Sociology of the Anarchists - Gozips.uakron.edu - The University of ...

Moving outside of the relatively easy-to-understand distinction between vandalism and
violence, there is a deeper analysis present in anarchist thought: authority wields—and in
fact is based upon—violence. And why the violent response from police to mere property
damage? Graeber (2002) observes “governments simply do not know how to deal with an
overtly revolutionary movement that refuses to fall into familiar patterns of armed
resistance” (p. 66).
McLeod's work (1992, 1995) on media-generated perception of protest (particularly in his
study of anarchist protests in Minneapolis during the mid-1980s), are useful in
understanding the impact that the mass media has in the perception of violence in protest.
He found (1995) that TV news stories of clashes between protesters and police (already a
faulty dichotomy, he claims 85 ) caused less criticism of police and more criticism of
protesters when one-sided, but the opposite result with less one-sided stories. The less
one-sided story also provoked greater identification with protesters than the other. The
study also showed that women viewing the news program tended to have more criticism
of the police, less criticism of protesters, and more identification with protesters than
men. Conservatives viewing the same TV stories were less likely to see the utility in
protest and identified less with protesters than non-conservatives (in the study called
“liberals”). McLeod states: “To the extent that one-sided portrayals predispose audience
members to reject protesters and their ideas, the media narrow the boundaries of the
marketplace of ideas” (p. 18).
Cobb-Reiley (1988) discusses the suppression of anarchist speakers, writers, and
publishers in the early 20th century. In hearing legal cases against anarchists concerning
“freedom of speech”, judges
made it clear that belief in anarchism, was by definition, an
abuse of freedom and, in all the cases, that belief was
evidence enough to conclude anarchists intended to do
harm and could, therefore, be punished (p. 57).
Unsurprisingly, the US government classifies anarchist and anarchistic organizations as
“terrorist” groups—now a quasi-official designation for any group of people that opposes
US hegemony. A 1999 FBI report (prior to “9/11” fervor) on terrorism stated that the
largest domestic threats were “animal rights and environmental extremists”, specifically
the ALF and ELF (FBI 1999, p. 1). Ironically, the report clearly suggests that none of
these “terrorist” attacks resulted in the death of any human beings (you can guarantee the
FBI would mention deaths from anarchists, were there any!). However, a number of
deaths resulted from the acts of “rogue right-wing extremists”—which of course prompts
the question: who are the non-rogue/establishment right-wing extremists (maybe the
government itself)? 86 In Congressional testimony, James Jarboe, Domestic Terrorism
85 When stories are framed in terms of “protesters vs. police”, the political message (and motivations) of
protesters is lost or glossed-over. McLeod states that this “transference of protesters' intended opposition
is significant because a group that challenges government policy is political, while a group that
challenges police is criminal” (McLeod 1995, p. 6).
86 See Gibbs (1989) for an attempt at sociologically defining “terrorism”, a definition that fails horribly—it
never even mentions “state terrorism”!
[ Williams 92 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]