This week on WYTAI, an open conversation about (ongoing) protests. What is there to say about them? Which ones are effective? How will they be remembered? Enjoy.
How should we think about protests?
When I was in college, I took a course on the effects of protest on public opinion. Or, at least I think I did, since that’s what my term paper was about. Memory is a funny thing. I have never considered this paper to be any good (not that it got a bad grade, but the principal aim of such papers is not to advance the literature in any way), except that it was a genuinely comprehensive overview of the literature on non-violent protest. So, when Derek Thompson got Omar Wasow on his podcast “Plain English” to talk about precisely this topic, I was elated.
To summarize a vast field full of controversy in just a few short words: We largely think that non-violent protest is/can be more successful than its violent counterpart - at least electorally. Feel free to add as many asterisks to this as you please, it is by no means true across the board. One of the more persuasive arguments against this notion, for example, is the idea that violence is a desperate measure in an already losing position, and thus will tend to be more “unsuccessful”.
Still, the BLM movement, and especially the protests in the aftermath of the murder of George Floyd, are examples, where the progressive side of the argument won out, largely due to the powerful images that flooded our screens during their news coverage. Similarly, Martin Luther King Jr.’s (no, not Martin Luther King, Jr.,’s) success largely stemmed from his commitment to non-violence, as did Gandhi’s. Dr. King’s relationship with the American public soured only after his comments on Vietnam, and the persistence of racism in the North, which annoyed those of more liberal convictions.
On the other side, there are protests and movements that are explicitly violent, anti-establishment, even revolutionary in nature, such as: the IRA, Baader-Meinhof, 17N, or the Tamil Tigers, and to a lesser extent, groups like the Black Panther Party. Here, we are talking about more concerted efforts to transition from a gathering into a movement, a highly-organized form of protest. What is interesting about such revolutionary organizations is the pervasive difficulty in exploring their legacy in conversation with their ideas. It is often the case that older generations, scarred by the violence, refuse to discuss any associated events, let alone the ideas behind them. Even listing out the above organizations was an exercise in restraint, as the taboo is stronger than any desire to know more. If anything, the very reluctance to speak of such vile times gives perspective to the claim that non-violence is more successful as a strategy. And yet, these movements are massively important for the understanding of our modern world, and will continue to exist no matter how unsettling we find them. Anyway.
Finally there are gatherings which start off peaceful but turn violent abruptly. I am hesitant to name such cases, because of reasons that will become clear soon, but suffice to say that a protest that starts off peaceful and turns into a riot, is more complicated in its categorization, precisely because the intent is so hard to pinpoint.
And this brings us to the question of optics; what is the goal of a protest, and how likely are the protesters to achieve said goal based on the news coverage? I recently spoke with a friend about the two worlds that a demonstration exists in. By default, a protest is real because the people attending it are there to testify that it did, indeed, take place. Whether it’d be the police, the common folk, or any passer-bys, the protest exists in the realm of reality, where all the facts are set in stone.
Then there’s the people armed with a camera lens, who are deciding which facts are interesting from the moment that the device is turned on. A camera pointed at a sign is an argument; a camera mounted on a helicopter speaks of popularity; a camera pointed at the police is a statement.
Once a protest has been documented, it is then that reality splits apart into a thousand different stories, often perpetuated by the very participants of said protest (smartphones also have cameras!). It is as inconceivable to imagine a passionate protester admitting that there were violent incidents during a given event, as it is for a conservative pundit to admit that said events were clashes lasting mere seconds, the cause of which is unclear. The facts become a letter soup to be arranged in any order that’s suitable.
Unscrambling said facts and piecing things together is as hard as it’s ever been. Social media bubbles, and the fragmentation of media into a million microcosms, have paved the way for niche audiences with equally niche opinions. I have personally been part of a protest, which was already tense due to pandemic restrictions (I feel inclined to point out it had nothing to do with anti-vax stuff, itself a depressing admission), where violence was all that was reported due to the arrest of one or two individuals in an otherwise respectful setting. It was only in local alternative media that any other narrative would prevail. Most people in their 20s will have a similar experience.
All of this is to say that a protest is only as successful as its coverage. In our discussion, my friend alluded to the fact that protesting is akin to voting in terms of a democratic act, and although we would both agree that the former is arguably far more powerful in its direct involvement within the democratic process, voting - all things equal - is a process shrouded in secrecy which ends when the ballot falls into the box. Protests, meanwhile, live on, transform into stories, into narratives, and into legends - at least so far.
To illustrate this, we might look at contemporary protests. One of the more interesting recent movements has been the “Last Generation”, whose civil disobedience tactics were arguably a net-negative for the climate movement. At one point, as much as 85% of those questioned thought that their actions weren’t justified. In another blog, I have detailed why I think this is a mistaken view, as such movements are what we might call “inevitable”, but people were nevertheless justifiably exasperated with their antics. It turns out that you can’t just call something “inevitable” and expect people to get it, but I still stand by my argument - Fukuyama and I have that in common.
Then there was Lützerath, a PR failure of historic proportions for anyone not prepared to walk in mud in full wizard attire. Images of Greta being carried away by heavily armed policemen, as giant planet-killing machines idle in the background, are hard to interpret as anything but a courageous last-stand to save the Earth. In losing the fight, the climate movement won the war.
Such protests become eternalized shorthands for future generations to use as reference, both in tactics, but also in myth-building. When we call people “tree-huggers”, we might not know the origins of the word, or why it’s now an insult, but every environmentalist since those Bishnoi villagers in India is explicitly informed by their actions. When Julia Butterfly Hill decided to save a tree, and to live on its canopy, she was a tree-hugger. When the #NoDAPL movement blocked the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline, they were also tree-huggers, and so will everyone in the future: There is no need to hug trees anymore, because history and language have changed the meaning.
Worryingly then, it is no wonder that we are now speaking of “Kent State”.
John Paul Filo’s haunting photograph of Mary Ann Vecchio wailing over Miller’s body, is a visual representation of the echoes that reverberate through history; perplexed onlookers in shock; flowers etched into the teen’s pants, the only remnant of the kind of hope that drove her out of the house that morning; a hilly background, sparsely inhabited by people who thought they had each other, if not a place in the world; a 20 year old lying dead before he could even make a life for himself.
History has been kind to those students, as well as many others including Dr. King, but the very same people never had the chance to find out the impact that their actions had on our present. Dr. King certainly didn’t, nor did Miller and the rest of the Kent State victims.
When we consume news about contemporary protests, it is tempting to consider the simple questions: why occupy my lawn, why obstruct the flow of daily life? Especially when it comes to global issues, people don’t want to feel like a conflict on the other side of the world is on their doorstep - that would have terrifying implications for caring about others. Many wish that through (monopolistic) force majeure, the protesters would disperse and stop complaining.
In this light, watching the descent of police battalions on student protests in the US has been terrifying. Outlets, such as Fox News, put out headlines like, “NYPD release video showing professional 'protest consultant' at Columbia University”, while the Tagesspiegel wonders, “Who are these pro-Palestinian protesters occupying US universities?”, as if profiling the masses will enable their audience to justify their loathing of them.
Derek and Wasow also point out that protests are now easier to organize than ever before, possibly weakening them in many ways, as well as fading much faster in people’s minds. As the world watches on, days turn into weeks, turn into disinterested audiences. A second Kent State might be the ultimate fear, but faculties, news outlets, and political parties, can feel at ease, knowing that after the “Blitzkrieg” that is a wave of protests, the events will be forgotten, substituted by the next big thing.
There is something frightening about all this. For many of these young people, this is the most important political stance they have taken in their lives thus far - possibly for the rest of their lives! Articles over the years have detailed how Mary Ann Vecchio is still haunted by her association with that one photograph, and yet, we might be entering an era where a protest is only as significant as the oxygen it gets the next day. Will we talk about the storming of Columbia University as the disgraceful act that it was? Will it be forgotten in the storm of content that obscures factual reality, the narrative repackaged a million times to serve any and all of those already persuaded?
Compare, for example, Trump’s reaction,
“A beautiful thing to watch.”
to that of Adam Tooze, Columbia University Professor:
“The lethal, distanced threat of the guns serves to hold everyone, frozen, concentrated in place. Often, as a result, very little happens. An armed stand off is a time to talk. “
In his piece, Tooze reminds us that, at the end of the day, this is all about the monopoly on violence we bestow upon the state. In entrusting the state with keeping the peace, this has the (intended) consequence of squashing protests that call for social and structural changes. No serious account of the events would lead anyone to believe that the students were the agitators in this case. The crescendo of violence came in at the wrong beat, because the two sides are not in dialogue: one has the right to decide when the song should come to an end.
I often think about how history will remember these times. How will future generations look back on the first Biden presidency, and will they view this war like we now view Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan? Thinking about the souring relationship between Biden and Netanyahu, the ICJ ruling, the countless countries in the Global South that are either cutting relations with Israel, e.g., Colombia/Bolivia, or are angry at the West for what they see as aiding an aggressor, e.g., Nicaragua v. Germany, it’s hard to imagine that we will not be speaking about this time in a markedly different light. Netanyahu will invariably become the fall guy, the story rewritten time and time again, until it is soothing to our ears - we didn’t know.
Protests, especially when driven by younger generations, provide us with an opportunity to consider an issue across time, a luxury we often cannot afford in a time-poor world. Across almost every major issue, we can look to the past and find passionate students who risked their education, wellbeing, and future to speak out against what they saw as injustices. And even though it isn’t surprising, it’s easy to forget that young people truly believe they have nothing to lose, and speak out accordingly - but will anyone listen?
Feed Your Mind: Recommended Media and Content
Jaisingh Nageswaran’s “I feel like a fish” conjures up images of home, a warm place of acceptance amidst the cruelty of the world.
The Abu Dhabi Autonomous Racing League (A2RL), the first race in the autonomous league, was disappointing and outright laughable for many. I am reminded of one of Ethan Mollick’s AI principles: “this is the worst AI you will ever use”.
The “Trends in World Military Expenditure, 2023” report is out, and we have once more (scientifically) proven that more guns = more good.
If you are also out of the loop like I was on bears and men, here is your thread.
Here’s a brain teaser for all of us: what was Trump’s first impeachment about? As the 2024 US election nears, I would love to see a poll on who remembers this.
WYTAI is supported by the common wren. It is also supported by the blooming strawberries, soaking up the sunlight in spring. Finally, it is supported by our dear readers.