Skip to main content

Something's been bothering me

...since my post last week about the anti-Rove protest on campus. A bit of an identity crisis. Here I am, someone who has had major life-altering experiences (drug-free, thank you) at a May Day protest years ago, putting down activists I agree with. Have I become cold and heartless?

Well, no. I realized early on that protests and radical actions were not my thing. But they work for some people, and I was assigned an article for a class that reminded me that even if they don't directly affect change, radical actions do have reasons:

Activist organizations use disruptive image events, which are highly charged protests that involve visuals such as people being buried up to their necks in roads and grandparents chaining themselves to trees (DeLuca, 1999). Such events rarely put an immediate stop to the things activist organizations protest; however, according to a Greenpeace campaigner, success is judged by the protestors’ abilities to reduce complex issues to symbols that disrupt people’s comfort with the status quo.

The article, "Radical activist tactics: Overturning public relations conceptualizations" from Public Relations Review (Vol. 31 2005), goes on to talk about how militant tactics give energy to a lagging movement and diminishes the middle ground, making people pick sides on an issue:
By making demands that powerholders are unlikely to accept, radical activist organizations stay faithful to their vision and redefine what people consider moderate by moving the ends of the spectrum. By arguing for much more radical demands than mainstream activist organizations request, they increase the reasonableness of mainstream activist organizations’ demands. According to a Sierra Club representative, “It makes us look moderate. We can ask for so many acres and look reasonable.”
Okay, I've been a good Freirian here, combining theory and praxis: can I have my street cred back?

Comments

I'm impressed Erin. Someone did her reading assignment for Hayes this week! I always print them, but forget to read.
Erin Elizabeth said…
There's always a first time...

Popular posts from this blog

This post was a whole long longer and more emotional an hour ago...

First off: It's sad that I get better wireless reception in my backyard than in my apartment, right? Sigh. I normally try to stay out of the quagmire that is the abortion debate, but as usually, elyzabethe wrote something insightful about feminist issues that I had to comment on. Actually, I had to comment on the framing war that was going on in the comments section between elyzabethe and another friend. Then I ended up emailing back and forth with her for awhile. Then someone at work mentioned how the "choice" frame is starting to lose ground, even though advocates don't want to admit it. I started scribbling notes, sighed, and thought, "well, I'm gonna have to blog about this." Elyzabeth rants often against anti-choice organizations and legislation, as is her wont as a libertarian feminist. She’s particularly good at teasing out how anti-choice (A, if you’re reading this, bear with me, I’m referring to ‘anti-choice’ as more than just the abortion issu...

I'll show you my danelions if you show me your industry credentials

Okay, kids, we're going to talk about breast feeding versus bottle feeding again in framing class today, so no giggling (you know who you are). I was looking over someone's shoulder on the Metro today and reading an article titled " HHS Toned Down Breast-Feeding Ads ", which reads like a continuation of the administration's meddling in public health : In an attempt to raise the nation's historically low rate of breast-feeding, federal health officials commissioned an attention-grabbing advertising campaign a few years ago to convince mothers that their babies faced real health risks if they did not breast-feed. It featured striking photos of insulin syringes and asthma inhalers topped with rubber nipples. -snip- The ads ran instead with more friendly images of dandelions and cherry-topped ice cream scoops, to dramatize how breast-feeding could help avert respiratory problems and obesity. According to the article, the formula industry didn't block the ads ...

"Cows rise up!" Spokecow proclaims.

At noon on Monday, the Environmental Working Group launched a new farm subsidies database profiling the 358,070 people who've gotten over $34.75 billion in federal subsidies. Twenty-four hours later, the database was already getting 7,000 hits per hour on the new database. Two days later, the website still took five minutes to load. Why all the interest? Well, why did Microsoft's Paul Allen get $30,687 in farm subsidies between 2003-2005? Right here would be a great place for a pun about something smelling like manure, but I don't want to offend any cows, especially since they're organizing .