The more progressive elements of contemporary mainstream America increasingly opt for the use of ‘symbolic action’ over more confrontational methods of mass protest. While the colorful puppets, floats, and choreographed “street theater” presentations are certainly creative and entertaining, they accomplish little in terms of affecting progressive social change. Such antics, while in most instances sincere, are detached from the hard realities of mass protest methodology. Unfortunately, progressive social change comes only when elites feel pressured enough to relinquish a bit more of their authority. Generating this pressure entails making difficult, often costly sacrifices of life and limb, the ability to step outside of the comfort zone and risk the threat of lengthy incarceration and bodily harm to accomplish very calculated acts of state-oppositional non-violence. Experiences in the Deep South during the 1960’s Civil Rights Movement attest to this point.
Anti-globalization demonstrators appear to be interested in the use of non-violence, but rely on methods that are self-serving and ultimately frivolous, i.e., sitting in a restricted area and refusing to leave when ordered; stepping across an imaginary line drawn on the ground by police; refusing to disperse at an appointed time; and chaining the doors of public buildings. However, if these demonstrators were truly committed to progressive social change, they would put their Army/Navy surplus-bought Kevlar helmets and gasmasks where their bandana-covered mouths are, and use controlled violence as a tactical and strategic tool in the fight against global injustice. For example, after an unsuccessful attempt by pro-Palestinian demonstrators to gain access to the West Lawn of the Capitol, they returned to the Mall, where the majority of demonstrators from the Mobilization for Global Justice, the International A.N.S.W.E.R Coalition, and The National Youth and Student Peace Coalition seemed perfectly content to sit on the grass, get high, and listen to the white-bread reggae band performing on a makeshift stage. Where were the anti-globalization tough guys and girls when they were needed to breech police lines, in a just and noble effort to gain access to “the people’s Capitol?”
To be sure, U.S. elites want the anti-globalization demonstrators to take a seat in “the nation’s backyard.” Their subdued presence acts like a giant release valve in the sociopolitical-economic fabric. When tensions build, elites are more happy to allow sanctioned and permitted ‘demonstrations’ to take place, bleeding out just enough steam to keep things ‘in check.’
Such events are typically preplanned, well publicized in advance, and literally coordinated with the authorities, often including estimates by organizers concerning how many ‘arrestees’ will likely be involved. ‘Adversarial’ displays of symbolic action are staged to coincide with the more reserved demonstration as a whole, with the corporate media on hand to demean the entire spectacle. Throughout, the violence of the state is embodied in a jack-booted police presence that more often than not serves as a mere backdrop to the ‘self-policing’ done by arm-banded marshals from the alleged opposition’s own membership. Thus, both sides concur that the smooth functioning of the state must not be significantly disturbed.
While the premise of nonviolent action necessarily precludes engaging in violent acts that harm others, even for reasons of self-defense, it does not prevent its adherents from themselves incurring physical punishment in the pursuit of progressive social change. For example, Ghandi’s followers perished by the thousands, allowed themselves to be beaten and maimed, and clogged India’s penal system in the effort to end British rule. Violence already exists as an integral component of state policies, and requires little provocation. The state will readily exercise its monopoly on violence to immediately crush any movement purporting to challenge state policies, and/or transform the state itself.
Unlike the truly pacifist formulation adhered to by Ghandi’s followers, the central premise of symbolic action has not been concerned with an attempt to affect progressive social change while avoiding the use of violence that harms others. Instead, proponents of symbolic action have embraced a form of mass protest that allows them to posture as ‘progressives,’ yet avoid incurring any harm themselves.
Proponents of symbolic action make the wholesale mistake of believing that the state will display the same type of ‘morality’ that they consistently attribute to their use of symbolic action. By refusing to move beyond the level of symbolic action, demonstrators render themselves ineffectual in the face of state power, in which case they will largely be ignored by the status quo and self-eliminating in revolutionary potential.
Symbolic action pays only lip service to the ideals of militant opposition and self-sacrifice. Ultimately, any movement seeking to project a credible self-image as something other than just one more accommodation to state power must establish its militant oppositional credentials. The words of DC Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey best describe the imminent failure of yesterday’s anti-globalization demonstration: “The organizers did an outstanding job,” said Ramsey, baton in hand. “This is really what protests ought to be.”
