Protest Publics: Toward a New Concept of Mass Civic Action PDF
Preview Protest Publics: Toward a New Concept of Mass Civic Action
Societies and Political Orders in Transition Nina Belyaeva Victor Albert Dmitry G. Zaytsev Editors Protest Publics Toward a New Concept of Mass Civic Action Societies and Political Orders in Transition Serieseditors AlexanderChepurenko HigherSchoolofEconomics,NationalResearchUniversity,Moscow,Russia SteinUgelvikLarsen UniversityofBergen,Bergen,Norway WilliamReisinger DepartmentofPoliticalScience,UniversityofIowa,IowaCity,Iowa,USA Managingeditors EkimArbatli HigherSchoolofEconomics,NationalResearchUniversity,Moscow,Russia DinaRosenberg HigherSchoolofEconomics,NationalResearchUniversity,Moscow,Russia AigulMavletova HigherSchoolofEconomics,NationalResearchUniversity,Moscow,Russia This book series presents scientific and scholarly studies focusing on societies and political orders in transition, for example in Central and Eastern Europe but also elsewhere in the world. By comparing established societies, characterized by well- establishedmarketeconomiesandwell-functioningdemocracies,withpost-socialist societies,oftencharacterizedbyemergingmarketsandfragilepoliticalsystems,the series identifiesandanalyzesfactorsinfluencingchangeandcontinuityinsocieties and political orders. These factors include state capacity to establish formal and informal rules, democratic institutions, forms of social structuration, political regimes, levels of corruption, specificity of political cultures, as well as types and orientationofpoliticalandeconomicelites. This series welcomes monographs and edited volumes from a variety of disci- plines and approaches, such as political and social sciences and economics, which areaccessibletobothacademicsandinterestedgeneralreaders. Topics may include, but are not limited to, democratization, regime change, changingsocialnorms,migration,etc. Moreinformationaboutthisseriesathttp://www.springer.com/series/15626 InternationalAdvisoryBoard: Bluhm,Katharina;FreieUniversitðtBerlin,Germany Buckley, Cynthia; University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Sociological Research,USA Cox,Terry;CentralandEastEuropeanStudies,UniversityofGlasgow,UK Fish,Steve;BerkeleyUniversity,USA Ilyin,Michail;NationalResearchUniversiyHigherSchoolofEconomics,Russia Melville,Andrei;NationalResearchUniversityHigherSchoolofEconomics,Russia Radaev,Vadim;NationalResearchUniversityHigherSchoolofEconomics,Russia (cid:129) (cid:129) Nina Belyaeva Victor Albert Dmitry G. Zaytsev Editors Protest Publics Toward a New Concept of Mass Civic Action Editors NinaBelyaeva VictorAlbert PublicPolicyDepartment,School PublicPolicyDepartment,School ofPoliticalScience,Higher ofPoliticalScience,Higher SchoolofEconomics SchoolofEconomics NationalResearchUniversity NationalResearchUniversity Moscow,Russia Moscow,Russia DmitryG.Zaytsev InternationalLaboratoryforApplied NetworkResearch NationalResearchUniversityHigher SchoolofEconomics(NRUHSE) Moscow,Russia ISSN2511-2201 ISSN2511-221X (electronic) SocietiesandPoliticalOrdersinTransition ISBN978-3-030-05474-8 ISBN978-3-030-05475-5 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05475-5 ©SpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG2019 Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpartofthe materialisconcerned,specificallytherightsoftranslation,reprinting,reuseofillustrations,recitation, broadcasting,reproductiononmicrofilmsorinanyotherphysicalway,andtransmissionorinformation storageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilarmethodology nowknownorhereafterdeveloped. Theuseofgeneraldescriptivenames,registerednames,trademarks,servicemarks,etc.inthispublication doesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfromtherelevant protectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this bookarebelievedtobetrueandaccurateatthedateofpublication.Neitherthepublishernortheauthorsor theeditorsgiveawarranty,expressorimplied,withrespecttothematerialcontainedhereinorforany errorsoromissionsthatmayhavebeenmade.Thepublisherremainsneutralwithregardtojurisdictional claimsinpublishedmapsandinstitutionalaffiliations. ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbytheregisteredcompanySpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG. Theregisteredcompanyaddressis:Gewerbestrasse11,6330Cham,Switzerland Foreword ManybrilliantnewideashavecomeoutofRussiansocialscience:SimonKuznet’s invention of national accounts, Wassily Leontief’s input-output tables, and Pitirim Sorokin’shistoricalsociology.Thisbookprovidesanothermajorcontributionfrom Russia—as all three editors are from the Russian National Research University Higher School of Economics—to the analysis of social dynamics—the concept of “ProtestPublics.” Our understanding of social protest has changed dramatically over the last century.Newconceptsarosewithbothadvancesinthesocialsciencesandchanges inthecharacterofprotestandtheactorswhocarryitout.Inthenineteenthcentury, Charles Mackay (1841) and Gustave Le Bon (1896) treated crowd behavior as a manifestation of delusions and irrational mob psychology. In the mid-twentieth century, George Rudé (1964), Neil Smelser (1963), and Herbert Blumer (1969), bycontrast,treatedcrowdbehavior—nowgiventhemorescientificterm“collective behavior”—as purposive, responding to wider social dysfunction, and generated throughsharedunderstandingsoftheaimsofprotests. Inresponsetothestudent,feminist,andcivilrightsprotestsofthe1960s,scholars suchasWilliamGamson,CharlesTilly,DougMcAdam,andSidneyTarrowframed socialprotestastheactionsofexcludedordisadvantagedgroupsindemocraciesto seekinclusioninmainstreampoliticaldiscourseandpolicy.Gamson(1975)argued that a key determinant of social movement success was their degree of internal organization. Tilly (1978) emphasized the need for protest groups to acquire resources, including financial support and strength in numbers, to sustain their actions. McAdam (1982) introduced the notion of “political opportunity”—that is, weakness or divisions within state authorities or those resisting the protest move- ment’sgoals.Tarrow(1994),fromhisfocusonItalianlabormovements,addedthe idea ofsocial movementprotest cycles, notingthat protest goesthroughrising and falling phases as the internal and external conditions of a movement change overtime. Yet in the last two decades of the twentieth century, it became clear that these formulations were not adequate to explain ongoing social protest events. First, it v vi Foreword became obvious that protests were not only undertaken by disadvantaged or excluded groups. Movements of the well-to-do and sophisticated, who simply felt thattheirparticularpolicygoalswerebeingneglectedbygovernments,aroseinthe leading democracies. These included the antinuclear, environmental, and animal rights movements in Europe, Japan, and the USA, and most importantly, the Tea PartymovementintheUSA. Second, as demonstrated by Jack A. Goldstone (2004) and others (Goldstone 2003), social movementactivity indemocracieswas notlimitedtoorganizingpro- tests in support of excluded groups; rather all kinds of movements employed both public protests and other kinds of activities to change policy, including lawsuits, political campaigns, participation in hearings and expert panels, lobbying officials, andevenlaunchingpoliticalparties(suchastheGreenPartiesinEurope)orseeking totakeoverexistingpartiesinordertoelectpoliticalleaderstoenacttheirprograms. Protestactivitywasoftenjustoneelementofamultifacetedportfolioofactionsthat socialmovementswouldemploytopursuetheirgoals. Third,fromthelate1980supthrough2015,therehavearisenmultipleexamples ofvastandsustainedsocialprotestsinauthoritariansocieties.Suchsocietiesseemed to offer far less scope for protestors to organize, acquire resources, and take advantage of political opportunities. In some cases, formal organizations were at the core of such protest activity: in Poland, the Solidarity labor movement and the CatholicChurch playedcrucialroles,asdidtheLutheranChurchinEastGermany andtheMuslimBrotherhoodorprofessionalorganizationsofLawyersandTeachers inseveraloftheArabnations.Yetinmanycaseshugecrowdsseemedtoassemble almost spontaneously, in a manifestation of outrage to conditions such as state corruption, inequality, or fraudulent elections spurred by the sharing of ideas and viewsonsocialmedia. Whetherinauthoritarianregimes(suchastheRussianFederationunderVladimir PutinorEgyptunderHosniMubarak),hybridregimes(suchasTurkeyunderRecep Tayyip Erdoğan prior to2018 or Ukraine underViktor Yanukovych), ordemocra- cies (as in Spain and Greece and other democracies in the wake of the Great Recession and austerity policies), such large protests, not produced by any previ- ouslyformallyorganizedmovementorganizationandmakingeffectiveuseofsocial media,seemtobeagloballywidespreadphenomenon. Inthisvolume,NinaBelyaevawithhertwocoeditorsVictorAlbertandDmitry Zaytsev and contributors from different countries explore these events, developing theoretical and comparative approaches that help us understand how they are generatedandhowthey unfold.Usingtheframeworkof“protestpublics”—a term that beautifully identifies events when a large section of the public has mobilized itself for protests—they have created an important new conceptual scheme. This volume shows how powerful this scheme is in explaining the global wave of distinctiveprotestevents. “Protestpublics”areclearlyimportantintoday’sworld.Buttheyhavegivenrise toavastrangeofdifferentoutcomes.Heretheearlierconceptsof“politicaloppor- tunities,”andtheblendingofprotestwithothertactics,againbecomerelevant. Foreword vii Insomecases,theactionsofprotestpublicsachievequicksuccess.Agovernment that is not united, or not secure in its position, may simply back away from the policies that have caused outrage once a large protest public has assembled. For example, in the case of the Gezi Park protests in Turkey (discussed in chapter “‘Shoulder to Shoulder Against Fascism’: Publics in the Gezi Protests”), the Erdogan regime backed away from its plans to bulldoze the park and replace it withnewstructures.SimilarlyinIceland(examinedinchapters“SoStrong,YetSo Weak: The Emergence of Protest Publics in Iceland in the Wake of the Financial Crisis”and“Protestersasthe‘ChallengersoftheStatusQuo’inEmbeddedDemoc- racies:TheCasesofIceland,theUnitedKingdom,andtheUnitedStates”),protests against the follies of the major banks led the government to undertake special investigations and an exceptional restructuring of government and the financial sector unlike any other country in Europe. In other cases, protest publics achieve massivemobilizationbutthenfadeoutandendwithoutanyeffect.Iwitnessedthis myselfinbothNewYorkCity(theOccupyWallStreetMovement)andHongKong (the Umbrella Movements, so named for the umbrellas protestors used to shield themselves from tear gas). In New York City, Occupy Wall Street stunned people withthescaleofitsspontaneousdemonstrationsandencampmentsandthepowerof itsslogan“wearethe99%.”YetneithertheUSgovernmentnorthemajorfinancial sectorsfeltanydeeppressuretochange,andtheprotestsfadedoutwithoutimpact. In Hong Kong, even larger protests arose. Initial student protests demanding more democracy for Hong Kong were met with a harsh and violent police response. In outrageatthisaction,hundredsofthousandsofHongKongerssuddenlyfilledevery majorthoroughfare,closingdownthemajorarteriesofthecommercialcenter.Over thenextfewmonths,demonstrationspersistedbutthenumberofprotestorsdeclined, untiltheprotestsfinallyendedwhenpoliceclearedtheremnantsfromthecitycenter. Themainlandgovernment,however,whoseantidemocraticpolicieswerethetarget ofthemassiveprotests,remaineduntouchedandunmoved.Evenvastandsustained protests thus had no success against opponents who remained secure and gave no “politicalopportunity”forproteststowreakchange. Two other trajectories for protest publics also appeared. In many authoritarian countries, the protest publics found common cause with civil society and profes- sional organizations that had opposed the existing regime. Outrage over particular events,conditions,orpoliciesthendevelopedintosustainedcampaignstooverturn theexistinggovernment,unitingmultiplenetworksacrosssociety.Inthecommunist countriesofEasternEuropein1989–1991andintheArabcountriesin2010–2011 (discussedhereinchapter“ProtestPublicsasthe‘Triggers’ofPoliticalChangesin HybridRegimes:TheCasesofTunisia,Morocco,andEgypt”),protestpublicsacted as triggers for successful revolutions. In many democratic countries, a similar extension and formalization of protest arose, but in these cases through the protest public melding with or giving rise to political parties which then successfully supportednewcandidatesforhighoffice.InItaly,protestpublicstriggeredtherise of the Five-Star party in Italy (examined in chapter “Five Stars of Change: The Transformation of Italian Protest Publics Through Grillo’s Blog”). Similarly, pro- cessesarose elsewhereinsouthernEurope(exploredinchapters“The Grammar of viii Foreword Protest Publics in Skopje, Macedonia, May 2015,” “Retracing Protest Publics in Portugal:AGenerationinTrouble,”and“TheTransformingRoleofProtestPublics in Processes of Sociopolitical Change in the Global South and Southern Europe: From Occasional Challengers to Institutionalized Watchdogs. Conclusion: The CommonFeaturesandDifferentRolesofProtestPublicsinPoliticalContestation”). In the USA, protest publics have arisen in response to many actions of Donald TrumpasPresident,particularlyhistreatmentofwomenandimmigrants;theyhope totriggerasweepingDemocraticPartyvictoryinthe2018midtermelections. Protest publics have therefore become a key event structure in the political dynamics of modern nations. Even in India and Bangladesh (examined in chapter “EmergentProtestPublicsinIndiaandBangladesh:AComparativeStudyofAnti- corruption and Shahbag Protests”) and in Indonesia and Malaysia, protest publics responding to corruption are challenging or changing governments. Elsewhere, protestpublicshaveproducedrevolutions,politicalrealignments,andpolicyshifts. Thisvolumeprovidesvitalnewinsightsintothesecriticalevents.Icongratulate Belyaevaandhercolleaguesandcontributorsontheirresearchadvances,whichwill benefitallscholarsofsocialmovementsandsocialprotests. VirginiaE.andJohnT.Hazel,Jr.Chair JackA.Goldstone GeorgeMasonUniversity, Fairfax,VA,USA MercatusCenter GeorgeMasonUniversity,Fairfax, VA,USA WoodrowWilsonInternationalCenter, Washington,DC,USA References Blumer,H.(1969).Collectivebehavior.InA.M.Lee(Ed.),Principlesofsociology (pp.165–221).NewYork:BarnesandNoble. Gamson,W.(1975).Thestrategyofsocialprotest.Homewood,IL:DorseyPress. Goldstone, J. A. (Ed.). (2003). States, parties, and social movements: Protest and thedynamicsofinstitutionalchange.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Goldstone,J.A.(2004).Moresocialmovementsorfewer?Beyondpoliticaloppor- tunitystructurestorelationalfields.TheoryandSociety,33(3–4),333–365. Le Bon, G. (1896). The crowd: A study of the popular mind. London: T. Fisher Unwin. Mackay, C. (1841). Extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds. London:RichardBentley. McAdam, D. (1982). Political process and the development of black insurgency 1930–1970.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress. Foreword ix Rudé,G.(1964).Thecrowdinhistory.NewYork:Wiley. Smelser,N.(1963).Thetheoryofcollectivebehavior.Glencoe,IL:FreePress. Tarrow,S.(1994).Powerinmovement.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Tilly,C.(1978).Frommobilizationtorevolution.Reading,MA:Addison-Wesley.
The list of books you might like
