Wednesday Assignment 3

Throughout the history of social movements, there have usually been two routes the social movement could go. Either the movement could follow the adherence to civil disobedience like the one Martin Luther King Jr. advocated, or the more radical approach of any means necessary advocated by Malcolm X. Sometimes a movement uses both routes, non-violent and more radical or violent approaches. Are any of these forms of more radical protest acceptable, and if so, under what circumstances? Can it be acceptable in one situation and not another?

It is difficult to think about whether a certain type of protest can be considered radical. For example, the sidewalk picketing by the pro-life movement may not be radical to them, but to the outsiders it can seem to be. Oftentimes, pro-life groups will picket the entrances of abortion clinics with big signs with catchy sayings on them, or even pictures of alleged aborted fetuses, in order to stop women from going in. In the minds of the pro-lifers, abortion is a matter of life and death; they are there to save the unborn children, so holding a few signs in order to further their agenda seems rather trivial. To outsiders though, this constitutes a violation of women’s rights. This form of protest causes fear and regret in women who want to exercise their right. The Clothesline Project, which addresses issues by decorating shirts with their message and hanging them up at university campuses, can have a more radical side. At the University of Maryland, they wanted to list accused rapists on their shirts for the public to see. Although rape and sexual assault are serious crimes, the article by Glenn Sacks lists several studies showing that around 40%-60% of rape accusations are false. People are accused of crimes against women, or even men, every day in this country, and many end up being innocent. It is unfair to people who have not been found guilty to be painted as guilty in their regular social realms. This form of radical protest obviously has problems. Even though the university banned the shirts with named accusers, there were still several people from Students Against Violence who wore the shirts.

The thought of anarchism is also interesting. Is it ever acceptable to overthrow an entire government or part of government? Is there ever a need for something as radical as anarchism? “While anarchists disagree about strategies and tactics, including the need for formal organizations and the use of violent action to overthrow existing violent institutions, most agree that the focus must not be on merely destroying the current order, but on fashioning new, more humane and more rational alternatives to take its place.” (Highleyman 1995) I think it is very possible and needed that some parts of the government’s way of doing things be dismantled. Moral, ethical, and many other issues, which are now federal or state laws, have no business being so. Anarchism was important, although overshadowed by other causes, during the 1960s movements including feminism, gay liberation movements, and the anti-war movements. (Highleyman 1995) Every once in a while, the establishment of government needs to realize that they are here for the people of the United States rather than themselves. I think the United States would actually be better off with more protests involving an anarchist undertone. It seems every day in the news that there are more laws, rules, and regulations going into effect regarding issues in which the government should have no authority. Yes, anarchism protests can be radical, but sometimes radical things need to be done. Where would the civil rights movement, gay rights movement, feminist movement, anti-war(s) movement, etc. be without radical and oftentimes anarchical protests.

To some, the above forms of protest may seem radical, especially anarchism, but to others they may not. I think there are several political and social circumstances that make it acceptable to take it to the next level of protesting. If someone’s life or livelihood is threatened, or repeatedly threatened, then I think it is okay for protesters to turn it up a notch. A good example would be the Civil Rights Movement. African Americans were lynched, sent to prison, not allowed the same jobs, not allowed to live around white people, not allowed to eat around white people, not allowed to go to the same schools as white people. While this was happening, those in the political field of the United States continued year after year to oppress African Americans with racially- motivated laws and oppression by the police forces. This is a perfect example, in my mind, of when it is okay to take protests to the next level. Another is the gay rights movement. For years, they have had oppression from the state and their peers regarding their way of life, and most importantly, their right to live their lives how they see fit. I think oppression by the police forces and the inability for political leaders to listen to a particular group is also a good example of when it is okay for “in your face” tactics. If your audience, as a social movement, is not listening, then you must turn up the volume.