Characteristics and Diffusion of the Shantytown Protests: 1985-1990
1.
In the research paper “The Student Divestment Movement in the United States and Tactical Diffusion: The Shantytown Protest”, by Sarah A. Soule of the University of Arizona, the focus was on a relatively recent phenomenon of how a single social movement organization could influence other organizations directly or indirectly. It all started in 1985 when news reports from South Africa swamped U.S. newspapers about their government-ordered beatings and shootings of peaceful demonstrators. These events in South Africa resulted in eleven thousand deaths due, in part, to the rising levels of political violence which stretched over a five year period. A concern about repression of political activism in South Africa sparked activist demonstrations in the U.S which spilled on to college campuses. One of the first protests took place in 1985 with a blockade of Hamilton Hall at Columbia University. The importance of the protest was that it got a lot of media coverage which advertised new protest tactics all over the U.S. Shortly after, the number of protests all over the U.S. against apartheid rose sharply, starting at Princeton then to the University of California Santa Cruz, Harvard, University of Iowa, and most importantly, sparking the innovative tactics practiced at Cornell University. At Cornell the students altered the normal sit-ins or camp-ins to the construction of shacks made from wood, tar paper, and plastics. Again, media attention gave these events great publicity and encouraged students at other universities to experiment with the construction of similar structures. The shantytown was seen as a successful tactic by student activists because it was not only a disruption on campuses, but it was also visually symbolic of the living conditions of many Black South Africans. The first problem that is dealt with is a hypothesis to identify the characteristics of universities and colleges that increase the rate of student divestment activism. The characteristics the author presents generally help predict which universities and colleges are more likely to practice the Shantytown protest. The second problem the author tests is different models about the process of diffusion of the innovative shantytown protest tactic. It is typically difficult finding empirical data to support such modeling but due to a program called NEXIS it was possible. This advanced data collection technique involves employing the computer system to scan all newspaper articles from 37 different newspapers and news agencies.
2.
Through the NEXIS computer system forty six shantytown events between 1985 and 1990 were found. The population consists of all four-year, nondenominational, nonspeciality, and nonprofessional universities and colleges in the U.S. that had some form of activism about South African divestment.
Findings:
When a student social movement organization uses a particular form of protest successfully, others are more likely to employ this tactic. This imitation of forms of protests leads to the diffusion of a tactic. The modular repertoire suggests that indirect tactics of protest can easily be moved from one place to another, by groups of social actors who are not engaged in face-to-face discussions. Similarly the term social movement spillover refers to the fact that ideas, tactics, participants, and organizations of one movement often diffuse into other movements. The word diffusion is defined as when an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among members of a social system. When students saw media images of other students on similar campuses across the country building shanties they identified with them, imitating their evidently effective protest strategies. After they saw that the tactic was successful for students that they could relate to, the protest tactic started to spread. Now we will get into the characteristics of the universities and colleges that are most likely to borrow the shantytown protest tactic. The first characteristic that is presented regarding student activism is that it is much more likely to take place on larger campuses. The second finding is that elite institutions are far more likely to experience activism. It is because these colleges attract a disproportionate number of “intellectually oriented students”, who are the very students who are typically activists. The third finding is that African American students were far less likely than their white counterparts to have participated in student movements of the 1960’s and 1970’s. Existing activist networks on a campus strongly increased the probability of student activism during the civil rights movement. An attempt to address the importance of preexisting network ties to activism based on the presence of an African/African American/black studies department on a campus increased the rate of shantytown protests. Liberal arts colleges are suspected to be more involved in activism due to the high level of intellectual reputation which attracts students who are intellectually curious. Intellectually oriented students are more likely to participate in student protests. Lastly, does regional location play a role in the diffusion of a protest? Table one from the data presents the analysis of the first problem dealt with by the author: A hypothesis that certain characteristics of universities and colleges increase the rate of student divestment activism? There are three models within Table one which indicate that the percentage of African American students decrease the rate of shantytown protests. In addition, the presence of a black studies department on a campus did not significantly increase the rate of protests. Table one also identifies that colleges that attract the most intellectually oriented students and had the highest admissions standards were those that had the highest levels of protests. Model 3 specifically shows that liberal arts colleges had higher rates of shantytown protests and had noticeably higher rates of protests than any other college type during the span of 1985 through 1990. Institutions located in the Northeast had a higher rate of shantytown protest. The question about regional location affecting protest diffusion may be due to many of the early shantytown protests occurring at colleges and universities located in this region. Table two presents data on the second hypothesis, which is about the process of diffusion of this innovative protest tactic. In model one in Table two we see a pattern consistent with diffusion. In the second model there is a positive effect of diffusion within institutional type. Model 3 in Table 2 we see prestige levels acting as another category within which indirect ties between students may have functioned as a diffusion mechanism. In model 4 of Table 2, student activist don’t seem to imitate other student activists from their own region. It turns out that all regions turn to two particular regions to get all the innovative tactics from. Model 5 of Table 2 provides evidence that students at institutions with similar levels of endowment look to each other for cues on the repertoire of contention actions. Model 6 in Table 2 is the insignificant effect of diffusion among historically black colleges The result of the characteristics analysis suggests that higher-ranked, liberal arts campuses with smaller enrollments of African American students have higher rates of shantytown protests. The findings of the second problem indicate that the shantytown protests diffused most rapidly between universities and colleges of the same institutional type, with similar levels of prestige, and with similar endowment sizes. The student divestment movement portrays a movement comprised largely of white students. The shantytown protests were seen as effective because they disrupted campuses and thus encouraged the adoption of divestment policies by colleges and universities. The protest shantytowns also represented the poor living conditions of black South Africans which highlighted the immorality of the system of apartheid to the U.S. public. This very effective mechanism leads to the diffusion of this tactic to colleges on a widespread basis.
3.
Sarah Soule brought social networks into play by arguing that social movement organizations are not isolated entities oblivious to the actions and tactics of other social movement organizations. She found out that social movement organizations are consistently intertwined with each other’s student organizations either directly or indirectly. She said that characteristics of colleges and universities proved certain ones were more likely to take on the innovative protest tactic than were others. More specifically, she identifies the shantytown protests to show how tactics can spread among certain types of U.S. campuses through diffusion. Through all this her focus is on the indirect diffusion of the protests. The author did a good job making her hypotheses and analysis clear. She stated that her paper would look at how social networks can be diffused directly or indirectly as well as characteristics of colleges that would increase their chance of adopting the tactic. She proves older theories wrong and builds on other sociologists that say social organizations are bounded.
4.
Although the characteristics presented by Sarah Soule are very important, the main facet that initiated such a diffusion of the shantytown protest tactic was the media coverage. The media coverage allowed the protest events to be seen by millions and was encouraged even more due to the many successful associated results. The media played a very important role in allowing this successful protest movement to take place. Without the media it would have been difficult for other schools across the country to hear about these protests and would disrupt questions that Soule asks. One question it would totally disassemble is region locality. She wouldn’t have been able to see if schools with similar characteristics across the country would adopt the innovative tactics. Social movements are not something that spontaneously arises. They take a bunch of individuals who are extremely passionate and motivated in a cause. The startup of a movement takes a person who is influential and is able to attract newcomers. Their reflective influence plays a huge role in determining whether or not people will follow their lead. Their actions will affect how and why he/she gets appraised. If that person starts to get positive appraisals it can affect how other people will appraise him/her. As I stated earlier it takes an individual who is persuasive and who has a solid position. If this person wins an argument he/she will gain more prestige and confidence in themselves, as will others. The next time something comes up people will be more likely to lean towards that person’s position until the ‘leader’ becomes self-weighted, meaning they don’t accept much influence from other people. The way someone gets really influential is by indirect flows of influence, where people who take the ‘leader’s’ standpoint go off and ‘recruit’ others. The initial start of a movement is bewildering to me, but the spread of such a huge movement, such as the shantytown protest, is even more ridiculous by tenfold. Similar to what I was just talking about is McAdam’s illustration of a movement. In order for a movement to become larger recruits must be made. A recruit will be much more likely to join the movement if they already know people in it. If their friend is already in it they automatically assume their friend positively appraises the cause. Also the friend will give the recruit information on the cause and incentives, which will increase their chance of joining. Like the shantytown movement, the first protest happened where there was previously held protests which gives them an advantage of having recognized leaders, communication channels, and networks of trust. When knowledge of a protest spreads their peers will be much more likely to imitate the founder’s actions, leading to the spread of a movement.