Assignment #3 (Opinion)

Radicals focus on criticizing dominant values. According to Bernstein, “Radicalization in the movement can stem as much from reaction to movement leaders as from reactions to the political context” (G&J, 240). This means identity deployment in the political realm will depend on the structure of relations among movement organizations, the degree of political access and the type of opposition. There are “radical” tactics and practices discussed in this week’s reading.

Clothesline project is rape-awareness event that use t-shirts to name alleged rapists. The act of having names on t-shirts seems “radical.” According to Glenn Sacks, “A significant percentage of allegations of sexual assault are false”. Some of these t-shirts were naming individuals that were wrongly accused of being rapists. The power of naming is a “radical” tactic that I don’t believe is acceptable. There have been certain situations in which people have gone to jail and had their reputations ruined for false accusations from allegedly rape victims. I believe there are many other tactics this movement could use. They can write nicknames of victims and give their ages, but not the rapists, because we don’t know if most of these cases are legitimate. Like Glenn Sacks put it, “It could defame and harm innocent men.”

The sidewalk picketing by the pro-life movement, I believe is very effective. This is more of “in your face action,” but to some may be “radical”. The fact these protestors are standing and waiting for people entering to the abortion clinics, and just trying to change their minds by showing pictures of babies being aborted is to drastic. I feel those that choose to go to the clinics feel pressured by the protestors to leave and think about it before doing the procedure. These are the protestor’s motives to “save a life” and to stop them from entering the abortion clinic. I believe its “radical” but effective.

Act up is an organization that started in 1987; it was based on frustration that lacked progress from other gay/lesbians movements that were not doing anything about the Aids issue. Maxine Wolfe describes her frustration about the whole aids situation and how she didn’t know what to tell a gay man about aids. According to the Article, “Act up was the people who did the civil disobedience training and they were the marshals.” They wanted to turn anger, fear, and grief into action. The “radical” protest was that they went to Shea Stadium and had banners up during the Mets game. This seemed radical because the baseball game is seen as a family friendly event. I believe the location was inappropriate, but again it was effective because it was seen not only by everyone in the stadium it was also seen by many others on television.

I do believe there are circumstances under which “radical” or even anarchic protest might be a valid option for a social movement to undertake. During the civil rights movement, activists associated with direct action with sit-in tactics. The sit-ins were the early efforts to mobilize for non-violent protests (G&J, 229). 1960 sit-ins became a mass movement and tactical innovation, but it did not bring a lot of attention. The more aggressive and “radical” protest from Malcolm X mandate “by any means necessary” was an effective approach. This gained more attention by the media and just added fuel to the flame. It sparked more emotions to the civil rights movement. Malcolm X used more of “in your face” tactics just like other movements that we read in this weeks readings. I believe that each movement should start out with an organized non-violent protest to gain respect by others and really try to express what the issue is and what needs to be done. Radical approaches that use “in your face” tactics can be successful and could be used after nothing has worked for the movement. I do have to disagree with using violence as a tactic. The only reason to use violence is to protect yourself from bodily harm, not to use it as a protest. For example, the anti-WTO protest that took place in Seattle, Washington was a non-violent protest that turned into violence because a few individuals broke glass windows at a Starbucks, which gave reason for authorities to use physical force and other forms of violence to gain “social order” on the streets of Washington.