The Silent Forces of Social Change: Going beyond Protests
The example of the pro-Palestine protests we have been witnessing should teach us that demonstrations and activism cannot be the sole drivers of social development. The only cases where civil disobedience may work are when the silent majority is already on the side of the protesters. This should serve as a valuable lesson for freedom-seeking communities in nondemocratic countries: to focus on fostering and improving the civil society that can eventually age out of its oppressive political system.
The evolution of social values, priorities, norms, and practices has always been distinct to human beings. Unlike animals whose behavior and instincts change very slowly through the process of biological evolution, humans operating in social structures have developed an ability to quickly adapt to changing circumstances. This tendency broadly contributed not only to scientific discoveries and innovation but also to the gradual humanization and moral development of a people. In our age, we enjoy the greatest level of intercultural tolerance in human history, making our society significantly more prosperous than the ones of the past. The factors influencing this social change, however, remain robustly debated in the scientific community. In recent years, popular culture, mass media, and public education have shifted this healthy discourse in a different direction, making conflict theory’s tenet of class struggle a primary driver of social change in the eyes of the public.
The recent surge in pro-Palestinian protests on American university campuses has drawn significant attention to their cause and their methods, resonating across the political spectrum. There has already been a great deal of substantive and fruitful discussion on whether the protestors’ goals are just and achievable; thus, I find it necessary to step back from the particular circumstances and facts about these protests and “zoom out” to analyze some broader and more consequential matters.
The demands of the protesting students differed from campus to campus but generally included that universities cut financial ties with Israel and companies they say support it. Some groups had even more ambitious plans, agitating for a larger movement to incite a revolution that would “upend the political landscape and qualitatively transform the class struggle in this country and beyond.” The protesters I interacted with insisted that their actions are useful for promoting their cause to the public and mobilizing the masses to join their struggle. Many cited the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s, the Vietnam War protests, the Apartheid South Africa protests, and other key historical demonstrations as evidence of the impact and usefulness of their own protests. I think this list of analogies underscores the thinking of the 18-year-old revolutionaries and sheds some light on the flaws of the modern system of education and the media.
“Instead of discussing social, economic, and political trends that are often very complex and hard to grasp, the education system wants to empower the students to change society for the better.”
In scientific discourse there are two major theories on how societies rearrange themselves and bring about social change. The first one, which is currently dominating the public discourse on this subject, is conflict theory, also known as Marxist theory. It suggests that social change is brought about by economic class struggle and that society is increasingly characterized by a struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. On the other hand, structural functionalism views society as a complex system with different institutions, actors, customs, traditions, and norms that impact the development of society, gradually shifting the “social equilibrium” to a socially desirable one, adapting to changing circumstances within the society.
The popular culture of today often tends to elevate conflict theory through the media and education, emphasizing the role of historical figures such as George Washington, Alexander the Great, or Napoleon. Instead of discussing social, economic, and political trends that are often very complex and hard to grasp, the education system wants to empower the students to change society for the better. For example, instead of discussing the historical developments in culture, economy, science, and politics that led to the Reformation in Europe, middle school teachers tend to oversimplify the process to just Calvin, Luther, and Henry VIII suddenly realizing a need to reform the Church. By that same logic, the American Revolution would be nothing but a butterfly effect triggered by George Washington cutting down a cherry tree during his childhood. Obviously, the biggest benefit of this approach is its simplicity, making it easier to educate children about society and history. This is also its biggest drawback in the long run, as these narratives are hardly representative of reality.
For instance, the phenomenon of the Reformation in sixteenth-century Europe had a number of socio-economic preconditions that formed a fertile ground for these religious movements. The Renaissance philosophy fundamentally upended the medieval notion of the world, challenging established theological and scientific thinking. Technological improvements, such as the invention of letterpress printing by Johannes Gutenberg made books more affordable and allowed greater exchange of ideas, stripping the Catholic monks of their monopoly over book production. Demographically, Europe was still recovering from the Black Death and the second plague pandemic, which wiped out almost half of the continent’s population, in turn leading to a redistribution of wealth not only between common men but also the nobility. As a result of the plague, many people also became more religious, as they interpreted the plague as God’s punishment for sins both of the people and of the clergy. Multiple scandals and corruption within the Catholic Church of the time, which was a major landowner in Medieval Europe, decreased public trust in this institution and attracted other feudal lords who eagerly used this opportunity to seize property from the Church. Economically, the states of Northern Europe who benefitted most from trade through the Hanseatic League were motivated to move on from the control of the Catholic Church that was imposing a mandatory 10 percent tax on top of the taxes introduced by the secular authorities. All of these trends led to the Protestant movement of religious revival and opposition to the Catholic Church, stemming from political, economic, or religious motives. Various political actors with different priorities united to overthrow the status quo that did not satisfy them, resulting in a reshaping of the society. Individuals, be they Henry VIII, Luther, Pope Paul III, Jan Hus, or others, did leave some impact and certainly helped shape the outcome, but each could ultimately be replaced by another figure, with a similar outcome, as the fundamentals that led to this movement remained unchanged.
The fundamental social factors I have previously described were essential in producing these social changes, as there are historical examples of earlier anti-clerical religious movements in Medieval Europe that were not as successful, precisely due to the lack of the aforementioned preconditions. The heresies of Catharism, Lollardy, and Hussites also rejected the teaching of the Catholic Church and sought to dissolve its monopoly over Western Christianity. All of them are generally considered proto-Protestant and appealed to the same social problems as did the leaders of Reformation, but they were not successful, precisely due to the lack of “groundwork.” The society at that time was not prepared for this sort of change, which led to the defeat of these movements.
Conflict theory, on the other hand, formulates social change as a product of never-ending struggle between the oppressors and the oppressed, distorting the complex processes that lead to it into the confines of a primitive zero-sum game. It suggests that a minority that is either strong enough or loud enough can influence the norms of a society, pushing the majority “in the right direction.” Yet society is also able to reject unnatural or foreign constructs imposed upon it. Even if a minority group is able to secure its position through legal means or by government overthrow, society will not necessarily accept the new norms if they go against the existing ones. For example, in spite of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade that established federal abortion rights, the society did not settle on this view. Public opinion has not changed much since 1973, and the issue did not become less controversial; this led to a political campaign against this Supreme Court decision, which resulted in its overturning in 2022. The laws, or any social norms set up and codified by the government, have to align with the moral attitudes of the majority, or they will simply not be enforceable. Imagine if the US Congress passed a law criminalizing contraception: it would hardly be possible to enforce this law, as most of the people would view this as a settled issue. The police would be unlikely to devote sufficient resources to arresting offenders; regular citizens would not report the crime, considering the law unjust; and each incident of arrest on the grounds of this law would spark a political campaign against the “unnatural” law and the lawmakers who passed it.
We can witness this profound gap between the social norms and public laws in modern-day Iran, where the society has “aged out” of the Sharia law and the theocratic regime: according to polling, only 14 percent of Iranians favor the death penalty as mandated by Sharia Law, and 81 percent of Iranians oppose theocratic republic and prefer a democratic government. This rift between public sentiment and rules that govern the society results in movements seeking overthrow of the “unnatural” laws, leading to protests in the end.
As you can see, the success of political protests in changing laws and practices is tied directly with existing social norms. If the cause the protesters attempt to advance is widely popular and is accepted by the society as a norm, then it is effective. For example, the reason BLM protests of 2020 were so successful in getting public attention was due to police brutality and racism being widely considered intolerable and aberrant in our society. In this case, the movement aimed at “politicizing” the public outcry, using it to change laws and policies, as opposed to attempting to change that public opinion. Protests cannot force a change in public opinion, simply because no person changes their position just by encountering a different view on the subject. For example, a classic study at Stanford University had participants with strong views on capital punishment read fictional facts that either supported or contradicted their position. Even after reading the detailed studies, the participants overwhelmingly maintained their original beliefs, selectively focusing on details that confirmed their existing views and dismissing contradictory evidence. Deeply rooted beliefs and attitudes tend to be quite resistant to change, even in the face of contradictory information. The ultimate goal of protesting or debating people with a different opinion is not to persuade but rather to “present yourself,” thereby breaking through their filter bubble. It is hard to change minds by sharing information, evidence, and facts, simply because most people do not form their opinions based on objective data but instead construct their own worldviews through a combination of emotions, conformity, and homophily.
Some might argue that the functionalist theory of social development is too passive, as it denies the necessity of proactive measures to address social problems. This could not be further from the truth! Functionalism does not deny or discourage active involvement of citizens in the development of institutions. The difference lies in understanding of how this change should be carried out. Instead of advocating for revolutionary change achieved through violence and forced prescriptivism of what society should be like, we encourage and welcome everybody’s input through gradual and steady evolution of society and its institutions. Instead of protesting and engaging in senseless activism by preaching to the choir, advocates of any social cause should focus on promoting public awareness of the issue, working on institutional transformation, participating in the democratic process, and being satisfied with small steps in their preferred direction, which often means engaging in pragmatic compromise. Even in the case of the Israel-Hamas War, the position of the Biden administration started to waver not because of the multiple protests that had been taking place since October, but after greater than expected share of “uncommitted” votes in the Michigan and Minnesota democratic primaries. Obviously, voting in the elections, taking part in Congressional hearings, engaging in lobbying, and solidifying and organizing the grassroots movement is less exciting and grandiose than proclaiming a revolution and trying to raise awareness by annoying fellow college students. Yet this is the only way that regular citizens can influence the society without breaking its fundamental structure. The example of the pro-Palestine protests we have been witnessing should teach us a lesson that demonstrations and activism cannot be the sole drivers of social development. The only cases where civil disobedience may work are when the silent majority is already on the side of the protesters. This should serve as a valuable lesson for freedom-seeking communities in nondemocratic countries: placing greater emphasis on fostering and improving civil society can more effectively overcome oppressive political systems.