We intended to highlight that, in fact, much about the protest movement could be understood if you paid attention to the societal conditions which shape and limit what the people who engage in protest can do. (67-8)

The Answer that emerged from these investigations was that electoral-representative procedures accomplished a substantial dispersal of power in a less-than-perfect world.  It followed that those who struggled against their rulers by defying the procedures of the liberal democratic state were dangerous troublemakers, or simply fools.

In the 1960s, the dominant pluralist tradition was discredited, at least among those on the ideological left who were prodded by outbreaks of defiance among minorities and students to question this perspective.  In the critique that emerged it was argued that there were not two systems of power, but that the power rooted in wealth and force overwhelmed the power of the franchise.  The pluralists had erred, the critics said, by failing to recognize the manifold ways in which wealth and its concomitants engulfed electoral-representative procedures, effectively barring many people from participation while deluding and entrapping others into predetermined electoral “choices.”  The pluralists had also erred by ignoring the consistent bias toward the interests of elites inherent in presumably neutral governing structures, no matter what the mandate of the electorate. (70-1)

Piven writes that ordinarily, in short, the lower classes accept their lot, and that acceptance can be taken for granted; it need not be bargained for by their rulers.  This capacity of the institutions of a society to enforce political docility is the most obvious way in which protest is socially structured, in the sense that it is structurally precluded most of the time.

Sometimes, however, the poor do become defiant.  They challenge traditional authorities, and the rules lay down by those authorities. They demand redress for their grievances.  American history is punctuated by such events, from the first uprisings by freeholders, tenants, and slaves in colonial America, to the post-revolutionary debtor rebellions, through the periodic eruptions of strikes and riots by industrial workers, to the ghetto riots of the twentieth century.  In each instance, masses of the poor were somehow able, if only briefly, to overcome the shame bred by a culture which blames them for their plight; somehow, they were able to break the bonds of conformity enforced by work, by family, by community, by every strand of institutional life; somehow, they were able to overcome the fears induced by police, by militia, by company guards.  (74)

Piven writes that political impact of institutional disruptions depends upon electoral conditions.  Even serious disruptions, such as industrial strikes, will force concessions only when the calculus of electoral instability favors the protestors.  And even then, when the protestors succeed in forcing government to respond, they do not dictate the content of those responses.  As to the variety of specific circumstances which determine how much the protestors will gain and how much they will lose, we still have a great deal to learn.

It is not surprising that, taken together, these efforts to conciliate and disarm usually lead to the demise of the protest movement, partly by transforming the movement itself, and partly by transforming the political climate which nourishes protest.  With these changes, the array of institutional controls which ordinarily restrain protest is restored, and political influence is once more denied to the lower class.

One form of government response [to the 1960s] was to make concessions to the protestors, yielding them something of what they demanded, either symbolic or material.    But the mere granting of such concession is probably not very important in accounting for the demise of a movement.  For one thing, whatever is yielded is usually modest if not meager; for another, even modest concessions demonstrate that protest “worked,” a circumstance that might as easily be expected to fuel a movement as to pacify it.

For example, when blacks won the vote in the South and a share of patronage in the municipalities of the North in response to the disturbances of the 1960s, black leaders were absorbed into electoral and bureaucratic politics and became the ideological proponents of the shift “from protest to politics.”

This feature of government [the ability to co-opt] action deserves some explanation because the main reintegrative measures—the right to organize, the right to vote, black representation in city government—were also responses to specific demands made by the protestors themselves.  To all appearances, government simply acted to redress felt grievances.  But the process was by no means as straightforward as that.  As suggested earlier, the movements had arisen through interaction with elites, and had been lad to make the demands they made in response to early encouragement by political leaders.

Nor was it fortuitous that political leaders came to proclaim as just such causes as the right to organize or the right to vote or the right to “citizen participation.”  In each case, elites responded to discontent by proposing reforms with which they had experience, and which consisted mainly of extending established procedures to new groups or to new institutional arenas.  (98)

A Note on the Role of Protest Leadership

Piven concludes “The Structuring of Protest,” by codifying the main point of the chapter from Who’s Afraid of Frances Fox Piven.  The main point she states is that both the limitations and opportunities for mass protest are shaped by social conditions.  The implications for the role of leadership in protest movements can be briefly summarized.

Protest well up in response to momentous changes in the institutional order.  It is not created by organizers and leaders.  And finally, protest in the United States has been episodic and transient, for as it gains momentum, so too do various forms of institutional accommodation and coercion that have the effect of restoring quiescence.  Organizers and leaders cannot prevent the ebbing of protest, nor did the erosion of whatever influence protest yield the lower class.  They can only try to win whatever can be won while it can be won.  (101-2)

Frances Fox Piven and Richard Cloward lay the analytical foundation, while Charles A. Reich sketches out a plan of action.

FROM PROTEST TO STRATEGY

 

         Charles A. Reich

Although Charles A. Reich in Opposing the System was written in the 1990s, it makes constant references to the 1960s, and it is more relevant to today than the times it was written for.  Reich writes that we must move beyond sixties in our protests against the System.  This time protest must find a way to be effective, to unite rather than divide, and to achieve a change of direction.  Sincere but misdirected gestures must be replaced by a strategy that works.  The stakes are much higher now than in the sixties, for we are closer to the brink of non-survival.

ADVICE TO THE OCCUPY MOVEMENT

Reich cautions that we must ascend from spontaneous protest to intelligent opposition.  Protest is directed at particular wrongs.  Opposition seeks to change the System itself.  Unlike protest, opposition requires a correct diagnosis of what is wrong and a believable vision of how things could be better.  Opposition will provide a great learning experience for Americans.

Comparisons of protest then and now can be helpful and important.  In the nineties, protest will not be limited to youth or to students--the elderly will protest; people whose jobs are endangered will protest; there will be protests on behalf of children.  Tangible economic issues such as health care, the minimum wage, and job security will be heard of more frequently than broad abstractions such as "alienation" and "dehumanization."  Protest will be better focused; such divisive [Iraq and Afghanistan and the Tea Party] will not be present to cause confusion.

1960S CORE VALUES OF DEMOCRACY

Professor Edward P. Morgan has summarized the sixties democratic vision as follows:

1.   Equality, or the full inclusion of society's dispossessed;

2.   Personal empowerment, or the liberation of each person from psychological constraints as well as social oppression--a shift from masculinist "power over" to the feminist "power to";

3.   A moral politics grounded on belief in individual growth, compassion for one's fellow human beings--indeed for all life--and intolerance of injustice; and

4.   The central importance of community as a locus for meaningful engagement in life and politics.

The core values of the 1960s must be retained, but a new emphasis on correcting the destructiveness of the economic system, healing the conflicts that are tearing America apart, plus structural and institutional change to accompany personal change.  Protest of the [2012 forward] will avoid the mistake of appearing to be opposed to reason; instead, the chaos and irrationality of the System will be emphasized.  And [2012 protest will avoid the mistakes of appearing to be anti-American, and instead will seek to reclaim the original idea of America from it usurpation by the System. (151-3)

CREATE A NEW MAP OF POLITICAL REALITY

Reich posits that protest and opposition, whatever form they take, can succeed only by challenging the prevailing view of reality.  The task of opposing the System demands that we learn to see the world around us independently of the pictures pressed upon us by the System.

 

 

BATES LOWRY  

As the art historian Bates Lowry has pointed out, seeing is very different from merely looking.  "We are not born with different as babbling and speaking.  Seeing is an act that occurs only with effort; we must train ourselves to see."  What Lowry says concerning art is even truer of perceiving the physical and economic world.  Accordingly, the indispensable tool for opposing the System is a new map of reality.

PROPAGANDA

The existing map has been very carefully developed [through propaganda].  It consists of a series of views, pictures, and models supposedly depicting our world.  Each view is like a picture with a caption.  The caption interprets the picture just as a caption does on a news-photo or as a descriptive title does on a map.  The "views" themselves cover many areas, from the "geography" of society to the impact of the economy.

The best way to challenge this map is to analyze it frame by frame, construct an opposing map, also frame by frame, and if possible try to imagine some views of the unexplored territory outside the System, where a better way of life may be possible.  These three sets of views--Existing map, Opposing map, map of New Territory--will show us that we have a wide choice of views where reality is concerned.  Every view, from whatever map, represents an idea--an idea about reality.  These ideas are immensely powerful.  By coming to recognize them we can gain access to their power.

Existing Map

 

 

1. Short Narrative:  We are living under the best possible economic system.  Our troubles come from excessive individualism and excessive government, both of which developed in the sixties.
2. Public Sector, Private Sector:  America is geographically divided into two sectors, "public and "private," with "public" referring to government.  By dividing America into these two sectors, we are given a view of reality where the private individual and the giant corporation are considered to be alike.  Most important, public--private dichotomy creates the illusion that Jeffersonian "freedom" is to be found outside the reach of public government.  The existence of a deepening conflict between the interests of individuals and the interest of "private" corporations is rendered invisible.
3. All May Rise In The Economy:  This includes several sub-views:  (A) there is room inside the economy for all who want to work.  (B) The work of any adult is exchangeable on the free market for enough money to supply the needs of a family in contemporary America.  (C) Position in the economic hierarchy is determined by a fair competition based upon merit and hard work.  (D) Those who fall into poverty failed to take advantage of opportunities open to them.  This myth is perpetuated by describing the "private sector" as a zone of freedom and equality, rather, than as a zone where individuals confront private economic power.  If it is true that all may rise, then poverty and inequality--even extreme inequality--are the result of the natural forces of competition among human beings.
4. The Economy Is Based Upon A Free Market: Describing our economy as a “free market further supports the image of the “private sector” as a zone of freedom" rather than a carefully managed system with restricted opportunity. Markets are said to possess a wisdom that is somehow superior to human wisdom.  Indeed, this idea of the "market" has been raised to a sacred status equal to democracy itself.  The free-market image prevents us from questioning decisions that are made and paths that are chosen by fallible human beings.
5. Economic Growth Is Universally Beneficial:  Economic or social ills cannot be due to any negative effects of growth, and an explanation for these ills must be sought elsewhere--in human failings or governmental interference.
6. Government Hampers Growth:  The less public government the better, despite the presence of an economic machine that takes governmental actions affecting the entire nation.  According to this view, public government can be local even when the economy is national.  Any growth of government is deemed bad, but any growth of giant corporations is considered good.
7. Everything Essential To Human Life Can be Measured In "Economic" Terms:  Whatever lacks "economic value" may be disregarded, including the natural environment, the human habitat, and human needs for such "noneconomic" values as justice, security, and trust.
8. Individuals Can Supply Their Own Needs without Government Help:  The less people pay in taxes, the better off they are, according to this view.  People can presumably supply their own clean air, pure water, interstate highways, and open spaces.
9. Individuals Need No Protection From The Economic System:  Continuing the free-market myth, we do not need protection against unsafe working conditions, impure food and drugs, banks that fail, or the refusal of employers to bargain fairly with employees.
10. Responsibility Should Be Imposed On Individuals But Not On Organizations:  Under this view, the law should make it easier to punish individuals but more difficult to hold corporations guilty of wrongdoing.  Workers or consumers injured by corporations should be limited in the amount of compensation they may receive, because large judgments add to the cost of doing business.  This illustrates the broader tendency to deny the existence o costs or else to impose costs on those who lack political and economic power.
11. Welfare And Entitlements Are Handouts:  According to this view, individuals who are forced to give up control of their livelihood to centralized managers receive no protection or compensation in return.  The economic machine has no reciprocal responsibilities to individuals.  If the System fails to provide some individuals with an opportunity to earn a living, then it owes them nothing.  Welfare and entitlements are merely a do-good effort by government to "make life better."  Worse, according to this view, welfare represents a "redistribution of wealth" from productive members of society to the unproductive.  The opposing view sees a very different redistribution of wealth: fro those who are excluded by the economy and denied the value of their labor to those who are fortunate enough to have a paying job or other sources of wealth within the System.
12. Welfare Recipients Should Be Required To Work:  This view overlooks the fact that welfare came into being because there were not enough jobs for those who needed them.  Today the shortage of jobs continues, even for those with college degrees.  Requiring work when there no work is a cruel and hypocritical use of a false map of reality.
13. Social Pathology Such As Poverty And Crime Result From Personal Moral Failure, Not Economic Deprivation:  On April 6, 1995, Robert Mac Neil interviewed House Majority Leader Dick Armey on the "Mac Neil-Lehrer News Hour":  MACNEIL: I noticed you were recently, in the Christian Science Monitor, that the Great Society misdiagnosed poverty, as a material, rather than a moral phenomenon.  Can you explain that?  How do you explain poverty as a moral phenomenon?  ARMY: Well, there's no doubt about it.  First of all, it is the strength of our character as individuals that are in fact the way we make our way in life.... Pulling yourself up by your own bootstrap is not an experience alien to America.  You can go into any community you want, including the halls of Congress, and find people that have come from any number of different and varied disadvantaged backgrounds, that have put their shoulder to the wheel, that have sort of deliberately exercised their independence and their ability, demanded that they be evaluated, judged on their own merit in life, and move forward.  These are skills that we learn . . . . MACNEIL:  So you're going to teach America to do this?  ARMEY: We will let America be freer to teach their children, as America will, because America is a nation of loving parents.
14. We Are Becoming A Nation Of Whiners:  An illustration of this view is Charles J. Sykes' book A Nation of Victims: The Decay of the American Characters.  This view is a way of making people blame themselves for grievances and thus abandon the quest for reform.
15. The Two Political Parties Represent A full Spectrum Of Views:  The terms "left," "right," and "center" have altogether lost their original meaning.  The original "Left" (a term for those advocating a socialist form o society) no longer exists.  Those to whom the term "left" is now applied represent the former "center."  What is now called the "center" would have been the "right" not long ago.  The importance of this terminological legerdemain is that it preserves the appearance of a competitive political system offering genuine choice when in fact there is little or no significant difference between Democrats and Republicans.
16. No Essential Change:  This view insists that despite the passage of two hundred years, there has been no essential change in our nation's structure everything that the framers of the Constitution intended still functions in the same way today.  Hence common sense is all that is needed to fix everything, and no new ideas are needed to govern the radically changing economy of the [then] nineties, [as well as the 21st century].

 

 

The forgoing view, Reich states, that are just a few of those that compose the Existing Map.  For contrast, we need a set of view in which the same underlying conditions are de-centered in Part Three.

 

EYE ON IOWA & BEYOND