Those in power are relatively safe from protest by and large. The government can use the concept of ‘system justification’ to maintain their course, however unpalatable it might be even to a majority of those they rule over. System justification has been used to justify the UK’s exit from Europe, even though a majority (including the non-voters) did not vote to leave.
A group of psychologists have developed a model of triggers and balances in protest. This can be seen in the diagram above. We will go through the concept below.
System justification
According to the scholars behind the model, system justification can be used to mollify the angry mob. The concept of us ‘all being in it together’ is used to justify the artificial policy of Austerity that two successive Prime Ministers have forced upon the UK through cuts to health and social care as well as other ideological cuts to government and government services. (The lie is obvious in that those cutting state healthcare receive private healthcare. They do not use libraries, or receive state welfare payments also due to their personal wealth).
The state uses the social construction of reality against those who might otherwise protest. There are three essential needs in humanity
– epistemic needs (the desire for certainty, structure and control),
– existential needs (the desire for safety and security)
– and relational needs (the desire to affiliate with similar people).
Comforting people with a sense of ‘normality’ deadens their desire to protest, even if due to Austerity policies a million people in the UK are starving and using food banks. The paper showed how the US Tea Party movement, which is ‘system supporting’ fared better in the public eye than the Occupy movement that was protesting against the system itself. One may argue that in that case the less palatable movement won simply because it advocated wrecking the system from the inside via elected politicians as opposed to from outside by open revolt as advocated by Occupy.
The angry mob
The authors state,“in-group identification should be positively associated with system justification for those who are advantaged but negatively associated with system justification for the disadvantaged”.
Disabled People Against the Cuts are an extremely motivated, very active movement that aren’t given much national media coverage (other than when invading Parliament) but receive a lot of local London coverage as they do direct actions all over London. Being disabled and being directly affected by the scourge of Austerity creates an in-group mentality among them.
The authors stated, “system justification should be negatively associated with perceived injustice and anger directed at the social system.” As can be seen in the model above there are stronger societal bonds among the unthinking national populace, and from them to most disabled people than directly among the bulk of the Disabled People Against the Cuts movement. While the commitment to fight to their dying breath is undoubtable among the hard core of the protest movement in question, the bulk of people would be more easily be swayed by ‘system justification’ above. As they rot, unwashed and unfed in their council flats due to Austerity, so the majority of disabled people will see the justification given by the state for the disgusting treatment meted against them. Many have committed suicide as opposed to fight on.
For the hard core of DPAC, the next phase is perceived group efficacy and onto system challenging protest, and group based anger leading to the same.
Other research cited in the paper showed that typically around 35% of people will never protest beyond signing a petition. The paper quoted another author as stating in the case of protest movements, “the taint of illegitimacy that comes from attacking a national government that is wrapped in national symbols, controls national institutions, and which represents critics as being disloyal to the nation.” From the Disabled People Against the Cuts perspective, the government is saying that one is being disloyal for not starving in penury and taking it for the team.
The authors showed that,“system-based anger should be positively associated with system-challenging protest and negatively associated with system-supporting protest. System justification is also used effectively against perceived injustice.” You can see the bonds are stronger to that of the state than to those fighting on. The somewhat selfish statement comes that ‘there a million starving but most of them deserve it. I don’t and I’m not.’
Protest
The authors showed that “those who are disadvantaged and are high in system-based anger, group-based anger, and perceived group efficacy should be more likely to engage in system-challenging protest.” System justification doesn’t always work. The Stop the War Coalition successfully mustered a million on the march in London over the Iraq War. This is where the bonds of the protest movement itself outran system justification. System based anger and group based anger led to a fight against Tony Blair that would ultimately weaken him, as did the Poll Tax Riots Thatcher. The ‘Chav Riots’ were successfully popularly portrayed as ‘antisocial behaviour’ as opposed to the state’s retreat inflicting pain unequally and those on the receiving end boiling over, attacking the symbols of what they could not obtain from hard work as they were told they should.
System challenging vs system supporting protest
The authors showed that “Those who are advantaged and high in group-based anger and perceived group efficacy (but low in system-based anger) should be more likely to engage in system-supporting protest. Accordingly, individuals who are low in system justification motivation are unlikely to participate in system-supporting protest, but they may engage in system challenging collective action (i.e., dissidence), especially if they identify strongly with a disadvantaged group. Conversely, individuals who are high in system-justification motivation are unlikely to participate in system-challenging protest, but they may engage in system-supporting collective action (i.e., backlash)—especially if they identify strongly with an advantaged group”.
The middle classes won’t generally protest about most issues. In keeping the balance right, so that the majority of the voting public are not too heavily disadvantaged by policies that might heavily impact them, so protest won’t turn into a mass and effective anti-government movement. Knowing many of the Disabled People Against the Cuts movement, they wouldn’t stop until through the doors of Downing Street. Sadly for them, they lack the support of the middle classes so will never be system challenging.
One system supporting protest movement however is the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn. Supported by DPAC, the Stop the War Coalition and the People’s Assembly Aginst Austerity, this is where the ‘system challenging’ movements have gained a political focal point and become system supporting. Being attacked from all directions by those petrified of losing power should he win any general election, under his leadership the Labour Party has grown to half a million members and has become the largest political party in the EU. While a political party this is very much a protest movement that is system supporting. This article is written in May ahead of the June 8thUK General Election but while Corbyn may be beaten in the polls by a frightened Establishment the movement will not go away, no matter who tries to wrest power from him within the party. Will it become a system challenging movement after June 8th? One just cannot tell.
Reference
Jost, JT et al, “Missing in (Collective) Action: Ideology, System Justification, and the Motivational Antecedents of Two Types of Protest Behavior” Current Directions in Psychological Science 2017, Vol. 26(2) 99–108
