In my previous musings, I questioned whether the Manhattan Spring movement could ascend to the status of an actual social movement, the sort which changes the course of history. The documentary wizard Ken Burns has a new offering on Prohibition. It brings out a lot of truths of social movements. I recommend watching it.
Social movements take a long time to produce tangible products. Social movements run in cycles. Social movements are based on conviction and values, rather than power or money. Social movements are impelled by a few charismatic figureheads or communicators. Most social movements have their roots in the Church. If Christians don’t feel a moral imperative or impetus for greater social justice or change, one might ask why? Such “religious” outpourings often reflect mainstream, rural convictions (i.e. most of the country) and are a good gauge of popular support and movement success. If most of the country doesn’t resonate with a movements objectives, that movement can easily be framed and spun by opponents as extremist and anti-American.
Other lessons…social movements are a confluence of many gripes. While there are MANY outrages out there in the big world to bitch about, successful movements have a single clear, compelling objective. This is huge, so……successful social movements settle on a clear, compelling objective and envisioned outcome.
Social movements need political translation to be transformative. Civil rights took about over 200 years (Jefferson submitted emancipation bills while in the Virginia Senate before the Revolution) and required multiple Amendments to the Constitution to be woven into our national fabric. It is very easy for political movements to be hijacked (looking at you Tea Party) or dilute themselves with multiple objectives. All political movements will be leveraged by the powerful for their own ends.
Successful social movements always have unforeseen societal outcomes and consequences.
Ok, so those are some major lessons we can learn from history about social movements. One other I would add, all successful social movements advance civil rights, liberty or freedom. Moevements inhibiting liberty and freedom (example: anti-gay rights) stand on the wrong side of history. Just an observation, not an advocacy.
Another two cents observation: the language used within the movement must reflect societal mores and galvanize action and participation. For example, the abolitionist movement was linked with women voting and was diluted for many years. At the time, it was unseemly and distasteful among women to participate in politics or the public arena. Only when a reformer recrafted the message as “Home Defenders” did women flock to the cause across the nation. A clear compelling outcome requires simple, resonant language.
The next blog will shift from principle to practice.
No comments:
Post a Comment