Here’s a thought, in relation to Naomi Wolf’s well-meaning, though rather dated references to what she believes is a more effective version of Activism, and why it doesn’t work any more. Or what she sees as the solution to the systematic efforts (or a powerful class) to dismantle “protests” with death by a thousand cuts, or “over-permitisisation” as she says.
Could we consider her opinion that “mass protest always works” only being true so long as there is coverage (ie awareness) of such events…not by the “stopping of traffic” as she asserts?
IMO: Stopping traffic is just a by-product of enough people moving about ( a critical-mass of movement?) that they spill over into the streets…Not something that should result from a simplistic objective to “stop traffic.”
Relying on such disruption tactics to raise awareness for a message (often just seen and vilified as civil disobedience, by those who you might want to reach the most), seems to indicate that a message isn’t actually strong enough to rise above the background noise and proliferate via existing (non-mainstream) social channels, without the use of added chicanery and mischief.
Disruption is most certainly an outdated 60’s-era tactic; designed to simply gain mainstream media (MSM) coverage!
Thus I seriously question it’s true worth in today’s neutered MSM landscape…Where most are only being presented with a crafted/edited view of social unrest to begin with. Especially evident in views of foreign activism, in societies that are being manipulated by our own western power structures.
In short, I’d suspect that simply causing traffic jams and also heightening personal anxiety of those non-affiliates that are being ensnared in the results, for the sake of media coverage (or at least the self-gratification of the marchers perhaps?) is counter-productive to fostering goodwill, sympathy and awareness for a cause…Which after all, should be the actual objective. No?