Level 8

#1Smasher123456Posted 5/24/2011 11:30:42 PM
The evocation of guilt in the bystander, a humane government, obeying the law.

In my opinion there are five ingredients for a good and working response to injustice. These are: the evocation of gulit in the bystander, the obeying of the law, stirring speeches, the solidarity of protest, and a humane government.

The Victorian Shelley, I believe, is the first to get the grasp the connection between guilt and change. In his famous poem, "The Masque of Anarchy", we read the following two stanzas:

With folded arms and steady eyes,
And little fear, and less surprise,
Look upon them as they slay
Till their rage has died away.

'Then they will return with shame
To the place from which they came,
And the blood thus shed will speak
In hot blushes on their cheek.

This stanza explains how protesters used the power of nonviolence and the subsequent effect of guilt to eventually subdue their oppressors with no shed of blood on their part. Though this is obviously referring to the government -- or whoever the protesters are remonstrating against -- the same concept can be applied to bystanders in these events. They see what's happening and, when they do nothing, they are consumed with guilt and are moved to change. This happened with Marting Luther King. People saw black people being mercilessly sprayed with high power hoses and were appalled and thus moved to change.

Shelley's poem however, presupposes that the target of your protest is capable of emotion. This brings me to the point of humanity in government as a prerequisite for a successful protest. Martin Luther King's protest worked here in the U.S. because the U.S. government was a humane one. In this respect it vastly different from the state of emotional and moral affairs in Czechvolkia at this time. The Czechs peacefully protested for more freedom but their protests fell hardly on death and violent ears. Their remonstrations were brutally crushed by the Soviet government. The Soviets had no moral qualms regarding this and this is the major difference and one of the most necessary concerns to consider in a protest. If you demand change through peaceful means in country where the citizens are granted rights be sure that your goals will eventually reach fruition. Demand change in a country where there is a huge lack of regard for human value, and your protest will be in vain.

In the first line of the first stanza we read the lines, "With folded arms and steady eyes". What this means is that these dissidents are not doing anything remotely illegal and are in fact following the law. They are following the same creed and line of thinking espoused by King, Ghandi, and originally, Tolstoy: that nonviolence and the implied following of laws will succeed. When you follow on this advice you evoke a great deal of sympathy from the apathetic bystanders. They cannot brand you crazy roughhousing hooligans if you are not doing anything blatantly illegal(as they would no doubt to those pesky black-clothed individuals hurling fiery molotov cocktails into the air).
---
"We accept all natural authorities and all influences of fact, but none of right" - Mikhail Bakunin
http://allpsych.com/psychology101/ego.html
#2Smasher123456(Topic Creator)Posted 5/24/2011 11:42:06 PM
Perhaps the most obvious concern is the need for soliarity. A protest is only the random coincidence of a large amount of people in a single area if there is no solidarity.

Speeches are absolutely essential if you you want to get a point across. Both Marting Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X will be perpetually embedded in our literature textbooks thanks to evocative speeches and the their use of rhetorical devices. These speeches arouse sympathy, make connections, paint imagery, and drive change. They are the speeches whose opening lines are quoted non-stop in American History and also sometimes the best written representation of what a movement wants. With this in mind speeches are an absolute concern for anybody looking for change.
---
"We accept all natural authorities and all influences of fact, but none of right" - Mikhail Bakunin
http://allpsych.com/psychology101/ego.html