I say thanks much for posting this--sounds very important and it will go on my already-groaning pile of reading.

What I will be looking for especially is the methodology about what counts as an "environmental law," and whether all such laws are treated the same for the purposes of the study.  I'm not sure that the number of laws is a very sensible measure of anything; consider the biofuels subsidy debate, for example.  

One law (carbon taxation) could wipe out dozens of laws (various attempts to subsidize various strategies for addressing global heating/ peak oil).  If I understand the study design used here, the one effective law would be seen as less progress than passing many ineffective ones.

Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.

Plus:

The theory sounds like it might make sense, but looking at the graphic, the second-highest peak year in protest seems to have occurred AFTER the peak in environmental laws passed, and following the highest peak year of protest, the number of new laws seems to have continued on its declining path.

I agree that protest is valuable, even necessary.  But I do not agree that its value is to be measured in real results.

No doubt the professional sociologist and student of American social history Jon Agnone knows very well that there have been all kinds of protests, on behalf of all kinds of causes, and they have had all kinds of results.  Plainly, there are just too many variables, to say simply that a protest movement will deliver such-and-such a result.

And the graph shows that, as Ron points out.  From the late 60s to the early 80s, there was elevated protesting.  Let us say that produced the spike in pro-environmental legislation in 1979-80, at the end of a Democratic administration.  But the level of protesting went even higher right afterwards, even as legislative success was declining rapidly during the Reagan administration.  And the very high level of protesting during George H.W. Bush's administration seems to have had no very impressive results at all.

Presumably the numbers on the vertical axis somehow refer to the numbers of laws?  Federal only, or federal plus state plus local?  And, how is "level of environmental protest" being measured?

Sorry, this approach does not come across as very persuasive.

Nevertheless, it is true that protest, which can take many forms, is good and necessary.  But we have to understand that its value does not depend on the kind of power and the kind of results as this study seems to be trying to measure.

Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!

S O S, Save OurSelves....  

Protest now, protest for there will be no tomorrow.

omegafour.com

Ron,

I had some trepidation posting the chart for that very reason - to the naked eye, the correspondence between protest and federal legislation looks general, but erratic. I decided to post the chart, in part, because it shows very clearly the decline in protest over time.

It is important to note that Agnone's statistical correletion between rates is significant no matter what the eye tells you. The same problem crops up in the Antarctica ice core data, which show a significant correlection between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and global temperature, but with significant - to the eye - lag time.

Ken Ward ken[at]brightlines.org

me, aw ya-rone lyin' eyes?  Hunh?"

(for very advanced ESL students only!)

"Protest" is a noun that can mean all sorts of things.  Presumably Jon Agnone means by it something rather specific and technical, along these lines: mostly adult human beings (it is inhumane to drag along children and pets, as I observed at the big Sunday march during the Republican National Convention here in NYC in late August, 2004), walking or sitting or standing or kneeling in a public space, including even such gestures as pouring blood (I have not poured my blood myself, but have witnessed others doing so, at a research installation for nuclear weapons), to or near or in front of a building or other structure with some symbolic significance, making clear their opposition to what is symbolized by that building or structure by means of shouted slogans and speeches, written signs borne on high, and images.

Fine.  Lovely.  And I think that is necessary, and good, as I wrote before.

But so far as effectiveness goes:

1. It matters, counter to the object of the protesters, if the decision-makers feel that the protest itself has elicited a counter-protest opposition.  That nearly happened here at Columbia University, in the Spring of 1984, during the ill-advised sit-in, in opposition to the University's investment in companies that do business in then-apartheid-governed South Africa, in front of one of our most frequently used academic halls, in which the deans' offices are located.  I had to move my class elsewhere, amidst some confusion; I was yelled at by the registrar, who called me a "squatter," for locating my class in a classroom that happened to be vacant in another building.  Also, the chants of the sit-in crowd, who were not far away at all from the principal reading room of Columbia's library, were very distracting.  Most of us were strongly supportive of those students' cause, but equally strongly disliked the method by which they were protesting it.

In another context, outside a sympathetic liberal university community, I cannot imagine such a protest finding many friends.

In fact, I do not know if Columbia University's board of directors eventually chose to "divest" from South Africa -- probably they did, but then again, who knows if it came as a result of the protest.  And who knows if that led to the fall of the apartheid government, and also to much hardship on the part of the poor people of South Africa, as Archbishop Desmond Tutu warned.

(From back in the glory-days of 1968, amidst a couple of very different causes, civil rights and Vietnam, when the same building at Columbia had actually been occupied by protesters, there was inspired a rather savage cartoon, in which a large, powerful black protester is shown having a white, frail Columbia dean on his back on his desk, with their pants pulled down, and is about to butt-fuck him; and the dean says, "Well, of course, I indeed see the merits of that position ... ")

So the moral of point 1. is, to be effective, a protest must do as little as possible to antagonize anyone but the people to whom they want to deliver the message.  Disrupting the lives of other people is always risky, and all too often unhelpful.

2. In the end, the actual results do not matter.  Of course, the protesters must need always to hope that their efforts will achieve those actual results.  But really, Stoically, they must understand that the actual results, right now, do not matter.

What matters is the virtue of their intention, and the strength and courage of their effort, and the hope that a more just conclusion will be accomplished in time, thanks to their effort today.

Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!

Are you suggesting that the graph creates an optical illusion? Or are you saying -- in non-technical terms -- that the regressions have employed an adjustment that correlates the number of laws with level of protest as if those protests occurred earlier than they actually did?

The powerless cannot afford to follow the rule book of the powerful. Movements bent on social change cannot afford not to use all tools at their disposal. Protest, up to and including civil disobediance and getting hauled away in a paddy wagon is often needed. The problem comes when a tactic (taking over a governor's office like MTR activists did recently in W. VA.) turns into a strategy (like a lot of anti-globalization protests have).  Then you get into trouble, mostly because the other side has figured you out and can counter you.

I think the greatest problem for a lot of groups is how the fear of upsetting funders, causes a lot of self-censorship in the choice of tactics.

I see a lot of timidity in the non-profit sector. I am finishing a book on community organizing in Cleveland, Ohio in the 1970s and 80s. It was of the old fashioned kick ass Alinsky style. Led to a shit storm of reaction on the part of the great and the good in the local power structure, and as a result the non-profits and advocacy organizations currently active in Cleveland are some of the most well behaved and polite ones you will find anywhere. Totally cowed and afraid of their shadows.

During the recent Step It Up events I suggested that we "hit" the offices of a senator who has always been in the pocket of the carbon crowd. I instantly became known as the resident wild eyed lunatic. But my lunacy worked well enough that we had a very respectable rally, so ye gods stand up for lunacy.

I think the real question is not protest. It is the politics of the non-profit sector. That is the issue.

Randy Cunningham

Randy Cunningham

The time frame of the analysis is highly problematic since the media landscape has changed so much.  StepItUp does provide a viable model in that context (but not RAN or Greenpeace unless the action is clever enough to go viral) but only if connected to a sustained strategy.

Everything else has fundamentally changed such that the basic methods of the 60s don't translate to the current conditions.  We do not have charismatic leaders (Gore is most prominent but not charismatic, McKibben is not at that scale).  It's debatable whether we "should" but that's not under our control so let's put that aside.  Churches that are natural allies are aging and shrinking.  The media landscape is fragmented and much of it delegitimized - mass demonstrations, ending up on the front page of the NY Times, or CBS News, etc. simply do not have the impact they once had.

In a fragmented media landscape, having a lot of people in one place is less effective than having people everywhere - ie: mobilization like StepItUp.  

But self-organizing groups does not translate to longitudinal effectiveness with out a strategy and that requires an enduring organization.  The weakness of StepItUp is that there is no ongoing organization.  In contrast MoveOn (for example) has an ongoing organization, but the degree of centralization lends itself mostly to a focus on federal legislation and inhibits local organizing and locally adapted strategies.  

We need both.

Ken,
Thank you for continuing the conversation with your very important and thought provoking columns.

Hey, all:

Thanks, Ken, for the messages.  Protest has been historically shown to have great value.  I can't think of a single major change in deeply entrenched governmental or social policy that didn't involve major protest.  

Other research, such as the Dueling Loops and Analytical Activism from Thwink.org have shown interesting possibilities.  WiserEarth has 100,000+ organizations worldwide registered on their site.  Avaaz.org is another important organizing group.  There are probably many 1000s of blogs and other websites, each with a separate focus.  I am sure there are many I should know about but don't.  

What I find very frustrating is that in spite of all this fine progress in research and organization, we have not made much real progress on meaningful environmental issues.  Owning the finest Stradivarius violin in the world is meaningless if no one has the talent or character to bring out the music.  

What is needed is a central, worldwide, acknowledged organization to provide one voice for the protest.  The mechanism could be simple:  the leadership of as many organizations as possible should set up an umbrella name under which all would operate.

Someone here said mentioned that actions are countered by those in opposition.  The Corporate     Oligarchy doesn't have to counter us if we are so disorganized.  

I have emailed several people whom I consider to be among the leadership in the movement as it stands.    Any and all ideas for improvement are welcome, and  any names of individuals or organizations would be very helpful.  

Protest by itself has little impact, organization likewise little impact, but a dedicated, organized protest movement diligently pursued by millions has been shown to be highly effective.  Where Will The Movement Come From?

David
Sustainability For Life

Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!