Opinion Assignment 4

I agree with Naomi Klein’s position that today’s “corporatized” form of protest is less powerful and less dangerous in contrast to the numerous other movements or styles of protest that have been discussed in this class. It seems to me that today’s approach is significantly based on personal convenience whereas in the past it was based more on personal sacrifice. It is my guess that if you ask the general public what are the major movements at play in our society today most people would struggle to give an answer. The most popular answer that I think you would get would have to do with the Iraq war or immigration. However, in terms of movements of the caliber of the anti-Vietnam war and Civil Rights protests that were very visible and constantly in the news, who are these groups today? Here in the U.S., today’s society is pretty outspoken about the topics of Iraq and immigration, but these are different from an actual movement or organized radical activism. The present activism approach is weaker because it does not attack the root of the problem like how it would have been treated in the past. In the case of fighting poverty, how does one get governments to interact in this global economy? What about the governmental parties who are responsible for the unacceptable distribution of food around the world?  The Bono-ization approach is a means of helping a given problem, but does not address the crux of a given issue.

There are numerous reasons why activism is different today. One reason cited in the Delaney article, where long time activist Peter Tatchell is quoted, is that today “there is a sense of political powerlessness plus there has been a shift to the right.” My interpretation as to what is meant here by a “shift to the right” is that the activism approach is more conservative based – which goes along with the dominant political stance. Maybe another way of saying it is to say that the approach is less liberal therefore less radical.  The sense of powerlessness to those more liberal minded is that those in power are doing what they want and are in a position to ward off radical tactics. So if you are in favor of radical change you can yell and scream all you want, but it seems like nobody is listening.

Another fundamental reason why activism is different today is a result of the internet. The internet provides many ways for someone to vent and express their true feeling about their choice issue. This is all well and good but once again because this energy is not effectively focused and organized it is a much weaker means of bringing about radical change.  When it comes to the use of computers today there is a word that is used a lot and that word is “virtual”.  I can envision having a virtual protest on the internet where many participants take place but it is not the type of activism that puts significant pressure on those responsible for a given problem. I do not mean to imply that the Internet is not a powerful tool, but as a tool it should be a component of protest but not the main thrust behind activism. 

Additionally, the Bono-ization style of protest, while it offers many the opportunity to participate, is a weak form of engagement on the part of most individual participants. Civil Rights change, defeating the Equal Rights Amendment, and working to end the war in Vietnam required the ultimate in human energy and sacrifice by those who participated in those movements. As pointed out by Klein, in referring to the Bono camp, “I think people go to concerts because its fun but I don’t get a sense from anyone I talk to that it’s effective politically.”  It is not necessarily a total embrace or affirmation on the part of the participants of all that the main spokesperson subscribes to.  Whereas protests like the Freedom Riders and anti-Vietnam movement involved passionate participants. I do not see the Bono-ization style of protest having a big impact on these types of challenges.

I think that there is an interesting component in the struggle within the gay and lesbian movement presented by Hequembourg and Arditi that can be contrasted against present versus past protest approaches. The internal gay and lesbian struggle is divided by the argument over assimilation. One group, those in favor of assimilation, is for extending their rights by “gaining access to heterosexual privilege.” The non-assimilationist group is interested in a “radical break with conventional understandings of sexuality” and in “transforming the very fabric of society.” The group in favor of assimilation argues that gaining such rights, which equates to a partial transformation, is a good idea because it is through such successive transformations that you ultimately end up getting what you want. The other group argues that by accepting to be “pigeon-holed” into how mainstream society is structured that they run the risk of being “domesticated” and will never be able to realize their ultimate goal which is to be free to define acceptable relationships. The assimilationist’s position compares to the Bono-ization approach, as described by Klein, in that both approaches “are legitimizing the structures in place, and the inequalities that arise from these structures, rather than promoting any radical change.”   The non-assimilationist’s are for confronting the opposition by use of radical tactics in the hope of eventually getting what they feel they deserve.

In conclusion, as a standalone approach to protest, I think that today’s Bono-ization style of protest is weak. It does have the attribute of working effectively from within, given the access from the wealthy to government leaders. However, the cause of the problem being addressed is not necessarily the target of this type of protest. In order to be effective in achieving radical change it also requires the “in your face”, confrontational form of engaged activism.