What I want to note here is that these actions were not disconnected or unthinking but carefully planned and selected. In particular the target of the action is intended to itself demonstrate the injustice (which thereby aids in gaining support) and to provoke overreaction. In this way a non-violent movement does not just receive violence, but it disrupts and provokes, it makes people uncomfortable as a way of drawing attention and baiting overreaction. Perhaps the most famous example of this principle anywhere in the world was Mahatma Gandhi’s strategy of non-cooperation, in which protestors simply refused to buy British goods, work in British industries or in jobs in the British governing institutions. Gandhi also protested the British salt monopoly in India by illegally making his own salt (very much in public, as part of a large demonstration), to which the British responded with more repression. The disruption forced a response (British authorities arrested tens of thousands of Indians): after all if the British authorities did nothing in response to these kinds of actions, British revenues in India would collapse and they would be unable to govern the country anyway. But of course violent British crackdowns further delegitimized British colonial rule.
Moreover, it must be noted that these protect actions, while non-violent were disruptive. They were designed to disrupt something, because if they didn’t disrupt anything, they could be ignored. It is important here to separate two kinds of ‘protest the right way’ arguments here: practitioners of non-violence pointing out that violent actors claiming to act for the movement harm it and people outside the movement demanding that the movement not be disruptive at all. In the very case it is very obviously true that for a movement pursuing a non-violent strategy like this, violent actors are actively detrimental because – again – this is all an exercise in messaging and they harm the message. Crucially, while violent actors may feel like they are accomplishing more by fighting the authorities violently, remember that the entire reason movements adopt these strategies is they they cannot expect to win by fighting the authorities directly, consequently violent actions accomplish nothing (you will not win a street battle with the cops)6 but they do harm the message. But at the same time some disruption is necessary to attract attention and a response by the state.
[...]
But the tactics of anti-ICE protestors, most visible in Minneapolis-Saint Paul, follow the outline for non-violent protest here quite well. While protestors do attempt to impose a significant degree of friction on DHS immigration enforcement by (legally!) following and documenting DHS actions, that has also served as the predicate for the classic formula for non-violent action: it baits the agents of the state (ICE and CBP) into open acts of violence on camera which in turn reveal the violent nature of immigration enforcement. In this, DHS leaders like Gregory Bovino have essentially played the role of Bull Connor, repeatedly playing into the hands of protestors by urging – or at least failing to restrain – the spectacular, cinematic violence of their agents. Just as the armies of Jim Crow had many Bull Connors and few Laurie Pritchetts, it turns out that Border Patrol and ICE appear to have many Bull Connors; it remains to be seen if they have even one Laurie Pritchett.
The result has been a remarkable collapse in public approval for immigration enforcement, mirrored by some pretty clear implications for elections later this year of the trend continues. Indeed, while doubtless many in the movement are impatient at what they perceive as the slow pace of movement given that they are trying to stop deportations happening right now, as non-violent movements go, the public perception shift has been remarkably fast. ‘Abolish ICE’ went from being a fringe position to a plurality position – close to a majority position – in roughly a year. Civil Rights and Quit India took decades. In part I suspect this has to do with both the prevalence of mass media technologies in the United States – a society in which nearly everyone has a pocket internet device that can immediately send or receive text, audio or most importantly video – and the increasing capability of those platforms. Where the public may have experienced the Birmingham protests through a TV screen at a delay on the nightly news, today high-detail color footage of DHS uses of force are beamed directly into people’s phones within hours or minutes of the event taking place.
By contrast, the administration is fundamentally caught on the horns of a dilemma. Their most enthusiastic supporters very much want to see high spectacle immigration enforcement, both as an end unto itself and also as a sign of the administration’s continued commitment to it. In this, they act much like the white supremacist publics that sat behind men like Bull Connor demanding repression. But while the administration clearly remains unwilling to actually change its immigration policies, it desperately needs them out of the news to avoid catastrophic midterm wipeout. But ‘go quiet’ on immigration and lose core supporters; go ‘loud’ on immigration and produce more viral videos that enrage the a larger slice of the country. A clever tactician might be able to thread that needle, but at this point it seems difficult to accuse Kristi Noem of being a clever tactician.
Awesome article. I was in the military for virtually the entire time of OIF and OEF, and something that's interesting is that the US Military is extremely aware of all of this. David Gallula's...
Awesome article.
I was in the military for virtually the entire time of OIF and OEF, and something that's interesting is that the US Military is extremely aware of all of this. David Gallula's book, Counter Insurgency: Warfare and Practice was required reading for officers, and is sort of the Bible when it comes to the inner mechanisms of how insurgencies function. COIN operations were studied in excruciating detail and very smart people spent a lot of time breaking down the strength and weaknesses of insurgency, and the Taliban and Al-Quaida in particular. It's extremely interesting stuff.
It turns out that knowing how they function doesn't actually mean you'll win though. It was a very frustrating time for the military because they knew very well that this was not a conventional war where you can just prepare the battlefield with artillery and ground attack air power, then advance your way to victory.
They knew that political will was the only true currency when it came to who won in Afghanistan in particular. It didn't help actually win though. The US has trillions upon trillions of military hardware and highly trained forces, and they could apply almost none of it.
The Taliban were simply too good at controlling the message, keeping the locals under their thumb, and spreading the idea that one day, sooner or later, they would win, and you'd have to answer to them.
So none of this is new. The US government has known all of these lessons for decades. That doesn't necessarily mean they'll be victorious though.
Thank you for sharing. I found this deeply interesting. The described framework is both useful and correct, by my estimation. I must say, I find the article to be rather optimistic given our...
Thank you for sharing. I found this deeply interesting. The described framework is both useful and correct, by my estimation.
I must say, I find the article to be rather optimistic given our current situation. Multiple people have been murdered and the regime is still functioning, still in power, and continues to attack states like Minnesota. Meanwhile, from my perspective, much of the protest seems ineffective. In my local area, there are groups that protest every week. Yet despite me being aligned with their position, I would never attend these. Their protests fail to affect anything at all, let alone things like will. If anything, these protests burn through the will of the protestor by highlighting their apparent futility.
It seems to me that many modern protestors are limited to holding up a sign and getting brunch afterwards. Part of the issue being that it is not obvious what actions should be taken to effectively influence the levers of power. The civil rights movement had specific goals to desegregate certain restaurants, businesses, and public transportation. What are the clear goals of the current movement? What exactly is this movement? The article seems to indicate that the current movement is anti ICE, but ICE is just one manifestation of the growing authoritarian state. Even if ICE were abolished tomorrow, there would still be databases tracking American citizens, run by private corporations. There would still be AI systems identifying protestors. Public institutions have already been eroded and continue to be dismantled.
If we don't see progress soon, I fear the odds will only worsen for modern protestors. If technological and economic power continues to concentrate in the hands of a few, no amount of non violent protest will be able to save us.
I am trying to figure out how to get involved in my local community, but as I stated, I am not inspired by any of my local groups. So I feel quite powerless at the moment, a feeling I suspect many share. Our only hope might be a strong rebuke of the current administration in the midterms, with results that aren't tampered with. However, that relies on the assumption that Democrats will actually do something meaningful. In my opinion, it's far more likely that the oppression of the public will continue, with a new figurehead at the helm.
I would love to hear others thoughts, or a rebuke of my pessimism. Again, thanks for sharing this article. I am glad to see discussion on this topic.
Public protest is valuable even if it doesn't have any immediate direct effect because it demonstrates to the other dissenters, here we are, we feel the same as you, you are not alone, and so...
Exemplary
Public protest is valuable even if it doesn't have any immediate direct effect because it demonstrates to the other dissenters, here we are, we feel the same as you, you are not alone, and so encourages others to express dissent by illustrating the safety in numbers. Not to mention the networking and information sharing that happens at in-person protests.
Any authoritarian regime is a minority that relies on keeping the dissenting majority feeling the way you're leaning: too hopeless and disconnected to even try anything
if ICE were abolished tomorrow, there would still be databases tracking American citizens, run by private corporations. There would still be AI systems identifying protestors.
Frankly you've just set your bar absurdly high. It's not all or nothing. What if you didn't dismantle any of these vast problems but you somehow helped save one person from getting disappeared by ICE? Wouldn't that still be worth it?
I am not inspired by any of my local groups. So I feel quite powerless at the moment
Go anyway! Nothing on Earth will make you feel more powerless than doing nothing. You might find you were wrong about one of those groups, or you might find out about another group that's better, or you might just spend time doing something boring and mundane that moves the needle a millimetre in the right direction. Doomerism is the enemy!
I think what you say is true of many protests. I found this article particularly useful because it provides a framework for deciding if a protest is likely to do something. It's a question I've...
I think what you say is true of many protests. I found this article particularly useful because it provides a framework for deciding if a protest is likely to do something. It's a question I've had in mind for years and this is the first article I've seen that I thought provided a good framework for understanding it.
I'd also be interested in hearing from people who have a different theory, though.
From the article:
[...]
Awesome article.
I was in the military for virtually the entire time of OIF and OEF, and something that's interesting is that the US Military is extremely aware of all of this. David Gallula's book, Counter Insurgency: Warfare and Practice was required reading for officers, and is sort of the Bible when it comes to the inner mechanisms of how insurgencies function. COIN operations were studied in excruciating detail and very smart people spent a lot of time breaking down the strength and weaknesses of insurgency, and the Taliban and Al-Quaida in particular. It's extremely interesting stuff.
It turns out that knowing how they function doesn't actually mean you'll win though. It was a very frustrating time for the military because they knew very well that this was not a conventional war where you can just prepare the battlefield with artillery and ground attack air power, then advance your way to victory.
They knew that political will was the only true currency when it came to who won in Afghanistan in particular. It didn't help actually win though. The US has trillions upon trillions of military hardware and highly trained forces, and they could apply almost none of it.
The Taliban were simply too good at controlling the message, keeping the locals under their thumb, and spreading the idea that one day, sooner or later, they would win, and you'd have to answer to them.
So none of this is new. The US government has known all of these lessons for decades. That doesn't necessarily mean they'll be victorious though.
Thank you for sharing. I found this deeply interesting. The described framework is both useful and correct, by my estimation.
I must say, I find the article to be rather optimistic given our current situation. Multiple people have been murdered and the regime is still functioning, still in power, and continues to attack states like Minnesota. Meanwhile, from my perspective, much of the protest seems ineffective. In my local area, there are groups that protest every week. Yet despite me being aligned with their position, I would never attend these. Their protests fail to affect anything at all, let alone things like will. If anything, these protests burn through the will of the protestor by highlighting their apparent futility.
It seems to me that many modern protestors are limited to holding up a sign and getting brunch afterwards. Part of the issue being that it is not obvious what actions should be taken to effectively influence the levers of power. The civil rights movement had specific goals to desegregate certain restaurants, businesses, and public transportation. What are the clear goals of the current movement? What exactly is this movement? The article seems to indicate that the current movement is anti ICE, but ICE is just one manifestation of the growing authoritarian state. Even if ICE were abolished tomorrow, there would still be databases tracking American citizens, run by private corporations. There would still be AI systems identifying protestors. Public institutions have already been eroded and continue to be dismantled.
If we don't see progress soon, I fear the odds will only worsen for modern protestors. If technological and economic power continues to concentrate in the hands of a few, no amount of non violent protest will be able to save us.
I am trying to figure out how to get involved in my local community, but as I stated, I am not inspired by any of my local groups. So I feel quite powerless at the moment, a feeling I suspect many share. Our only hope might be a strong rebuke of the current administration in the midterms, with results that aren't tampered with. However, that relies on the assumption that Democrats will actually do something meaningful. In my opinion, it's far more likely that the oppression of the public will continue, with a new figurehead at the helm.
I would love to hear others thoughts, or a rebuke of my pessimism. Again, thanks for sharing this article. I am glad to see discussion on this topic.
Public protest is valuable even if it doesn't have any immediate direct effect because it demonstrates to the other dissenters, here we are, we feel the same as you, you are not alone, and so encourages others to express dissent by illustrating the safety in numbers. Not to mention the networking and information sharing that happens at in-person protests.
Any authoritarian regime is a minority that relies on keeping the dissenting majority feeling the way you're leaning: too hopeless and disconnected to even try anything
Frankly you've just set your bar absurdly high. It's not all or nothing. What if you didn't dismantle any of these vast problems but you somehow helped save one person from getting disappeared by ICE? Wouldn't that still be worth it?
Go anyway! Nothing on Earth will make you feel more powerless than doing nothing. You might find you were wrong about one of those groups, or you might find out about another group that's better, or you might just spend time doing something boring and mundane that moves the needle a millimetre in the right direction. Doomerism is the enemy!
I think what you say is true of many protests. I found this article particularly useful because it provides a framework for deciding if a protest is likely to do something. It's a question I've had in mind for years and this is the first article I've seen that I thought provided a good framework for understanding it.
I'd also be interested in hearing from people who have a different theory, though.