[Peace-discuss] Is AWARE mesomobilized?

[Morton K. Brussel]

I say this with no offense intended, Matt, but I believe that you are  
on another planet. The lack of effectiveness of the anti-war  
movement, organizations like the UFPJ included,  derives in my  
opinion from the "annoyed" but non-militant character of the American  
populace with regard to the war and our policies thereto. We know  
this to be true on the local level, where no matter what is proposed,  
few show up for any demonstration or talk  opposing the wars. This  
despite the fact that a large fraction of the population is "against"  
the war. If we could only get, say, 30% of those really against the  
wars to get together in protests, we might have something, but that  
is never achieved, even at the onset of the Iraq invasion. How to  
mobilize people to unified action is the major problem here  with  
which all anti-war movements have had to contend.  One can attribute  
this state of affairs to various causes, including lack of effective  
organization, the fragmentation of the "left", or aiming at the wrong  
targets, but it is too easy to criticize without offering real  
alternatives to their policies.

Popular revolutions are hard to organize without catastrophic events  
involving the populace, and to change our system/policies a kind of  
revolution is needed. Naomi Klein now writes about this in a  
different context.

On the subject of UFPJ---that they are just money grubbing  
bureaucracies---I can only say that I disagree. They have asked for  
very little… and have encouraged local actions.

Cockburn stands on the sidelines and just bitches from his California  
niche. I don't know what eats him. He has written useful stuff in the  
past, but too often goes off on wild tangents.

--mkb


On Sep 20, 2007, at 11:15 AM, Matt Reichel wrote:

> As somebody who worked very closely with UFPJ during its formation  
> as part of the Peace Action delegation, which is one of the largest  
> member organizations within the coalition, I can tell you that  
> Cockburn is RIGHT ON with his analysis.
> His thoughtful and rigorous critiques of the mainstream bodies of  
> the "American left" are what attracted me to his writings, because  
> no one else provides such forthright critique of these organizations.
> The reason the anti-war movement has become so weak over the last 4  
> years, and it is undoubtedly weak, is that all of the original  
> energy that spawned up in late 2002 and early 2003 has been eaten  
> up by bureaucratic non-profits. Instead of continuing with  
> demonstrations in every small town in the U.S., and other creative  
> forms of protest such as strikes, walk-outs, die-ins, sit-ins,  
> hunger strikes, etc, people were content with throwing a little  
> donation the way of a peace non-profit or two.
> These non-profits spend their entire existence just trying to  
> continue to exist. 90% of what they do relates in some way to  
> fundraising, or getting their logo out there to attract future  
> donors. This leaves very little time to engage in any real direct  
> action, and, when they do, they will never be bold enough to  
> seriously challenge the two party power structure, again, out of  
> fear that this would spell disastrous consequences for their annual  
> income.
> While these organizations (From Greenpeace to the PIRG's to Peace  
> Action) can be of use to the left for the work they do in keeping  
> to date with the congressional timetable, they are in no way a  
> valid replacement of real GRASSROOTS activism: local organizations  
> throughout the country who aren't afraid to challenge the two-party  
> power structure.
>
> -
> mer
>
>
> From: brussel4 at insightbb.com
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Is AWARE mesomobilized?
> Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 23:25:46 -0500
> To: galliher at uiuc.edu
> CC: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>
> I agree with Monbiot [http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/ 
> 2007-06/13monbiot.cfm] that Cockburn cannot be taken seriously.  
> He's obsessive, prejudiced, and often intellectually dishonest. His  
> last phrase---(in the paragraph quoted below:  "…the mainstream  
> anti-war movement, as represented by UFPJ, is captive to the  
> Democratic Party") from my observations of UFPJ is arrant nonsense,  
> if not destructive (to antiwar initiatives).
>
> How many prominent others who have been up front against the war  
> were not invited? Must they all be invited? (And was Nader asked,  
> or did he ask, to be included?)
>
>  Cockburn says "But it was, alas, rather dreary, rather  
> predictable". I think that better applies to Cockburn.
>
> --mkb
>
>
> On Sep 19, 2007, at 5:48 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>
> [Without going into their institutional origins, this is the best  
> account I've seen of the differences between ANSWER and UFPJ. We  
> used a flyer from the latter at our last demo and so should be  
> aware of Alex Cockburn's comment <http://www.newleftreview.org/? 
> view=2677>:
> 	
>
> "Both UFPJ and ANSWER had their successes. But across the four  
> ensuing years, as the full ghastly futility and destructiveness of  
> the war has become more and more manifest, the anti-war movement  
> has got weaker. In late January 2007, United for Peace and Justice  
> held a rally in Washington. It mustered a respectable number of  
> people. It featured Hollywood stars like Sean Penn and 60s icons  
> like Fonda and her erstwhile partner, Tom Hayden. But it was, alas,  
> rather dreary, rather predictable ... An absence on the speakers’  
> platform at that January UFPJ rally gives us a significant clue to  
> the weakness of the anti-war movement. Ralph Nader was not invited,  
> even though he is a major political figure on the left, and a  
> fierce critic of the war. Why was he not invited? Nader is still  
> anathema to many Democrats because he ran as a third party  
> candidate in 2000, and they blame him for drawing crucial votes  
> from Al Gore, thus enabling Bush to win. Even though the war in  
> Iraq is a bipartisan enterprise, even though Democrats in Congress  
> have voted year after year to give Bush the money to fight that  
> war, the mainstream anti-war movement, as represented by UFPJ, is  
> captive to the Democratic Party."]
>
> 	Inside Higher Ed
> 	Sept. 19
> 	Mess o’ Mobilizations
> 	By Scott McLemee
>
> A few months back, Intellectual Affairs reported on the work of a  
> couple of social scientists who were studying the contemporary  
> antiwar movement. They have been showing up at the national  
> demonstrations over the past several years and – with the help of  
> assistants instructed in a method of random sampling – conducting  
> surveys of the participants. The data so harvested was then coded  
> and fed into a computer, and the responses cross-correlated in  
> order to find any patterns hidden in the data.
>
> The methodology was all very orthodox and unremarkable, unlike some  
> things we’ve discussed around here lately. But one of the  
> researchers, Michael T. Heaney, an assistant professor of political  
> science at the University of Florida, explained that the project  
> involved a departure from some of norms of his field. Political  
> scientists have tended to be interested in studying established  
> institutions, rather than the more informal or fluid networks that  
> sustain protest movements.
>
> His collaborator, Fabio Rojas, is an assistant professor of  
> sociology at Indiana University – so their effort to understand the  
> polling results had the benefit of cross-disciplinary  
> collaboration, and could draw on models from recent work on social  
> movements and network analysis. Nowadays you can often spot a paper  
> by a sociologist at five paces, just because of the spiderweb-like  
> graphics. Those are the maps of social networks, with the strength  
> of connection between the nodes indicated by more or less heavy lines.
>
> Heaney and Rojas have kept on gathering their surveys and crunching  
> their numbers, and they recently presented a new paper on their  
> work at the annual meeting of the American Political Science  
> Association in Chicago. The title, “Coalition Dissolution and  
> Network Dynamics in the American Antiwar Movement,” seems  
> straightforward enough – and the abstract explains that their focus  
> was on the rather difficult relationship between United for Peace  
> and Justice (UFPJ) and Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER),  
> the two main coalitions organizing national protests.
>
> So far, so good. The topic is rather familiar to me – deriving, as  
> it ultimately does, from certain important disagreements between  
> the Judean People’s Front and the People’s Front of Judea. (See  
> Monty Python, 1979.) But my effort to follow the paper soon ran up  
> against a single curious and unfamiliar term: “mesomobilization.”
>
> You could decrypt this etymologically, if course, as “intermediate  
> mobilization” or something of the sort. But doing so did not cause  
> a concept to spring instantly to mind. And since they were  
> addressing colleagues (all of whom probably had strong and definite  
> ideas about mesomobilization) it wasn’t as if the authors had to  
> define their terms. So I broke down and asked Heaney for a gloss.
>
> “Mesomobilization,” he wrote back, “is the process through which  
> social movement leaders mobilize other organizations to do the  
> direct work of bringing individual participants to a protest. In  
> that sense mesomobilization is one level ‘above’ micromobilization  
> (i.e., bringing out the actual bodies).”
>
> In other words, an organization (a labor union or whatever) does  
> the micromobilizing when it gets its members and supporters to  
> become involved in some activity (a demonstration, political  
> campaign, etc.) A coalition enables different organizations to  
> collaborate when they share a common agenda. This is  
> “mesomobilizing” – that is, mediating and connecting the different  
> activist cohorts.
>
> That distinction corresponds to very different sorts of functions.  
> “Micromobilizing groups play a critical role in contacting people  
> and shaping they way they understand issues and the efficacy of  
> political action,” as Heaney explained. But mesomobilizers – that  
> is, coalitions – provide “an overall conceptual framework for  
> events that links the demands and grievances of myriad groups  
> together.” (The mesomobilizers also buy advertising and get the  
> parade permits and so forth.) “Effective mesomobilization is  
> necessary to make large-scale events possible,” says Heaney,  
> “especially in highly decentralized fields, like peace and antiwar  
> movements.”
>
> The paper delivered at APSA looks at how relations between the two  
> biggest antiwar mesomobilizers have affected participation in the  
> national demonstrations. The differences between ANSWER and UFPJ  
> are in part ideological. The rhetorical style of ANSWER normally  
> runs to denunciations of American imperialism and its running dogs.  
> (I exaggerate, but just barely.) UFPJ is by contrast the “moderate  
> flank” of the antiwar movement, and not prone to tackling all  
> injustice on the planet in the course of one protest. As Heaney and  
> Rojas put it, UFPJ argues that “in order to build the broadest  
> coalition possible, it should focus on the one issue about which  
> the largest number of organizations can agree: ending the war in  
> Iraq.”
>
> The groups have a long, complicated history of mutual antagonism  
> that in some ways actually predates even the present organizations.  
> Comparable fault-lines emerged between similar coalitions  
> organizing in 1990 and ‘91 against the first Gulf War. But UFPJ and  
> ANSWER did manage to mesomobilize together at various points  
> between 2003 and 2005. This honeymoon has been over for a couple of  
> years now, for reasons nobody can quite agree upon – even as public  
> disapproval of president’s handling of the war rose from 53 percent  
> in September 2005 (when the UFPJ-ANWER alliance ended) to 58  
> percnet in March 2007.
>
> What this meant for Heaney and Rojas was that they had data from  
> the different phases of the coalitions’ relationship. They had  
> gathered surveys from people attending demonstrations that UFPJ and  
> ANSWER organized together, and from people attending demonstrations  
> the groups had scheduled in competition with each other. (They also  
> interviewed leading members of each coalition and gathered material  
> from their listservs.)
>
> The researchers framed a few hypotheses about contrasts that would  
> probably be reflected in their data set. “We expected that  
> participants in the UFPJ demonstrations would have a stronger  
> connection with mainstream political institutions and a weaker  
> connection to the antiwar movement,” they write. “We expected,  
> given ANSWER’s preference for outsider political tactics, that its  
> participants would be more likely to have engaged in civil  
> disobedience in the past, while UFPJ would be more likely to have  
> engaged in civil disobedience in the past.”
>
> They also anticipated finding significant demographic differences  
> between each coalition’s constituency. “Given the relative  
> prominence of women as leaders in UFPJ,” they say, “we expected  
> that it would be more likely to attract women than would ANSWER.  
> Given that ANSWER explicitly frames its identity as attempting to  
> ‘end racism,’ we expected that individuals with non-white racial  
> and ethnic backgrounds would be disproportionately drawn to ANSWER.  
> Further, given the relatively radical orientation of ANSWER, we  
> hypothesized that it would more greatly appeal to young people and  
> the working class. In contrast, we expected UFPJ to appeal to  
> individuals with higher incomes and college educations.”
>
> These predictions were not, for the most part, all that  
> counterintuitive. And so it is interesting to learn that very few  
> of them squared with the data.
>
> People who showed up at demonstrations under the influence of  
> UFPJ’s mesomobilizing framework were “significantly more likely to  
> say they considered themselves to be members of the Democratic  
> Party (54.1 percent) than ANSWER attendees (46.9 percent).” There  
> might be a few Republicans mobilized by either coalition, but most  
> non-Democrats in either case would probably identify as  
> independents or supporters of third parties.And they tended to come  
> for different reasons: “Participants at the ANSWER rally were  
> significantly more likely to cite a policy-specific reason for  
> their attendance (such as stopping the Israeli-Palestinian  
> conflict), while participants at the UFPJ rally were more likely to  
> cite a personal reason for their attendance (such as the death of a  
> friend or a family member).”
>
> But in terms of important distinctions, that was really about it.  
> There was no difference in degree of political involvement, or  
> experience with civil disobedience, or previous attendance at  
> antiwar protests. Nor was there a demographic split: “Despite the  
> stereotypes that many people have of the two coalitions,” write  
> Rojas and Heaney, “they are equally likely to attract the  
> participation of women and men, whites and non-whites, the young  
> the old, those with and without college degrees, and people from  
> various economic strata.”
>
> The paper also considers how the parting of the ways between ANSWER  
> and UFPJ influenced their mesomobilizing capacities — that is, what  
> effect it had on the networks of organizations making up each  
> coalition.
>
> The various spider-webs of organizational interaction did change a  
> bit. ANSWER began to work more closely with another coalition  
> pledged to denouncing American imperialism and its running dogs.  
> United for Peace and Justice came under stronger influence by  
> MoveOn – a group “much more closely allied with the Democratic  
> Party than either UFPJ or ANSWER” and taking “a more conservative  
> approach to ending the war.” (Or not ending it, I suppose, though  
> that is a topic for another day.)
>
> The researchers conclude that the conflict between the groups has  
> not really been the zero-sum game one might have expected – if only  
> because public disapproval of the president has won a hearing for  
> each of them.
>
> “To some extent,” write Heaney and Rojas, “ANSWER and UFPJ are  
> vying for the attention, energies, and resources of the same  
> supporters. But to a larger extent, both groups are more urgently  
> attempting to reach out to a mass public that has remained largely  
> quiescent throughout the entire U.S.-Iraq conflict....If public  
> opinion were trending in favor of the president, or even remaining  
> stable, the conflict might have been more detrimental to the  
> movement as its base of support shrank.”
>
> Such are the points in the paper catching one layman’s eye, at  
> least. You can read it for yourself here. Heaney and Rojas are  
> discussing their work this week at Orgtheory – a group blog devoted  
> to what Alexis de Tocqueville calls, in its epigraph, “the science  
> of association.”
>
> Scott McLemee writes Intellectual Affairs each week. Suggestions  
> and ideas for future columns are welcome.
> The original story and user comments can be viewed online at http:// 
> insidehighered.com/views/2007/09/19/mclemee.
>
> © Copyright 2007 Inside Higher Ed
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
> More photos; more messages; more whatever – Get MORE with Windows  
> Live™ Hotmail®. NOW with 5GB storage. Get more!

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20070920/eae967d7/attachment.htm