> AFIK, the so-called activistists have nothing to show beyond tough
> talk. It is the liberal groups like Moveon.org that get results,
> even if those results may sometimes be disappointing. Check out
> Gamson's book _The strategy of social protest_ in which he examines
> social movements in this country in a historical perspective and
> concludes that only those who accepted a compromise and cooptation
> to the mainstream that accomplished some social changes. The
> uncompromising tough-talkers and radicals were simply swept aside
> and into irrelevance.
Reading William A. Gamson's The Strategy of Social Protest is unlikely to lead one to conclude that liberal groups such as MoveOn.org will "get results."
Gamson says that "[g]roups that were active and disruptive have fared far better than those that were passive when attacked and that never used constraints as a means of influence" ("Reflections on 'The Strategy of Social Protest'," Sociological Forum 4.3, September 1989, p. 458). In case there is any misunderstanding that he is saying that "violence works," Gamson clarifies: "_Strategy_ argues that violence is more a symptom of success than a cause, that it arises out of impatience and hubris rather than desperation because all else has failed. Further, it should be thought of as a property of an interaction, not as a conscious strategy of a challenger . . . a choice about how to respond to the violence or potential violence of its antagonists. It is more accurate to interpret the results as 'feistiness works' rather than 'violence works.' Feistiness includes the willingness to break rules and use noninstitutionalized means -- to use disruption as a strategy of influence" (p. 458-9).
MoveOn.org and like groups are doomed to failure, by Gamson's standard, as they are totally lacking in the willingness to break rules and use noninstitutionalized means, to use disruption as a strategy of influence.
Yoshie Furuhashi <http://montages.blogspot.com> <http://monthlyreview.org> <http://mrzine.org>