Skip to content

Advertisement

News

Professors on state of political activism

Political theorists, including UChicago professors Bernard Harcourt and John Mearsheimer, discussed social movements in Palestine and the United States at I-House on Tuesday night.

Photo: Kristin Lin
From left to right: UChicago Professors John Mearsheimer and Bernard Harcourt, along with visiting professors Abdullah Al-Arian and As'ad AbuKhalil, disccuss social resentment and active political resistance against free market ideology in the International House Tuesday evening.
A panel of four political theorists, including UChicago professors Bernard Harcourt and John Mearsheimer, and Georgetown history professor Abdullah Al-Arian, spoke on violence and social movements in Palestine and in the United States on Tuesday night at I-House. The event was entitled “Between the Ballot and the Bullet: Popular Resistance and Social Movements,” referring to civil rights activist Malcolm X’s famous 1964 speech advocating for African Americans to use violent resistance when necessary.

As’ad AbuKhalil, a Lebanese-born professor of political science at California State University, Stanislaus, dispelled what he considered common Western misconceptions of the Palestinian resistance movement to Israeli occupation, such as that the Palestinian resistance had always been violent.

“The Palestinian people have been in a state of resistance for over a century,” he said. “But the movement began its resistance nonviolently, in the same ways as the rest of the civil rights movements throughout the world—petitions, demonstrations, sit-ins, peaceful letter writing campaigns, poetry—in the 1930s.”

Law and political science professor Bernard Harcourt contrasted American social movements from the peak of the civil rights movement in 1968 to Occupy Wall Street in 2011.

“[The 1960s] was a period in which utopian visions prevailed,” he said during the talk. “It would seem that the more contemporary movements…are no longer utopian in the traditional way. It’s almost as if 1968 had exhausted Marxist idealism in some way. 1989 exhausted liberal idealism. And today, many of the movements…are left without an easy answer in the conventional ideological polarity of left versus right.”

Harcourt sat down with the Maroon after the event to discuss the role of social movements today.

CM: Based on recent social movements like Occupy Wall Street and the NATO protests in Chicago, are we currently in an era of the ballot or the bullet?

BH: It’s neither, I would say. There was a strong undercurrent among Occupy protesters that the ballot is corrupt today. There was a lot of debate about Citizens United [v. Federal Election Commission] and the corporatization of electoral politics. In fact, I’d say that the Occupy movement in part was born out of a disillusionment with traditional electoral and partisan politics. At the same time though, there was no element of “the bullet” in Occupy Wall Street. It represented a third path that I think pretty expressly rejected both violent resistance but also the conventional electoral approach. And maybe that third way had something to do with the very paradigm of a peaceful occupation. It was probably connected to the very term and the very idea of occupying a space peacefully.

CM: Is there a place for violent resistance in social movements today or is it counterproductive?

BH: It’s important to distinguish between resistance movements in Syria or Egypt or Greece or Spain or the United States. What I’d say is that the turn to violent forms of resistance is counterproductive in countries where there’s a dominant legitimating discourse of law and due process. Where a formal legal ideology dominates, it becomes far too easy to characterize any form of violent or deviant resistance as being outside the legal norm and therefore a form of criminality. In those spaces where the rule-of-law discourse dominates, it’s particularly unproductive to turn to violent resistance. In a country like the United States, the penal apparatus and the legitimating discourse of liberal legalism are far too robust.

CM: What can South Side activism like the recent demonstrations at UCMC tell us about the state of activism generally?

BH: It reveals, correctly, that social protest in the United States is at an all-time high. Recent studies show that the number of people who have engaged in protest in their lifetime is actually at a high point in the U.S. It’s interesting because there have been theories about the loss of civic life and association in this country, but I think what we’re seeing is that, even if people are “bowling alone,” they seem to be marching together. What’s also interesting is that participating in political protest tends to have lasting effects on the individual, such that they are more likely to continue to be politically engaged and to participate in protest and resistance as they get older.

4 comments on “Professors on state of political activism

  1. reply

    The article seems to report with some indication of approval, the “”dispell[ing of] what he considered common Western misconceptions of the Palestinian resistance movement to Israeli occupation, such as that the Palestinian resistance had always been violent.

    “The Palestinian people have been in a state of resistance for over a century,” he said. “But the movement began its resistance nonviolently, in the same ways as the rest of the civil rights movements throughout the world—petitions, demonstrations, sit-ins, peaceful letter writing campaigns, poetry—in the 1930s.”

    This means that the author of the article found the professor’s arguments and facts so compelling and irrefutable that they made any beliefs he/she may have held up to that moment about Palestinian terrorism’s long and bloody history null and void.

    Now let’s look at the historical record:

    Israel’s occupation of the WB and Gaza (and now only in the WB) began in 1967, not in the 1930′s, when there was not yet a state of Israel to occupy anybody.

    In the 1930′s there was a Jewish Yishuv, community, in Palestine, a region managed by the British as a Mandate from the League of Nations. The Jewish Yishuv included new and veteran Zionist immigrant communities (townships, cooperative villages, kibbutzim, newly-established cities like Tel-Aviv) and centuries-old Jewish communities which had been concentrated mostly in the Jerusalem, Hebron, Jaffa, Zafed, comprising the majority of these cities’ populations.

    Before the 1930′s the following violent riots were recorded:

    “Incidents included the riots of April 1920, the riots in Palestine of May 1921, the 1929 Hebron massacre and Safed massacre, and the 1936-1939 Arab revolt in Palestine. Prominent leaders of the Palestinian groups were Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, who was killed by the British army, and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin Al-Husseini, who fled the country.” (wikipedia)

    Here is another, fuller account of the historical record.

    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/riots29.html

    It took me 3 minutes to find this information by Google. I assume the author of the article above did not bother to check his facts before gushing over the professor’s “dispelling” of misconceptions.

    Perhaps a correction is in order?

    • reply

      Nothing in the article says Israel’s occupation began in 1930 (that wouldn’t even make sense, considering Israel wasn’t established on Palestinian land until 1948). What it says is that Palestinian resistance has existed as far back as the 1930s (and even earlier than that). This is in response to the British occupation and (which you neglect to mention) the King David Hotel bombing, the massacre at Al-Tira, the bombing at Damascus Gate Cafe, and the Al-Khisas Massacre of Palestinians, just to name a few.

  2. reply

    Really? April 1920, the riots in Palestine of May 1921, the 1929 Hebron massacre and Safed massacre, were in reaction to King David Bombing in 1946? Are you serious? Haven’t you got the order of cause and effect reversed, for your convenience? What good is a cause if you have to lie, distort and manufacture, in order to maintain its legitimacy?

  3. reply

    “What it says is that Palestinian resistance has existed as far back as the 1930s (and even earlier than that). This is in response to the British occupation ”

    What it says is this: ” … the movement began its resistance nonviolently, in the same ways as the rest of the civil rights movements throughout the world—petitions, demonstrations, sit-ins, peaceful letter writing campaigns, poetry—in the 1930s.”

    Readers are not stupid, you know. They can tell the difference between what the article says and what anon says it says. The difference is instructive.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

By submitting a comment, you agree to the terms of service of The Chicago Maroon.