The Nature of Protesting

As long as opinions exist human beings will engage in protests against those things with which they disagree. Unfortunately for protesters the general rate of success is rather dismal because most protesters have seemingly forgotten the purpose of protesting and its inherent limitations, especially in modern society. How can protesting become a useful tool for establishing change versus simply being a mobile echo chamber of time wasting annoyance and/or criminal behavior?

The major purpose of protesting is to cast attention to a given issue and either inform others who have the power to influence change or those who are also affected by the issue of its importance and the need for change, but may not already be aware of it. In modern society, especially a Republic or Democracy, the secondary goal of a protest is to act as a persuasion tool to convince others that the issue of the protest is meaningful and worthy of attention. This attention hopefully will lead to a stronger and more unified front for change against the particular issue increasing the probability that there is change.

One of the chief problems with modern protesting is it is imbued with too much emotion and not enough logic. It is understandable that there is an emotional element to protesting for either the acute veracity of a singular event or chronic weight of numerous smaller events typically produces an emotional driver to facilitate individuals into taking the time and effort to publicly air their grievances. However, this emotional aspect of the event(s) underlying the motivation for the protest has lead protesters to make disadvantageous decisions and actions in the process and/or administration of the protest.

Emotional responses and drivers apply an illogical conclusion to believe in a greater necessity to increased frequency of protesting, which relative to the purpose of protesting is commonly detrimental. Basically protesters protest action/policy “y” at greater frequency than they should, because the cause is so emotionally important to them. However, when major protest events occur within close temporal proximity, the impact of those protests towards those not already in support of the “cause” is lessened and even potentially damaging to the success of the cause. For example the group known as “Black Lives Matter” have fallen into this pitfall in their recent activity.

Part of the problem with multiple protest events over a short period of time is it portrays the organization as disingenuous to actively seeking change versus just simply seeking personal attention or notoriety. Most major protests, especially those that spawn organizations to manage the desired change, focus on a meaningful, yet large-scale issue that requires time, resources and effort to produce change. However, multiple protests over a short period of time lead those who do not immediately agree with the protests to conclude, somewhat correctly, that the protesters are not serious about their so-called desire to produce change because they do not understand the process in which that change will occur, if it occurs at all. This attitude will lead individuals to conclude that the organization and perhaps even the cause itself is not worth focusing on, especially in a world where there are already so many other “meaningful” problems.

Some may counter that protests do not just serve as a means to cast attention on a given issue or even rally like-minded individuals and convince “on the fence” individuals, but also to provide an avenue to a frustrated demographic to vent… so to speak. While this initial argument has some merit, its value is only relevant so long as the protests do not significantly interfere with the lives of others in society, for example by stopping/blocking traffic or reducing the effectiveness of economic activity. One may like to punch the air to vent; however, it is not appropriate to punch air that another person’s face is filling. Using violations of the law as a means to “burn off steam” is clearly inappropriate and heavily limits the credibility of any protest and the individuals and/or organizations responsible for it. Therefore, the argument that mass-scale protests can be used as a means to vent is an invalid one that is simply used as a flimsy excuse.

Also these types of protests that block traffic and/or generally inconvenience others are rather foolish from a standpoint of cost-benefit. By inconveniencing others, especially numerous times over a short time period, the protesters are significantly increasing the probability of producing more enemies to their cause. This behavior is meaningful because whereas an individual may have remained on the proverbial sidelines for the protester’s fight, now thanks to the slight by the protesters, either directly or indirectly, that individual may work against the motives of the protesters, perhaps simply out of spite alone. Some could counter that “you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs” (i.e. disruption of the status-quo is necessary for change), but there is definitely a difference between intelligent disruption and needless/foolish disruption and most protest organizations seem to not understand the difference limiting the validity of that argument in relation to their activities.

Overall mass-scale public protesting is only step 1 in the process of producing change by demonstrating that something is a problem and creating a mindset among the populous that the problem must be addressed with haste in the future. However, the real work to change the problem occurs after step 1, for step 1 does not actually achieve any change. Not surprisingly though the steps beyond public protesting are much more difficult both in their initiation and in determining and demonstrating any actual progress towards the goal/change in question.

Unfortunately these challenges appear to trip up most organizations that materialize in the space of step 1. Either these organizations are not capable of transitioning beyond step 1 or they do not care about the events beyond step 1. This lack of skill, ability, influence, etc. traps most organizations in step 1 for through the act of public protesting, these organizations can continue to demonstrate their so-called relevance for public protesting is easy, especially with access to the Internet and the existence of a non-authoritative government. However, as time goes by these organizations are simply lying to their supporters about their relevance because continued public protests on their own will not produce success towards addressing the change these protests claim to desire. Prominent recent examples of this trap are both Black Lives Matter and Occupy Wall Street.

Perhaps that is one of the more unfortunate problems with these organizations, the idea that the “leaders” of these organizations realize that the organization is ill-equipped to accomplish the change, yet cannot acknowledge that it is time to disband or evolve the organization under the idea that such action would be regarded as failure by supporters. Recall it is much more difficult to demonstrate success from meetings in a boardroom than holding up traffic on the street. Therefore, these leaders instead aim to maintain their positions and any benefits that come from those positions, by simply continuing to focus on step 1 in an attempt to obfuscate their own lack of ability and competency by turning the attention of their supporters to the “evil” of the so-called opponent.

While the above position is rather cynical, it is also true that certain organizations function under such a mindset. However, the transition beyond step 1 has also proven difficult for those non-self-aggrandizing organizations. Thus, these organizations must focus not only on pointing out the problem(s), but proposing detailed and valid solutions to the problem. Unfortunately this is not the case for a vast majority of situations. In a sense the step 1 attitude by most of these organizations can be viewed as similar to Homer Simpson’s campaign slogan in “The Simpsons” when he ran for Springfield sanitation commissioner… “Can’t Someone Else Do It”. Basically the organizations state that they have done the “hard” work of pointing out the problem exist, now someone else can actually fix the problem which the organization will take credit for it.

Even when organizations propose solutions, those solutions are typically lacking with a variety of holes, usually on the details end and probability of application due to the general lack of information and/or bias. For example The Urban League proposed a “10-Point Justice Plan” to address the negative relationship between the black populous and law enforcement. Unfortunately this “solution” was heavily lacking in detail largely associated with general application. It promoted a lot of “universally applied” ideas merely by citing either one program in one particular city or one un-passed existing piece of Federal legislation. Also it was rather bias and generally naïve. A number of elements to the “solution” could be viewed merely as quasi-demands over actual genuine attempts to solve the problem.

However, for all of the problems of the “10-Point Justice Plan”, at least the Urban League produced a starting point in which to produce solutions. Unfortunately the fact that organizations like Black Lives Matter continue to reside in step 1, protest, draws resources and attention away from that starting point, thereby heavily reducing the probability that a long-term solution even materializes in the first place. This type of behavior goes to demonstrate the disconnect between organizations in step 1 and organizations that have moved beyond it, but claim to be “working” towards a solution to the same concern/problem.

Another concern with most protests is the tone and lack of awareness for the existing problem. For example the negative relationship between the black populous and police officers in the eyes of the black populous is thought to be entirely the fault of the police. Of course this is not correct for the black populous certainly does not treat the police with the appropriate level of respect and decorum that is expected for the position, which not surprisingly exasperates problems in the relationship. Part of the problem is a number of individuals in the black populous fall into the same pitfall they claim the police do: stereotyping all police as out to get them racist, just as they believe police believe all blacks are scum-criminals up to no good. Until the black populous acknowledges and corrects this behavior of stereotyping police officers as racists, among other things, the relationship between the black populous and the police will remain strained for it is not a one-sided problem.

Furthermore some may believe that protesting works because they look to the past and see the fruits and successes of protests. Unfortunately in the process of looking upon days long gone there is a lack of understanding in how society has evolved. These successful protest movements were able to demonstrate the power of the protesters to effectively influence society due to their integral role in society. For example The Montgomery Bus Boycott was built entirely around the fact that the general economic survival of the bus company was dependent on its black customers.

Unfortunately for protesters, over the last few decades economic development and technology has significantly altered the way the economy functions. Globalization and the Internet have generally decoupled major business from their proximity and those local consumers. Therefore, local protests tend to only impact local businesses, which frequently only damages the local infrastructure, which can cause more harm overall than what the protesters are protesting against. So while in the past, protests could apply more direct pressure, now the manner in which society has changed mitigates a lot of that direct influence and power. In some respects it can be argued that there are just too many people for protests and boycotts to really have any significant influence economically. Now such influence is regarded more as mere annoyance to outright criminal behavior that does not win allies.

In a democracy change demands voting and placing individuals in power that will produce that change. Unfortunately while step 1 attempts to create the necessary attention to get prospective voters to care about the issue, it does nothing beyond this element. A lack of voting is definitely one of the major reasons why despite all of the protesting in the world, so little genuine and meaningful change has actually occurred on most issues.

This voting issue has been largely noted in minority communities with reference to the local governing body via claims that minority demographic x makes up 72% of the voting eligible population, but the local government is 80% white and how this is wrong. However, this point is rather devious and inappropriate. It is important to note that that it is bias behavior if an individual with demographic characteristic x votes for a candidate solely because he/she shares that demographic characteristic (i.e. a black person votes for a black candidate solely because he/she is black or a Jewish person votes for a Jewish candidate solely because he/she is Jewish, etc.)

This demographical point is rather idiotic to make because a democracy is not structured in such a way that government officials should proportionally represent the electorate demographic; the point of a democracy is government officials should pass policies and govern in a manner that is approved by the majority of voters. However, the above statement commonly made by minority “activists” regarding certain communities being 72% x, yet 80% of government/civil servant positions being white portrays a racist/bias mindset of x should be represented in more government positions solely because the electorate is some % of x. Therefore, it is important that individuals vote and that are informed enough that they vote for officials that will best represent their interests regardless of whether or not those individuals share certain characteristics.

In the end individuals/organizations who seek to produce change by initiating protests must understand that protesting can only cast attention to a given issue. Gone are the days when only protesting can produce valid and meaningful solutions. These solutions are produced later through honest detailed analysis of the problem to produce an appropriate guideline and outline of a solution and then hard work and commitment to turning that guideline into a functioning solution. protesters must be wary though of alienating both potential allies and advisories through excessive protesting, especially the latter. Excessive protesting can definitely spur the passions of potential advisories to work harder to defeat the protester(s), not necessarily because they passionately disagree with the idea/object of the protest, but because of scorn directly towards the protesters themselves. Overall protesters must focus on advancing detailed and thorough solutions to issues they view as problems rather than focusing on simply protesting those problems with no or only piecemeal superficial solutions.

A Brief Discussion about Change

An old cliché is that change is not easy, which like most clichés is true because unfortunately there are significant obstacles to transformation especially in either behavior or thinking. First, an individual has to believe that there is a problem with their behavior or thought process that demands change. Belief in such a reality is a complicated issue because of different perspectives regarding how one should think. Also one must also take into consideration the absolute level of change demanded for a particular individual, for some individuals simply may not be able to think to an advanced stage due to limitations beyond one’s control, not everyone in life is a philosopher.

However, the biggest obstacle to overcoming this condition is the simple fact that most people do not like to admit when they are wrong about something, even when presented with overwhelming evidence to the contrary. There are two basic options to defeat such a psychological imperative: first tap into personal pride. Sticking to one’s ‘guns’ even when wrong should be viewed as a poor light, not revered like it tends to be. Basically an individual should feel shame for being wrong and resolve to correct those error(s). The second option is to penalize the individual for being wrong. Thinking that 2 + 2 = 5 should come with a huge financial or personal penalty because if an individual is not going to have enough pride to accept when he/she is wrong then society must correct that behavior not through incentive, but through punishment.

Second, the participants have to have the capacity for change. Change typically requires strength of will, a characteristic that is not common place in most individuals. There is something that can be said for blind faith being a driver of change, but the general outcomes generated by blind faith are more randomized than typically desired. The reason strength of will is required is because change demands, as previously mentioned, admitting that the current course of action or behavior is wrong. Humans tend to shun the prospect of confirming that they are wrong about something, thus one must have a psychological means to overcome this distaste and the cognitive dissidence defense mechanism hence the strategy of tapping into personal pride.

Third, even if an individual is aware of their superficial or inappropriate behavior and/or erroneous thought process it may be by design. For example the individual could have tried to be him/herself at one point in time and was just unhappy for some reason, either he/she did not like him/herself or society did not like him/her and behaving in a disingenuous manner is a mechanistic attempt at creating happiness. Of course an argument can be made that such happiness is simply a lie, but that leads to the deeper question: is it better to live a happy lie or an unhappy truth?

The second rationality for behaving against one’s true nature may be to advance in a particular social or occupational infrastructure. It cannot be intelligently argued that human society does not favor certain characteristics and attitudes over others; although society claims to desire diversity, reality paints a different picture. Thus, an individual may think the best course of action is to change behavior to represent something society or a potential mate may want instead of who they truly are. Unfortunately such action seems rather detestable in that to achieve such a standing a person has to destroy the sense of self. What is worse an individual behaving/thinking in a despicable manner or an individual play-acting in a despicable manner solely to advance in society?

Such a question is interesting in that some could argue that clearly the former is worse because if one is clever enough to realize how a certain aspect of society is exploitive and chooses to exploit that aspect to his/her own advantage that individual should be praised. However, the thought of such praise leaves a bad taste in the mouth because such action does not change the fundamental flaw in the system instead it indirectly supports that flaw.

For example one is reminded of the verbal confrontation between John Stewart and Tucker Carlson on the now defunct CNN show “Crossfire” in 2004. Mr. Stewart opened the question and answer portion of the show involving him with an unexpected significant criticism regarding the validity of "Crossfire" as a genuine debate and information source. In response Mr. Carlson criticized the seriousness and usefulness of the news commentary provided by "The Daily Show", which Mr. Stewart hosted at the time and still currently hosts. Mr. Stewart appeared to view this criticism as comical because "The Daily Show" was supposed to be satirical and comedic in nature; bolstering this point Mr. Stewart cited that at the time puppets making crank phone calls was slotted right before "The Daily Show" whereas CNN claimed, and still does, to be the most trusted name in news and Mr. Stewart’s criticism was directly related to not living up to such a boast.

By Mr. Carlson criticizing "The Daily Show" instead of defending "Crossfire" he was basically telling the public that both "The Daily Show" and "Crossfire" were ill equipped to properly disseminate and analyze the news, thus limiting the quality of either show. Mr. Carlson should have instead defended "Crossfire" in effort to demonstrate its importance in the news community and simultaneously hurting Mr. Stewart's credibility to lodge future criticism of similar nature. Although one can somewhat understand the attack strategy as the criticism of "Crossfire" could have been viewed by Mr. Carlson as a criticism of him because of his direct involvement with "Crossfire", such an emotional response seems to be typically more detrimental than beneficial. This example relates back to the exploitation situation in that society as a whole is better served if the exploitation is brought to light instead of kept in the shadows because a particular individual wants to use it to his/her advantage. Basically a wrong should be corrected, not defended through manipulation or citing wrong in that which is trying to correct the wrong.

The fourth barrier to behavioral change is the knowledge of change. One may want to build a better clock, but if one does not know how to build clocks that desire to build a clock is wasted. The knowledge could come from the individual, but not all individuals have the experience or intelligence to know what needs to be done to change. Therefore, if an individual is to change a means to initiate that change must be outlined to the given individual otherwise how will change occur?

Environmentalists have this problem in that they frequently suggest that individuals cut their carbon footprints in effort to derail the prospects of serious global warming. Some even go into more specifics on how to achieve a reduction like improving the energy efficiency of their homes. Unfortunately that is where almost all of them stop, failing to realize that improving energy efficiency is still a rather complicated endeavor when factoring in which contractors to use, how to get started, rates of return on investment, etc. Perhaps more people would pursue energy efficiency if someone created almost a step-by-step guide. Paging the authors of the ‘for dummies’ books, the environmentalists need you.

Due to these four elements a simple ‘call to arms’ type statement for change, again something commonly used by environmentalist, will more than likely be ineffective. Each of these elements must be dealt with effectively if any real and lasting change in behavior is to occur. Logic seems to dictate that the second and third barrier make up the principle reasons individuals behave/think in a certain way. Unfortunately such a situation creates a significant problem. Regarding the third barrier, the individual is playing a disingenuous role that creates a net advantage in existence over acting in a genuine manner. It makes no logical sense for an individual to exhibit his/her genuine character if the individual can effectively manage life as that fake person. Therefore, the only means to initiate change in those individuals is to remove the greater benefit from the false persona.

The problem with fostering change when faced with the first aspect of the third barrier is the psychological phenomenon of inclusion. Recall that although individuals say the politically correct things, in reality life and society do not like diversity (otherwise most of the issues involving ethnicity and race would have ended a long time ago), instead they are like chemistry: like dissolves like. People prefer dealing with people that do not exist outside of the realm of their own expectations. Interacting with those that do makes them uncomfortable and typically drives them away from those individuals towards safer and more familiar pastures.

Equally influential is the prospect of being alone which is a powerful negative force that again only the strong can truly neutralize as a mover in their life. Humans by evolutionary nature are social beings. If one acts in such a way that limits the potential for social interaction, it is understandable although unfortunate, that the individual would readily abandon true self to ensure positive social interaction. Tying the issue of change to the field of relationships, despite fairy tales to the contrary, there is not someone out there for everyone and a vast number of individuals do not recognize ‘Boulevard of Broken Dreams’ as their personal theme song. In short it is difficult to be you when life kicks you in the teeth for being you.

In large context conquering the third barrier may be simple relative to conquering the second barrier. The third barrier involves balancing any differential rewards to a given personality or mindset regardless of factual or empirical correctness. One particular mindset cannot be rewarded beyond another particular mindset with regards to a given issue without empirical evidence demonstrating factual superiority on that given issue. Basically being right and logical needs to be the driver in how a particular mindset is rewarded. The problem is prying away enough power from those that prefer to be wrong that such a change can occur. For the second problem people must be instilled with a level of personal pride where they rebuke anyone that does not accept them for themselves within the context of social norms and the legal system.

Make no bones about it change is indeed a tall order. However, the second barrier cannot be fully conquered until society as a whole can understand the unique offerings of each individual and how they can contribute positively to society. Otherwise the probability of any successful mass unmasking of those hiding behind facades unfortunately remains low. Thus steps must be taken to facilitate and nurture this potential for a new mindset. Overall society must demand that individuals focus on casting aside those elements that are statistically false, which will involve change for many, in order to optimize not only present benefits, but future benefits as well.