest, changed frames, movement generations, changed repertoire, changed organizational form, capacity, resources.
Outcomes of movements External (elaborated)
Policy – to change, establish or stop
Process – to change, establish or eliminate institutions
Rights
Laws
To change values or culture
To give power to less powerful group/to remove power from more powerful group
Change public opinion
To change distribution of resources
To promote a leader
To establish a new identity
Likelihood of External Impact affected by
1. Political Context – Opportunity or Threat
Limited democracy
- timing
- relations
2. Nature of issue
More difficult to make change on:
Issues closely tied to structure of power –
Where high levels of political or material resources at stake
Military
Strong public opinion
3. Capacity of Movement
4. Tactics
5. Organizational Form
Internal Outcomes of Protest on Movements
| Individual | Organization | Movement | |
| Emotion | |||
| Skills/Cognition | |||
| Relational Ties | |||
| Capacity |
Patterns of Protest: Trajectories of Participation (Corrigall-Brown 2012)
| Individual factors | Initial engagement | Intermediary mechanisms | Outcome |
| Ideology Biographical availability Resources Social networks | Organizational context Level of hierarchy Issue scope Relational context Intensity of social Interaction | Social ties (type and number) Identity (type and strength) | Persistence Transfer Abeyance Disengagement |
Outcomes of Contentious Politics (Suh 2012)
Individuals, Organizations, Movements, Authorities and Public Perceptions
- direct and indirect outcomes
- intended and unintended
- internal and external
- short term and longer term
- perceived and actual
Summit Protests
Relatively large
Convergence of movements, demands, tactical approaches
Attract outside actors
Frequently involve highly visible repression
High visibility
Summit Protests as Eventful Events
“Interactions within these mobilizations create mutual knowledge, trust and friendship, and feelings of solidarity that facilitate shifts in identity, networks and practice… (della Porta 2008).
Outcomes of Protest on Movements
| Individual | Organization | Movement | |
| Emotion | |||
| Skills/Cognition | |||
| Relational Ties | |||
| Capacity |
Method
Pittsburgh – Suzanne Staggenborg and Rachel Kutz-Flamenbaum
Toronto – Lesley Wood and Glenn Stalker
Participant observation of organizing process
Surveys of participants in protest (N1=300, N2=320)
Follow up interviews with organizers
Ongoing participant observation
| Pittsburgh 2009 | Toronto 2010 | |
| Demographic profile of city | Industrial city, 305K, 66% white | Global City, 2.6M, 50% white |
| Demographic profile of protesters | 10% in thirties 58% local 17% POC 23% never attended activist event 18% had attended more than 15 protests in past 5 yrs. Top 3 movement identities - environmental, human rights and peace movements | 30% in thirties 67% local 27% POC 27% never attended activist event 34% had attended more than 15 protests in past 5 yrs. Top 3 movement identities - human rights, global justice, peace movements. |
| Summit protest organizing | Generational divide - older peace and justice activists with Thomas Merton Center - younger anarchists | Central organizing body – - - Toronto Community Mobilization Network |
G20 Protests
Pittsburgh
Multiple days of protest
Largest march 6000
$50,000 (USD) of property destruction
180 arrests, use of less lethal weapons
Toronto
Multiple days of protest
Largest march 10,000
$750,000 (CDN) property destruction
1100 arrests, use of less lethal weapons, infiltration
Samples
Pittsburgh 26
6 months after - 26 activists
4-6 years after - follow up with 13/26;
4 years after – student research on 17;
Ongoing ethnography on the environmental movement in Pittsburgh 2010-15
Toronto 20
Three years after - 20 activists (2013)
Shared perceived outcomes
External - changed public opinion on G20, police
External – some influence on media framing
Internal -
Built new networks amongst communities and movements
Altered the strategic and tactical preferences of activists
Increased skills and capacity of the movements, organizations and activists
Exhausted and burned out existing activists – increased fear,
Mobilized new people
Bonded existing activists – created a ‘movement generation’
Affected new campaigns
Networks
“Certainly people like myself, who were newer-- are way more connected in the city and know what organizations are doing what who to contact if you need to speak on this thing or I know this person has that skill or whatever.”
Changed Approach to Activism
I've also noticed that because of some of my experiences of being scared by the state and seeing their immense power in being able to remove me from spaces that I want to exist in, I have done less--how do I put this?--I'm much more cautious about getting together with people to talk about doing actions that I might have otherwise done before. I'm much more thoughtful about who I organize with.
Mobilize/demobilize
“So something like the G20, it raises people’s energy and it consumes people’s energy”
Differences in perceived outcomes
Pittsburgh
Relational outcome of bridging pre-existing generational, tactical and issue oriented divides
Toronto
Centrality of arrests and legal support in post-G20 context made repression, trauma and burnout central to perceptions of outcome
Fear and Trauma
Speaking of the effect of infiltration at G20 “In the first year, people were really afraid”
“So I think that what happened was really, really terrible and really scary and really messed people up, … and we can really hurt each other when we’re hurting, and I think that happened”
New campaigns
“We’ve formed a politics around emotional justice work and prison abolition work and radical support work that I didn’t really hear people talk about before.”
Changing outcomes through time
Pittsburgh
Immediate Post-G20 Euphoria; new activists, new collaborations; new infrastructure; conflict; burnout
Year later – decline in new energy; some new collaborations collapse; recovery from burnout
Four years later – collaborative relations endure, ‘movement generation’, models and tools cited.
Toronto
Immediate post-G20 trauma for existing activists; euphoria for new activists, new collaborations, new campaigns
Year later – fear abates, some recovery from trauma, crisis abates, more demobilization and conflict; new campaigns start to falter
Four years later – collaborative relations endure, ‘movement generation’, models and tools cited; ongoing work on policing and healing.
Main Outcomes of G20 Summit Protest
| Individual | Organization | Movement | |
| Emotion | Fear, burnout | Enthusiasm, Fear | |
| Skills/Cognition | Changed approach | Skill building | Skill building |
| Relational Ties | Increased friendships | Increased alliances | New coalitions, alliances, relationships |
| Capacity | Demobilization/ mobilization | Increased, decreased | Short term strengthening, medium term weakening, recovery and strengthening |
Implications
1. Internal outcomes need to be understood across scales of action.
2. Internal protest outcomes can be disaggregated into emotional, cognitive, relational and re: capacity; at the level of individual, organizational and movement.
3. Internal outcomes change through time.
Rameau
“One of our political objectives in taking back the land was building a new society, one in which people were valued over profits and material things. Throughout the existence of Umoja Village, we wrung our hands and gnashed our teeth over the thought that we had not done enough to root this ideal in our portion of the world.” 126
“Even with the will to fight, the truth was that our power was significantly diminished by the fact that we were off of the land. Our leverage and power emanated from our physical occupation of the land, with the residents prepared to fight for their homes and supporters willing to help.”
“The debate brought two movement tendencies to the surface. First: as the opposition, it is difficult for us to accept victory, even when we win. Virtually any settlement between us and our political targets can be interpreted as a sell out simply because there is an agreement or because those in power no longer stand against the demand. Consequently, we as a movement must clearly define what constitutes victory.” 134
Organizing -
Short term, medium term, long term goals.
Identify challenges
Context
Capacity
Issue
Identify strengths of organizing projects
- context
- capacity
- issue
