TED Conversations

griffin tucker
Canberra
Australia

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

why protests don't work in the long run

starting a following is easy to do if you know how, for instance an opposing ideal. what usually happens next is a formulation of people organised to start a protest against the ideal by means of (ideally) peaceful marches to grab attention

so why doesn't it work?

once the protest is over, people who joined the protest but were sitting on the fence, so to speak, will do nothing further and think their work has been done.

i'm not entirely sure, but i think the majority of the protestors in a lot of cases of protests would have an almost 'sitting on the fence' frame of mind where they wouldn't do anything further than attend the protest.

i've noticed that protestors sometimes seem to think that the people in power over an ideal are almost completely wrong on all of their ideals, and victimize them by bending the truth about them, or even spreading completely false information about them.

this is not the way to change things positively for the future. in fact what usually happens is the people in power will smother the flame of the protest, and nothing gets accomplished.

solution?

work THROUGH the system to get things changed. if people don't take you seriously when you offer an opposing ideal, get signatures proving that there are more people who agree with your opposing ideal, and take it to those in power to help them realise there is a problem with their original ideal.

only then, will the formulation of think-tanks to find solutions to problems that they were unaware of in the first place begin to form. perhaps with signatures AND original ideas from the people who sign about the opposing ideal, would it be possible to solve a problem.

simply put: a protest grabs attention, but only for a short while.

Related Talks:

Derek Sivers: How to start a movement

Topics: london riots protest protesting psychology revolution socialogy

Sort By:

Walter Allan
- 0
Aug 27 2011: Protest don't work because it is inane babbling and rambling. What good is it to rage against anybody or anything? As George Carlin said "power will do what it does." Let me tell you all something, as long as any of you are invested in the system in any way, shape, or form, your position is compromised. For a 'movement' to work a total repudiation of all of human thought, thinking and functioning must be in order. Protest are simply a form of clinging, a cheap supplication to inherently corrupt and deficient systems. We need to withdraw! Not bark and claw!
- László Szantor
  - +1
  Aug 28 2011: Walter.......for you, perhaps it is "inane babbling", for others it is a fight for justice. The peace march on Washington was not a "cheap supplication", but a just demand for equality. It mobilized all who call themselves human. Fifty years later a memorial is erected to Martin Luther King for a reminder: if he didn't urge people to stand up in the face of injustice, blacks would still be sitting in the back of the bus. Compromise is a good way to start, but nice talk did not get you far with the descendants of slave owners. You may not be in need of any change, but there are many who are oppressed in ways not tolerable any longer. They face losing their human dignity. "Power will do what it does" but letting it walk all over you is like saying: "here, take me, do whatever you wish with me, I have nothing more to say". It is up to you , if you are prepared to live a life of submission....
  withdraw if you want. However, your strong opinion on the subject doesn't apply to those who are willing to take up the fight. To these I say: "bark and claw" if you must. It may work in the long run.
  - Walter Allan
    
    0
    Aug 29 2011: What are you going to do? You are only one man. I am only one man. Can anybody truly change the 'WORLD' ?! I think not. There is no change only a recombination of previous modes of understanding and conduct. All of histories notable people have not made it easier for anyone to function. Confusion persists and their wish and desire for 'change' compounds into the present moment. When is it going to stop? Changes of policy don't help. New ways and systems don't help. Everything is met with skepticism and abhorrence. Degeneracy is inherent in all things. This is the end.
dingle mcringleberry
- 0
Aug 26 2011: Things change from the bottom up in my opinion.
Prakar Jeevan
- 0
Aug 26 2011: maybe because, they are meant for the short run ;)
David Hoag
- +1
Aug 26 2011: I disagree entirely with the idea that protests do not work. Protests exist on a rather large scale of size, for example. Why would someone say that '...protests don't work in the long run' with this in mind? The success of a protest is rarely quantifiable. The March Against Washington, if anything, left us with the iconic photograph of a blonde-haired, young man placing a flower in a rifle barrel. In July of 1830, the Bourbon monarchy was overthrown, some buildings were destroyed and some, like the Louvre were protected. I got this information from the net in about 5 minutes. I predict that the number of large protests would be dwarfed by the number of smaller ones. While it may be hard to avoid generalizations altogether, I think Mr. Tucker's opinion hasn't a leg to stand on.
Jacob Miller 10+
- +1
Aug 25 2011: I'm not sure it works like this all the time but I remember awhile back the town I was living in had a meal limit law so they could only give out certian amounts of food to the homeless untill they reached a certian quota. Well, at this point in my life I was living in a tent in and trying to find a job so naturally I was affected by this but the thing that was so annoying about it is that most of the people who were passing out flyers and protesting in front of city hall and causing all the stir about the meal limits had absolutey no involvement in the homeless community whatsoever. You never saw them at the shelters or the churches or anything. They were a load of snobby privedged hipsters. I attended these protests because it meant somehting to me but most people there just wanted to be seen as being a socially aware individuals.As some sort of pseudo moral platform. Ha and the funniest thing about it is that no homeless people other than myself even showed up to the thing. This whole socially conscience thing has gotten out of control I mean people want to appear "aware" without getting their hands dirty. In some ways it is a trend that is no different from anything else that is popular.. I would never protest something that I wouldnt be ready to go the extra mile for. The world has enough opinions and complaints but very few people these days are willing to really get down in the trenches and expereince the things that they "fight" or voice opnions so passionately against.
- László Szantor
  - 0
  Aug 25 2011: Hi Jacob........Most people are prepared to get in the thick of things only to a certain degree. Totally dedicated individuals are a rare phenomenon. From these are selected the spokespersons and leaders. The rest of us fall short of these ideals for various reasons. Some simply don't have the courage to put all on the line, others may simply have just too many irons in the fire. Don't dismiss these however meager efforts. Most of us desire to be helpful.
  - Jacob Miller 10+
    
    +1
    Aug 26 2011: You are very right. I dont know their motives so I shouldnt havesaid that/ The whole scene there just left a bad taste in my mouth thats all. I probably shouldnt have said anyhitng about it :).
Renzo Bruni
- +2
Aug 25 2011: I am not sure if I agree with your point of view.

If you are referring to really peaceful, non criminal 'protests' (such as what materialized in the US during the Civil Rights movement) I disagree. I think the power of such peaceful protests is in their advertising force. They awaken the sleeping majority of voters to a problem which those voters would perhaps never otherwise bump into(or notice if they did bump into it). Gradually awakening and converting the majority of voters to social wrongs in society are therefore useful, and basic to democratic societies (societies were 'voting' makes a difference).

BUT, on the other hand, if you are calling the London riots themselves protests, I would say that they are more appropriately called pre-revolutionary rumblings. When the gap between rich and poor grows so large that little is to be lost by violence, violence is likely. It is interesting to observe what is happening. If the hedge fund, investment-oriented banksters (rhymes with gangsters)) have miscalculated the docility of society then society will crush them (or put them in prison). If the banksters were right in expecting the growing poor segments of society to stay numb, dumb and down, then society will expand this gap, feudalism or fascism is on the rise.
Fiona Weslan
- +1
Aug 25 2011: I definitely agree with you Griffin! People are all excited on the front end of a protest, but as time moves forward people are less and less enthusiastic about doing the work to keep the movement alive. Having a truly effective protest is a very delicate process.
Kunal Bavishi
- 0
Aug 24 2011: Violent protest may or may not work but nonviolent silent protest like gathering people for a noble cause like independence of country, fight against corruption or oppressed dictator will eventually win. The best example is satyagraha movement led by Mahatma Gandhi which led to independence of India from British rule and created the world’s largest democracy .
Cheyenne Lin
- +1
Aug 24 2011: The government shouldn't be afraid of their people in the first place.
- Renzo Bruni
  - +2
  Aug 25 2011: Au contraire, Cheyenne - the government MUST fear the people or else they government officials will abuse their power, enrich themselves and create a ruling class for themselves and their friends (as in the US now).
Denny Morales
- +1
Aug 24 2011: I agree protest don't work your just fueling the fire. Now there is some cases in history where they may have worked, but keep in mind there are other ways. The past is the past, the present is new, meaning create a new way to help change. :)
- griffin tucker 10+
  - +1
  Aug 24 2011: i agree wholeheartedly. i believe human evolution and human interconnectedness is getting closer to a point where injury or even death occuring to get a point across shouldn't happen anymore.
Cheyenne Lin
- 0
Aug 24 2011: Protests only raise nationalism and arouse fighters without a cause.
- Tim blackburn 30+
  - 0
  Aug 24 2011: simply untrue
  - Cheyenne Lin
    
    0
    Aug 24 2011: Protests are crushed by the government almost always.
    - Tim blackburn 30+
      
      0
      
      Aug 24 2011: which shows how nessesary they are, and half the time thats the point. to show the rest who are to lazy or scared the REAL situation they are in.
Tim blackburn 30+
- +1
Aug 23 2011: Protest must ALWAYS remain non-violent, and often be creative, to be effectve and sucessful.
Kent Spencer 10+
- 0
Aug 23 2011: TED wouldn't be here today if it wasn't for protest
Peri Kannan
- +2
Aug 23 2011: Griffin Tucker, I see that you have some valid points but your statement that "Do not protest but work THROUGH the system" does not apply to all occasions. Active protests, like Satyagraga by M K Gandhi in India achieved independence for India. A case in point is India Against Corruption protests which are going on now. They are able to bring about change.
Protest need not be in the form of walking the street. Arab spring happened because one man had enough of suffering in life, took his own life in Tunisia..
Ed Schulte 50+
- 0
Aug 23 2011: griffin I will agree with your suggested "solution" and overall premese IF it is direct to situations where a Democratic Systems is in operation and administered fully. If not the wheel fall off very fast.

So true, in the west (democratic) most often protests / demonstration / riots are attention seeking ....and if the subject of their protest is studied in any depth then it is often the case that the those who are the object of the "Protest" actually want a Protest because it strenghens their position.

A working example of this would be the Express Pipeline now on the doorstep on the President of USA. The protesters being quoted by the media confirm theer is NO understanding on their part, real safety issues and $$ benifits $$, AND the small fact that the pipeline would not have very key elements required to have it operate as proposed,,,,,,,,, are NOT brought up. Most of these issues are common knowledge to in the N. A. Petro / chem indusry but they are not asked ...so it is but another media show.
- griffin tucker 10+
  - 0
  Aug 24 2011: indeed i am referring to democratic systems.
  
  it is also interesting how sometimes a protest can strengthen the position of the view opposing the protestors' view. i'd go as far as to say that sometimes david is created by goliath.
  - Ed Schulte 50+
    
    0
    Aug 24 2011: And to that
    
    I whole heartedly agree!!! and to complete the loop with the obvious ...sometimes "goliath is created by david".
- Renzo Bruni
  - 0
  Aug 25 2011: @ Ed.... Are you saying that the protesters don't know why they are protesting (or what the REAL issues are) OR that the media is only presenting a slanted view of the protesters motivations? Because there is a big difference between those two possibilities.
  - Ed Schulte 50+
    
    +2
    Aug 26 2011: Renzo
    
    great pic by the bye
    
    I can't say that "protesters don't know why they are protesting" so, no. I am not saying that ....Nor can I say "the media is only presenting a slanted view of the protesters motivations?" because there is no consistency in reporting.
    
    But lets take a look at an example ....
    
    http://ca.news.yahoo.com/alberta-oilsands-centre-white-house-protests-over-next-200006371.htm
    
    this keystone KL debate is a good opportunity to have a look at griffin's debate topic and I watch it because of that
    
    from the example
    
    ""There is basically no governmental control, environmentally, in Canada over the oil and gas industry, far less than there is here," Kidder said in an interview this week with the Livingston Weekly, an alternative Montana newspaper.
    "The tar sands is the biggest carbon emitter on the planet ... it's using up something like 20 per cent of Canada's allowed emissions alone."
    
    Alberta Environment spokesman Mark Cooper disputed Kidder's claim, citing the coal industry as a far dirtier culprit. In 2009, a single coal plant in China produced roughly the same greenhouse gas emissions as the entire oilsands industry, he said.
    
    "The most recent Environment Canada National Inventory Report shows the oilsands are responsible for 6.5 per cent of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions ... and they represent approximately one-tenth of one per cent of global emissions," Cooper said.
    
    "The claim that they are the largest emitter in the world is even more ridiculous. The U.S. coal industry emits some 60 times as much."
    
    one side says "biggest emitter" ..other side ...."approx one tenth of one percent of global.."
    
    Note that neither side points of that Coal emission contains arsenic ....a minor point it seems
    - Renzo Bruni
      
      0
      
      Aug 26 2011: Okay. That was helpful and I understand why I had trouble understanding it before. It is neither simple nor a complete lie. I guess you have to watch McNeil Lehrer, listen to NPR or Radio France Internationale to get a balanced analysis of the issue - instead of the partisan blurbs. Of course it is the media that we used to expect to balance the issue by quoting the clearest facts around. Nowadays, balance seems to mean each of two liars gets to talk (at least sometimes).
Timothy Leverett
- +2
Aug 23 2011: It is short-sighted and silly to think that a protest is how *anything* actually gets done. The protest itself is just a part of the beginning. It's useful in that it brings out peoples actual views and galvanizes people into possible action.

The most important part, however, is the networking that can happen at a protest. The people who are serious about making changes, can meet other people who are serious about making changes, so that when they go back to their homes and jobs, they have a connection so that they can continue to work on the issue.

Yes, the protest is brief and don't produce direct changes, but they are necessary as a vessel for change.
Nino Dundua
- +2
Aug 23 2011: Protesting in my opinion does not help solve the problems they are yelling an making a scene about. Protesting does bring attention to the issue but it isn’t always good attention. Instead of marching on the streets people should be trying to figure out ways to solve the problem not just scream about it.
Craig Sinclair
- +1
Aug 23 2011: I used to think that "working through the system" was the best way too. Usually it is.

Sometimes it doesn't work though. Look at the issue of Indigenous land rights in Australia, Mabo, or even gay marriage. Groups of people have tried various things, sometimes over decades, to achieve a just and fair legal outcome--through the judicial branch, which uses the very same laws that the government themselves created.

Then, when the government decides they don't like that outcome, they immediately re-write their own laws overturn the ruling. Same thing happened after Mabo. Aboriginals overturned Terra-Nullius through the existing system, to claim ownership of various bits of land, and the Government simply redefined the Free Hold leasing system, almost overnight, to automatically extinguish the rights of ownership they'd just won.

Same thing with gay marriage, when it looked like the *existing* system and the laws might actually allow it, they simply came up with a new definition to stop it even reaching the system at all.

That's just an example, but the point is the executive branch of any government can change the system any time they want.

Do you really think the protesters in Syria will overthrow their government by working through that government's system?
carole lyc
- +1
Aug 21 2011: I think, protest by way of boycott is a more effective protest than street protests or violent retaliation to proof a point or drive a message home. Many street protests although with a good intention for change ended up not only not effective but became tragic & chaotic and the victims are mostly the protesters and not the authorities, policy-makers or those on top and it only served to allow people to vent out their anger,hatred & dissatisfaction and make the situation worse with no concrete solution achieved. However, (IMO) boycott is a more practical & effective method of protest. :)
- László Szantor
  - +1
  Aug 23 2011: Hello Carole...............boycotts may work if enough people join in. Strikes are a form of boycott, the extreme form of which is a general strike when everything gets shut down. In these instances everybody gets effected: you have to do without goods and services you habitually require. People, as a rule, are reluctant to give up anything that may put a dent in their cushy lifestyle. We, who live in democratically developed countries should cherish what good fortune brought our way. I have nothing to gripe about. Whichever party rules Canada I rest assured that it works. Sure, some things could be better. If you desire perfection you are living on the wrong planet.
  I lived through a revolution.......I leave the marching, the shouting and the fence climbing for the young. At my age protests are in forms of signing petitions, advocating peaceful existence and cooperation and mainly, working on myself. If I want to change the world I have to start with myself. Idealism changed into acceptance of imperfection. Black and white, yin and yang, good and bad.......it will always be so.
  - carole lyc
    
    0
    Aug 24 2011: Appreciate your reply. I guess it also depends on the social structure of each community & how severe is the problem.
Gilbert Rodriguez
- +3
Aug 18 2011: Well I suppose it would be far too easy to equate the nation's rise in crime with our current elected officials, but I was thinking more along the lines of Flint, Michigan. There once, was a plentiful and content community concentrated throughout much of Flint, (excluding pre-existing slums), and then Behold! General Motors closes it's plant. 20,000 NEW people stood in lines to collect government food assistance. 28,000 lost their homes altogether as a direct result of jobs vanishing into the wind. It was then that violent crime rates in Flint skyrocketed surpassing those of Detroit and Miami. 25% of the city was now unemployed. Can you imagine what that did to the number of yearly suicides, spousal abuse and alcoholism? All of those numbers went up.

In many ways my response is an echo of yours, but I still do feel very firmly especially after having seen it first hand that many are pushed towards stealing etc. to provide for not only themselves but for others that they are charged to care for. Take modern day Los Angeles for example. If ever you become curious to see out of work immigrants struggling to feed their families, you can go to MacArthur Park any day of the week and see crime in action. Do I think that these men and women braved a dangerous journey from their southern homeland just to deal dope and steal? Absolutely not.

Solutions are out there in front of our very eyes. And again, I turn towards our elected officials for action, whatever that may be.
James Turner 10+
- +2
Aug 18 2011: May I interject a bit of knowledge from the protests of the 60's. I agree protests do lead to little short term change or action by who ever the ruling power is at any level. In the 60's protests were held for a lot of reasons and the organizers were really the only ones who knew what they wanted to accomplish. The crowd of students at some riots/protests were there under the "monkey see monkey do principal" ie it is cool to do it , my friends are doing it, it is close in the neighborhood and in some cases I can get a free thing from it through theft or some other criminal means and I get lost in the crowd. The reason they have little impact most of the time in my opinion is that those in power want to stay in power no matter how good the protest ideas are. Leaders are people who do not change quickly until it becomes personal. Let me give you an example. In the city of Santa Barbara California there was a very dangerous freeway exit ramp and many people were injured or killed. When a local politicians son was killed at that same intersection there was a stop sign installed the next day. Thus, the personal connection is what changed the politicians mind. Letters to the editors and silent protests were meaningless. I have written volumes of emails and letters to congress persons etc. The reaction is a form letter either electronically or from some low level flunky. The people thought only of themselves and their power base. Look at the current issue with the Democratic response to the Tea Party. Name calling by the Vice President and others show that the loss of Democrats in congress in this last midterm made the protests personal and they reacted with violent language and accusations because they were threatened politically. Protests can be the start of a movement but we have to find the pressure points that the leaders respond to and use them to be successful in getting change I think
Lee Miller 10+
- +1
Aug 17 2011: I agree that protests don't work, but for a different reason. As we saw with the London riots, protests often get taken over by people looking for an excuse to behave criminally. Perhaps the youth of London have a legitimate gripe, I don't know, but stealing and destroying private property did nothing but make them look bad in the eyes of others. Notice that people are using the word "riot," not "protest," to describe this event.

Whatever message London had for the world got lost in the ensuing chaos. The only social change that will come out of this is more surveillance and control of the populace.
- griffin tucker 10+
  - 0
  Aug 17 2011: in my opinion, these are the two main possible outcomes of what will happen with further surveillance:
  
  giving the GB government the opportunity to understand issues facing the community more thoroughly with members of the community giving feedback.
  flipside: giving the GB government too much control over their people to the point of economic collapse due to the populace being unhappy.
  - Ed Schulte 50+
    
    +1
    Aug 24 2011: what is interesting in the GB riot situation
    
    is they turn to the L. A. california police for advice where as the New York Police have the proven record of applying "Presence" and "observation" resulting in a dramatic drop in crime and violence. This is outlined in the current issue of Scientific American
richard richards
- 0
Aug 17 2011: ''once the protest is over, people who joined the protest but were sitting on the fence, so to speak, will do nothing further and think their work has been done. ''....made me think but for me, oakland induction center, ilavista,delano,century city, chicago ''68.'' will be at SEIZE D.C. SEPT. 10TH.
Michael Smith
- +1
Aug 16 2011: Interesting. Education as you say should be available. However what do you do with the people that have education available but have no desire to learn. Perhaps desire is the wrong word. No hunger to learn.

Your right some people will complain about the apples, some will complain and not know what apples are. However you will only get a lot of people protesting if all the fruit in rotten.
- griffin tucker 10+
  - 0
  Aug 17 2011: you have made an excellent point, what of the people who don't want to learn the current system's models and are happy with their current way of life in regards to their current knowledge seeking abilities.
  
  simply getting the government to approach them and ask "what would you change?" probably wouldn't bare fruit.
Thomas Brucia
- +2
Aug 16 2011: One form of protest is simply to reject the ideological, moral (or immoral), and social bases underlying a social structure. In short, one 'drops out'. If something better emerges outside the old, great. If not, sometimes solitude is a nice way to live. (Remember 'Walden'?). The word 'protest' has been hijacked to mean becoming an actor in a play, waving signs, shouting, and clamoring for media attention. And the unexamined subtext is that one wants to influence the minds of others. Sometimes it's easier and faster to change one's own relationship to the larger structures by such measures as emigration, humor, turning off the TV, refusing to participate in any political group, or simply going off in the mountains on a hike. If one thinks of 'greater society' as a thing (like a river) it puts one's individuality in perspective. Can I change the course of a river by shouting at it? Nope. Can I move a mountain by digging holes in its side? No. But I can ford rivers (or climb over them), and either scale or walk around mountains. The root cause of 'protest' is a conflation best expressed by the pronoun "we". "We need to.... blah, blah, blah." Once one realizes that one's not part of any "we" that can be named (known by Bokononists as 'granfalloons') and begins to get in touch with one's strange and very individual threads of 'karass", then one can find a path through life. In short, perhaps it's time to go back and reexamine Gautama Buddha's life... He didn't wave any signs or run around trying to bring folks around to his way of thinking. He just worked on himself!
Joe Fletcher
- 0
Aug 16 2011: I feel that the very best way to create change is through a protest. Governments and corporations generaly only respond to something when there is an economic incentive to do so. If all the working people don't go to work and are instead protesting in the streets, the people effectivley slow down or even shut down the economy of the state. This makes it much more likely to have demands of the people swiftly met. I beleilve one of themain reasons protests tend to fail is simply geographic. It is much harder to have say a national scale protest in America when half the population lives 1000 miles from Washington D.C

Load more comments…

Sign In

To join or start a conversation, you'll need to sign in. Not a member? Register Now (it's free and fast).

Live Conversations

Live Conversations are hosted by TED speakers and TED Fellows. Ask your questions and participate in the discussions on the following dates and times: