The Contemporary US Peace Movement Studies in Social Inequality, Social Change, and Social Justice

The Contemporary US Peace Movement New Approaches in Sociology Studies in Social Inequality, Social Change, and Socia...

Author: Laura L. Toussaint.

24 downloads 741 Views 5MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

The Contemporary US Peace Movement

New Approaches in Sociology Studies in Social Inequality, Social Change, and Social Justice NANCY A. NAPLES, General Editor The Social Organization of Policy An Institutional Ethnography of UN Forest Deliberations Lauren E. Eastwood

Striving and Surviving A Daily Life Analysis of Honduran Transnational Families Leah Schmalzbauer

The Struggle over Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Rights Facing Off in Cincinnati Kimberly B. Dugan

Unequal Partnerships Beyond the Rhetoric of Philanthropic Collaboration Ira Silver

Parenting for the State An Ethnographic Analysis of Non-Profit Foster Care Teresa Toguchi Swartz

Domestic Democracy At Home in South Africa Jennifer Natalie Fish

Talking Back to Psychiatry The Psychiatric Consumer/ Survivor/ Ex-Patient Movement Linda J. Morrison Contextualizing Homelessness Critical Theory, Homelessness, and Federal Policy Addressing the Homeless Ken Kyle Linking Activism Ecology, Social Justice, and Education for Social Change Morgan Gardner The Everyday Lives of Sex Workers in the Netherlands Katherine Gregory

Praxis and Politics Knowledge Production in Social Movements Janet M. Conway The Suppression of Dissent How the State and Mass Media Squelch USAmerican Social Movements Jules Boykoff Are We Thinking Straight? The Politics of Straightness in a Lesbian and Gay Social Movement Organization Daniel K. Cortese “Rice Plus” Widows and Economic Survival in Rural Cambodia Susan Hagood Lee

“Between Worlds” Deaf Women, Work, and Intersections of Gender and Ability Cheryl G. Najarian If I Only Had a Brain Deconstructing Brain Injury Mark Sherry Minority within a Minority Black Francophone Immigrants and the Dynamics of Power and Resistance Amal I. Madibbo Gender Trouble Makers Education and Empowerment in Nepal Jennifer Rothchild No Place Like Home Organizing Home-Based Labor in the Era of Structural Adjustment David E. Staples Negotiating Decolonization in the United Nations Politics of Space, Identity, and International Community Vrushali Patil Disability, Mothers, and Organization Accidental Activists Melanie Panitch Judicial Reform and Reorganization in 20th Century Iran State-Building, Modernization and Islamicization Majid Mohammadi Queer Inclusion in the United Methodist Church Amanda Udis-Kessler

The Contemporary US Peace Movement Laura L. Toussaint


Laura L. Toussaint

New York

London

First published 2009 by Routledge 270 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10016 Simultaneously published in the UK by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2008. “To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.”

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2009 Taylor & Francis All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Toussaint, Laura L. The contemporary US peace movement / by Laura L. Toussaint. p. cm. — (New approaches in sociology) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-415-99192-6 1. Peace movements—United States—History—21st century. I. Title. Contemporary United States peace movement. JZ5584.U6T68 2009 303.6'6—dc22 2008021835 ISBN 0-203-88722-0 Master e-book ISBN

ISBN10: 0-415-99192-7 (hbk) ISBN10: 0-203-88722-0 (ebk) ISBN13: 978-0-415-99192-6 (hbk) ISBN13: 978-0-203-88722-6 (ebk)

II. Title:

To all who suffer from violence and injustice and those who strive for a better world.

Contents

List of Tables List of Acronyms Acknowledgments

xi xiii xv

1

Introduction

2

Methodology and Demographic Data

21

3

Participation, Identity, and Social Networks in the Peace Movement

37

4

The Peace Movement and the Political Opportunity Structure

61

5

Peace Movement Issues, Diversity, and Mobilization

89

6

Challenges, Opportunities, and Future Prospects for the Peace Movement

117

Conclusions

141

7

Appendix A Appendix B Notes Bibliography Index About the Author

1

153 157 161 163 173 177

Tables

5.1 5.2

6.1 6.2

6.3

Percentage of Survey Respondents Who Identified the Following as Urgent Peace Issues

90

Percentage of Survey Respondents Who Identified the Following as Effective Methods of Mobilizing a Diverse Movement Base

109

Percentage of Survey Respondents Who Selected the Following as Challenges for the Peace Movement

126

Percentage of Survey Respondents Who Selected the Following as Important Opportunities for the Peace Movement

129

Percentage of Survey Respondents Who Think the Following Initiatives Should be Advocated in the Peace Movement

134

Acronyms

ACLU

American Civil Liberties Union

A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition

Act Now to Stop War and Racism Coalition

CFC

Combined Federal Campaign

CIA

Central Intelligence Agency

DOD

Department of Defense

DOP

Department of Peace

FBI

Federal Bureau of Investigation

FISA

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

GAO

General Accounting Office

NSA

National Security Agency

PJ

Peace With Justice

PP

Primarily Peace

PPP

Piedmont Peace Project

UFPJ

United for Peace and Justice

USA PATRIOT Act

Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act

Acknowledgments

Completing this book would not have been possible without the love and support of many people.1 I would fi rst like to thank all of the peace activists who participated in my study for generously sharing their time and insights with me. Their courage to heal a deeply wounded world is an inspiration and provides hope that peace and justice will prevail. I would also like to thank Ben Holtzman and Jennifer Morrow at Routledge for helping me navigate the publishing world and Nancy Naples for her helpful feedback on the fi rst draft of this manuscript. I am fortunate to have had many wonderful mentors who supported my growth as a scholar. It was while I was an undergraduate at Eastern Washington University from 1993–1997 that my passion for sociology was awakened. I am grateful to the faculty members in the Department of Sociology there who inspired me with their love for the discipline and encouraged me to pursue graduate school. My mentors at American University were especially helpful in completing this project. Esther Ngan-ling Chow prompted me to consider the important connection between identity and activism, which came to be a key component of my study. She also continues to provide me with many opportunities to collaborate on other social justice projects and inspires me through her dedication to scholaractivism and nonprofit work. I am grateful for her generosity, friendship, and mentorship. Russell Stone’s expertise in survey research and comparative analysis was an asset from the beginning of the project. He suggested I include two sub-samples in my Internet survey for comparison, which provided a richer data source in the end. Kinuthia Macharia provided ideas for contemporary studies to include in my research and challenged me to clarify the theoretical points in my work. I am grateful to all of them for their support and contributions to this project. Although they have both passed on, I would also like to acknowledge the influence that Asok Maiti and Samih Farsoun continue to have on my life. Studying with Asok Maiti at the Indian Statistical Institute in Kolkata during 2000–01 helped me develop a deeper understanding of the human rights framework that includes peace and justice. Asok spent his entire career as a sociologist struggling for social change. He truly lived

xvi

Acknowledgments

his theory that poverty is a human rights violation and social scientists have a responsibility to work towards creating a more equitable social system. Samih Farsoun also inspired me to think about social change on a global scale as he opened my eyes to the Palestinian struggle as well as to the richness of the Arab world. I was privileged to have Asok and Samih as mentors and friends. The passion, struggles, and ideas they shared with me live on. I have been blessed with a group of warm, funny, and wise family members and friends, who have kept me grounded and (somewhat) sane through this project. I am especially grateful to my parents, Tom and Barbara Toussaint, for their love and encouragement. They instilled in me the importance of civil involvement through their interest in politics and visible anger and sadness over military confl icts. They continue to live their values through their involvement with a local peace group, and I am inspired by their continual efforts to make things better in the world. I would also like to thank my sister, Nicole Damberg, for her friendship and positive energy, and for always laughing at my silly jokes. Finally, Kris Newby reminded me to never lose sight of the importance of personal relationships while I focused on the “big picture” for this project. Indeed, she has shown me that the connection to all sentient beings is the big picture, driving home the point of why the struggle to change violent institutional structures is worth it in the end. The kindness, wisdom, love, and humor that she emanates is a constant source of inspiration, and I am extraordinarily blessed to share the journey of life with such a beautiful soul.

1 Introduction

This book explores the challenges and opportunities facing the contemporary U.S. peace movement. The majority of the academic literature on the movement focuses on peace organizations or recognized leaders, leaving out the knowledge and experiences of individual movement participants. I attempt to fi ll this knowledge gap through an examination of activist demographics, the relationship of their peace movement participation to social identity and networks, how they respond to and are impacted by the post-9/11 political structure, and how they view the movement’s challenges, opportunities, and future prospects. An integrated theoretical framework based on the theories of new social movements, social networks, and political opportunity structures contextualizes my fi ndings, which are based on primary data and an analysis of current events and trends that have impacted the peace movement. I collected primary data on self-identified peace activists via an Internet survey of 251 respondents and telephone interviews with 33 survey respondents who agreed to be contacted. The survey consisted of one sample containing 182 respondents affi liated with organizations focused on peace with justice and another with 69 respondents affi liated with organizations focused primarily on peace. The survey data provide information on respondents’ demographic characteristics and opinions in relation to their peace activism. Data from the interviews draw out more complex relationships between individual participation in peace activism and structures of social relations and political opportunities. My data challenge the concept of a sole or master identity as the prime motivating factor for activism and instead support the notion of an interlocking effect among multiple aspects of identity that are important to activists. Social networks also impact peace movement participation for my study participants. They identify the major kinds of social ties important to their peace activism, types of support they provide, and the ways in which they have a prohibiting or promoting influence on their movement participation. Respondents also suggest that their activism is enhanced by the post-9/11 increased control of dissent. They describe the contemporary peace movement as having a multi-issue focus and identify

2


various strategies for overcoming the challenges of mobilizing a diverse movement base.

THE PROBLEM Studies of the U.S. peace movement that use organizations as the unit of analysis (Edwards and Marullo 1995; Coy and Woehrle 1996; Marullo, Pagnucco, and Smith 1996) offer ways to track historical trends of movement activity via framing and organizational structure, but leave the experiences and knowledge of individual participants largely unexplored. Many current accounts are written by movement leaders (Benjamin 2003; Bennis and Cavanagh 2003; Cortright 2003; Fletcher 2003) or rely heavily on leaders for data (Epstein 2003). These observations are valuable in terms of defi ning issues of interest for the movement, but they still do not provide a systematic analysis of individual activists in terms of their demographic characteristics, movement participation, how they view diversity and mobilization in the movement, their relationship to the political opportunity structure, and their thoughts on future directions of the movement. Other studies rely heavily on public opinion data to uncover movement trends. James Q. Wilson and Karlyn Bowman (2003) utilize data from public opinion polls for their examination of the “peace party”, of which they consider anyone who strongly opposes war to be a member. While such studies are useful for identifying which proportion of the public is anti-war, they do not specifi cally analyze peace activists. Moreover, this approach does not take into account other ways in which people conceptualize peace. There are many other demands articulated at peace demonstrations and in peace organizations’ mission statements (such as environmental, social, and economic justice) along with calls to end current military confl icts. There is a need, then, for research on individual activists since they are in the trenches of the peace movement. Many social changes are driven from outside formal political establishments. The abolishment of slavery, suffrage for women and people of color, and labor laws are testimony to this. Although activists rarely meet their stated goals in full or in the time frame they expect, their efforts almost always have an impact. For example, when President Nixon threatened to use nuclear weapons in Vietnam, nationwide protests erupted and activists organized a massive march in Washington, D.C. Although Nixon publicly declared the protestors were not affecting his decision, he privately articulated that America was so polarized because of the protests that he could not use nuclear weapons in the end (Loeb and Parrish 2003). Moreover, Wilson and Bowman (2003) maintain that U.S. activists within both major political parties do have an influence in which candidates run in the primaries.

Introduction

3

My study examines the configuration of challenges and opportunities faced by the contemporary U.S. peace movement, which has not yet been systematically explored and anchored to the social movement literature. For instance, while the literature on new social movement theory delves into the process of organizing around the basis of a particular identity such as gender, it does not fully explain the mobilization process of diverse constituents in a broader movement or how individual activists navigate their own configurations of social identity in terms of their participation in social movements. The historical legacy of oppression in America means that special attention must be paid to this dimension in any movement seeking to go beyond a single issue campaign. Particularly in the peace movement wherein successful outcomes benefit the entire society, it is not only theoretically satisfying but practically important to understand the factors involved in movement participation. Other important components of contemporary U.S. peace activism that I explore in this study include the issues that peace activists think are most important, their experiences of diversity in the movement, the initiatives they propose for promoting peace, their ideas for impacting public policy, how the post-9/11 political climate has impacted them, and their perceptions of opportunities, challenges, and future prospects for the movement.

MAIN RESEARCH THEMES AND QUESTIONS While the structure of my research questions are guided by three main theoretical frameworks (new social movements, social networks, and political opportunity structure), they are exploratory in nature, allowing for a greater possibility of uncovering new themes than a purely explanatory study would. The research themes and questions for this study of the contemporary U.S. peace movement are: Demographics • Who are the self-identified peace activists in terms of demographic characteristics? Factors That Influence Movement Participation • Why do they join the peace movement? • In what ways does identity1 (i.e., race, class, gender, religion, etc) impact their initial involvement and continued participation in the movement? • In what ways do social networks impact their initial involvement and continued participation in the movement?

4

The Contemporary US Peace Movement Relationship Between the Peace Movement and the Political Opportunity Structure • In what ways does post-9/11 social control impact peace activists and the movement in general? • In what ways do peace activists influence the political opportunity structure? Mobilization and Diversity • What are the processes and experiences involved in mobilizing a diverse peace movement base? Challenges, Opportunities, and Future Prospects for the Peace Movement • What are the current challenges facing the movement? • What are the opportunities and future prospects for the movement?

BACKGROUND On February 15, 2003, an estimated 30 million people participated in internationally-coordinated protests against the impending war in Iraq, which was the largest global peace demonstration in history (Sauermann 2003). Unfortunately, those massive efforts did not stop the war. However, activists continue to organize large global protests, particularly on dates like the anniversary of the invasion. This signifies that the contemporary peace movement is a powerful force within civil society. It also raises questions about who the activists are and what initiatives for peace they propose. While U.S. activists are by no means the only actors in this movement, it is crucial that their participation be examined and understood, since U.S. foreign policy is a target of the movement. 2 Scholar-activists such as David Cortright (2003) and Barbara Epstein (2003) have noted the current grassroots demand for peace is unprecedented, cutting across sectors like labor unions and environmentalists, and bringing together individuals traditionally organized around separate identities. Others (Newman 2003) view this diversity as “endless divisions” without solidarity or a collective organizational base. What such scholars mainly agree upon is that in order to sustain the strength of the movement, activists must take a pro-active stance and articulate peaceful alternatives rather than staying on the defensive and reacting to crises. Many contemporary peace organizations are meeting this challenge by framing their demands with an agenda of “peace with justice” (Rees 2004). This type of approach was originally termed “positive peace” by Johan Galtung (1965),

Introduction

5

which he described as both direct and structural nonviolence that includes social justice. Positive peace takes a pro-active, long term approach that attempts to eradicate violence at its roots, as opposed to negative peace, which refers to only the absence of violence. The United States House of Representatives Resolution 1673 introduced on April 8, 2003 is an example of positive peace in action. Supported by many peace activists, the resolution calls for a Department of Peace, which would include funding for non-military domestic and international conflict resolution (http://www. thepeacealliance.org/content/view/32/1/). While the contemporary peace movement is truly international in composition, the focus of this study is on peace activists affiliated with organizations having a base or a branch in Washington, D.C. There are some unique features about U.S. activism that justify in-depth examination. Steven Buechler (2000) notes the heavy U.S. military involvement in many countries has prompted many American anti-war and anti-interventionist movements, as demonstrated by opposition to American involvement in WWI and II, Vietnam, Central America, the Persian Gulf, and now Iraq. Buechler argues that resistance was strongest around Vietnam, which set in motion activist networks and a protest culture upon which later American movements were built. Furthermore, activists in the U.S. typically have more material resources at their disposal than those in poor nations. The U.S. represents a variety of ideologies that have promoted movements supporting of a range of ideas such as democracy, socialism, feminism and populism. Individualism is an important cultural value in the U.S., which has helped to facilitate movements that respect equal rights for individuals to express their diversity as well as their equality (Buechler 2000). The cultural values of diverse ideologies and respect for individual rights are particularly relevantto the contemporary American peace movement, as people of various political ideologies and identities are united in the quest for peace with justice rather than solely focusing on the absence of war. Contemporary activists have also learned from past mistakes about effective mobilization and public outreach. Messages like “Support Our Troops, Bring Them Home” and “Peace is Patriotic” that are the standard at contemporary peace demonstrations indicate that activists are trying to avoid messages that could be construed as anti-American. Activists are also more mindful of how demonstrations could negatively impact the general public. After initial protests that gained international attention but alienated nonparticipants who lived in the cities where the protests occurred because of traffic disruptions, leaders changed tactics to a more concentrated convergence on specific targets like headquarters of corporations that profit from the war (Zernike and Murphy 2003). Sidney Tarrow (1993) also notes that geographical and sector diffusion support increased movement activity. With the Internet as a main tool of outreach to rural populations and those who otherwise cannot or will not participate in peace demonstrations on the streets, there does indeed

6


appear to be a geographic diffusion of the movement underway. The number of peace organizations that advocate both peace and justice and the recent mass demonstrations that have included activists from identity-based groups as well as labor and environmental organizations also indicates sector diffusion. Thus, although the Iraq war provided a major rallying point, many of those involved in the contemporary peace movement are articulating a broader scope of peace than just anti-war demands. Exploring how the political opportunity structure impacts peace activism is another important factor in understanding the contemporary movement. September 11, 2001 was a turning point in this regard. Heightened security, public fear, and a well-funded “war on terror” all contribute to a situation that has changed the features of social control in the United States. Protestors are often accused of being unpatriotic, or even sympathetic to terrorists. Social control is also becoming more covert. As further described in Chapter Five, The USA PATRIOT (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) Act was quickly passed by Congress in October 2001 and is being used to legally strip people of their civil liberties (American Civil Liberties Union 2006). Much of this happens under the radar of the mainstream media. The social movement literature shows that when acts of social control that are perceived as unnecessary or repressive occur in Western democracies against nonviolent protestors, it normally increases motivation in activists and public sympathy for the movement. In the post-9/11 era, however, there are new conditions under which social control takes place. Thus, it is important to understand if and how activists are inhibited and motivated in new ways based on the shifting political climate.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY United States military spending is at an all time high. While an analysis of terrorism is beyond the scope of this study, it is relevant to note that those who have participated in such acts have stated the strong global American military presence is a major grievance. This provides wealthy terrorists like Osama bin Laden with a target against which to mobilize the anger of oppressed people he claims to represent.3 In order to be justified to the public, such high levels of military spending need real or perceived threats to U.S. national security. Moreover, many corporations profit from military conflict due to increased demands for weapons manufacturing as well as reconstruction contracts. Those with significant political or economic power, then, have a vested interest in maintaining a large military budget and supporting military intervention in response to conflict or to ostensibly prevent it. For this reason, it is important to examine non-violent alternatives espoused by civil society actors who are not in such positions of power. American peace movements of the

Introduction

7

past have made significant contributions to increasing public understanding about the dangers of violent solutions to world confl icts as well as offering nonviolent alternatives. At a time when global inequalities are increasing and American politicians are talking about the next military invasion, it is critical that root causes of unrest are examined and countered with proposals to achieve security and justice through peaceful means. This study offers an analysis of self-identified peace activists in terms of their demographic characteristics, movement participation, political opportunities, and views of the peace movement, including what peace initiatives they believe the movement should promote. Primary data on these topics have practical implications for public policy and applied sociology. Information generated from the surveys may also be helpful to activists in their organizing endeavors. The use of an Internet survey as a research tool also provides a methodological contribution in terms of understanding the advantages and disadvantages of utilizing new technology for data collection. In terms of theoretical significance, data on social identity as a factor in activists’ participation will be useful for new social movement theory, as will respondents’ knowledge of mobilizing a diverse movement base. Data on social ties as a precursor to participation and support for peace activism from respondents’ social relationships as a factor in continued participation are useful data for social network theory. Information on respondents’ experiences of post-9/11 social control and their perceived impact on public policy will likely be of interest to political opportunity structure theorists. Jeff Goodwin and James M. Jasper (2003) describe social movements as similar to art, in that they are efforts to express sensibilities that have not yet been well publicly articulated. Social movements are often the fi rst to place political issues such as same-sex marriage, living wages, corporate welfare, and racial profiling in the public eye. Institutions cannot be relied upon for innovation because they seek to reproduce stability and order, rather than change and progress. It is typically movements outside the system, then, that encourage politicians to address new issues. Many of the things that were once thought impossible such as the abolition of slavery and suffrage for women and people of color are now taken for granted due in part to social movements. Because there are so many pressing social problems that are not being solved through institutions, and in many cases, are directly related to institutional structures, it is vital to understand how social movements go about facing the daunting task of social change. American peace activists currently have several important opportunities for impacting public policy and building pro-peace support among the general public. New threats to civil liberties in the post-9/11 era (for instance, the USA PATRIOT Act which allows spying on citizens and legal detention without due process) have re-introduced public conversations about security and liberty. Such legislation also provides a rallying point for activists and others whose civil rights have been violated.

8


Public opinion is steadily becoming more anti-war. As of March 2008, 63% of the American public agreed that the war in Iraq was a mistake, which is the highest proportion ever since that question has been asked in polls measuring public opinion of the Iraq war (Teixeira 2008). Military families express similar opinions, as polls show that 57% of military families in general and 60% of military families with someone who has served in Iraq or Afghanistan say that the situation in Iraq was not worth going to war (Teixeira 2007). Through organizations like Veterans for Peace and Gold Star Families, military personnel and their families are also helping to educate the public about issues such as the lack of quality health care for veterans. The scandal regarding the poor conditions at the Walter Reed Army hospital also raised questions among the general public about how the massive U.S. military budget is actually being spent when veterans are not getting the care they need. American voters have also signified they want a change in political leadership, evidenced by the 2006 mid-term elections that shifted control from a Republican to a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives and Senate. Despite the change in leadership, the lack of decisive action taken by Democrats to cease funding the Iraq occupation and pull the troops out has angered many peace activists and frustrated many voters who expected to see real change. As of April 2008, House Democrats are expected to grant the $108 billion White House request to fund the occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan and add another $70 billion for the new president to use. As an attempt to reconcile tensions between lawmakers who do not want to fund the war and those who do, members of Congress may be allowed to keep their votes on war spending separate from votes on domestic spending. This would allow those who oppose the war to be able to tell their constituents they did not vote to continue funding the occupation even though the Senate will eventually send all approved spending as one package for the President’s signature (Coile 2008). It was also recently revealed that 151 members of Congress have collectively invested as much as 196 million dollars in companies that received over 275.6 billion dollars from Pentagon contracts in 2006 alone. The lawmakers who invested in such companies collectively gained between 15.8–62 million dollars in dividends, capital gains, royalties and interests, including those who have publicly opposed the war. In his 2004 run for President, Senator John Kerry presented himself as being against the war in Iraq (even though his stated plan for ending it included increasing the number of troops there). Yet Kerry is at the top of the Congressional investor list, with holdings between 28.9 and 38.2 million dollars in firms with Pentagon contracts (Aslam 2008). The fact that regardless of their political party affi liation, some U.S. public officials still support increasingly unpopular military occupations (whether in word or deed) reveals the structural nature of militarism. This situation provides an added incentive for peace activists to clearly articulate their agenda rather than assuming Democratic politicians will truly represent anti-war interests.

Introduction

9

The current economic cost of war and occupation is staggering. Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes (2008) note that the Iraq and Afghanistan confl icts have already cost more than all other wars in U.S. history except for WWII. Including the hidden costs of these military operations not counted by the Pentagon, Stiglitz and Bilmes estimate that the total costs of these confl icts will be over $3 trillion, adding that such a figure is a very conservative estimate that likely understates the total cost. Moreover, the $3 trillion figure refers only to what the military operations will cost Americans, omitting the cost to Iraqis and citizens of other countries involved in the confl icts. As exorbitant as the economic costs are, the human costs of the Iraq occupation are catastrophic. Previous studies of the death toll in Iraq since the invasion put estimated deaths between 390,000 and 940,000. As reported in the Lancet in 2006, data collected by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health suggested there had been 654,965 warrelated deaths. In 2007, a British polling agency named ORB reported the results of a study they conducted in Iraq that indicate the death toll since the 2003 invasion is closer to 1.2 million. Their estimates are based on a sample of randomly selected 1,461 Iraqi adults around the country which asked how many people living in their household had died as a result of the violence. Although peace activists had already been suggesting death toll numbers close to what the ORB study found, high body counts have been consistently rejected by U.S. and UK public officials (Beaumont and Walters 2007). At the same time, the Pentagon will not provide the public with specific numbers of Iraqi deaths, illustrated by General Tommy Franks’ infamous statement, “we don’t do body counts.” While there is no officially agreed upon number of Iraqi deaths, as results continue to be publicized from studies that indicate low death estimates in the hundreds of thousands, it will likely become increasingly difficult for public officials to avoid addressing the human costs of military operations. Iraqi civilians have undoubtedly suffered the most deaths by far. Although President Bush declared on May 1, 2003 that “major combat operations are over”, the death toll during the continued occupation has also significantly increased for American soldiers (over 4,000 as of April 2008). While the soldier death toll is a figure commonly cited in arguments both for and against the occupation, the overall casualty rate (which includes those who are killed, wounded, injured, or ill during military service) is often missing from public debates even though that number is significantly larger than deaths alone. Veterans for Common Sense (VCS) Executive Director Paul Sullivan released a report stating that as of April 10, 2008, nearly 75,000 U.S. service member battlefield casualties have occurred in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sullivan’s report (2008) was based on information from the Department of Defense as a result of fi ling a Freedom of Information Act request. Since they only count battlefield casualties, such figures likely underestimate the actual number of military-service related casualties.

10


According to Stiglitz and Bilmes (2008), Department of Defense casualty statistics are based only on those resulting from combat action and thus miss accident-related deaths or injuries that occur in war zones. Moreover, casualty figures do not include mental illness or suicide. The U.S. domestic situation has also become increasingly grim since the invasion of Iraq. Skyrocketing gas and food prices, the mortgage crisis, the lack of affordable health care, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s gross mismanagement of the Hurricane Katrina disaster are just a few indications of structural cracks in the American political and economic system. Recent polls indicate that the U.S. population is increasingly troubled by such problems. Currently, the three most important issues to Americans are the economy, the Iraq occupation, and health care (Polling Report 2008). The fact that an increasing number of Americans are personally feeling the impact of these various crises is an important opportunity for the peace movement to make clear connections between peace and justice, such as identifying how the amount of money currently going toward military operations could be used to alleviate domestic problems instead. While face to face networking and taking to the streets are still important movement strategies, the ability to disseminate information about the peace movement on the Internet has opened up new tactics and opportunities for global networking. Peace activists can now post videos on YouTube and reach millions of people, particularly youth, who use that site. The Internet has also given the global peace movement more tools for sharing information and coordinating international peace actions, such as protests in cities around the world on the anniversary of the Iraq war. There are numerous examples of contemporary peace mobilizations organized around a diverse base and advocating a pro-active peace with justice approach rather than only demanding an end to war. Religious groups are continuing their historically important role in the contemporary peace movement. Labor is showing open support for peace activism, as evidenced by the Million Worker March that demanded an end to the occupation of Iraq and better conditions for workers. Iraqi labor unions recently circulated an online petition stating their support for the strike by the American longshoremen against the war by holding their own strike in Iraq to show solidarity. Black Voices for Peace and Code Pink Women for Peace are examples of contemporary peace groups mobilized around ethnic and gender identities. As the U.S. peace movement is still largely considered to be comprised of white, middle class activists, an important part of this book is examining the processes involved in successful mobilization of an increasingly diverse constituency and how broad-based support can be sustained beyond reacting to crises. The preceding discussion indicates that the pro-peace stance advocated by activists early on in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and especially prior to the Iraq invasion are increasingly resonating with an American public growing weary of domestic problems and the fact that their tax dollars are

Introduction

11

funding military operations they increasingly oppose. As most participants in my study are long-time activists, their knowledge is a particularly valuable source of information for those seeking to know more about the peace movement from activists themselves. Data from respondents’ observations of the movement provide practical information that can be used by activists, movement leaders, and public officials. In this way, my research is an attempt to answer Michael Burawoy’s call for a return to public sociology as a way to use sociological frameworks for interpreting the most pressing challenges of the day. In his presidential address at the American Sociological Association annual meeting, he argued that “public sociology brings sociology into a conversation with publics, understood as people who themselves are involved in the conversation” (Burawoy 2005: 7)

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE U.S. PEACE MOVEMENT There are many defi nitions of social movements in the academic literature (della Porta and Diani 1999; Garner 1997; Goodwin and Jasper 2003; McAdam and Snow 1997; Snow, Soule, and Kriesi 2003; Turner and Killian 1987), but most include one or more of the following features: (1) organized, collective action with a purpose; (2) established outside of formal political institutions; and (3) the use of non-institutional methods to advance goals. Thus, social movements are conceptualized here as conscious, organized collective actions designed to bring about or to resist change and that are established outside of political institutions, utilizing at least some non-institutional methods. The following section provides a brief historical overview of peace activism in the U.S. I also address the theories of new social movements, social networks, and political opportunity structures and discuss their relevance to my study in the last section of this chapter (“Theoretical Frameworks Used in This Study”). Historically, American peace movement activity has surged prior to and/ or during times of war or other large-scale military interventions and has decreased between wars (Boulding 1990). This is consistent with Sidney Tarrow’s (1993) framework of protest cycles, which suggests that protest activity increases during times of heightened conflict. John Lofland (1993) describes the four major mobilization periods in the history of U.S. peace activism as: (1) the early nineteenth century prior to the U.S. Civil war; (2) the late 1930’s prior to WWII; (3) the mid-1960’s to early 1970’s in response to the Vietnam war; and (4) the early 1980’s in protest of the nuclear threat. My study identifies the contemporary characteristics of peace activism that build upon these earlier periods and include influences from the anti-Gulf war protests in the early 1990s, the global justice movement, the impact of 9/11, and the current Iraq war protests. Religious pacifism in the U.S. has been traced back to the seventeenth century, well before the fi rst major peace mobilization period (McMahon

12


1981). The Mennonites, the Brethens, and particularly the Quakers, or the Society of Friends, were especially active in this regard (Chatfield 1999). Quaker peace activism is still a major force today, evidenced by the Fellowship of Reconciliation and the Washington Peace Center, two major networks of peace activism with Quaker roots. Other groups such as the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, Pax Christi, Buddhist Peace Fellowship, and Muslim Peace Fellowship have also contributed to peace mobilization efforts through their resources and networks. Religion and gender (the Women’s International League of Peace is one of the oldest peace organizations and women’s groups played a major role in the anti-nuclear activism of the 1980’s) have long served as key mobilizing spheres for peace activism (Beck 2003). The peace movement, however, has been slower to directly appeal to the interests of a multi-racial/ethnic, multi-class constituency. Fred Rose (2000) notes that it was not until the mid-1980’s that the movement started to incorporate social justice and coalition work in its agenda. Many protest cycles have unique features. The heavy student involvement in the movement against the Vietnam war and the mobilization around gender (i.e., Women’s Action for Nuclear Disarmament) and certain professions (i.e., Physicians for Social Responsibility and Lawyers Alliance for Nuclear Arms Control) during the anti-nuclear movement of the 1980s were traits of those cycles. However, symbols and tactics from each cycle are often carried over to the next. The peace sign used in rallies against the Vietnam war is still widely used in protest imagery. A popular tactic in the 1980s was distributing fact sheets to the public on how military expenditures could otherwise be spent on domestic programs, setting in motion a pro-active focus on promoting alternatives and concern for all populations impacted by war and military spending. This approach is evident in contemporary peace demonstrations and peace organization literature that express solidarity with military personnel and their families. Appeals for social justice and coalition work are now the standard for much peace work today. Movement leaders often have ties to multiple organizations, which helps to facilitate coalition work. One of the Code Pink Women for Peace co-founders, Medea Benjamin, is also the Founding Director of Global Exchange, an organization that promotes social and environmental justice through fair trade. Damu Smith was the co-chair of Black Voices for Peace until he died of cancer in 2006. He had also served as the Director of many peace and justice groups, including Greenpeace USA, United for Peace and Justice, the National Black Environmental Justice Network, and the American Friends Service Committee. Many of the key contemporary peace movement leaders, then, have framed peace as inseparable from justice and often have preestablished networks from which to mobilize individuals for peace action. Doug McAdam (1983) stresses the necessity for social movements to be constantly innovating new tactics in order to counter the establishment’s

Introduction

13

adaptations to movement tactics and ward off the neutralization that can occur when movement targets learn how to routenize protests and lessen their impact on the public. The Internet has provided contemporary activists with an important space for tactical innovations. Recent analyses of peace activism (Carty and Onyett 2006; Vasi 2006) have shown this tool to be an important factor in mobilizing and coordinating large peace actions, as it facilitates communication among activists around the world. Utilizing a variety of tactical innovations is critical for social movements to maintain a diverse base of people who may not otherwise rally around one tactic. For example, people who are unable to take part in street marches can participate in peace activism through online petitions and writing letters. Those who advocate a more confrontational approach will fi nd an outlet in organizations like Code Pink Women for Peace. Code Pink members have used innovative tactics such as attending Republican conventions and unfurling large anti-war banners, sending “pink slips” to politicians who support the war, and dressing in bright pink attire at demonstrations. The Peace Alliance sponsors a campaign that similarly embraces creative tactics but also seeks to actively engage political insiders. The campaign is called “Peace Wants a Peace of the Pie” in which activists deliver baked pies to Congressional representatives and senators on Mother’s Day, urging them to support a Department of Peace. The name of the campaign refers to the pie chart of the federal budget and symbolizes the small piece of the budget pie for which supporters of a Department of Peace are asking (1% of the FY2009 proposed federal budget). Other peace tactics include reaching out directly to those most affected by the war. The Fellowship of Reconciliation sent hundreds of pictures to Iraq of Americans with signs in English and Arabic apologizing for U.S. foreign policy in Iraq and reaching out in reconciliation. The political climate after September 11, 2001 is another important issue for contemporary peace activists. Individuals who speak out against government policies during times of crisis or war have historically encountered some form of sanctions. However, reports from the American Civil Liberties Union (2003; 2004d) and other watchdog organizations (Human Rights Watch 2002) indicate that the government is now manipulating Americans’ fear of another terrorist attack on U.S. soil by clamping down on dissent. Current attempts to control dissent include altering constitutional protections and liberties (wiretapping, eliminating Habeas Corpus, etc). Such methods are often carried out in a fairly covert manner. For instance, new legislation such as the USA PATRIOT Act restricts civil liberties, but the ramifications of this legislation are not widely covered in the mass media. “Covert” is generally used to describe acts that are not openly discussed in the general public sphere in terms of political statements or mass media

14


news reports. However, as Jules Boykoff (2006) notes, so-called covert acts of social control are very obvious to those directly experiencing them (such as peace activists handled aggressively at protests or those people detained without due process). Because activists who have been targets of social control have fi rst hand knowledge of its impact, much of the knowledge about past instances of controlling dissent has come from activist initiatives. Activists have requested government fi les under the Freedom of Information Act, written their own accounts of government repression, and shared their experiences with researchers. These endeavors have made substantial contributions to the academic literature on social control and repression. As political opportunity structure theorists observe, social control is an important factor of the political climate that strongly impacts social movements. It is a major factor in tactical choices, methods of influencing policy, and issues to organize around. Thus, my research incorporates an examination of how post-9/11 social control has impacted contemporary peace activists in terms of their experiences, perceptions, and actions in the present political climate.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS UTILIZED IN THIS STUDY While no one theory or even set of theories can be expected to fully explain a dynamic phenomenon such as the peace movement, the nature of my research inquiry lends my study to a multi-framework approach based on the following theories: new social movements, social networks, and political opportunity structure. Below, I provide an introduction to each one and offer an integrated framework for conceptualizing the contemporary U.S. peace movement.

NEW SOCIAL MOVEMENT THEORY Although new social movement theory is considered to be neo-Marxist in the sense that the study of conflict among social groups is a main concern, it is rooted in the Frankfurt School’s dismissal of the notion of class primacy in social conflicts. New social movement theory suggests that class polarization no longer characterizes capitalism in the post-WWII era. Rather, in the current post-material society, antagonisms between classes become alleviated as the working class is further incorporated into middle-class consumerism. Social movements that are identity-based or strive for post-materialist, cultural changes are often categorized as new social movements. The peace movement is generally considered to be a new social movement (Goodwin and Jasper 2003; Sklair 1995). Other new social movements include the environmental movement, the women’s movement, and the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered movement.

Introduction

15

Alberto Melucci (1995) asserts that he developed new social movement theory as a relative and transitory notion. He suggests it is a temporary tool for critiquing the weaknesses of resource mobilization theory. Movements in his view always consist of various meanings and analytical levels rather than being unified empirical objects. He cautions that social movements should not be regarded as living characters but as “socially constructed collective realities” (Melucci 1995: 110). While some theorists argue that the political importance of class is declining (Pakulski 1995), advances in new social movement theory (Buechler 2000; Philion 1998) demonstrate the importance of both class and nonclass based resistance as viable forces for mobilization. Such research supports the validity of multiple bases around which to organize rather than arguing against the importance of class in social movements. Steven Buechler (2000) asserts Post-Fordism has undermined the strength of the working class in some ways because workers are no longer concentrated in the way they were under Fordism in mass production industries with wages that provided enough income to mobilize for action and a strong state that mediated between labor and capital. However, he suggests that this does not render working class resistance dead, but rather the idea that any one group has the monopoly on resistance is misguided. Buechler argues that in fact what are often portrayed as traditional workerbased movements and newer identity-based movements rooted in culture are complementary rather than contradictory. Moreover, he asserts that those who say class is no longer a viable organizing base are often thinking of the working class in terms of an outdated composition: poor white men. The composition of the working class has shifted dramatically as people from all different groups now comprise the workforce. Recent research on labor organizing shows that unions are incorporating issues such as race, gender, sexuality, disability, and international linkages to reflect this change (Buechler 2000). Stephen Philion (1998) cites the Piedmont Peace Project (PPP) as an example of a peace related new social movement organization that is rooted in working class resistance but also incorporates non-class issues. While Philion charges that the peace movement has historically rallied around abstract, moralistic notions and uses a language mainly targeted at the middle class, the PPP takes an anti-war stance that reflects the realities of those who are sent to fight in wars (mainly the working class). Moreover, the PPP is sensitive to other forms of oppression around which new social movements tend to organize, such as race, gender, and sexual orientation. The interconnectedness of these various forms of oppression and the importance of guarding against divide and conquer tactics is stressed in the PPP. The execution of these principles is anchored to political agency of people who have been the most intensely oppressed by capitalism rather than “spiritual appeals to diversity that do not make any concrete links with those who suffer most from class inequality” (Philion 1998:100). In this way, the PPP is an

16


example of an organization that expands Marxist class analysis to include other forms of oppression, while at the same time actively working against the class bias that has plagued many new social movements. Labor and peace activists are now organizing mass demonstrations together such as the Million Worker March and May Day protests. More peace activists are also actively addressing working class concerns, and prominent peace groups such as Black Voices for Peace and Code Pink Women for Peace are organized around particular identities. This indicates that the peace with justice approach that is advocated for and from multiple social locations (i.e., race, class, gender, etc) is applicable to the advances in new social movement theory that suggest movements based on non-class identity are complementary rather than contradictory to those based on class. While Philion’s research is based on a particular organization, my study offers an analysis based on data gathered from individual activists. With individuals as the units of analysis comes the advantage of their knowledge of the movement as a whole, which is usually based on involvement with multiple organizations in the movement. Previous studies of individual peace activists tend to focus on the formation of activist identities during the process of movement involvement (Knudson-Ptacek 1990), while my study examines the factors that led individual activists to the peace movement, their perceptions of the movement, and how the post-9/11 political climate impacts their motivation and opportunities. James Hannon’s (1990) work on the life course of peace activist leaders is closer to what my questions on activist motivation seek to answer, but his research focuses more on key psychological experiences whereas my questions are guided by factors based on social identity and networks. I also offer an analysis of activists’ experiences relating to diversity in the movement and their proposed strategies for mobilizing a more diverse movement base.

SOCIAL NETWORK THEORY Motivation for activism, or what drives people to join movements or participate in social protest, was traditionally thought to be an effect of irrationality, societal breakdown and/or psychological deficiencies of the participants. Most contemporary analyses of movement participation reject the assumption that movement participation is based on psychological deficiencies or severed social ties. Social network theory in particular argues that a key factor for an individual’s decision to join a movement or protest activity is his or her ties to another participant (Diani 2003; Passy 2003). This counteracts classic collective behavior theory that asserted people participate in movements due to a lack of connection. David Snow, Louis Zurcher, Jr, and Sheldon Ekland-Olson (1980) propose that probability of being recruited into a particular movement is mainly a function of two conditions: (1) links

Introduction

17

to at least one movement member through a preexisting or emergent tie and (2) the absence of countervailing networks (i.e., too many commitments that would likely inhibit them from movement participation). Roger Gould’s historical analysis on the Paris Commune (1991) demonstrated the importance of the interactive effects of formal/organizational and informal networks in the mobilization process. He found that those most committed to the cause were in neighborhoods that had an overlapping of formal (the National Guard) and informal (neighborhood) ties. Gould (1991) suggests, then, that the structure of networks, rather than just number of ties to individuals, is the critical factor for mobilization. Doug McAdam’s (1986) study on what motivated participants to join the 1964 Freedom Summer Project suggest that the content of network processes are as important as the structures. He argues that prior organizational ties only encourage individuals to participate when they: (1) reinforce the potential recruit’s identification with a particular identity and (2) help to establish a strong linkage between that identity and the movement in question; thus, the content of network processes should also be taken into account. McAdam then concludes that previous ties (whether organizational or individual) are necessary but insufficient explanations for why people join movements. In her analysis of how social networks impact activism, Florence Passy (2003) identifies three main functions of networks (socialization, structural-connection, and decision-shaping) in the process of how an individual becomes an activist. I examine such functions in the context of respondents’ stated reasons for peace activism. Prior connections to other social movement have also been found to be important in terms of an individual’s involvement in a particular social movement (Meyer and Whittier 1994). Movements commonly borrow tactics from each other and often share similar resources. As previously noted, contemporary peace movement leaders often have ties to many other social movements and bring such networks to their present mobilization efforts. With the rise of Internet activism, movement-to-movement networking opportunities are also more readily accessible. This study provides information on the relationship of social networks to peace activism and movement participation through data on the major kinds of social ties identified by respondents as factors in their peace activism, the main types of support such ties provide, and conditions under which they have a prohibiting or promoting effect on movement participation.

POLITICAL OPPORTUNITY STRUCTURE THEORY The main assertion set forth by political opportunity structure theory is that the choices available to activists are shaped by the broader political structure. Thus, in order to understand the strategies activists employ and the grievances around which they mobilize, political context must be examined (Meyer 2004). Political opportunity structure theory explores

18 The Contemporary US Peace Movement how and when movements have opportunities for change and emphasizes political institutions as the key to whether the structure can be successfully challenged. Theorists working in this framework also maintain that at certain times, the political system may intentionally or unintentionally create opportunities for movements (della Porta and Diani, 1999). Political opportunity structure theory builds on the underlying premise of resource mobilization theory that organization, resources, and opportunities have a strong impact on social movements. This theory also takes Neil Smelser’s emphasis on structural opportunities as a central concern in the study of movements and broadens the theoretical scope to include resources and opportunities external to movements. As opportunities change often in the political structure, this is a dynamic framework. For instance, political opportunities available to contemporary peace activists include the rise of cyberactivism and the clash between elites within the U.S. and on an international level (Carty and Onyett 2006). While phenomena independent of activist endeavors is a main focus of political opportunity structure research, advances in this theory have shown that subjective factors are equally important elements in the interaction between activists and the political system (della Porta and Diani 1999; Goodwin and Jasper 2003; Kurzman 1986). The post-9/11 political era presents both challenges and opportunities for peace activism. I devote Chapter Four to an analysis of contemporary peace activism and the political opportunity structure. Specifically, I examine how methods of controlling dissent after September 11, 2001 have impacted the treatment and perception of peace activists and how activists perceive the impact of social control on their own activism and on the peace movement in general. I also explore activists’ perceptions of their influence on public policy and the vehicles they consider most effective for impacting change in that realm.

TOWARD AN INTEGRATED THEORETICAL APPROACH This scope of this book, while exploratory in nature, is guided by a multitheoretical approach. In order to analyze the various dimensions involved in contemporary peace activism, I utilized three theories. New social movement theory framed my analysis of participation, identity, and mobilization. I used social network theory to explore the role of social ties and relationships in initial and continued involvement in the peace movement. Political opportunity structure theory informed my analysis of structural factors that shape opportunities for activists and how activists respond to their political environment. An integration of these three theories offers a method of balancing their respective strengths and weaknesses. New social movement theory provides a useful tool for examining the role of non-class-based identity in movement

Introduction

19

participation and mobilization. However, such a focus misses structural conditions that shape movements as well as the enduring importance of social class for activists and movements. Identity as a factor in activists’ participation and movement goals that strive for cultural changes are important components of peace activism, but they influence and are influenced by social networks and structures. Analyzing activist identity alone, then, provides an incomplete picture because identity exists in relation to social forces, processes, networks, and structures. Insights from social network theory that demonstrate the importance of social ties to an individual’s movement participation complement new social movement theory in this regard. Political opportunity structure theory examines how activists are impacted in the wake of changing political circumstances, which is also an important factor in my analysis of movement participation. Social network theory is a complex analysis of social ties and relationships. For the purposes of social movements, this framework offers insights into participation as it relates to prior social networks as well as ties established once an individual becomes part of a social movement. Due to the heavy emphasis on the structure of networks, individual agency is downplayed because the location of an individual in relation to his or her social network is the primary focus in this framework. Although social networks and other structural factors undoubtedly contribute to social movement participation, individuals must ultimately make the choice to engage in activism. In this regard, new social movement theory complements the social network framework because it takes the role of identity and cultural into account. Political opportunity structure theory complements the structural component of social network analysis with an emphasis on macrolevel phenomena such as political events and opportunities. Political opportunity structure provides an important framework for examining factors that impact activists, such as intentional and unintentional openings in the political structure. This is particularly useful for examining the current political climate that is continuously shifting and presenting challenges and opportunities for activists. However, as it minimizes the importance of individual agency in shaping movement outcomes, an expansion of this framework is important for a deeper exploration of why individuals choose to engage in activism. Activists must perceive political opportunities as such, so subjective elements are important in determining how and when an individual decides to participate in peace activism. New social movement theory helps with this task, as it emphasizes identity and culture. Social network theory also adds to this approach with a framework for understanding the role of social ties and relationship structures in an individual’s movement participation. As the peace movement becomes more diverse, the advances in new social movement theory that suggest class and non-class based issues can be complementary within movements becomes important. However, diversity and identity are another part of social networks and are impacted

20 The Contemporary US Peace Movement by the political opportunity structure. Furthermore, as the movement becomes more connected via global networks and decentralized leadership structures, social network theory provides an important framework for examining such processes. The political opportunity structure that shapes and is shaped by global events (9/11, the Iraq war, etc) is another important component of an integrated theory of the contemporary peace movement. Advances in political opportunity structure theory that incorporate subjective elements are also important in the analysis of contemporary peace activism. While the theories of new social movements, social networks and political opportunity structures provide important insights into the aforementioned components of social movements, it is their integration that offers a method of capturing a multi-dimensional analysis of the peace movement. This is particularly illustrated via new forms of communication such as the Internet that impact both interpersonal and political aspects of activism.

INTRODUCTION TO SUBSEQUENT CHAPTERS The following chapter provides a discussion of the methodology I used in this study and the demographic characteristics of participants. I explore the factors in respondents’ peace movement participation in Chapter Three, “Participation, Identity, and Social Networks in the Peace Movement,” with a particular focus on the relationship of social identity and networks to respondents’ participation in peace activism. In Chapter Four, “The Peace Movement and the Political Opportunity Structure,” I analyze how peace activists and the movement have been impacted by the political climate after September 11, 2001 and discuss participants’ perceptions of their influence on public policy. Chapter Five, “Peace Movement Issues, Diversity, and Mobilization” examines respondents’ views of important movement issues, diversity, and strategies for effectively mobilizing a diverse base. I address leadership, changes, challenges, opportunities, and building a foundation for the future in Chapter Six, “Challenges, Opportunities, and Future Prospects for the Peace Movement.” The fi nal “Conclusions” chapter summarizes my research fi ndings and includes suggestions for future research.

2


RESEARCH DESIGN Exploratory research is especially conducive to producing new insights into a topic, which then assists in identifying ideas for future research (Babbie 2003). My study was guided by research questions shaped by themes from social movement theory and contemporary peace activist literature, yet it was exploratory because the measurements were designed to uncover experiences and perceptions of individual activists that can help refi ne lines of inquiry in the social movement literature. Many factors render the contemporary U.S. peace movement appropriate for exploratory research, including: (1) the fact that the recent surge in peace movement activity is occurring right now and thus variables and themes for understanding such activity have not been clearly defi ned; (2) changes in the American political structure through legislation and the promotion of polarized thinking about peace and security after September 11, 2001 present a unique configuration of opportunities and challenges to contemporary peace activists; and (3) based on peace organization literature and themes of major demonstrations, there is a current tendency in the movement toward a peace with justice approach rather than a narrow focus on the elimination of war. This inclusion is a shift from past waves of peace movement activity. Data based on activist responses in this study can help refi ne themes within these under explored areas of the contemporary U.S. peace movement. While quantitative methods are useful for explanatory purposes and assessing attitudes, qualitative methods allow respondents to give in-depth answers, which provide rich descriptive data on complex phenomena. I therefore utilized both quantitative and qualitative approaches to collecting data in order to reap the benefits of these respective approaches. The surveys highlighted general patterns in the data and the interviews provided the opportunity to probe more deeply into the experiences and perceptions of respondents. For example, the survey results generated data on the singular aspects of identity that respondents selected as most important in their peace activism, while the interviews provided a more nuanced examination

22


of the relationship between multiple aspects of their identity and their peace movement participation. I used an Internet survey and in-depth telephone interviews to collect my data, as triangulation balances the strengths and weaknesses of individual methods and thus increases validity of research fi ndings (Babbie 2003; Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 1999). My research site was a virtual one, as the surveys were conducted via the Internet and the interviews were conducted by telephone. Benedict Anderson’s (1991) concept of imagined communities primarily refers to nations in the sense that members of nations will never meet most of their fellow members, yet they have an image of one another in a shared “imagined community.” Anderson’s concept is important to note in reference to my research site as a virtual community of activists who belong to peace organizations because such an imagined community links them to other members nationally as well as globally. The concept of cyberspace as an imagined community is still relatively new, but it is quickly becoming a major gateway for decentralized activism, information sharing, and community building. My role as a researcher in this study was one that I would deem “insider” because I am familiar with activist concerns and peace issues due to my personal involvement in peace related activities. I have participated in many peace events held in Washington, D.C. and I subscribe to several of the peace and justice email listservs from which I compiled my sampling list. Because I was able to speak the metaphoric language of the respondents in our discussions about activism and the peace movement, the tone of the conversations with them was one of trust and ease. My position as one of them without personally knowing the respondents was advantageous in this study because a base rapport was easily established from which they were able to share their experiences and perceptions, yet the pressure to provide socially acceptable answers was reduced because we were not personally acquainted. This pressure was further reduced by conducting the interviews over the telephone rather than having face-toface conversations. The methods used to investigate the social world as well as the choice of phenomena to study are the result of many considerations, including the researcher’s personal experiences and biases. My own experiences and observations regarding peace activism certainly influenced my choice of themes for exploration in this study. To minimize the risk of inadvertently imposing my own views of the peace movement onto respondents, I asked open-ended questions in the telephone interviews and offered the survey respondents the opportunity to submit their own comments by providing an “other” response option for most questions. I also asked both survey and interview respondents if they would like to tell me anything else about their peace activism, the movement, and/or if there was anything they deemed important that I failed to cover. Providing participants with this flexibility to deviate from the response categories and


23

question themes helped me minimize the risk of missing issues that were important to them.

QUANTITATIVE METHODOLOGY Since the Internet is now a primary means of sharing information and coordinating social movement activities, online questionnaires are particularly suited to efficiently reaching a large number of peace activists. Although Internet surveys are fairly new, they are shown to have similar advantages to mail surveys. One advantage of self-administered surveys is that they give the respondent more time to think about their answers. Moreover, people are more willing to disclose personal information they may regard as sensitive when they remain anonymous (Babbie 2003). In a comparative study of survey modes (self-administered versus interviewer-assisted), E.D. de Leeuw (1992) found that although self-administered surveys have higher nonresponse rates than interview-assisted surveys, responses in the former are less biased toward socially desirable answers because the interviewer effect is absent. Matthew Schonlau, Ronald D. Fricker, and Mark N. Elliot (2002) found several advantages of Internet surveys for data collection. When raw data can be downloaded directly from an Internet survey into a database, transcription errors are eliminated, thereby improving data quality. Internet surveys also have a faster response time and the capacity to reach large groups of people without postal expenses. As with any data collection method, Internet surveys also have drawbacks. They exclude individuals without Internet access or who are not computer literate, thereby running the risk of introducing a socio-economic class bias in the study towards those who have the means to afford such technology. They have also been found to have lower response rates than interview-assisted surveys and a lower degree of controlled instrument distribution than conventional surveys (Schonlau et al 2002). Another concern is that although the Internet can be a major avenue of communication, people can easily become overwhelmed by the amount of emails they receive. Email users are able to have much of their incoming email sent to a junk mail folder. An email announcement soliciting participants for a survey may then be ignored as junk mail. I anticipated that many people might not read an email from an unknown source, so I fi rst contacted a representative from the organizations with which potential respondents were affi liated as a way to gain access. After weighing the relative advantages and disadvantages of Internet surveys, I believe this was an appropriate data collection method for my study. While my sample missed those without Internet access or computer literacy, the Internet nevertheless serves as a major communication network for the peace movement and thus stands to be an effective tool for reaching large

24


numbers of activists. This is particularly the case in a sample like mine for which there is no master list of peace activists and their contact information.

QUALITATIVE METHODOLOGY While surveys are amenable to collecting information on attitudes and sensitive subjects like income due to respondent anonymity, the interpersonal method of interviewing can provide deeper insight into variables that are difficult to measure quantitatively. In my study, telephone interviews with survey respondents allowed me to probe more complex research themes (such as the question of how identity impacts motivation for peace activism), providing a richer understanding of the processes and experiences involved there within. The disadvantages of telephone interviews as compared to face-to-face interviews include the inability to make in-person observations of the respondents and a lower completion rate. On the other hand, the interviewer’s impact on responses is reduced when the interview is not conducted face-to-face, and respondents may feel less pressure to provide socially acceptable answers when they cannot see the interviewer (Babbie 2003). Even though a slight majority of my interview respondents (52%) were located in the Washington, D.C. area, I used telephone interviews in order to maintain consistency in my data collection because the other 48% of respondents were located in different parts of the country. There was also less risk of my presence influencing their answers with our conversations occurring over the telephone rather than in person.

SAMPLING DESIGN My purposive sample design was multi-stage and non-random. The initial sampling list represented 72 organizations, but due to failed links, the fi nal sampling list consisted of 68 organizations drawn from the following sources: (1) an online list of peace organizations maintained by the Washington Peace center, a 40-year old, well-respected institution; (2) an online list of sponsors of the Peace Parade, a major peace demonstration held on September 20, 2004 in Washington, D.C.; and (3) an online list of sponsors of the National Memorial Procession held on October 2, 2004 in Washington, D.C. The fi rst stage of the sampling list was a list of 68 organizations that promote peace or peace with justice and have a base or a branch in the Washington, DC metropolitan area. There is an inherent comparative component in this study, as I selected 20 organizations that primarily focus on peace and 48 organizations that have a broader mission of peace with justice. The identification of a peace (absence of violence) versus a peace


25

with justice approach (expressed through a concern with peace in addition to an explicit focus on justice for disadvantaged groups through promoting equality) was based on a review of each organization’s mission statement, goals, and/or activities. It should be noted that these categories of primarily peace versus peace with justice are not mutually exclusive. Rather, it was a matter of degree to which an organization includes justice in its primary goals/activities that determined its placement. The criteria were purposely broad to encompass the variety of ways in which perspectives of both categories are promoted. I supplemented my sampling list with organizations from the Peace Parade and the National Memorial Procession in order to include new groups since the Washington Peace Center’s list was last updated. I chose those two events due to their large number of organizational sponsors and because the Peace Parade had a broad scope in its articulation of peace, (which also actively promoted justice), while the Memorial Procession focused more narrowly on peace in Iraq. I determined which category to place the organizations in by reviewing the activities and stated goals of each organization. Based on the aforementioned lists and criteria, I identified 48 organizations that advocate the peace with justice approach and 20 that are primarily focused on peace. I refer to these samples throughout this study as Peace With Justice (PJ) and Primarily Peace (PP). All 68 organizations had an email contact for an organization representative. In the second stage of my sampling design, I distributed the survey in February 2005 by contacting a representative from each organization. I explained my research and the potential benefits of participation and asked them to forward my survey website link to their electronic database or listserv of members and supporters. I incorporated this step in my sample design instead of just posting a call for individual participants myself in order to increase the chances that people on peace listservs would participate in the survey if the invitation came from a known source. The individuals to whom the peace organization representatives forwarded my survey constitute the base for the third stage of my sampling design. After I closed the survey in April 2005, I made the survey results available to all participants who requested them, including group representatives who forwarded my survey link to their members. The total number of respondents was 251. Out of my call for individual participants among the 48 peace with justice organizations, 182 people completed the survey. From the 20 organizations focused mainly on peace, 69 people completed the survey. Since most of the organizations do not give out membership information to third parties, I did not have access to the lists. Thus, I do not know the total number of individuals who received the forwarded invitation from the organization representatives to participate in the survey, nor how many representatives actually forwarded the survey. Another factor that hindered

26


the calculation of an accurate response rate is the fact that individuals can be subscribed to multiple mailing lists within the 68 organizations. Nevertheless, I was able to gain a conservative estimate of the fi rst stage response rate based on the number of organizations from which people were referred to my survey. I did this by asking survey respondents to list the organization that referred them to the survey. Some respondents opted to not answer that question. Others said they did not know or could not remember the organization that referred them. However, 23 of the 48 organizations in the Peace With Justice sample list were cited by respondents, providing a conservative response rate of 48%. The Primarily Peace sample had a similar rate, as ten out of 20 organizations were listed by respondents from that sample for a response of 50%. While such rates are considered adequate for traditional mail surveys, it is important to note that: (1) since many people are inundated with emails, they may ignore those that come from mailing lists and (2) the actual rate of organizations represented by individual responses may well have been higher due to the respondents that chose not to answer the question or those who could not remember the source of the survey invitation. While my sample initially targeted organizations out of necessity, the second and third stages targeted individuals affi liated with the selected 68 organizations. In my cover letter inviting people to take the survey, I specifically asked those who self-identify as peace activists to participate. Individuals, then, are the units of analysis in this study. The telephone interviews represent the fourth stage of my sample design. I invited survey respondents to provide me with their email address if they were interested in doing a follow-up telephone interview. A total of 82 respondents (60 from the PJ sample and 22 from the PP sample) provided their email contact information for a follow-up interview. I emailed all 82 respondents and invited them to do a phone interview. In that invitation, I included an informed consent form that explained the purpose of the interview and asked them to sign it and email it back to me along with a convenient time for me to call them for the interview. Some email addresses given to me came back as invalid. A few people responded by letting me know they did not have time to participate after all and some never responded. If I did not hear from respondents after one week from initial contact, I emailed them a second time with another invitation to do an interview. I was able to interview individuals in three cases when I re-contacted them after an initial non-response. Most of those interviewed replied to me within a few days of my initial contact with them and we scheduled an interview for the soonest mutually agreeable time. I ended up conducting 33 semi-structured, in-depth telephone interviews from April to June 2005 (24 from the Peace With Justice sample and 9 from the Primarily Peace sample). None of the 33 interviewees stopped participation in the telephone interview once it began.


27

DEFINITION OF MAJOR VARIABLES AND MEASUREMENTS My study deliberately targets contemporary peace activists and their perceptions of the peace movement rather than the more specific anti-Iraq war movement in order to investigate the various ways peace is conceptualized and promoted beyond a reactive stance. Due to the primarily exploratory nature of this study, I invited individuals to participate in my study who were affiliated with the peace organizations in my sampling list and who self-identified as peace activists rather than imposing strict criteria on who is or is not a peace activist. Since the organizations in my sampling list defi ne themselves as peace organizations, individuals who were on such listservs and who also selfidentified as peace activists fit my criteria. My research questions, then, were designed in a way that encompassed a wide range of motivations and activities of those who consider themselves peace activists, and their perceptions on the peace movement as a whole. The survey questionnaire had four major categories of questions. In the first section of the survey, respondents were presented with questions involving their participation and motivation as peace activists. In this study, I conceptualized participation as movement involvement and motivation as the impetus to act. Questions such as, “Why are you currently involved in the peace movement?”, “How did you initially become involved in the peace movement?”, and “What keeps you motivated to continue your involvement in the peace movement?” explored such factors for activism among survey participants. The next section gauged respondents’ views regarding the present conditions of the peace movement. Participants were asked about the most urgent peace issues, opportunities and challenges, and initiatives that should be advocated by the movement. I also asked them about the most effective methods of mobilizing a diverse peace movement base and questions regarding what the focus of the movement currently is compared to what they think it should be. The third section involved questions about social control of peace activism after September 11, 2001. I use the term “social control” in reference to the imposition of sanctions as an attempt to discourage activity that is perceived as a threat to the status quo. Participants were asked if they had noticed any difference in the treatment and perception of peace activists after September 11, 2001 if they were involved in peace activism before that date. I also asked them to list any specific changes they had observed and if they had personally been targeted by the authorities because of their peace activism. To explore how being a target of social control impacts activist motivation, I posed the following question: “If you or someone you know personally has been targeted by authorities because of peace activism, does it make you want to increase your activism, decrease your activism, or does it have no effect on your participation in the movement?”

28 The Contemporary US Peace Movement The last section collected information on demographic characteristics of participants. In self-administered questionnaires, demographic questions are usually presented last so respondents are not faced with questions they may perceive as tedious or that request sensitive information such as income at the beginning of the questionnaire. I asked the respondents to identify their political party, political ideology, age group, gender, ethnic group, religion, highest level of education, and annual personal income. Most of those variables are standard in many demographic questionnaires. Data on demographic characteristics provide a snapshot of activist backgrounds and a point of departure for inquiries regarding the relationship of identity to movement participation. While most of my survey questions had an open-ended response category labeled “other” that allowed respondents to elaborate on a choice not given in the response set, the survey measured variables by extensive yet predetermined categories. For example, the question, “Which of the following initiatives do you think should be advocated in the peace movement?” gave respondents a choice of nine answers. I compiled those nine choices based on a review of contemporary activist literature and observation of peace events. Participants could choose more than one response category to allow for initiatives they felt were equally important. Qualitative responses to the “other” response options and the last survey question that allowed participants to share any other information they felt was pertinent helped shape questions for the telephone interviews. My interview guide for the telephone interviews had seven main themes (participation, identity, social networks, mobilizing a diverse base, social control, public policy, and views of the movement) corresponding to my research questions. While my study was broad enough to encompass new themes or connections, my conceptual framework was informed by previous social movement literature and studying movement artifacts such as peace organization websites, calls to action, and mission statements. For example, my questions on participation provided space for respondents to reflect on their reasons for being involved in the peace movement, but I was also guided by theory and observation to ask them how social identity and networks specifically relate to their participation.

METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS I collected my quantitative data through an Internet survey of individual activists, with a self-administered questionnaire of 24 questions as the survey instrument. Since surveys are well suited for assessing individual opinions and demographic information, my Internet survey instrument was an appropriate data collection tool for inquiries regarding activist demographic characteristics, attitudes, and behavior.


29

I posted my questionnaire on a website administered via www.surveymonkey.com, a professional service that allows researchers to create customized Internet surveys. To improve data quality, the survey was programmed to require answers to specified questions before the respondent could proceed with the survey and to prohibit the same individual from taking the survey twice. Respondents also had the option of leaving the survey and resuming it later. Data were guarded on the survey website through fi rewall restrictions and internal back-ups. My questionnaire was pre-tested with colleagues and peace activists at American University. After they completed the survey, they provided feedback on questionnaire content and structure. This feedback helped refi ne my survey instrument as I clarified terms and survey instructions, which increased the chance that people would interpret the survey questions in a similar manner. For example, I clarifi ed what I meant by the political ideology categories of conservative, liberal, and radical by providing a defi nition of those terms in the response categories based on pre-tester feedback that individuals could interpret those terms differently. The survey was designed to be completed in approximately 15–20 minutes. I used an interview guide as the data collection tool for the qualitative component of my study, which was also pre-tested for flow and content with colleagues and peace activists. Respondents were asked the same 21 base questions, but I interjected other questions when appropriate to clarify statements or to pursue further details. As is common in semistructured interviews, I often used probes to help clarify my questions for the respondent. Most of the interviews lasted from 45–60 minutes, but some went as long as 90 minutes. In some cases, I had follow up conversations to gather more information if we ran out of time. All respondents had my contact information, and a few of them contacted me to tell me things they wanted to add or had forgotten during the interview. In order to give participants an opportunity to share information that was not covered by my study, I asked them if there was anything else about peace activism or the movement they felt was important for me to know. As the process of categorizing what emerges from the data and using a comparative method to uncover similarities and differences, analytic induction is often used in qualitative analysis (Babbie 2003; Ragin 1994). While my study is not purely inductive in the sense that research themes/ areas were shaped by three main theoretical frameworks (new social movements, social networks, and political opportunity structure), I did draw upon the method of analytic induction as I compared data from the surveys and interviews and analyzed sub-group comparisons. To protect their confidentiality, I gave each interview respondent a pseudonym that I used when discussing their responses.

30


DISCUSSION OF DEMOGRAPHIC DATA For the demographic portion of my survey, I asked respondents to identify their age group, gender, race, highest level of education completed, annual personal income, religion, political party, and political ideology. It should be noted that the terms race and ethnicity have slightly different academic meanings. Koppelman and Goodhart (2005), for instance, assert that race generally refers to a social construct that artificially divides people into groups based on certain physical characteristics and ancestral heritage while ethnicity is based on cultural characteristics such as language and ancestral geographical base. However, I did not distinguish race or ethnic groups for respondents. Instead, I posed the question to them this way: “Of the following groups, with which one do you most strongly identify?” Respondents were given the following choices for this question: African American/Black, Indian or Alaska native, Arab American, Asian or Pacific Islander, Latino(a)/Hispanic, Multiethnic/Multiracial, White, and Other. These choices are commonly given on demographic forms such as the U.S. Census, and I listed them together as one response in my survey so as not to impose my defi nition of race and ethnicity on respondents. The groups are listed under “Race/Ethnicity” in Appendix A and B. The important matter for the purposes of my study is that both concepts are social constructions that place groups in dominant and nondominant hierarchies which have consequences for social privilege, resources, and status. Since race tends to be the more commonly used term in both academic literature and the general public, I use the term “race” or “racial group” when I discuss this question throughout my study. My main goal in collecting such data from respondents was to understand how they identify themselves and how their membership in various demographic groups impacts their peace activism. I did not ask survey respondents to identify their geographical location. During the course of arranging the telephone interviews, however, I did ask the geographical location of the interviewees. Thus, that information is provided in Appendix B (“Frequency Distribution of Telephone Interviewees’ Demographic Characteristics”), but not in Appendix A (“Frequency Distribution of Survey Respondents’ Demographic Characteristics”).

SURVEY RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHICS Survey respondents most frequently identified themselves as 51–60 years of age, female, and white. They reported high levels of education but low personal incomes. They also most frequently identified themselves as Christians, Democrats, and liberals. A total of 27% of respondents identified themselves as aged 51–60, which was the most frequently chosen age category. Women comprised 60% of the total survey respondents. The gender


31

difference was much larger in the Primarily Peace sample (68% female and 32% male) than in the Peace With Justice sample (57% females and 43% male). A total of 77% of the respondents identified themselves as white. At 82%, the Peace With Justice sample had a higher frequency of participants who identified as white than those in the Primarily Peace sample (61%). The majority of respondents had an education level higher than a Bachelor’s degree. The categories of some graduate school, Master’s degree, and Doctoral degree comprised 65% of the total responses for the survey question that asked respondents about the highest level of education they have completed. Master’s degree was the category with the highest frequency in both samples, with a total survey frequency of 36%. These fi ndings are consistent with other social movement studies (Ennis and Schreuer 1987; Sherkat and Blocker 1994) that show activists tend to have higher levels of education than non-activists. Respondents reported a fairly low income relative to their education level. The under $20,000 response category had the highest frequency with 26% of the total responses. The $20,000-$29,999 and $30,000-$39,999 categories had total respective frequencies of 14% and 18%, which puts 54% of respondents at an annual income below $40,000. This can be partially explained by the fact that the survey question asked respondents to report their personal annual income and thus missed total household income that may be available to respondents. For example, in response to the question that asked respondents if they would like me to know anything else about their peace activism or the movement, one participant wrote that her husband has a well-paying job, which allows her to take low-paying or volunteer activist positions. Another explanation for the inconsistency between income and education is that this combination (low income and high education) was found to be correlated with support for peace action in a previous study (Ennis and Schreuer 1987), suggesting that highly educated people with low incomes are more likely to be involved in peace activism than the general population. Christianity was the category with the highest frequency for religious identification with a total of 63%, but it had a much higher frequency in the Peace With Justice sample (70%) than in the Primarily Peace sample (43%). Approximately 7% of the total responses are in the “other” category, wherein respondents took the opportunity to identify belief systems such as yoga or science. Although Christianity was the most frequently chosen religious identification, the data demonstrate that many participants do not identify with mainstream organized religions. For example, 19% of the total respondents selected “none” for their religious affiliation, 4% identified themselves as “spiritual”, and 7% selected “other” for their affiliation. The Democratic Party was the most frequently chosen political party affiliation (42% for the total sample), followed by Green (27%) and Independent (17%). A point of interest is that while the survey gave the political party option of Republican, none of the respondents chose that option.

32


Several respondents noted in the “other” category that they do not identify with any particular party, but they vote instead according to how they feel about particular issues or candidates. Similarly, none of the respondents chose conservative as their political ideology, although that option was provided on the survey. These findings suggest that the peace activists in my sample are highly skewed toward the left end of the political spectrum. This serves as a reminder that due to the purposive nature of my sample, the fi ndings only represent those activists that participated in my study and cannot be generalized. At 58% for the total sample, liberal was the most frequently selected political ideology, with radical as the second most frequent (32%). Within the “other” category, some people identified themselves as progressive instead of the options presented on the survey. Respondents defi ned progressive as a mixture of liberal and radical philosophies, stating the need to reform some institutions and replace others. I defi ned liberal in the survey as “seeking to reform existing institutions and forms of government in the U.S. through progressive changes within the existing system.” Radical was defi ned as “seeking to replace existing institutions and forms of government in the U.S. that are seen as fl awed at the root with a fundamentally different system.” The survey demographic findings, then, show many similarities and a few notable differences between the Peace With Justice and Primarily Peace samples. While the most frequently selected age category was 51–60 for both samples, the Peace With Justice sample had a slightly higher concentration of older respondents, as 24% identified themselves as 61 or older, whereas only 12% of the Primarily Peace respondents did. Both samples had more female than male respondents, but the gender gap was much larger in the Primarily Peace sample, as over two-thirds of the respondents in that sample identified as female. The percentage of white-identified respondents was notably higher in the Peace With Justice sample (82%) versus the Primarily Peace sample (61%), although that was the most frequently selected response in both samples. The Primarily Peace sample also had a higher respondent frequency for the multiracial/multiethnic and “other” categories at 13% and 12%, respectively. Six percent of the respondents in the Peace With Justice sample identified themselves as multiracial/multiethnic and only 4% identified as “other”. A Master’s degree was the most frequently identified education level among survey participants in both samples. The Peace With Justice respondents reported higher overall education levels, as only 8% of respondents in that sample have less than a Bachelor’s degree as compared to 25% of the Primarily Peace respondents. The most frequently reported annual personal income was less than $20,000 in both samples. An equal percentage of respondents in both samples reported an income below $40,000 (67%). However, a higher percentage of Primarily Peace respondents (28%) reported making over $70,000 as compared to 15% of the Peace With Justice participants. More Peace With Justice respondents (70%) selected Christianity as their religious identification than did Primarily Peace respondents (43%).


33

At 30%, participants in the Primarily Peace sample selected “none” as their religious identification at a higher frequency than that of Peace With Justice respondents (15%), suggesting that Peace With Justice participants are more strongly identified with organized religion. In the Peace With Justice sample, the Democratic political party identification was chosen at a much higher rate (44%) than the category with the next highest frequency (Green, at 25%). However, in the Primarily Peace sample, the gap between the Democratic and Green categories was much smaller with respective frequencies of 36% and 30%. There was a similar pattern for political ideology, as 61% of Peace With Justice respondents identified as liberal and 29% identified as radical, while the Primarily Peace sample showed a broader distribution of 49% liberals and 42% radicals. The most notable differences between the survey samples, then, were in the categories of religion, political party, and political ideology.

TELEPHONE INTERVIEWEE DEMOGRAPHICS The majority of the telephone interviewees (52%) live in the Washington, D.C. metro area and the rest were dispersed throughout the country. Since most of the organizations in the sampling list had a base or a branch in the Washington, D.C. area, this geographical concentration was expected. Fifty-one to sixty years of age was the most frequently selected age group among interview respondents as it was for survey participants. Approximately 46% of the 33 interviewees identified themselves as male, while 54% identified as female. The slightly higher distribution of females is similar to the data pattern of the surveys. The majority of the interviewees identified themselves as white (82%), a figure identical to the survey respondents from the Peace With Justice sample, but higher than those who identified as white in the Primarily Peace sample (61%). As with both survey samples, the interview participants are highly educated, with a Master’s degree as the most frequently identified education level. Similar to the survey respondents, interviewees reported a low annual personal income, with under $20,000 being the most frequently chosen response. At 61%, Christianity was the most frequently chosen religious identification of the interviewees. Similar to the survey distribution, the Democratic Party was the most frequently selected political party (36%) among interview participants. While the category of liberal had the highest response for both surveys, radical had the highest frequency among telephone interviewees at 52%. There were no significant differences in interview responses between those telephone interviewees who came from the Peace With Justice sample and those who came from the Primarily Peace sample. This could be because respondents who volunteered to do the telephone interviewees may be more similar than different in their replies to questions. Further, the nature of the qualitative

34


questions and the small, uneven sample (24 respondents from the Peace With Justice sample and 9 from the Primarily Peace sample) is not conducive to extracting meaningful interview sub-group comparisons. Thus, in subsequent chapters where I quote interview respondents, I identify the survey sample from which each telephone interviewee came (using PJ for the Peace With Justice sample and PP for the Primarily Peace sample) for the reader’s interest but, I do not compare sub-groups of interviewees beyond this chapter. Interviewees from the Primarily Peace sample (67%) were more geographically concentrated in the Washington, D.C. area than those from the Peace With Justice sample (46%). Although the majority of interviewees from both samples were 51 years of age or older, the most frequently selected age category for the Peace With Justice participants was 61 and over, while the Primarily Peace respondents selected the age group 51–60 most frequently. While women accounted for two-thirds of the Primarily Peace interviewees, the number of male and female interviewees from the Peace With Justice sample was exactly equal. There was a slightly higher percentage of whiteidentified respondents among the Peace With Justice interviewees (83%) than the Primarily Peace interviewees (78%). The annual personal income category of less than $20,000 was the most frequently selected response in both samples. While Christianity was the most frequently selected religion among interviewees from both samples, a higher percentage of Peace With Justice respondents (67%) than Primarily Peace participants (44%) selected that option. Interviewees from the Primarily Peace sample more frequently chose the “none” and “other” options for religious identification than those who came from the Peace With Justice sample. This suggests that like the Primarily Peace survey respondents in general, telephone interviewees from that sample also identify with organized religion to a lesser extent than those in the Peace With Justice sample. Interviewees from both samples most frequently selected the Democratic Party as their political party identification. However, there was a reverse pattern for the second and third most frequently selected responses, as Peace With Justice interviewees selected the Green Party more frequently than Independent as their political party affi liation, while the opposite patterns was displayed in the interviewees from the Primarily Peace sample. Interviewees from both survey samples had similar political philosophies, as radical was the most frequently selected response and liberal was the second most frequently chosen response in both groups. The largest variations between interviewees from the different survey samples, then, were in respondents’ gender and religious identification.

LIMITATIONS As my study targeted a unique population for which no complete sampling frame exists, it was most appropriate to do a purposive sample. Although


35

this does not allow the results to be generalized, one purpose of this exploratory study is to discover new lines of inquiry through uncovering underexplored patterns and processes rather than hypothesis testing. Moreover, the data triangulation in this study provides a check and balance system against the respective weaknesses of each method. For example, the surveys indicate whether increased social control inhibits or promotes movement participation, while the interviews explore the various changes experienced by peace activists in the post-9/11 political structure and how such changes impact their activism and the movement. Accessing respondents through the Internet may have interjected a socio-economic class bias in my study. However, as the Internet is now an important organizing tool for activists and most public libraries offer Internet service for those who do not have home computers, the risks of this method are offset by the potential benefits. In the following chapter, I explore the relationship of the respondent demographic data discussed in this chapter to motivation for peace activism and specifically examine the role of identity and social networks. I describe why respondents are involved in the peace movement, how they came to be involved, and what factors influence their continued peace activism.

3

Participation, Identity, and Social Networks in the Peace Movement

Activism is not an easy endeavor. It often involves struggle, sacrifi ce, and if practiced with a healthy dose of self-refl ection, confronting new information that may challenge previously held values. Depending on the nature of a particular movement’s goals and/or grievances and the larger political climate in which it exists, involvement in movements for social change can have adverse personal, professional, and legal consequences.1 At the very least, activism requires an individual’s time and/or resources. What, then, drives people toward it? This question is not new. Indeed, it has been posed throughout the history of social movement study. That it has been addressed so often and in studies of different movements speaks to its centrality in explaining the function and structure of social movements. Examining motivation for activism helps clarify the place of individual activists within social networks and the political structure in which they function, the nature of change they are trying to impact, and the methods they advocate to obtain movement goals. In this chapter, I analyze my study participants’ reported reasons for their current involvement in the peace movement with a particular focus on the impact of identity and social networks on their movement participation.

REASONS FOR MOVEMENT PARTICIPATION Respondents described their participation as peace activists as a result of multiple factors. Both survey and telephone interview participants identified moral and/or religious beliefs, concern that U.S. military power is being abused, and reaction to war or other violent events as major factors in their participation. When asked to identify the reasons for their current involvement in the peace movement, 86% of the Peace With Justice and 90% of the Primarily Peace respondents selected personal moral values. Concern that the U.S. government is abusing its military power was selected by 84% of the Peace With Justice and 90% of the Primarily Peace participants. Personal

38 The Contemporary US Peace Movement religious values also weighed in as frequently selected option, although the Peace With Justice respondents selected this answer at a higher frequency (66%) than those in the Primarily Peace sample (41%). Approximately 50% of the Peace With Justice respondents and 59% of the Primarily Peace respondents cited large-scale violent events (i.e., war or terrorist attack) as prompting their current peace movement involvement. Survey participants also listed public policies and concern for the future under “other”.

FACTORS IMPACTING INITIAL INVOLVEMENT Approximately 41% of the Peace With Justice participants and 48% of those in the Primarily Peace sample cited involvement in other social movements as a response to how they initially became involved in the peace movement. There was a larger gap between the samples in the choice of attendance at peace demonstrations/events (36% for Peace With Justice respondents and 48% for Primarily Peace respondents). Approximately 36% of the Peace With Justice sample and 33% of the Primarily Peace sample chose involvement in peace organizations as a factor that impacted their initial involvement in the movement. A personal connection to someone in the movement was selected by 34% of the Peace With Justice respondents and 38% of the Primarily Peace respondents. Participants wrote in the following responses under “other”: religious connections, response to Vietnam war, college experiences, experiences in another culture, and inspiration from other activists. Of those, religious connections were cited most frequently (11% in the Peace With Justice sample and 9% in the Primarily Peace sample). Respondents in the telephone interviews talked about moral and/or religious beliefs, political events, knowing someone involved in the movement, and witnessing the effects of war as what initially motivated their peace movement involvement. Most respondents listed some combination of the aforementioned factors. The majority of survey and interview participants are long-time peace activists (more than 20 years), and many of them cited the Vietnam war as a factor in their initial involvement in peace activism. For Jeannie (PP), the initial factors in her participation included the death of a childhood friend in the Vietnam war and meeting others who were involved in the peace movement. Other respondents traced their initial push toward peace activism to their religious background. Richard (PJ) said, “I grew up in a traditional Southern Baptist thing where they taught us to take the Bible seriously, and I did try to do that.” Jacob (PP), too, explained his early exposure to peace activism as connected to the faith of his childhood: “I was raised as a Quaker. The Friends have a strong pacifi st tradition that I was brought up in. And so I’ve been involved in what I would consider to be anti-war activities since high school.” Alice (PJ) also noted her early motivations

Participation, Identity, and Social Networks 39 for peace and justice activism started in her church: “The whole thing of having the issue of separate but equal and all of that stuff was very much salient in my church group, and I think that’s where I really got started.” Participants also discussed intersecting initial factors for joining the peace movement. Martha (PP) explained that her initial reasons for participation included both a reaction to the Vietnam war and a religious connection: It was Vietnam that really started questioning the whole thing of what are we doing and why are we doing it? I lived in Des Moines [Iowa] at the time, and there were active peace groups there connected with the Catholic Church and that kind of thing . . . it just seemed like the thing to do.

MILITARY EXPERIENCE AS A CATALYST Despite the pro-war rhetoric that support for men and women who serve in the military is synonymous with support for the war, military experience can actually be a catalyst for peace activism. Several of my interviewees had been impacted by war or other violent events, either personally or through someone close to them. In their cases, exposure to violence served as an initial impetus for peace activism. Thomas (PJ) put it this way: I am a veteran. I served in the military right after high school and it was during that time that I think I had my fi rst awakenings to the global situation and the U.S.’s role in it and saw just how bad an idea war is. How devastating it is, the effects of it and it awoke something in me that made me realize that there are alternatives and there are better ways to resolve inevitable confl icts globally and personally. And then right after I got out of the military, I immediately hooked up with some local peace organizations and that’s how I got started as an activist. Joseph (PJ) also said that fighting in the Korean war and “seeing the results of war” drove his peace activism. Bill (PJ) conceptualized his peace activism as stemming from his military experience and growing up in a racially segregated neighborhood: [I had] A growing recognition that there was a massive amount of injustice and insanity and that war was unnecessary. The two facts that led me there essentially were seeing the U.S. military fi rsthand in Okinawa when I was in the Air Force and that was after the Korean war and before the Vietnam war and seeing the sort of the underbelly of how things were run there. And the second thing was an awareness of segregation and the horrors of racism in the United States. I’d seen it

40 The Contemporary US Peace Movement fi rsthand when I was a kid in Northern Virginia and experienced it as a kind of irrational theme that ran through all of my years growing up. For some respondents, witnessing the trauma of a family member’s experience with war provided a powerful impetus for their peace activism. The effects on Barbara’s (PJ) father from being “shocked and gassed” in WWII helped shape how she came to view war. She was a young child after WWII, when her family was living in Europe. Barbara said of that experience, “The memories I have are of devastation, just devastation in seeing my parents cry, and rationing, and depression. The whole country [England] was depressed. That left a strong impression on me.” Another respondent, Patricia (PJ), experienced intense feelings of violence when she thought her father had been killed in WWII. Having a fi rsthand experience of the desire to act out violently is part of her motivation to work for peace. She explained: My father was wounded in WWII and I was very young and I didn’t understand the difference between shot and dead. I thought for a few minutes that he was dead. During that time that I was thinking he was dead, I thought that I would go to Germany and I would kill all the Germans because they had killed my dad. That anger, that reaction, that over the top reaction, has always stuck with me. That I just wanted to kill them all- not the guy who did it, but all “The Germans” were “The Enemy”. It is very important that I work for peace in myself and in the world because I know about the violence within myself that surfaced when I thought my father had been killed. For June (PJ), the sense of needing to work for peace as a moral obligation is connected to her experience of growing up in a Jewish family that had been impacted by the Holocaust. She said: I had family in the Holocaust. I grew up hearing “they did nothing to stop it”, and for some reason that stayed with me . . . I think the thing that keeps me motivated is hearing that little recording in my head saying they did nothing to stop it . . . it’s what I keep hearing now, that you have to do something. People who have served in the military or have otherwise been deeply impacted by state violence and now speak out against it have a unique position in the peace movement because their experiences make it difficult for opponents to discredit their message. Thus, peace activism driven by such experiences can have strong ramifications for mobilization. Similar to my interviewees who had been exposed to or impacted by state violence, Cindy Sheehan’s experience of losing her son in the current Iraq war became a strong impetus for her peace activism. Sheehan emerged

Participation, Identity, and Social Networks 41 as a powerful symbol of the peace movement after her son Casey was killed in Iraq while serving in the U.S. army. Shortly after his death, she became a founding member of Gold Star Families for Peace, an organization for families of service members killed in Iraq. Sheehan has published three books about her experiences (Dear President Bush, Not One More Mother’s Child, and Peace Mom: A Mother’s Journey Through Heartache to Activism). In a speech given on October 3, 2006 at Town Hall in Seattle, Washington for her latest book tour, Sheehan talked about turning the grief of losing her son into peace activism. I attended her speech and took notes. The following quotes from Cindy Sheehan are verbatim. After Casey was killed, Sheehan said that she “went from someone who generally opposes war to someone who opposes all violence” and describes herself as a “pure pacifi st . . . because the only way to fight violence is with peace and the only way to fight anger is with a sense of humor and calmness”. She said opposing all violence is “how to go from a hostile society to one that takes care of everyone.” Although her initial reason for becoming involved in the peace movement was the grief over losing her son, that experience was a catalyst for broadening her conception of what peace is and working toward a peaceful society rather than just ending the Iraq war and bringing the troops home. Sheehan now travels around the world, speaking to people about her experiences and to “show the world that not everyone agrees with Bush.” She advocates a grass-roots approach to activism, noting that “anything good happens from the bottom.” She said she wants her new book, Peace Mom (2006), to “inspire others to take action” and to “transform Casey’s death into something positive.” Sheehan noted that this (Iraq) war will affect everyone as well as impact future generations and she said she wants “everyone to realize they have a stake in it without having to bury a child or a loved one.” Sheehan has also announced that she is running for Congress as an Independent against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in the November 2008 election. Spurred on by Pelosi’s reluctance to pursue impeachment hearings against the Bush administration and cut off funding for the occupation of Iraq, Sheehan has expressed confidence that voters in San Francisco (where she is running) will support her efforts to advocate peace from inside the political system. Although she faces serious funding problems (as of March 2008, her campaign has raised $49,000 to Pelosi’s $1.6 million), there is some evidence that San Francisco voters would support Sheehan’s stance on the occupation. For instance, 59% of the voters there approved a ballot measure to impeach Bush and Cheney in 2006 (Ohtake 2008). San Francisco has also been a key site of activist discontent with both Democratic and Republican politicians for failing to end the occupation. Actions such as the 2007 Code Pink vigil outside of Pelosi’s home in response to her lack of support for an immediate troop withdrawal from

42


Iraq and cutting off funding for the occupation indicate support for public officials who have stronger anti-war stances. It remains to be seen if that base is large enough to support Sheehan’s efforts to defeat Pelosi. Regardless of the outcome, Sheehan’s run for Congress has helped re-introduce public awareness of timely pro-peace policies advocated by activists. The ability to keep such discussions alive both inside and outside of the political system is extremely important for the peace movement in articulating a sense of urgency about ending the occupation of Iraq and presenting plans for alternatives to militarism. This is particularly the case in an election year in which issues such as immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq (not just a discussion of timetables) are rarely if ever given airtime on the major news networks or serious consideration in public by either the Republican or Democratic candidates. Sheehan’s story exemplifies how motivation for activism can grow from an initial response to a personal tragedy into commitment to transforming public policies that set the stage for such tragedies to occur.

FACTORS IMPACTING CONTINUED PARTICIPATION The reasons that initially influence people to become involved in the peace movement are often supported by other experiences as individuals grow in their activism and become more aware of issue interconnectedness. For example, some respondents cited early religious training as part of their initial involvement in peace activism and then described other events (such as attending college) as solidifying their early values. The belief that working for peace will ultimately have a positive impact was selected the most frequently among both samples of survey respondents as a reason for their continued participation in the peace movement (92% of Peace With Justice respondents and 90% of Primarily Peace respondents selected that answer). Approximately 71% of the participants in the Peace With Justice sample cited religion/spirituality, while Primarily Peace respondents selected that option with substantially less frequency (51%). A sense of urgency about ending violent conflicts was selected by 67% of the Peace With Justice respondents and 68% of the Primarily Peace respondents. Approximately 62% of those in the Peace With Justice sample and 49% of Primarily Peace respondents chose moral support from fellow activists as a factor in continuing their motivation. Survey respondents in both samples also noted moral values, past movement successes, witnessing positive changes, and feeling better about oneself and one’s contribution to the world as a result of peace activism under “other” in response to what continues their peace movement participation. Most telephone interview respondents discussed elements of their initial involvement in peace activism as identity-based (religion, gender, socio-class, etc) or shaped by powerful experiences (higher education,

Participation, Identity, and Social Networks 43 living in another culture, military service). In terms of what continues their participation, many talked about being involved in peace activism as a natural extension of the moral or ethical imperatives based on their instilled values and expressed a sense of responsibility to impact positive social change in whatever way they could. The interview format allowed them to share their understanding of how their sense of morality developed and more specifically, how that translated into peace activism. Mia (PJ) talked about how her interpretation of her faith motivates her to work for social justice and peace: I essentially grew up in the faith with the understanding that peacemaking is a fundamental component of following Jesus and of having integrity. A big piece of that is dealing with social justice issues that simply saying we need peace in the world isn’t enough if people aren’t fed and housed and clothed and have access to education, etc. Gilda (PJ) also made the connection between peace and justice by her observation that the amount of resources used for militarization could be better invested elsewhere: “Part of it is faith-based motivation. Another motivation is with other issues. For example, health care, child care, and education. If we were not investing so much in the military, there would be many more resources to invest in those other issues.” In her investigation of local collective action among Detroit residents, Pamela Oliver (1984) found that the more active members of neighborhood associations believed that they needed to do activist work because nobody else would. Some respondents in my study also expressed the need to “step up” as a motivating factor, because as Michael (PJ) put it, “I don’t know of anyone else who is going to do it. The motivation is that it has to keep going.” Similarly, Sandra (PJ) said, “there’s so much wrong in the world . . . war, poverty . . . so I can do a little to change it.” Alice (PJ) expressed the importance of living up to her own moral standards in continuing her peace work: What keeps me motivated more than anything else is just a sense that I need to live with myself. For me, its sort of like the old, ‘If I’m not part of the solution, I’m part of the problem’, and I’m not comfortable being part of the problem, so I’m going to do my best to be part of the solution. It’s a moral/ethical issue about how I want to live in this world. Jeannie (PP) described her reasons for continued peace activism as stemming from personally being involved in a movement that she believes helped stop the Vietnam war: “I know I was doing the right thing [being involved with the peace movement] and it worked [to stop the Vietnam war].” For some interviewees, the conviction that working for peace is the right thing to do and that their efforts will eventually pay off is connected to the belief

44


that violence is illogical. Richard (PJ) summed it up concisely: “Violence is not a very sustainable or logical method.” Higher education was also mentioned as a place of fortifying earlier values, which helped some respondents make the transition from belief to action. Erik (PJ), for example, explained that college deepened his understanding of justice and peace issues that built on his childhood exposure to “a view of church as service to people and compassion for disadvantaged people and a basic commitment to nonviolence.” Another respondent, Lance (PP), said his primary reasons for peace activism stem from his moral beliefs and from being a father. He said, “I was against the Vietnam war and never did anything about it. Now that I have children something’s changed in me.” When I asked what continues his participation, he replied: The Bushes, and what’s going on has just driven me completely over the edge. I’m their worst nightmare. I’m a middle class WASP [White Anglo Saxon Protestant] with children. I’m Mr. America and I’m religious and I’m appalled that they’ve stolen the flag and the church. Like Lance, concern about the actions of the U.S. government and a sense of urgency about ending violent confl icts are also major motivations for other respondents to continue their peace activism. The views of activists in my study are similar to what Barbara Epstein (2003) found in her interviews with contemporary peace movement leaders. Her interviewees expressed that a prime incentive for people who join the peace movement is the perception that the Bush administration is invoking reckless foreign policies. One respondent, Christine (PP), talked about her continued peace movement involvement as stemming from her dissatisfaction with the Bush administration, even though she used to be a Republican herself: Everything that the Bush administration and the Republicans are doing and every law they are passing motivates me highly . . . I abhor the bankruptcy bill, what they are trying to do to social security, the fact that they lost nine billion of our dollars somewhere in Iraq and they won’t even engage in a conversation about it, that they asked for 80 billion dollars more for Iraq, that they want to drill in the Arctic wildlife refuge . . . I was a Republican for 15 years until Bush made me want to run away from the Republican Party. I have a lot of friends who feel the same way, who used to be Republicans and they are Democrats now. Other interviewees mentioned they were particularly moved to become involved in peace activism in response to the post-September 11, 2001 political climate. Tony (PJ), for example, made it clear that what got him involved in the peace movement again after a period of inactivity was “not

Participation, Identity, and Social Networks 45 just 9/11, but the American response to it.” More specific post-9/11 occurrences that respondents mentioned in both the surveys and interviews as factors in their peace activism include: the USA PATRIOT Act, government and/or media propaganda that equates peace activism with pro-terrorism, and the U.S. military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq. A few respondents who noted such phenomena described them as “illogical” and “chilling” enough to be reasons for peace movement involvement. In the next chapter, I build on the present discussion by contextualizing respondents’ experiences of social control in terms of activist relationships to the political system. Although feelings of urgency to stop violence and fear that things will get worse if they do not act were cited by some respondents as factors in their peace activism, not one respondent indicated that their participation is wholly driven by fear. Indeed, some respondents noted the satisfaction that working for peace brings them. Comments from survey respondents included, “It’s an honor to be in the struggle for social justice”; “Peace is our birthright; we deserve to live in joy rather than fear”; and “I feel much more fulfi lled when I work toward economic, environmental and social sustainability than when I simply focus on my own individual life without considering how I affect others.” Others noted that past movement successes and the actions of fellow activists inspire them to continue their own work. Similar to the survey respondents, interview participants also described positive reinforcement as a factor in their continued peace movement participation. Thomas (PJ) explained it this way: “Hope would be the one word. The fact that you can see if you look back historically and even in the short term you can see little steps being made and that gives me hope that as the work continues that more steps will be made.” Such responses indicate the belief that peace activism is both necessary and effective helps to sustain activists’ resolve.

THE ROLE OF IDENTITY There are three main levels of identity discussed in the social movement literature: personal, social, and collective. While Viktor Gecas (2000) notes the concept of identity includes both commonalities and differences between people, he observes that personal identity refers to idiosyncratic characteristics and stresses differences among individuals whereas social identity implies group membership and focuses on the common bonds arising from that experience (Gecas 2000). Collective identity is a group level concept. The difference between social and collective identity is that social identity derives from an individual’s membership in groups to which they are socially recognized as belonging, while collective identity derives from a group’s concept of itself (Owens and Aronson 2000). Put another

46


way, “. . . collective identity concerns cognitions shared by members of a single group, whereas social identity concerns cognitions of a single individual about his or her membership in one or more groups” (Klandermans and de Weerd 2000: 74). While there are multiple dimensions of identity, then, I focus primarily on the social identity of individual activists in this study. Social movements often organize around shared concerns of social group members (i.e., the working class, people of color, women, etc). But while individual members of such groups may have some life circumstances in common, their concerns can vary according to other identities they possess. For example, people in the working poor class typically face low wages, a lack of benefits, physically demanding working conditions, and job instability. 2 They might then organize for labor rights based on their shared class position. Yet, the working class is comprised of people with various non-class identities based on race, gender, etc, which also impact their lives and likely influence their participation in social activism. While identity-based social movement participation can be conceptualized as “rational choice” in the sense that participants are advocating for something that would benefit them (i.e., equal rights, better pay, etc), what role, if any, does identity play in the motivation of individual activists to advocate for something such as peace that would benefit (albeit differently) all individuals? If peace is in everyone’s interest, 3 then, but to different degrees,4 are individuals most potentially or actually impacted by war and other forms of structural violence more motivated to advocate for peace? I explored these issues among respondents by asking survey participants to rate various aspects of their social identity (political ideology, political party, gender, race, religion, socio-economic class, religion, and socio-economic class) in terms of importance to their peace activism. Respondents were presented with a five-point scale ranging from “very important” to “very unimportant”, on which they rated the importance of the aforementioned variables to their involvement in peace activism. For the following discussion, I consolidated the response choices of “very important” and “somewhat important” to show the frequency of respondents who identified various social identities and affi liations as important factors in their peace activism. For the purposes of these analyses, I also consolidated response categories that originally had more than two response options into two groups based on the most frequently selected option and all others for each category (for example, Christian and Other) because some response options were selected by so few respondents that it rendered meaningful comparisons difficult. I analyzed each group in terms of the frequency with which membership in the corresponding group was selected as an important motivating factor of peace activism among respondents. For instance, I compared religion as

Participation, Identity, and Social Networks 47 an identity response (i.e., Christian, Other) to the frequency that respondents chose religion as an important factor in their peace activism. Approximately 71% of the total Peace With Justice sample selected religion as an important factor, while 54% of the total Primarily Peace sample did so. When disaggregated by Christian and non-Christian respondents, the data show that the former selected religion as an important factor in their peace activism with greater frequency than the latter. Nearly 92% of the Peace With Justice respondents who identified their religion as Christianity chose religion as an important factor in their peace activism, while only 36% of non-Christian identified respondents did. The Primarily Peace sample showed a similar pattern, as 73% of Christians selected religion as an important factor, whereas 42% of the non-Christians in that sample did. Gender was another category that showed a significant gap in the frequencies with which different groups selected that as a factor in their peace activism. While 55% of the total Peace With Justice sample and 52% of the Primarily Peace sample chose gender as an important factor, 72% of women in the Peace With Justice sample and 70% of women in the Primarily Peace samples selected gender as important. Only 18% and 28% of their male counterparts respectively chose that variable as an important factor in their peace activism. Approximately 32% of the total Peace With Justice sample and 30% of the Primarily Peace sample selected race as important. However, only 26% of the white-identified participants in Peace With Justice sample indicated that race is important to their peace activism compared to 59% of the nonwhite identified respondents in that sample. The Primarily Peace sample, on the other hand, showed that 31% of white identified and 30% of nonwhite identified participants chose race as an important factor. Approximately 42% of the total Peace With Justice sample and 30% of the Primarily Peace sample selected political party as an important factor in their peace activism. Both samples show large differences when disaggregated by Democrats and Others in the frequency with which those groups chose political party as an important factor. About 56% of Democrats and 32% of Others in the Peace With Justice sample chose political party as important, while the corresponding frequencies in the Primarily Peace sample are 52% and 18%. I did not ask respondents to identify their socio-economic class in the demographic portion of the survey, so I did not have “socio-economic class” as a demographic to run against the frequency with which class was selected as a motivating factor. Instead, I asked for highest completed level of education and annual personal income, which are two of three factors normally used to measure socio-economic class (the third is occupation, which I did not ask respondents to report). Thus, I ran both education and income against class as a motivating factor. Nearly 58% of the Peace

48 The Contemporary US Peace Movement With Justice sample and 51% of the Primarily Peace sample selected socioeconomic class as an important factor in their peace activism. Those with a Bachelor’s degree or higher in the Peace With Justice sample selected class as an important factor in their peace activism with a much greater frequency than those with an education level below a Bachelor’s degree (61% and 21%, respectively). The Primarily Peace sample had a much smaller gap although the pattern is reversed, as 48% of those with a Bachelor’s degree or higher level selected class as an important factor in their peace activism, while a higher percentage (59%) of those with an education level below a Bachelor’s degree indicated that class is important. While 50% of those with an annual income of $40,000 or higher selected class as an important factor in the Peace With Justice sample, only 35% of participants in that income bracket selected that response in the Primarily Peace sample. Approximately 60% of those making below $40,000 in both samples said that class is an important factor in their peace activism. Political ideology is the only identity variable that did not show notable patterns of differences when disaggregated. Nearly 92% of the Peace With Justice sample and 82% of the Primarily Peace sample selected political ideology as an important factor in their peace activism. Of those who identified as liberal in the Peace With Justice sample, 91% said that political ideology is an important factor, while 88% of their Primarily Peace counterparts did. Approximately 93% of those in the Peace With Justice sample and 86% of those in the Primarily Peace sample who did not identify themselves as liberal also selected political ideology as an important factor in their peace activism. What this information indicates is that while the two samples show some variations, there are more similarities than differences in their patterns and most of the major variations in the relationship between identity and peace activism are among groups within the survey samples. Political party, gender, and religion are the identity categories that had the most variation in both samples regarding the frequency with which those aspects were selected as important factors of peace activism. Education and race had notable variations by group in the Peace With Justice sample, while income had a significant difference between groups in the Primarily Peace sample. This means that for my survey respondents, their political party, gender, and religion particularly impact the frequency with which they identify those aspects as important factors in their peace activism. More specifically, the Democrats, women, and Christians in both survey samples were more likely than non-Democrats, men, and non-Christians to say that political party, gender, and religion are important factors. A surprising fi nding in the Peace With Justice sample was that respondents with a Bachelor’s degree or higher were more likely to select socio-economic class as an important factor in their peace activism than those with an education level below a Bachelor’s degree. Non-white identified Peace

Participation, Identity, and Social Networks 49 With Justice respondents were more likely to select race as an important factor than white-identified respondents in that sample. Primarily Peace respondents with an income of below $40,000 said that socio-economic class is important with a higher frequency than those with an income of $40,000 and above. The aforementioned discussion of the survey data served to highlight patterns in the frequency with which respondents chose various aspects of their social identity as important factors in their peace activism. Such data, however, only allow for a superficial examination of how identity impacts participation. A survey respondent may indicate that gender is an important factor in his or her peace activism, but that does not provide insight as to the ways in which gender specifically impacted that individual’s decision to become involved in the movement. Exploring the ways that multiple social identities can impact individual motivation beyond protecting one’s own interests expands the conversation of movement participation. Data from the telephone interviews provide more depth in this regard. The interview format allowed respondents to expand on the question of identity as a factor in their peace activism. When asked to tell me about any aspects of their identity that are important to their peace activism, many interview participants cited their religious values. Not everyone identified with an organized religion, as some respondents referred to a more general sense of spirituality that guides them in their activism. The interviews also drew out more complex interactions among respondents’ identification with various groups and their corresponding dominant or non-dominant status.5 According to my interview respondents, both under privilege and over privilege can be also be catalysts for participation in peace activism. Michael (PJ) reflected on his experience as a working class, African American youth. He primarily discussed how he became invigorated by the idea of participating in civil society through political events of the time and a strong emphasis on civics in the public school he attended. Michael (PJ) described such experiences as fortifying his childhood “capacity to understand” the environment around him, which he views as connected to his class and race. He explained: I think maybe if anything it [participation in peace activism] probably has more to do with class, as well as race . . . just because growing up being an African American . . . I think people underestimate children’s capacities to understand. When MLK (Martin Luther King, Jr) died, I was probably ten years old, but I was constantly seeing these images of people protesting for civil rights, protesting against the Vietnam war. I talk to people now around my age that have children in school, and it seems like they don’t get taught civics anymore. There’s a whole process of being integrated into participation into society that I think is missing. One of the really wild things was back in 1968 or it might have been

50 The Contemporary US Peace Movement ’72, they took all the kids that were in the 3rd grade from the 7th grade and we had our own election. We went to the local high school and we actually voted in a mock election for the candidates that were running that year. So we had all of our school programming . . . social studies, history, and English revolving around the idea of voting. By the time that we got to the age that we could vote, especially me, I was ready to go. That was something important. As noted in the methodology chapter, the majority of the participants identified themselves as white. Many telephone interviewees pointed to the realization of their unearned racial privilege as an impetus for action. A few also noted that their status as an American citizen provides over privilege on a global scale and adds another dimension of responsibility to use such power to change international arrangements for people who cannot as readily speak out. Jacob (PP) explained the relationship of those aspects of his social identity to his motivation as a peace activist: I’ve got a pretty Caucasian white background although I’m married to a Jew who is a daughter of Israelis. I consider myself multiethnic. But the issue of race is extraordinarily important to me . . . it gets back to this issue of, ‘who are you gonna stand with?’ You’re gonna stand with the victims of war, the victims of racism, the victims of homophobia, and I’m gonna do it as a white male. What I’m interested in is standing in solidarity with people now who are encountering problems that have at root a racist structure to society. The awareness of privilege and impetus to act is a complex relationship, as many interviewees’ understanding of their dominance in one aspect came out of experiences of oppression in another area. Particularly when discussing various aspects of their identity and any accompanying oppressions or privileges, many interviewees talked about the importance of working for justice along with peace. Respondents discussed experiencing class and gender oppression as the major vehicles that increased awareness of their privilege in other spheres and invoked their motivation to work for peace with justice. Beatrice (PJ) described her class background as something that sensitized her to other oppressions: I grew up in public housing, so poverty and economic disparity has been something I’ve been personally aware of in my own family life, but also sensitive to in the experience of others. In the late 60’s,“others” meant African Americans. So I could relate to the experience at one level of the poverty and the discrimination that people experienced because they were different. In their case, it was race. In my case, it was because we were poor in a school system where most people were

Participation, Identity, and Social Networks 51 middle class. Those kinds of personal stories sensitized me to some of the things that were going on in the world. In’68, when I had gone back to school, one of the connections I made was the racism related to civil rights [in the U.S.] and the economic disparity that I had experienced as a child and the racism and the economic injustice that was going on in Vietnam in terms of who was being recruited, drafted, and who was allowed to escape the draft. All of that became in my mind very interconnected. Thomas (PJ) also traced his awareness of his privilege to his working class background: As a white male, even though I’m from a poor, working-class family, I recognize the privilege that being a white male gives me, so I would say that it took my awareness of class issues to really draw me out and to make me aware of the bigger picture. I saw fi rsthand the effects of classism on individuals and on groups. The military is still a deeply divided class structure contrary to whatever the propaganda is. The wealthy and those who can afford college are officers and those who come straight out of high school who are from poorer families are enlisted. Also, [his class background promoted] the awareness of how war itself affects poor people. Jacob (PP) was exposed to class inequalities from his family’s history of actively supporting union workers, which he said is an important motivating factor for him, even though he does not think class exists in the same way it did when he was growing up. He said: Class is important in ways that may sound anachronistic. I come from a family of union lawyers and my father and his father were both attorneys who worked with the United Mine Workers, the electrical workers, the steel workers and worked in important ways in support of a working class which no longer exists. Jacob’s comment regarding a working class that “no longer exists” is reminiscent of new social movement theory, of which one assertion is that class as a primary rallying point for social activism has changed as other contention points have emerged in the post-industrial period. Yet, the early values instilled in Jacob regarding union organizing in a time when there was a strong working class are part of what shaped his conceptualization of peace and justice and help drive his peace activism today. This suggests that class should not be discounted as a motivating factor even though the strength of unionized labor has declined. For Nicole (PJ), her current economic status is part of what motivates her activism. She put it this way:

52 The Contemporary US Peace Movement I’m poor. Some people can just write a check and they say they’ve helped. I can’t write that check. I have to do the work, or I can’t help at all. In one way I guess that makes my class part of it, ‘cuz I can’t give financially, but I can give my time and my energy and my creative ideas. New social movement theory provides a useful framework for the investigation of identity-based individual motivation to act. One critique of this approach, however, that is pertinent to the present discussion of motivation for social movement participation is that social identity is not monolithic, and the possession of multiple identities by individuals is an important factor in building diverse coalitions (Edwina Barvosa-Carter 1999). Interviewees also discussed the value of their own various identities in assisting their understanding of privilege and oppression (particularly if they have at least one identity that corresponds with an oppressed status). Katherine (PJ) conceptualized her gender as the “entry into [understanding] the privilege” she has in other areas. June (PJ) talked about how her involvement in the women’s movement in the 1970s helped her see the “overlapping nature of all oppressions.” Gilda (PJ), too, found the women’s movement to be an important source of learning about various oppressions: The women’s movement was very influential. In some ways, being involved in the women’s movement was another place of really learning activism and the importance of class issues. Feminism often times missed the boat in terms of class issues. So how one movement can be really important, but it’s also important to be linking up with other movements and other issues. Alice (PJ) also discussed how her involvement in the peace and feminist movements assisted her in making the connection among different forms of oppression: I think gender is certainly part of it. Once I became a peace activist and began to look at the whole thing of social justice, then I became a feminist. I think peace is a critical women’s issue. Even though, often women’s issues are sort of ghettoized off in this corner, ‘oh, but that’s a women’s issue, the big boys really deal with peace.’ Well, that’s ridiculous. I think race is one. I’m a white person, and I think that that’s part of my reason for doing this because I have more power. I’m educated. I have more power than people who are, as far as I’m concerned, hurt by this the most. That’s part of my moral requirement of myself, that I do something about that. Sandra (PJ) echoed Alice’s recognition of both white privilege and gender discrimination when she said this of being a white female activist: “I am privileged because I’m white, but on the other hand, sometimes because I’m a woman, my talking doesn’t really do anything.”

Participation, Identity, and Social Networks 53 The comments made by Alice and Sandra regarding how women and concerns designated as “women’s issues” are treated in mixed-gender movements reflect a dynamic common in many social movements comprised of participants from various social locations. As previously discussed, multiple identities of individual participants can be a useful component in forging a movement space that is more inclusive. However, certain issues in a larger movement are sometimes deemed as primarily the domain of one group within that movement (for example, “women’s issues”). This makes harmful assumptions (i.e., that all women share the same concerns without regard to their other identities based on class, race, etc) and backburners issues of true importance to some movement participants, which affects motivation for participation and movement building. I revisit this issue in Chapter Five in which I analyze diversity and mobilization in the peace movement.

THE ROLE OF SOCIAL NETWORKS Contemporary studies of the relationship between social networks and involvement in social movements demonstrate that having ties to another participant is a key factor in social movement or protest participation (Diani 2003; Passy 2003; Snow, Zurcher, Jr, and Ekland-Olson 1980). This was the case for participants in my study who cited connections to individuals and groups as an important part of their peace movement participation. They discussed various dimensions of social networks and how they relate to their peace movement participation. These include: kinds of ties or relationships, types of support they provide, and effect of their influence (i.e., inhibiting or promoting movement participation). When asked how they initially became involved in the peace movement, having a personal connection to someone in the movement and involvement in other social movements were among the most frequently cited responses among my participants. Previous social movement studies have shown that social ties influence participation in a number of ways, including both content (McAdam 1986) and structure (Gould 1991) of network processes. Roger Gould’s (1991) work on the Paris Commune riots featured the importance of interactive effects between formal and informal structural ties in determining level of participation. Many of my respondents also talked about the role of informal networks in joining the peace movement (i.e., from a personal connection to someone already in it) and the role of their participation in more formal organizations (church group, activist organization, etc) in which their commitment was fortified. Their descriptions of how they came to be involved in the peace movement support the idea that both content and structure are important motivating factors. For example, many interviewees talked about being a peace activist as a natural extension of their religious beliefs. In other words, the content

54


of peace activist networks that stress peacemaking and nonviolence “fit” their identity as a religious person. Structure plays an important role, as many interview participants talked about being involved in other movements, social change organizations, and/or service groups as a precursor to peace activism. Florence Passy (2003) built on the well-established assertion that social networks matter by asking how they impact social activism. She identifies three functions of social networks: (1) socialization; (2) structural-connection; and (3) decision-shaping. According to Passy, the fi rst function creates an initial disposition to protest by exposing an individual to symbols and narratives that create consciousness towards a given issue. For example, if one is surrounded by people who are involved in peace activism and who share information about the movement, that person is more likely to respond to a call to participate in movement activities than someone who did not have the initial exposure and thus does not have the same familiarity with the symbols and language shared by peace activists. The socialization function of networks can be seen most clearly in the case of respondents whose families were involved in activism. Family relationships were mentioned by participants as an important factor in their peace activism. Tina (PP) put it this way: “My father took me to demonstrations when I was five. I’ve been a lifelong activist.” Nicole (PJ), too, said her parents introduced her to peace activism: “I marched against Vietnam as a toddler with my parents. It’s just in my blood, I guess.” Daniel (PJ) also explained his involvement as family-related: “Both of my grandfathers were pacifists. My mother’s father came to America from Germany because he so much disagreed with the Nazi takeover there. So my initial motivation is almost genealogical.” The second function of social networks identified by Passy (structuralconnection) addresses the need for people to channel their disposition to protest. She asserts that movement organizations can be important for attracting new supporters, but that networks play a key mediating role because individuals are more inclined to join a movement organization or protest if they know someone who is already involved. According to Passy, social networks also have a decision-shaping function. In this sense, social networks help develop potential activists by intervening in individual perceptions via the action of other participants. Sandra’s (PJ) experience exemplifies both the structural-connection and decision-shaping functions of social networks. She explained how she was initially brought into the movement by her husband (her fi ancé at the time): My husband to be took me to a demonstration in 1968 down on the mall [in Washington, D.C.]. Before then, I didn’t think that it was right to protest or anything like that, but because of John [her husband], I

Participation, Identity, and Social Networks 55 went. We met this Quaker women and I said to myself, ‘if she is demonstrating, that’s not wrong.’ Although she had not been socialized to participate in peace activism like some of my other respondents, Sandra’s connection to someone in the movement was strong enough for her to be willing to participate. The new connection she made with the Quaker woman at the demonstration also helped shape her current perception of protest and override her previous negative connotations about it. The majority of interviewees knew someone in the peace movement before they themselves became active, and such connections were part of how many of them came to be initially involved. In addition to family, they also mentioned relationships with friends and fellow activists as other kinds of social ties that are important factors in their peace activism. Respondents also noted the importance of moral support and information-related resources that comes from ties with other activists. Thus, information is another type of support provided by social ties. Tony (PJ) said this about relationships with other activists, “motivationally, it’s somewhat important, but it’s very important on a practical level in terms of staying informed and coordinating actions.” Stacy (PP) put it this way: When I’m surrounded by people who are also involved in different kinds of activism, I’m more likely to be doing it more often. When I was living in Western Massachusetts, one of my roommates was very involved in local peace work, so she knew more about demonstrations or groups that were meeting and public events. So I would go with her, and that helped me to get involved in it more. It makes a big difference. Not that you’re less likely to do it on your own, but when you feel connected to it through a personal connection, you’re more likely to be more engaged. Martha (PP) echoed Stacy’s emphasis on the benefits of networking and support that arise from associations with other activists in discussing how working with others in a peace group helps to keep her motivated: “We do conference calls. We do emails to each other. If you fi nd a relationship like that, that just keeps you motivated because it is its own little community.” Alice (PJ) discussed the relationship between having supportive people around and creating circumstances for that support: I get a lot of strength from my relationships from people I work with, but its kind of a tricky one, because if I wasn’t getting what I needed from the people I’m working with now, I’d go fi nd other people to work with that I was getting what I needed from- so its not like they’re motivating me, but they are keeping me functioning effectively.

56


Michael (PJ) had a somewhat different view of the importance of activist relationships, as he brought up the role of the Internet as a factor that potentially impacts the importance of traditional activist connections. He said this of supportive relationships impacting individual activism: I don’t know if it’s really that important. Of course it’s good to network because you need to get information out and pick up different sources of information, but again now that we have access to the Internet, you can do so much more by yourself very quickly. Nowadays, if a bit of bad legislation is about to get passed or voted on, you can fi nd out about and respond to it in a relatively short time. When I asked if family and friends support their activism, respondents were more divided in their answers. While most said that both family and friends were supportive, several noted that support was mixed. June (PJ), for example, said that her family of origin does not support her activism, but her current family does (her husband and children). Others said their families were supportive while friends were not, and visa-versa. The question of whether such support (or lack thereof) impacts participation also elicited fairly divided responses. A slight majority of respondents said that support from friends and family does not affect their participation, as they predicted they would be involved in activism regardless of such support. A few respondents, however, said that family ties are inclined to prohibit their peace movement participation. Kevin (PP), for example, said that his family is supportive, yet he noted his participation in peace activism must be navigated in the context of his family commitments. He explained, “I’ve got family obligations that have to be met, so there are times I wanna participate in things that I just can’t because of my family obligations. There’s a negotiation to go on within the family if I’m gonna participate in certain activities.” Stacy (PP), too, noted that even though her family is generally supportive of her peace activism, the extent of her participation is influenced by her family’s concerns. She put it this way: I’m definitely more hesitant about going to large scale demonstrations because of my family’s fear about certain things. In some instances, I’ve had to be careful about what I say, because again my family is concerned about that. I know that that has affected me a lot. I still grapple with my feelings of civil disobedience, and whether or not I’m willing to get arrested for something that I believe in. I know that my family’s opinions have weighed heavily on the decisions that I have made about that. David Snow, Louis Zurcher, and Sheldon Ekland-Olson (1980) discuss countervailing networks (commitments that are likely to inhibit people from participating in social movements) as factors that impact individual

Participation, Identity, and Social Networks 57 participation. While the focus of their work is on how individuals are recruited into social movements, their analysis is relevant to the present discussion because it suggests the absence of countervailing networks is a major consideration in an individual’s social movement participation. Kevin (PP) and Stacy’s (PP) comments suggest that countervailing networks may have an impact on the degree to which an individual participates in peace movement activities. Countervailing networks in their cases are family obligations (Kevin) and concern of family members about certain activities they perceive as dangerous (Stacy). Yet, support from loved ones can also function to reduce countervailing networks and thus promote peace movement participation. In Tina’s (PP) case, her husband’s job allows her to have more time to participate in peace movement activities than she would if she were working full time. She noted the material advantages of support from her husband in contributing to her participation as an activist. She explained, “Yeah [family support affects participation], and in very material ways. I work part time, and my husband works full time. I wouldn’t be able to be so active if I had a full time job.” Tina’s (PP) response represents another type of support (fi nancial) that has a promoting effect in relation to her peace activism. Even among those respondents who said support from family and friends is not a major factor in their peace movement participation, most agreed that it makes the difficult work of activism easier. Mia (PJ) pointed out the emotional comfort that comes from her brother’s support: “If he didn’t support me, I’d still be out there on the pavement. But the fact that he does support it means a lot to me.” Many respondents echoed Mia’s sentiment by saying that support from those close to them is helpful, but that they would be involved in peace activism regardless of whether their involvement was supported or not. Participation in other social movements is often another factor in peace movement participation. Different social movements commonly influence each other by borrowing tactics, impacting further opportunities for social change by influencing the larger political structure and cultural frames, and cultivating a sense of issue interconnectedness among individual participants. It is no surprise, then, that a previous connection or exposure to other social movements is often another part of the story of how individuals come to be involved in a particular movement (Meyer and Whittier 1994). Connections among social movements are another kind of tie identified respondents as a factor in their peace movement participation. June (PJ) explained: “We became involved in the peace movements during Vietnam. It was one of those things where we got involved in the Civil Rights movements and that led to the women’s movements and that led to the peace movement.” Christine (PP) also identified her involvement in the peace movement as stemming from her connections to other movements and how she has been personally impacted by outsourcing. She said:

58

The Contemporary US Peace Movement I became involved in peace activism as a result of other general political activism. I was drawn into activism in general because the economic climate became bad. I started fighting everything at once. The outsourcing of information technology jobs to India affected me personally. It put both me and my husband out of work. That got me involved in political activism, then I started to become involved in every aspect of it [activism]. Through that, I got involved in the peace movement.

Don (PJ) traced his initial motivation for peace activism to his religious training as a Catholic, but he also noted he was active in environmental issues prior to becoming involved in the peace movement. Michael (PJ) said as a teenager during the Vietnam war, he was exposed to social activism at a young age. He put it this way: I’ve been involved with things most of my adult life because I grew up as a 13 year old in the 70’s, so I was really familiar with what was going on with Vietnam. I remember we had student teachers come in and they were telling us about what was going on around the campuses, so its always been something that’s been part of the background. Michael’s description of activism as “something that’s been part of the background” shows the impact that social movements can have on each other and the cultural environment in which they exist. Michael (PJ) did not distinguish between movements. Rather, he noted the general activist networks and information channels that were a part of his childhood, which helped inform his current peace activism. In addition to promoting peace activism, then, my data suggest that ties to other social movements can give individual activists various types of support such as providing information and networking infrastructure.

CONCLUSION I analyzed the multiple factors involved in peace movement participation in this chapter. Sources of initial reasons for peace activism cited by participants include respondents’ religious background, knowing someone in the movement, and having a life-changing experience (i.e., experiencing war or witnessing its aftermath). Support from fellow activists, the hope that working for peace will make a difference in the world, and moral beliefs were identified by respondents as sources of continued motivation. Involvement in other social movements not only provides the structural support of pre-existing activist networks, but also helps integrate individuals into the larger activist culture. As one of my interviewees noted, sharing information such as the importance of wearing comfortable shoes to demonstrations is also an important component of socializing new

Participation, Identity, and Social Networks 59 activists into the movement. Such things can make a big difference to new movement participants and help them feel part of the larger activist community. I specifically examined the role of social identity and social networks and in involvement in peace activism. The survey data revealed that while certain aspects of social identity are more important to respondents in terms of their peace activism, the interview data suggest that the cumulative impact of interaction among various aspects of social identity that are important to them is a key factor for their peace activism and participation in anti-oppression organizing. Interviewees expressed that identification with a non-dominant group often serves as a catalyst for their understanding of the system of privilege and oppression in which they function. Further, such identification facilitates the incorporation of justice (redress of grievances and equality for oppressed groups) as a fundamental component of peace activism. For example, some white female respondents discussed their gender as helpful in generating their awareness of other oppressions and their own place within unequal social structures. Multiple identities can function to increase the understanding of individual activists regarding their unique configuration of group membership that comes with both privilege and oppression (i.e., white females have racial privilege but face gender oppression). This awareness of the interactive effect of an individual’s membership in a variety of social groups highlights the potential of multiple identities as an impetus for activists from different groups to work together in pursuing peace and justice. Respondents’ initial reasons for participation are typically identity or experience-based (for example, religious background and witnessing the effects of war, respectively) while continued participation is largely an effect of what participants view as a moral imperative in response to political events and social conditions they wish to change. The data indicate that social networks were important in bringing my participants into the peace movement and that they impact continued participation in a number of ways. The major kinds of social ties identified by respondents as factors in their peace activism are: family, friends, other activists, and organizations. The main types of support such ties provide include moral/emotional, information-related, and fi nancial. Respondents noted conditions under which social ties can have a prohibiting or promoting effect on peace movement participation. Post-September 11, 2001 political and cultural phenomena are also motivating factors of respondents’ involvement in the peace movement. Actions mentioned by participants that they are particularly concerned about include: U.S. military invasions, the restriction of civil liberties through legislation like the USA PATRIOT Act, and media portrayal of peace activists as anti-American or even pro-terrorist.

60


Just as social identity and networks are contributing factors to movement participation, the political system plays an important role in shaping activists’ choices and movement opportunities. In the following chapter, I analyze the relationship between the peace movement and the political opportunity structure to show the mutual impact of agency and structure on political opportunities.

4


Studies of social control and repression have primarily concentrated on police actions at protests, leaving other important methods of suppression such as legislative action and media slander under explored (Boykoff 2003). While there have been increased restrictions imposed on public demonstrations in the post-9/11 era, contemporary state-sanctioned measures encompass more than crackdowns on protestors. Moreover, the lack of media coverage about legislation that restricts civil liberties has become a new grievance for the peace movement. I conceptualize social control as the array of mechanisms by which sanctions are imposed to discourage activity that is perceived as a threat to the status quo. In this section I analyze post9/11 social control tactics employed by the state and mass media (including but not limited to restrictions of public protests) and the impact of such tactics on the peace movement. As agency is another important part of the political opportunity structure, I also explore peace activists’ impact on the political system.

THE ROLE OF THE STATE Although there is a long history of suppression of individuals or groups perceived as a threat by the U.S. government, new forms of social control under the guise of the anti-terrorism campaign present unique challenges to the contemporary peace movement because they attempt to manipulate Americans’ fear of another domestic terrorist attack and utilize both overt and covert methods. There have been some federal court cases and hundreds of community level rulings against unconstitutional and/or excessive government suppression of civil liberties after September 11, 2001.1 The primary response of the U.S. government to the contemporary peace movement, however, has been to tighten the reins of social control. The following discussion of the intensity and scope of methods utilized suggests that the state is not making an effort to contain the contemporary peace movement, but rather to dismantle altogether even mild expressions of dissent.

62 The Contemporary US Peace Movement INCREASED SURVEILLANCE After the civil rights abuses under the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI’s) counterintelligence programs were exposed, the FBI was restricted in its investigation of political activities. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft significantly relaxed those restrictions after September 11, 2001, giving the FBI more authority to monitor political demonstrations and those involved in them (Lichtblau 2003). The National Security Agency (NSA) has also played a major role in eavesdropping. In 1978, Congress revealed that the NSA spied on domestic anti-Vietnam war protestors and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was created to prevent future abuses. Under FISA, the NSA could spy abroad, but NSA agents were required to secure a warrant before wiretapping in the United States. With an estimated $6 billion annual budget larger than the combined Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and FBI budgets, the NSA is the largest intelligence agency in the United States. With FISA as its governing agency, congressional oversight of the NSA declined and it was allowed to continue much of its work in secret. During John Bolton’s confi rmation hearings, it was revealed that the NSA had given policy makers and other intelligence agencies information about U.S. citizens. During an 18-month period in 2004 and 2005, the NSA had provided information about ten thousand American citizens to bureaucrats and agents without any review process (Keefe 2005). The New York Times also revealed that President Bush issued an executive order authorizing NSA domestic wiretaps (Risen and Lichtblau 2005). Contemporary tactics used by authorities to silence dissent in the streets range from denying organizations permits for peaceful, legal protests to mass arrests at demonstrations even when protestors are not breaking the law. In a 2002 anti-war demonstration, the Washington, DC police directed over 400 people into a police trap and then arrested them. The charge for the arrests was failing to obey a police order, but no order to leave was ever given, and police actually prevented those who tried to leave from doing so. The FBI is also collecting information on individuals at anti-war rallies and tracking anti-war groups on the Internet in an attempt to identify “extremist elements” (ACLU 2003). Increased government attention to any activity perceived as dissident has resulted in the targeting of individual activists and peace and justice organizations for government surveillance. National Broadcasting Company (NBC) news revealed in 2005 that the Department of Defense has a database of over 1,500 “suspicious incidents” in the U.S. including approximately 48 anti-war meetings or protests. Approximately 244 incidents were dismissed as non-credible threats, yet they were not removed from the database (Meyers, Pasternak, and Gardella 2005). In 1970, former Army intelligence officer Christopher Pyle revealed that the Department of Defense was monitoring and infi ltrating civil rights and


63

anti-war demonstrations. A subsequent congressional investigation demonstrated the military had investigated approximately 100,000 U.S. citizens. New limits were then placed on domestic military spying to prevent future abuses. Pyle notes that the database discovered in 2005 shows the Department of Defense is engaging in behavior that repeats past civil liberties abuses. Military Analyst Bill Arkin describes the current level of domestic spying as unprecedented (Meyers et al 2005). A Freedom of Information Act fi led by Service Members Legal Defense Network also revealed that the Department of Defense is tracking emails of college students involved in protests against the Iraq war and the military’s discriminatory policies on gay and lesbian military service members (Henig 2006). A 2006 Supreme Court ruling also gave police with warrants the authority to enter homes and seize evidence without knocking or otherwise announcing their presence (Associated Press 2006). National security measures that were in place prior to the terrorist attacks are also being used in questionable ways. On September 11, 2001, there were 16 names on the federal government’s No Fly list. By October 2004, that number was over 20,000. The General Accounting Offi ce and the Department of Homeland Security Inspector have criticized the government’s current implementation of the No Fly and other watch lists, charging there is no coordination or uniform procedure among the lists. Moreover, some of the watch lists are not publicly available (ACLU 2004c). Perhaps the most telling indication that peace activists and organizations are at risk of facing negative sanctions for exercising constitutional rights is the fact that groups labeled as nonviolent by intelligence agencies themselves continue to be under surveillance. This is the case for the School of the Americas Watch, a peace group that conducts research on the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (formerly called the U.S. Army School of the Americas). Funded entirely by the U.S. government, the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation trains soldiers from Latin America. The School of Americas Watch maintains that soldiers trained at the Institute have committed gross human rights abuses in Latin America. The ACLU released evidence in 2006 that the School of Americas Watch has recently been spied upon and infi ltrated by the FBI, even though the FBI has documented that the group is nonviolent (Democracy Now 2006).

PASSAGE OF NEW LEGISLATION The USA PATRIOT Act was passed by the federal government on October 26, 2001 as part of the government-declared “war on terror.” It drastically increases surveillance capabilities of law enforcement agencies, reduces restrictions on accessing personal information, and allows for detention of

64 The Contemporary US Peace Movement individuals without the usual due process of law. Miller (2002) notes that the USA PATRIOT Act particularly undermines portions of the following Constitutional Amendments: the First (freedom of speech); the Fourth (freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures); the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth (right to due process, a fair trial, and an attorney); and the Eighth (freedom from cruel and unusual punishment and excessive bail and fi nes). Under sections 411 and 802, the PATRIOT Act defi nes terrorism in very broad terms, including property damage and activities that “appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion” (Miller 2002). The vague language in the PATRIOT Act is problematic because it puts anyone who authorities presume to be threatening or who engages in minor acts of vandalism at risk of being labeled a terrorist by the U.S. government. Under the PATRIOT Act, non-citizens can be deported for paying membership fees or otherwise providing assistance to groups that the government deems a terrorist organization, even if that group has never been designated as a terrorist organization. This includes groups like Greenpeace and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. The government cannot provide non-citizens with a list of organizations to avoid due to the wide variety of groups that the government could label as terrorist organizations. American citizens could potentially be banned from the country under section 411 which punishes free speech that undercuts anti-terrorism efforts as determined by the Secretary of State. Thus, if a law-abiding, permanent resident travels abroad after making a controversial speech, he or she could potentially not be allowed to return to the U.S. (ACLU 2001). Section 236A of the act gives the Attorney General unprecedented power to detain an individual in increments of up to six months if the Attorney General believes the individual to be a threat to national security, the safety of the community, or another person. Such decisions are above court review under the Act (Miller 2002). Several sections of the PATRIOT Act were scheduled to expire on December 31, 2005 if not reauthorized. President Bush signed the PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act and the PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act on March 9, 2006, effectively making 14 of the 16 expiring sections permanent and implementing other legislative changes. One change is that legal challenges to national security letters are now permitted. National security letters function as subpoenas that permit the FBI to demand personal customer records from communications providers, fi nancial institutions, and libraries. Such letters include a gag order prohibiting recipients from telling clients they received them. Revisions under the new legislation allow gag orders to be challenged after a period of one year (Yeh and Doyle 2006). Thus, while minor alterations to the PATRIOT Act have been made, the revised Act retains much of the unchecked power it initially gave to law enforcement agents.


65

IMPOSITION OF FINANCIAL BURDENS Incurring fi nancial burdens on social movements is another form of social control currently utilized. The Combined Federal Campaign (CFC), a program that provides donations from federal and state employees to nonprofit organizations announced in early 2004 that in order to receive funding, non-profits will have to certify that they do not employ individuals or contribute funds to groups found on “terrorist related” government watch lists. The American Civil Liberties Union and twelve other nonprofit organizations fi led a lawsuit in response to this requirement, stating that it is vague, problematic (for example, several lists have incomplete names or names that are common to many individuals), and in violation of the First and Fifth Constitutional Amendments. In 2003, the CFC distributed over $248 million to more than 10,000 nonprofits. The organizations that did not comply with the new CFC regulation did not receive funding in 2004 (ACLU, 2004b). This creates an incredibly difficult choice for resource-starved non-profits who advocate peace and justice but rely on donations to operate. Other foundations are following the CFC’s example by establishing new funding criteria of their own. For instance, the ACLU declined $1.15 million in future funding from the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations rather than accepting what it considers vague language in the grant requirements that encompasses potential restrictions on free speech (ACLU 2004a).

THE ROLE OF THE MASS MEDIA Because 95% of people in the United States receive information about world events from the mass media (Weimann and Winn 1994), media are arguably the most powerful contemporary instruments for transmitting ideologies and shaping public opinion. Media in the United States are overwhelmingly event-oriented. Not only does coverage lack context, but the events shown on major networks also present a largely homogenous picture, making it all the more difficult for viewers to gain an understanding of the underlying issues (Picard, 1993). Todd Gitlin (2003) argues that mass media’s pervasiveness, accessibility, and homogenous symbolism render media with a greater ability than any other institution to defi ne ideology and make it “objective reality.” What this means for social movements is that the way they are viewed in the public eye is largely an effect of how media portray them in the context of socalled objective reporting. This poses a challenge for activists, as a media bias has been demonstrated in selection and description of public protests (Smith, McCarthy, McPhail, and Augustyn 2001). Although the media played a role in arousing public outcry over the Vietnam war, contemporary mass media have suppressed even moderate

66 The Contemporary US Peace Movement criticisms of the Bush administration or the Iraq war. It is likely not coincidental that the Fairness Doctrine (established in 1949 to avoid partisan programming) was abolished by the Federal Communications Commission in 1987 and that media ownership has become increasingly consolidated over the past two decades, moving from fifty major corporations controlling media outlets in the 1980s to the majority of media now being controlled by less than 10 massive conglomerates (FreePress.net). One demonstration of cross-institutional interests that occur alongside such consolidation is the fact that General Electric (a major weapons manufacturer) owns NBC and NBC along with MSNBC and Fox networks continuously referred to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq as “Operation Iraqi Freedom” (Goodman 2006). In an April 20, 2008 report, David Barstow of The New York Times revealed an even more blatant example of cross-institutional interests. After a successful lawsuit against the Department of Defense to gain access to such information, The Times recently acquired 8,000 pages of e-mails messages, transcripts and records detailing the Pentagon’s relationship with over 75 retired military officials who provide public commentary on U.S. military operations. The Pentagon documents refer to these individuals as “message force multipliers” who would communicate the Bush administration’s agenda to the American public “in the form of their own opinions.” The records also reveal a Pentagon talking points operation that included private briefings with those officials and funded trips to Iraq and Guantánamo Bay. Even before 9/11, the administration had been building this group of military analysts consisting of people that former Assistant Secretary of Defense Victoria Clarke referred to as “key influentials.” In addition to re-structuring military rules to allow embedded reporting from the front lines, Clarke argued that since public opinion is heavily influenced by people portrayed as authoritative and independent, retired military personnel could help the Pentagon shape public opinion about U.S. military operations (Barstow 2008). Such individuals are indeed presented in the media as objective since they are not officially working for the Pentagon anymore. Due to their extensive military records, their analyses are also presented as authoritative and unquestioned by the networks and their close affiliations with military contractors and Pentagon officials are not generally disclosed to the public. The bulk of the military analysts are affi liated with Fox News, followed by NBC and CNN. Analysts from CBS and ABC were also included in the Pentagon documents received by The Times. The documents also reveal the benefits of such arrangements for the military analysts, as most of them are men with vested business interests in securing military contracts for companies. Several hold positions that involve establishing new Pentagon business for contractors (Barstow 2008). Incidentally, Clarke herself represents cross-institutional interests, as she joined CNN as a political analyst after retiring from her government post in 2003 (National Briefi ng 2003). Critical perspectives of current military confl icts are also largely missing from newspapers. Even though the New York Times has published


67

stories like the one just discussed that reveal questionable actions of U.S. government officials, a study conducted of war-related photos in the Times indicates that the paper is not running photos of the human costs of war relative to the number of deaths caused by current military operations. Andrew Roth, Zoe Huffman, Jeffrey Huling, Kevin Stolle, and Jocelyn Thomas of Project Censored (2008) conducted a content analysis of front page news photos in the New York Times and San Francisco Chronicle in the time periods of MarchDecember 2003 and January 2006–March 2007. They analyzed more than 6,000 front-page news photos over 1,389 days and found that only 12.8% of the photos were related to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and an even smaller number (3.3%) showed dead or injured people. Their study found the total number of deaths shown on the front page of the papers analyzed (48) drastically underrepresented the actual number of military related deaths that occurred during that time span. Roth et al (2008) anchor their findings to the larger mass media trend of leaving out images of tangible realities of war such as injury and death and showing symbolic images of abstract war imagery instead. The refusal of Sinclair Broadcast News (which controls nearly sixty television stations) to air an ABC Nightline segment that read the names of U.S. service members killed in Iraq is another example of non-coverage as a method of influencing public support for military operations and government policies (Goodman 2006). In addition to censorship, there are many examples of attempts to discredit or threaten those who speak out in the current political climate. There was a strong backlash against the New York Times article by Risen and Lichtblau (2005) for exposing information about the U.S. government’s domestic eavesdropping program, which includes monitoring financial transactions of individuals. President Bush called the decision to publish the article “disgraceful” and New York Representative Peter King asserted the Times violated the 1917 Espionage Act and should be prosecuted (Kurzman 2006). Fox news commentator Bill O’Reilly said that those who protest the war should be prosecuted as enemies of the state (ACLU 2003). White Housespokesman Ari Fleisher warned Americans to “watch what they say; watch what they do” (Bennetts 2001). National Broadcasting Company (NBC) took talk show host Phil Donahue off the air just prior to the invasion of Iraq. Donahue had supported Ralph Nader for President in 2000 and had included anti-war guests on his show. Media analyst Rick Ellis argues that since his show was cancelled at a time when ratings were actually going up, the reason NBC executives removed Donahue was revealed in a report commissioned to guide the future direction of NBC. The report stated that during wartime, the Donahue show could become “a home for the liberal antiwar agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity” and that Donahue represented a “difficult public face for NBC in a time of war” (Nichols 2003). Censoring and discrediting those who dissent have been powerful tools for shaping current public opinion. A recent study found a strong correlation between misperceptions about Iraq (such as the belief that it had al-Qaeda ties) and support for the war. The

68


number of false conceptions about Iraq that individuals had was also related to their primary source of news, with Fox News viewers having the highest percentage of misperceptions (World Public Opinion 2003). Suppression of dissent in the news media is also reflected in popular culture. Many radio stations refused to play The Dixie Chicks (a country music band from Texas) after their lead singer’s 2003 assertion that they were ashamed President Bush is from Texas. A station in Shreveport, Louisiana (KMRD) not only banned airtime for Dixie Chicks songs, but sponsored a “Chicks Bash” event where listeners were invited to smash albums and band memorabilia with a steamroller. Having discussed post-9/11 shifts in methods of social control, I now move to how they have been experienced by peace activists.

POST-9/11 CHANGES FOR PEACE ACTIVISTS Of the survey respondents who participated in peace activism before September 11, 2001, 76% said that they have noticed a difference in the treatment and perception of peace activists since that date. In response to an open-ended question that asked them to note specific post-9/11 changes, respondents commonly cited the following: harsher treatment of protestors at peace demonstrations, biased and/or absent media coverage of peace events, and restricted civil liberties. Several also mentioned their observations of increased hostility against peace activists from the general public after the terrorist attacks. Participants noted that contemporary peace activists are viewed as unpatriotic, anti-American, and/or traitors. One long-time activist wrote, “Those opposed to the peace movement 1945–2001 accused pacifists of being leeches who depended on others to defend them, but we weren’t commonly called traitors for our beliefs.” Another respondent noted, “We are viewed as being unpatriotic, which is a serious offense in the post 9/11 days.” One participant put it this way: “[There is] media slander, more police oppression, greater public distrust and criticism of peace activists for being ‘antiAmerican’ in [the] new patriotic climate.” Participants also shared their perceptions of an increase in polarization among the general public, which has increased both support for and opposition to the peace movement. One respondent wrote, “I have noticed both more support and more anger. Before I saw more apathy. Now it seems everyone has a side.” While many survey participants described negative changes for peace activists after 9/11, some saw the changes as positive. One respondent wrote, “Overall, I feel that 9/11 caused more visibility for peace activists. I think the movement was largely ignored prior to 9/11.” Another added, “I feel the peace movement has grown stronger, but that it’s not shown in media accounts.” Similar to the survey respondents, the majority of the telephone interviewees said they perceived changes in the methods of controlling dissent after


69

September 11, 2001. Interviewees noted changes in intensity of police presence and their harsher treatment of peace activists, lack of media coverage and misrepresentation of peace activists, as well as more subtle methods of social control (such as peace activists being singled out for airport searches). Nancy (PJ) cited the example of the mass media refusing to show the body bags returning from Iraq as evidence of a “clampdown on the media.” Like many other respondents, she also noted an increased police presence at demonstrations. She described a demonstration she attended where the police wore “full riot gear” and “looked like something out of Star Wars.” Several respondents cited the 2004 presidential inauguration protests as an example of increased police aggression and restrictions on protestors. Stacy (PP) described her experience at the inauguration protests: “There were metal dividers four lines deep of police officers on the other side of the fence between us and the procession. There were at least 40 officers trying to do crowd control on just the security checkpoint section.” Tina (PP) noted that media coverage of the inauguration underrepresented the protestors and marginalized their concerns: At the inauguration, there were vast amounts more coverage of people coming to see the inauguration than the coverage of those protesting it, or of the Washingtonians protesting the inauguration. I think that happens over and over again, the trivialization and marginalization [of protestors] that has increased since September 11. Joseph (PJ) compared media coverage of contemporary peace demonstrations to that of the anti-Vietnam war protests. He said: “The news media is not covering the demonstrations. We didn’t have this during the Vietnam demonstrations. We had quite a bit of the media that was against the war. The demonstrations ended up on the front pages.” Other forms of social control (described by many respondents as “subtle”) were also mentioned. Bill (PJ) said, “There’s much less honesty and lots going on that we’re not seeing.” He mentioned the PATRIOT Act and barricading protestors into approved zones as examples. Daniel (PJ) described how the fear of being attacked on American soil is manipulated to control dissent: I think that 9/11 allowed the Bush Administration to wrap everything in the fl ag, this whole ‘you’re for us or against us.’ The fear and anger that people felt was able to be manipulated in a way that if anybody disagreed, they were un-American, they were a traitor, they were a terrorist. So the government was able to utilize sort of public disapproval of anybody who dissented. It’s a whole different level of fear that they were able to manipulate after 9/11. The fear of people was visceral: ‘Oh man, this is my home. That was my tower.’ And that’s a lot different than a war that’s taking place half way around the world [Vietnam].

70 The Contemporary US Peace Movement June (PP) cited watch lists as another example of covert social control: I think the kinds of things that are happening are more subtle. Working for the federal government, we have the Combined Federal Campaign, which is like the United Fund. No agency can be on the list for Combined Federal Campaign money unless they agree to go through their lists of employees and check them against the equivalent of the Do Not Fly list. So not only can these people not fly, but they can’t get jobs. Other interviewees shared their observations of both covert and overt methods of social control. Richard (PJ) described his perceptions: Hiding dissent is what I’ve seen . . . the whole silence about Bush having only supporters at his press conferences and the shut down of media dissent by corralling protestors off to a separate place at rallies. My impression is that there’s been a lot more heavy handed police response to the protestors . . . the police shut down on protestors is a heavier handed response to war than if it is housing marches or gay rights marches.

THE IMPACT OF SOCIAL CONTROL ON THE PEACE MOVEMENT The effects of social control on movements differ in that sometimes movement participation increases as a result of social control because of anger generated among those sanctioned and sympathy gained from the public for the movement (Gurr 1970; Gerlach and Hine 1970; Marx 1979; DeNardo 1985) and sometimes it decreases due to the costs and negative sanctions involved (Oberschall 1973; Tilly 1978; Oliver 1980). Jennifer Earl (2006: 134) writes, “At the end of the day, empirical research has been utterly split between these various approaches.” Most of my survey respondents came down on the side of the research that suggests increased social control can facilitate motivation among social movement participants and ultimately strengthen the movement. The majority of survey respondents (58% in the Peace With Justice sample and 64% in the Primarily Peace sample) said they know someone personally who was arrested for peace activism after September 11, 2001. Approximately 28% of the Peace With Justice respondents and 42% of the Primarily Peace respondents indicated they know someone personally who has been contacted by law enforcement authorities because of his/her involvement in the peace movement since that date. A smaller percentage indicated they have been targeted themselves for post-9/11 peace activism. Approximately 10% of those in the Peace With Justice sample and 7% of those in the Primarily Peace sample said they have been arrested for peace activism, while 7% of the Peace With Justice


71

participants and 4% of the Primarily Peace respondents said they have been contacted by law enforcement authorities because of their involvement in the peace movement. The following are comments listed by survey participants under “other” as sanctions experienced after September 11, 2001: “Our peace group was infi ltrated by undercover police officers”; “Been photographed and videotaped while engaging in fi rst-amendment-protected activities”; “Telephone and Internet communication was monitored by the Federal authorities”; “Been accused of ‘affi liation with terrorist organizations’”; “Been singled out for searches at airports . . . my husband who has the same last name hasn’t been. He’s also an activist but not on the listservs that I’m on”; and “I was taken aside at an airport and questioned extensively because my luggage contained peace literature.” Of the survey participants who had been targeted or who know someone personally who has been targeted by authorities because of peace activism, 66% of the Peace With Justice and 72% of the Primarily Peace respondents said such targeting makes them want to increase their activism. Approximately 4% of the Peace With Justice and 5% of the Primarily Peace respondents said it makes them want to decrease their activism, while 30% of the Peace With Justice and 23% of the Primarily Peace respondents said it has no effect on their participation in the movement. When I asked interview participants if they thought control of dissent will ultimately strengthen or weaken the U.S. peace movement, the majority said they thought it would ultimately strengthen it. Their answers comport with most of the survey respondents who indicated that being targeted by authorities because of peace activism increases their motivation to continue their work as a peace activist. Although the majority of interviewees said they thought increased control of dissent will ultimately strengthen the peace movement, many said whether or not this actually happens is likely dependent on various intervening factors. Respondents noted that an increased control of dissent is more likely to strengthen the peace movement when one or more of the following conditions are present: (1) the perception among the general public that authorities are exceeding the boundaries of their legitimate power; (2) American core values such as civil liberties and freedoms are threatened; (3) the perception that there is not a justifi able reason for increased control of dissent; and (4) increased control of dissent is visible. Conversely, interviewees noted that controlling dissent is more likely to weaken the peace movement when one or more of the following conditions are present: (1) a strong fear of terrorism among the general public; (2) support for suspension of civil rights and liberties in the name of fighting terrorism; (3) the public is uninformed about the consequences for civil liberties that come with new mechanisms of controlling dissent (i.e., the USA PATRIOT Act); and 4) increased control of dissent occurs in a manner not visible to the public.

72 The Contemporary US Peace Movement While such conditions exist within these respective spheres, they often operate in concert. For instance, when peace movement allies within the political system speak out against the suppression of civil liberties, it creates supportive political spaces for mainstream media to show harsh social control mechanisms. When the general public sees images such as police brutality against nonviolent protestors or people being arrested without just cause, such methods of social control are less likely to be supported by public opinion. Conversely, when the state uses tactics like imposing financial sanctions on activists and political insiders do not speak out against such actions, mainstream media are less likely to present critical analyses of social control. The public perception is then more susceptible to becoming one of supporting social control as a security necessity, particularly if political representatives continuously frame repressive measures as necessary to protect citizens from an outside threat, as they have done with the PATRIOT Act. The anger that is generated when there is a perception that increased control of dissent is unnecessary was a common theme mentioned by the telephone interviewees. Mia (PJ) described it this way: It pisses people off. When people are angry about it, [they] tend to become more knot headed about resisting. We had a banner for last summer’s [peace] gathering that was being taken to Townson, MD, and when the guy who made the banner was flying through Chicago, O’Hare on his way to the gathering, his piece of luggage with the banner was seized. It did lay the fi re under people in terms of the amount of anger and sense of ‘yes, it’s happening to us.’ Nicole (PJ) also pointed out how incidents of social control that are perceived as crossing the line of legitimacy can bring in individuals not previously active in the peace movement: I think it strengthens it, because when people hear about that woman that was arresting for wearing a t-shirt that said, ‘Mr. President, you killed my son’ when she tried to go see Laura Bush at a rally, people got very upset about that. You cannot arrest a woman whose son was killed in Iraq, and they did it . . . people maybe who were quiet until then, that might cause them to speak up. Many respondents said that when social control negatively impacts enough people, it will override the perception that giving up constitutional rights is necessary to fight terrorism and increase support for the peace movement. Alice (PJ) reflected this sentiment: If the public can be kept feeling both safe enough and scared enough . . . If nothing really happens to seriously threaten their families, their livelihoods . . . If bad stuff happens to other people at the same time


73

that they continue to feel scared about those terrorist guys, I think it could weaken the peace movement. The plus/minus of that is that I think there will be an increase in the stress in families or individuals who are affected by the policies and then there will be people starting to say, ‘wait a minute, this isn’t what I bought into.’ Then as they start to say that and they get stomped on, then they’re gonna get mad, and then we’ll have a much stronger peace movement even as we have a much weaker country. Gilda (PJ) asserted that when American core values are threatened by oppression, it ultimately strengthens movements that fight for the right to exercise dissent. She also noted the problems in conveying the oppression to the general public when social control is not visible: [An increased control of dissent will] strengthen it because part of who America believes it is, is the freedom of dissent: core values. As that becomes more oppressive, the line can be crossed, like Kent State was very jarring for Americans. Visible intentionality is hard to pinpoint. Before someone can rise up, they have to ask questions. Something has to be the entry point of asking questions [like] investigative reporting, education, home, religion. Some respondents mentioned the role of the Internet in combating the misrepresentation and lack of coverage in the mainstream news. Beatrice (PJ) explained how activists have used the Internet as a tool for informing the public: There will be people who will be intimidated who may withhold [from involvement in peace activism], but the Internet has the potential to conquer the kinds of things going on. Rachel Corrie’s story [an American peace activist killed by a bulldozer she was standing in front of to stop a Palestinian settlement from being destroyed] was spread by peace and justice people. The power of the Internet [is that] people are fi nding other ways to communicate. The majority of interviewees asserted that an increased control of dissent will ultimately strengthen the movement. However, as a government employee, Christine (PP) said that she is personally held back from going to peace demonstrations because of the fear she will lose her job: If it [social control] makes people mad enough and they participate more, then it will strengthen the movement. If they succeed in frightening people, then it will weaken the movement. I won’t go to a rally because it could cost me my job. If I didn’t have to worry about going to jail, then I would go.

74 The Contemporary US Peace Movement Increased control of dissent is more evident to activists since they are the ones most likely to directly experience it fi rst. Yet, social control must also be viewed by the general public as illegitimate in order to facilitate broadbased support for the movement. Because respondents noted that post-9/11 control of dissent is often hidden from the general public, my study shows the need for the current mechanisms of social control to be in clear vision of the public eye. Further, these data speak to the need for a greater public understanding of how restrictions of civil liberties could impact lawabiding Americans, since support for such measures is often based on the assumption that they are only being used to catch terrorists. As many respondents pointed out, disseminating accurate information about the extent of social control mechanisms and their impact on Americans’ constitutional rights is a difficult task in a climate where the state is able to manipulate public fear of another terrorist attack and peace activists are largely misrepresented or ignored in the mass media. Peace activists, then, face the challenge of conveying their experiences and knowledge of social control to the general public in order to strengthen the movement.

PUBLIC POLICY, ACTIVISM, AND THE PEACE MOVEMENT When examining how social movements can impact the political opportunity structure, it is important to consider the latent influences as well as more direct effects. Because movement building often takes a long time and movement activity rises and falls according to internal and external conditions, most scholars now talk about movement outcomes rather than successes or failures. Such outcomes include affecting public attitudes and establishing networks, organizations, and tactics for other movements to build upon (Goodwin and Jasper 2003). For example, the peace activists of the 1980’s widely circulated information to the public on the dangers of nuclear weapons and fact sheets on how the inflated U.S. military expenditures could be utilized instead for domestic social programs. The contemporary peace movement is building on this consciousness in their own framing strategies as well as incorporating new organizations and tactical innovations into the fold of established activist networks. The bargaining perspective (Burstein, Einwohner, and Hollander 1995) suggests that the more dependent a target is on a social movement organization, the more power that organization has over the target. Thus, the key task for social movement organizations (and by extension, activists) should be to increase the target’s dependence. The increased emphasis on voter power in the 2004 presidential election and the 2006 mid-term elections gave activists more currency for affecting change, as politicians are dependent on elections to keep their jobs. This is especially relevant to many peace movement organizations that make it easy for people to participate online by sending pre-formatted letters and/or petitions to their political representatives. These letters


75

often include facts on the detrimental effects of using violence to resolve conflict; expressions of concern regarding violent actions of the U.S. government; an urgent plea for the representative to take specific action toward peace (i.e., co-sponsoring the Peace Department bill); and public expressions of support for the elected official if these actions are taken. The problem of attribution has been acknowledged in the literature (Tarrow 1994; Diani 1997; Giugni 1998; Andrews 2001) because social movements do not exist in a vacuum and therefore variables cannot be isolated to make exact causal statements. However, peace activism has often coincided with public pressure to end wars or military actions throughout U.S. history. Using statements by politicians who discuss public opinion and political pressure as factors in their decisions to de-escalate or end military conflict, Lawrence S. Wittner (2006) compiled several examples of military conflicts that peace activists have been instrumental in ending. These include the Mexican war of 1840, the Vietnam war, the United State’s attempt to overthrow the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, and the Cold war. Wittner (2006) also asserts that since 1945, the peace movement has been a key player in preventing nuclear war. Tom Hayden (2006) notes that although politicians may not publicly acknowledge the impact of disapproval from their constituents, pressure from peace activists has influenced policymakers’ stance on the current Iraq war. Hayden points to the example of Senator Clinton to illustrate the correlation between public pressure and political decisions. Peace activists started booing Clinton at her campaign appearances for not supporting a speedy withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. On June 22, 2006, Senators Kerry and Feingold proposed a resolution for a one-year withdrawal timeline and a peace summit, for which thirteen Senators (including Clinton) voted, marking the first time she had endorsed a step toward unilateral withdrawal. While Hayden recognizes the problem of proof in the attribution of Clinton’s repositioning on Iraq to pressure from peace activists, he maintains the events are correlated (Hayden 2006). Felix Kolb and Alicia Swords (2003) note that although peace activists were unable to stop the Iraq war, the demonstrated global opposition to the war coincided with the failure to pass a United Nations Iraq invasion resolution (Kolb and Swords 2003). The preceding discussion illustrates the impact social movements can have on public policy, which sets the stage for the question I explore in the following section: In what ways do peace activists influence the political opportunity structure?

OPENINGS IN THE POLITICAL OPPORTUNITY STRUCTURE Political opportunity structure theory distinguishes between intentional and unintentional openings in the political environment that create space for activists to influence policy and the larger culture (Garner 1996). Intentional

76 The Contemporary US Peace Movement openings are when government representatives consciously work with activists (usually with the understanding that activists will provide their electoral support). The citizen lobbying effort to establish a U.S. Department of Peace is an example of an intentional opening for peace activists. This bill was sponsored in the House of Representatives by Congressman Dennis Kucinich and as of March 2008, has 69 Congressional sponsors and the endorsement of 34 city councils (http://www.thepeacealliance.org/). The Department would develop polices on issues within the United States such as domestic abuse, child abuse, and gang violence as well as research foreign policy and recommend the most effective course of action for addressing the root causes of war. The bill also emphasizes conflict prevention through social justice and human rights. While the Department of Peace is one intentional opening for activists, due to the increased restrictions of civil liberties and legal protest, it appears that other openings in the political structure for peace activists will largely be unintentional on the part of those in power. Unintentional openings can come from disagreement among elites, other forms of dissention within power holding ranks, and public perceptions that the establishment is acting illegitimately.

CHALLENGES TO HEGEMONY An important unintentional opening is when social movement challengers are able to effectively question the hegemony of those in power. Antonio Gramsci defined hegemony as the process wherein the ruling class controls the public by fabricating a false consensus. This normally occurs without physical coercion through ideological spheres such as education, religion, and the media (Rude 1980). Gramsci also noted that hegemony is the most vulnerable where justice is concerned. If the masses perceive that the administration is creating or perpetuating injustice, those in power could lose their legitimacy in the public eye (Gramsci 1957). Hegemony, then, is utilized to legitimate power structures, particularly in democracies. Hegemonic cracks can occur when the public perceives an abuse of power, as Gramsci suggested. Gene Sharp (1973) also mentions support systems as indispensable tools for political rulers. If the middle class does not support administrative policies or if the army fails to obey military orders, the structural fabric begins to unravel. Moreover, if the ruling class fails to maintain obedience in one or more areas of social control, it may react by increasing the severity of sanctions for disobedience, thereby losing even more legitimacy and spiraling into a decline of power (Sharp 1973). Gregory Maney, Lynne Woehrle, and Patrick Coy (2005) note that the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks created an unprecedented, highly emotional atmosphere in which peace movement organizations had to decide whether to directly challenge the political administration’s decisions or to


77

use a nationalistic identity to frame the idea that peace and dissent are patriotic. In a manner that they refer to as “harnessing” hegemony, Maney et al (2005) suggest that instead of challenging hegemony per se, peace movement organizations actually used hegemonic ideas of patriotism, nationalism, and honoring the victims to make a case for peace. Questioning authority by reclaiming ideas such as patriotism is a theme contemporary peace activists appear to have embraced. This is symbolized by the slogan, “Support our Troops, Bring Them Home Now” used in many peace demonstrations. As further discussed in Chapter Six, my telephone interviewees described a very pro-active effort underway by activists to present themselves as pro-troop and pro-peace rather than antiestablishment. In the post-9/11 political climate, the tactic of harnessing hegemony appears to be an important opening in the political structure for peace activists to influence public policy. Providing a world-systems perspective, Immanuel Wallerstein (2001) argues that despite having the strongest military in the world, the U.S. has been losing hegemony for some time now. Wallerstein maintains that this process has been underway since Western Europe and Japan started catching up to the U.S. in terms of economic power, and the countries became economic rivals. That the United States started losing wars in the 1970s and 80’s (and that in Wallerstein’s view, what was claimed as a victory in the fi rst Gulf war was actually only a draw) is further evidence for him that U.S. hegemony is eroding (Wallerstein 2001). While there was an initial international outpouring of sympathy for the United States after the September 11 terrorist attacks, there has been heavy worldwide criticism for the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq. Although international peace activists have been the most vocal part of the opposition, governments and even the United Nations have also voiced their disapproval, sending a message that they will not accept Bush’s “you are with us or with the terrorists” ultimatum. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan stated in 2004 that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was “not in conformity with the UN Charter, and from our point of view . . . was illegal” (Brecher and Smith 2006: 1). A survey of public attitudes in 15 countries conducted by the Pew Global Attitudes Project found that worldwide support for President Bush and the global “war on terror” has dropped significantly. Public perception of the U.S. has also declined. A majority of people in most of the countries surveyed said the Iraq war has made the global situation more dangerous. Of particular interest is that approximately 60% of those polled in the United Kingdom, the strongest ally of the U.S in the “war on terror” said the world is less secure because of the war in Iraq (Pew Global Attitudes Project 2006). The international opposition to the Iraq war lends credence to Wallerstein’s assessment that the U.S. is losing its global superpower status. While not widely covered in the mass media, criticism of U.S. foreign policy has also occurred among Washington insiders themselves. Former

78


counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke and former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter have both publicly criticized Bush’s foreign policy, noting that Iraq had nothing to do with the September 11 attacks and asserting the U.S invasion will only breed more terrorism. Several politicians have also criticized Bush’s policies in Iraq as well as his authorization of legislation that restricts civil liberties. Republican economist Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1987 to 2006, has also criticized the Iraq war, declaring it largely about oil (Beaumont and Walters 2007). Representative John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Dean of the Congressional Black Caucus and ranking Democratic member of the House Judiciary Committee, is a particularly important political ally for the peace movement. Representative Conyers led a June 2005 hearing on the Downing Street Memo, in which he was joined by thirty-six other Democratic representatives. They discussed the details of the Memo, which was the British document that provided evidence the Bush Administration had planned the 2003 invasion of Iraq in July 2002. The document suggests that intelligence was intentionally manipulated to galvanize support for the invasion. The representatives at the hearing stated that if Congress had known about the Memo before the war, the president would not have secured the congressional vote to authorize the invasion. Conyers wrote a letter to President Bush asking that he answer five questions regarding the Memo, which received over 560,000 signatures on a citizen initiative supporting his letter. After a peace rally on June 16, 2006 in Washington, D.C., Conyers and other congressional members personally delivered the signatures to the White House (Rodino 2005). Conyers spoke at the rally, encouraging action from both inside and outside the political system. He said, “We were told one thing in America, but in London they were planning a war all the time . . . We need more hearings, more questions and more marches and more protests. This is only a beginning, which is going to turn this sad and terrible war around” (Rodino 2005: 2). Another important insider challenge to hegemony is Senator Russ Feingold’s move to censure President Bush for his authorization of the illegal domestic spying program. On March 13, 2006 Senator Feingold (2006: 2–3) presented his resolution for censure, which stated: This President exploited the climate of anxiety after September 11, 2001, both to push for overly intrusive powers in the Patriot Act, and to take us into a war in Iraq that has been a tragic diversion from the critical fight against al Qaeda and its affiliates. In both of those instances, however, Congress gave its approval to the President’s actions, however mistaken that approval may have been. That was not the case with the illegal domestic wiretapping program authorized by the President shortly after September 11th. The President violated the law, ignored the Constitution and the other two branches of government, and disregarded the rights and freedoms upon which our country was founded . . . Not only did


79

the President break the law, but he also actively misled the Congress and the American people about his actions, and then, when the program was made public, about the legality of the NSA program. While censure of the President has not materialized to date, the fact that a Senator called for it to happen shows signs of a divided elite. The 9/11 Commission Report also criticized the administration for ignoring several warnings from U.S. intelligence of an imminent terrorist attack, and a recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report charges that neither Congress nor the Department of Defense have accurately stated how much the “war on terror” has cost the U.S. government. The report said there were “numerous problems” with how the Defense Department recorded the costs, and charged that the Pentagon has not done enough to correct the problems (Agence France Press 2006). The aforementioned discussion of political insider challenges to the administration’s decisions reflects dissent among members of the elite, which according to Gramsci (1957) is a powerful sign that hegemony is cracking. There have also been rumblings of dissent within the armed forces that contradict the administration’s presentation of the Iraq invasion as a success. A 2006 Zogby International poll indicated that support for the current Iraq war is low among soldiers, as 72% of U.S. troops in Iraq think the U.S. should leave (Bennis 2006). Those currently serving in the military are not readily in a position to actively express such views because of the occupational and legal consequences of doing so. Nonetheless, there are several notable examples of resistance to the contemporary state of U.S. military operations. Challenges to hegemony coming from military-oriented organizations include Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change, which is a coalition of twenty-seven retired diplomats and generals that signed a statement declaring Bush’s foreign policy is harmful to national security (Manzo and Harris 2004). Iraq Veterans Against the War is another powerful symbol of resistance to the war from those who have recently served in the military. Instances of individual and small group military resistance also show cracks in hegemony. The peace movement has widely circulated the story of Staff sergeant Camillo Mejia, who refused to return to Iraq early on in the confl ict. He was charged with desertion and sentenced to a year in prison. Mejia said his experience in Iraq motivated him to become a peace activist: “When I saw with my own eyes what war can do to people, a real change began to take place in me . . . I went to Iraq as an instrument of violence, and now I have decided to become an instrument of peace” (Rising-Moore and Oberg 2004:152–3). In October 2004, several members of an army platoon refused to take part in a mission in Iraq on the grounds that their vehicles were non-armored and in poor shape. One of the soldiers in the platoon contacted her mother saying that those who refused became army prisoners and asking her mother to contact someone and “raise pure hell” because “this is a real, real big

80 The Contemporary US Peace Movement emergency.” Her mother and other relatives of the confined soldiers went to the media with the information. The military responded with a statement saying the incident was “isolated” and that the soldiers were not detained, but were being “interviewed” (Associated Press 2004). More recently (June 2006), First Lieutenant Ehren Watada also refused orders to go to Iraq, stating that “my participation would make me party to war crimes” and citing evidence that the war violates the U.S. Constitution and is also illegal under international law (Brecher and Smith 2006). As the fi rst commissioned officer to publicly refuse to fight in Iraq, Lieutenant Watada’s case particularly poses a threat to military hegemony. The numerous kidnappings and killings of foreigners in Iraq (including the American contractors that were beheaded by militants) is another sign that the military operations there are creating more violence and antiAmerican sentiment. As the Vietnam war demonstrated, an increased number of American casualties is often a precursor to decreased public support for military operations. Public support for the Iraq war fell substantially in the fi rst seven months of the war. A Gallup poll showed that in March 2003, only 25% of Americans considered sending troops to Iraq a mistake, while 40% did in October 2003. By June 2004, over half the public felt the U.S. made a mistake (Feldmann 2005), and in 2006 that figure was 60%. As of March 2008, it was at 63% (Teixeira 2008). Moreover, most Americans feel that Iraq is the most important problem facing our country and they are pessimistic about the chances of success there. A poll taken by the University of Maryland’s Program on International Policy Attitudes showed that only 28% of respondents were confident the U.S. will realize its goals in Iraq, which dropped from 40% eighteen months ago. Approximately one-third of the respondents felt Bush decided to go to war on assumptions he knew were incorrect, which increased from one-fourth of the respondents who gave that answer in October 2004 (Lobe 2006). Incidents like soldiers refusing orders and the killing of American civilians in Iraq coupled with the results of the aforementioned polls show potential for further public questioning about the legitimacy of the Iraq war. As more information about government-sanctioned civil liberties abuses reaches the public, Americans are also expressing doubt about the legitimacy of suspending constitutional freedoms. A poll commissioned by the American Bar Association showed that 77% of Americans have reservations about the government’s domestic surveillance program (American Bar Association 2006).

OTHER CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES IN THE CURRENT POLITICAL CLIMATE While a few peace and justice demonstrations were cancelled immediately after 9/11 and some activist groups silenced their critiques of U.S.


81

foreign policy during that time, the attempt to suppress dissent has also coincided with increased participation of individuals in peace and justice organizations that do speak out. For example, the ACLU reported a surge in membership in the fall of 2001 when John Ashcroft accused those who criticized the crackdown on legal protest of being disloyal (American Civil Liberties Union 2003). Moreover, people impacted by curtailed civil liberties are taking legal action as demonstrated by the lawsuits fi led against schools and other public spaces for attempting to restrict freedom of speech. Individuals are suing the government to learn how their names ended up on the No Fly list (Lichtblau 2003). Cities that engage in unlawful mass arrest tactics at demonstrations are also the targets of lawsuits (Reuters 2004). Pointing out that over one thousand anti-terrorism measures have been proposed in state and local jurisdictions that would criminalize protest and increase surveillance powers, Nancy Chang (2002) notes the importance of challenging state and local laws in addition to federal ones. The mass media routinely ignore public protests or emphasize details of such events rather than providing coverage of activists’ substantive concerns. Smith et al (2001) note that the mass media give continuous coverage to selected issues for a short period of time, which creates what they refer to as “issue attention cycles.” Their research shows that if a protest event is organized to connect demonstrators’ concerns to an issue which the mass media has already covered, it will likely be picked up in the media regardless of size or form of the event. Thus, they suggest protest organizers cannot assume that large numbers at demonstrations will automatically generate coverage and that they should pay attention to media issue attention cycles in order to harness their concerns to them. The Internet is an important avenue for increasing activist communication and influence. Online independent media centers have emerged in several U.S. cities where activists can share local information and experiences. The centers are important networking tools, as they allow activists to express a different view than what is portrayed in the mainstream media. For example, protest counts are notoriously underestimated by the mainstream press, so alternative media provide an opportunity for protestors to record their own experiences. Blogging is another vehicle for communicating information online. While alternative media on the Internet have opened new avenues of communication among activists and facilitated decentralized organizing, the problem of preaching to the choir remains an issue with which activists must contend.

STRATEGIES OF ACTIVIST INFLUENCE ON PUBLIC POLICY Despite the inherent challenges, my study participants are optimistic about the ability of the peace movement to influence public policy. The

82 The Contemporary US Peace Movement majority of respondents agreed 2 with the survey statement, “The current U.S. peace movement can influence public policy” (85% of those in the Peace With Justice sample and 95% of the Primarily Peace respondents). Those responses comport with the data discussed in Chapter Three, wherein I noted that participants in both samples selected “the belief that working for peace will ultimately have a positive impact” most frequently in response to what continues their motivation to participate in the peace movement. While the majority of respondents expressed that they do think the peace movement can influence public policy, it is important to understand activist perceptions of how their influence can be most effective. As Charles Kurzman (1986) demonstrated, activist perceptions regarding the strength and influence of their movement is an often overlooked but crucial component of their political opportunities. In order to gain a better understanding of how activists think they can best influence public policy, I asked telephone interviewees what they think causes public offi cials to listen to peace activists and if they think working inside or outside the political system is more effective in terms of influencing public policy. In response to what gets the attention of public offi cials, interviewees most frequently cited large numbers of constituents who express a pro-peace stance and direct communication with officials. Supporting the bargaining perspective, many respondents stressed the need for peace activists to remind politicians that votes and alliances matter in terms of their re-election. Several suggested that this could be accomplished through public displays of large numbers of movement supporters. Others emphasized the importance of activists aligning themselves with interests upon which politicians they are targeting are dependent. In terms of directly communicating their concerns with public officials, some respondents articulated the need for activists to communicate in a respectful manner and to “play by the rules” in order to be taken seriously. Joseph (PJ) explained the importance of numbers of activists communicating their wishes to members of Congress: I hear from about ten organizations that are pouring emails and faxes in to our Senators, because the essential change will come from the Congress. If enough people in Congress can see, ‘gee, there’s a mass movement out there and maybe I better address it’, then we’ll see the administration change because they can’t get anything through Congress. Lance (PP) described the numbers issue this way: “You gotta hit them where they live on an issue. You’ll have to really make them afraid that they won’t get re-elected if they don’t listen to you. I think that’s the only thing they care about. Numbers, that’s all they listen to.” Alice (PJ) also talked about


83

the power of voters as well as the importance of presenting public officials with a plan: I think voters still matter. I think there’s something else, too . . . when the public officials are already uncertain about how things are really going and if you can present them with a cogent strategy for how to make it better and they can see themselves gaining from that as well as helping the country. If they can see their way clear by helping change policy, they will. So part of what we have to do is keep paying attention to what they might be willing to do. Jacob (PP) noted that activist involvement in all community issues is key to getting the attention of public officials: People who show up to talk about the need for new sidewalks or speed bumps in their communities are gonna be heard more on these sorts of issues. If you demonstrate that you care about the bread and butter issues that public officials build their careers on then they’re gonna hear when you start talking about issues that they think are just idealistic or hot button issues that will either encourage their base or inflame their opposition. They need to hear this from people that they listen to anyway, which means that peace activists need to get involved in their communities in ways that will put them in front of public officials on other sorts of issues. Bill (PJ) noted the importance of creating alliances with those that public officials rely upon for re-election: “I believe that they respond only when the peace activists seem to have made alliances that aren’t going to disappear with preexisting constituencies that the politicians have to rely on. So the peace activists have to win, make an alliance with forces that the politicians are forced to listen to.” Frank (PJ) brought up the importance of fi nancial interests: If you look at something like the Vietnam war, I think that the only time public officials really starting paying attention to people was when a huge amount of the fi nancial interests in this country started to realize that what was going on wasn’t working. I think that’s true for actually most of successful organizing throughout history, ultimately you’ve got to get the people with money to side with you. Nancy (PJ) also noted the power of money in terms of influencing public officials: “The same thing that causes them to listen to anything . . . the squeaky wheel gets the attention. We’ve gotten to know a state legislator who told us the way to get their attention is to give money.”

84


Other respondents emphasized activist behavior over votes or money in terms of influencing the decisions of public officials. Several interviewees expressed faith that public officials will listen to them if peace activists communicate their desires in a peaceful, respectful manner. Richard (PJ) said that the way peace activists can get the attention of public officials is to present them with “logic-based arguments” and demonstrate “why it’s in that politician’s best interest to do what we’re asking for.” Thomas (PJ) expressed a similar opinion: “Our best tool there it seems is when we can talk to them calmly, present them not only with a moral argument but a rational argument.” Tobias (PJ) and Nicole (PJ) emphasized activist behavior as key to obtaining the attention of public officials. Tobias explained, “Politicians will listen to a group more likely if they behave themselves. If they’re peaceful in their demonstration and they obey the law and they speak politely and not condemningly.” Nicole (PJ) also noted the importance of activists demonstrating a peaceful demeanor: “If we dialogue in a peaceful way. Throwing eggs at a passing limousine is not peaceful. Screaming ‘burn in hell’ is not peaceful. We have to remain peaceful in ourselves when we’re confronted with the people that we’re angry with.” Kevin (PP) stressed the importance of playing by the system’s rules: “I think if we follow the rules, which I think we’ve been doing, meet with them, tell them what we’re gonna be doing, what we’re up to, I think they do treat us with respect.” Katherine (PJ) suggested using religion as a common ground and holding public officials accountable to their talk of Christian morals: I think that most public officials have at least some sense of democracy and respect for informed debate. But I also think that those who are really squelching dissent also seem to be toting this Christian moralism, and the peace activists have to take that on as well and hold them accountable to those values. Maybe that can be a ground for some conversation. I think that peace activists need to fi nd the commonalities and start the question there.” In response to the question, “Do you think working within the political system (i.e., having peace activists run for office) or working outside the system (i.e., holding demonstrations) is more effective in terms of influencing public policy?”, the majority of telephone interviewees said both methods are needed. Sandra (PJ) explained it this way: “Both equally . . . for example, I might go see a congressperson, but the demonstration or vigil makes it clear that it is not just me talking.” Michael (PJ) also expressed that activists need to use both methods, although he is wary of relying on major changes happening from the inside:


85

There has to be a lot of both, because one of the problems with working in the system is you have to get around the people who are entrenched in a way of doing things. The people in [the system] don’t usually see anything wrong with it or they think a few minor adjustments [are needed] and everything will be fi ne. But I’m one of these people that think it needs a major overhaul. When activists can get involved in parties on a local level and maybe get a few positions, they might have a chance of stimulating a lot more grassroots involvement. Alice (PJ) emphasized the multiple ways that individuals can impact public policy: I think within the political system we absolutely need peace candidates who are thinking in a different paradigm. What if the general tenor of the U.S. leadership said, ‘we want to use our power collaboratively and we want to solve problems and we understand the needs of everyone being met will make it much easier for everybody to live peacefully?’ I’d love to see many, many more people who have that perspective running for public office and being able to make policy that way. But they also need external support. We need people who can say, ‘cut bombers’ to keep up the pressure on all of the political system. I think that’s critical, too. I come from a perspective that says everybody can do something to build a society that’s more peaceful and more just. It’s like, what are you gonna do in the place you are with what you’ve got? If that means picking up the phone and calling your Congressman once, fi ne. If that means putting up a peace sign in your yard, fi ne. If that means talking to your kids about how to resolve conflict peacefully on the playground, fi ne. Bill (PJ) also noted the importance of working with whatever method suits individuals best: I think we have to be both. I think what’s most effective is people working where they are most effective, building on people’s interests and abilities. The combination is important. I think people who advocate one or the other for themselves and their organization or their issue should find ways to connect with people who are doing otherwise rather than waste time on arguing against somebody’s strategy. Although Tina (PP) said that both methods need to happen because they are ineffective without each other, she stressed that peace activists should run for office. She explained, “I think we should be running our own folks and keeping them beholden to us, so that if they know that we’ve played a major role in getting them elected, they’re gonna listen

86


to us. I think we should be grabbing the bull by the horns and running for offi ce.” Nancy (PJ) talked about the importance of how peace activists frame issues within the system: I would like to see more activists working within the system. The neoconservatives have certainly worked within the system, getting people elected to school boards. So I think that needs to be done [on the left]. Somehow, the Republican sound bytes sounded more real, more important the Democrats’ message. Why is the Republican message getting through while the Democratic one is not? The Democrats have not done a good job of framing the issue and are not connecting with people . . . Same with peace activists. They are not getting the message out. Joseph (PJ) discussed the importance of working within the system, particularly in terms of local level impact: I think working within [is more effective]. We did that here on the local level. We changed the whole city council with one election because we were tired of the old way. We didn’t feel like we were listened to, and we’ve done that at the state level. We haven’t had the effectiveness on the national level, but we must get people in there that can support these ideas. Demonstrations aren’t gonna do it by themselves, especially when the news media just ignores them. Tony (PJ) also came down on the side of working inside the system because he asserts that is where political decisions are made: “In the end, you must take power within the system because the system chooses to wage and support war.” Others suggested that working outside the political system is more effective because the institutionalized nature of working inside the system is not conducive to the kind of change needed to make a difference. Peter (PJ) explained: I happen to believe that the system is broken and even if there was a peace activist that wanted to run for office, the system is set up in such a way that people who have certain beliefs are excluded. Even if one identifies with a party like the Democratic Party, if you haven’t worked inside that party for a good bit of time, you are automatically excluded because you’re not gonna get the blessing of the party structure on the local level. So then if you go the third party or independent party route, you have to jump through so many hoops just to get on the ballet. So I think there are a lot of problems with that. It would be better [to work] as pressure groups.


87

Erik (PJ), too, noted the importance of working outside the system: “Working outside the system is more effective ‘cuz people working inside the system too quickly get compromised and politics is nothing if not responding to outside pressures. So you build the outside and you build the pressure for any change.” Audrey (PJ) said this: “I would love it if there were more progressive thinkers in political office and a real diversity trying to move us along in our decision making, but I think maybe staying outside on the edge and with the marginalized [is more effective]. There’s a real freedom to being on the outside, on the margins.”

CONCLUSION The majority of peace activists in my study said that as attempts to control dissent get stronger, it increases their motivation to participate in peace activism. Although most said they thought increased control of dissent will ultimately strengthen the peace movement, they discussed various intervening factors (such as whether or not the mechanisms of controlling dissent are perceived as legitimate by the general public) as important considerations in this regard. Respondents noted the paradox that current methods of controlling dissent are often hidden from the general public, yet information regarding the full extent of social control needs to reach the public in order to gain support for the peace movement. Their observations point to the need for greater public understanding of how ramifications of certain social control methods (i.e., restrictions of civil liberties) could impact law-abiding Americans. The challenge for peace activists is how to do that when they are routinely discredited by the state and the mass media. This issue is further addressed in the next chapter, in which I discuss the issues involved in movement outreach. Study participants have an optimistic outlook about the ability of the peace movement to influence public policy, despite their acknowledgement of the challenges inherent in doing so. The number of constituents who express a pro-peace stance and direct communication with officials were cited most frequently by interviewees in response to how peace activists can capture the attention of public officials. Reflecting the bargaining perspective, many respondents stressed the need for peace activists to show politicians that votes and alliances impact election patterns. Other participants emphasized respectful activist behavior and “playing by the rules” when communicating their concerns to public officials. Most of the telephone interviewees recognized the opportunities and challenges intrinsic to working both inside and outside of the political system. The majority said utilizing both methods is the most effective strategy for influencing public policy.

88


This chapter addressed the impact of the political system on the peace movement as well as activist influence on the political opportunity structure. In the next chapter, I explore more specific issues that activists consider important for the peace movement with a focus on diversity and strategies for building a diverse movement base.

5


MOVEMENT ISSUES Understanding which issues activists deem most important for the movement to address is important because individuals tend to be mobilized around issues that are communicated in ways that are personally relevant to them. Moreover, activists’ opinions influence peace movement foci in terms of whether to concentrate primarily on anti-war efforts or incorporate such endeavors as part of a larger goal such as social justice or conflict prevention. Table 5.1 displays the issues identified by survey respondents as urgent for the peace movement. Preventing further U.S. military interventions in other countries, the occupation of Iraq, and government expenditures for militarism were among the most frequently selected responses in the both samples. There were only a few notable variations in the frequencies that respondents in the different samples indicated an issue was urgent. For instance, 57% of those in the Peace With Justice sample selected global poverty as an urgent peace movement issue as compared to 44% of the Primarily Peace respondents, while 63% of the latter chose abuse of civil liberties as an urgent issue compared to 50% of the former sample. Survey respondents in both samples chose preventing further U.S. military interventions in other countries as an urgent peace issue at a slightly higher frequency than the occupation of Iraq. This indicates that although Iraq is a primary concern for American peace activists, it is by no means their only concern. Participants in my study also reflected an interconnected view of peace issues. Approximately 69% of those in the Peace With Justice sample and 58% of those in the Primarily Peace sample selected the promotion of an agenda that considers all of the issues listed as response options as an urgent task for the peace movement.

THE INCLUSION DEBATE If most of the activists who participated in my study think the peace movement should promote an agenda that considers all of the wide-ranging

90 The Contemporary US Peace Movement Table 5.1 Percentage of Survey Respondents Who Identified the Following as Urgent Peace Issues (Total sample=251; Peace With Justice sample=182; Primarily Peace sample=69) Issues

Peace With Justice sample Primarily Peace sample

Preventing further U.S. military interventions in other countries

66%

69%

Occupation of Iraq

62%

61%

Government expenditures for militarism

60%

64%

Global poverty

57%

44%

Abuse of civil liberties

50%

63%

Nuclear weapons capabilities

50%

44%

Abuse of corporate power

47%

46%

Occupation of Palestine

47%

44%

Domestic poverty

47%

33%

Social inequalities based on attributes such as gender, race, and class

44%

36%

Environmental degradation

44%

36%

Promoting an agenda that considers all of the above issues

69%

58%

7%

1%

9%

7%

Culture of violence Other

*

*

This category was constructed from the “other” response category in which some participants identified this as an urgent peace issue.

issues listed above as options for what the most urgent peace issues are, what then is a “peace issue?” Particularly in times of war or military occupations, U.S. movements for peace have traditionally honed in on an antiwar message. Peace activists in the 1980s, however, began to make more visible connections between under-funded social service programs and a bloated military budget, framing social issues as peace issues. The visibility of the global justice movement in the 1990s also brought increased attention to a broader range of issues, particularly regarding economic and environmental justice. Contemporary activist accounts, demonstrations, and mission statements of peace organizations indicate that the scope of


91

the current U.S. peace movement has built on such connections to include justice issues into the fold of the anti-war stance. Increased awareness of important issues, however, does not necessarily mean that such issues will be addressed in the movement to the extent that activists deem they should be. There is a discrepancy in what peace activists think the movement’s focus should be and what they observe it actually is. The majority of survey respondents in both samples (88% of the Peace With Justice sample and 77% of the Primarily Peace sample) think the peace movement should actively address social inequalities but only 35% of the respondents in the Peace With Justice sample and 42% of the Primarily Peace respondents said that social inequalities actually are being addressed in the movement. On the other hand, the majority of respondents in both samples (68% in the Peace With Justice sample and 52% in the Primarily Peace sample) said the primary focus of the peace movement is on anti-war activities, while only 28% of Peace With Justice respondents and 42% of those in the Primarily Peace sample said anti-war activities should be the main focus. In response to survey participants who said they wished that gay rights and animal rights had been specifically addressed in the survey, I incorporated this question into my interview guide for the telephone interviews: “Are there any issues that were not mentioned in the survey (for example, gay rights or animal rights) that you think the peace movement should address?” Some respondents answered this question by directly addressing the question of whether gay rights and animal rights should be included in the peace movement. Others took the opportunity to discuss other issues they thought should be in the movement, even though some issues mentioned, such as environmental degradation, were already addressed in the survey. Respondents typically had one of three opinions: (1) no, the peace movement should not address these issues; (2) these issues are important and should be supported, but they should not be at the forefront of the peace movement; or (3) yes, the peace movement should actively address these issues. The majority of interviewees expressed views in the second or third category (that the movement should lend support to social justice issues or actively include them). Typifying the fi rst category, Peter (PJ) expressed his hope that people involved in other movements would not feel excluded in the peace movement, but that bringing in issues besides war and violence loses people: No, I think that just the anti-war movement or the peace movement should concentrate on these central issues, dealing with the war and the violence and conflict and the causes of that. It’s possible that people who are interested in GLBT issues or animal rights or other issues can make the connections, but a lot of people are unwilling or unable to make the connections. I think one gets into a really deep heady conversation trying to make connections between these issues and I think it loses a lot of people. We have to find what holds us in common in the movement.

92


Nicole (PJ) described an incident that reminded her that not all peace activists want social justice issues included in the movement. Like Peter (PJ), she asserted that actively addressing a broad range of issues loses people: I’m also involved in GLBT rights [and] I have to say no [they should not be included in the peace movement]. I think it has to be separate, because of an incident that came up at one of our things for peace week. We were having a workshop. There was a gay man leading the workshop, and he was referring to incidences where gay people are discriminated against, and one of the women in the group said, ‘I’ve had enough of this. I have to leave. I’m tired of hearing about all these gay things, and I thought we were talking about peace and how to speak together.’ We were all just like floored. As an activist myself, I was very upset. It was someone telling a gay man to shut up. It all settled, although I felt very uncomfortable after that. But I think that we can’t assume anything. I think if we bring the gay issue into it, as a group we’re gonna lose people. I never thought that until last week. Last week, I would have said absolutely, but I was reminded that we don’t all have the same values. We’re probably not all pro-choice. We assume that all liberals are pro-choice, anti-death penalty, pro gay rights, all that- but we’re not. Lance (PP) said that ending the war is currently the fi rst priority for the peace movement, and that other issues are important but “tangential.” He explained: “I care about gay rights. I defi nitely care about what he’s [Bush] doing to the wilderness. He’s just destroying everything I care about, but is that the main issue right now? No. And it dilutes the movement.” Nancy (PJ) exemplified the second point of view that while social justice issues should be supported, the peace movement should not make them at the front of their agenda: “I certainly support these issues . . . gay rights, animal rights, environment, and feminism. There needs to be tolerance. I would not want to see opposition to these movements in the peace movement. The peace movement has enough to carry. It can be inclusive without picking up the burden of other people’s goals.” Interviewees who fell into the third category emphasized the connection between peace and social justice issues and stressed that expanding the focus of peace will attract more people and strengthen the movement. Representing the third category, Michael (PJ) emphatically said he considers social issues as part of the peace movement: Defi nitely social justice, prison reform, health care, all kinds of ecology issues. I could just use the broad label, ‘social issues’ . . . All of these things are tied together. If you start looking at what’s causing a lot of the wars, what does it come down to? Part of it is oil, that’s definitely an environmental issue because inefficient fuel burning vehicles are


93

driving it. It’s a limited resource. You can’t say, ‘that’s not part of the peace movement’, because if that’s part of the motivation to go to war, if we can push for fuel efficiency and better environmental control, there will be less of a need, so you can’t rationalize it that way. Alice (PJ) also said she considers justice to be a part of the peace movement: I’m going to step back and say if we look at this big issue, how do we use our power for peace and social justice? I’m saying peace and social justice because the word peace has been so narrowly defined and I don’t see how you can have peace without social justice. I could just use ‘peace’ and mean everything, but if people don’t understand me, then I’ll just use peace and social justice. So gay rights, animal rights, death penalty, environmental issues. The reality about environmental issues is that if we don’t pay attention to this its not gonna make any difference whether we try to blow ourselves up because we’re not gonna have any air to breathe or water to drink . . . so there’s a certain level of denial and psychic numbing about this. So if I were gonna add something in, I would add sustainability . . . peace, social justice with sustainability. Many respondents asserted that having an inclusive movement is more about understanding how all forms of violence and oppression are connected rather than having a list of issues. Christine (PP) and Joseph (PJ) for example made philosophical arguments to support the inclusion of social justice in the peace movement. Christine (PP) explained, “All of these things [social justice issues] need to be bundled with the movement. The defi nition of peace is too narrow. The broader interpretation is, the stronger the message and it is going to make the base more diversified.” Similarly, Joseph (PJ) said, “I don’t think you can have peace without including social justice issues. That’s the very core of peace.” Some respondents acknowledged the challenge of including many issues in the peace movement, even when they see obvious connections among them. Gilda (PJ) noted how easily movements can become divided and stressed the need for making connections among various forms of oppression: For me, the GLBT issues, animal rights and environmental justice . . . it’s so connected. That’s one of the things that I’m clearer and clearer about is the connection. I think that’s one of the challenges . . . as the strength comes in ‘each movement,’ how can we have that strength without it being divisive? If we keep everybody scrambling for their own little issue and celebrating the little itsy bitsy successes, then the bigger picture of oppression keeps going on and on. It’s kind of a divide and conquer [issue], and also being satisfied with, ‘well, we’ve made great progress.’ It can get very overwhelming when you start to look at

94 The Contemporary US Peace Movement that big, big picture, and yet when those connections start to be made and coalitions stay strong, the movement is gonna be way stronger. Daniel (PJ), too, said that in order to connect social justice issues to the peace movement, the common process of oppression should be stressed rather than honing in on particular aspects of injustice: “The oppressions have different faces but it’s the same repression and the same source of that oppression. I think if more effort were spent focusing on what’s underlying the faces [of oppression] and fi nding the soul of the problem, I think that would be a better strategy.” Bill (PJ) also stressed the importance of identifying how various issues are linked: “I think if you’re putting out an alternative vision and a manifesto, you need to include a lot of things. I think more important than including a list of items is figuring out how to tie them together.” As an example, he cited Cuba’s inclusion of rights to education and health care when discussing human rights. Bill explained: “That is not just rhetoric when they (Cuba) say, ‘human rights are not just having the right to publish an alternative newspaper. It’s also the right to have food and a place to live.’ If you don’t have food and you don’t have a place to live, you’re not thinking about newspapers.”

IMMEDIATE CONCERNS VERSUS LONG TERM MOVEMENT BUILDING In order to delve deeper into what issues are most important to them and their thoughts on balancing immediate concerns with longer-term movement building, I posed the following questions to my telephone interviewees: “Do you think it is more important for the peace movement to focus on immediate concerns like the war in Iraq or on building a sustained peace with social justice?” and “How do you think the movement can balance the need for long term movement building with the need to address issues like the war in Iraq?” The majority of my interviewees said that both immediate and long term issues are equally important foci for the peace movement. Specifying how immediate concerns are directly linked to long term issues (for example, how military recruitment for the war in Iraq disproportionately impacts minority and low-income youth) and using a common process (i.e., nonviolence) for dealing with both immediate and long term issues were typical suggestions among respondents for how to attain a balance. Some interviewees also mentioned the need for activists to recognize that individuals will focus on different issues that speak to them personally and emphasized the importance of respecting what others choose to focus on in the movement. Several also discussed investing in peace research and development through progressive think tanks and activist trainings as a way to readily address both immediate and long term peace issues.


95

While most respondents said that immediate and long term peace issues are of equal importance, a few talked about Iraq as the most important immediate focus because it is happening right now. Nicole (PJ), for example, said that since we are in the middle of a war, it “makes that immediacy more important” but she also asserted that “we also need to look to the future.” On balancing the two, she said that dialogue is important. She gave a specific example of an interfaith peace dialogue that she was involved with as an event that brought various groups together to talk about peace. Although Peter (PJ) said that he does not like prioritizing issues, he asserted that “sometimes we have to do it” and that Iraq is the “one primary thing” right now. On how to balance peace issues, he said: We just have to be prepared to be in it for the long haul and try to find ways of sustaining it. For example, having conferences and networking with other people and other groups, talking to each other, talking about our own tactics, educating ourselves as to what is happening and keeping the lines of communication open and trying to be as united as we can. Nancy (PJ), on the other hand, asserted the Iraq should not be emphasized over everything else in the movement because as she puts it, “Iraq is a symptom of corporate greed. Iraq is a huge black hole, but there is horrible violence happening in countries all over the world.” In terms of how the movement can balance the immediate with the long term, she stressed the importance of activists supporting each others’ energies and understanding it is not either/or [immediate or long term]. Alice (PJ) typified the majority of interviewees who were emphatic that the focus needs to be on both immediate and long term concerns. She said that understanding the concept of “both/and” [both/and immediate and long term] would be would be useful for striking a balance in the movement: That would mean that the people who just felt like their burning issue was Iraq could go with it and others wouldn’t have to say, ‘well, why should you be working on Iraq cuz da na na na na . . . ’ I think that one of the things that has to happen is that we have to put our money where our mouth is. People have to say, okay, there’s going to be people who are working for the long term. I’d like to see [peace] organizations brought together and say alright, ‘we’re going to put a portion of our funding towards pro-active development of theory and practice . . . we’re going to look and see what it is we need to do here.’ I think that’s a critical issue, but I think all of those people could put out a request for proposals. They could say how do we do this, and invite people to start thinking. That would be one way . . . like, ‘we have to stop this thinking that war is unfortunate and we have to have it rarely.’ No, we have to do something different. I think the IPS [Institute for

96 The Contemporary US Peace Movement Policy Studies] is doing some very interesting, forward looking work. For instance, they’ve got things like the SALSA [an activist training program], so they’re thinking about how you build activists from the ground up, young folks. Tina (PP) said that the immediate and the long term “have to go hand in hand”. She said, “We have to keep talking about it [the war in Iraq], but we always have to talk about it in the context of larger issues, because if we don’t, it will just be repeated. We have to talk about what made such a war possible.” Like Alice, she suggested grassroots activist development as one way to balance peace concerns. She stressed the importance of “training people to talk about the big picture and the long term issues involved” and cited the example of the conservative movement as one that successfully reached the mainstream. Tina explained: You can look at the conservative movement and its success, going from a fairly small, right wing movement into the mainstream. They had a long term vision and it has worked. Another thing that the conservative movement did was to fund its thinkers, and to fund the dissemination of those ideas and what I consider the distortion of the language. But they’ve spent a lot of time thinking about how to get that language out there and it has worked, partly due to some conservative foundations, of which there were only a handful, but they targeted their money very effectively at the conservative think tanks. The left has not had that kind of unity of vision, and I really think we need to develop that and start getting our ideas back into mainstream discourse. Katherine (PJ) also described the importance of both foci: I’m not sure you can do one without the other. Certainly sustained peace is imperative, and yet to only talk in larger metaphors doesn’t bring new people into the movement. They need to be grounded in something tangible that’s immediate as a lever to the larger understanding. What does the violence we see every day mean in the larger picture of leading a nonviolent life? You can’t get there unless you have the immediate. On balancing the immediate with the long term, Katherine talked about the need to end the dichotomy of focusing on one or the other: It just can’t be an either/or. There always needs to the larger conversation and the recognition that everything is linked, that it is impossible to eliminate violence against women and not talk about racism. Or talk about the war in Iraq without talking about poverty. Issues are just linked, and we need to be talking about all of it instead of those little


97

sound bytes and really holding those with power accountable for more than the immediate. Stacy (PJ) also considers immediate and long term issues equally important, and like Tina, she cited the example of mimicking the organizational tactics of the conservative movement as a method to balance peace concerns. She described the need for a progressive counterpart to right wing think tanks that would “be around for a long time and could continue to affect change that way, versus something more immediate as working towards getting Democrats and progressives elected to offi ce in 2006”. Christine (PP) said both foci are important and noted Dennis Kucinich as an example of someone who advocates an approach that balances immediate and long term concerns: Dennis Kucinich is the perfect role model because he is arguing and fighting about Iraq. He is saying get the U.S. out, get the UN in, join the international criminal court, and join all the peace treaties. At the same time, he wants to establish a DOP [Department of Peace] where we build an infrastructure in our government and in our country for turning away from violence and arming people with the skills that they need to reject violence. Many respondents also emphasized respect for individual preferences in terms of what activists’ particular foci happen to be. Mia (PJ) said she does not think immediate and long term issues are separate from each other because “what’s happening in Iraq is very much about social justice.” In terms of balancing the two, she said: I think it is in addressing the immediate how we work with each other and who we work with and the process we use. Those are fundamental building blocks for what happens next. If we don’t treat each other with respect, if we are violent in whatever we do, then we’re not building what we want. Don (PJ) said he doesn’t think it matters whether the movement chooses to focus on immediate or long term concerns, because he said “it all depends on the individuals.” He says that while he focuses on particular issues himself, [activists] should go with what they are most interested in and where their strengths are. Don asserted a grassroots approach, or “working from the bottom up” is the best way to balance peace concerns. Like Katherine (PJ), Gilda (PJ) stressed that the focus of the movement does not have to be solely on immediate or long term issues. She added that it is important for activists to connect whatever they are doing to the larger context of the movement:

98

The Contemporary US Peace Movement Part of what I have become clearer on is that it’s not either/or. That different people for whom a variety of reasons are focused on something . . . for example, if someone is a teacher and is working with a limited number of resources and continues to see education cut back, within working for quality schools, they can connect it to not spending so much on the military [and leaving] more money for schools. So for me, there really isn’t a separation. What is important is that wherever we are focusing, we keep bringing it into the bigger context.

Gilda (PJ) suggested “teaching basic organizing skills” as a way to balance immediate and long term foci in the peace movement: One of the things that I think is most important is teaching the basic organizing skills. Sometimes we’re so busy doing the movement, that you forget to pass down the skills. Just practical . . . wearing comfortable walking shoes, that kind of information about demonstrations . . . Basic rights as a demonstrator . . . all of that kind of training is real important in the long term. That is bigger than any one issue. ‘Cuz once you know how to organize a demonstration, it can be about anything. In terms of balancing the immediate and the long term, Carol (PP) applies the “think globally, act locally” philosophy to her activism: I think that in while addressing the immediate we need to also incorporate the long term. One of the things that I loved from the great peace march was ‘think globally, act locally.’ And so we [her and her husband] act locally in a variety of ways. I pick up leftover food from these fancy bakeries and I feed people with it. Every winter we take in one or two homeless people who might die on the streets. My theory is look around you, see what isn’t being taken care of, and do what you can. Beatrice (PJ) discussed the need for the movement’s focus to be what she calls “multi-layered”: The [peace] organizations have to have a bigger picture than stopping a war, or stopping a weapon. The people in those organizations need somehow to have a sense of the interconnection and at the same time, discern . . . there’s so many issues out there. No one person can do all of those things, and no one organization can do all of those things. But within the organizations, people can be helped to see the relationship between what they’re doing and what somebody else is doing in another part of the country or another part of the world. To help an organizational group, to help the people within an organization begin to see those connections and then say, what is my passion? Or in the case of an organization, why were we founded? Why did this group


99

come into being? How are we being true to our roots and at the same time being faithful to new unfoldings of what’s possible?

DIVERSITY IN THE MOVEMENT Building on the previous discussion of important peace issues and how to balance the tension between focusing on immediate versus long term concerns, this section explores respondents’ perceptions of diversity and mobilization. My data indicate that one approach to balancing the many issues addressed by the peace movement is to make stronger connections between peace and justice issues and emphasize the underlying structure that connects them. Framing peace as a justice issue presents an opportunity for better representing the interests of groups historically left out of the white, middle-class mobilizations and increases the likelihood of having a truly diverse movement base. The present analysis is on activists’ perceptions of diversity itself, the challenges they identify to mobilizing a diverse peace movement, and the methods they deem effective for overcoming such challenges. As the U.S. peace movement has long been considered one comprised largely of white, middle class activists (Lakey 2004), diversity in the movement and activists’ perceptions of it has been an under explored area. Those who participated in my study talked about diversity as an important issue for the peace movement and one they feel needs continuous work. A significantly larger percentage (57%) of those in the Primarily Peace sample agreed with the statement, “I see a lot of diversity in the peace movement based on characteristics such as race, class, and gender”, than did those in the Peace With Justice sample (38%). While the information from this survey question is helpful in terms of gaining a general sense of respondents’ observations of diversity in the movement, the interviews produced a richer, more nuanced explanation of this phenomenon. When asked to discuss the diversity (if any) they see in the peace movement, the majority of my telephone interviewees said that they did see at least some diversity in the movement as a whole, but they noted that individual peace groups tend to be fairly homogenous. Race and gender were commonly described as having some diversity in the movement, while socio-economic class was identified several times as an area of the movement that needs more diversification. Respondents that talked about the need for more class diversity observed that people tend to be less conscious of classism, so this area of oppression is not openly discussed as much as other areas like racism and sexism. Several participants also discussed the importance of peace activists from dominant social groups being aware that for members of oppressed groups, economic struggles and justice issues may take precedence over traditional “peace issues”. Participants noted that such understanding can be a vehicle for conceptualizing justice

100


issues as peace issues that speak to a wider range of people in the peace movement, and many cited the fact that racial/ethnic minorities and working class youth are disproportionately recruited to fight wars can be used to strengthen support for the peace movement in those communities. Of particular relevance to respondents’ expressed need for class to be more openly discussed in the peace movement is the Marxist notion of class consciousness, which involves establishing one’s class in relation to society as a whole (Lukacs 1967). Class consciousness in this sense goes beyond defining oneself as a member of a particular class. Rather, it is a relational concept that merges subjective and objective components of the individual to society and social classes to each other. Georg Lukacs (1967) argues that in order for a class to have hegemony (public legitimacy for power), its interests and consciousness must first organize society in accordance with its own interests. What this means for contemporary U.S. peace activists is that they need to go beyond the subjective realm of identity expression when examining diversity and mobilization in the movement if they are to truly dismantle the support systems of violent and unjust social structures. While an in-depth analysis of class consciousness is beyond the scope of this study, the concept is important to mention here because it speaks to the organizing issue of moving from awareness of an identity to engaging that identity as a powerful collective force for change. As previously mentioned, many interviewees discussed their experiences of diversity in terms of the various groups in the peace movement rather than diversity within those particular organizations. Peter’s (PJ) response typified that perception: I think the diversity is there, but if you go to any one group, you’re not going to see diversity. I think it’s just how people initially organize. Sometimes groups organize around the fact that they are in the labor movement. Other groups organize around geographical bases. But if you take it all together, I think there are broad coalitions of people. Bill (PJ) echoed Peter’s observations and he also explained the importance of increasing diversity as an “internal educational process” rather than simply achieving greater numbers of diverse constituents: I see there is diversity and that it’s much greater than it has been in the past in terms of membership, organization, members of organizations and so forth. However, it’s still compartmentalized in that there are organizations and activities that tend to represent the dominant group or source of their own constituency. But I do see that there’s been conscious and intentional progress in most areas compared to when I started doing this stuff. There’s a real difference in terms of gender and race, but there still needs to be lots of conscious and intentional effort to broaden that so that there’s participation. I


101

think diversity is very important as an internal educational process so that interests are really represented and not ignored. I think it’s less [diversity] in organizations that are involved with the movement coming from a background or constituencies that are less radical. [They] have less of a politically conscious involvement so they’re less self critical. In those groups there’s more of a tendency to continue what they’ve been doing without examining it. And when they do try to become more diverse in both how they represent people and leadership, they tend to do it somewhat mechanically because you don’t undue the legacy of division simply by numbers. It has to be an educational process. Thomas (PJ) noted the increased diversity in the peace movement that he has observed in terms of race, religion, and age. However, he discussed the difficulties he has seen in class diversification, noting the need for peace activists to be more conscious of class as well as the importance of building coalitions with the labor movement: [Diversity] is defi nitely growing. This is predominately a middle class white movement but I have seen now how the global justice part of the movement has really been so much diversified. Now when you go to demonstrations and meetings you will see people across age ranges. Gender hasn’t been so much an issue specifically for the peace movement because it’s been women in the leadership roles a lot and there’s a lot of women involved. We have embraced American Muslims and our Arab brothers and sisters and people of color have reached out to us and we’ve reached out them in return. That’s been successful, especially since the Iraq war. The only place where it might still be lacking is in the area of class. I think it’s because the organizers and the activists themselves aren’t as class conscious as they are race and gender conscious. I think that the only way we’re gonna diversify class-wise is not only do we as peace activists need to reach out better to the working class, but the representatives of organized labor need to be more progressive. Alice (PJ) explained the increased racial diversity she has observed in peace demonstrations as a consequence of people who are racial minorities and working class fighting in Iraq: The last few years, especially around the Middle East/Iraq war, I have been delighted to see the increase in [racial] diversity in marches. What I think has been happening is that black leaders have been picking up on the fact that peace issues are social justice issues are peace issues. With that analysis and understanding of the situation, they are looking at it in different ways, whereas they used to think,

102

The Contemporary US Peace Movement ‘well that’s none of our business, we’ve got too many other things to take on the whole world’ and now their guys are going over and getting killed. That’s part of the problem, and I think that’s a class issue, as well as a race issue.

Although Stacy (PP) said she does not see much diversity in terms of race and class, she acknowledged that many military members serving in Iraq signed up for economic reasons, and that might help mobilize communities not previously involved in the peace movement. She also discussed the importance of mobilizing around issues that emerge from communities rather than trying to target individuals to join the movement in order to make it more diverse: I don’t really see a significant amount of diversity. I also think to a certain extent that’s a failure of the movement . . . not like you can go out and say, ‘hey, we want you to be in our movement because you’re black and Latino, come join us.’ It’s gotta be something a community cares about, and it’s gotta emerge from within that community. Otherwise, it’s not going to be sustainable, and it’s not gonna be real if no one’s gonna listen to it. From what I’ve seen, economic issues and education, those issues are more important to communities of color, and so they’re gonna be mobilized around those issues fi rst rather than anti-war necessarily, although I think that might be changing a little in regards to the Iraq war because most of the people who are enlisted are enlisting because of economic reasons. [But] I think people in this country are very afraid to talk about class, so it’s not something that people want to acknowledge. Carol (PP) also observed that although during war, the peace movement “becomes more interesting to people of color because their kids are going off and getting killed, there still seems to be a problem with communities coming together racially.” Audrey (PJ) echoed Stacy (PP) and Carol’s (PP) concerns and stressed the importance of building strong multi-community ties for creating a diverse peace movement that truly encompasses the concerns of its members. Audrey (PJ) explained: I think the people that really need the converging are white, middle class Anglos who don’t have all of those things [economic struggles and racial oppression] in their mind. I know the Latinos are here, I know the Asians are here, I know that Ethiopians and Muslims make groups, but I have to work harder to go fi nd them because they’re not in my neighborhood. Unless you’re there working day by day with folks, you don’t have enough time to honor each other and build that trust.


103

CHALLENGES OF MOBILIZING A DIVERSE BASE Although the activists in my study described a U.S. peace movement that is attempting to incorporate concerns that most directly impact marginalized populations (particularly people of color and the working class), the majority of interviewees expressed dissatisfaction with the extent to which such outreach is occurring. Most progressive movements claim to fight against injustice and inequality, but the inequalities of the societies in which movements function are often unconsciously reflected in internal movement dynamics. In A People’s History of the United States, Howard Zinn (1995) describes an exchange between U.S. women’s movement leader Susan Anthony and Socialist Eugene Debs. Anthony purportedly told Debs, “Give us suffrage, and we’ll give you socialism,” to which he replied, “Give us socialism and we’ll give you suffrage” (Zinn 1995: 335). As Benita Roth (2001: 5) notes in her analysis of gendered participation in social movements, “gender inequality does not go away just because women mobilize with men on behalf of interests they have in common . . .” Polls also show that African Americans, women, and the working class have consistently been against war at higher rates than white males. Malik Miah (2003) notes that African Americans opposed the current Iraq war more than any other group, while 90% of white males initially supported the war. Miah observes, however, that African Americans are for the most part invisible at many anti-war demonstrations. He maintains that white progressives ask the wrong question when they wonder why more blacks fail to join anti-war protests. He says the question that should be asked is why whites have failed to understand how central racism is in U.S. society. Miah (2003: 2) puts it this way: The reality for most Blacks is because racism is very much alive; their efforts tend to focus on immediate issues that affect the broader Black population, even though they are anti-war. The limited response by whites to attacks on affi rmative action seem to confirm that approach. The liberal Black leaders of the traditional civil rights groups including the NAACP sense this consciousness too. Most opposed the war on Iraq. Many spoke at the protests. But their focus is on issues of doubledigit unemployment, segregated schools and poor health care for the Black population. Miah (2003) suggests that an understanding of how African Americans view war and racism as intrinsically connected is one way for the anti-war movement to deepen its support among black communities. George Lakey (2004) also discusses the gap between demographic populations who oppose war and their actual participation in the movement. Like Miah (2003), Lakey (2004: 2) notes that African Americans have

104


historically been pro-peace and that they are in fact the “most consistent anti-war segment of the U.S.” Lakey points out that white, middle-class people in the U.S. consistently support war in the polls, yet self-defi ned peace groups are often led by whites. He explains the demographic contradictions of those who oppose the Iraq war and those who are mobilized for peace activism: “Whites don’t know how to (or don’t want to) connect with the most peace-inclined people in the U.S.- blacks. The public profile of peace groups in the U.S., therefore, is white, which is hardly a motivator for blacks to join them!” (2004: 3). He also notes a similar phenomenon regarding class: “The part of the white population that most opposes the war is low income people. White middle class people mostly support the war. Who do most anti-war organizers reach out to for members in their groups? White middle class people!” (Lakey 2004: 3). In order to investigate the experience of such barriers to building a diverse movement, I asked my telephone interviewees this question: “What are the greatest challenges to effectively mobilizing a diverse base of people for collective peace action?” Respondents noted two main types of challenges: internal-oriented and external-oriented. Internal-oriented challenges refer to group-level challenges within the peace movement, while external-oriented challenges refer to those on political, economic, and cultural levels. Both types impact peace activists as well as their effectiveness at reaching out to those not in the movement. These types are not mutually exclusive, and respondents articulated an awareness of how each influences the other. One respondent noted the historical legacy of oppression as an externallybased challenge, but one that is perpetuated through the tendency of peace activists to organize in homogenous groups. The nature of work in the United States is classified as an external-oriented challenge, but it is one that also directly affects those within the movement in terms of amount of time they have for activism. Internal challenges commonly mentioned by interviewees include: (1) a lack of leadership; (2) ineffective outreach; (3) power imbalances among peace activists from different social groups; (4) a lack of youth membership; and (5) limited time. External challenges commonly mentioned were: (1) the legacy of historical oppression and separation; (2) inaccurate media representation of movement diversity; (3) the lack of access to information about peace issues; and (4) the nature of work in the U.S. Frank (PJ) and Peter (PJ) both discussed ineffective outreach as an internal-oriented problem. Frank (PJ) said that peace activists need to learn how to better articulate the benefits of peace in a way that is meaningful to peoples’ daily activities and to communicate those benefits to other organizers and the public: People in the peace movement don’t know how to sell what they’re doing. People don’t buy things because of the thing itself, they buy it because of the benefits they get from those things. I think that the


105

peace movement really heavily focuses on either being reactionary and against what someone else is doing, which is defi nitely not selling any benefits of doing what they want you to do or if they are talking about more specific things, they are very focused on talking about the features of those things rather than the benefits. So telling somebody about your ten point plan for this, that, and the other without helping people understand that this is gonna help them feel safer, and help their kids feel safer and give them clean air to breathe, and that sort of thing. You have to sell to other organizers fi rst, and then once you get a broad group of organizers all on the same page, then you can tell the people who are less interested in the work that you’re doing. But if you can’t even sell it to other organizers, you’re not going to sell it to the general public. Peter (PJ) also mentioned the problem of circular outreach (reaching those who are already receptive). He explained, “I think we need to bring the conversation into communities in which we are not there right now. We’re not reaching out. We’re still reaching people who are receptive to the message, people who would come out anyway.” Noting a lack of participation among young people, Patricia (PJ) said that the peace movement needs to “stay where the kids are” and make a greater effort to reach out to them. She said, “I want people to start writing rap songs about no draft. We’re not gonna get them with the Beatles.” While Frank (PJ), Peter (PJ), and Patricia (PJ) honed in on different aspects of internal challenges to mobilizing a diverse base, they all articulated a pattern commonly identified in the interviews: activists not reaching out to diverse groups in ways that are personally relevant to them. Leadership that effectively brings diverse constituents together was also mentioned as a challenge to building a diverse base. While Thomas (PJ) noted the leadership of peace groups often misses opportunities for outreach to other groups, he placed that challenge in an historical context. He explained: Historically any kind of activism has been racially separate, unfortunately, and since diversification is a relatively new phenomenon, it seems like the leadership is still trying to get their feet under them to do that effectively and a lot of mistakes are made along the way. There are lots of opportunities where white people who are in short-term leadership positions miss many opportunities to effectively reach out to African Americans and many other communities of color and work with them to mobilize along with them. It’s just ‘cuz it’s so new I think. There’s not enough experience there yet. Gilda (PJ) also discussed leadership and stressed the need for white activists to follow the leadership of activists from different racial backgrounds:

106

The Contemporary US Peace Movement An example of that for me of it doesn’t matter how long somebody’s been in the movement, there’s always more to learn. At one of the demonstrations where Black Voices for Peace was one of the key organizers, they were talking about who Black Voices for Peace was, and as an organization, it was open to all people. Then it listed the mission and priority. But the phrase that stood out to me was, ‘all people who are willing to follow black leadership’, and I went, ‘whoa’. ‘Cuz oftentimes, we’ll talk about diversity, but then when you look at who is in the visible leadership roles, diversity can break down. And then to watch within meetings different ways of how people listen to people of different cultures. That was one of those moments for me where the rubber hit the road of following leadership . . . for white people to really follow the leadership of people from different cultures.

Alice’s (PJ) described how the legacy of oppression can create power imbalances and a lack of understanding between activists from different social groups: I think there are class barriers. There are privilege barriers. There are differences in the amount of resources available, which I think make it very difficult for people sometimes. I’ve sat in meetings where white folks who think nothing of jumping in their cars and driving over to Boston for the weekend [for peace action] will suggest everybody do that and totally miss the fact that if Joe over there jumps in their car cuz he doesn’t have one and goes to Boston for the weekend and misses his night job, he doesn’t have a job when he gets back. Never mind who does the child care. I’ve seen that kind of thing happen over and over again. The problem is that the black folks are not gonna sit there and tell the white folks, ‘you know, I can’t do that’. They’re just not gonna show up again. I’ve seen black folks get all bent out of shape over something that white folks just don’t even understand why they’re getting so bent out of shape. The white folks are sitting there saying, “but we thought we were coming here to talk about nuclear weapons” and black folks are saying, “who is serving the coffee here?” That happens with male and female relationships, too. So those kinds of things are relative power issues between groups. Tina (PP) identified the nature of work (and the accompanying long hours) as an externally-driven obstacle that impacts individual activists: Some challenges are the same across racial and ethnic lines. Those are that Americans are overworked, so they don’t have time for the kind of activism that we need and that’s very convenient to keep your populace tired. Because they’re tired, who can blame them? They would rather


107

be entertained for a few hours before they go to bed than go to a really boring meeting. Katherine (PJ) also identified a lack of time as well as a lack of access to information as challenges that stem from conditions external to the movement, but which also present internal challenges to building a diverse base: Not only the time, but also the [lack of] resources. How do I fi nd out about peace rallies? I listen to NPR [National Public Radio] and I get emails. I don’t mean to at all suggest that people of color don’t have access to NPR or email, but I think overall [they do] to a lesser degree. I think the other factor is learned helplessness. I don’t know if people of color or others that are oppressed have real examples in their lives when speaking out has truly made a difference, or when they’ve felt that their voice has been valued, which is something that people of privilege get the message about every day. Mia (PJ) spoke to the external challenges of economic insecurity, but she also mentioned that the sense of urgency sparked by the economic and political climate creates a greater incentive to work together: Encouraging people to step outside of familiarity zones [is a challenge], and that’s something that I think is especially hard for people to do right now because there’s a lot of really justifiable social insecurity. I think people are concerned about their jobs, paying their bills, so it’s a difficult time to encourage going beyond what people already know. But the fl ipside of that is the sense of urgency for change that people feel is helping people to get over some of that. Daniel (PJ) noted the challenge of groups fighting in isolation and how that is buttressed by politically driven external factors: The people who actually are wielding the power to their advantage continue to divide all of those groups and they do it very effectively through various campaigns. It’s pretty easy for people with power to make people afraid of other people. As long as they can continue to make each of us afraid of the other one then we’re not gonna work with them for our common interest which is to overthrow the people who are making us afraid. I think there is a genuine interest and desire on the part of people active in justice issues to overcome racial and economic barriers but I don’t think anybody’s really quite found how to do it and that’s true of the church as well. The most segregated hour in America is 10:00 Sunday morning. It’s just something that somehow deep inside of us we want it but we haven’t really developed a dialogue or the means to do it. It’s tough, it’s really hard. The fear is so manipulated and deep seated.

108


The inaccurate media representation of movement diversity was another external challenge identified by participants. Respondents in both survey samples expressed that their own experiences of diversity in the peace movement are not accurately reflected in the mass media. Approximately 82% of the Peace With Justice respondents and 81% of the Primarily Peace respondents disagreed with the statement, “The mainstream media accurately reflect my personal experiences of movement diversity.” Some of the telephone interviewees mentioned this as well. Gilda (PJ), for example, said that although she has noticed increased diversity in the peace movement, the media often portray it as a homogenous movement: The way media portrays the peace movement doesn’t refl ect the diversity. Oftentimes, it looks very much like a white [movement]. What’s interesting to watch are certain channels’ coverage of the demonstration. Usually it has one focusing on the young, the most outrageously dressed or trying to really pinpoint it as if there was only one group there. My data suggest that the peace movement faces many challenges to mobilizing a diverse base. While the movement does not exist in isolation and thus group processes within the movement are often reflective of those outside of it (i.e., oppressive social structures that get perpetuated in activist circles), it is helpful to examine which kinds of challenges activists associate as primarily internal or external and their relationship to each other.

STRATEGIES FOR MOBILIZING A DIVERSE BASE While identifying challenges of mobilizing a diverse base is necessary for overcoming stratification within the peace movement, it is not sufficient for movement building among diverse constituents. Effective strategies of mobilizing a diverse base need to be explored in order to promote proactive movement building processes and community outreach. Since mobilization is most often done at the organizational level, I asked respondents what they think are the most effective methods for peace organizations to mobilize people from diverse groups. Table 5.2 shows that respecting differences, building coalitions, and fi nding commonalities among participants were most frequently selected in both samples as effective methods for mobilizing a diverse movement base. More specific actions such as having discussions on privilege and oppression within activist groups and ensuring everyone gets to speak in meetings were selected with a frequency of close to 50% among both groups. However, survey participants chose those specific actions with substantially less frequency than the broader based methods of respecting differences and coalition building.


109

Table 5.2 Percentage of Survey Respondents Who Identified the Following as Effective Methods of Mobilizing a Diverse Movement Base (Total sample=251; Peace With Justice sample=182; Primarily Peace sample=69) Methods

Peace With Justice sample

Primarily Peace sample

Respecting differences

83%

83%

Building coalitions with diverse organizations

82%

88%

Finding commonalities among participants

71%

80%

Having discussions on participants’ own privileges and oppressions

41%

42%

Making sure everyone gets to speak in meetings

40%

45%

Engaging in trust building exercises

37%

30%

Stressing a common enemy or threat

25%

36%

Focusing on common goals*

5%

4%

Using anti-oppression training*

2%

3%

Other

7%

7%

* This category was constructed from the “other” response category in which some participants identified this as an effective method of mobilizing a diverse movement base.

When asked if they had seen any particularly effective methods for mobilizing a diverse base of people for peace action, most telephone interviewees stressed the importance of conscious outreach efforts and coalition building. Processes identified by respondents as effective for mobilizing a diverse base tended to be outcomes of the challenges they discussed. For example, interviewees cited the history of oppression as a challenge to building a diverse peace movement and internal anti-oppression work in the movement as an example of an effective method for mobilizing a diverse base. Based on the methods identified as effective by my participants, I have identified the following types of strategies that my data suggest are helpful for mobilizing a diverse peace movement base: (1) consciousness; (2) reflexivity; (3) intentional representation; (4) coalition building; (5) using a common theological understanding, and (6) community building. Consciousness in this sense is conceptualized as the recognition of a lack of diversity and the awareness that social injustice presents different challenges for members of the peace movement who experience oppression. The

110 The Contemporary US Peace Movement survey response options of respecting differences and fi nding commonalities among participants fall into this category. In terms of the interviews, Michael’s (PJ) response typified an example of consciousness. He stressed the need to “recognize what other people’s issues are” and noted the incorporation of social justice in the peace movement as an effective method of mobilizing a diverse base of peace activists. I use the term “reflexivity” to describe the process of active recognition that social hierarchies influence internal group processes and the commitment to corrective action toward equal representation for all members. Reflexivity, then, turns consciousness inward to promote an examination of internal group dynamics and an impetus to change unequal structures of the group itself. A reflexive method of organizing can promote better understanding of internal group relationships and can reveal how unequal social structures outside of the movement are often perpetuated within it. Using this method could mean taking stock of who occupies leadership roles in peace groups, who does most of the talking in meetings, who organizes the agenda, and who takes care of the “housekeeping” tasks like providing food and coffee for meetings. If inequalities are found in task distribution, agenda setting, or any other internal group process, corrective action (such as anti-racist training for the group) can then be set in motion to begin the process of understanding how individuals perpetuate socially-prescribed dominant and subordinate roles and what can be done to dismantle those hierarchies. The survey response options of having discussions on participants’ own privileges and oppressions and engaging in trust building exercises are considered examples of reflexivity. Further, the response category constructed based on participants’ comments listed under “other” that I labeled as using anti-oppression training is also a reflexive process. Interviewees discussed reflexivity as important for building a diverse base. Gilda (PJ) noted internal group work such as anti-racism training has been effective in creating space for diverse groups to work together. She put it this way: “When you’re in a diverse base that means internally we need to be doing our work in terms of all of the anti-racism, anti-homophobia, interfaith work right here and now, internally within the organization and coalitions.” Audrey (PJ), too, spoke of anti-oppression work as an effective method for increasing diversity in the peace movement, but one that is extremely challenging at the same time. She explained: One of the groups I work with has an anti-oppression working group. Some who are coming from the African American experience and feel the racism constantly and challenge the white leadership and feel like ‘you just don’t get it if this is what you think is gonna change the situation, we have to go far deeper’. Well, all of that is daunting and we’re all trying to do something and we’ve gotta have those questions raised. [Those questions] do make us uncomfortable and so I’m grateful, as hard as it is sometimes to hear this stuff, that there are people who are


111

challenging and asking and trying to improve the whole mentality of what we’re trying to achieve in our work. The survey option of making sure everyone gets to speak in meetings is an example of intentional representation. Interviewees also noted the use of quotas, a more formal method of intentional representation. Alice (PJ), for example, discussed the use of caucuses in an organization that she is involved with: They [United for Peace and Justice] have said there shall be a certain percentage of representation from as many different communities who are interested in being a part of UFPJ on the steering committee as we can have. So there are Black caucuses, Latino caucuses, GLBT caucuses, women’s caucuses. Youth, people with disabilities . . . It’s clear they’re paying attention to having the faces out there representing lots of different folks. Coalitions (different groups coming together in support of a shared goal, usually for a public event such as a demonstration or working together on a campaign) are often cited as a strategy for social movements to help bridge divisions between groups organized homogenously and also to provide a sense of unity at public events. Bonnie Thorton Dill (2002), for example, asserts that coalitions are helpful for women of different classes and races to better understand their differences and similarities so they can organize together more effectively in the feminist movement. The “Battle of Seattle” in 1999 brought together usually separated constituents such as environmentalists and steelworkers in a public demonstration for global justice. Within the contemporary U.S. peace movement, groups such as Code Pink Women for Peace and Black Voices for Peace are organized around a primary identity but periodically come together for coalition work. The survey response options of building coalitions with diverse organizations and stressing a common enemy or threat fall into the category of coalition building. While my interview participants discussed consciousness and reflexivity in reference to methods used by individual peace groups, they discussed the use of coalitions as an effective strategy for building diversity in the movement as a whole. Thomas (PJ) noted an example of leadership and coalition building he considers especially effective: Black Voices for Peace has had a very strong leader [the late Damu Smith]. He has pushed himself into the white leadership structure and has really made himself vulnerable by saying, ‘I am here as a resource and I am going to be bringing this organization along and I wanna work with you’ and he took that step. By embracing him and letting him take charge, it’s been really effective. I’ve been to events that brought Black Voices

112

The Contemporary US Peace Movement for Peace as a cosponsor and you see a strong African American presence and a strong white presence there and I think that’s why. I think that’s because he as a specific person representing a specific organization took that step and just put himself in there and said, ‘You’re going to have to basically deal with me in one way or another.’

Erik (PJ) talked about the importance of diverse groups publicly coming together: I think that methods which are active and public and involve some challenge and risk are more effective. Public demonstrations and vigils and prayers are important because they give individuals a chance to move out of their hidden, private space and become visible and that visibility is politically very significant, very important. Many respondents such as Erik (PJ) articulated the benefits of coalition work in terms of public visibility and support for mobilizing a diverse base. However, some noted the importance of a shared vehicle for understanding peace issues in addition to participants coming together periodically for public events. Citing his study of the Piedmont Peace Project (PPP), a peace organization based in low-income neighborhoods, Stephen Philion (1998) demonstrates that effectively utilizing a “language of class” to communicate concerns and goals can be an effective method of mobilizing diverse groups within a movement. He argues that this language, or method of communication that speaks directly to the lives of constituents, applies to both class-oriented and non-class oriented (i.e., those involving other identities such as race or gender) struggles. By demonstrating the relevance of class to the peace movement, Philion expands the parameters of new social movement theory, which generally makes the case that class as a basis for organizing has become less important in post-industrial societies. While Philion asserts that much of the peace movement has rallied around abstract, moralistic notions primarily targeted at the middle class, he notes the PPP frames antiwar issues in such a way that speaks directly to the populations sent to fight in wars (primarily the working class). Philion also notes that the PPP works to end other forms of oppression around which new social movements tend to organize, such as race, gender, and sexual orientation and emphasizes the interconnectedness of such oppressions. While the study of the PPP focused mainly on using a “language of class” to organize people across the socio-economic class spectrum, activists in my study discussed other tools such as a common theological understanding and sharing cultural celebrations to build a stronger sense of community among different groups that can then be used as leverage for solidifying a diverse movement base. Jacob (PP) noted an example of an identity-based group that welcomes other members and grows into something bigger than


113

the concerns of the identity it was mobilized around initially. He articulated the need for more organizations that begin out of a certain identity or perspective, but that evolve into a wider base: I thought Code Pink was fabulous and it’s a way that came out of a gender orientation but certainly didn’t limit itself to that. It was very open and welcoming. I love seeing guys dressed in pink and fuchsia at those rallies. We need to have those sorts of things that come out of but are not limited to identity politics of one form or another because there’s nothing wrong with identity politics. We need stuff that’s more Code Pink-ish and less Million Men March-ist. I think the Promise Keepers and the Million Men March people are coming at it from an unfortunately fundamentalist perspective and that is closed, the membership is closed. It’s the wrong content but the method is good. You wanna organize people around very clear values and you want a base which is gonna be self selecting but you want it to be open to something that will grow. So the Code Pink model is a good one. I consider the survey responses of focusing on common goals and stressing a common enemy or threat as relevant components of using a common theological understanding for building a diverse movement base. Several interviewees discussed religion as a common vehicle that gives movement participants who have been historically separated a reason to work on building unity with each other. Mia (PJ), for example, spoke of a shared religious tradition and shrinking resources as important motivators to bridge differences: One of the ones that I’ve heard about is a GLBT [gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender] church in Texas that got involved with the black community and the food pantry. It made a huge difference on both sides. Another piece that I saw recently is a group called the Alliance of Baptists that has started working together on issues of ministry and mission. Recently they had a meeting around GLBT issues and in that meeting I think some of the things that separate us have become less important than the things that draw us together. I think everyone is pretty keenly aware of shrinking resources. That’s a powerful motivator to make the best of what we have. It’s also each of those groups are out of the free church tradition which traditionally has come together for the purposes of common mission. So when we have a reason and a chance to get together and talk to each other, that foundation sort of emerges and we go, ‘oh, yeah, lets do XYZ together because that makes sense and we have a language and a theological understanding that lets us do that.’ Katherine (PJ) also cited the importance of using a common religious language to bring people together for peace and justice action and to also

114 The Contemporary US Peace Movement reclaim the religious arena from the fundamentalist factions that use it as a basis for justifying war and discrimination: The example that immediately comes to mind is how Jim Wallace has been using the media to get himself out there. He’s everywhere . . . this evangelical minister quoting the beatitudes. When I heard he was gonna be on [TV], I thought he’ll talk about his book and keep it benign, and yet he was totally religious. He quoted scripture. I was shocked, and in a good way. I just found it fascinating, cuz I think people in peace organizations need to be speaking all kinds of different languages to bring people on board and say, ‘we’re not so far apart in this’ and identifying our commonalities, which I think Jim Wallace does very well. He’s able to say to Pat Robertson or whoever he’s on a panel with that ‘my bible mentions poverty 300 more times than homosexuality, so tell me about that.’ I think using that language is so important. While coalition building creates ties through an intentional focus on shared activism, community building binds people through other interests that may or may not have to do with activism. Building trust among people from different social groups is a key factor in mobilization. Social ties are an important part of participation. Thus, communities where people know each other from events and shared celebrations are in a better position to be mobilized than those in which people are isolated from each other. The survey response of finding commonalities among participants is applicable to the category of community building because such commonalities can extend to other shared interests of movement participants. As someone involved in activism through a literary community, Tina (PP) spoke to the importance of sharing cultural celebrations as an effective method of bringing people of various groups together. In making this point, she speaks to the importance of community building through informal collective action (i.e., people coming together for fun instead of only meeting when there is a peace event to be planned). Tina stressed the need for peace activists to start “thinking outside of the box about just talking to people.” She also mentioned the importance of the dominant group consciously following leaders from different groups: I think culture can help bring people into the movement and build bridges across differences, bring diverse groups together. So can celebrations. Sharing cultural stories and traditions are really, really important and they’re restorative. They help motivate us and give us hope. Coalition building among existing groups, which may not be traditional, or what we think of as social justice groups. They could be black sororities or church groups or neighborhood associations. I use the African American community [as an example], but obviously they exist in all communities. We have to kind of think outside the box about just talking to people. Also, white people have to be willing


115

to give up leadership sometimes, or share that power. They’re [white people] not always used to having to do that. What respondents suggest, then, is that investing in community outreach and movement building tends to create a base for strong coalitions and is effective for building a diverse base. Isolated attempts at mobilizing diverse groups tend to be less effective due to the history of oppression and separateness that individuals bring to groups and groups bring to movements. I conceptualize the types of strategies for building a diverse base as interrelated and supportive of each other. As Michael (PJ) said, “fi nding out what other people’s issues are” and being conscious of group divisions is an important step to the reflexive organizing process. From there, coalitions can be made that are built on trust that people from historically separated groups are willing to learn about issues important to each others’ communities. Sharing community events other than activism helps build the trust necessary to work together in coalitions. These data suggest that instead of having pre-set information delivered in abstract notions about why the peace movement is important, activists should learn about the communities in which they are organizing and use their language (i.e., Patricia’s comment about writing rap songs about no draft to encourage youth involvement) to convey the direct benefits of peace and to solidify coalitions.

CONCLUSION This chapter addressed important issues, diversity, and mobilization in the peace movement. I discussed the issues identified by respondents as important for the movement to address, their thoughts on movement foci, and strategies for balancing immediate with long term concerns. Although the occupation of Iraq is a primary concern for respondents, the majority described a wide range of issues as important for the peace movement to address, and most said that social justice issues should either be addressed or supported in the peace movement. I also examined the experiences of diversity in the movement and the processes involved in mobilizing a diverse base of peace activists. Participants in my study observed that while there is diversity in the peace movement as a whole, individual peace groups tend to have fairly homogenous memberships. Respondents cited various internal and external movement challenges to mobilizing a diverse base and emphasized the need for conscious outreach and coalition work. Most of the processes identifi ed as effective for mobilizing a diverse base were extensions of the challenges noted (i.e., citing the history of oppression as a challenge to building a diverse peace movement and anti-oppression work in the movement as an effective method of mobilizing a diverse base). The primary categories of effective strategies identified by respondents were consciousness, reflexivity,

116


intentional representation, coalition building, using a common theological understanding, and community building. Having analyzed specific issues of importance to peace activists with a particular focus on diversity in the movement, in the next chapter I move to a broader discussion of challenges, opportunities, and future prospects for the contemporary U.S. peace movement.

6

Challenges, Opportunities, and Future Prospects for the Peace Movement

This chapter discusses the challenges, opportunities, and future prospects for the contemporary U.S. peace movement as perceived by the activists in my study. I discuss their thoughts on leadership, changes, challenges, opportunities, initiatives that should be promoted in the movement, and building a foundation for the future.

LEADERSHIP Leaders provide a public face for social movements. Thus, it is important to understand activists’ views of movement leadership as part of the current state of the movement and how it is perceived in the public arena. In order to ascertain their perceptions of leadership in the contemporary peace movement, I asked the telephone interviewees the following question: “Do you think the movement has a strong leadership that is recognized by the general public? If not, is this a problem?” The overwhelming majority of respondents said that the contemporary U.S. peace movement does not have a leadership recognized by the general public. Interviewees were divided on whether or not they see that as a problem, but many were able to identify advantages as well as disadvantages to this phenomenon. Specific concerns regarding movement leadership were also brought up by respondents, including mobilizing youth involvement and utilizing faith-based leadership. Respondents who talked about the lack of recognized movement leadership primarily as a disadvantage emphasized that it is difficult for the movement to be in the public eye without a strong leadership. Michael (PJ) discussed the public invisibility of the movement that he asserts is connected to both a lack of leadership and a lack of media coverage, and that this is a problem “in terms of selling it [the movement] to the rest of the country.” He explained: Unfortunately, it requires that dynamic individual to get people to pay attention. It’s such a peculiar situation, because I realized there’s a lot

118

The Contemporary US Peace Movement more discontent now than there was before the last election. I think if there was someone in that position, they could be pointing out a lot more. But then again, would they get the press?

Christine (PP) also noted the lack of movement coverage in the media, which she believes would be fi xed by the coalescence of peace organizations and their leaders in order to create a stronger force for movement leadership: No [there is not a strong leadership]. Yes, it is a problem. There is no head of the peace movement. Money is the biggest problem. The money isn’t going to be there unless they ban together. There is a lack of organization. We’re not in the mainstream news, and until we get really organized and really serious, we’re not gonna be in the mainstream news. What do we need to do about the lack of leadership? Take all these organizations and get all their leaders to sit down and talk about forming one organization. If we fi x the fragmentation and lack of leadership, everything else will fall into place. Erik (PJ), on the other hand, stressed the advantages of a decentralized leadership structure and noted it is harder for the opposition to destroy: The grassroots diversity of the movement is its strength and the empire can’t decapitate it whenever it can’t figure out who or where the head is. So I think that the movement needs to understand the strength of diversity. It needs hundreds of thousands of dedicated leaders who do their part. I think that eventually national or international leadership will emerge. While many respondents did say that having a leader to associate the movement with is sometimes important for the general public, other respondents emphasized that activists benefit from not having a strong centralized leadership because it prevents them from depending on charismatic leaders and creates a stronger, more dispersed grassroots leadership. Richard (PJ), for example, described the grassroots leadership he has observed in the movement as a “pretty good thing” because “there are benefits to not having to depend on one person or one group.” Audrey (PJ) also sees value in decentralized leadership: Everybody wants a Martin Luther King, everybody wants a Jesus, everybody wants a Gandhi, but in reality it’s all of us fi nding each other and empowering each other and that’s when the work gets done. So I’m much more for the personal enrichment and personal kind of joy in the journey rather than waiting for a leader that says, ‘Okay, this is what you have to do now,’ and people following.

Challenges, Opportunities, and Future Prospects 119 Alice (PJ) said she has observed a trend toward an increased number of small leaders in the peace movement and asserted this is more effective than having a few large leaders: I think it has a pretty effective leadership as I’ve seen things over the years. People have learned how to work in coalitions much better. I don’t see any MLK [Martin Luther King] out there. There are people who do their pieces, but I don’t see anybody who is really charismatic and moving everybody along. Actually in some ways, I think the peace movement is more powerful because there are more small leaders. There are more people working effectively needing to depend less upon charismatic leaders. Thomas (PJ) noted that with the current forms of decentralized communication such as the Internet, recognized movement leadership has lost some of its importance: I think because of the new ways people communicate and the new decentralized models that we have that while having a face or two for the public to sort of hang onto publicly is a good thing, I don’t think having a strong, recognized leadership is as important as it used to be. Echoing both the concerns of respondents who discussed the difficulty of getting media attention and those who articulated the value of decentralized leadership, Frank (PJ) said that he sees both advantages and disadvantages to not having a strong centralized movement leadership: In some ways, I think its a problem because it makes it a little harder for the peace movement to get media attention in terms of there’s not experts that people will go to and talk to . . . there’s not a Jesse Jackson, for example, that people associate with the peace movement. He gets a lot of attention because of who he is and that helps the issues that he forwards. That’s a disadvantage, but in some ways, I see it as a real advantage that there isn’t [a recognized leadership] because it means there’s nobody to pick off. There’s no Martin Luther King, there’s no Malcolm X, and I am of the belief that if the peace movement gets to be as powerful as the people involved in it want it to be, that leaders are going to get taken out, like Martin Luther King was. So the more decentralized [it is], the more difficult it’s going to be for that sort of thing to take place. Some respondents also noted a lack of youth and religious leadership. Jeannie (PP) brought up the importance of involving youth: I don’t think without youth that it doesn’t [have strong leadership]. It needs adult leaders, but without youth it is kind of pointless. It’s like a gabfest . . . trying to get money, trying to get donations. It’s all about

120

The Contemporary US Peace Movement getting money with the old folks, but if you hang with the young folks, they’re going to tell you what problems they have and what is going on because you’ll meet the people that need to be living in the world.

Others discussed the importance of movement leaders reaching out to potential members in a language that speaks to their religious and/or spiritual needs. June (PJ) asserted that movement outreach has not been targeted enough to religious concerns: The leadership of the peace movement is just too amorphous, and they’re not focusing. They’re focusing on activist concerns, but not on what individuals want to hear. My husband had raised the point that back in Vietnam, [that] there was an awful lot of religion that was brought into the peace movement. I don’t go along with the religion thing, but if this is what people need, they need the quotes from the Bible. The Bible talks about poverty a hell of a lot more than it talks about homosexuality. The Bible talks about thou shall not kill . . . The focus has been on the very left wing concerns I agree with, but they’re not getting to ordinary people. Like June, Tina (PP) noted a lack of movement leadership, particularly in the religious community: Yes, [lack of] leadership is a big problem. Where are religious leaders, for example? My parents were very active in clergy and laity concern during the Vietnam war, which was in effect an organization from the faith community. Where are those folks now? Daniel (PJ) also noted the lack of spirituality in movement leadership: When we think back to Gandhi or Dr. Martin Luther King, both of those individuals were extraordinarily spiritual human beings. I think that prophetic voice is really missing, that prophetic voice that somehow cuts across all of the different issues. Maybe the American culture has just become so self focused that they’re not feeling threatened enough. I think people are so wrapped up in American Idol that they don’t have time to really think about it. Or maybe they are thinking about it and they’d rather watch an American Idol just because they feel powerless to do anything.

CONFLICTS IN MOVEMENT LEADERSHIP While an in-depth analysis of internal divisions in the peace movement leadership is beyond the scope of my inquiry, it is worth mentioning that there is split between Act Now to Stop War and Racism (ANSWER) Coalition and United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ). Both organizations have been

Challenges, Opportunities, and Future Prospects 121 prominent sponsors of major contemporary U.S. peace demonstrations. They co-sponsored three large peace demonstrations (October 25, 2003 in Washington, DC; March 20, 2004 in New York City; and September 24, 2005 in Washington, DC), but have had public disagreements over tactics, strategies, and focus (ANSWER Coalition Steering Committee 2005). Both organizations include peace and justice as part of their missions but have different demands at the forefront of their agendas. The aim of UFPJ is to “build the broadest, most diverse movement for an immediate and complete end to the U.S. occupation of Iraq”, which it views as “our immediate priority in the long term effort to build a durable peace and justice movement that connects domestic and international issues” (UFPJ Steering Committee 2005: 1). The ANSWER Coalition states that it has “worked to build an anti-racist, peace and social justice movement” and “a central characteristic of the ANSWER Coalition’s organizing strategy has been to work in partnership with the Arab American and Muslim community and other sectors in U.S. society who have been traditionally ignored” (ANSWER website). UFPJ charges that ANSWER’s “political and strategic perspectives” make the organization difficult to work with. Specifically, UFPJ states that ANSWER “consistently substitutes labels (‘racist, ‘anti-unity’) and mischaracterization of others’ views for substantive political debate” (UFPJ Steering Committee 2005: 3). UFPJ’s national steering committee declared it will no longer coordinate activities with ANSWER after the September 24, 2005 peace demonstration in which UFPJ asserted ANSWER exceeded speaker time limits and delayed the start of the march (UFPJ Steering Committee 2005). For its part, ANSWER charges that UFPJ went over its speaker time limits and the time delay was a logistical issue. ANSWER also asserts that UFPJ caters its demands to the Democratic Party and does not represent Arab and Muslim people or take a pro-Palestinian stance to the extent the ANSWER does (ANSWER Coalition Steering Committee 2005). Esther Kaplan’s (2003) analysis of divided peace movement leadership based on interviews with movement leaders indicates that the issue is more problematic in terms of conveying what the peace movement stands for to the general public than it is for the people in the movement. While her interviewees recognized the inherent challenges in divisions between major peace organizations, they also noted peace groups are getting creative in their tactics for presenting a united front while maintaining autonomous goals. For example, the DC Anti-Capitalist Convergence organized a feeder march at a major peace demonstration that preceded ANSWER’s rally. This presented a united public front while sending a message to activists that the organizations function separately (Kaplan 2003). While I did not specifically ask respondents about leadership infighting, when I asked interviewees how to balance immediate concerns with long term issues, many mentioned the importance of activists understanding that there are various paths to achieving the goal of peace. Organizational

122 The Contemporary US Peace Movement coordination for research and development in addition to meeting for public events was another strategy mentioned. Recall Alice’s (PJ) comment on the need for activists to recognize that issues are not “either/or” in her answer on how to balance immediate and long term concerns in the movement: That would mean that the people who just felt like their burning issue was Iraq could go with it and others wouldn’t have to say, ‘well, why should you be working on Iraq cuz da na na na na . . . ’ I think that one of the things that has to happen is that we have to put our money where our mouth is. People have to say, okay, there’s going to be people who are working for the long term. I’d like to see [peace] organizations brought together and say alright, ‘we’re going to put a portion of our funding towards pro-active development of theory and practice . . . we’re going to look and see what it is we need to do here.’ I think that’s a critical issue, but I think all of those people could put out a request for proposals. They could say how do we do this, and invite people to start thinking. Limited resources, the struggle for media attention, and a movement that represents so many different groups and issues are all likely contributors to infighting. While the multiple variables involved makes resolution difficult, possible strategies for handling infighting include publicly uniting while retaining organizational integrity, respecting differences among peace movement actors who all have peace as a goal but who have very different ideologies and strategies for obtaining it, and pooling resources for long term investments such as research and development.

CHANGES IN THE MOVEMENT Unless otherwise stated, all respondents quoted in this section have been peace activists for twenty years or more. When asked about the changes they have seen in the peace movement, my telephone interviewees identified the major changes as age composition, technology as an activist tool, broader-based issues, and an increased use of pro-active tactics. Many respondents explained what they see as a changing age composition of the movement in relation to the draft. Jeannie (PP) discussed how youth participation in the movement has changed: “Before, the draft made the youth voice very audacious [because] they were resisting the draft. There has to be youth that resist, and as there’s no draft [now], there’s no need for them to resist so they don’t have a strong voice.” Patricia (PJ) also noted the change in the movement’s age composition and discussed how the Vietnam-era activists are once again taking the helm: The big thing I would say is the change in age, because basically we’ve got the same people. There were more students [in the Vietnam era].

Challenges, Opportunities, and Future Prospects 123 I just fi nished a draft counseling workshop, and I think if the idea of the draft starts coming back, it will energize that population. Much of the action during Vietnam was the fact that people were being drafted. Those of us who were active before sort of knew what to do, and it came back. A lot of the people who are younger, it just wasn’t part of their lives, and nothing happened all these years. So I think its just being a little under the radar and the fact that everybody is so busy doing other things . . . going to school or raising families. Technology was also mentioned as an important change for peace movement organization and mobilization. Kevin (PP) said that he thinks the peace movement has become “a lot more organized” and that “the Internet makes coordination a lot easier.” He views the contemporary peace demonstrations as “larger and more coordinated than ones in the past.” Carol (PP), too, noted that the Internet has allowed peace activists to “communicate and mobilize better.” The political climate was also mentioned as prompting changes for the peace movement. Mia (PJ), who has been a peace activist for ten to fi fteen years, explained how the current administration energized the movement: Shrub [Bush] sure lit the fi re under people. I would say that certainly in the last six years, it’s become more urgent and more energized and more desperate because people have a greater sense of what’s at stake. I see it as still struggling to be pragmatic, unfortunately. But I do see a lot more reaching out across diverse lines of interest and community. I think frankly a lot of us kind of relaxed during the Clinton years, and then un-relaxed when Shrub came on the horizon. A peace activist for approximately seven to ten years, Katherine (PJ) also talked about the changes she has seen in response to the political climate: Certainly since the war, there’s been more of a focus on that, but most of the communities I’ve been involved with have been faith-based, and there’s always been a big emphasis on nonviolence grounded in the gospels. Since the election, there has been more of a shift nationally in involving issues of faith after the Republicans masterfully used God to campaign for them during the election. That’s been a great kick in the butt for Democrats to start really talking about the issues of taking back ownership of morality and values and talking about how those are defi ned by more than abortion and gay marriage. The war gave everybody a bit more motivation to get out there. A common change identified by interviewees is the presence of more organizations and a wider variety of issues. Participants varied in their views on whether this has been a positive or negative change for the movement,

124 The Contemporary US Peace Movement although more came down on the side of noting the positive benefits of this phenomenon. Nicole (PJ) said she thinks it is harder to bring large numbers of peace activists together now because “there’s so many different grassroots organizations that everyone’s doing their own thing.” Similarly, Daniel (PJ) asserted that an increased fragmentation in the movement has rendered it less effective: I think one of the downfalls of the peace movement is that it’s so fragmented that it loses its power because there’s so many different groups fighting for different things. From a political standpoint for the people who continue to wage war and exercise oppression in so many different ways, it’s to their advantage to have women fighting for women’s issues and people of color fighting for their issues and gays and lesbians fighting for their issues and peace activists fighting for their issues, but they’re not really coming together . . . which is what made the movement in the ’60s so effective because a lot of the disparate groups actually came together and were able to become a significant enough power to affect change. Coming from the ’60s to today, I would say that the movement has become more fragmented and therefore less effective. Joseph (PJ) also noted the new organizations and figures in the peace movement. He specifically mentioned Denis Kucinich’s proposal for a Department of Peace, Move On, and Michael Moore. While Nicole and Daniel discussed the dispersion of organizations and peace movement figures as a barrier to mobilizing large numbers of people, Joseph talked about this phenomenon as a positive change and noted that “there’s a lot of things that are in place now that weren’t even in existence back in the ’60’s, ’70’s and ’80’s.” Barbara (PJ) also discussed the changes she has seen in the movement as positive: I think there’s more openness in general to forming coalitions. There’s more focus on nonviolence within the movement, which is very different from the peace movement in the ’60’s, which was kind of chaotic and in many ways destructive and violent. I think there’s more emphasis now on creative solutions rather than judging and wasting energy on trying to change the other. Like Barbara, Alice (PJ) said she has witnessed an increased willingness among peace activists to work together: “I’ve seen more unanimity among the peace movement and more understanding of how much we have to work together and find the things we can agree upon and work for them.” Some respondents specifically noted justice issues being embraced as part of the peace movement as a fairly recent change. Thomas (PJ), who has been a peace activist for ten to fi fteen years, noted the merging of peace

Challenges, Opportunities, and Future Prospects 125 with justice as a change that started in the 1990s. Gilda (PJ) also said that she has noticed more connections made in the movement between peace and justice: “I think in the current peace movement and the anti-war movement in terms of Iraq, right from the beginning, connections were being made with militarism and other issues [like poverty and racism]. That feels very different than earlier on.” Erik (PJ) discussed the increasing emphasis on nonviolence and justice he has observed: I think there is a maturing toward an awareness of the availability and importance of the power of nonviolence, so that the peace movement isn’t just anti-war . . . but it’s a full engagement in struggle for justice by peaceful methods. One of the things that’s helping some American peace activists toward this is to look at the imperial design for full spectrum domination. People look at that and see the consequences in terms of oppression and justice and they say, ‘Yeah, we have to work for justice. You can’t maintain peace without some kind of justice in the world.’ Several respondents stressed the increased emphasis on pro-active tactics as a positive change in the movement. Peter (PJ) pointed to counter-recruitment organizing as a preventative tactic that is increasingly utilized in the peace movement: While people do not dismiss large mobilizations and marches, they are beginning to question the effectiveness of these things. A lot of people are beginning to think about other things like working towards counter-recruitment in schools and organizing against the possible return to a draft in this country. People seem to think that if they can’t stop the war machine as far as the money that’s being poured into it, maybe we can do something about the people that are being brought into it. These are pro-active things, because the politicians say that they are not going to bring back a draft. However, people are beginning to organize as if it is coming back. The major changes in the peace movement identified by the activists in my study involve demographics (the age composition is no longer youthbased); technology (the use of the Internet as an organizing tool); focus (an increased emphasis on broader-based issues); and strategy (an increased use of pro-active tactics).

CHALLENGES When asked about the biggest challenges facing the peace movement today, survey respondents in both samples most frequently selected lack

126


Table 6.1 Percentage of Survey Respondents Who Selected the Following as Challenges for the Peace Movement (Total sample=251; Peace With Justice sample=182; Primarily Peace sample=69) Peace With Justice sample


Lack of resources

64%

64%

Media slander

54%

63%

Activist burnout

47%

54%

Restrictions of civil liberties

35%

47%

Unequal representation of participants within the movement

27%

23%

Fragmentation*

7%

4%

Apathy in the general public*

4%

9%

Insufficient outreach*

4%

0%

Culture of violence*

3%

3%

Lack of political representation*

2%

7%

Other

8%

6%

Challenges

*

This category was constructed from the “other” response category in which participants identified this as a challenge for the peace movement.

of resources, media slander, and activist burnout. Approximately 35% of Peace With Justice respondents and 47% of Primarily Peace respondents also chose restrictions of civil liberties as a challenge facing the peace movement. Based on responses listed under “other,” I constructed five new categories identified by activists as challenges for the peace movement: fragmentation, apathy in the general public, insufficient outreach, a culture of violence, and a lack of political representation. When asked if there was anything else they would like to say about the movement or peace activism, telephone interviewees identified various challenges beyond those listed in the survey. Major challenges discussed by respondents include lack of youth participation, reactive organizing, not addressing the religious side of peace activism, the organization of the opposition, and fragmentation in the movement. Christine (PP) discussed the lack of participation by young people, and the need for the peace movement to be more pro-active: The peace movement is too reactive and not pro-active enough. We have to change educational curricula at the same time that we’re being reactive to a bad situation. Right now, people equate activism with hippies or young people having a party in the streets. They tend to equate

Challenges, Opportunities, and Future Prospects 127 it with young people, but young people are so complacent today, that what I’m discovering is that most of us were peace activists during the Vietnam era. We’re not picking up a young base. Michael (PJ) identified the lack of diversity in the peace movement as a challenge and said it is important to develop more diversity and for activist organizations to reassess their relationships with each other. He also discussed the need for activists to go beyond their own comfort levels, as “people are kind of in their niches and don’t go beyond their parameters.” Mia (PJ) identified a lack of connection between secular and religiousoriented factions of the movement as a challenge: Finding ways to bridge the secular and the spiritual/religious sides of the movement is an ongoing challenge. I think that’s one of the pieces that is a big growing edge is for those of us that are spiritually and religiously motivated on the progressive side of things to articulate and honor that motivation. I think a lot of times we hide it as though we’re ashamed. One of the pieces of that for me is interfaith efforts are crucial, and so to fi nd a way to be sincerely open to interfaith efforts and yet at the same time grounded in my own tradition is hard. It is a tough challenge, especially since the way Christianity is featured in the media and in public discourse in general is not something that would make one say, ‘oh, yeah, I follow Jesus and I’m really proud of it. It’s turned progressives off in general. Daniel (PJ) also emphasized the need for a faith-based approach to peace activism: Spirituality in our culture has been turned into an individual pursuit and I think that’s unfortunate. In a sense it’s like they’re [activists] attempting to overthrow a political system with politics and the political system is a whole lot better than we are. To try to fight a war with their weapons [when] they have bigger weapons isn’t gonna work. The only way to win that war is to redefi ne what the weapon is. The war needs to be fought with a totally different dialect, with totally different weaponry. So long as the peace movement continues to try to win a political war with a political dialogue they will lose because the political system is so much stronger and they’re better at it. Carol (PP) and Kevin (PP) spoke to the challenge of peace movement coalescence in the face of a highly organized opposition. Carol said, “I think the biggest problem is that the Republicans are very well organized but the peace community lacks [organization]. It’s better now with the Internet but its still lots of groups that are all scattered widely.” Kevin also noted the need for the peace movement to be better organized and

128


challenge media perceptions of what he referred to as the “conservative right.” He explained, “We need to have a better response to what the conservative right is doing right now. We need to focus publicly [on] what they’re doing. We’ve lost mainstream media and they’ve gained it, and we’ve got to challenge that.”

OPPORTUNITIES Many opportunities noted by respondents were either the fl ip side or natural extensions of the challenges mentioned. For example, a lack of resources was selected as a main challenge by survey respondents, but when given a chance to explain movement challenges and opportunities in more depth, telephone interviewees noted that peace activists do in fact have organizing resources at their disposal (cell phones, Internet, etc) and they pointed out that it is more a matter of coordinating resources within the movement. Fragmentation was noted as a challenge, whereas coordination was noted as an opportunity. Although they described a well-funded and well-organized opposition to the peace movement as a challenge, respondents noted that activists should consider using some of their opponents’ mobilization strategies for increasing peace movement support. Survey respondents were posed with the question, “What are the most important opportunities for the peace movement today?” Table 6.2 shows that participants in the Peace With Justice sample selected coalitions with other progressive movements with the highest frequency (75%), while international support for U.S. anti-war efforts was the most frequently chosen response (69%) for those in the Primarily Peace sample. The majority of respondents in both samples selected alternative media as an important opportunity. Increasing diversity was selected at a higher rate (52%) among the Peace With Justice respondents than the Primarily Peace respondents (46%). The following responses were listed under “other” as opportunities for the peace movement: progressive religious coalitions as a response to the religious right wing political faction and global solidarity on justice issues such as AIDS and poverty. When asked if there was anything else they would like to say about the movement or peace activism, telephone interviewees discussed various opportunities for the peace movement. They most commonly mentioned Internet activism, interfaith coalitions, coordinated efforts, a pro-active approach, and global connections. Jeannie (PP) talked about youth involvement as an important opportunity for the movement: Whatever promotes peace is in our younger generation. The younger generation could best tell you rather than an oldie who just has to rely

Challenges, Opportunities, and Future Prospects 129 Table 6.2 Percentage of Survey Respondents Who Selected the Following as Important Opportunities for the Peace Movement (Total sample=251; Peace With Justice sample=182; Primarily Peace sample=69) Opportunities



Coalitions with other progressive movements

75%

61%

Activist networks on the Internet

62%

50%

International support for U.S. anti-war efforts

59%

69%

Alternative media sources

57%

60%

Increasing diversity in the movement

52%

46%

Greater sense of urgency resulting from threats to peace

51%

43%

Public distrust of the Bush administration

33%

33%

6%

7%

Other

on her past experiences. I think you have to question and really get into the younger generations and ask them where they see what is going to happen to them. Like Jeannie (PP), Frank (PJ) said that activism among young people is an important opportunity and he predicts that initiatives such as fair trade will be a household name because of student work. In this information age, contemporary activists have more organizing tools at their disposal than ever before. The Internet, for example, has profoundly impacted the coordination of collective action because people can now communicate without a central point of command and strategize without formal leaders (Canadian Security Intelligence Report, #2000/08). This method of organizing has also allowed the coordination of tactics such as “Global Days of Action”, in which local protests are carried out around the world and reported on the Internet. The Internet also allows individuals who are not willing or able to attend peace demonstrations to participate in other ways (signing email petitions, online volunteering, etc). Activists can also use cell phones and video cameras during public events for communication and documentation. Many respondents identified new technologies as important tools that enable peace activists to get information to vast numbers of people. Michael (PJ), for example, emphasized the Internet and cell phones as resources that hold great potential for movement organizing. He also noted documentaries on peace issues with information for viewers to take action and activists doing outreach in communities rather than waiting for individuals to seek out the movement are important opportunities.

130 The Contemporary US Peace Movement While new technology has been an important tool for activists, too much reliance on tools such as the Internet can facilitate the phenomenon of preaching to the choir, as individuals who are on peace activist listservs or who visit peace-oriented websites are probably already inclined to share those philosophies. Michael Albert (2002) speaks to this issue by encouraging the development of extra-movement linkages such as religious groups that can be opportunities for expanding social movement mobilization to a wider audience. Albert points out that reaching out through such avenues is important because if activists remain in insulated circles, their movement will not likely become a project of the majority. In fact, he says that “face-to-face interaction with people who don’t agree with us already, or who even disagree strongly with us, is at the heart of movement building” (2002: 14). While much of the peace activism in the U.S. has been historically rooted in religious pacifism, respondents noted the phenomenon addressed by Albert (2002) of the current need for more outreach in religious communities. Many explained this as a consequence of fundamentalist-oriented religion turning contemporary peace activists away from tapping into religious communities. Just as Mia (PJ) discussed the lack of interfaith efforts as a challenge to the peace movement, Nicole (PJ) similarly said that peace activists who are religious leaders need to speak out more. She identified interfaith coalitions as an opportunity. Specifically, she noted that after 9/11, there was an increased dialogue between Muslims and Christians and asserted “the people who started those dialogues need to continue it and keep working together for peace” because “a lot of people listen to their faith leaders.” Jacob (PP) also discussed a faith-based approach to peace activism as an important opportunity for the movement: The question of religion is an important one but the question needs to be framed in terms of fundamentalism versus a progressive perspective in religion. They [progressive religious communities] really need to build bridges to people of faith in other progressive churches, among the Christian peace churches, but also with Jewish and Buddhist and Islamic and Arab groups because the fundamentalists now have the Pope and so religion is really tricky. I think the religious community has a great service to provide to the peace community, which is to help with these organizing questions. We wanna be reaching out to those religious communities which have roots in nonviolence, have roots in being open to gays and lesbians and have a history of involvement in the civil rights movement. The peace movement is in dire need of infrastructure that is used for outreach and that’s what churches are all about. James M. Jasper (2003) notes that as organizational and rational actor aspects of social movements have been emphasized in contemporary studies, the role of emotions has been under explored. Jasper thus suggests

Challenges, Opportunities, and Future Prospects 131 considering how emotions impact movement participation, noting the civil rights movement drew heavily on well known songs to emotionally energize and affi rm participants. Some respondents also discussed the use of creative tactics as an important opportunity for the peace movement because emotionally gratifying experiences can reach people on a different level than just making a logical case for peace. Tina (PP) talked about how creativity can help sustain current peace activists as well as mobilize those not in the movement: The movement needs to be more creative and use its artists better. That will help the activists by giving them pleasure and a sense of emotional reason that they do the work. We tend to talk in theory among ourselves instead of remembering that we do these things for very personal reasons. Poetry and other forms of art can remind us of that and can speak to that personal place. But then it also can reach people who may be outside the movement and who are not moved by a political speech. Mia (PJ) also suggested the peace movement should “go right-brained”: I think that symbolic efforts can have a lot of power. I think of these folks here in the town where I live [who] took very small orange flags for every service person that’s been killed in Iraq [and] they put them in the front yard of this house with a lit peace symbol and an American flag. I know that every time I drive by there, it just sort of hits me in the gut. I think people are trying to find ways to have an outlet for their feelings because the political process is not giving people answers. I do think that going right-brained reaches people in a different way. Alice (PJ) emphasized the importance of psychological affi rmation for individuals involved in the peace movement that their efforts do make a difference: Things like getting people involved by helping to educate them and listening to where they are and where their concerns are and finding one little thing that they can do that will feel more effective. One of the things that I know from a psychological perspective is that apathy really isn’t that people just don’t care. It’s just a very real and appropriate human response to ‘why should I bother doing something if I’m not really going to be able to make a difference? I’ll pay attention to what I can make a difference with.’ So we need to be very savvy and very careful about what we ask people to do and then whatever we do, we need to give them good feedback and make sure it’s a success. Developing pro-active measures, coordinating efforts within the movement, building international ties, and alliances with other progressive

132


movements were also discussed as important opportunities. Christine (PP) talked about building pro-active, sustainable foundations for peace as the key to dismantling the notion that the movement is primarily reactive: These stereotypes [that peace activists are not serious] will go away when we have committees that are dedicated to a DOP and to helping build a curriculum of ethics and citizenship through the continuum of K [kindergarten] through Ph.D. Right now we are so reactive and look so reactive. But if we actually worked for a DOP and were pro-active and built a foundation for sustaining peace, we can attract some good people. Thomas (PJ) discussed the connection between the peace movement and the global justice movement as an important opportunity: I think there is a natural synergy between the peace movement and the global justice movement. It’s just a matter of a slightly different focus. If the Western imperial powers can’t use the market they will use the military, and I think both the peace movement and the anti-globalization movement see that holistically. Bill (PJ) emphasized the importance for U.S. activists to recognize that the peace movement is a global one: Peace activists have to consciously and intentionally work to be part of a world involved movement and that means sending representatives to world congresses. It means welcoming reports and information about what other people are doing in other countries. It means more than ever [having] worldwide communications and younger people and people around the world [in the movement]. I think the real talent and resources will be found in the world as a whole, not in any one country. Veterans and those who have been directly impacted by war through a family member’s military service have a special currency in the peace movement because they cannot easily be dismissed by war supporters who also claim to support the troops. Regarding the relationship of the peace movement to military service members who question the validity of the war(s) in which they are participating, military veteran Stan Goff (Solnit 2003: 3) asserts that peace organizers should recognize that building on military service members’ motivation to join the peace movement is a process: It’s time we thought about organizing within the military. And organizing is not helping out a handful of conscientious objectors (though that is important) or dropping into Fayetteville with anti-war petitions for GIs to sign. Organizing is getting to know them, listening to them,

Challenges, Opportunities, and Future Prospects 133 building relationships with them, and standing alongside them when they confront their own institution. People who have served or are currently serving in the military are in a unique position when it comes to peace activism because they are very much in the belly of the beast. In one sense, the motivation for peace is likely to come from a deeper place from an activist who has seen the horrors of war fi rst hand. However, dissent in the military can come with dire consequences, which makes mobilizing current military personnel difficult. Such difficulties make it even more important for contemporary peace outreach efforts to speak to the needs of activists with military experience or family members of those in the military. As noted in Chapter Three, self-described “peace mom” Cindy Sheehan became a symbol of the U.S. peace movement after her son Casey was killed in Iraq during military service. Sheehan and other peace activists set up “Camp Casey” on August 6, 2005 outside of George W. Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas. The camp attracted international attention to the U.S. peace movement and provided an emotional emphasis for peace organizers in a way that made it very difficult for pro-war advocates to dismiss peace activists as antiAmerican and/or anti-soldier, since Sheehan’s own son was killed during military service. Bush refused to meet with Sheehan to answer the question she posed to him publicly, “For what reason was my son killed?” His refusal to meet with her gave peace activists another opportunity to point out the lack of transparency and accountability in the administration’s decision to go to war in Iraq and to continue retaining troops there. Demonstrations are helpful in and of themselves in that they serve to energize social movement participants and call public attention to their grievances, but their lasting contributions can be found in the networks that arise from them. Although it was itself a tactic that gained publicity for the peace movement, Camp Casey launched a continuation of peace mobilization efforts. On the last day of the Crawford camp (August 31, 2005), activists sent out three buses on a 25-day “Bring Them Home Now” tour across the country. Sponsored by Gold Star Families for Peace, Military Families Speak Out, Iraq Vets for Peace, and Veterans for Peace, the tour was another attempt by Americans most affected by the war to recruit support for the peace movement. Military personnel and their family members shared personal experiences and facts about the war on the tour, encouraging others to show support for U.S. troops by demanding their immediate return home. An indication that contemporary peace activists are reaching out to those most directly impacted by war is that many of the major peace events have included the aforementioned military themed peace organizations. The anti-war slogan, “Support Our Troops, Bring Them Home Now” is also frequently displayed on signs at demonstrations and as bumper stickers on the vehicles of individual activists. September Eleventh Families for Peace is another group with a unique currency in the

134


peace movement. The organization was founded as a way for people who lost family members in the terrorist attacks to collectively speak out against U.S. military retaliation. Such groups help frame peace issues in a way that is pro-active and reconciliatory, which facilitates an offensive rather than defensive approach to peace activism.

IMPORTANT INITIATIVES When asked which initiatives they think should be advocated in the peace movement, survey respondents in both samples selected broad-based initiatives at a higher frequency than more specific actions. As shown in Table 6.3, 85% of Peace With Justice respondents and 82% of Primarily Peace respondents selected reducing the U.S. military budget, while 46% of the Peace With Justice sample and 49% of the Primarily Peace sample chose the more focused action of closing U.S. military bases around the world. While a much higher percentage of Peace With Justice participants (70%) selected

Table 6.3 Percentage of Survey Respondents Who Think the Following Initiatives Should be Advocated in the Peace Movement (Total sample=251; Peace With Justice sample=182; Primarily Peace sample=69)

Initiatives



Reducing the U.S. military budget

85%

82%

Increased funding for domestic social programs

74%

75%

Sending non-military humanitarian aid to countries experiencing or on the brink of conflict

72%

72%

Global disarmament

72%

68%

Strengthening the authority of the United Nations

71%

58%

Increased funding for foreign social programs

70%

56%

Passing the proposed Department of Peace bill in the House of Representatives

70%

39%

U.S. participation in an international criminal court

68%

71%

Closing U.S. military bases around the world

46%

49%

Peace education

8%

4%

Emphasis on nonviolence*

5%

0%

Other

8%

9%

*

*

This category was constructed from the “other” response category in which participants identified this initiative as something that should be advocated in the peace movement.

Challenges, Opportunities, and Future Prospects 135 the specific action of passing the proposed Department of Peace bill in the House of Representatives than those in the Primarily Peace sample (39%), respondents in both samples generally showed more support for broad rather than specific initiatives. When I asked the telephone interviewees what they thought the most important initiatives for the peace movement are to promote, the overwhelming majority mentioned the need for pro-active solutions rather than reacting to events, and many emphasized the importance of initiatives with a global focus. Like the survey respondents, the interviewees tended to discuss initiatives in more general terms, such as suggesting the need for activists to “offer alternative visions.” Some, however, did mention specific proposals, such as the Department of Peace or Proposition One. Many spoke about getting out of Iraq as an important current initiative. Global initiatives were commonly mentioned by interviewees. June (PJ) discussed having a pro-active, objective international body that makes decisions about military confl ict rather than having a unilateral approach: I wish that rather than reacting to each situation and having the U.S. react, and everybody saying whether its right or wrong is that there should be a permanent peacekeeping force at the UN. They wouldn’t make political decisions. It should just be based on objective determinations . . . did somebody cross a border to invade another country? Is the government responsible for the slaughter of people somewhere? When those things happen, they should be an international peacekeeping force, not broken down by nationalities that decide to go or not go. I think that’s going to be the only way these individual countries doing their own thing are gonna eventually stop. Alice (PJ) also took a global perspective in articulating the general process she believes should support peace initiatives: As a U.S. citizen, the responsibility I have is to deal with my own country. I think we have a major issue with how we handle our power. Right now, we are throwing our weight around badly. When I step back and think of it this way, then I think of how would I want power to be used responsibly and effectively to build collaborative processes, problem solving, increasing understanding . . . the grand strategy really has to be an acknowledgement of what the position of being the most powerful country in the world means, and how people see us, and acknowledging that we’re gonna make mistakes, we have made mistakes, and now we have to fi x things and do the best we can. Thomas (PJ) said the U.S. peace movement should keep the links forged around the Iraq war with the global peace movement in order to avoid using what he calls a “normally reactionary method”:

136

The Contemporary US Peace Movement The global anti-war movement has sprung up around that [Iraq]. There needs to be an initiative to keep that going. I do see that falling by the wayside particularly due to the U.S. peace movement’s normally reactionary method. They rise up whenever there’s an imminent war, and they then settle back down when the attention is turned elsewhere or the immediate problem has been dissipated. But I think the United States as a movement needs to keep that energy going, keep the links forged with the international peace movement.

Respondents also discussed measures that support meeting basic needs for people as pro-active peace initiatives. Daniel (PJ) asserted that nonproliferation treaties are the most important peace initiatives, and he also noted the United Nations’ development goals of ending hunger and poverty are important, because he views hunger and poverty as “the bedrock of violent uprising.” Kevin (PP) also noted poverty in the global economy as an important issue for the peace movement to address. He said that the movement needs to focus on the way that “globalization has affected the poor around the world . . . because if you don’t deal with issues of poverty then you’re just gonna create pockets of people that are called terrorists right now.” Addressing human needs in the U.S., Stacy (PP) talked about significantly cutting military spending in order to redirect money toward education and health care as a long term, pro-active initiative for facilitating peace. Many respondents also noted peace actions raising awareness about the Iraq war and/or promoting the Department of Peace as important steps toward creating alternatives to violence. For Mia (PJ), the most immediate initiative for the peace movement is to get out of Iraq. In the long term, she would like to see a U.S. Department of Peace [DOP] and to “help the country make a transition from militarism to living in a global village and a transition from patriarchy and either/or to both/and.” Joseph (PJ) cited the Department of Peace as an initiative that is “going to reach the hearts of people.” He said, “It can’t just be anti-war. It’s got to be about peace. The thing I like about the DOP is that it is not only addressing nation against nation, but it’s addressing our own problems in this country.” Jacob (PP) asserted that focusing attention on the victims of war is an important step in reaching out to returning soldiers as well as highlighting the circumstances of civilian war victims. Specifically, he cited the exhibit organized by the American Friends Service Committee in which boots were displayed to symbolize dead soldiers and sandals were displayed to represent civilians killed in war as an example of an important initiative backed by the peace movement. Participants also talked about the need for solutions that present a different vision of peace that engages people in sustainable, peaceful social systems rather than only reacting to violent events. Tina (PP) said that the

Challenges, Opportunities, and Future Prospects 137 peace movement needs to call for the end of the Iraq war, but that activists need to go beyond that: “We need to give people an alternative to U.S. aggression. We always have to be offering an alternative vision.” Bill (PJ) also talked about the importance of presenting an alternative view: “You have to have ideals and goals that are persuasive emotionally and intellectually and connect with people’s hopes and wishes. You have to define what do you mean and how, what would it look like and so forth. It has to be tangible for people.” Frank (PJ) shared his alternative vision of peace initiatives that challenge individuals to re-think their choices in areas of their lives not traditionally thought of as avenues for activism, but that are tangible to them (such as consumer choices): [Initiatives] that actually involve helping individuals see how they can make changes in their daily lives that will have effects rather than just doing things like voting, volunteering, and donating money. So looking at how they buy, how they invest, what sort of property ownerships they engage in . . . looking at the things individuals can do in their daily lives that are oriented around a strategic issue like the Apollo Project [an organization that advocates investing in renewable energy], but expanding it to their daily actions and not just to the things a lot of people think of as activist stuff, like donations, voting, and volunteering. Carol (PP) said the most important thing is to “find solutions to the problems since people are turned off because they see the problems.” She cited alternative media (specifically noting Amy Goodman’s radio show “Democracy Now!”) and Proposition One (a citizen initiative that proposes the conversion of resources used to support the nuclear weapons industry to human and environmental needs) as important pro-active peace initiatives. Beatrice (PJ) cited the International Institute for Peace and Tourism as an example of an organization that promotes tangible, pro-active initiatives [by organizing socially and ecologically responsible vacations] and said there is a need for similar initiatives that utilize a long term approach: Instead of just talking about stopping the war, how do we promote respect for diversity? How do we promote economic equitability? How do we create systems and structures that support quality of life and not just denounce the lack of quality of life? What can we do within the education system that promotes open learning experiences?

BUILDING A FOUNDATION FOR THE FUTURE Rather than ask respondents to project into the future, I wanted to get a sense of what they thought of as immediately important to keep the

138


movement strong. Thus, I asked the telephone interviewees, “What is the most important thing for peace activists to do now to build a solid foundation for the future movement?” Interviewees commonly mentioned the following types of actions as important for building a solid movement foundation: networking, consolidating organizational efforts, outreach to those not in the movement, articulating a united message, and building a movement infrastructure. Frank (PJ) said that “communication and networking with each other [activists already in the movement]” is important for building a base, but he also noted the importance of reaching out to people who are not currently in the movement. Christine (PP) spoke to the importance of consolidating efforts to make all the various issues in the peace movement less scattered: “We need to take all of these organizations and have a summit to find a way to work together . . . have coalitions with committees for different issues. So instead of getting ten pleas for money in a day, I [would] get one.” Michael (PJ) stressed that activists should “expand the parameters of what they understand as peace.” When I asked for examples of what that would look like, he suggested addressing the causes of war, more examination of the history of protests, using current technology [such as cell phones] for organizing, and following up symbolic meetings with action. Stacy (PP) noted the importance of documentation for assisting future activists: Documentation is very valuable because you can see the progress that’s been made. .you know, ‘We’ve tried Option A and it worked really well in year one, let’s try it again. Option B . . . it didn’t work at all, it totally tanked.’ And if Option B comes up in conversation three years down the line, we’re gonna know that Option B didn’t work, and we’ll be able to know why it didn’t work. Many respondents mentioned the strength of the conservative religious movement in previous answers. Joseph (PJ) talked about how peace activists should take cues from right wing organizers as a method to build a stronger, more united base for the future: I think to find a movement that’s positive and work with that, rather than trying to re-mold the whole thing. For instance, I found the DOP to be very positive. We don’t get into negative things. We’re not anti-Iraq, we’re not anti-this, anti-that. It’s been very positive in what we want, very goal-oriented. As these organizations become more goal-oriented, there will be greater effectiveness. There is a section of the country that knows what it wants. And it’s the section of the country that brought us the Ku Klux Klan. And that’s the part of the country that is really running the country right now, because they know exactly right down to the T of

Challenges, Opportunities, and Future Prospects 139 what they want, and everybody needs to think this way. So they become a very formidable voting block, but they also become very formidable in getting things through Congress and supporting a very rigid position of the administration. It’s harder with the left wing because the left wing has a whole bunch of things that they want, but it doesn’t coalesce into something. Now Move On has been very good. They’ve gone out and they’ve had interactive computer organizations, where organizations have met in homes and then they’ll interact with these people on what they want. And they become very goal-oriented, and they set the goals for people, and work on those goals rather than being defrayed. That’s gonna be the power, because in order to have peace, we have to know what we want. Thomas (PJ) noted the importance of building a solid movement infrastructure rather than relying on what he terms “soft support”: [We cannot] rely on fleeting tools, not assume that because 100,000 people sign an online petition that you’re gonna have a core of 100,000 activists and I think some of us are slipping into that sort of mode. No, we can’t assume that this sort of soft support is going to hold out. We need to really build the infrastructure and a solid core, a solid movement that doesn’t move with the issue de jour and then sort of float ephemerally. Respondents also mentioned the importance of individuals coming out as peace activists in day-to-day conversations and actions. Nancy (PJ) said that peace activists should try to “become more visible.” She explains, “I do that through a one by one basis. I try to introduce my lifestyle into the conversation when I meet people.” Erik (PJ) also discussed the value of every day acts: I think that small and persistent acts of courage like writing an editor of the local paper is more important than writing a letter to Washington, D.C. to a senator or president. Going public with acts and words of resistance among one’s own friends is probably the most important thing for the peace movement to do.

CONCLUSION This chapter explored peace activists’ perceptions of challenges, opportunities, and future prospects for the movement. The vast majority of participants said that the movement does not have a recognized leadership, but many of them said that having a decentralized leadership is actually an advantage for the movement. Participants also mentioned specific leadership issues such as the need to mobilize youth and utilize faith-based leadership. As most people in my study have been activists for at least 20

140


years, they were able to reflect on the changes they have seen in the movement during their long involvement. Major changes identified include: age composition of the movement, technology as an activist tool, broader based issues, and an increased use of pro-active tactics. In addition to a lack of resources, respondents noted the major challenges for the movement as a lack of youth participation, reactive organizing, not addressing the religious side of peace activism, the organization of the opposition, and fragmentation in the movement. Opportunities identified for the movement were often the fl ip side of the challenges. For example, while the strategy of the opposition (utilizing religion and funding conservative research and development) was described as a challenge, respondents suggested the need to learn from their opponents by appealing to religious arguments for peace and establishing institutional counterparts to conservative think tanks. Many respondents mentioned the need for the peace movement to promote pro-active solutions rather than reacting to events and several emphasized the importance of initiatives with a global focus. When asked what activists can do now to build a solid foundation for the peace movement, interviewees discussed the importance of consolidating efforts, outreach to those not in the movement, and building movement infrastructure. Although they identified examples of some pro-active measures in the peace movement, participants stressed the need for activists to focus on creating alternatives to violence and present them in a way that is tangible for people and directly relevant to their lives. Outreach to religious communities and investment in peace research and development infrastructure were commonly mentioned as ways to reach more people and strengthen the movement. Respondents stressed the importance of conscious outreach and coordination as tools for more efficient utilization of movement resources.

7

Conclusions

This book offers a contribution to the study of contemporary U.S. peace activism and the movement, with a focus on participation, diversity, political opportunity structure, and activists’ perceptions and experiences. By using an integrated theoretical framework based on the theories of new social movements, social networks, and political opportunity structures, I have taken into account both social psychological and macrosociological factors that shape activist participation and opportunities for the movement. I briefly discuss my major fi ndings here and provide a more detailed account in the following subsections of this chapter. My fi rst fi nding is that instead of a sole or master identity driving movement participation, the interactive effect of multiple identities is an important factor in respondents’ participation in peace activism. Moreover, the awareness of their own place in the societal matrix of privilege and oppression is indicative of the importance of anti-oppression training as a part of movement building. The second fi nding is that social networks serve an important function at both the initial and continued stages of peace movement participation. The effect of social ties was mainly promotional for respondents in terms of providing support for movement participation, but a few noted instances when social ties in the form of family obligations or fears about a loved one’s involvement in activism inhibited their participation. My third fi nding is that while increased social control in the post9/11 political opportunity structure may deter peace activism in some cases, it was more likely to enhance participation among peace activists in my sample. Furthermore, respondents predict increased social control will ultimately strengthen the peace movement. This fi nding supports previous research that argues increased social control enhances activist participation and provides new issues around which to frame grievances (in this case, the restriction of civil liberties). The fourth finding is that diversity is growing in the movement, but not as quickly as peace activists think it should be. Despite the challenges involved in mobilizing a diverse peace movement base, activists identified several strategies they deem effective for doing so, including using shared avenues of meaning

142


such as religion and community celebrations for building trust among historically separated groups. Thus, my data expand the notion of mobilization in a new social movement that constituents perceive as becoming more diverse and inclusive of social justice issues for people with different class and non-classbased identities. The fifth finding, then, is that the peace movement is not a single issue movement. The multiplicity of issues represented is an important opportunity for mobilization of a diverse base. In the spirit of public sociology, my research is also an attempt to further the understanding of day-to-day issues faced by activists and the practical implications of such issues for the movement and public policy. My data indicate the importance of investing effort in long term movement building strategies in order to facilitate true communication and cooperation among people from various groups. Respondents emphasized that individuals tend to be mobilized around issues that are communicated in a way that is personally relevant to them and important to their communities. Thus, my sixth finding is that opportunities to have a truly diverse base in the peace movement are strengthened by an active articulation of how peace issues are directly relevant to various groups. Furthermore, such outreach should incorporate issues that members of some groups face every day (i.e., discrimination, poverty, etc) as part of the peace movement’s agenda in order to resonate with a diverse base. Participants also stressed the importance of using a shared communication channel (religion, for example) among different groups so that a dialogue can occur in a tone that is familiar to everyone involved. The peace movement’s implications for public policy involve significant changes in the political, economic, and ideological spheres. Based on the aforementioned six major findings, I arrive at the following conclusions. First, all forms of identity (race, gender, etc) could be better represented in the U.S. peace movement, including socio-economic class. There are indications such as references to the “poverty draft” and the increasing outreach efforts to poor neighborhoods in the form of counter military recruitment that class is increasingly being addressed by peace activists. Class inequality, however, was an area repeatedly mentioned by respondents as one that needs more visibility in the U.S. peace movement, challenging the new social movement theory research that suggests class is declining in importance as a mobilization source. More attention, then, should be paid to working class outreach (along with attempts to diversify the peace movement in terms of race, gender, and other characteristics of participants) since there is a tension inherent in mobilizing this population. On the one hand, the working class has an inherent interest in peace because it is individuals from this class who are disproportionately recruited into military service and who serve in the most dangerous enlisted positions. On the other, the military provides an income for those from economically disadvantaged neighborhoods where there are no other options for upward mobility. This leads to my second conclusion that in order for the peace movement to be sustainable, more weight should be given to social justice. If

Conclusions

143

in the example of working class mobilization, peace activists fought for economic development in poor neighborhoods, the working class might actively participate in the peace movement to a greater extent. This holds true for peace activism and other sites of mobilization (race, gender, sexuality, etc). Thus, both in terms of continuity with a pro-active peace stance (as opposed to an absence of violence) and on a practical level of effective mobilization, it is in the interests of peace activists to promote peace and justice rather than focusing solely on an anti-war approach. My third conclusion is that an integrated theoretical approach is needed to capture the multiple dimensions of the contemporary U.S. peace movement. The theories of new social movements, social networks, and political opportunity structure shaped my respective inquires of identity, relationships, and the political system. However, it was the integration of these frameworks that allowed my study to situate individual participation in the larger social networks and structures that influence peace activism. The following sections summarize my fi ndings in relation to my research questions, themes, and conclusions.

DEMOGRAPHICS My fi rst research question addressed the demographic characteristics of those who participated in my study. The majority of survey respondents identified themselves as middle-aged or older, female, white, highly educated, relatively low-income, Christian, Democrat, and liberal. The survey samples showed similar patterns with a few exceptions. The most notable difference between the survey samples was the high concentration of respondents who identified themselves as Christians, Democrats, and liberals in the Peace With Justice sample while the Primarily Peace sample showed a more balanced frequency distribution in the categories of religion, political party, and political ideology. As the telephone interviewees came from the Internet survey, it is no surprise that their demographic patterns were similar to those identified in both survey samples. That is, interviewees also most frequently identified themselves as middle-aged or older, female, white, highly educated, relatively low-income, Christian, and Democrat. Political ideology was the one difference, as telephone interviewees most frequently identified themselves as radical whereas survey participants most frequently selected liberal as their political ideology.

PARTICIPATION My next research question asked why respondents joined the peace movement. In Chapter Three, I discussed factors involved in initial and continued

144 The Contemporary US Peace Movement peace movement participation. Major initial motivating factors identified by respondents include religion, having ties to someone in the movement, and having a significant life-changing experience (for example, witnessing war). Participants described support from fellow activists, the hope that working for peace will make a difference in the world, and moral beliefs as important factors in their continued participation. I also explored the ways that respondents’ identities impacted their initial involvement and continued participation in the movement. Respondents most frequently selected political ideology and religion as important identity-based motivating factors. While some respondents considered certain aspects of identity particularly important, many also discussed the interactive impact of multiple identities as a powerful impetus for their peace and justice work. For example, some white female respondents described their gender as helpful in generating their awareness of other oppressions they themselves did not directly experience (race, class, etc) and a greater understanding of their own place within unequal social structures. Identity, then, matters to activists as a factor in their peace activism, but in more complex ways than being driven by experiences derived from one particular aspect of their identity. I also investigated the ways that social networks impacted respondents’ initial involvement and continued movement participation. Most indicated that they knew someone in the peace movement prior to becoming involved themselves and that this connection was part of how they came to become involved in peace activism. Many were also active in other social movements before their peace movement participation. In terms of sustaining their involvement, respondents tended to downplay the importance of support from family and friends, asserting they would be peace activists even if no one around them was supportive, but most conceded that such support does make movement participation easier. The majority of respondents said that supportive relationships with other activists is an important factor in sustaining their participation, noting that the sharing of information and resources that often occurs in such relationships is especially helpful in continuing their involvement in the movement.

POLITICAL OPPORTUNITY STRUCTURE My next research questions were related to political opportunities for peace activists. Specifically, I explored the ways in which post-9/11 social control impacts peace activists and the movement in general as well as respondents’ perceptions of their impact on public policy. The majority of respondents who participated in peace activism before September 11, 2001, said they noticed a difference in the treatment and perception of peace activists since that date, particularly in the increased control of dissent. State-sanctioned

Conclusions

145

actions by authorities at protests (including physical abuse of demonstrators) were most frequently mentioned. Participants also discussed less overt methods of social control such as the USA PATRIOT Act and negative media portrayal of peace activists. Most respondents said that the increased control of dissent enhances their inclination toward peace activism. In terms of predicting how tightened social control will impact the peace movement, respondents said it is more likely to strengthen the movement. They noted that public support for peace activism is more probable when certain conditions are present, such as the degree to which authorities are perceived as abusing their power against law-abiding citizens. Participants were optimistic about the ability of the peace movement to influence public policy, as the vast majority of respondents agreed with the statement, “The current U.S. peace movement can influence public policy.” Respondents identified the following methods as effective in causing public officials to listen to peace activists: (1) communicating directly with politicians in a respectful manner; (2) reminding politicians that votes matter in terms of re-election; (3) mobilizing large numbers of people for public displays of peace activism, and (4) aligning themselves with interests upon which politicians are dependent. Most respondents asserted that working for peace both inside and outside of the political system presents challenges, and that utilizing both methods is important to balance out their respective strengths and weaknesses.

DIVERSITY AND MOBILIZATION Most participants observed that diversity is growing in the peace movement on the whole, but that individual peace groups tend to organize around a homogenous membership base. Respondents stressed the need for conscious outreach and community building in overcoming challenges to creating and sustaining a diverse base of peace activists. I have offered the following types of strategies that my data suggest are helpful for mobilizing a diverse peace movement base: (1) consciousness; (2) reflexivity; (3) intentional representation; (4) coalition building; (5) using a common theological understanding, and (6) community building. Most respondents stressed the importance of having a broad-based peace movement for effective outreach. They described the state of the contemporary movement as transitioning to a more diverse one that includes social justice as part of the peace agenda. However, most asserted this was not occurring to the ideal extent because certain groups (white, middle class, etc) still dominate the movement. The Iraq war is a major concern for the activists in my sample, although the majority said that was just one of many issues that the peace movement should address. Respondents emphasized the importance of bringing class in to the movement. Framing peace issues in such a way that connects poverty

146


to militarism (for example, pointing out that individuals recruited to the military are disproportionately from working class and poor families) is one strategy for increasing class diversification that also connects immediate issues with long term concerns.

CHALLENGES, OPPORTUNITIES, AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR THE PEACE MOVEMENT A theme that came up repeatedly was the need for activists to advocate pro-active solutions and frame peace issues in that manner rather than being reactionary or engaging in activities that could be portrayed to the general public as reactionary. The vast majority of respondents said that there is no recognized leadership in the U.S. peace movement, but many said that having a smaller, decentralized leadership base is an advantage. Participants identified the major challenges for the movement as a lack of resources, reactive organizing, not addressing the faith-base aspect of peace activism, fragmentation in the movement, and a lack of youth participation. Movement opportunities commonly mentioned by respondents include the Internet as an organizing tool, utilizing creative tactics, developing pro-active measures, coordinating efforts within the movement, building international ties, and alliances with other progressive movements. In terms of building a solid foundation for the future, participants stressed the importance of consolidating activist efforts, outreach to those not in the movement, and building movement infrastructure.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PEACE MOVEMENT The data I gathered in this study from self-identifi ed peace activists have several implications for strengthening the movement and maximizing its effectiveness. It is my hope that individual activists as well as peace organizations fi nd the following suggestions helpful in their work. As the peace movement has great potential for becoming a strong, diversifi ed movement, it is clear that activists from different backgrounds must learn to work together in a reflexive manner. Thus, individuals in the peace movement should not merely assimilate into the dominant structure of the movement for the sake of working together, but rather pay attention to internal processes that may reflect unequal social hierarchies. For example, activists from dominant social groups should learn about issues that directly impact the lives of others and be willing to change embedded patterns of social inequalities (i.e., men should not expect women to do all of the note taking or cooking for peace group meetings; white

Conclusions

147

people should understand the centrality of racist structures in the lives of people from non-dominant racial groups). Rather than insisting that the peace movement focus on one particular method of advocating peace-promoting systemic changes, my data suggest it would be helpful for activists to understand that other individuals and groups may prefer to work exclusively inside or outside the political system. Similarly, some in the movement may favor one initiative (for example, the Department of Peace) or goal (ending the Iraq war) and want to focus their energy on that endeavor. Resisting the urge to dictate what the entire movement should be working on reduces the risk of infighting and allows social movement actors to work in the areas of their particular interests while contributing to the overarching goal of peace. While balancing priorities is an issue with which all social movements must contend, it is especially pertinent to the peace movement as political events unfold that demand immediate attention (war, invasions, etc). As the movement trajectory appears to be toward a pro-active movement that includes justice as a part of the peace agenda, a major challenge for peace activists is to retain a sense of unity while being inclusive. Research and development through grassroots activist training programs and holding conferences to share information and discuss future prospects are ways to provide content for movement focus in a diverse base. Utilizing traditional mobilization sources such as religious communities in addition to reaching out to participants not conventionally associated with peace activism (soldiers and military families) are also important opportunities to expand mobilization and frame peace messages in ways that will appeal to many different people. Although they said it is becoming more pro-active, participants in my study expressed the continued need for the peace movement to maintain a sustained effort rather than reacting to political events as they occur. In this regard, activists should build strong community ties before there is a peace issue that needs community support. Some respondents mentioned the importance of sharing community celebrations and learning about others’ traditions. Event such as farmer’s markets, festivals supporting solidarity pride, and cultural celebrations can foster familiarity and a sense of belonging among community members and organizers alike. The sense of trust and togetherness such activities provide is crucial to long term movement building, as they establish social ties from which community members can be mobilized for peace activism. A strong sense of solidarity also provides a buffer from the despair peace activists are susceptible to experiencing in the face of continued war and other forms of violence. Making the connection between peace and justice is especially important for revealing the structural nature of violence and oppression. As the activists in my study suggested movement involvement needs to emerge from the bottom up, activists may be more effective in their outreach if

148


they are either from the communities they are trying to mobilize or are willing to learn what people in those communities care about the most. Making peace tangible for people is a key element of articulating a widereaching message. Tools that provide timely and accessible information are invaluable in this regard. The National Priorities Project (NPP) tax pie chart illustrates how tax dollars are actually spent by allowing people to submit the amount of taxes they paid in the last year and creating a customized chart that shows where that person’s money was allocated (military is the largest category). The NPP also provides an interactive tool that shows what budget “trade offs” (for instance, how many people could have health care for the money spent on the Iraq occupation) would look like for congressional districts, states, or the entire country (http:// www.nationalpriorities.org/). As the U.S. peace movement is just one part of a larger global effort, the Internet is a powerful tool for international networking and building online activist communities. However, face to face contact between activists from different countries adds more depth and meaning to the global peace movement. International conferences and peace missions wherein activists work alongside each other are important opportunities for building on the current momentum of the global peace movement. The World Social Forum (WSF) is one example of a vehicle for movement building among activists from all over the world. Created in 2001 as an alternative to the undemocratic structure of the World Economic Forum organized by governments and transnational corporations, the World Social Forum invites open discussion among civil society actors around the globe. It has been an important source of networking for peace and justice activists concerned with a wide range of issues from specific policy reforms to radical transformations of current social, economic, and political structures. The Charter of Principles designed at the fi rst meeting in Porto Alegre, Brazil states the Forum offers a place for reflective thinking for those “opposed to neo-liberalism and to domination of the world by capital and any form of imperialism, and [who] are committed to building a planetary society directed towards fruitful relationships. . .” (http://www.forumsocialmundial.org.br/main.php?id_ menu=4&cd_language=2). The World Social Forum was held in the U.S. for the fi rst time in 2007, which sent a message to activists around the world that there is a strong sense of resistance in this country to oppressive American foreign policies (www.USSF2007.org).

PUBLIC POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS Information from this study can contribute to the dialogue on public policy changes that support peace. The recommendations that follow should be regarded as general suggestions for bridging abstract notions of peace

Conclusions

149

with the grounded reality of crafting institutional changes rather than a blueprint for administering policy. In terms of political changes, the immediate removal of military forces from Iraq and reparations paid to the Iraqi people is the most pressing political agenda for the peace movement. However, as I have argued throughout this book, a pro-active approach is imperative for sustaining a strong peace movement and moving toward a more peaceful society. Thus, government research and development for alternative energy in order to eliminate U.S. dependency on foreign oil is critical, as are efforts to drastically reform the political campaign fi nance structure so candidates no longer have to accept donations from industries that have a fi nancial interest in maintaining war. The process of closing down U.S. military bases abroad is another important step. A fully-funded Department of Peace is another pro-active political endeavor that would support domestic and global peace programs. American participation in global efforts such as a world court and global agreements like the Kyoto Protocol would also help generate goodwill toward the U.S. and promote multilateral, peaceful solutions to global problems. In supporting peace-promoting initiatives and conveying such positions to their constituents, politicians should utilize the political resources that peace activists have in terms of knowledge, experience, and networks. In my sample, the majority of respondents have graduate-level degrees and over 20 years of activism experience. Particularly in the case of longtime peace activists with ties to specific communities, organizers often have a better sense of community needs and resources than elected officials. Support should be strengthened for community boards that give policy recommendations, and diverse representation should be the required policy on such boards to maximize the insights from various groups and professions. As economics play a vital role in political decisions regarding war and peace, economic policy changes must also be included in any recommendation for building a more peaceful political structure. For example, the practice of giving American companies contracts to rebuild war zones provides an automatic incentive for war support from industry. Eliminating this practice may then reduce such support. An inflated military budget drains resources that could be used for social development such as universal health care, affordable housing, fi nancially accessible higher education, and living wage jobs. Suggestions for reducing or eliminating the military budget are often criticized as unrealistic because one rationale for a strong military is protection from attack. However, the current “war on terror” is ostensibly being fought against those who are resisting a strong U.S. military presence abroad and have used terrorism to demonstrate that Americans are in fact very vulnerable despite having the largest military budget in the world. There would be less reason to establish military bases or to seek out enemies to use weapons against if public officials did not have

150


such a large military budget to justify to the public. Moreover, the ability to provide much needed resources for addressing violence, poverty, and injustice inside of the United States would be greatly enhanced by a reduction in military spending. Although political and economic changes are fundamental to building a peaceful society, the ideological aspect must also be addressed. Political representatives seeking peace should help change the collective mindset that war is a necessary evil and peace is a utopian ideal. Activists in my study stressed the importance of using logical arguments when presenting public offi cials with peace initiatives. Politicians could also employ this tactic when “selling” peace to the public; for example, pointing out that if we can fund and plan for war, we can also fund and plan for peace. Aligning material conditions that support peace such as instituting a Department of Peace, reducing the military budget, and investing in meeting basic needs for all people would go a long way toward supporting ideological changes.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH I had hoped my study would reflect much more racial diversity than it did; however, the majority of participants in my study are white-identified. Many of those respondents articulated a self-awareness of their unearned racial privilege and asserted their privileged status is an impetus for them to help dismantle social inequalities faced by others. Nevertheless, the fact that most of them are white undoubtedly impacted the data I collected on experiences of diversity and the process of mobilizing a diverse base in the peace movement. A study that specifically targets non-white-identified peace activists would be very valuable in terms of obtaining a more complete picture of the experiences of diversity in a contemporary movement that appears to be moving towards a more diverse base but is still largely comprised of white activists. A theme that came up in my study was the increased visibility of activists with previous military experience and/or family members of those in the military. As people with military experience who advocate for peace have a unique currency in terms of presenting the case for peace to the public, this group within the peace movement would be well worth studying. While there are some high profi le stories of individuals in the military who refused to serve in the Iraq war and who now speak out against it, a comparative study of those in the military who do not share the beliefs of peace activists and those who eventually become involved in the peace movement would contribute to the social psychological literature of intervening influences on the individual decision-making process to go against one’s training. Information from those that did make such a decision regarding what factors supported them the most in the process

Conclusions

151

of becoming an activist would also be very helpful for peace activists without military backgrounds. Several respondents spoke about the need for the peace movement to reclaim religion from opponents of the peace and justice movement. Religion has been a prime mobilizing factor throughout the history of U.S. peace activism. Indeed, many participants in my study said it is an important factor in their own peace activism. However, they expressed that the contemporary peace movement as a whole has leaned towards secular activism and has not actively tried to reclaim the religious sphere from those that use it to rationalize war and unjust social structures. A study focused on the intersection of religion and contemporary peace and justice activism (particularly one that analyzed specific methods of effective religious outreach as a method of supporting peace activism) would be very helpful in assessing the state of contemporary faith-based peace activism and situating its opportunities and constraints in the modern political opportunity structure. Studies assessing to what extent representative samples of the general U.S. population support pro-peace efforts and under what circumstances they would support and/or join the peace movement would be a valuable addition to rounding out the movement building literature by providing the perspective of individuals other than those who are self-identified activists. Another important opportunity is the growing global activist network. Many respondents noted the opportunities for global activism that technology has afforded. Studies identifying strategies for American peace activists to build more solid networks with peace activists in other countries as well as activists in the global justice movement would also further understanding of how activists working in a hostile political climate can gain support from actors sympathetic to their cause. As systemic crises continue to erode public confidence in how U.S. domestic and foreign policy is currently handled, efforts for peace are likely to gain more public support, or at the very least, lessen public resistance to anti-war messages. At the same time, outreach efforts to supporters in the progressive community using alternative media are important for meeting the challenge of mass media slander and/or non-coverage of the peace movement. Face to face interaction with people outside of current peace activist networks is also crucial for expanding the movement base. Military counter recruitment programs and demonstrations geared toward supporting military personnel and their families who speak out against the war are examples of such outreach. By embracing structural opportunities and effectively utilizing collective agency, peace activists can sow the conditions for a stronger movement even as the agents of social control intensify their efforts to suppress it. As noted in Chapter One, Jeff Goodwin and James Jasper (2003) suggest that social movements are akin to art because they express sensibilities not yet fully articulated in the public sphere. Peace activists in my study identified various strategies for bridging the gap between initiatives they advocate

152


and accepted cultural norms. As people tend to be more receptive to positive agendas rather than grievance lists, peace activists are increasingly taking a pro-active approach. They also argue that peace issues must be framed in a tangible way to show people how such issues have a direct impact on their lives. Furthermore, activists are looking to broaden their mobilization sources to encompass a wide range of interests (for example, religious communities and labor organizations). As part of building a strong foundation for the future movement, it appears that contemporary peace activists are taking the following quote to heart: “True peace is not merely the absence of tension; it is the presence of justice” (Martin Luther King, Jr).

Appendix A

Frequency Distribution of Survey Respondents’ Demographic Characteristics(Total sample=251; Peace With Justice sample=182; Primarily Peace sample=69)

Total sample



2.0%

1.1%

4.3%

21–30

22.8%

21.0%

27.5%

31–40

10.4%

9.4%

13.0%

41–50

16.8%

18.8%

11.6%

51–60

27.2%

25.4%

31.9%

61–70

14.4%

17.1%

7.2%

6.4%

7.2%

4.3%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Female

60.0%

56.9%

68.1%

Male

40.0%

43.1%

31.9%

Total

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Age Group Under 20

Over 70 Total Gender

Race/Ethnicity African American/Black

3.6%

3.3%

4.3%

American Indian or Alaskan Native

1.0%

0.5%

1.4%

Arab American

1.5%

0.0%

2.9%

Asian or Pacific Islander

2.3%

1.6%

2.9%

Latino(a)/Hispanic

2.3%

1.6%

2.9%

Multiracial/Multiethnic

8.0%

6.0%

13.1% (continued)

154 Appendix A Frequency Distribution of Survey Respondents’ Demographic Characteristics(Total sample=251; Peace With Justice sample=182; Primarily Peace sample=69) (continued) Race/Ethnicity

Total sample



White

76.5%

82.4%

60.9%

Other

6.4%

4.4%

11.6%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

1.6%

0.5%

4.3%

Some college

10.8%

7.1%

20.3%

Bachelors degree

18.9%

20.3%

17.4%

Some graduate school

13.9%

13.2%

14.5%

Masters degree

36.3%

40.7%

31.9%

Doctoral degree or equivalent

14.9%

18.1%

11.6%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Less than $20,000

25.9%

23.6%

31.9%

$20,000-$29,999

13.5%

12.6%

15.9%

$30,000-$39,999

18.3%

19.8%

14.5%

$40,000-$49,999

9.2%

11.0%

4.3%

$50,000-$59,999

9.6%

11.5%

4.3%

$60,000-$69,999

5.2%

6.6%

1.4%

$70,000-$79,999

4.0%

3.3%

5.8%

14.3%

11.5%

21.7%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

3.6%

3.3%

4.3%

62.5%

70.0%

43.4%

1.2%

0.0%

4.3%

Total Highest Level of Education High school/GED or below

Total Annual Personal Income

$80,000 and above Total Religion Buddhism Christianity Islam Judaism

2.8%

2.2%

4.3%

19.1%

14.8%

30.4%

Spiritualitya

4.0%

4.0%

3.0%

Other

7.2%

6.0%

10.1%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

None

Total

(continued)

Appendix A 155 Frequency Distribution of Survey Respondents’ Demographic Characteristics(Total sample=251; Peace With Justice sample=182; Primarily Peace sample=69) (continued) Total sample



Democratic

42.2%

44.0%

36.2%

Green

27.1%

25.3%

30.4%

Independent

Political Party

16.7%

16.5%

15.9%

None

3.6%

3.3%

4.3%

Other

10.4%

11.0%

8.7%

Total

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

57.8%

61.0%

49.3%

6.0%

6.6%

4.3%

32.3%

28.6%

42.0%

4.0%

3.8%

8.7%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Political Ideology Liberal Progressive Radical Other Total

b

a

This category was constructed from the “other” category in which some respondents identified themselves as spiritual.

b

This category was constructed from the “other” category, in which some respondents identified themselves as progressive, noting that they conceptualized progressive as a combination of liberal and radical.

Appendix B

Frequency Distribution of Telephone Interviewees’ Demographic Characteristics (Total sample=33; Peace With Justice sample=24; Primarily Peace sample=9) Total sample



51.6%

45.8%

66.7%

New York

9.1%

12.5%

0.0%

Iowa

6.1%

4.2%

11.1%

Pennsylvania

6.1%

8.3%

0.0%

Washington State

6.1%

8.3%

0.0%

Arizona

3.0%

4.2%

0.0%

Illinois

3.0%

4.2%

0.0%

Kentucky

3.0%

4.2%

0.0%

Residence DC Metro Area

Massachusetts

3.0%

0.0%

11.1%

North Carolina

3.0%

0.0%

11.1%

Ohio

3.0%

4.2%

0.0%

Wisconsin

3.0%

4.2%

0.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

21–30

9.1%

8.3%

11.1%

31–40

15.2%

16.7%

11.1%

41–50

15.2%

16.7%

11.1%

51–60

33.3%

20.8%

66.7%

61–70

24.2%

33.3%

0.0%

3.0%

4.2%

0.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Total Age Group

Over 70 Total

(continued)

158 Appendix B Frequency Distribution of Telephone Interviewees’ Demographic Characteristics (Total sample=33; Peace With Justice sample=24; Primarily Peace sample=9) (continued) Total sample



Female

54.5%

50.0%

66.7%

Male

45.5%

50.0%

33.3%

Total

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

African American/ Black

3.0%

4.2%

0.0%

American Indian or Alaskan Native

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Arab American

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Asian or Pacific Islander

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Latino(a)/Hispanic

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Multiracial/Multiethnic

6.1%

4.2%

11.1%

White

81.8%

83.3%

77.8%

Other

9.1%

8.3%

11.1%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Gender

Race/Ethnicity

Total

Highest Level of Education Some college

12.1%

8.3%

22.2%

Bachelors degree

15.2%

16.7%

11.1%

Some graduate school

9.1%

12.5%

0.0%

Masters degree

54.5%

50.0%

66.7%

9.1%

12.5%

0.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Less than $20,000

30.3%

29.2%

33.3%

$20,000-$29,999

15.2%

12.5%

22.2%

$30,000-$39,000

12.1%

12.5%

11.1%

$40,000-$49,999

15.2%

16.7%

11.1%

Doctoral degree or equivalent Total Annual Personal Income

(continued)

Appendix B 159 Frequency Distribution of Telephone Interviewees’ Demographic Characteristics (Total sample=33; Peace With Justice sample=24; Primarily Peace sample=9) (continued) Annual Personal Income

Total sample



$50,000-$59,999

6.1%

8.3%

0.0%

$60,000-$69,999

3.0%

4.2%

0.0%

$70,000-$79,999

3.0%

0.0%

11.1%

15.2%

16.7%

11.1%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

3.0%

4.2%

0.0%

$80,000 and above Total Religion Buddhism Christianity

60.6%

66.7%

44.4%

Islam

3.0%

0.0%

11.1%

None

18.2%

16.7%

22.2%

6.0%

4.2%

11.1%

Spirituality Other

9.1%

8.3%

11.1%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Democratic

36.4%

33.3%

44.4%

Green

24.2%

29.2%

11.1%

Independent

21.2%

20.8%

22.2%

Total Political Party

Socialist

6.1%

4.2%

11.1%

Other

12.1%

12.5%

11.1%

Total

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Liberal

36.4%

33.3%

44.4%

Radical

51.5%

50.0%

55.6%

Progressive

6.1%

8.3%

0.0%

Other

6.1%

8.3%

0.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Political Ideology

Total

Notes

NOTES TO THE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 1. I am also grateful for the organizational support I received for this research from the American University College of Arts and Sciences dissertation fellowship and a graduate student grant from the Mellon Foundation.

NOTES TO CHAPTER 1 1. I thank Dr. Esther Ngan-ling Chow for her insightful comments and thoughtprovoking questions about identity when I was formulating my research themes. 2. As the plenary speaker at the 2004 American Sociological Association Convention, Indian activist and intellectual Arundhati Roy praised U.S. peace activists for their recent work because she said it lets the rest of the world know that there is resistance in the U.S. to military domination abroad. Moreover, she articulated that American citizens are in the “gates of the Empire” and thus have a special responsibility to speak out against destructive U.S. policies. 3. Osama bin Laden stated that the occupation of Palestine and U.S. military presence abroad were the main grievances behind the terrorist attacks.

NOTES TO CHAPTER 3 1. See Hirsch (1990) and Barkan (1984) for detailed accounts of such consequences. 2. See Barbara Ehrenreich (2001) for an insightful analysis of the difficult conditions faced by the working poor in the U.S. 3. It has been argued elsewhere that peace does not in fact benefit everyone (at least in economic terms), as war is in the economic interest of individuals involved in the military-industrial complex. See Mills (1956), Parenti (2003), and Roy (2001) for analyses of upper class-based interests in militarization. While I fully agree that the military-industrial complex derives major benefits for capitalist executives and top-level military personnel, I conceptualize the benefits of peace at the individual level as the absence of violence and the promotion of social justice with an aim to eliminate violent structural conditions. Even if someone gains economically from war, that person loses on other levels. For example, all people are directly or indirectly impacted by the environmental pollution that results from militarization, the threat or

162

Notes

actual acts of terrorism fostered by military occupation, and the vast amount of resources used to sustain war and other forms of structural violence that could instead be put toward the greater social good. 4. Although I am making the assertion that all individuals benefit from peace, I also want to make it clear that members of oppressed groups are most directly affected by war and social service resources drained from inflated military budgets. Thus, such individuals stand to gain the most from the elimination of conditions that sustain violence and injustice. See Pratt (2003) for further discussion of the impact of war on women, people of color, and the working class. 5. Dominance as a sociological concept is used to describe power relations between or among various groups. It does not describe personal power or worth of an individual, nor does it necessarily refer to statistical majorities. A “dominant” group in this sense is one that holds a disproportionate amount of power in a society.

NOTES TO CHAPTER 4 1. A 2004 federal appeals court ruling said that it is unconstitutional for authorities to search protestors at demonstrations (Wallace 2004). An entire provision of the PATRIOT Act that gave the government unfettered authority to obtain Internet Service Provider customer records and the accompanying gag rule that prevented individuals from learning they were under surveillance was also rendered unconstitutional by a federal court (American Civil Liberties Union 2004d). The American Civil Liberties Union (2006) notes that over 400 communities in the U.S. have formally sought changes to the PATRIOT Act. 2. Reported frequencies of respondents who agreed or disagreed with a particular statement on the survey were respectively combined from the original response options of “strongly agree” and “agree” and “strongly disagree” and “disagree.”

Bibliography

Agence France Presse. 2006. “US Has No Idea of ‘War on Terror’ Cost: Watchdog.” July 19. Retrieved July 19, 2006 (http://www.commondreams.org/cgibin/print.cgi?fi le=headlines06/0719–02.htm). Albert, Michael. 2002. The Trajectory of Change. Cambridge, MA: South End Press. American Bar Association. 2006. “Majority of Americans Say President Should Not Suspend Constitutional Freedoms Without Court Order or Congressional Authorization: ABA Public Opinion Poll.” February 10. Retrieved July 18, 2006 (http://www.abanet.org/media/releases/news021006.html). American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). 2001. “How the Anti-Terrorism Bill Allows For Detention of People Engaging in Innocent Associational Activity.” Retrieved December 1, 2004 (http://www.aclu.org/NationalSecurity/NationalSecurity.cfm?ID=9152&c=111). . 2003. “Freedom Under Fire: Dissent in Post-9/11 America. Retrieved December 1, 2004 (http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12581&c=206). . 2004a. “ACLU Declines Ford and Rockefeller Grants Due to Restrictive Funding Agreement; Painful by Principled Decision to Put Civil Liberties First.” Retrieved December 1, 2004 (http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree. cfm?ID=16838&c=206). . 2004b. “ACLU and Diverse Coalition of National Non-Profits Challenge Misguided Government Policy Watch List.” Retrieved December 1, 2004 (http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=16989&c=206). _. 2004c. “Fact Sheet: Federal Watch Lists.” Retrieved December 1, 2004 (http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=16990&c=207). _. 2004d. “Censorship and Secrecy May Potentially be Turned on Ourselves as a Weapon of Self-Destruction.” Retrieved December 1, 2004 (http://www. aclu.org/safefree/spying/18589prs20040929.html). . 2006. “The Patriot Act: Where It Stands.” Retrieved December 20, 2006 (http://action.aclu.org/reformthepatriotact/whereitstands.html). American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA). 2002. “Defending Civilization: How Our Universities Are Failing America And What Can Be Done About It.” Retrieved November 30, 2003 (http://www.goacta.org). Anderson, Benedict. 1991. Imagined Communities. London: Verso Books. Andrews, Kenneth T. 2001. “Social Movements and Policy Implementation: The Mississippi Civil Rights Movement and the War on Poverty, 1965 to 1971.” American Sociological Review 66 (1): 71–95. A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition. 2005a. “About Us.” Retrieved February 12, 2007 (http:// answer.pephost.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ANS_about_us). A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition. 2005b. “A.N.S.W.E.R. Responds to UFPJ: Our Position on Unity in the AntiWar Movement.” Retrieved February 12, 2007 (http:// answer.pephost.org/site/News2?abbr=ANS_&page=NewsArticle&id=7433).

164 Bibliography Aslam, Abid. 2008. “US Lawmakers Invested in Iraq, Afghanistan Wars.” Inter Press Service, April 8. Retrieved April 30, 2008 (http://www.commondreams. org/archive/2008/04/08/8155/). Associated Press. 2004. “Reservists Refuse Mission in Iraq.” MSNBC, October 16. Retrieved October 16, 2004 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6255918/ print/1/displaymode/1098/). . 2006. “Police Don’t Have to Knock, Justices Say.” CNN.com, June 15. Retrieved June 23, 2006 (http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/15/scotus.search. ap/index.html). Babbie, Earl. 2003. The Practice of Social Research, 10th edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Barkan, Steven. 1984.”Legal Control of the Southern Civil Rights Movement.” American Sociological Review 49: 552–565. Barstow, David. 2008. “Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand.” The New York Times, April 20. Retrieved April 30, 2008 (http://www.nytimes. com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html). Beaumont, Peter and Joanna Walters. 2007. “Greenspan Admits Iraq was About Oil as Deaths Put at 1.2m.” The Observer, September 16. Retrieved April 30, 2008. Beck, Sanderson. 2003. “Women for Peace.” Guides to Peace and Justice. Goleta, CA: World Peace Communications. Retrieved December 15, 2004 (http://www. san.beck.org/GPJ28-Womenforpeace.html). Benjamin, Medea. 2003. “Response 3: Toward a Global Movement.” The Nation, April 21. Retrieved April 21, 2003 (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=2 0030421&s=benjamin). Bennetts, Leslie. 2001. “One Nation, One Mind?” Vanity Fair, December: 176–82. Bennis, Phyllis and John Cavanagh. 2003. “Response 1: An Agenda for Justice.” The Nation, April 21. Retrieved April 21, 2003 (http://www.thenation.com/ doc.mhtml?i=20030421&s=bennis). Bennis, Phyllis. 2006. “Thinking Strategically: Challenges Facing the Anti-War Movement.” ZNet. Retrieved April 30, 2006 (http://www.zmag.org/content/ print_article.cfm?itemID=10051§ionID=51). Brecher, Jeremy and Brendan Smith. 2006. “Lieutenant Watada’s War Against the War.” The Nation, June 13. Retrieved July 6, 2006. (http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?fi le=/views06/0613–20.htm). Buechler, Steven M. 2000. Social Movements in Advanced Capitalism. New York/ Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burstein, Paul, Rachel E. Einwohner, and Jocelyn A. Hollander. 1995. “The Success of Political Movements: A Bargaining Perspective.” Pp275–295 in The Politics of Social Protest, edited by J. Craig Jenkins and B. Klandermans. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. Burawoy, Michael. 2005. “2004 Presidential Address: For Public Sociology.” American Sociological Review 70: 4–28. Boulding, Elise. 1990. “The Early Eighties Peak of the Peace Movement.” Pp 19–36 in Peace Action in the Eighties: Social Science Perspectives, edited by Sam Marullo and John Lofl and. New Brunswick/London: Rutgers University Press. Boykoff, Jules. 2006. The Suppression of Dissent: How the State and Mass Media Squelch USAmerican Social Movements. New York and London: Routledge. Canadian Security Intelligence. 2000. “Anti-Globalization-A Spreading Phenomenon.” (Report # 2000/08). Aug, 22. Retrieved September 6, 2002 (http://www. csis-scrs.gc.ca/eng/miscdocs/200008_e.html).

Bibliography 165 Carty, Victoria and Jake Onyett. 2006. “Protest, Cyberactivism and New Social Movements: The Reemergence of the Peace Movement Post 9/11.” Social Movement Studies 5 (3): 229–249. Chang, Nancy. 2002. Silencing Political Dissent. New York: Seven Stories Press. Chatfield, Charles. 1999. “Nonviolent Social Movements in the United States: An Historical Overview.” Pp 283–301 in Nonviolent Social Movements: A Geographical Perspective, edited by Stephen Zunes, Lester R. Kurzman, and Sarah Beth Asher. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Coile, Zachary. 2008. “House Democrats to Fund War Through 2009.” The San Francisco Chronicle, April 28. Retrieved April 30, 2008. (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/28/8568/). Cortright, David. 2003. “What We Do Now: A Peace Agenda.” The Nation, April 21. Retrieved April 21, 2003 (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=200304 21&s=cortright). Coy, Patrick G. and Lynne M. Woehrle. 1996. “Constructing Identity and Oppositional Knowledge: The Framing Practices of Peace Movement Organizations During the Persian Gulf War.” Sociological Spectrum 16: 287–327. de Leeuw, E.D. 1992. “Data Quality in Mail, Telephone, and Face to Face Surveys.” Ph.D. book, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands. della Porta, Donatella and Mario Diani. 1999. “The Political Context of Social Movements.” Pp 193–225 in Social Movements: An Introduction, by Donatella della Porta and Mario Diani. Democracy Now. 2006. “FBI Counterterrorism Unit Spies on Peace Group School of the Americas Watch.” Transcript of Amy Goodman’s interview with Eric LeCompte and Ann Beeson. May 5. Retrieved May 5, 2006 (http://www. democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/05/1432207). Department of Peace website. Retrieved December 2, 2004 (http://www.dopcampaign.org/campaign_oview.htm). Diani, Mario. 1997. “Social Movements and Social Capital: A Network Perspective on Movement Outcomes.” Mobilization, 2: 129–47. . 2003. “Networks and Social Movements: A Research Programme.” In Social Movements and Networks, edited by Mario Diani and Doug McAdam, 299–319. Dill, Bonnie Thorton. 2002. “Race, Class, and Gender: Prospects for an All-Inclusive Sisterhood.” Pp 165–175 in Debating Diversity: Clashing Perspectives on Race and Ethnicity in America, edited by Ronald Takaki. New York: Oxford University Press. Earl, Jennifer. 2006. “Introduction: Repression And The Social Control Of Protest.” Mobilization 11 (2): 129–143. Edwards, Bob and Sam Marullo. 1995. “Organizational Mortality in a Declining Social Movement: The Demise of Peace Movement Organizations in the End of the Cold War Era.” American Sociological Review 60: 908–927. Ehrenreich, Barbara. 2001. Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America. New York: Henry Holt and Company. Ennis, James G and Richard Schreuer. 1987. “The Role of Weak Support in Social Movements: The Role of Grievance, Efficacy, and Cost.” Social Forces 66(2): 390–409. Epstein, Barbara. 2003. “Notes on the Antiwar Movement.” Monthly Review, July/August, 55(3): 109. Feingold, Russ. 2006. “Introducing a Resolution to Censure President George W. Bush.” March 13, 2006. Retrieved August 7, 2006 (http://www.feingold.senate. gov/statements/06/03/2006313.html). Feldmann, Linda. 2005. “Why Iraq War Support Fell so Fast.” The Christian Science Monitor, November 21. Retrieved November 21, 2005 (http://www. csmonitor.com/2005/1121/p01s02-usfp.html).

166 Bibliography Fletcher, Bill Jr. 2003. “Response 2: Today Iraq, Tomorrow . . . ?” The Nation, April 21. Retrieved April 21, 2003. (http://www.thenation.com/doc. mhtml?i=20030421&s=fletcher). Frankfort-Nachmias, Chava and David Nachmias. 1999. Research Methods in the Social Sciences, 6th edition. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press. Free Press. “Media Ownership.” Retrieved July 11, 2006. (http://www.freepress. net/issues/ownership). Galtung, Johan. 1965. “On the Meaning of Nonviolence.” Journal of Peace Research 2: 228–57. Garner, Roberta. 1996. Contemporary Movements and Ideologies. New York: McGraw-Hill. . 1997. “Fifty Years of Social Movement Theory: An Interpretation.” Pp 1–58 in Social Movement Theory and Research, edited by Roberta Garner and John Tenuto. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press. Gecas, Viktor. 2000. “Value Identities, Self-Motives, and Social Movements.” p 93–109 in Self, Identity, and Social Movements, edited by Sheldon Stryker, Timothy J. Owens, and Robert W. White. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Gerlach, Luther P., and Virginia H. Hine. 1970. People, Power, and Change: Movements of Social Transformation. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill. Gitlin, Todd. 2003. The Whole World is Watching: Mass Media in the Making and Unmaking of the New Left. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Giugni, Marco. 1998. “The Other Side of the Coin: Crossnational Similarities Between Social Movements.” Mobilization, 3: 89–105. Goodman, Amy. 2006. “Access of Evil.” The Nation. July 3. Retrieved July 29, 2006 (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060703/goodman). Goodwin, Jeff and James M. Jasper. 2003. “Editors’ Introduction” Pp 3–7 in The Social Movement Reader: Cases and Concepts, edited by Jeff Goodwin and James M. Jasper. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Gould, Roger. 1991. “Multiple Networks and Mobilization in the Paris Commune, 1871.” American Sociological Review 56: 716–729. Gramsci, Antonio. 1957. The Modern Prince and Other Writings. New York: International Publishers. Gurr, Ted Robert. 1970. Why Men Rebel. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Hannon, James. 1990. “Becoming a Peace Activist: A Life Course Perspective.” Pp in Peace Action in the Eighties: Social Science Perspectives, edited by Sam Marullo and John Lofl and. New Brunswick and London: Rutgers University Press. Hayden, Tom. 2006. “Shifting Winds on Iraq.” The Nation, July 17. Retrieved July 17, 2006 (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060717/hayden). Hirsch, Eric L. 1990. “Sacrifice for the Cause: Group Processes, Recruitment, and Commitment in a Student Social Movement.” American Sociological Review, 55: 243–254. Human Rights Watch. 2002. “Presumption of Guilt: Human Rights Abuses of Post-September 11 Detainees.” Retrieved November 15, 2003 (http://hrw.org/ reports/2002/us911/). Jasper, James M. 2003. “The Emotions of Protest.” Pp 153–162 in The Social Movements Reader: Cases and Concepts, edited by Jeff Goodwin and James M. Jasper. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Kaplan, Esther. 2003. The Nation, January 6. Retrieved February 12, 2007 (http:// www.thenation.com/doc/20030106/kaplan).

Bibliography 167 Keefe, Patrick Radden. 2005. “Listening In and Naming Names.” Washington Post, Newsweek Interactive Co, LLC. December 20. Rereived January 23, 2006. (http://www.slate.com/id/2132810/). Klandermans, Bert and Marga de Weerd. 2000. “Group Identification and Political Protest.” Pp 68–90 in Self, Identity, and Social Movements, edited by Sheldon Stryker, Timothy J. Owens, and Robert W. White. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Knudson-Ptacek, Carmen. 1990. “Self-Conceptions of Peace Activists.” Pp 233–245 in Peace Action in the Eighties: Social Science Perspectives, edited by Sam Marullo and John Lofland. New Brunswick and London: Rutgers University Press. Kolb, Felix and Alicia Swords. 2003. “Do Peace Movements Matter?” May 12. Retrieved December 1, 2006 (http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print. cgi?fi le=/views03/0512–08.htm). Koppelman, Kent L and R. Lee Goodhart. 2005. Understanding Human Differences. Boston, MA: Pearson. Kurzman, Charles. [1986] 1997. “Structural Opportunity and Perceived Opportunity in Social-Movement Theory: The Iranian Revolution of 1979. Pp 66–79 in Social Movements: Readings on Their Emergence, Mobilization, and Dynamics, edited by Doug McAdam and David A. Snow. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Co. Kurzman, Howard. 2006. “Piling on the New York Times with a Scoop.” Washington Post, June 28. Retrieved July 29, 2006 (http://www.freepress.net/news/ print.php?id=16296). Lakey, George. 2004. “Have Patience With Us.” December. Training for Change. Retrieved October 20, 2006 (http://trainingforchange.org/content/ view/220/33/). Lebon, Gustave. 1960. [1895]. The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind. New York: Viking. Lichtblau, Eric. 2003. “F.B.I. Scrutinizes Antiwar Rallies.” New York Times, November 23. Retrieved December 1, 2004 (http://www.commondreams.org/ headlines03/1122–09.htm). Lobe, Jim. 2006. “US Support for Iraq War Down to 28%.” AntiWar.Com, March 16. Retrieved March 17, 2006. (http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=8710). Loeb, Paul and Geov Parrish. 2003. “Stopping the Next War.” The Peace Chronicle, Spring, 2,1: 6–10. Lofland, John. 1993. Polite Protestors: The American Peace Movement of the 1980s. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press. Lukacs, Georg. 1967. History and Class Consciousness. London: Merlin Press. Maney, Gregory M, Lynne M. Woehrle, and Patrick G. Coy. 2005. “Harnessing and Challenging Hegemony: The U.S. Peace Movement After 9/11.” Sociological Perspectives 48 (3): 357–381. Manzo, Anna and Scott Harris. 2004. “Cracks in the Empire: Compilation of Insiders Who Have Taken Aim at Bush’s Iraq Policy.” Between the Lines. Retrieved December 30, 2004 (http://www.btlonline.org/btlthosewhotold.html). Marullo, Sam, Ron Pagnucco, and Jackie Smith. 1996. “Frame Changes and Social Movement Contraction: U.S. Peace Movement Framing After the Cold War.” Sociological Inquiry 66, 1, February: 1–28. Marx, Gary T. 1979. “External Efforts to Damage or Facilitate Social Movements: Some Patterns, Explanations, Outcomes, and Complications.” Pp 94–125 in Mayer N. Zald and John D. McCarthy (eds.). The Dynamics of Social Movements:Resource Mobilization, Social Control, and Tactics. Cambridge: Winthrop. McAdam, Doug. 1983. “Tactical Innovation and the Pace of Insurgency.” American Sociological Review 48: 735–54.

168

Bibliography

. 1986. “Recruitment to High-Risk Activism: The Case of Freedom Summer.” American Journal of Sociology 92: 64–90. McAdam, Doug and David A. Snow. 1997. “Introduction. Social Movements: Conceptual and Theoretical Issues.” Pp xviii-xxvi in Social Movements: Readings on Their Emergence, Mobilization, and Dynamics, edited by Doug McAdam and David A. Snow. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Company. McCarthy, John and Clark McPhail. 2006. “Places of Protest: The Public Forum In Principle And Practice.” Mobilization 11 (2): 229–247. McMahon, Joseph G. 1981. The Religious Roots of Non-Violence in Twentieth Century America. Ph.d. Book. Washington, DC: Catholic University (citation issue DAI-A42108). Melucci, Alberto. 1995. “The New social movements Revisited: Reflections on a Sociological Misunderstanding.” Pp 107–119 in Social Movements and Social Classes, edited by L. Maheu. London: Sage. Meyer, David S. 2004. “Protest and Political Opportunities.” Annual Review of Sociology 30: 125–45. Meyer, David S and Nancy Whittier. 1994. “Social Movement Spillover.” Social Problems 41 (2): 277–298. Meyers, Lisa, Douglas Pasternak, and Rich Gardella. 2005. “Is the Pentagon Spying on Americans?” MSNBC.com, December 14. Retrieved July 19, 2006. (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10454316/). Miah, Malik. 2003. “Black America and the Iraq War.” Solidarity. Retrieved November 16, 2006 (http://www.solidarity-us.org/node/1073). Miller, Doreen. 2002. “What is the USA Patriot Act?” Socialist Viewpoint. Vol 2, no. 7. Summer. Retrieved July 30, 2006. (http://www.socialistviewpoint.org/ sum_02/sum_02_10.html). Mills, C. Wright. 1956. The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press. Morris, Aldon D. 1984. The Origins of the Civil Rights Movement: Black Communities Organizing for Change. New York: Free Press. National Briefi ng. 2003. “Former Pentagon Spokeswoman Joins CNN as Analyst.” Retrieved April 30, 2008. (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?re s=9D06E2D61F3AF930A1575AC0A9659C8B63). Newman, Nathan. 2003. “Where the Peace Movement Went Wrong.” Dissent, Summer, 50 (3): 12. Nichols, John. 2003. “Exit Phil Donahue.” The Nation, February 26. Retrieved March 1, 2003. (http://www.thenation.com/thebeat/index.mhtml?bid=1&pid=442). Oberschall, Anthony. 1973. Social Conflict and Social Movements. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Ohtake, Miyoko. 2008. “Cindy Sheehan’s Uphill Battle.” Newsweek Web Exclusive, March 21. Retrieved April 27, 2008. (http://www.newsweek.com/ id/124557/page/1). Oliver, Pamela. 1980. “Rewards and Punishments as Selective Incentives for Collective Action: Theoretical Investigations.” American Journal of Sociology 85: 1356–75. 1984. “ ‘If You Don’t Do it, Nobody Else Will’: Active and Token Contributors to Local Collective Action.” American Sociological Review 49 (5): 601–610. Owens, Timothy J and Pamela J. Aronson. 2000. “Self-Concept as a Force in Social Movement Involvement.” Pp 191–214 in Self, Identity, and Social Movements, edited by Sheldon Stryker, Timothy J. Owens, and Robert W. White. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Pakulski, Jan. 1995. “Social Movements and Class: The Decline of the Marxist Paradigm.” Pp 55–86 in Social Movements and Social Classes, edited by L. Maheu. London: Sage.

Bibliography 169 Parenti, Micheal. 2003. “To Kill Iraq.” Retrieved June 15, 2006 (http://www. michaelparenti.org/IRAQGeorge2.htm). Passy, Florence. 2003. “Social Networks Matter. But How?” Pp 21–48 in Social Movements and Networks, edited by Mario Diani and Doug McAdam. Oxford: University of Oxford Press. Pew Global Attitudes Project. 2006. “15-Nation Pew Global Attitudes Survey.” June 13. Retrieved June 13, 2006 (www.pewglobal.org). Philion, Stephen. 1998. “Bridging the Gap Between New Social Movement Theory and Class.” Rethinking MARXISM, Winter, 10 (4): 79–104. Picard, Robert G. 1993. Media Portrayals of Terrorism. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press. Pratt, Minnie Bruce. 2003. “Fighting War is a Women’s Issue.” Worker’s World, January 23. Retrieved June 20, 2006 (http://www.workers.org/ww/2003/womwar0123.php). Polling Report. 2008.“Problems and Priorities. Retrieved April 30, 2008. (http:// www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm). Public Broadcasting Service. 2003. “Civil Liberties and National Security Timeline.” Retrieved July 30, 2006 (http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/timeline. html). Ragin, Charles C. 1994. Constructing Social Research: The Unity and Diversity of Method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Rees, Stuart. 2004. “Peace is About Justice, Not Just Violence.” Sydney Mornin Herald, October 28. Retrieved October 30, 2004 (http://www.commondreams. org/views04/1028–31.htm). Reuters. 2004. “Republican Convention Protestors Sue NY on Arrests.” Reuters, October 7. Retrieved October 30, 2004 (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1007–06.htm). Risen, James and Eric Lichtblau. 2005. “Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts.” New York Times, December 16. Retrieved July 19, 2006 (http://www. commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?fi le=headlines051216-01.htm). Rising-Moore, Carl and Becky Oberg. 2004. Freedom Underground: Protesting the Iraq War in America. New York: Chamberlain Bros. Rodino, Virginia. 2005. “Will the U.S. Anti-War Movement Impeach Bush?” Common Dreams, June 21. Retrieved June 21, 2005 (http://www.commondreams. org/views05/0621–32.htm). Roth, Benita. 2001. “What are Social Movements and What is Gendered about Women’s Participation in Social Movements?: A Sociological Perspective.” Essay written for website Women and Social Movements in the United States, 1820–1940, Retrieved May 29, 2006 (http://womhist.binghamton.edu/socm/intro.htm). Rose, Fred. 2000. Coalitions Across the Class Divide: Lessons From the Labor, Peace, and Environmental Movements. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. Roth, Andrew, Zoe Huffman, Jeffrey Huling, Kevin Stolle, and Jocelyn Thomas. 2008. “ Covering War’s Victims: A Content Analysis of Iraq and Afghanistan War Photographs in the New York Times and the San Francisco Chronicle.” (http://s31076.gridserver.com/assets-managed/pdf/covering-wars-victims.pdf). Roy, Arundhati. 2001. Power Politics. Cambridge, MA: South End Press. Rude, George. 1980. Ideology and Popular Protest. New York: Pantheon Books. Sauermann, Barbara (ed). 2003. 2/15: The Day the World Said NO to War. Oakland, CA: AK Press. Sharp, Gene. 1973. Power and Struggle. Boston: Porter Sargent Publishers. Schonlau, Matthew, Ronald D. Fricker, and Mark N. Elliot. 2002. Conducting Surveys Via E-Mail and the Web. Santa Monica, CA: Rand. Sheehan, Cindy. 2006a. Peace Mom: A Mother’s Journey Through Heartache to Activism. New York, NY: Atria Books.

170 Bibliography . 2006b. Dear President Bush. San Francisco, CA: City Lights. . 2005. Not One More Mother’s Child. Kihei, HI: Koa Books. Sherkat, Darren E and T. Jean Blocker. 1994. “The Political Development of Sixties’ Activists: Identifying the Influence of Class, Gender, and Socialization on Protest Participation.” Social Forces 72 (3): 821–842. Sklair, Leslie. [1995] 2000. ”Social Movements and Global Capitalism.” Pp 340– 352 in From Modernization to Globalization, edited by J. T. Roberts and A. Hite. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Smelser, Neil. 1963. Theory of Collective Behavior. New York: Free Press. Smith, Jackie, John D. McCarthy, Clark McPhail, and Boguslaw Augustyn. 2001. “From Protest to Agenda Building: Description Bias in Media Coverage of Protest Events in Washington, D.C.” Social Forces 79 (4): 1397–1423. Snow, David A., Louis A. Zurcher, and Sheldon Ekland-Olson. 1980. “Social Networks and Social Movements: A Microstructural Approach to Differential Recruitment.” American Sociological Review 45: 787–801. Snow, David A., Sarah A. Soule, and Hanspeter Kriesi. 2004. “Mapping the Terrain.” Pp. 3–16 in The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, edited by D. A. Snow, S. A. Soule, and H. Kriesi. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers. Stiglitz, Joseph and Linda Bilmes. 2008. “The Three Trillion Dollar War.” The Times Online. Retrieved April 30, 2008. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article3419840.ece). Sullivan, Paul. 2008. “April 10 Special Report: Nearly 75,000 U.S. Service Member Battlefield Casualties from the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars.” Retrieved April 30, 2008 (http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?id=15697). Tarrow, Sidney. 1993. “Cycles of Collective Action: Between Moments of Madness and the Repertoire of Contention.” Social Science History 17 (2): 281–308. Tarrow, Sidney. 1994. Power in Movement: Social Movements, Collective Action, and Politics. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tilly, Charles. 1978. From Mobilization to Revolution. New York: Random House. Teixeira, Ruy. 2007. “Public Opinion Snapshot: Military Families are Fed Up.” Retrieved April 29, 2008. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/12/ po_troops.html. . 2008. “What the Public Really Wants on Iraq.” Retrieved April 29, 2008. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/03/pdf/public_iraq.pdf Turner, Ralph H and Lewis M. Killian. 1987. Collective Behavior. 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. United for Peace and Justice. 2005. “Ending the War in Iraq, Building a Broad Movement for Peace and Justice, and Our Experience with A.N.S.W.E.R.” Retrieved February 12, 2007. (http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=9313§ionID=51). Vasi, Ion Bogdan. 2006. “The New Anti-War Protests and Miscible Mobilizations.” Social Movement Studies 5 (2): 137–153. Wallace, C.G. 2004. “Screening of Protestors Unconstitutional, Court Rules.” Washington Post, Sunday, October 17, Page A13. Wallerstein, Immanuel. 2001. “Superpower?” Commentary No. 76, Nov. 1, 2001. Binghamton University, New York: Fernand Braudel Center. Retrieved November 30, 2001 (http://fbc.binghamton.edu/76en.htm). Weimann, Gabriel and Conrad Winn. 1994. The Theater of Terror. New York: Longman. Wilson, James Q and Karlyn Bowman. 2003. “Defi ning the ‘Peace Party.” The Public Interest, Fall, 153: 69–78. Wittner, Lawrence S. 2006. “Have Peace Activists Ever Stopped a War?” Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. Retrieved November 20, 2006 (http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2006/01/16_wittner_peace-activists.htm).

Bibliography 171 World Public Opinion. 2003. “Misperceptions, the Media, and the Iraq War.” Retrieved November 20, 2006 (http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf). World Social Forum. 2002. “World Social Forum Charter of Principles. Retrieved April 29, 2008 (http://www.forumsocialmundial.org.br/main.php?id_menu=4&cd_ language=2). Yeh, Brian T and Charles Doyle. 2006. “USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005: A Legal Analysis.” CRS Report for Congress. Congressional Research Service. Washington, DC: Library of Congress. Zernike, Kate and Dean E. Murphy. 2003. “Antiwar Effort Emphasizes Civility Over Confrontation.” New York Times, March 29. Retrieved March 30, 2003 (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0329–03.htm). Zinn, Howard. 1995. A People’s History of the United States. New York: Harper Perennial.

Index

A Afghanistan, 8, 9, 10, 45 Albert, Michael, 130 American Bar Association, 80 American Civil Liberties (ACLU), 6, 13, 62–65, 67, 81, 162 Anderson, Benedict, 22 Andrews, Kenneth T, 75 ANSWER, 120, 121 Aronson, Pamela J, 45 Aslam, Abid, 8 Associated Press, 63, 80

B Babbie, Earl, 2, 22–24, 29 Barstow, David, 66 Beck, Sanderson, 12 Benjamin, Medea, 2, 12 Bennetts, Leslie, 67 Bennis, Phyllis, 2 Bennis, Phyllis, 79 bin Laden, Osama, 6, 161 Black Voices for Peace, 10, 12, 16, 106, 111 Boulding, Elise, 11 Bowman, Karlyn, 2 Boykoff, Jules, 14, 61 Brecher, Jeremy, 77, 80 Buechler, Steven M, 5, 15 Burawoy, Michael, 11 Burstein, Paul, 74 Bush, George, 9, 41, 44, 62, 64–70, 77–80, 92, 123, 129, 133 administration, 41, 44, 66, 69, 78, 129

C Canadian Security Intelligence, 129 Carty, Victoria, 13, 18 Cavanagh, John, 2

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), 62 Chang, Nancy, 81 Chatfield, Charles, 12 Civil rights, 7, 49, 51, 57, 62, 71, 103, 130, 131 Civil society, 4, 6, 49, 148 Clinton, Hilary, 75, 123 Code Pink Women for Peace, 10, 12, 13, 16, 111 Coile, Zachary, 8 Combined Federal Campaign (CFC), 65, 70 Conyers, John, 78 Cortright, David, 2, 4 Coy, Patrick G, 2, 46

D de Leeuw, E.D, 23 Democracy Now, 63, 137 Department of Defense (DOD), 9, 10, 62, 63, 66, 79 Department of Peace (DOP), 5, 13, 76, 97, 124, 134, 135, 136, 147, 149, 150 de Weerd, Marga, 46 Diani, Mario, 11, 16, 18, 53, 75 Dill, Bonnie Thorton, 111 Dixie Chicks, 68

E Earl, Jennifer, 70 Edwards, Bob, 2 Ehrenreich, Barbara, 161 Einwohner, Rachel E, 74 Ekland-Olsen, Sheldon, 16, 53, 56 Ennis, James G, 31 Epstein, Barbara, 2, 4, 44

174

Index

F

K

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), 62, 64 Feingold, Russ, 75, 78 Feldmann, Linda, 80 Fellowship of Reconciliation, 12, 13 Fletcher, Bill Jr, 2 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), 62 Frankfort-Nachmias, Chava, 22

Kaplan, Esther, 121 Keefe, Patrick Radden, 62 Killian, Lewis M, 11 Klandermans, Bert, 46 Knudson-Ptacek, Carmen, 16 Koppleman, Kent L, 30 Kurzman, Charles, 18, 82 Kurzman, Howard, 67

G

Lakey, George, 99, 103, 104 Lichtblau, Eric, 62, 67, 81 Lobe, Jim, 80 Loeb, Paul, 2 Lofl, John, 11 Lukacs, Georg, 100

Galtung, Johan, 4 Gardella, Rich, 62, 63 Garner, Roberta, 11, 75 Gecas, Viktor, 45 General Accounting Office (GAO), 79 Gerlach, Luther P, 70 Gitlin, Todd, 65 Giugni, Marco, 75 Gold Star Families, 8, 41, 133 Goodhart, R. Lee, 30 Goodman, Amy, 66, 67, 137 Goodwin, Jeff, 7, 11, 14, 18, 74, 151 Gould, Roger, 17, 53 Gramsci, Antonio, 76, 79 Gurr, Ted Robert, 70

H Hannon, James, 16 Harris, Scott, 79 Hayden, Tom, 75 Hegemony, 76–80, 100 Hine, Virginia H, 70 Hirsch, Eric L, 161 Hollander, Jocelyn A, 74 Human Rights Watch, 13

I Iraq, 4–13, 20, 25, 27, 40–44, 63, 66–80, 89, 90, 94–97, 101–103, 115, 121, 122, 125, 131–138, 145, 147–150

J Jasper, James M, 7, 11, 14, 18, 74, 130, 151 Justice economic, 2 environmental, 12, 90, 93 global, 11, 90, 101, 111, 132, 151 social, 5, 12, 43, 45, 52, 76, 89, 91, 94, 97, 101, 110, 114, 115, 121, 142, 145

L

M Manzo, Anna, 79 Martin Luther King Jr, 49, 118–120, 152 Marullo, Sam, 2 Marx, Gary T, 70 McAdam, Doug, 11, 12, 17, 53 McCarthy, John, 65 McMahon, Joseph G, 11 McPhail, Clark, 65 Melucci, Alberto, 15 Meyer, David S, 17, 57 Meyers, Lisa, 62, 63 Miah, Malik, 103 Military budget, 6, 8, 90, 134, 149, 150, 162 Miller, Doreen, 64 Mills, C. Wright, 161 Move On, 124, 139 Murphy, Dean E, 5

N Nachmias, David, 22 Nation Security Agency (NSA), 62, 79 National Briefing, 66 Newman, Nathan, 4 Nichols, John, 67

O Oberg, Becky, 79 Oberschall, Anthony, 70 Ohtake, Miyoko, 41 Oliver, Pamela, 43, 70 Onyett, Jake, 13, 18 Owens, Timothy J, 45

Index P Pagnucco, Ron, 2 Pakulski, Jan, 15 Parenti, Micheal, 161 Parrish, Geov, 2 Passy, Florence, 16, 17, 53, 54 Pasternak, Douglas, 62, 63 Patriot Act. See also USA Patriot Act, 69, 71, 72, 78, 162 Peace movement 9/11 and, 68–70 challenges of, 81, 82, 125–128 changes in, 122–125 class and, 3, 10, 12, 14, 19, 23, 35, 42, 44, 46–52, 76, 90, 99–104, 112, 142–145 diversity in, 3, 16, 99–102, 108, 110, 111, 115, 116, 127, 129, 150 future and, 138, 140 gender and, 3, 10, 12, 14–16, 28, 30, 32, 34, 42, 46–53, 59, 90, 99, 100, 101, 103, 112, 112, 142, 144, 154, 158 global dimensions of, 4, 5, 10, 12, 15, 18, 50, 75, 77, 79, 80, 97, 118, 121, 128, 129, 131, 133–137, 146, 148–151 hegemony and, 76–81 history of, 11–14 identity, 1–3, 6, 14–24, 28, 35, 37–60, 77, 100, 111–113, 141–144 initiatives, 134–138 issues, 89–99 justice and (see justice) leadership and, 117–122 legislation restricting, 63, 64 media and, 65–68 methodology of study, 21–29 mobilization, 2–5, 10–12, 15–20, 40, 53, 89, 99, 100, 108, 114, 115, 123, 125, 128, 130, 133, 142–147, 152 motivation, 6, 16, 24, 27, 35, 37, 38, 40, 42–44, 46, 49, 50, 52–55, 58, 70, 71, 82, 87, 93, 123, 127, 132, 133 opportunities for, 81, 82, 128–134 participation in, 1, 3, 20, 26, 27, 42, 46, 49, 53, 56–59, 71, 103, 122, 141, 143, 144, 149 political ideology and, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 46, 48, 143, 144, 155, 159

175

political party and, 8, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 46–48, 143, 155, 159 public opinion and, 2, 8, 65, 66, 72, 75 public policy and, 74, 75, 82–88, 149, 150 race and, 3, 15, 16, 30, 38, 46–53, 58, 67, 77, 90, 99, 100, 101, 102, 111, 112, 124, 142–144, 153, 154, 158 religion and, 3, 12, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 42, 46–49, 73, 76, 84, 101, 113, 120, 130, 140, 142–144, 151, 154, 158 social control of, 61–68, 70–74 social networks and, 53–60 state and, 61–65 surveillance of, 62, 63 youth and, 10, 49, 94, 100, 104, 111, 115, 117, 119, 122, 126, 128, 139, 140, 146 Pelosi, Nancy, 41, 42 Pentagon, 8, 9, 66, 79 Pew Global Attitudes Project, 77 Philion, Stephen, 15, 112 Picard, Robert G, 65 Piedmont Peace Project (PPP), 15, 112 Polling Report, 10 Public policy, 3, 7, 18, 20, 28, 74, 75, 77, 81, 82, 84, 85, 87, 142, 144, 145, 148

R Ragin, Charles C, 29 Rees, Stuart, 4 Reuters, 81 Risen, James, 62, 67 Rising-Moore, Carl, 79 Rodino, Virginia, 78 Rose, Fred, 12 Roth, Andrew, 67 Roth, Benita, 103 Roy, Arundhati, 161 Rude, George, 76

S Sauermann, Barbara (ed), 4 Schonlau, Matthew, 23 Schreuer, Richard, 31 September 11th. See also 9/11, 6, 13, 18, 20, 21, 24, 27, 44, 59, 61–63, 68–71, 76–78, 121, 133, 144 Sharp, Gene, 76 Sheehan, Cindy, 40, 41, 133

176 Index Sherkat, Darren E, 31 Sklair, Leslie, 14 Smith, Brendan, 77, 80 Smith, Jackie, 2 Snow, David A, 11, 12, 17, 53 Social movements, 1, 3, 7, 11–20, 29, 37, 38, 46, 53, 59–58, 65, 74, 75, 103, 111, 112, 117, 130, 141, 143, 144, 147, 151 coalitions, 52, 94, 100, 108–111, 115, 119, 124, 128–130, 138 Social movement theory new social movements, 1, 3, 11, 14–16, 20, 29, 112, 141, 143 political opportunity structure, 2, 3–7, 14, 17–20, 29, 60, 61, 74, 75, 88, 141, 143, 144, 151 social networks, 1, 3, 11, 14, 17, 19, 20, 28, 29, 35, 37, 53, 54, 59, 141, 143, 144 Sullivan, Paul, 9

T Tarrow, Sidney, 5, 75 Teixeira, Ruy, 8, 80 Terrorism, 6, 45, 61, 64, 71, 72, 78, 81, 149, 162 Tilly, Charles, 70 Turner, Ralph H, 11

U United for Peace and Justice, 12, 111, 120 United Nations, 75, 77, 134, 136 USA Patriot Act. See also Patriot Act, 7, 13, 45, 59, 63, 71, 145

V Vasi, Ion Bogdan, 13 Veterans, 8, 9, 79, 132, 133 Vietnam, 2, 5, 11, 12, 38, 39, 43, 44, 49, 51, 54, 57, 58, 62, 65, 69, 75, 80, 83, 120, 122, 123, 124

W Wallace, C.G, 114, 162 Wallerstein, Immanuel, 77 War on Terror, 6, 63, 77, 79, 140 Weimann, Gabriel, 65 Whittier, Nancy, 57 Wilson, James Q, 2 Winn, Conrad, 65 Wittner, Lawrence S, 75 Woehrle, Lynne M, 2, 46 World Social Forum, 148

Z Zald (eds.), 64 Zernike, Kate and Dean E. Murphy, 5 Zinn, Howard, 103 Zurcher, Louis A, 16, 53, 56

About the Author

Laura Toussaint received her Ph.D. from the Department of Sociology at American University with concentrations in social movements, stratification, and globalization. She serves on the Editorial Board for Societies Without Borders, the journal of Sociologists Without Borders. Her work has been published in Sociologists for Women in Society Network News and Bharatiya Samajik Chintan, the journal of the Indian Academy of Social Sciences. She is currently a Research Affiliate for the “Globalization, Gender, and Development” project in the Department of Sociology at American University.

The Contemporary US Peace Movement Studies in Social Inequality, Social Change, and Social Justice

Climate Change and Social Justice

Social Defense: Social Change

Service-Learning and Social Justice: Engaging Students in Social Change

Social Justice

Home Ownership and Social Inequality in Comparative Perspective (Studies in Social Inequality)

Understanding Social Inequality

Justice and Interpretation (Studies in Contemporary German Social Thought)

Socialism and the Social Movement

Morality and Social Justice

Education and Social Justice

Analyzing Inequality: Life Chances and Social Mobility in Comparative Perspective (Studies in Social Inequality)

Social Justice and Development

Social Justice and Development

Health and Social Justice

Criminal and Social Justice

Media and Social Justice

Climate Change and Social Justice (Academic Monographs)

Education, Inequality And Social Identity

Social inequality and public health

Social Studies for Social Justice: Teaching Strategies for the Elementary Classroom (Teaching for Social Justice Series)

Social Causes of Psychological Distress (Social Institutions and Social Change)

Nursing and Social Change

Social Change and Modernity

Social Theory, Social Change and Social Work (State of Welfare)

Self and Social Change

Discourse and social change

The Contemporary US Peace Movement Studies in Social Inequality, Social Change, and Social Justice

Climate Change and Social Justice

Social Defense: Social Change

Service-Learning and Social Justice: Engaging Students in Social Change

Social Justice

Home Ownership and Social Inequality in Comparative Perspective (Studies in Social Inequality)

Understanding Social Inequality

Justice and Interpretation (Studies in Contemporary German Social Thought)

Socialism and the Social Movement

Morality and Social Justice

Education and Social Justice

Analyzing Inequality: Life Chances and Social Mobility in Comparative Perspective (Studies in Social Inequality)

Social Justice and Development

Social Justice and Development

Health and Social Justice

Criminal and Social Justice

Media and Social Justice

Climate Change and Social Justice (Academic Monographs)

Education, Inequality And Social Identity

Social inequality and public health

Social Studies for Social Justice: Teaching Strategies for the Elementary Classroom (Teaching for Social Justice Series)

Social Causes of Psychological Distress (Social Institutions and Social Change)

Nursing and Social Change

Social Change and Modernity

Social Theory, Social Change and Social Work (State of Welfare)

Self and Social Change

Discourse and social change

Recommend Documents