��ɫ��

In the 1960s, protesters took to American streets demanding social change, political change and an end to war, and it seems as though we’ve entered a new age of unrest over the past few months with mass protests against the Trump administration, like the nationwide "No Kings" demonstrations held June 14.

In 1963, American legal scholar and Yale professor Thomas Emerson wrote that this type of free expression “operates, in short, as a catharsis throughout the body politic.” In other words, protesting allows us to purge ourselves of emotions, like anger and frustration, that might otherwise remain pent up, perhaps to the detriment of a cohesive society.

Can rallies and demonstrations also actually be a catalyst for change?

What history says

You can certainly point to many successful protest movements in our nation’s history, beginning with the protests against British taxation that gave birth to the American Revolution. Fair treatment of workers, women’s suffrage and civil rights were all achieved through mass demonstrations.

More recent protests for a higher minimum wage and protests against police brutality following the deaths of minorities at the hands of law enforcement brought awareness to these issues and were at least partially successful in spurring change.

As for the question of what ultimately makes a protest successful, the answer is complicated.

Academic perspective

Kelly Bergstrand, associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Arlington, has studied social movements for years. She said a major factor in whether coordinated protests are successful is the political environment in which they occur.

Are the people in power sympathetic to the protesters’ goals? If so, there’s a good chance of success. If not, calls for change are unlikely to influence policy.

The goals themselves are another factor.

“I think a lot of people fixate on social movements having federal change, national change, and that’s not necessarily where we see the changes,” she said. “You can see changes at local levels, city levels, state levels. You can have corporations changing practices.”

Unsurprisingly, it’s hard, she said, to achieve large-scale goals like ending racism or bringing about world peace. However, protests often achieve goals that go largely unnoticed but are nonetheless effective.

“When people engage in protest, there’s a lot of hope,” Bergstrand said. “You want something to change. No one’s listening to you, and you go out there with a lot of hope. When the nitty gritty actually settles, it’s not a transformed world nine times out of 10. But it’s these little micro changes that take a long time. You know, maybe your co-worker has a different conversation with you at your desk than they might have five years ago. Maybe a TV show portrays actors and actresses a little differently.”

Bergstrand believes the Black Lives Matter protests against police brutality were an example of that. She said the movement’s organizers perhaps didn’t achieve all they set out to achieve, but several cities across the country adopted new policies, like banning police choke holds, that reflect a shift in mindset.

The 2011 Occupy Wall Street protests, where activists rallied against wealth inequality in America, were another example of this. The Occupy movement was criticized for being disjointed and not having sufficiently specific goals, but experts agree that it did, at the very least, open up a conversation around income disparity that continues today.

Current administration

Bergstrand said social movements often take time to gain momentum and influence. The civil rights movement was most fervent from the mid 1950s to the late 1960s, but in some ways it continues today. Scholars point to the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848 as being the start of the women’s suffrage movement, but women didn’t get the right to vote until 1920.

Only time will tell, then, if this year’s demonstrations will achieve their goals. They have two ingredients that Bergstrand said help a protest movement’s chances of success: numbers and a well-defined focal point.

The focal point is, of course, President Donald Trump and his administration’s policies related to things like immigration, the economy and federal spending. As far as numbers, multiple media outlets reported that more than 5 million people attended the "No Kings" protests around the country.

The more people they have, the more attention these protests get and the more likely they are to force people in charge to take notice, either out of fear of political reprisal or fear over the cost of simmering resentment in the country.

Role of violence

In some cases protests turn violent. On June 10, the city of Los Angeles enacted a curfew to combat looting and vandalism during anti-deportation protests. There were also reports of demonstrators hurling objects at police.

Hundreds of active-duty U.S. Marines and thousands of National Guard troops were deployed to Los Angeles to help maintain order. But many, including California Gov. Gavin Newsom, called these deployments unnecessary, saying they further inflamed tensions.

The BBC reported that “law enforcement used tear gas, rubber bullets and flash bangs to control the crowd” during the Los Angeles protests.

Bergstrand said violence gets people’s attention, so more people are more likely to see what’s happening. But violence on the part of protesters is often viewed negatively, whereas police or military violence against protesters can make people more sympathetic to the demonstrators’ cause. As for whether peaceful protests are more successful than violent ones, Bergstrand said, it all depends on the situation.

When Erica Chenoweth, a Harvard professor, looked at more than 100 years of protests, she and her fellow researchers discovered that nonviolent political protests were twice as effective as ones that relied on violence.

As for Emerson’s belief that protests are a way of blowing off steam, Bergstrand doesn’t necessarily see it that way. She sees it as a legitimate way for everyday people, especially marginalized people, to have a say in things.

“Protesting is for people who feel like they have no other choice to have their voice heard,” she said. “It is the power of the people, because a lot of people are excluded from political systems. They don’t have the political power, the money and the access."

“I’m sure it’s probably not as effective as having $200 million to fund congressional races. But (protesters) don’t have $200 million," she said. "What they have is their voice and their body. That’s it.”