| OCR Text |
Show Hinckley Journal of Politics Autumn 1998 Walker personally approached the Nation of Islam leader, asking him to openly invite Black gay men to march. Again, we see an example of a type of vocal, low-profile resistance which is carried out without the stigma of an outright confrontation. It can also be argued that the conversation was carried out in a type of social site. Given that we've noted the march as a form of resistance in the public transcript, this meeting can be regarded as a type of working in the hidden transcript which expresses a resistance to both the anti-homosexual and anti-Black hegemonic ideologies. We have now examined the three major components of discourse theory as they relate to the MMM. We have maintained that there were at least some workings of these components within the march, making the application of Scott's theory to the MMM viable. But what of other theories dealing with power and resistance? In the following section we briefly explore whether and how other theories can be applied to the MMM. We examine both the rational choice theory as discussed by political scientist Dennis Chong, and the macrostructural theory as proposed by sociologists Nancy Denton and Douglas Massey. A Case for Rational Choice and Macrostructural Theory Rational choice theory states that individual choices are the driving force behind the development of a social movement. Chong uses game theory to demonstrate this. In game theory, participants in a social movement are regarded as participants in a game who can choose whether or not to participate in the movement. Should everyone choose to participate, a collective victory for everyone involved results. Should only a small percentage of people take part, the desired goal of the movement usually is not met. Thus, those who took part in the event ended up wasting effort and are labeled as being "suckered." Conversely, if a majority of people take part in the movement it usually produces positive results. Those who did not take part in the movement still enjoy these benefits without having put forth the effort of the other participants. The former are labeled as "free riders" (Chong 1991). There are definitely some aspects of Chong's theory evident in the MMM. First, we once again examine some of the marchers' motives. Ken Thomas, a Washington native and the father of two young daughters carried a sign at the march which read '"Here for my girls'" (quoted in Fletcher and Harris 1995). Sylvester Brown, another marcher, made the following statement: '"My being here has less to do with Farrakhan and more to do with my own personal needs'" (quoted in Cottman 1995). The statements made by these men indicate that they attended the march because they believed it would make a positive difference in their own personal lives. With that in mind, we now look at the positive benefits which resulted from the march. Political analysts credit the MMM for a surge in Black male voters in the 1996 general election. Participants in the march said it helped break down class and ethnic barriers among Blacks. The Nation of Islam even takes credit for a lower crime rate in the Black community (Padilla 1997). If we hold these results to be true, Brown and Thomas could be regarded as productive contributors to the social movement. But what about a Black man from the same neighborhood as either Brown or Thomas who did not attend the march? If this man were to enjoy a safer neighborhood, better representation of his needs in Congress, or better relationships with lower-class Blacks, it can be argued that this man is a free rider. While free riders may have been a problem, the extensive participation in the march, coupled with the positive reactions from those who participated, indicate that there was only a minimal threat of participants being suckered. While rational choice theory can use cases like these to provide an effective overall analysis of the MMM participants, it is too narrow to examine the broad spectrum of factors which led to the movement's mobilization. Such cases are harder to find within the MMM when one is trying to relate it to macrostructural theory. Massey and Denton (1993) focus on how events in society (events that may or may not be perpetrated by those in power) affect the class development of particular groups within that society. For example, they discuss how industrialization of northern U.S. cities coupled with northern migration patterns of Black Americans contributed to the formation of ghettos in the early part of this century. Macrostructural theory can be helpful in explaining how an anti-Black hegemonic ideology developed in America. Segregation tactics used by whites such as redlining helped reinforce negative stereotypes held about the Black community, by keeping Blacks out of integrated areas-and out of the public eye. Still, the establishment of a hegemonic ideology (or establishment of a dominant and subordinate class, for that matter) is not enough to explain the actual mobilization of a resistance movement. Macrostructural theory would, in essence, explain some reasons for anger within the Black community, but it would not explain how that anger translated into a march on the nation's capital. Discourse theory best explains this translation, which is why it was chosen as the focus of this paper. Conclusion There can be little question that discourse theory is much more easily applied to cases such as the ones used by Scott than to the MMM. In his examples, there are clearly defined dominant and subordinate classes, and both the predominant hegemonic ideology and the resistance tactics used by the subordinate group are obvious. The only thing left for a discourse theorist to do is determine how resistance in the hidden transcript ends up going public. The case of the MMM was different, in the sense that we first had to show that both a dominant group and a hegemonic ideology actually existed before we could even think 73 |
