The Futility and Selfishness of Protest

The protests that work are strategic and focused. While the argument can be made that protesting the Iraq war at highway overpasses raises consciousness and keeps the issue in the forefront of people's minds, I agree with you that it doesn't really DO anything or CHANGE anything. But protests like the Unity at Gallaudet protest in D.C. two years ago really lead to measurable change. The students at Gallaudet were upset with the appointment of a president who doesn't sign so they organized and they shut down the campus for about a week. The president was replaced. It worked because they targeted their protests in a place where it matters. Protesting human rights abuses in your high school won't get much done. The protest has to get to the people committing the crimes...as it does in the letter writing campaign. Keep it up!

http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman

Interesting post. For the most part, I think you're right, although I submit that a worthwhile protest encourages the actions you suggest are important.

I've been raised to believe that demonstrating injustice is the initial step towards change. "I just don't understand why people aren't in the streets," my dad often says. His generation, I deduce, sees protests as seriously meaningful gigs.

Look at the protests during Vietnam--it's difficult to argue that they didn't sway public opinion. French protests and marches--they're held for just about anything.

Honestly I believe that protests have been fazed out of our culture. There are probably many reasons for this. I'd point to the shrinking middle class and a growing inability (financially and logistically) to attend such rallies. I read this year that group attendence in America is rapidly becoming a thing of the past. If you've read Tocqueville, you know that group formation and participation was what he (a French foreigner) was most impressed by.

Do you have any other explanations for our dwindling participation in protests and groups?

I haven't read Alexis de Tocqueville, though I've studied him briefly and read that very statement recently (in fact, it was in Ron Paul's book that I mentioned in a comment on one of your blog posts). The America he described, and revered, was a nation of individuals who could gather together for a common cause, with no initiative from corporate interests or the government. It was real democracy; rule of the people by the people. I'll agree with you that Americans are no longer as interested in such things; many of us have been seized by apathy and political malaise, perhaps a result of our schedule-oriented hectic lives. On the other hand, though, many community groups continue to thrive.

I think it's a good point about protests being for the most part an exercise in egoism. But as you mentioned Ghandi and MLK, I believe protests have their place and time. When a group of people have no other means by which to affect change in their situation or the situation of others, what is better than public protests? I'm reminded of the protests by Buddhist monks in Burma against the military junta that essentially holds the country hostage, and the ensuing media coverage. These are people that might not have had any other way of making their voices heard (short of the setting themselves on fire like some predecessors).
On another note...Amnesty International...isn't letter writing a non-direct form of public protest? Isn't it of the same or lesser value than a group of protesters shouting themselves hoarse? I feel like the value of having some flunky in some senator's office reading your letter and promptly filing it may be less valuable than actually standing outside his office yelling :)

What is a gross over-generalization? Can you be more specific?

I don't know if this is an understandable distinction, but here goes. I'm not trying to judge people with piercings, I'm simply making an observation. If you have a facial piercing, you are trying to get someone's attention. You don't get a piercing to blend into the wallpaper. You get a bellybutton piercing because it's cute, because you want to show off your stomach, or you get a lip piercing because you want people to notice you're different. I took an art class with a guy who would pierce his lower lip with two safety pins every other week or so. It may have been to make a statement, but part of that statement was "Look at me". Now, that grossed me out because it was a little bloody, and I have no tolerance for blood, but generally I'm pretty numb to body modification. I'm just saying that you don't do it if you don't want attention of some sort.

What I'm saying is applicable across the board. As a general statement (yes, I know), piercings are a way of drawing attention to oneself. You like the way it looks because it makes you stand out, because it's different from what you usually see. You think it's cute because you like your stomach and think it draws attention to it. You think it makes a statement, and a statement by definition implies the need for attention. I'm not trying to assign some kind of value judgment to body modification, I'm just making an observation. People don't get piercings unless they want to be noticed in some way. I know it's a generalization, but oftentimes generalizations are based in fact.
And on whoever said they want an eyebrow piercing - don't do it unless you sleep on your back. I sleep on my stomach and it was uncomfortable and increased the chances of infection.