Author: William Yagatich
On September 21, 2014, University of Maryland Sociologist and PSE Director Dr. Dana R. Fisher led a group of researchers into New York City to conduct a survey of people who participated in the People’s Climate March (PCM). While the actual number of demonstrators has been disputed, with estimates ranging from 125,000 to 400,000(1), the PCM is heralded as the largest demonstration to call for action on global climate change in history. Our research team spread out across the staging area for the march, collecting surveys from 468 respondents in total. We kept track of where survey respondents gathered before the demonstration—giving us the ability to analyze the data at the block level. And for good reason. Aside from being the largest climate change demonstration, the social movement organization, 350.org, planned the organization of the march in a very unique and particular way.
In order to make a broader and more general appeal, the organizers intended to gather a great diversity of groups and people. At the same time, organizers arranged for participants to gather at specific block locations so that each group could be visually recognized and attributed a specific voice in the call for action on climate change. The planning of the demonstration was meant to accomplish two goals: to showcase the array of actors involved in the climate movement and to create a call to arms that world leaders could no longer ignore. As the organizers said, “To make that happen, we’re trying something new and arranging the contingents of the march in a way that helps us thread our many messages together” (2). To accomplish these goals, they attempted grouping people into one of six contingents as pictured below.
In order to make a broader and more general appeal, the organizers intended to gather a great diversity of groups and people. At the same time, organizers arranged for participants to gather at specific block locations so that each group could be visually recognized and attributed a specific voice in the call for action on climate change. The planning of the demonstration was meant to accomplish two goals: to showcase the array of actors involved in the climate movement and to create a call to arms that world leaders could no longer ignore. As the organizers said, “To make that happen, we’re trying something new and arranging the contingents of the march in a way that helps us thread our many messages together” (2). To accomplish these goals, they attempted grouping people into one of six contingents as pictured below.
Each of the block group contingents were meant to contain a cadre of smaller groups. For example, “The Debate is Over” block was meant to be composed of scientists, beekeepers, supporters of ‘Save the Arctic’, ‘Wildlife Preservation’, and ‘Healthy Lifestyles and Spiritual Practices’ movements, and faith communities (you can read a more detailed description of the contingents here).
So, why does this matter?
So, why does this matter?
Aside from being a new tactic to visualize the diversity of the crowd, it reflects a clear trend of social movement professionalization. That is, the role of organizers and their products, the demonstrations and outreach, are increasingly rationalized and made more efficient for the greatest possible impact (3). In other words, when speaking of one measure of social movement professionalization, and in this case demonstrations, the aim of demonstrations is to create a spectacle—getting as many people as possible to show up for a demonstration. The effects are twofold: it creates a sense of solidarity amongst a base of supporters (who may be more likely to contribute to the social movement organization financially) while it garners greater media attention, which is needed for people in positions of authority to care about the issue or movement. This is what makes the PCM so special: the demonstration generated the largest turnout ever. On top of that, 350.org planned to mobilize this turnout in a very organized way, to show just how diverse the climate movement is.
The question is, how successful were they? Reasonably, we would expect to find some differences between these blocks and contingents. If 350.org’s vision of organizing the demonstration was a success, then it follows that we can show these differences statistically from block to block (or in this case, contingent to contingent). While we can continue the social science research that is concerned with who gets involved in these demonstrations, highlighting what may make this demonstration similar or different from those before it on climate change or other issues, we can also begin to address questions concerning the professionalization of social movement organizations and large-scale protest.
No doubt, the PCM was hugely successful when it came to creating a spectacle—a demonstration that is unrivaled in terms of numbers of participants. Looking more closely however, it remains to be seen if we can actually tell those contingents apart from one another once we disregard the names affixed to each of them. Having the block-level data gives us the tools we need to evaluate how effective 350.org was when putting people into separate contingents by testing for statistically significant differences and variation in behaviors like networking, civic engagement, and protest history, and social characteristics like where they are from, their age, and education level. For instance, PSE Fellow Joe Waggle has already written a short piece that appeared on Cyborgology, a blog of The Society Pages, about how a non-statistically significant association was actually an important finding for understanding how survey questions are designed.
With these data, we hope to examine the claim of diversifying the crowd. With analyses such as these, we begin to answer questions that have not been addressed when it comes to the professionalization of social movement organizations, which is due in part to the unique case that the PCM presents. While there is no question that 350.org intended to send the message “Here Comes Everyone,” and did a great job of presenting that image to popular media, it remains to be seen whether or not the numbers will support that success story.
The question is, how successful were they? Reasonably, we would expect to find some differences between these blocks and contingents. If 350.org’s vision of organizing the demonstration was a success, then it follows that we can show these differences statistically from block to block (or in this case, contingent to contingent). While we can continue the social science research that is concerned with who gets involved in these demonstrations, highlighting what may make this demonstration similar or different from those before it on climate change or other issues, we can also begin to address questions concerning the professionalization of social movement organizations and large-scale protest.
No doubt, the PCM was hugely successful when it came to creating a spectacle—a demonstration that is unrivaled in terms of numbers of participants. Looking more closely however, it remains to be seen if we can actually tell those contingents apart from one another once we disregard the names affixed to each of them. Having the block-level data gives us the tools we need to evaluate how effective 350.org was when putting people into separate contingents by testing for statistically significant differences and variation in behaviors like networking, civic engagement, and protest history, and social characteristics like where they are from, their age, and education level. For instance, PSE Fellow Joe Waggle has already written a short piece that appeared on Cyborgology, a blog of The Society Pages, about how a non-statistically significant association was actually an important finding for understanding how survey questions are designed.
With these data, we hope to examine the claim of diversifying the crowd. With analyses such as these, we begin to answer questions that have not been addressed when it comes to the professionalization of social movement organizations, which is due in part to the unique case that the PCM presents. While there is no question that 350.org intended to send the message “Here Comes Everyone,” and did a great job of presenting that image to popular media, it remains to be seen whether or not the numbers will support that success story.
RSS Feed