Social Movements and Social Change - Introduction (SOCI 1306)

Social Movements and Social Change SOCI 1306 Introduction The most vivid and dramatic images that spring to mind when thinking of social movements are frequently those of the Boston Tea Party, Martin Luther King Jr.'s 1963 March on Washington, anti-war demonstrators placing flowers in soldiers' rifles, and Gloria Richardson removing a bayonet in Cambridge, Maryland. Or even more graphic images, such burning buildings in Watts, demonstrators battling police, or a lone civilian in front of a row of tanks in Tiananmen Square. However, social action happens on a daily basis by individuals of different ages and backgrounds, frequently without any publicity or images. People can take part in or support social movements by planning awareness events, working at shelters, making donations to charities, giving speeches at school board meetings, campaigning for office, or publishing articles. Some individuals use books or trainings to educate themselves, which motivates societal change. Some locate assistance from one individual at a time. A unique movement, Occupy Wall Street (OWS) broke with some of the conventional wisdom on social movements, both theoretically and practically. OWS is unique in that it targets financial institutions rather than the government, lacks a unified narrative, and is an unorganised group. A lot of people were confused by OWS, including the media, and many began to wonder, "Who are they, and what do they want?" The group Adbusters wrote on their blog on July 13, 2011: "Are you prepared for a Tahrir moment? Flood into lower Manhattan on September 17th, erect nonviolent barricades, tents, and kitchens, and take over Wall Street (Castells 2012). The 2010 political revolt that started in Tunisia and expanded throughout the Middle East and North Africa, including Egypt's Tahrir Square in Cairo, was referred to as the "Tahrir moment". The Arab Spring served as a trigger for OWS, a reaction to the ongoing financial upheaval that followed the 2008 market crash rather than a political movement. According to Manuel Castells (2012), there has been a startling rise in the wealth gap in the US since the 1980s in the years preceding the Occupy movement. The actual hourly wages of the ordinary worker climbed by just 2 percent throughout this period, while the wealthiest 1 percent of the country kept 58 percent of the economic gain for themselves. The richest 5 percent now possessed 42% more wealth. At that time, a CEO's average salary was 350 times that of an ordinary worker, as opposed to 1983, when it was less than 50 times (AFL-CIO 2014). Dubbed "too big to fail," the nation's top financial institutions were in jeopardy when several ill-qualified customers stopped making home loan payments when the interest rates increased. These borrowers were plainly to blame for the catastrophe. Eventually, the government used $700 billion in public funds to "bailed" out the banks. Numerous sources state that substantial incentives were given to traders and key executives in the same year. The occupation started on September 17, 2011, the anniversary of the United States Constitution's signing. Wall Street was besieged by about a thousand demonstrators, and then up to 20,000 of them marched into nearby Zuccotti Park, where they set up a makeshift tent village and set up a communication network. The demonstration quickly gained national traction, and its participants took to referring to themselves as "the 99 percent." There were Occupy demonstrations in over a thousand cities and towns. What was it they desired? OWS has been labelled by Castells as "A non-demand movement: The process is the message." With a long list of reforms and social changes, including the need to address the growing wealth gap, the impact of money on elections, the idea of "corporate personhood," a corporatised political system (to be replaced by "direct democracy"), political favouritism of the wealthy, and growing student debt, the protesters used Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, and live-stream video to convey their message. What were they able to achieve? Income inequality and the apparent preferential treatment of financial companies accused of wrongdoing are two issues that OWS is credited for bringing attention to, despite headlines at the time lightly ridiculing the movement for lacking cohesiveness and clear narrative. Remember from the Crime and Deviance chapter that few financial crimes are pursued, and those who commit them seldom go to jail. The broader public is probably more aware of such concerns than they were prior to the Occupy and associated movements bringing them to light. What are the long-term consequences? Has America's approach to handling inequality changed? Without a doubt. In general, income disparity has gone up, as various chapters have explored. Is a significant change in our future, though? In 1962, James C. Davies, who passed away, proposed in his article "Towards a Theory of Revolution" that a major shift in society depends on the mood of the populace and that individuals living in great poverty are very unlikely to be able to overthrow a government since the government is incomparably more powerful. Rather, when individuals in positions of authority become involved, change is more likely to occur. People who were formerly wealthy become more upset and have mood swings when their demands and expectations are not satisfied. Revolution happens when an unbearable point is eventually reached. As a result, change originates somewhere in the centre of the social hierarchy rather than at the absolute bottom (Davies 1962). For instance, the majority of the young, educated individuals who spearheaded the Arab Spring had their hopes and aspirations dashed by despotic, corrupt regimes. OWS likewise emerged from the centre, having taken use of social media's ability to improve communication rather than from the bottom.