I was not prepared for the forest of uplifted chairs and products. I was also unprepared for muttering tongues conversing about monoculture and mothers' wages.
This was not a Pentecostal church. This was Starbucks in Ithaca.
At about 4:15, Collegetown Starbucks was taken over by about 25 protesters. Though the affiliation of the protesters is unknown, it seemed as though they belonged to an environmentally-conscious religious group. They were led by a middle-aged man who spoke with the intensity and the intonation of a southern preacher, inferred from a prayer-like quality of call and response between the leader and the group of protesters, interjected with an "Alleluia!" and an "Amen!"
The protest started reasonably quietly, but grew progressively louder. Towards the end, the leader was shouting.
The group decried corporate greed, the exploitation of individuals in developing nations, and exhorted individuals to go across the street and have some "real, fair trade coffee".
Many people did, in fact, leave, though few seemed motivated by the group's goals of shifting business to fair trade organizations.
The protest also seems to have irritated some of the Starbucks baristas. I overheard a conversation in which one friend was talking to another friend about getting a job at Starbucks. The first friend started discussing the "corporate" nature of Starbucks (as a negative). The barrista interrupted, and mentioned in a somewhat irritated tone that Starbucks helps her get through college, have medical coverage and save in a 401(k).
I know they pissed a lot of people off, but I do have to applaud the clever nature of their protest. The elevation of chairs was needlessly threatening and pretty dumb, but the sea of lifted coffee bags, Naked juice containers, and mugs was very post-modern chic, and yet reminiscent of Saul Alinsky. Me like.
One can only speculate about the goals of the group - and this one will. I full well acknowledge ahead of time that I am in no way "better" than anyone discussed in these thoughts - people who know me know that I can be a self-righteous prig, a greedy bastard, a cold pragmatist, and an emotional whiny baby. So I've been (or hope to be) in every position in this story, and claim moral inferiority.
Q: What were the motivations of the protesters?
Protests, and those who participate in them, are influenced by a number of reasons. And while I can't claim to be particularly informed about any group's motivations, I think I can infer a few.
1. Concern for fair wages to those who are involved with growing the coffee
2. Concern for environmental issues associated with coffee-growing
3. Inform public about their positions (opposition to corporations, "free trade", American consumer culture. (The last was revealed through comments like, "They're selling you dirt from the ground.")
In addition to these, it is possible that the leadership of the group pushed for the following goals:
1. Reinforcing the group's solidarity, via contrast vis a vis a corporation
2. A desire to take an action that would be
(a) relatively simple
(b) have a clear and immediate impact
(c) could be defined in a way that guaranteed success
(d) make a public commitment to avoid private guilt
(a) Relatively simple:
A protest requires fewer resources than a letter-writing campaign, and far fewer than a shareholder proxy fight to change corporate policy. It requires a handful of people, no money, and a minimum of time.
A large, sophisticated protest, of course, requires a lot of organization and resources. Speakers/leaders have to take a lot of time to craft a persuasive message and materials for potential new converts to a cause. Assuming protesters don't want to be arrested, it takes time and thought to solicit and ensure cooperation with local law enforcement. These are less important for a small group.
(b) Have a clear and immediate impact:
The protest is beautiful because it guarantees immediate gratification on the part of the activist. It is immediate action - it disrupts the business and provides immediate emotional catharsis and satisfaction for the members of the protest.
(c) Could be defined in a way that guarantees success
All forms of influence, whether activism, business strategy, or simple requests of a friend, carry the risk of failure or negative consequences. A campaign to petition Congress and bring about change faces issues as to how to measure success, and whether flagging public interest would constitute a failure and a waste of political capital.
But a protest always succeeds in the eyes of its participants. It is pretty much guaranteed to disrupt business in the cafe, at least for a time. It airs the grievances of the group, and informs the (often unreceptive) local public. If people are converted, that's great. If people are unreceptive or hostile, well, then that reveals the need for the group to exist, to educate and fight those who embrace corporatism all too easily.
(d) Public commitment to escape private guilt
Whether it gets Starbucks to adopt "fair trade" is irrelevant. The most important thing it does is to allow individuals to stand up and be counted, and to absolve themselves of responsibility for the actions they oppose.
When I protested the Iraq War on my college campus, I felt like I was doing my part to make my voice heard. At the very least, it served to wash my hands of the war and its consequences - after all, if I voted with my voice against the war, I can't be held responsible for the subsequent mess, right?
By opposing Starbucks publicly, the protesters absolve themselves from the responsibilities of our responsibility for the negative consequences of trade. Whether responsibility stops with that depends upon the individual; cases can be made for complete decoupling from a system one opposes, combatting it whenever feasible and success appears possible, or for working within the system and use reform, not revolution, to slowly change the normative boundaries of society.
*I was going to ask more questions, but got tired, and realized that a real social psychologist could do a better job.*
Conclusion
I recognize protest as an important and integral part of a free, democratic society. And yet I also recognize its selfishness - selfish in the sense that local group identity, and not global justice, is often the underlying motivator and the only lasting product of the protest. It doesn't disqualify it as a valid form of action in America. But it suggests that if our tactics say something about the scope of our ambitions, we should take care to make sure they are aligned.
No comments:
Post a Comment