Often times when social movements become political, control and power from the state and/or government become involved. Della Porta and Diani discuss this topic in chapter 8 of their textbook. They say that states need to find some way to deal with social movements. The easiest way for states to do this is to give in to what the social movements are demanding. Yet as logic tells us, this is not always possible. One reason for that is because there is almost always a counter-movement to every movement. So if a particular social movement is fighting for a change in the state and/or government, there is usually another movement fighting hard for the opposite side. So the government may temporarily silence and please one social movement, but the counter-movement will remain demanding. Della Porta and Diani point out that this creates a constant battle for the state and for social movements.
They list three strategies that can be used to control social movements. The first one is coercive strategies. This is when the government threatens the social movements with some sort of appraisal for their actions. An example of this would be getting arrested and put in jail. As has been seen with the civil rights movement, this strategy does not always work. A determined movement will not be stopped in the face of threats. The second strategy is the persuasive strategy that attempts to persuade movements to take another channel for change, then the one they are using. The third strategy is the informative strategy which is when the government gives social movements information about a new way they could go about protesting. This could be seen as the government’s attempt to negotiate with the social movements, without the government really giving up anything. Della Porta and Diana say that sometimes the government has to be tolerant of social movements, although a lot of tolerance can equal a lot of initiative taking within social movements. They also mention how all it takes is a few uncooperative people within a movement, to mess everything up and give it a bad name. When this happens, the government can than resort to controlling it, if they so choose.
On a smaller scale, an example of this can be seen in the fight to protest the passing of Title IX at JMU. A body of students enraged at the decision to cut out numerous JMU sports, decided to come together in an effort to petition and protest the new declaration. JMU did not really have the option of giving in to the student’s request to bring them back, because counter to the movement was the rule about female/male sport ratios and many other reasons why officials in charge would not allow the school to refute their decision. So the strategy that JMU seemed to resort to was the informative strategy. They tried to inform, or educate, us students as to why exactly they did what they did. They attempted to explain and justify their actions, as a way to calm the student body down, and bring back support for JMU. In a sense, this strategy worked because the majority of the students eventually backed off, thinking there was nothing that they could really do to change Title IX. It is evident that the strategies Della Porta and Diana talked about are still used today.
They list three strategies that can be used to control social movements. The first one is coercive strategies. This is when the government threatens the social movements with some sort of appraisal for their actions. An example of this would be getting arrested and put in jail. As has been seen with the civil rights movement, this strategy does not always work. A determined movement will not be stopped in the face of threats. The second strategy is the persuasive strategy that attempts to persuade movements to take another channel for change, then the one they are using. The third strategy is the informative strategy which is when the government gives social movements information about a new way they could go about protesting. This could be seen as the government’s attempt to negotiate with the social movements, without the government really giving up anything. Della Porta and Diana say that sometimes the government has to be tolerant of social movements, although a lot of tolerance can equal a lot of initiative taking within social movements. They also mention how all it takes is a few uncooperative people within a movement, to mess everything up and give it a bad name. When this happens, the government can than resort to controlling it, if they so choose.
On a smaller scale, an example of this can be seen in the fight to protest the passing of Title IX at JMU. A body of students enraged at the decision to cut out numerous JMU sports, decided to come together in an effort to petition and protest the new declaration. JMU did not really have the option of giving in to the student’s request to bring them back, because counter to the movement was the rule about female/male sport ratios and many other reasons why officials in charge would not allow the school to refute their decision. So the strategy that JMU seemed to resort to was the informative strategy. They tried to inform, or educate, us students as to why exactly they did what they did. They attempted to explain and justify their actions, as a way to calm the student body down, and bring back support for JMU. In a sense, this strategy worked because the majority of the students eventually backed off, thinking there was nothing that they could really do to change Title IX. It is evident that the strategies Della Porta and Diana talked about are still used today.
No comments:
Post a Comment