With that said, I joked about creating a protest that wasn't a protest. A protest to protest protests. So my issue of social importance in my community would be the onslaught of unnecessary protests. I don't agree with mass gatherings of people holding up signs saying "End _____" or "Stop _____". It's important to me because nothing is getting done. No one is listening, people who pass by are annoyed that you're in the way, the people who you're trying to convince are so hard-set in their viewpoint that you aren't going to sway them, the people who agree with you are marching alongside of you, and those in the middle don't care because to them, you're just another angry group of people.
My act of protest would be an end to protests. This isn't an end to free speech, but the end of the ideology of activism through the act of protest. I'm not sure how little old Michael will end all protests, but in this hypothetical world they would just cease to exist because I willed them to stop. Like MySpace, jelly bracelets, bell-bottom jeans, and Lady Gaga, the act of protest would just fade into the abyss.
My protest of protests would include the tactic of forgetting. It might involve recruiting a group of naysayers who drift by protests and mumble things under their breath like "(what are you doing?)" or "(do you think anyone's even listening?)" or "(just stop)". It might also involve proof of the ineffectiveness of protests, like a chart showing how many people felt a certain way about a topic, and then how many of them changed their view after the experience with the protest.
The media, in my situation, obviously is no help to me. The media must present a neutral (HA!) stance on the protest, and then like all good news segments go, talk about the protest ad nauseam. They would only perpetuate the ineffectiveness of the protest in hand by furthering the separation of those too strong-willed to be swayed from those too invested in the cause to hear the other side.
My protest of protests will end in one of two ways.
- Protests in general will come to a halt. All is well.
- People realize protesting is ineffective and get on their feet and actually DO something besides walking around in a circle, chanting and holding signs. They take an active role in whatever is being protested and do something about it. Then, and only then, will things actually change.
Michael, amazing idea. I also have a bitterness to protests, I felt this annoyance during the reading of, Not in My Name. If people were doing this in my neighborhood, I would yell at them, and tell them I won't promise not to kill them, because I just might, let me enjoy my Saturday.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that protests are more of a dog and pony show rather than a spark of change, however, I feel that the use of protests on a more organized manner could be effective. Unfortunately, the general public probably won't read such articles as Oppenheimer's that would aid their cause, and in turn, they perpetuate the hate that we both share. Protests are now more of an act of emotional outburst, rather than a device to begin change. I propose we send all the protesters, Lady Gaga and jelly bracelets to the arctic circle to be forgotten, but keep the bell bottoms, they're amazing.
To play devil's advocate, though: would you say that no protests anywhere have ever been effective? How does social change happen at all?
DeleteAre protests always about/aimed at uninvolved audiences, or might they have an effect on those who choose to participate in them? In other words, is "does it convince onlookers" the gold standard for all social change performances?
Aside from individuals like you who tire of protests, can you think of groups or entities who might benefit from a widespread feeling that protests are ineffective and not worth people's time? Who might sponsor "no protest" protests?
JF
I definitely think that some protests have been effective, those along the lines of the Rosa Parks Bus Boycott. The difference between Parks' protest and the abortion protesters is that Parks actually did something besides complain. She took an active stance and made a physical, tangible difference in the normal swing of things. Social change happens when someone does something besides holding up a sign. I don't think that's how one defines a "good protest" either. I think a protest is effective when it changes something in the community. The woman still gets an abortion and the protesters outside the clinic still show up angry everyday. Nothing changes, except that a new norm has been created. Going along in my example, I think that Planned Parenthood clinics might sponsor a "no protest" protest. They are a business that provides a helpful service to people. The protesters only negatively influence the people PP are trying to help, blocking potential users of PP. I think that not having people yelling outside your business seems like a total positive to me. Both Planned Parenthood and the women using PP would probably defend the "no protest" protest movement.
DeleteMichael, I have to agree with you. For the most part, I personally find protests as ineffective and simply obnoxious. For my 'protest' blog, I went along a route as you. I didn't do a protest against protests, although clever, I just referred to mine as more of an informative event. There's not necessarily a defined group or tactic, but more of the people who are interested come up and talk to us. We don't scare off people with our crazy yelling or "YOU'RE GOING TO HELL, YOU SLUT" messages. Still, I'd join your protest against protests.
ReplyDelete