The very first amendment of the Constitution of the United States proclaims and protects the right of citizens to peacefully assemble and protest. Given this placement in the law of the land, the fact that protest is often equivocated with freedom of speech and religion as a cornerstone of democracy leads to a popular perception that protest is the ultimate means of acquiring social and political change. In fact, this belief is ill-advised, and protest is much more about the sneaky illusion of internal self-perception and external appearance than anything else, and it should not be considered an effective means of initiating or implementing substantial political change.
I first address the concerns of self-perception. Any activist’s political beliefs and issues of focus are undoubtedly the result of a lifetime of experience, observation, and contemplation. To engage in protest is an indisputably social act by nature – but is it anything more than this? One hour spent at a demonstration listening to various speakers give their stances on issues in a typically unorganized and unpredictable manner is certainly less insightful than an hour spent debating and rigorously challenging the assumptions that underline one’s beliefs. And if one is certain in the validity of their own beliefs, then an hour spent at a demonstration is an hour wasted in a filter bubble of tautology– why does one need reassurance in something they so strongly believe? The clear implication here is that those who truly care about the issues and have a strong, passionate belief will spend their time working towards their visions of an improved society. Those who attend protests, therefore, are not certain of their own beliefs.
This leads to a discussion on the idea of political identity. We as a society place incredible emphasis on succinct, broad (sometimes all-encompassing) identities. “I belong to party X,” “I am an ___ist,” etc. But to blindly accept all of the values of any institution in such a manner is a resignation of the experience and contemplation that lead one to assume the beliefs which propelled one towards the institution in the first place. Such an act of resignation begins as the result of the aforementioned uncertainty. In moments of uncertainty the tendency is to place too much emphasis on the opinions of others – this is mellifluously convenient and instantaneously gratifying – rather than seeking deeper insight into one’s own thought process and beliefs, a process which although equally gratifying seems tiresome, labor-intensive, and subsequently induces an inevitable inertia. One who accepts “their” values from a protest has taken the former route. Likely without even questioning who organized the protest, nor considering what the organizer’s precise stances are, they have conflated their own opinions with those of some indeterminate collective whose name, tangible impacts, and direction are likely unknown. This is clearly not conducive to change in the way that volunteering with an activist organization or community initiative is.
I now address the concerns of external appearance, returning to the notions of political identity outlined above. More often than not, the impetus for adoption of some given belief is malformed. A view will be adopted because it allows for the creation of or partaking in a community which acts as an implicit prison of resigned identity and stance. The community is so distracted by the filter bubble that they have created that they fail to take action on their principles. It is much easier to decree that one is in alignment with some idea than to actually work towards implementing said idea. The deceptive sense of illusion that protest creates is, under the surface, an excuse for passivity. Protests that consist of long-winded laments and repeated enunciation of utter urgency create a silhouette of action that is convincing to those who glance without much effort. It is trivial to connect with others who share similar beliefs, easy to add another “__ism” to the personal list, but one must ask the question: “Are these connections fruitful?” If the purpose of protest is to serve as the activist’s call to arms, then the answer to that question is a resounding no.
This seems to imply that those whose primary means of activism is protest are more concerned with issues of their personal external appearance, the issue of how others perceive their own beliefs, than the actual issues at hand. Activism need not be equated to advertisement. It is often the quiet, unnoticed work which makes the most direct impact in the lives of the many. In other words, this is a marathon and not a sprint – while attending a demonstration for an hour and considering oneself a contributing activist is a beguiling proposal, one that seems to take effect immediately, it is not one which will ever lead to discernible results or change. Change lacks object; it is instantaneously imperceptible. All too often the apparent external appearance of affecting change is, in actuality, an indication of stagnation, perhaps even implicit resignation. The issues of the day will continue to protrude and synthesize anger, disillusionment whether one collective complains about them or not (and the disillusionment of complaint is contagious – protests rarely achieve more than being a slight annoyance which can be ignored) – the only hope in subsiding this protrusion is to put the appearance of what is being done aside and commit to the persistent fight of constant tangible action.
Being a student at Brown during these times of great political unrest, I often find myself receiving invitations to demonstrations that are largely in line with my personal beliefs. I refuse these invitations, however tempting they may be, instead choosing to act directly on issues that provoke me. If we truly care about the issues at hand in the present day and wish to have an impact on the direction of the society that we all share, then we must abandon the ineffective charade protest and focus our limited time and energy on more effective means of activism. To fail to do so and remain trapped in the limbo of protest only empowers those who are enemies of democracy.