Opinion Assignment 3
When the word “radical” is used to describe the tactics used by a movement the mind seems to go back to Malcolm X’s mandate of “by any means necessary.” This can easily lead to thoughts of physical confrontations with police or acts of terrorism. For the most part, the radical tactics discussed this week stopped short of these extreme radical approaches but nevertheless can be characterized as “in your face” approaches. As to the question of whether the radical tactics presented are acceptable, it seems to me that it is dependant on whether there is an appropriate degree of fairness or truth involved.
The two articles in this week’s readings that discuss the Clothesline project are very good examples to contrast this “fairness” argument. While the intent of the project, which is to bring attention to the problem of rape, is a good idea for many reasons, but putting the picture of an alleged assailant on a demonstration t-shirt is not only problematic but is unfair. As it was pointed out, some 50% of rape accusations end up being false allegations. With rape being such a serious crime, putting a rape suspect’s picture on a t-shirt without the person having been tried can be ruinous to an innocent victim. I happen to be able to provide a good example of this problem. I am aware of a person who was accused of rape when I was in high school. The authorities waited until this person’s 18th birthday to arrest him so that he could be tried as an adult. The person was hauled off and locked up. It took this young man’s mother enormous effort to get her son released on probation. To cut to the chase, the charges were dropped by the accuser because the accusation was false in the first place. While the person was innocent all along, in today’s electronic age what will be the negative impact in this person’s life for just having been accused? Who would want such an accusation to come up in a background check for a job? How many employers would bypass such a job candidate simply based on this false accusation?
In the case of sidewalk picketing by the pro-life movement, this is an acceptable radical tactical approach. While it may be disruptive to the business being picketed, the ultimate goal is to bring attention to the group’s anti-abortion stance. There is no hidden agenda. Those that observe the picketing recognize that at play is the struggle between the pro-life and pro-choice movements.
Social movements vary significantly in structure, resources, abilities and emotional makeup. The reasoning behind the use of radical tactics varies just as widely. My interpretation of the readings is that it is their overall makeup in contrast to the obstacles that they are trying to influence that in many cases lead to the use of radical tactical approaches. It is difficult to judge when the circumstances call for radical action, but there are fundamental reasons for their use.
One fundamental reason that leads to the use of radical tactics is when the injustice is so great but the movement is too small or insignificant to be heard. If one considers a movement’s monetary resources as an example, in a study by Francis Fox Piven and Richard Cloward of poor people’s movements, they argued that “the most powerful tool of the oppressed is their ability to disrupt things.” It seems to me that such groups would resort to tactics that would fall under the “by any means necessary”. Another good example of this is provided by the blog on the Human Rights of Native American Women by April Greyeyes, a student in this class. Consider the women enduring domestic violence and rape in remote areas of Alaska. What do they have to do to be heard? It seems that the issue calls for drastic action.
Another scenario that seems to bring about drastic action by a movement is when the “enemy” is perceived to be too powerful. A good example of this is offered by DANs (Direct Action Network) efforts to significantly disrupt the WTO gathering in Seattle. They blocked the entrance to the convention center; they disrupted the proceedings inside, and demonstrated very effectively to the extent that no agreements were reached by the WTO member gathering. This was a huge movement undertaking where some 50,000 demonstrators participated. When your target is considered to be the “spearhead of the present surge toward economic globalization” and is made up of 135 member nations, what are you going to do?
Just to interject one more aspect that leads to radical behavior, and in which some groups simply believe that it is an effective tool. This seems to be the case for the movement that I chose to highlight in this class. PETA definitively employs such tactics and they openly admit it. Their president Ingrid Newkirk is quoted as having said that “the fact is we are the biggest group because we succeed in getting attention. … The fact is we may be doing all sorts of things on a campaign but the one thing that gets attention is the outrageous thing. It simply goes to prove to us each time that, that is the thing that’s going to work; and so we won’t shirk from doing that facet — in addition to all the other things we do that you never hear about because no one cares.” The degrees to which their approaches are valid probably vary. One tactic that they use is to infiltrate big companies such as Covance, which conducts tests on animals, and film their practices. They have been accused of doctoring the film to their advantage in making a particular point. To what extent that is true or false I do not know, but again it gets back to this situation of fairness. Is the behavior involved appropriate, or is the company being attacked in this case being misrepresented.
In conclusion, social movements vary significantly in their character, and just as significant are the reasons used to justify the use of radical tactics. In my opinion, “in your face” tactics have a place in social movements, but I believe that the decision as to whether to employ a given tactic should be judged with an eye on fairness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals
