Bill Winders is Professor of Sociology in the School of History and Sociology at Georgia Tech. One of the courses he teaches regularly is HTS 3068: Social Movements.

Over the years, some of my research has examined different aspects of social movements, including how social movements influence political policies. I am pleased to have this opportunity to reflect on the current and historic protests about racial injustice and inequality that have enveloped the country.

The scale and persistence of these protests are remarkable. We have not seen such widespread and ongoing protests like this for several decades, that have struck scores of cities throughout the United States – and even across the globe. This is clearly an historic moment, and there is a palpable sense of change in the country.

Many people have raised questions about protests and their efficacy, and I would like to respond to a couple of questions that I have heard in recent weeks:

*Is voting or protest more important?

*Which are more effective – peaceful protest or violent uprisings (e.g., riots)?

*How effective are protests? What can they accomplish?

First question: Is voting or protest more important? This complex question has a relatively simple answer:  they are both important. Therefore, this is really the wrong question to be asking. Instead, we need to consider how voting and protest fit together.

It is important to see voting and protest as compatible and complementary in fundamental ways. For example, after voting and elections occur, some people’s voices are not heard and their votes can be forgotten. Protests provide a way for those people to continue to influence politics. That is, protest can allow people to continue to advocate for the things that they voted for. Protests can put pressure on elected officials, and we have seen this with the recent protests.

In addition, protests and social movements tend to increase voter turnout. My own research shows that social movements can increase voter turnout in two ways. First, social movements often register people to vote and get them to the polls. This is crucial, especially in a system in which political parties focus so heavily on fundraising.

Second, social movements increase people's sense of political efficacy -- that is, the extent to which people feel that they can influence the government and its policies. Greater political efficacy leads to higher voter turnout.

When movements and protests win concessions, they demonstrate that people can influence government and politics. So, those who want more people to vote in November should encourage the protests and help make them successful. The kinds of responses that we have seen to protests so far should help to boost turnout in November.

Second question: Are peaceful protests or violent uprisings (e.g., riots) more effective? Again, this is not really the question that we should be asking. The history of protests and social movements in the United States shows us that both kinds of protest can contribute to change. Therefore, we need to understand when each kind of protest – peaceful and violent – are successful.

Let me draw on one example from the Civil Rights Movement: the Birmingham campaign in 1963. This protest campaign saw police dogs, firehoses, and much police force and violence unleashed on protesters.  After months of non-violent marches, demonstrations, and boycotts, the movement compelled Birmingham to end segregation in the city.  The federal government, however, had little reaction to these non-violent protests or to the violent responses that local authorities had to this protest campaign.  Shortly after Martin Luther King, Jr., left Birmingham, a bomb exploded near the hotel where he had stayed during the protests. The black community in Birmingham responded with violent uprisings and riots, which then spread to other cities around the country.

In response to the violent uprisings and riots sweeping the nation, President Kennedy addressed the nation on television, announcing that he would push for civil rights legislation. The following year President Johnson signed the legislation Kennedy had promised, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is the among the most important civil rights legislation in our history.

Whether non-violent or violent protest is successful depends on the political and economic contexts that surround the movement. It is important to see how different kinds of protests, strategies, and tactics can contribute to the success and failure movements.  In fact, social movement scholars have long recognized a “radical flank effect,” in which the emergence of new protest tactics and ideologies can make existing ones seem more moderate and acceptable. As the civil rights movement began in the middle of the twentieth century, some southern states outlawed the “radical and menacing” NAACP. Years later, however, the emergence of direct actions by students and confrontations by black power organizations made the litigation pursued by the NAACP seem quite moderate and acceptable.

Similarly today, the widespread and growing protests – along with the eruption of violent uprisings and riots early in this protest cycle – has helped to make “Black Lives Matter” more widely accepted among the public and has also significantly increased donations to the cause. Organizations including the NFL, NASCAR, Amazon, Target, and many others have acknowledged the protests as appropriate and responded positively toward them. Ideas, tactics, and goals that once seemed “radical” suddenly seem more acceptable and even appropriate.

Third question: What can protests accomplish? Simply put – a lot. I think that the current protests have demonstrated that. There have been many concrete and clear victories and concessions won by the protests, and here are a few:

(1) Protests can change policies: The City Council in Minneapolis stated it would create a “new, transformative model for cultivating safety,” Democrats in Congress are proposing police reform, and local officials in across the country are changing policies governing police departments (e.g., banning choke-holds, and limiting the use of no-knock warrants).

(2) Protests can make governments reconsider monuments and symbols of racism and discrimination: The City of Philadelphia removed a statue of the former mayor Frank Rizzo, who aggressively policed African Americans in the 1960s and 1970s and who has long been criticized as a symbol of racism; Confederate and other monuments have been removed from cities such as Tuscaloosa, Richmond, Louisville, and many others.

(3) Protests can change public opinion: Protests can increase the awareness of racial inequality, discrimination, and violence; and they can help white people recognize injustice and prompt them to join the protests. The current protests have certainly accomplished this.

These are important questions: how protests fit within our politics, how different kinds of protest matter, and what protests can accomplish. But, we need to think about these questions in nuanced ways to really grasp how historic this moment is and how much change is possible because of it.

Interested in reading more?  SLS recommends this article or this article.

Tag: cm2020