Historian Dominic Sandbrook wrote a short article in the June 2005 issue of ‘History’ magazine about popular political protest in the 1960s, with a particular focus on marches. (The article was really an accompaniment to a big and impressive photo of the 1960 London march of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.) He concludes:
Yet despite the historical attention given to protests of this kind, the truth is that most of them had little direct effect. Britain kept the bomb, the Vietnam War went on, and Northern Ireland sank into sectarian bloodshed. The protesters of the 1960s set out to change the world, but looking back, what is really striking is the extent of their failure.
Is Sandbrook right? Is history repeating itself? Are these protests in vain?
Protest and Direct Outcomes
We know that protesters are seeking change. They make demands for those in power to change their minds, to make a change in course as a result of the protesting voices.
Those targetted by a protest have enormous pressure on them not to concede anything to those protesting. This pressure comes from their peers, their pride, the demands of stockholders, and so on. It also comes from basic tenets of human self-perception and behaviour, psychological principles like cognitive dissonance.
Even if a change is effected in accord with the protests, the targets of the protest will always distance the change from the protest and deny that the protest had any influence.
Almost always, it will seem like protests are falling on deaf ears. It has to be like this. To expect anything else is foolish. (And only the most naive protesters would expect anything else; talk of such an expectation is a straw man argument advanced by sceptics or opponents.)
Thinking about protest in terms of direct outcomes is the wrong model. To understand and appreciate the role of protest you have to think about it differently.
To be more precise, think of it like this:
Popular protest is a population talking to itself.
[next: populations talking to themselves]
I go to protests for the same reason I go to rugby matches. I go to rugby matches for the same reason I go to protests.
I go to enjoy the group environment. I go for a bit of primal scream therapy. I go to let off some steam, have some fun, meet people, enjoy the spectacle.
I don’t go to either rugby matches or protests to change the world.
* * *
I feel that protests are important, but not for any change they may render in of themselves. Rather they are important for the people who take part in them. They can create feelings of solidarity, a feeling that change can be made.
They spur individuals (and groups) to bigger and brighter things.
Think of the Springbok Tour protests in 1981. They didn’t stop the Tour. They didn’t change the government. But they did inspire two lawyers to seek an injunction to stop the 1985 tour. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:All_Blacks) And they did lay the philosophical groundwork and the group foundations for today’s Labour Government (and the Green party too, for that matter).
Protest marches do not change the world. But they do inspire protestors to do what they can to change the world.
I well worded letter to a Member of Parliament will probably produce more change than any non-violent, non-revolutionary protest. But the impetus to write the letter may not exist without the protest.
Oh, and I should probably directly address your answer to your own question.
I don’t think it is correct to view public protests and marches as a population talking to itself.
I feel that the dialogue that occurs around any particular issue occurs seperately from the protest itself.
The protest could be more correctly viewed as a symptom of the dialogue, rather than the dialogue itself.
Anyway, enough from me. I’ll probably add more over on my own LJ (http://www.livejournal.com/users/buzzandhum/)
Scott – you just said all the stuff I was gonna say in the next post. We’re 95% on the same page here I think.
Think I’m heading in that direction too.