Protest as Language: What Demonstrations Say When Policy Will Not

Demonstrating is a dialect of politics. When the official venues don’t move, when committees stop hearing without acting, when representation becomes platitudinous – At those moments, our physical presence makes our voices heard.

Acts of protest aren’t bills. They’re not designed to meet in the middle. There’s strength in their vagueness. You can’t parachute policy recommendations into the Senate from a protest; however, you can raise awareness, potentially shift societal standards, and draw attention to injustice.

Critics will often say that recent protests lack specific demands. But this is asking them to do the work of congressional oversight. Legislation solves problems; protesters identify them.

Dozens of smaller demonstrations happening over the course of a few years will not create change. Mass protests will only move the needle if they’re strategic about their targets’ pressure points: around elections, budget deadlines, hearings, etc. Mass protests at other times will likely only build up frustration and become normalized.

Marches also convey what type of behavior is acceptable to those in power. Are they tolerant? Ruthless? Responsive? When there’s little political will to change something, a protest can still force our leaders to make an example out of the demonstrators. Though no new laws may have been made, the public still learns how their voices will be received.

I worry that Americans have become too comfortable with protesting. Protests are only as effective as their shock value. If we’re always hitting the streets, there’s no distinction between action and inaction. As frustrations boil over, activists are then faced with another decision: escalate their tactics, become a lobbying group, or disband.

Demonstrating is not legislating, but refusing to listen should discredit your ability to lead.