StarGateWars Forums

Hello all,

At the moment I've been doing a lot of research into 'social movements' as part of a paper which I'm writing. Or, rather, which I'm being forced to write.

For those who are unaware, 'Social Movements' are when large groups of people, or organizations, carry out group action in favour or cultural, social or political change. Protests, for example, and demonstrations. Even petitions. The US Civil Rights movement is one of the most famous examples, and the 2003 March against the Iraq War is one of the more recent ones.

My questions to you are as follows:

Have you ever been involved in such a movement?
Do you think they've effective nowadays? Do you think that real, palpable change can be affected through protest of this nature?

This is partly a rather shameless 'help me do my homework guys' topic, but at the same time I'm interested in hearing the opinions of some of the people who frequent the debate section. I'm looking forward to Avenger's reply the most, I think, as he's someone whose highly opinionated on both current affairs and historical trends.

Thanks in advance,

- M

I have been involved in such a movement in my own country,my town to save a monument.While it didn't work i will be honest and tell you i never believed it to work...
Reason:The beackbone of a protest must be a public person,ready to give arguments of legislative nature in order to uphold an action.Further more,even with such elements present one cannot hope to acomplishe much, for as history has tought us, more people will acomplishe less in more time than few people in less time with more power...

Unfortunately, nowadays many of these "Social Movements" represent a minority (there are of course notable exceptions). I always think that although, for example, you have a petition to the Australian Government with 160,000 signatures, there are still about 15 million eligible voters who did not sign your petition.

It works on what I call "perceived recency". On an national scale, 160,000 people obviously does not constitute a majority. But seeing them all in one stack of papers looks very big and persuasive. The same with 20,000 people in a mass-march. There are probably 20,000 people who disagree with their cause. They, however, are not congregated in one large disruptive wave. All that has happened is that you have gathered all of the supporters of a cause in one large package. You see them all there at once and you immediately perceive the volume of support. You don't perceive the magnitude of the other side, because you've been seeing them gradually in smaller, less outspoken groups that disappear from your memory when they are no longer significant.

Mordack wrote:This is partly a rather shameless 'help me do my homework guys' topic,

LMAO, no seriously, how many days have you got before you hand your homework in? i would prefer to read a few more replies before i post because others will probably say the same things i will but will say them better. either way i will give you my opinions

Mordack wrote:I'm looking forward to Avenger's reply the most


- M

wow, i take that as a massive compliment

[KMA]Avenger wrote:

Mordack wrote:This is partly a rather shameless 'help me do my homework guys' topic,

LMAO, no seriously, how many days have you got before you hand your homework in? i would prefer to read a few more replies before i post because others will probably say the same things i will but will say them better. either way i will give you my opinions

Mordack wrote:I'm looking forward to Avenger's reply the most


- M

wow, i take that as a massive compliment

Oh, it's months and months away. That's why I'm getting the opinion gathering research out of the way first.

Greased Gerbil wrote:Unfortunately, nowadays many of these "Social Movements" represent a minority (there are of course notable exceptions).

The miniority are always the ones with the power.

Mordack wrote:
Oh, it's months and months away. That's why I'm getting the opinion gathering research out of the way first.

excellent

Tropic Thunder wrote:

Greased Gerbil wrote:Unfortunately, nowadays many of these "Social Movements" represent a minority (there are of course notable exceptions).

The miniority are always the ones with the power.

In my opinion governments generally operate to improve the standings of minorities, while not dissolving the rights and nicities of the general populus.

So a minority "social movement" may not give direct results, but it gives an indication to the powers that be of the general feelings of "the people". This can help shape policies and future changes, but I don't think it has a great immediate impact on getting results.

What was the French Revolution, if not a social movement?

If you want two more recent examples, then look at the Iranian Revolution of 1979 or the removal of Nicolae Ceauşescu from the Romanian Government ten years later. Both of those acts, which toppled entire governments, started with ordinary people taking to the streets.

The march against the Iraq War, however, was quite obviously unsuccessful. None of the other Anti-War protests around the world worked either. Neither did the demonstrations which occurred outside the G8 Summit result in any significant changes to world policy.

Is it just in Western Democracies, or the so-called heavily Capitalist countries, where the social movement is now effete?

Mordack wrote:What was the French Revolution, if not a social movement?

If you want two more recent examples, then look at the Iranian Revolution of 1979 or the removal of Nicolae Ceauşescu from the Romanian Government ten years later. Both of those acts, which toppled entire governments, started with ordinary people taking to the streets.

The march against the Iraq War, however, was quite obviously unsuccessful. None of the other Anti-War protests around the world worked either. Neither did the demonstrations which occurred outside the G8 Summit result in any significant changes to world policy.

Is it just in Western Democracies, or the so-called heavily Capitalist countries, where the social movement is now effete?

The only differenc being,what happened here,in Romania was a REVOLUTION,ploted and planned...
The march agaisnt the Iraq War was trully a social movement,yet unsuported and had 0 impact,as the social movement against Bush in the day of his inauguration day...

The most recent Iran movement against the election results was a social movement that failed. I beleive the election was rigged, but obviously the proof of this is not irrefutable otherwise I am sure it would of been more successful.

Yes I agree that revolutions, socially not military, are social movements. But when does a social movement become something more?

fourtwozero wrote:The most recent Iran movement against the election results was a social movement that failed. I beleive the election was rigged, but obviously the proof of this is not irrefutable otherwise I am sure it would of been more successful.

Yes I agree that revolutions, socially not military, are social movements. But when does a social movement become something more?

People dying,goverments being overthrown...then its something quite different...

Ashu wrote:

fourtwozero wrote:The most recent Iran movement against the election results was a social movement that failed. I beleive the election was rigged, but obviously the proof of this is not irrefutable otherwise I am sure it would of been more successful.

Yes I agree that revolutions, socially not military, are social movements. But when does a social movement become something more?

People dying,goverments being overthrown...then its something quite different...

Circumstancially i would agree, however, would you not say that the black movement was a social movement even though many people did infact die. Its dependant on who the leaders of the social movements decide to act in a passive mannor or in a non passive manor.

I'm not so sure that they do become 'something different.' Social movements are not necessarily passive, or peaceful. The Suffragettes, arguably one such movement, used highly agressive means of getting their points across. Defacing public property in the name of a cause, or smashing the windows of your local constabulary with a letter tied to brick, are both forms of protest. Albeit extreme ones. There are many different types.

The Roman Revolution began, like all of the best revolutions in my opinion, with song. A group of protestors broke out into a banned national song and were subsequently shot to pieces by the state police. Then one thing to led to another, and before you knew it Ceauşescu was up against the wall. The military were quick to take advantage of the situation, and install their own replacement government, but I'm still of the opinion that the primary catalyst to everything which happened was the ordinary people. Ordinary people who had just had enough.

Mordack wrote:I'm not so sure that they do become 'something different.' Social movements are not necessarily passive, or peaceful. The Suffragettes, arguably one such movement, used highly agressive means of getting their points across. Defacing public property in the name of a cause, or smashing the windows of your local constabulary with a letter tied to brick, are both forms of protest. Albeit extreme ones. There are many different types.

The Roman Revolution began, like all of the best revolutions in my opinion, with song. A group of protestors broke out into a banned national song and were subsequently shot to pieces by the state police. Then one thing to led to another, and before you knew it Ceauşescu was up against the wall. The military were quick to take advantage of the situation, and install their own replacement government, but I'm still of the opinion that the primary catalyst to everything which happened was the ordinary people. Ordinary people who had just had enough.

Yeah I guess they aren't something different.

So then religious extremism (aka terrorism) is regarded as a social movement? Is the war in afganistan a social movement as the purpose of it is to protect the human rights of the people of afghanistan? These military actions serve social purposes so does that make them social movements? or does the movement have to be by the people external from the government, or the powers that be?