Animal Rights Movement

In listening to the presentation given in class today on the Animal Rights Movement, I was reminded of our class discussion awhile back in which it was stated that PETA advertises itself through the use of naked women. At the time, I had no clue what PETA was and I was confused at what message they were trying to get across by photographing naked women. But hearing the presentation on the Animal Rights Movement and subsections within, made it a bit more clear. Yet I still have a hard time swallowing the use of pornography in an attempt to support a movement. I understand the philosophy of using a graphic image to draw attention; I was, after all, the one who presented a movement built off of that same strategy. The difference, however, was that Justice For All uses pictures of images relevant to their movment. They show pictures of aborted babies to get the public thinking about abortion. Emmett Till's mother showed the world a picture of her black son's murdered body to get the world thinking about the racisist injustice occuring. But female nudity to draw attention to animals and their fur? Not enough justification if you ask me.

Although this type of advertising may attract the attention of the public (especially considering pornography is a million dollar industry), I do not think it is a wise strategy for PETA to use. I believe different methods of catching the attention of the public can be thought of than degrading women and their bodies. Where are high standards our country once knew? Where are the values? I believe the Animal Rights Movement works for a good cause and is an important movement. So the fact that naked women are photographed in their advertisments is like a double negative. Its hypocritical. Protesting one indecency to advocate another cancels itself out. I vote PETA finds a new strategy.

Presentation on N.O.W.

I found the presentation done on the National Organization for Women, or NOW, social movement to be particularly interesting. When I think of feminism as a movement, I often think of it in past tense because it is not a movement I often hear about in the mainstream news. I usually think of the fight for women’s right to vote and the struggle of women breaking in to the workforce as the feminist movement, but do not see it existing today. With the so called “third wave” of NOW, it is easier to put the present day action taking place into perspective. As we have learned in our class this semester, there is often much work going on under the radar that is not seen by the public eye. Just because I do not hear of large NOW protests going on, does not mean the feminist movement is a movement of the past.

I think that as more women achieve high levels of education, the power of women will increase and give more dominance to movements such as NOW. With educated women graduating school and seeking jobs, some of the top positions of power will be held by women. I think we will begin to see more action from feminist movements as the years go on, and roles of women in history will continue to increase and impact our society.

Praise the Unpraised

I found Paul Hendrickson’s article “The Ladies Before Rosa: Let Us Now Praise Unfamous Women” to be very interesting because it gives appreciation to the unknown women who are behind social movements; a topic within itself that is usually unaddressed. Hendrickson says that the civil rights movement, specifically, was driven by women who have never been heard of, or praised. This was largely because of their gender and their “behind the scenes” work. In most of the poor, black communities, the men had to work to support their families. As a result, the men had little time to be involved in the movement and much less interact with white men and women. The black women, however, had more time to come together and plan. The women also had political cover because people did not expect poor, black, uneducated women to take action. But boy were they wrong.

Many black women saw the impact that their involvement could have on their children. They saw that the more change they helped to bring about, the better life their own child would hopefully have. This was a huge motivation factor for women. If it weren’t for the involvement of so many undercover women in the civil rights movement, I believe that it would have taken a lot longer for change to come about. Most of the women did not mind that they did not receive credit for their action. Many of them were in fear that if they had been exposed then their lives would be in danger. I think it is important for us to remember all the “unfamous” women who took action and helped fight for their cause. This is seen not only in the civil rights movement, but in most movements today. Much of the work and organizing is done behind the scenes by many “small” people who do not usually receive credit. Looking at this year’s Obama campaign, you can see how he tried to play off of this concept by stressing the importance of every single individual. Obama knew that making everyday people feel important and special would encourage them to support him and take action because they would feel as if they were truly helping change come about. He also tried to constantly give credit, praise, and encouragement to them to keep them motivated and energized. We can see how this tactic largely worked and made thousands of people feel as if they were apart of something large and great and that they were united in their efforts to bring him to presidency. Obama knew people have a thirst for meaning and recognition in their lives, so it was very smart of him to play on that aspect of human lives. It obviously brought him much success.

As said in class, I think it is important to remember that behind every name we know and hear, there are many more names of people working behind them. A movement is rarely ever brought upon by one person. When you know someone has worked hard towards something without ever hearing but appreciation, make the point of encouraging them and thanking them for their contribution.

Letter From a Birmingham Jail

On April 16, 1963, Martin Luther King Jr. wrote a letter commonly known as “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” to white clergy men in response to their criticism. In this long letter, King answers to the criticism of his direct actions as being “unwise and untimely.” The 8 white clergy men believed the proper way to deal with injustice was through the courts, with patience and indirect action. While sitting in the Birmingham jail, King decided to write a response to these men to explain and defend his actions, as well as attempt to move them to see their unjust attitudes as well.

Being a clergy man himself, King knew that to argue his position to the white clergy gentlemen, would take specific references to the Bible and other sources they would find credible. For example, King compares his duty to carry the message of freedom “beyond his home town” to Paul’s journey from Tarsus to carry the gospel of Jesus Christ to the world. King is trying to get them to see that he cannot sit by “idly” and do nothing when there is much work to be done. The cause he is fighting for, he sees as worthy enough to give his life just as Paul did. King believed as did the clergy men, that Paul was doing the will of God by spreading the truth to people who did not have it. Similarly, King is saying that he must spread the truth of freedom to those who cannot see their injustice. King goes on to cite Socrates’ belief in the importance of creating tension in the mind of individuals to push them to seek truth, and compares it to the need to create tension in society to push people to awareness and action against the racism. He argues that nothing will change unless people do something. Hence, indirect action will get them no where.

King continues to argue that simply having patience and waiting for a situation to change is not possible. People who are doing the oppression will never be moved to stop oppressing unless they are forced to give it up. For example, Adolf Hitler would have continued to oppress millions of Jews and “unworthy” people had no one stepped in and put an end to the corruption. If the world had sat by and had “patience” that the evil killing would stop, who knows how long it would have continued. In the same way, King argues, people need to nonviolently take action so that negotiation can then occur and change can come about. He addresses the clergymen’s criticism about breaking the law by giving examples from the Bible and from history. He says that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego broke the law of King Nebuchadnezzar when they refused to worship another God. Our country broke the law during what became known as the Boston Tea Party, to take action to get the attention of the public. King wanted the clergymen to see that it is sometimes necessary to break laws which are unjust and morally wrong. By supporting his argument with Biblical and historical examples, he is able to strongly state why his behavior is not in the wrong, in a manner that will speak to the clergy.

Another point King touches on is his categorization as an extremist. He says that initially he was disappointed to have been called that, but then he realized that some of the greatest men were extremists for love and justice. Jesus was an extremist for love, Amos for justice, Paul for the Christian gospel, Lincoln for freedom, and Jefferson for equality. King says that if he can be an extremist for justice, freedom, and love than he is doing what he needs to be doing. Again, King is able to prove his point by finding powerful examples of stories that mirror his behavior.

After reading this letter, I was even more convinced that Martin Luther King’s strategies were just what was needed and were justified. I never disagreed with him, but I found it interesting to read his direct thoughts and hear his explanation behind his arguments. If I were one of the white clergymen, I would have been both convicted and convinced by King’s letter. I’d say King’s attempted at explaining, defending, and proving his point was successful and done in a professional, respectful manner.

Success in Social Movements

Della Porta and Diani discuss what it means to have success in social movements, in chapter nine of their textbook. They give 4 ways that success is measured within social movements. The first is policy. Many movements define themselves by the policy that they put out there. If they don’t achieve their goal, they fail. Della Porta and Diani, however, say that a passage of law doesn’t always mean anything, so measuring by policy is not a good method. The second is symbolic messages. Some movements think that spreading messages to others is most effective. Della Porta and Diani say that when this is done right, it can be more effective than policies because the law can change, but symbolic messages can be consistently effective. Yet social movements often still need the law to change what they want. The third measurement is increased influence of the movement. Politicians sometimes find ways to make movements part of the commission by ways such as giving normal citizens the right to participate. When this occurs, many movements feel as though they have reached a success. Yet the government can make those decisions to please the movements, without really giving them much power or gain. The fourth and final measurement Della Porta and Diana discuss is whether or not the movement leads to change throughout society. If their accomplishment emboldens other movements, then many people see the movement as a success.

Defining success within a movement is a tricky thing to do. Perhaps what really defines success is just a matter of opinion. In movements like the Civil Rights movement, it is evident that they achieved success because they made changes starting small, and ending big – end to segregation, the right to vote, and the road to true equality. However, all a long their journey to their final end results, there were many successes as each small victory contributed to the overall achievements of the movement. Maybe success can not be defined in the midst of present movements; maybe it takes looking back on past efforts and evaluating their effectiveness in the present. Perhaps true success is found in persistence, determination, and hard work a lone.

Civil Rights Movement

The Morris article “A Retrospective on the Civil Rights Movement: Political and Intellectual Landmarks”, is an overview of the importance of the Civil Rights movement in our history. Morris points out how important this is because he says that you can see a huge change in history because of the direct doing of the movement. There are a number of elements of this particular social movement that make it different and important from other social movements. One is the use of nonviolent protests that occurred in the Civil Rights Movement. This was a different strategy than most movements that had been seen, and as a result, it had a huge affect on the public. It showed maturity in part of the African Americans fighting for what they believed. It showed they were so serious about their cause that they were willing to try new methods of protest to fight earnestly and persistently. Martin Luther King and other leaders of the Civil Rights movement knew that violent protests before them had failed miserably, and so they knew that a different, unique approach would be in their best interest. Another strategy of the Civil Rights movement was communication technology. As this expanded, so did the social movement. The Civil Rights movement was one of the first large movements to be heavily covered by the media, with recordings and photos. This helped spread the news to people all over the country and worked in favor of the movement. Thirdly, there was much migration of blacks into cities, which made it easier for them to socialize and team up together. Although the pace of the Civil Rights movement seemed slow, these strategies helped to lead them to change in a permanent and effective manner. Each nonviolent protest led to another one, and created a ripple effect.

The Gordon article entitled “Black Males in the Civil Rights Movement” discusses the importance of individuals within movements. For example, Martin Luther King and Malcolm X are just two prominent leaders of their movements who were responsible for much of the work that was accomplished within their movements. Gordon says that individuals are important in movements because they provide leadership for the movement and they create a symbol which encourages other leaders in the future. He also says that these leaders are largely responsible for their movements.

I would agree with both of these articles. Examining movements that occur today, you can see how the example of nonviolent successful movements has modeled the behavior for most current movements. There seems to be a lot less violence in movements today, and as a result, I believe people have a lot less tolerance for violence within social movements. It would be extremely offensive in America today, if an extremist group against blacks violently attacked a black community. In the 1960s, this was a common occurrence, but today it would be unthinkable for the majority of citizens.

Leaders are still a prominent component of social movements. Movements need a figure in charge who can be the head of the movement, and the face and voice that represents the movement. I do not think that movements are as effective without one leader who serves as the spokesperson. I think that if the Civil Rights movement did not have MLK, or someone similar in charge, they would not have attained the change that they did because they would not have appeared as organized and serious. It would have been easier for the government to ignore them if they did not have one leader on top, with mature realistic plans of action. Due to the success of the Civil Rights movement, the organization of social movements in our world has been forever changed.

Policing Protests

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.