*

Week 8: Political Violence as Activist Strategy

* Contentious politics describes the act of using forms of disruption in order to make a political
point.
* Those studying social movements have described repertoires of contention to refer to all the
methods of disruption that activists have the option of using.
* Disruption is about interrupting the status quo or business as usual. Activists try to disrupt the status
quo to help people question current practices, imagine different alternatives, and suggest that the
movement or organization is powerful enough to make this alternative way of life a reality.
* So far, we have mostly focused on peaceful tools of disruption. In democratic countries, peaceful
disruptive tactics of protests are usually legal or come with minor punishments, like fines or a
minor jail sentence.
* Last week, we discussed tactics that are considered *more* disruptive and are often illegal. These,
however, are still considered to be primarily peaceful (although some cases of hacktivism have been
violent).
* But what about violence as a tool for activists?
* Is violence ever warranted or necessary?
* If social movements are forms of strategic communication, what does violent activity do to the
likelihood of the movement’s success?
* And is there then any difference between activists and terrorists? Between a social movement and an
insurgency? When can a social movement become a civil war?
* A repertoire of contention includes all of the tools and tactics activists use in pursuit of their goals.
* This could be as simple as an email or letter-writing campaign to a politician. It could include street
protests and marches. It could involve labor strikes and boycotts. It could include culture jamming and
hacktivism. Or it could involve property damage, street fights, acts of terrorism, and political
assassinations.

*
* Remember, without mainstream media attention, social
movements cannot get support.
* To be successful, activists need supporters willing to donate time
and money and need to be able to publicize their goals.
* When activists do this, they become powerful political forces who
demonstrate that they speak for the will of the public.
* But what happens when they are routinely ignored? What happens
when decades go by with no progress?
* Or what happens when the situation is so dire that to not act is itself
immoral?
* No media outlet can ignore violence. “If it bleeds, it leads” is an
old saying in journalism. So activists can guarantee attention when
they “make it bleed.”
* They risk negative framing. But they can succeed in setting the agenda
(remember lecture from Week 4).

*
* In 1969, Golda Meir, the prime minister of Israel was asked about the Palestinians. She responded
that there was no such thing as the Palestinian people.
* What she meant: the Arab Muslims living in Palestine at the time were not seen as a unified group
with coherent goals and a collective past. They were a bunch of individuals, not a group.
* The Palestinian Nationalist Movement originated in the 1920s while Israel was still a British colony.
* Early tactics included street protests which later became riots. Later, organizations gathered more
followers and engaged in labor strikes (refusals to work) and open revolts against Jewish and British
targets (low level terrorist attacks).
* Israel was divided between the Arab Israelis (the Palestinians) and the Jewish Israelis. The Arabs
rejected this and in 1948, engaged in war with the Jewish Israelis. The Palestinians were beaten badly
and lost all their allotted land.
* Palestinian political activity mostly disappeared until 1964 with the creation of the Palestinian
Liberation Organization (the PLO). The PLO was considered a terrorist organization by the Israelis but
was recognized as the legitimate authority for the Palestinian people by the other Arab countries. It
continued to engage in terrorist activities until the 1990s when it was recognized as a legitimate
political party.
* In the 1980s, general Palestinian frustration with Israeli leadership (which was defined as Jewish, with
the Palestinian population living as second-class citizens, resulted in the First Intifada in which people
rioted, went on labor strikes, performed acts of physical violence and property damage.
* A Second Intifada occurred in 2000 – 2005. This was even more violent than the first
* Estimates vary, but the total number of casualties that resulted from the Arab-Israeli conflict are
around 63,000 people.
* Financial costs are around $88 billion every ten years.
* Palestinians have suffered $300 billion in property losses.
* HOWEVER:
* No one would say today that the Palestinian people do not exist.
*

*
So was it worth it?
 *
* Violence in politics is common but not all forms of political violence are
described as terrorism (even though they can spread terror).
* To call an act of political violence ‘terrorism’ is not merely to describe it
but to judge it.”
* We never would describe ourselves as terrorists…terrorism is how we describe the
violent actions of the other side.
* “We are freedom-fighters or maybe revolutionaries! The other side are
terrorists!”
* Terrorist, murderers, gunmen, killers, paramilitary or guerrilla fighters, revolutionaries,
or freedom fighters?
* We think of George Washington as the leader of the Revolutionary Army. But the British
thought of him as the leader of a terrorist organization.
* Ever thought of the Star Wars series from the perspective of the Empire? The Jedi are a
bunch of terrorists!
* So how do we define terrorism?
* Terrorists are not part of the official government or governing organizations
(meaning, the military or police force cannot be considered terrorists).
* Terrorists attack non-combatants, meaning civilians or civilian property or military
not engaged in fighting (for example, soldiers on leave, not engaged in direct
combat).
* Terrorism is strategic, as terrorists engage in violent acts to accomplish political
goals.
 * However, the reality—the media define who is a terrorist, who is a
protester, who is an activist, who is a murderer, who is a revolutionary,
and who is a freedom fighter.
* How?

Andrew Joseph Stack

Crashed plane into IRS offices,
2/18/2010 Zale Thompson
Attacked 4 police officers with
Suicide note complained about bailout of
hatchet, 10/23/2014
financial institutions, politicians,
insurance companies, the Catholic Church, Recent Muslim convert but acted
and the greed of the IRS. alone.

*
 *
* How do media determine whether an activist is a terrorist?
* Think about how journalists create news.
* Most use government officials as sources.
* This explains why social movements that have at least some politicians’ support are reported
on more favorably by mainstream media.
* Activists that try to disrupt the status quo and do not have the support of those in economic
or political power are more likely to be framed negatively.
* If these sources label actions as terrorism, typically the news media will use the same label.
* News sources tend to work in a pack and echo each other. The same label then is used
throughout the media as whole.
* Lobbyists and those with powerful material interests in the status quo often use power to
label activists as terrorists.
* For example, in the 1980s, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) was labeled
an eco-terrorist organization due to their practice of throwing paint on people wearing furs in
public. The sales of fur clothing went down as a result.
* Nobody was killed. Except for maybe the animals but that was PETA’s point.
* Compare this with protesters that attacked abortion clinics or targeted abortion providers or
recipients with violents.
* These were labeled the “crimes of anti-abortion extremists”
* The difference? Abortion providers did not have the same level of lobbying power or financial
power as fur providers.
* In different countries, the news media are biased in favor of those we have alliances with.
* So in Germany, activists fighting against the German government are more likely to be labeled
terrorists. In Cuba, they are more likely to be labeled protesters or revolutionaries.
 *
* Terrorism: a weapon of the weak
* Governments have a lot more power. But terrorists can get their message across with
relatively small amounts of resources, both financial or number of supporters.
* Terrorism is referred to as “propaganda of the deed”
* An act of terrorism is an act of propaganda
* Provoking a response is the goal
* Publicity is the “oxygen” of terrorism. Without media attention, terrorists cannot
accomplish their goals. If 15 people die in a bus explosion, but nobody describes
terrorism as a cause, then people consider the deaths to simply be a tragedy. The
terrorists accomplish none of their goals.
* Terrorist actions might cause the deaths of just a few people. But many people feel fear
from these actions. This fear becomes part of the terrorists’ strategy.
 *
* Terrorist acts allow groups to earn
* Attention
* Recognition of grievances and demands
* Respect & sympathy from like-minded people
* Legitimacy as an alternative to those already
in power
* The ability to intimidate their opponents into
silence.
* See the discussion on the Spiral of Silence in
your readings this week.
* The Basque terrorist organization (the ETA) in
Spain wanted to push for independence from
Spain to form their own country. Their terrorist
acts intimidated other Basques who did not
agree with them from speaking out.
* When those in the minority are vocal enough to
intimidate the majority into perceiving
themselves to be the minority, we refer to this
as the spiral of silence.
 *

* Terrorist organizations use violence as part of an

organized strategy.
* But as we have discussed, most modern social movements
are not well-organized.
* When violence occurs, it is often the actions of a small
minority of protesters rather than entire organizations.
* How does this affect perceptions of the movement?
 *
* Force audiences to consider the issue
* Violence is impossible to ignore.
* Demonstrates the costs of continuing with “business as usual.” Want the violence
to stop? Better listen to us.
* Can demonstrate the movement’s determination
* Can show the vulnerabilities of a target; make them look weak or ineffective
* If the group is continuously subjected to mistreatment by the government or
groups who benefit from the status quo, violence might be the only option.
* Even advocates for nonviolence, like MLK and Gandhi, argued that violence was
often necessary for self-defense.
* The Stonewall Uprising in New York City occurred after a violent police raid on the
Stonewall Inn, a gay bar, in 1969.
* In the weeks following the raid, gay residents of Greenwich Village continued to
protest—more riots followed.
* The violence forced the news media to report on continual police violence
targeted at openly gay Americans.
* One year following the riot, the first Pride parade was formed, launching the
Pride movement (and why Pride Month is June—in commemoration of the
Stonewall Uprising).
* Can create a strong group identity and cause members of the group to feel
stronger bonds with each other.
* The case of the Stonewall Uprising, as well as the Palestinians discussed earlier.
 *
* Research shows that the use of violence as a protest tool tends
to decrease public support for the protesters.
* Can also decrease support for the goals of the movement.
* Also increases the public’s support for counter-movements or
opponents.
* Also can depress turnout for protests or movement events.
* Creates a distance between general public and protesters.
* Less likely to identify with the movement and their goals.
* Favors disproportionately young, able-bodied men.
* As a result, others voices are left out of the movement which
then makes it even harder to gain more support.
* Leads to violent backlash, especially from government
authorities (more on this next week). Can lead to full blown
civil war.
* Look at cable news coverage of the protests following the
death of George Floyd. CNN & MSNBC were more likely to use
a protest frame. Fox was more likely to use a riot or looting
frame.

*
*

* Now notice the support for the

organization Black Lives Matter
and look how it varies by political
party. Fox’s viewers are primarily
Republican. This group was less
likely to support BLM.
* Note: the riot and looting frame
was not necessarily the cause of
the lack of support. Fox might
understand that their viewers
already have less support for the
organization and as a result, use a
more negative frame.
*
* When their goals and messages are on the fringes of society
or not supported by large segments of the general population.
* When the group has had less professional training and does
not have the support of formal social movement
organizations.
* When protesters are provoked or threatened by opposing
group.
* Violence begets violence…
* Might be a form of self defense or lack of alternative. In this
case, the violence might be the start of an insurgency or civil
war.
* When protests are aimed more at the general public and are
not trying to target government organizations or individuals.
 *
* Is violence ever warranted or necessary?
* Think about your own perceptions of different social movements.
How have media framing of the movement or protesters as violent
shaped your thinking about the protestors? How has it shaped your
thinking about the causes?
* How can social movements attract media attention without engaging
in violence?
* Can you think of other ways activists can disrupt the status quo and
“wake people up” in ways that do not involve violence?
* Finally, how do those in power react when they are faced with
violent activism?
* This is the subject for next week!