Resistance is not Futile: Some Practical Know How
by Tedd Siegel
As was mentioned in RINF #1, the starting point for thinking about becoming involved in street level protest or civil disobedience (for people who have not felt so compelled in the past) is the current unprecedented threat posed to our democratic republican traditions by a rising fascist authoritarianism. We are accustomed, under normal circumstances, to take certain things for granted: as citizens we have certain guarantees and prerogatives; we assume that the legitimacy of state power resolves to popular sovereignty, or what in the Enlightenment they called ‘the general will.’ So, our reflex is to make arguments in order to persuade, to rely on institutional check and balances, and to petition. However, vulnerable minorities have always known better.
At first blush, it’s a bit disconcerting to think that we need to be trained in non-violence. After all, most of us get through our adult life without committing violent crimes, right? The trick about non-violence is learning how to practice it under duress, and in concert with others.
It is the strong conviction of In Dark Times that mass demonstrations of active resistance are going to be necessary. Bad things are going to happen to the vulnerable among us. We will need to witness them in large numbers and in person. We will need to pierce the veil of corporate media framing of events. We will need to show that a representative sampling of sixty million voters are prepared to witness truth, confront the powerful, and find all manner of ways to resist.
For people considering participation in direct action, it helps to have some practical know how about what it is all about. The following summary points are taken from my experience with ACT UP and Radical Faeries in the 80s, and can be found in a compendium called ACT UP Civil Disobedience Training. ACT UP New York adapted other material available from the War Resister’s League; but the ACT Up formula remains, in my view, unique in a number of respects that will be made clear below.
Civil Disobedience Training: Non-Violence
At first blush, it’s a bit disconcerting to think that we need to be trained in non-violence. After all, most of us get through our adult life without committing violent crimes, right? The trick about non-violence is learning how to practice it under duress, and in concert with others. To be able to understand non-violence as an active form of resistance, to be able to commit oneself that it is better to suffer harm than to commit it, is a process of working out a set of shared commitments with other people, the people with whom you will rely when you step out into active resistance.
In non-violence training, people meet, share ideas, discuss hopes and fears, and build solidarity toward forming affinity groups. Typical non-violence training sessions last up to eight hours, and have 10–25 people, with two trainers. Activities involve discussing non-violence philosophy and practice, role playing exercises (very specific information about how to de-escalate potentially confrontations among other things), training in consensus decision making and conflict resolution, and an introduction to the affinity group concept, including roles/responsibilities within the group.
Civil Disobedience Training: Affinity Groups
Think of affinity groups as self-sufficient “support cells” for civil disobedience actions. Affinity groups provide sub-group coordination (as elective the members are of like mind, and so consensus is easier) and encourage distributed decision-making in the likely event that top down directives and communication become attenuated. Additionally, affinity groups organization limits the risk of infiltrators/spies and agents provocateurs (this is not a jest; this shit happens). Common roles within affinity groups include facilitators, crowd watchers, spokespeople, and support people. Support people play a critical advocacy role, bridging for people getting arrested and “the outside.” Affinity groups plan and prepare, share critical mutual information as well as concerns and preferences. They also have specific roles for during an action, and for after, including what to do at arraignments.
Consensus Decision Making
One of the more striking things about getting involved with activism is finding out that the so-called wild-eyed and angry protesters are usually absolutely committed to both non-violence and consensus decision making. Most people tend to take a dim view of consensus process. It’s time-consuming; it can feel stilted and unnatural; it involves processing other people’s feelings; its more about listening than talking; it results in decisions that involve accommodations rather than winner take all. In some settings, like in business, this approach would likely be disastrous. Most of us work in hierarchical decision making environments, and when not told to do something in the end, otherwise find ourselves in contexts where there is some sort of a vote to decide. However, there are good reasons why, in activist contexts, consensus process is to be preferred. First, because people are coming together on a voluntary basis, and each one has different “lines in the sand” for their participation. These lines start to become bright as the situation changes, so it is important to respect the need of each person to continually reaffirm their consent to what is happening in a group dynamic. Without this, the number of people willing to participate would be much, much smaller. Next, there is the recognition, that to call for justice as fairness is to also practice it. It makes sense that the requirement for fairness and equality in such a context should set a higher bar. Also, honoring this commitment builds group solidarity, which is necessary for people to trust each other enough to take the associated risks. Finally, consensus process minimizes the fracturing of groups into political factions, and it suppresses self-aggrandizement and cult-of-personality effects. During the darkest days of HIV/AIDS organizing in the eighties, there was a clear moral yardstick that always brought things back to true. If anybody became too much of a nuisance, in any of the myriad ways that people invariably can, the polite but unsmiling response was always the same — “people are dying everyday. We don’t have time for this.”
What then, does consensus really mean? Simply put, it means that the input and ideas of all participants are gathered and synthesized to arrive at a final decision acceptable to all. The end goal of consensus process is that nobody felt that his/her position on the matter was misunderstood or that it wasn’t given a proper hearing. To ensure that this occurs, there are some common roles, mentioned earlier: facilitator (neutral in attitude and behavior); “vibes watcher” (comments on the dynamics); recorder.
A proposal for decision is put forward; it is amended and modified through discussion, or withdrawn if it seems unlikely that a consensus can be reached from the get go. Ideally, differences are articulated clearly. It is the responsibility of those having trouble with a proposal to put forth alternative suggestions. When a proposal is well understood by all, and no new changes are asked for, the Facilitator(s) ask if there are any objections or reservations. Hearing none after a moment of silence, the decision is then repeated and recorded.
In the alternative scenario, there are several acceptable ways to object: there is stating your indifferent non-support, but acceptance; there is stating your reservations, but acceptance; there is standing aside, saying that one can’t do it, but won’t block others from doing so; and there is blocking consensus. If a proposal is blocked, the group either returns to the status quo ante on the issue, or drops it. Naturally, if this occurs more than infrequently, the composition of the group is called into question (individuals will likely decide to find another group of like-minded individuals, people with whom they have natural affinity.
Planning Demonstrations
As was mentioned previously, the importance of having clear goals and longer term strategies (with paths of escalation) cannot be under estimated. The activity of protest, demonstrations, direct action/civil disobedience, etc., upsets, scares, and inconveniences other people, often those who are not the intended target. Planning actions should always involve asking hard questions about the prospects for winning hearts and minds.
Once the choreography has been established (including any planned CD), there is the question of whether to obtain a permit. Permits should be obtained if the demo involves amplified sound, if the demo is large, and if it is moving from one place to another. Demonstrators should be sure to bring ID, plan on being searched, and understand the practical and legal consequences of arrest. If there is planned civil disobedience as part of the action, a CD monitor should be appointed to watch and record, collect vital information, etc.
All parties should know their demonstrator free speech rights: free speech is permitted in public fora; however reasonable time/place/manner restrictions are allowable, and anything resembling incitement to riot is a bad idea. Demonstrators that march should stay on the sidewalk; police react to signs mounted on wooden sticks. During demos, plan to stay with your group, but expect that you are likely to separated. Common CDs are blocking building entrances or traffic, and then being arrested. Police usually issue a brief warning before making arrests where there is CD, so people who want to leave should be able to go without interference or recrimination.
Common charges associated with civil disobedience are disorderly conduct and trespassing; these “violations” are equivalent to a moving traffic violation, so you will be ticketed and released. Next up is resisting arrest, which is a misdemeanor. People so charged are usually released, but being held over is not out of the question. Next is “riot in the second degree.” This means that you urged or participated in property damage or had some measure of responsibility for an injury — this is a felony. If so charged, you are not released, and you are going through the system. Once in front of a judge, the judge decides whether to release until the next court date.
Risking Arrest
The decision to participate in non-violent CD is also the decision to risk arrest. We say risk, because confronting police when violating laws comes with risks, and there are practical, legal, and future consequences to having been arrested.
People who are either planning to get arrested, or think they might end up arrested in relation to a non-violent CD should be well prepared for contact with “the system.” Non-violent CD is about open confrontation and noncooperation, not about garden variety criminal behavior. The fact that the actions taken are so taken in accordance with conscience continue to play out in various ways once in custody. There are a number of different approaches that can be taken during this phase, and these should be discussed during planning. There are choices to be made at the time of arrest, during processing and booking, at arraignment, and during trial if it comes to that.
Finally, there is the aspect of “having a record” if you are convicted of a misdemeanor crime. Unfortunately, ending up in the FBI database, even where charges ended up being dropped, can have impact on employment opportunities for years to come. Government jobs, for example, are not a good bet. On the other hand, people become activists for a reason. Often, by the time it comes to this point for any given person, they have already crossed the bridge and decided that the decision to actively resist injustice supersedes the possible consequences.
Acting Up Today
These are the rudiments of street level activism, as I remember them, and as found in the ACT UP materials that I reviewed in writing this introduction. When we were Acting Up in the 80s, the internet was in infancy, and the mobile internet, smart phones, streaming video, etc., weren’t even imaginable to most people. It is likely that the tactics and challenges of activism over the last decade have evolved substantially due to wifi and cloud resources, and the reality of significantly higher levels of surveillance. In the days immediately following the election, I watched a news story about a large meeting of street activists in NYC that was called to begin to plan generalized resistance. Amazingly, the story was accompanied by video of the meeting itself, from inside the meeting hall. The camera panned from the lectern, and lazily swept across the faces of the people who were assembled there. I don’t expect we will be seeing this level of naivete for very much longer.
