Assignment 6: "Corporatized" & Contemporary Protest

What many have called the “corporatization” of today’s protest ethos reflects the growing number of instances in which social movements take on the trappings of more institutional events, such as a rock concert benefit or a corporate charity fundraiser. Often, this characterization caries a negative connotation accompanied by sentiments that today’s youth do not protest properly or in accordance with traditional, more disruptive methods. Certainly, corporate sponsored events or organizations lack the anti-establishment atmosphere espoused by the movements of the 60’s and 70’s, but are critics justified in the observation that these efforts tend to be less effective than grassroots movements?

The question of effectiveness is tough to pin down. However, a brief analysis of the differences in structure between the two types of movement may shed light on their ultimate product. Grassroots movements tend to organize around social networks and attract passionate participants. They tend to make a difference through disruption of social processes and institutional goals — at the very least a thorn in the system and at most a force capable of destroying it altogether.

Conversely, corporate movements work more within the bounds of institutional processes. By their very nature, these movements leverage existing structures and avenues for change in their efforts. For example, a benefit concert works to raise money that it will then send through traditional channels to remedy a problem.

This difference impacts the effectiveness of a movement. Of course, the ideal approach remains circumstantial. But clearly, corporate movements cannot hope to remedy systemic problems because they must work within the existing social structure. Thus, corporate movements are limited in the scope of change they can hope to achieve.

This limitation, however, provides a tradeoff for movement participants. In exchange for a more restrictive set of limitations, corporate movements have more resources available at their disposal, leveraging the power of existing communications networks and monetary resources to address a problem. It also makes the movement less dangerous to the existing power structure and social system — adventageous or prohibitive depending on the specific goals of the movement.

Therefore, the question of whether a corporate movement remains effective depends on context and the problems being addressed. Certainly, the grievances at issue during the civil rights movement fall outside the scope of institutional remedies because, in most cases, the system legitimized and perpetuated the problems. However — and many environmentalists will disagree — environmental issues may be better suited for a movement protesting through institutional channels.

The major objection to corporate protest movements is its adherence to the existing power structure. Within the movement, chains of command follow the traditional hierarchy of the corporate world, with decisions made at the top of the later with little input from the bottom. (Note that more innovative corporate structures, i.e. Google, have emerged to change this, but my generalization still largely holds true.) Even in cases of nonprofit corporations or entities created for the purpose of solving a social issue, the desire to preserve the corporation — and therefore the problem — inherently restricts the pace and spoke of change. Conventional wisdom suggests that major corporations designed to solve a specific problem will instead perpetuate the problem as a result of the desire to maintain the institutional status quo. As the structural sociologists Hequembourg and Arditi unceremoniously summed up: people need to eat. Ultimately, everyday necessities — a paycheck and a stable job — override the goals of substantial change.

In this respect, traditional extra-intuitional movements have a leg up. They can combat the system directly, undermining its central tenets and core assumptions in innovative ways. For example, the emergence of the non-violent movement that precipitated country-wide sit-ins did much to disrupt social function in a previously unemployed way. Protest innovation — in method or group structure — can foster increased movement effectiveness in ways unavailable to corporate movements.

The corporate movement ethos also has an effect on today’s movement participants. The use of traditional communications channels and marketing circumvents the social networking inherent in most traditional movements. This missing element makes movement participants less likely to be personally connected, and therefore, less likely to remain committed to a movement’s cause. Analyses have confirmed that peer participation plays a pivotal role in ensuring members show up to rallies and movement events. Without that connection, the group cohesion of a corporate movement varies widely and must depend on alternative factors, such as individual incentives, to spur members to action.

The concerns of critics, therefore, are valid in so far as they highlight the inherent limitations of corporate movements and their relation to creating social change. In many ways, these criticisms are borrowed from broad criticism applicable to our entire social/political system.