A change in venue

Certain types of demands suit certain types of institutions. Demands for social justice or restructuring of environmental practices (for instance) don’t operate effectively within policy making/bureaucratic structures because they cannot be reduced to the types of changes necessary. These institutions serve as regulators and administrators of populations, and work at their best when developing specific managerial changes for the regulation of those populations. Hierarchical institutions that mirror this structure in private industry or NGO work indicate the way this model structures a majority of visable agitation and political organization. The question “Yes, but what do you want to DO?” doesn’t necessarily reflect an ontological demand stemming from enlightenment principles, but rather reflects an attempt to correspond with this form of administration. This particular form of social administration developed as a result of capital and the need for development of populations as a resource. The most effective social agitation under this model presents a threat to the easy functioning of a population as a resource by threatening modes of production by walkout, blockade or strike. It provides a clear mode of attack and means to the end desired, if the end also corresponds with the responses provided. This operates under a strictly transactional model that requires the cost of agitation to outweigh the cost of change.

The reduction to an administrative goal also hurts a movement. It reduces the end point to a proposition voted up or down. Anyone can pass judgment on what they believe the demands ask. If at any point they believe that the costs outweigh the benefits of acquiescing, the movement moves closer to failure. The ease of rejection in the face of the difficulties in conquering administrative hierarchies makes a convincing argument for a change in venue.

Duncan