Direct action

                   Direct action is associated exclusively with outsider pressure groups. Denied an effective route to decision-makers, outsider groups may feel that direct action is justified in order to advance their cause. Such action is therefore based upon an assumption that the status quo will not – for whatever reason – respond adequately to the demands of their members. For instance, politicians might adopt a prejudicial mindset against a minority group. They may also respond to wealthy interests whilst completely ignoring poorer members of society.

                   Direct action has a lengthy history in the states, and has at times contributed towards social change. Direct action could be considered both undemocratic and democratic; which naturally makes it such an intriguing case study. The undemocratic aspect of direct action is of course something of a no-brainer. Direct action will at times pose a threat to the life and liberty of individuals. Many innocent people can be affected by such action, including children. However, direct action can at times lead to a significant change to the law and in a broader sense societal attitudes. It is an undeniable trait of American history that change has on several occasions been instigated by direct action; some of which took the lives of the innocent. It is also worth noting that a degree of historical detachment is required in order for direct action to be presented in a more balanced light. This is dependent upon that particular side ‘winning’ history, as it’s the victorious who tend to write history.

                   Direct action is not necessarily illegal in all cases, and that is certainly worth noting. However, it can often pose a threat to – or at the very least disrupt – people’s everyday lives. This opens up an intriguing debate within those movements committed to significant change; ‘is constructive engagement with the political process more helpful to the cause than direct action?’ The latter may instigate a public backlash due to its indiscriminate impact. However, the public might be very strongly on their side and feel that direct action is entirely justified given the reluctance of politicians to listen and act upon such demands. This debate can be applied to an understanding of the civil rights movement, the feminist movement and the quest for equality amongst LGBT people. The debate within such movements is often heated and can at times be highly divisive. It also should be noted that constructive engagement with the conventional political process may be virtually impossible given the prevalent mindset of decision-makers. This argument could be applied to anarchist groups within the states.