|
Back to Index
The Strategy of Social Protest
Charles Dobson
Extracted
from: The Troublemaker's Teaparty: A Manual for Effective Citizen Action
2003
January 29, 2008
In The Strategy of
Social Protest, William Gamson looks at 53 citizens groups that operated
in the US sometime between 1800 and 1945 to see what made them successful.
He uses two measures for success: acceptance and advantages. Acceptance
indicates the degree to which antagonists came to view a group as a voice
for a legitimate set of interests. Advantages measures the degree to which
the group achieved objectives or benefits. Gamson's findings suggest that
some recent trends in organizational structure and strategy may be wrong-headed.
Bureaucratic group
structure is an advantage. Bureaucratic groups scored about six times
better on advantages and seven times better on acceptance. Gamson defines
bureaucratic groups as having:
- A written
constitution or charter that sets forth the goals of the organization
- A formal list
of members
- Three levels of
internal division such as executive director, board, rank and file.
Bureaucratic structure
ensured that certain routine but critical tasks got done, and it helps
groups survive long-term challenges. It should be noted that Gamson's
conclusions apply to large groups. There is no need for bureaucratic structure
for small, volunteer, citizens groups.
Centralization
of power is an advantage
Groups with centralized power were twice as likely to earn new advantages
as groups that were not centralized. Gamson attributes this to the "combat
readiness" that comes from having a credible spokesperson or capable
leader able to respond decisively when required to do so, without having
to get the approval of a membership or a board. Today, many groups are
moving in the opposite direction, trying to decentralize power in order
top become more democratic.
Factionalism
is a serious liability
Factionalism, resulting from inability to deal with internal conflict,
meant groups were about three times less able to win advantages and half
as likely to be accepted. Factionalism was about three times more common
in a decentralized group, because centralized power provided a way of
dealing with internal conflict.
Unruliness
works
Real or threatened strikes, boycotts, blockades, disruptive protests,
verbal attacks and ridicule, and threats of violence achieved results.
Groups that employed unruly tactics were twice as successful at securing
advantages as those that did not.
Group size
counts for acceptance
Groups with over 10,000 members were twice likely to be accepted as groups
with fewer than 10,000. However, the difference in size had little bearing
on the ability of a group to win new advantages.
Avoid trying
to displace antagonists
Groups that tried to displace, replace, or destroy antagonists were over
six times less likely to be accepted, and over ten times less likely to
achieve new advantages. According to Gamson, what gets in the way of ambitious
challengers is targets of change unwilling to cooperate in their own demise.
Sometimes the people are the problem, but more often it is better for
activists to focus on fixing the problem rather than attacking the people
involved.
Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.
TOP
|
