20 | New Scientist | 22 June 2019
HUNDREDS of thousands
of people filled the streets of
Hong Kong on 9 June to protest
a government plan to allow
extraditions to mainland China.
The demonstrations have
continued regularly since, with
seas of protesters surrounding
a government building and
preventing law-makers from
meeting about the proposed law.
Hong Kong’s chief executive,
Carrie Lam, has suspended the
bill, but protesters say this doesn’t
go far enough and want the law
to be scrapped. As New Scientist
went to press, it was unclear
if this demand would be met.
The approach in Hong Kong is
just one of many ways protesters
have recently been attempting to
challenge the status quo. Tactics
range from marches to violent
civil disobedience, but it can be
difficult to tell what, if any of it,
really works when it comes to
effecting change.
The result can depend on the
type of protest. Matthew Feinberg
at the University of Toronto and
his colleagues have found that
peaceful protests like sit-ins and
marches can amplify a message
and draw new supporters, but
that extreme or violent tactics
backfire, putting people off
from supporting their cause.
“The easiest way to become
known is to get the news to
cover your movement, and the
easiest way to do that is by doing
something extreme. But it’s a
catch-22,” says Feinberg.
One way to bring attention to
a cause is to disrupt the hum of
normal life. In April, climate
protesters Extinction Rebellion
had success with this method,
bringing some transport hubs in
central London to a standstill by
blocking the streets with people
and gluing themselves to trains.
The movement quickly gainedharder to identify with activists,
says Feinberg.
However, even protests that
aren’t extreme may be perceived
as being so by people who disagree
with the aims. In another study,
Feinberg and his colleagues
showed people videos from the
2017 Women’s March. This rallied
500,000 people in Washington DC
and 2.5 million more in cities
around the world to advocate for
civil rights in the wake of Donald
Trump’s election.
It was largely peaceful, which
helped correct the mistaken
impression many have that
protest is always violent, says Eden
Hennessey at Wilfrid Laurier
University in Ontario, Canada,
who worked on the study. “We all
saw that it wasn’t people holding
Molotov cocktails with bandannas
over their face. It was Sharon from
down the street,” she says.
The team showed people videos
from the march that included
benign actions like women
chanting or high-fiving. They then
asked viewers how many people
were breaking windows, burning
things or engaging in fights. Even
though these things weren’t in the
videos, nearly 8 per cent of people
responded that they had seen such
violence – and these people all
identified as Trump supporters.
“Our data would suggest
that, depending on your political
views, you’re going to interpret
information differently,” says
Hennessey. In other words,
some people will see what they
want to see, if they are sufficiently
opposed to the cause.
But recruiting more supporters
is only one aim for protest
movements. Can they change
policy too?
It is clear that not all protests
work. It is estimated that more
than 36 million people across the
world marched against the 2003Large crowds protested
extradition plans in Hong
Kong on 12 JuneActivismANTHONY^ KWAN/GET
TYIM
AGES36 m
Number of people who marched
against the 2003 invasion of IraqNews Insight
Do protests work?
People around the world are taking to the streets, but what do mass
demonstrations achieve? Chelsea Whyte investigatesThousands
of women
celebrated the
2017 Women’s
March in New
York this
January
ER
IK^ MCGREGOR/GETT
Y^ I
MAGESattention from the press and
attracted new supporters, partly
thanks to social media. But it
also drew criticism from people
who felt the inconvenience didn’t
justify the cause.
In a series of studies,
Feinberg and his team delved into
the trade-off that protest groups
have to make. They presented
people with news articles and
videos of protests and found
that extreme actions – including
forming blockades, rioting,
damaging property and
violence – meant people supported
and identified with the protesters
less. This was true even if they
believed in the group’s goals.
This may be because people
value actions they perceive as
reasonable, and most people
identify themselves as reasonable,
so extreme protest tactics make it