Below are two news stories on the ongoing protest on Wall Street.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/09/occupy-wall-street-movement-reports-80-arrested-today-in-protests/
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/25/nyregion/protesters-are-gunning-for-wall-street-with-faulty-aim.html
Occupy wall street is an ongoing protest taking place on wall street. It has gained little attention in the media other than on the social networks, specifically Twitter. According the NY Times, a common interest seems to be lacking among the wide array of individuals protesting. “The one thing we all have in common is that We Are The 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%,” said a statement on the website Occupy Wall Street. (ABC News article above).
It is interesting to read through the #occupywallstreet posts on twitter. Most of the posts are fueled by claims of police brutality where there are alleged instances of people being maced and tazered by law enforcement officials. It seems that to gain more followers less attention should be focused on the force of the police and more of the actual issue at hand. As only those experiencing police aggression and those who have experienced it in the past are the only ones that can relate. In the duration of the protest (8 days now) the cause seems to have shifted from protesting the corruption of 1% of the population to police aggression. Most of the tweets mention the harm inflicted by the NYPD and how it is important to maintain the peace of the protest. However, one begins to question the peace of the protest, as there is little evidence to evaluate.
The number of protesters now has reportedly dwindled and those standing their ground appear less focused on the original goal of the protest and now on making point of the action of the law enforcements. One tweet inquired what the individual police officers were thinking. This could possibly imply that the officers felt the same way as the protesters but were acting in such a manner because that is how the rest of the officers were acting. The social psychology element is how protesters work together to maintain their cause. While they may not have all decided to protest for the same reason they now all have a common interest in reporting the actions of the police.
It’s difficult to gain a perspective on the events of the protest. The videos posted on Youtube do not give a clear idea of what is happening. Thus one questions what makes an effective protest: is it the size of the gathering, the violence that seems to occur frequently, or a political figure addressing the protest? The Occupy Wall Street protest does not seem effective as the number of protesters is reducing and their issue is no longer clear. For an increase in attention and support the reasons for the protest should be more prominent on twitter.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/09/occupy-wall-street-movement-reports-80-arrested-today-in-protests/
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/25/nyregion/protesters-are-gunning-for-wall-street-with-faulty-aim.html
Occupy wall street is an ongoing protest taking place on wall street. It has gained little attention in the media other than on the social networks, specifically Twitter. According the NY Times, a common interest seems to be lacking among the wide array of individuals protesting. “The one thing we all have in common is that We Are The 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%,” said a statement on the website Occupy Wall Street. (ABC News article above).
It is interesting to read through the #occupywallstreet posts on twitter. Most of the posts are fueled by claims of police brutality where there are alleged instances of people being maced and tazered by law enforcement officials. It seems that to gain more followers less attention should be focused on the force of the police and more of the actual issue at hand. As only those experiencing police aggression and those who have experienced it in the past are the only ones that can relate. In the duration of the protest (8 days now) the cause seems to have shifted from protesting the corruption of 1% of the population to police aggression. Most of the tweets mention the harm inflicted by the NYPD and how it is important to maintain the peace of the protest. However, one begins to question the peace of the protest, as there is little evidence to evaluate.
The number of protesters now has reportedly dwindled and those standing their ground appear less focused on the original goal of the protest and now on making point of the action of the law enforcements. One tweet inquired what the individual police officers were thinking. This could possibly imply that the officers felt the same way as the protesters but were acting in such a manner because that is how the rest of the officers were acting. The social psychology element is how protesters work together to maintain their cause. While they may not have all decided to protest for the same reason they now all have a common interest in reporting the actions of the police.
It’s difficult to gain a perspective on the events of the protest. The videos posted on Youtube do not give a clear idea of what is happening. Thus one questions what makes an effective protest: is it the size of the gathering, the violence that seems to occur frequently, or a political figure addressing the protest? The Occupy Wall Street protest does not seem effective as the number of protesters is reducing and their issue is no longer clear. For an increase in attention and support the reasons for the protest should be more prominent on twitter.
I think that since there has been so much global mass protest lately, it might be easier to use that as an incentive for people to rebel as well. They use that as inspiration, and therefore, believe that if it has been proved effective recently that their protest will be resolved as well. Although there are hundreds of people supporting this cause, I do believe that in this case, more people would be harder to suppress, and therefore, create an even bigger situation as has been proven recently in Egypt and Libya.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that it is a possibility that the increase in rioting in the world may have an influence on the amount of rioting on Wall Street. I also believe that some people may join protests because they feel as if they are a part of a group. People are more likely to do something when they see a group doing it. They act differently when they are alone. The people that are left protesting, may be there because they feel powerful. More powerful than they usually do, if they are alone.
ReplyDeleteI think having a strong but reasonable stance in what is being protested is very important for a protest to be successful. As long as an argument is sound and stable, there will be the perseverance to fight for what is right or wrong. As for the protesting on wall street, I think most people are causing an uproar just so they can have someone to blame for their problems. The need to release their stress and anger on others in order to feel better about themselves and doing it in a group gives them more confidence.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFrom a social psychological standpoint, it is easy to see that because protests like these have been very recently heightened worldwide in terms of popularity, it becomes very much socially acceptable to participate. Therefore, because it is easy to participate in, individuals may begin to feel more inclined to do so if people they know are involved. Being part of a group and similarly, being part of something bigger beyond one's self is ultimately something we as individuals crave socially.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that initially the promotional value of these protests Wall Street were that they would be 'peaceful' and harmless barricades/meetings, contributes to the easiness to be a part of something bigger, a greater cause. For example, one could not feel strongly about the issue but chooses to protest for curiosity, excitement and as mentioned, to be a part of something bigger. However, as mentioned in the articles above, these numbers may decrease once violence and the risk of injury comes into play given that certain individuals do not feel as strongly about the issue as others do. However, this could also be seen to go the other way as since violence has been seen, there is another issue in which needs to be protested.
What I've mostly noticed about this movement is a lack of organized thought behind it. They're coordinated, they all showed up and everything, but without a coherent goal they are just one big huddled mass with Twitter accounts. The internet has been a godsend in allowing people to become more connected and exponentially mobile, but it's the ideas that allow people to move mountains. Recent events have shown that enough passion can do amazing things when focused, but this seems to have neither of those.
ReplyDeleteIt's like that new Spider-Man musical, it probably won't break any new ground and it only makes the papers when people get hurt.
I think New York City is a somewhat exceptional place to hold a protest and gain real recognition and respect for your cause. I think that maybe as New Yorkers we are so used to a certain level of commotion, chaos, and grievance in our daily lives, that it would be relatively easier to pass by a protest (even on a scale such as this one)here than it might be elsewhere. I can then see how this would detract from the effectiveness of such a campaign.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, I think it is interesting to note the discrepancies in the number of protesters according to Twitter and according to news organizations.
Protests in general are more effective in achieving their goals when there is a clear direct argument and issue at hand. Without this concrete root cause, the argument becomes fragmented and difficult to receive as a message. I feel this is exactly why the New York Wall Street protests were so ineffective, as we can see in the articles peoples ultimate goal for the rally was scattered around the idea of change and not unified as a protest should be "I want to get rid of the combustion engine", "I want to create spectacles", “I want to abolish the Federal Reserve”, there were too many people marching to their own beat and not enough focus on one particular issue.
ReplyDeleteI haven't been keeping up with the news lately so I hadn't heard much about this protest until reading this blog entry. After reading the article written by abc I got kind of excited about the event, the protests in Egypt and Libya were effective in changing those governments, I thought, maybe we will be able to achieve something of that magnitude here in New York. However when I read the second article posted, by the nytimes I felt very differently about the event. There appears to be no definitive change they would like to see take place or specific cause they support. When individuals at the protest were asked by the reporter what they wanted to see changed they all had a different answer. The protest seems to be comprised of a bunch of people standing in one place who all want something different. The unifying idea of the protest seems to be to change the attitude of selfishness that is inherent in our country's economic system. I believe this protest would be much more effective if all the protestors hadn't shown up with their own individual agendas.
ReplyDeleteCurrently the protest seams to be dwindling since attention went from aggression against Wall St to the aggression against police brutality. Yesterday protesters were not marching or rioting but rather sitting. For a protest to be successful a clear message/reason should be established. The reason I think this has not happened yet is because corporate greed in Wall St is not a recent occurrence. It has been growing and has been fueled by politicians being put into office who support such. The cause and affect is not recently catastrophic but rather culminating. If there was a single or series of events or persons that could be blamed for the economic problems I think that it would give protestors the direction that they are lacking. Rather they are protesting the entirety of Wall St and no one on Wall St is taking accountability; therefore allowing the protest to be ignored.
ReplyDeleteI believe that these protestors would make a greater change if they changed up their tactic. It seems they have fallen to petty fighting instead of charging towards the main cause. Perhaps the ideal has slowly dwindled because there was no major change, but fighting with the police felt like a greater movement. If the Occupy Wall Street twitter is bringing it up and giving it attention, the individuals in the crowd are going to think they are making a large impact.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to note this shift in the main subject at hand, from the reason/ cause of the Occupy Wall Street protests to the side effects of the protest - which has become the center of attention. Media and social networking sites have a large role in highlighting key points of the situation and introducing their own attitudes. They are usually targeted to larger audiences therefore the mass market and their interest would be taken into consideration. As an individual, it is more likely for one to relate to the aggression with the police getting involved as opposed to the more specific driving factors of the Occupy Wall Street protest. However as we begin to look into these "individuals" as a collective, I think this becomes more a study of society and sociology as opposed to an individual in this social context.
ReplyDeleteI think the notion of social media and its interaction with the physical world is an interesting point in itself. The use of Twitter with its strict limitations on word count can skew a point trying to be made. People not heavily involved in political issues can feel either obligated or privileged with false information or miss information making them join something interesting they recently heard about. This can start a mass confusion about something that was not clearly defined to begin with. Also I think it's beneficial to point out that people are more likely to act out of character online when there is a precedent for acting a certain way on a particular issue.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs honorable as it is to stand up for one's beliefs and not be afraid to share one's opinions- I don't think protesting at Wall Street will do very much. As stated in the post, the protesters united under the "We won't tolerate greed" idea, but many seemed to get sidetracked on the topic of alleged police brutality. What good is a protest when there isn't an extremely strong subject/goal the people are protesting for? In this article by NPR, it talks about how protests these days just aren't as effective as protests in the past were, mainly because people aren't putting as much effort into protesting for/against a solid, clearly defined goal or ideal.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, in the light of the relatively recent Egypt, Libya, and UK protests/riots, I might go out on a stretch and say people partaking in protests these days might just be seen as potential troublemakers instead of peaceful people supporting a cause. To me, in these times, the more effective way of getting something accomplished might be playing in the system itself to change policy- at least it sounds a bit more effect than standing around waving signs at on-looking passerby.
After reading the chapter in the text about attitudes and methods of changing attitudes the comments made by David are particularly relevant.
ReplyDeleteIn the text they mention the central and peripheral routes to changing of attitudes. It seems that the messages that are coming from this group now, are more about superficial cues, rather than there original message.
From my reading, it seems they have moved from trying to use the central route, which involves logical thought and critical thinking, to the peripheral route, which is more about evoking emotions and the use of superficial cues. I think David is correct in suggesting the group should move back to their original message in order for it to be more effective.