So what is protest actually able to achieve? There’s a whole suite of effects that follow on from the kind of protests being undertaken during the G8. Here are some important ones.
Raises awareness
Protests are public events that generate interest and attention. Simply raising awareness of a concern and a projected response to it are worthwhile goals. Likewise, those involved in a protest will usually become more educated about the concern of the protest, and additionally will often be educated about side issues that are addressed within the context of the protest.
Promotes an alternative narrative
A basic function of the powerful is to control the narrative that explains what is happening in the world – the necessity for war in Iraq due to Weapons of Mass Destruction, the intractability of poverty in Africa while corruption continues, etc. A protest introduces an alternative narrative, signalling that there are other ways of looking at a concern and makes unconsidered acceptance of the provided narrative less likely.
Shifts public mood
Protests are a population talking to itself, and one downstream effect of this is to feed into the process of opinion-forming within a population. This is hugely important. Public discourse is in a continuous feedback process that amplifies and diminishes different messages; a protest can help amplify a message, and as a message is amplified further it may become uncontentious and mainstream over time. This is a key aim of protest – not to bring about immediate change, but to create the conditions for change in the future. (Of course, immediate change is still sought as well.)
Increases commitment and activity
Participants in protest, by that very participation, become more likely to increase their involvement in activism. Protest is also a feedback loop, and those within it are given encouragement to amplify their commitment to the cause (and related causes). This has massive followthrough effects. At the Make Poverty History march, dozens of poverty-related organisations and charities will be seeking volunteers and contributions, and generally raising their profile. They rarely have such a good opportunity to recruit people to their causes. This could, and should, result in a significant increase in person-hours devoted to these causes as new recruits come onboard with their time and energy.
Influences the target
Protests can have a direct effect on the target. Even though the targets of protest are massively pressured by context not to concede to the aims of protest, effective protest still promotes an alternative course in the mind of the target. If nothing else, it presents a significant body of people who think a certain way, which is a potential source of electoral support to a politician, and a market segment to a business operative, and so on. On a less cynical level, the targets of protest are people too, and a perspective championed by a protest may start to grow in legitimacy in the mind of the target for all the reasons that it might have an impact on anyone else.
Additionally, and more probably, protests can indirectly influence their targets. As public discourse feedback loops operate and a perspective becomes more mainstream, those in power are forced to adjust to a new public opinion. The Make Poverty History campaign is a massive mainstreaming of some rather radical notions – debt cancellation, trade reformation, and aid increase and reform (the limitations of the MPH prescription on each point notwithstanding).
[next: that’s all very nice, but wouldn’t our energy be better spent elsewhere?]
You wrote: “Likewise, those involved in a protest will usually become more educated about the concern of the protest, and additionally will often be educated about side issues that are addressed within the context of the protest.”
Interesting use of the term educated. Would you have the same view if it was a very right wing protest march about something (say anti abortion) that the people on the march are becoming educated by it?
To me it’s a situation where people who already agree can pat themselves on the back about agreeing. They might be exposed to different angles on the views they already hold to some degree (they wouldn’t be there if they didn’t now would they?) but I’d hardly call that much of an edication.
It’s like a bunch of rugby fans getting togeather and talking about the game. They all might support different teams but they all agree that it’s a great game.
I would say it’s a time for people to become more thoroughly indoctrinated with the propaganda and polemic of the march. In my opinion for education in any meaningful sense to occur both sides hsould be represented, and a march explicitly is *not* that.
A protest march is not a debate that people make informed choices about. It is an act of propaganda and it is an inherently biased political action.
I am okay with a protest march being that way, but don’t represent it as what it’s not.
As for it increasing commitment and activity my expereince with protest marches is probably one of the things that leads to my cynicism. Over all I found them to be a waste of energy and time. Both of whcih could be more fruitfully used elsewhere.
Perhaps I just chose the wrong marches.