social movements & Protest movements
A social movement represents a collective demand for change in the social or political landscape. Events like the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s and the environmental movement in the 1970s exemplify this concept. Social movements do not always have liberal aims. For instance, 19th-century nativist movements aimed to limit immigration and exclude certain groups, such as Catholics or Masons, from public office. Religious revivals also qualify as social movements. More recently, the conservative Tea Party movement has influenced local and national elections by advocating for reduced government growth.
A disaster can spark a movement, such as an oil spill that fueled the environmental movement. Similarly, the visible actions of leaders, like lunch counter sit-ins, played a crucial role in advancing the Civil Rights movement. Additionally, a new generation may adopt causes championed by inspiring writers, educators, or activists.
Regardless of their origins, social movements enhance the importance that people place on purposeful incentives (A benefit that comes from serving a cause or principle). This shift often leads to the formation of new interest groups that depend on these incentives for support.
Example:
The environmental movement illustrates how social movements lead to the formation of interest groups driven by specific goals. In the 1890s, the Sierra Club was established as conservation gained prominence. The popularity of conservation resurfaced in the 1930s, leading to the founding of the Wilderness Society and the National Wildlife Federation. During the 1960s and 1970s, environmental concerns captured public attention again, resulting in the creation of the Environmental Defense Fund and Environmental Action. A notable point of contention is the Dakota Access Pipeline, which aims to transport oil from North Dakota to other states, crossing land deemed sacred by the Standing Rock Indian Tribe. In 2016, tribe members and environmental activists conducted extensive protests against the pipeline's construction. In December 2016, President Obama halted the project just before he left office, seemingly granting a victory to the protestors. However, shortly after taking office, President Trump signed an executive order allowing the pipeline to proceed. (According to his federal disclosure forms, filed in May 2016, President Donald Trump held between $15,000 and $50,000 in stock in Energy Transfer Partners – down from $500,000 to $1 million in 2015 – and between $100,000 and $250,000 in Phillips 66. The Washington Post reported that Trump sold off his shares in Energy Transfer Partners in the summer of 2016. )
The Biden administration had been under enormous pressure from the pipeline’s opponents to reverse the Trump administration’s support of the project. A federal judge had put on hold further proceedings. However the Biden administration announced that it will not take immediate action to shut down the Dakota Access Pipeline while the government
The 1,200 mile-long underground pipeline carries hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil through North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa and Illinois. It began flowing in 2017.
Protest Groups and Direct Action
Public protests and disruptive actions—such as marches, sit-ins, picketing, and even violence—have always played a role in American politics. These tactics were particularly favored by American colonists fighting for independence in 1776. Both liberal and conservative groups have engaged in display and disruption. On the left, various organizations, including feminists, LGBTQ+ advocates, antislavery activists, coal miners, auto workers, welfare mothers, African Americans, anti-nuclear groups, public housing residents, the American Indian Movement, the Students for a Democratic Society, and the Weather Underground, have created unrest ranging from peaceful sit-ins at segregated lunch counters to bombings and shootings. On the right, the Ku Klux Klan has resorted to terror and murder; parents against forced school busing have staged protests; businesses have employed violent tactics against workers; right-to-life advocates have blocked abortion clinics; and numerous "anti-" groups—like anti-Catholics, anti-Masons, anti-Jews, anti-immigrants, anti-saloons, anti-blacks, and anti-protesters—have also disrupted. Recently, the Tea Party and similar groups have harnessed protests and rallies to promote their agendas. While these actions are ethically different—such as the distinction between a sit-in and a lynching—they present similar challenges for government officials.
Since the 1960s, disruptive tactics have become a standard political tool, no longer just a last resort for extremists. These methods are now employed by both middle-class citizens and marginalized individuals.
The history of using disruptive strategies by "respectable" individuals also runs deep. For instance, feminists in the early 20th century, starting in England and later in America, would chain themselves to lampposts or participate in what are now known as "sit-ins" to advocate for women's voting rights. The goal was similar to today’s objectives: to disrupt institutional functions, compel negotiations, gain support from third parties like the media, or provoke police reactions to create martyrs.
The civil rights and antiwar movements of the 1960s provided many young people with practical experience in these tactics and demonstrated their effectiveness under certain conditions. Although these movements have diminished, their participants have adapted these methods for new causes, such as attempting to halt the construction of a nuclear power plant or occupying a government office to seek concessions for specific groups. Consequently, these techniques have become commonplace across the political spectrum and can sometimes influence policy, illustrating why diverse groups utilize them.
The Civil Rights movement USA.