How to Detect the Effectiveness of Social Movements - Coursework Example

THE ‘SUCCESS’ AND EFFECTS OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: BRITAIN by and Number Location of Submission Introduction Social movements have taken many forms over time since Alexis de Tocqueville in 1848 along his route to Parliament noticed people putting up barricades in protest against government actions. He described their behaviour as ‘not like criminals being caught in flagrante dilecto, but like good workmen who wanted to do their job expeditiously and well’ (Tarrow, 1998:29). This was a mass gathering of souls tired of old tyrannies, seeking to pressure the political powers that be for changes important to the quality of their lives. People were organising for purpose, as they had over time to mixed results. While mass social movement as power in numbers seemed a logical vehicle for political and societal change, these changes as desired did not come easily or necessarily in the forms intended by their proponents. Social Movements Come to the UK From the days in the early nineteenth century, when a popular coalition brought down the monarch of Charles V in the later part of the century, the tendency toward mass movements had been growing as a popular uprising of sorts against government power versus the rights of people. Reverberations from France’s ‘revolutionary propensities’ (Tilly, 2005: 285) had naturally spread to Great Britain, where politicians for good reason began to fret that similar actions would be forthcoming and disruptive. As early as 1830 Tilly (2005) reports incidences including the Duke of Wellington and the London Police receiving offensive shouts from onlookers regarding a current institution of martial law. ‘Chastened by the experience’ , (Tilly, 2005:287) Parliament introduced motions to limit the practice—a move immediately countered by Wellington. Yet royalist opposition or no, the growing tendency toward social movements had begun and there was no stopping its course. Contention between the people and government powers was here to stay, and along with it a series of social movements [two of which are the focus of this paper] which forever affected relationships between the people and their government. The Chartist Movement: A Harbinger of Things to Come Everett (1987, par. 1-2) describes the movement as ‘a radical campaign for parliamentary reform of inequities remaining after the [passage of] the Reform Act of 1832. The term ‘radical’ may be used advisedly, depending upon which class and social status of the day was describing the movement. The middle and upper classes found the Six Step demands of William Lovell’s “People’s Charter” a frightening threat to their hold over society, with its ‘radical list of: votes for all men; equal electoral districts; abolition of the requirement that Members of Parliament be property owners; payment for M.P.s; annual general elections; and the secret ballot. (Everett 1987: par. 1-2). A precursor to the Chartist movement, the London Working Men’s Association and other movement organisations had promoted equality for the working classes. By the mid-1800s, their leaders had determined that democracy and its practices was the only practicable route to social equality and justice. What they did not know, or realise was that those forces presenting themselves as democratic would work against such equality in ways that would undermine any movement’s attempt to rectify ills. By 1839 the Chartists had collected one and a quarter million signatures in support of the Charter which, in that same year, was summarily rejected by a vote of 235 to 46 by the middle and upper class dominated House of Commons. Discouraged and angered at the slight, many of the movement’s leaders threatened to call for a general nationwide strike and were soon arrested. Incensed, their supporters marched on the prison where their compatriots were being held and soldiers fired on them, killing twenty-four and wounding forty. A second petition with three million signatures was again rejected in 1842; another setback in 1848 so discouraged its proponents that it all but ended the movement. (Everett, 1987). As one of the first major movements by the working class, the Chartist’s are generally considered in political retrospect as utopian and overreaching in their demands. (Tarrow, 1998) This lack of focus undoubtedly diluted its central message of power for the underclasses and thus its effectiveness and perceived success as a public outcry for social justice. In addition, the framers of the Charter and its adherents may have been naïve regarding their power as a movement against forces beyond their control. As Hovell (1917) suggests, they placed far too great a faith in the beneficient effects of logically devised democratic machinery’ (3). Yet despite its overly ambitious goals, the development of its Charter served notice to the powerful entities in government whose laws and practices stifled the social progress of the underclass. It was the first time the working class, en masse, brought before the British nation and its government a serious challenge to the social, political and economic status quo. Within a few years working men had forced upon their attention the pros and cons of trade unionism, industrial unionism, syndicalism, communism, socialism, co-operative ownership of land, land nationalization, co-operative distribution, co-operative production, co-operative ownership of credit, franchise reform, electoral reform, woman suffrage, factory legislation, poor law reform, municipal reform, free trade, freedom of the press, freedom of thought, the nationalist idea, industrial insurance, building societies, and many other ideas. The purpose of the Peoples Charter was to effect joint action between the rival schools of reformers; but its result was to bring more new ideas on to the platform, before a larger and keener audience. (West, 1920: 6) In the end it is proposed that the keener minds of the movement actually realised the futility of gaining all their demands given the surreptitious forces at work. The Charter and its presentation, however, was first in a long line of battles to come, battles in which change for the working classes would come slowly through other social and political movements. As a movement the Chartists can take credit for the education of the British public to the needs and demands of the underclass as a serious and resounding social issue needing to be addressed. The movement, then, can be considered at minimum a successful educational tool against the ‘forces of ignorance, vice and feudal and aristocratic tradition’ (Hovell, 1917: 3). The Women’s Suffrage Movement: Evolution toward Militancy and Victory It seems counterintuitive, but in Britain in the earlier 1800s women were actually not formally prohibited from voting until the passage of the Reform Act and the Municipal Corporations Act of 1832 and 1835 respectively. The situation prompted noted parliamentarian and supporter of women’s suffrage John Stuart Mills to pose On May 20, 1867 to the House of Commons the following conundrum: If the law denied a vote to all but the possessors of 5,000 pounds a year, the poorest man in the nation might - and now and then would – acquire the suffrage; but neither birth, nor fortune, nor merit… nor intellect…can ever enable any woman to have her voice counted…’ in those national affairs which touch her and hers as nearly as any other person in the nation. (Varty, 2000: 121) While discussions regarding women’s suffrage were ongoing throughout the early and mid part of the century, it was not until 1872 and the formation of the National Society for Women’s Suffrage that the issue evolved into a national movement of consequence. Begun in 1865 with a London discussion group known as the Kensington Society—a gathering of women mostly interested in forwarding the goals of their gender medicine and education. Before long, the group eventually and quickly evolved another arm, the Manchester Committee for the Enfranchisement of Women, which, unlike the Chartists, gave their full undivided attention to women’s suffrage. (Simpkin, 1997) In April 1868 its leader, Lydia Becker, at its first public meeting laid out the group’s complaint that the exclusion of women from the electoral process was not only ‘unjust in principle’ but ‘inexpedient in practice’ (Harrison, 2000:5), and that women should accept nothing less than election rights equal to men. The demand remained the sole focus of the Manchester Committee as well as others in the sixty-year fight for equal voting rights finally achieved in 1928. There is little doubt that the subsequent evolution of the movement to militancy had a significant impact on the social history of gender in Britain, as well as implications for intellectual traditions of both the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. (Mayhall, 2003) While the movement began as essentially a social, political and constitutional argument, its political evolution to more liberal and perhaps radical methods can be credited for its eventual success—certainly for its encouragement of ‘citizen engagement’ (Mayhall, 2003: 9) for women with a cause. It is in this respect that the movement had its most profound impact. No longer could it be assumed that women would fight their battle for justice and equality in the dark chambers of government. Having placed their faith in the Independent Labour Party to achieve their goal, many had become disenchanted by its ‘half-hearted’ (Trueman, 2000-2011: par 2) efforts on the part of women’s political rights in general. If rights were ever to be fully gained, more pressure would have to be put on both the ILP and the Parliament to the result of ‘Deeds, not words’ (Trueman, 2000-2010: par. 3). The effectiveness of the movement is perhaps best evaluated not only from the standpoint of its eventual success, but from its willingness over time to strengthen and evolve through myriad political struggles and periodic attrition of interest, to a point by 1905 of militancy. (Trueman, 2000-2011). A majority of women disapproved of militant actions (Simpkin, 1997). Yet, it is questionable whether the eventual goal of suffrage would have been achieved had it not been for groups such as The Women’s Political and Social Union and their more aggressive agenda. Confrontational tactics such as civil disobedience, parades and sandwich board-wearing protestors, and the issuance of suffrage propaganda allowed women ‘to appropriate traditional male rituals of popular politics’ (Borda, 2002: 1). Montefiore and Universal Suffrage It may be said that the successes of the suffrage movement over time were incremental. Yet with the tenacity, ability to organize and the commitment of leaders such as Dorothy Montefiore toward more militant action surely propelled the movement forward to the universal goal. Her protests in the House of Commons, non-payment of taxes and other acts of civil disobedience as a member of Women’s Social and Political Union are noteworthy. It is also important to note, as part of any commentary of the “successes” of the suffrage movement in Britain, that the results of the movement far outstripped the issue of the vote. ‘For Montefiore…and numerous other suffragettes, the struggle for human freedom resonated across a spectrum of coercive relations’ (Mayhall, 2003: 96). As such, the effects of the movement on attitudes regarding universal freedom for not just women is an important topic when discussing the success of the movement in universal terms. In an article dated April 15, 1909 with the unlikely title ‘Why I am Opposed to Female Suffrage’, Montefiore clearly states in her response to an article by Bax her opposition to his ‘staccato shriek of “women as a sex being organically inferior to men”…[as she clarifies that equality for women in not a ‘feminist [political] dogma’ but a ‘human dogma’ (Montefiore, 1909: par 1). In stating this she removes the question of suffrage away from the realm of gender and into one of social and political relevance for both genders. Further expanding the notion, she goes on to include both sexes in the goal of ‘human’ suffrage, a position firmly put forth in the Parliament’s final acquiescence in approving universal suffrage for men over twenty-one in 1918 and its extension to all women in 1928. Conclusion The question becomes, how to evaluate the success or failure of a social movement. In essence, given what we have found, it might be said that in terms of an extended view any social movement, while not necessarily achieving its immediate goal(s), must be examined for its affect on subsequent political and social policy. The success or failure of both the Chartist and suffrage movements are largely judged by political criteria [Did the system give in to demands?]. Both of these movements, however, contained strong social elements of class and gender which are often excluded from these judgments. In the Chartists we have a male underclass seeking equality under the law. Though eventually laws changed to reflect a more equitable political situation for the working class, according to a 2007 Guardian/ICM poll ‘Britain remains a nation dominated by class division’ (Glover 2007; par 1).Yet other views suggest that its failure to secure legal remedies is offset by its general accreditation as the precursor of the trade union movement and, ‘the gradually improving organisation of the working classes, the Labour Party, the co-operative movement, and whatever greater triumphs labour will enjoy in the future’(West, 1920:294-295). A much more fragmented movement than suffrage because of its disparate goals, it is interesting to note that from a future perspective, ideas regarding a working class struggle against an ‘international ruling class’ (Schoyen 1958: 185) resonates today in the often violent demonstrations against the G-8 and its control over workers and world economies. As far as the suffrage movement, most today still gauge its success in relation to its perceive goal: electoral suffrage (Kent 1990). As a movement one might conclude the same as a more clear if long fought success in battle. As with the Chartist movement, however, one must look beyond the immediate to ancillary goals that were achieved. The suffrage movement and its tenacity over time can lay claim to successes immediate and beyond in both the political and social arenas. As a women’s movement it can be assuredly said that the tireless work and dedication overtime of numerous women did much to change notions of women, their role and contributions to in society. That the suffrage movement certainly contributed more to universal suffrage can not be denied, as the charge that the Chartist movement was certainly more narrow in its gender goals. Bibliography Borda, J.L. (2002) ‘The Woman Suffrage Parades of 1910-1913: Possibilities and Limitations of an Early Feminist Rhetorical Strategy’. Western Journal of Communication, Vol. 66 (1), 25+ www.questia.com Everett, G. (1987) ‘Chartism or the Chartist Movement’. [Online] The Victorian Web. Available at: http://www.victorianweb.org/history/hist3.html (Accessed 4, March 2011). Glover, J. (2007) ‘Riven by Class and No Social Mobility: Britain in 2007’. The Guardian, 20 October. [Online] http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/oct/20/britishidentity.socialexclusion (Accessed 4, March 2011. Harrison, P. G. (2000) Connecting Links: The British and American Woman Suffrage Movements, 1900-1914. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Hovell, M. ( 1918) The Chartist Movement. Manchester: University of Manchester Kent, S. K. (1990) Sex and Suffrage in Britain 1860-1914. London: Routledge. Mayhall, L.E. Nym. (2003) The Militant Suffrage Movement: Citizenship and Resistance in Britain, 1860-1930. New York: Oxford University Press. Montefiore, D. B. (1909) ‘Why I am Opposed to Female Suffrage’ (transcribed by Ted Crawford). Social Democrat, Vol. XIII (4 ): 150-155. [Online] Available at: http://www.marxists.org/archive/montefiore/1909/04/heresy.htm (Accessed 3, March 2011) Schoyen, A.R. (1958) The Chartist Challenge: A Portrait of George Julian Harney. London: Heinemann US. Simpkin, J. (1997). ‘National Union of Suffrage Societies’. [Online] Spartacus Educational. Available at: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Wnuwss.htm (Accessed 5 March, 2011). Tarrow, S.G. (1998) Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tilly, C. (2005) Popular Contention in Great Britain, 1758-1834. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers. Trueman, C. (2000-2011)‘Women’s Social and Political Union’. [Online] Available at: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/womens_social_political_union.htm (Accessed 4 March, 2011) Varty, A. (2000) Eves Century: A Sourcebook of Writings on Women and Journalism, 1895-1918. London: Routledge. West, J. (1920) A History of the Chartist Movement. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Read More