Does Size Really Matter?

Does Size Really Matter? 

January 21, 2003
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2003-01/21dominick.cfm


By Brian Dominick

It's been since the Million Man March in 1995 that I can recall such a 
stir surrounding disparities in crowd estimates suggested by government 
officials, media outlets and protest organizers, as that being kicked 
up in the wake of the January 18 demonstration in Washington, DC. With 
police estimates at 30,000 and organizers claiming 500,000, the 
discrepancy is vast indeed. But I can't help wondering if the focus on 
quantification of attendance isn't distracting the attention of the 
Left's discussion of demonstrations' efficacy. And, to the extent the 
reported size of a protest is relevant, factors other than sheer 
numbers are being overlooked.

Paradoxically, the low media estimates provide activists a rare angle. 
Those who intend to respond with op-ed letters to the many newspapers 
which picked up wire service stories or otherwise reported low 
attendance figures should take advantage of this opportunity. Namely, 
the more the press lies about or downplays events that huge masses of 
people take part in, the more word gets out that the mainstream media 
cannot be trusted. It seems strange, but there's no instance where the 
mass media's own lies can have such a (much- deserved) detrimental 
effect on the public trust, as cases where nearly everyone knows 
someone who, based on personal experience, can refute the lie. And 
there's no better case of that than major demonstrations: They can't 
very well cover up that to which just about every non-elite from 
Georgia to Maine to Ohio has a neighbor or family member who bore 
witness.

Take heed of the converse truism. When organizers inflate crowd 
estimates for their own ends, they're actually just undermining their 
own credibility. International ANSWER's habit of grossly inflating 
crowd size, which has long been a tendency of it's key founders, the 
International Action Center, in turn deflates activists' trust. While 
some feel it's necessary to "balance out" low-balled government and 
media estimates, the absurd exaggerations to which ANSWER/IAC and other 
groups have become accustomed threaten the legitimacy of every claim 
those organizations make.

That said, we should also remember that size is not the crucial factor 
in determining the value and efficacy of a social movement. Moreover, 
the reported size of a demonstration isn't as important as two other 
factors. One is the actual size. We know the truth, and the best 
inspiration for more people to go next time has always been word of 
mouth from participants who were invigorated by the demonstration, not 
spectacularized coverage from media sources which almost invariably 
make activist events seem strange, distant and alienating. Then there's 
the position held by demonstrators themselves -- size definitely helps 
provide our stances and arguments with exposure, and it validates them 
in the public eye to some degree, but it doesn't change the fact that 
WHAT we have to say is always more important than HOW MANY of us are 
saying it... and the quest for numbers doesn't (or shouldn't) affect 
the content of what we are saying in terms of arguments we use or the 
values we uphold.

Another element of the size issue which should not be overlooked is 
quantity in terms of how many demonstrations are happening in various 
localities. While large, centralized protests in places like 
Washington, New York and San Francisco serve the purpose of showing 
federal authorities we have the capability of mobilizing, 
demonstrations dispersed throughout the smaller cities and towns of the 
US are an integral part of inspiring people to begin joining in antiwar 
activities. It is when they can't help identifying with demonstrators 
-people who seem just like them, from their own community -- that most 
people are inspired to get involved. The knowledge that someone in any 
given group of people is likely to sympathize with antiwar views 
encourages them to share those views more freely. When the proximity of 
events and the relative familiarity of faces at them seem accessible, 
those people newly inspired to speak out are a big step closer to 
making connections.

Another notable characteristic of local demonstrations is that actual 
numbers matter little when support is significant and growing. Crowd 
estimation is easier when the count is in the high hundreds or low 
thousands, but a reporter's statement like, "Officials are calling the 
protest the largest demonstration in our city since the Vietnam War" 
has an incredible impact. Next time it will be, "Today's protest was 
the latest in a series of increasingly large, local demonstrations 
against the war." Terms such as these are better than just about any 
number, because they establish vital relativity (and they tend not to 
cause such distracting disputes).

Beyond HOW MANY of us deliver a certain message, we must consider HOW 
we deliver it. Like the content of the message itself, this is a 
qualitative factor. It takes the form of the intensity and commitment 
of demonstrations. If one objective of a demonstration is exposure -- 
getting the message out and making it clear that dissenting opinion is 
popular, and growing -- another objective is to show elites that the 
costs are rising exponentially, even if the number of dissenters is 
only rising along some mounting but stable trajectory. We must reveal 
that not only are more people's opinions changing (that hardly matters 
in the least to them, since citizens' thoughts can be easily ignored), 
but that more people are willing to make progressively stronger 
commitments toward raising actual costs to the establishment as it 
continues on the war-making path. Traveling some distance on a weekend 
to brave cold temperatures is a strong signal, but having some 
(increasing) portion of those who are now willing to hold signs and 
march actually take more drastic steps and risk serious costs to 
themselves is a crucial element. No movement against war is going to be 
considered so real a threat to elites, in their own view, as one which 
seems to be leading to substantial disruption of their operations and 
machinations.

So if you are upset about how the January 18 demonstration in DC was 
downplayed in the mainstream media, get at least as upset about their 
near- total ignorance of smaller but more intense direct actions and 
instances of civil disobedience, which should proportionately speak 
louder than protest signs and chants. When elites see that people's 
priorities are changing, intensity of dissent is amplifying, and 
once-alienated constituencies are being exposed to a wider range of 
dissident thought, the threat will become tangible to those giving the 
orders. Then the costs to those in power may begin to outweigh the 
advantages of war.

The question of movement size is thus far more complex than simple head 
counts at marches and rallies. Since empowerment of the individual is 
key, most of our organizing efforts must be open and inviting, allowing 
for new people to become easily involved. The actual participation (not 
just attendance!) of newcomers, especially those typically disempowered 
in mixed social settings, is integral. Longstanding fulfillment -- what 
really keeps people coming back -- can be fostered by attaching 
realistic, short-term objectives to antiwar events, from organizing 
meetings to direct actions. The impending shift from preparation for to 
engagement in full-scale warfare should be prompting us to re-examine 
how we present our dissent to the public; we can't afford to be seen as 
"against 'our' troops." Instead, we absolutely must make it clear that 
de-escalation is the best way to support them. We should simultaneously 
be taking a hard look at our outreach efforts - - particularly how to 
overcome their limitations.

What we do as a movement, and how we do it, will always be more 
relevant than how many of us do it -- in fact, the former are the 
determining factors vis-à- vis movement growth. There is simply so much 
more to evaluating the efficacy of our antiwar movement than the 
size-focused seem to be paying attention to. The simple answer to the 
question, "Does demonstration size matter?" is yes. But what matters 
more than the perceived size is the actual size. What matter more than 
size are stance, diversity and direction. And what matters most of all 
is continued growth in these and many other areas. Rather than who said 
what about demonstration size, let us talk about our message, our 
outreach, our objectives and our tactics. Then we can leave head 
counting up to those with nothing better to do.

------------

Brian Dominick has been an antiwar activist for 10 years. He is also 
working on a longer essay called "Winning the AntiWar," and, with 
Jessica Azulay, a pamphlet called "Holistic Antiwar Organizing: Laying 
the Foundation for Broad Social Change." Both will be available from 
ZNet.