Civil Disobedience: A Case Study in Factors of Effectiveness

Courtney L. Dillard *

Abstract

Between 1989 and 1998, The Fund for Animals organized protests and acts of civil disobedience against the largest pigeon shoot in this country. During this long campaign, The Fund used a variety of approaches to argue for its position. This article focuses on two distinct enactments of civil disobedience at the Hegins shoot. Through an historical comparative analysis, the article describes the acts of civil disobedience and the context within which they took place for both 1992 and 1996. The article focuses on audience reaction, including media representatives, in order to tease out why onlookers may have found one instance of civil disobedience more compelling than another. The findings suggest that the effectiveness of civil disobedience may be determined in part by the way it is enacted. Specifically, civil disobedience is more persuasive when enacted in clearly nonviolent/non-threatening ways and when participants demonstrate not only a willingness to suffer for their beliefs but also an interest in communicating that suffering to onlookers.
Advocating for animals in this country dates as far back as the colonial period. In 1641, legal arguments were put forth that made cruelty to domestic animals unlawful in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. By the mid-1800s, several social movement organizations, such as the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) and the Philadelphia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals were created to advocate for animal welfare in the wider courts of public opinion. Over time, the numbers of people and organizations arguing on behalf of animals grew substantially. In addition, the tactics and strategies employed in such advocacy became more varied and creative.

Such changes perhaps are most notable in surveying the activities of social movement organizations in the last two decades. The 1980s witnessed not only major ideological shifts from welfare to rights but also tactical shifts from behind-the-scenes negotiation in the courtroom or legislative bodies to very public acts of protest and civil disobedience. As the media, particularly television, quickly became an essential part of educating and persuading the public on animal issues, tactics that gained media coverage were often employed. Because one of the enduring news values is controversy and conflict (Stephens, 1980), the potential for acts of civil disobedience often ensured media attention. Today, some activists and organizations wholly embrace the use of civil disobedience. Whether it's members of a national group trespassing on corporate property in order to disrupt stockholder meetings or members of local organizations trying to block access to fur salons, thousands of protestors have used civil disobedience to make their point.

Yet, even as activists participate in civil disobedience to reveal particular atrocities against animals and encourage a public conversation about the nonhuman-human animal relationship, questions as to the effectiveness of these activities continually arise within the overarching movement. Some organizations, often those seeking more moderate gains and focusing on key political or business figures, believe that civil disobedience reduces the movement's legitimacy and makes their advocacy much more difficult. They argue that those in power do not make distinctions between animal groups and therefore are associated with, and penalized for, publicized acts of civil disobedience. Activists in support of civil disobedience often respond to these arguments by suggesting that civil disobedience sheds light on important issues and stimulates public response. Many of these activists believe that media coverage is the key to movement success.

Although the debate is an intriguing one, this article seeks to shift the grounds of discussion. Instead of wrestling with the question of whether civil disobedience is an effective advocacy tool in general, I ask if the effectiveness of civil disobedience may be determined in part by the way it is enacted. To pursue this question, I analyze a specific case study of a long-term animal advocacy campaignC The Fund for Animals' campaign to abolish the Hegins pigeon shoot. In this article, I compare the enactment of civil disobedience in two years of protest that differed considerably from one another.

Summary of Data Collection and Methodology

This article is a condensed version of a much larger analysis of the Hegins pigeon shoot and various attempts to abolish it on the part of The Fund for Animals. For the larger project, data was collected over a period of six months from both archival research and in-depth interviews. The archival research focused mainly on materials produced by print and broadcast media sources. Other documents I examined include Fund press releases, pamphlets, video materials and internal documents such as letters sent to particular volunteers. Interviews were also conducted with a number of sources. These include Fund leaders Heidi Prescott and Mike Markarian, shoot organizer Bob Tobash, and five onlookers, many associated with the local media, who wished to remain anonymous.

While the original study considered a variety of advocacy tactics and detailed a much more complete history of the event and protests, this piece will focus on two distinct and different enactments of civil disobedience. Through a historical comparative analysis, I describe the acts of civil disobedience and the context within which they took place for both years. I then focus on audience reaction in order to tease out why onlookers may have found one instance of civil disobedience more compelling than another. In many ways, this is a grounded theory approach - allowing the voices from the field to inform the theoretical underpinnings of the piece, rather than finding instances in the field that support the theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).

Hegins - A Case Analysis

The Event

The Fred Coleman Memorial Shoot, the shoot's official name, began more than a half century ago in the early 1930s. Pigeon shooting is a rather common sport in the rural counties of Pennsylvania, but the shoot at Hegins quickly grew to become the largest event of its kind in the country. Each Labor Day weekend, people from a number of surrounding counties and states descended on the town to shoot over 5,000 birds. Funds from the event are used to raise money to continue maintenance on the park and subsidize such local services as the firehouse (B. Tobash, personal communication, February 20, 1997).

The rules surrounding the shoot and the manner in which it is conducted haven't changed since the event's earliest days. Organizers of the shoot purchase pigeons from breeders or those who have trapped the birds in the wild. They then keep the pigeons in cages, often cramped together for days or even weeks before the event. Participants in the shoot, limited to 250 at Hegins, pay an entry fee, typically $75, for a chance to shoot as many pigeons as possible. The shooter with the largest number of hits at the end of the weekend wins the event.

During the shoot, participants stand ready with their guns and then shout "Pull," ordering the strings tied to the cage doors to be pulled and the doors opened, releasing the pigeons one at a time. Pigeons either fly out or, having been weakened by their captivity, walk out of the cages. At that moment, the shooter fires, attempting to kill the pigeon (H. Prescott, personal communication, October 25, 1996). If the shooter misses, the bird may fly out of the park boundaries to safety. If wounded, the pigeon often lands in the shooting field. While the shooters aim to kill, they often only wound the birds. One field estimate suggested that only 30% of the birds died instantly (Fund Press Release, 1996). It is the duty of the trapper boys, typically about age 12, to retrieve the wounded birds from the shooting field and kill them by decapitating them over the rim of a barrel or with their bare hands. Although it is not advocated, birds also are killed by being jumped upon, left to suffocate in the barrel of bodies, or occasionally ripped apart. Once the shoot ends, the dead birds are thrown away as trash (Becker, 1996).

The Activist Response

Starting in 1989, The Fund for Animals became the animal rights group chiefly responsible for organizing the protest of the event. While their primary goal was to have the shoot permanently stopped, Fund leaders believed that they first had to affect public sentiment in order to accomplish this. Leaders at The Fund, Heidi Prescott and Mike Markarian, felt they could best do this by bringing media attention to the event and its cruelty. They hoped that mass demonstrations and acts of civil disobedience would encourage the media to cover the event, gain them sympathy, and rally public pressure in support of a ban on the event. In the years following 1989, they worked to bring animal rights activists to Hegins and encouraged acts of civil disobedience on behalf of the birds.

Heidi Prescott, present director of The Fund, believes that civil disobedience is an effective form of direct action for a number of reasons. In an interview, she explained that "civil disobedience is an excellent component of any campaign against specific abuses." She stated that it is important to try to work through the system initially, attempting to negotiate as The Fund had in the courts and the legislature. It is only when these channels resist or reject what the group considers to be a plea for justice that civil disobedience is used as a tactic. Prescott believes that the greatest benefit of civil disobedience is the heightened awareness of the issue by the general public, most often through the media. She argues that acts of disobedience "send a message that something is so wrong that people are willing to risk their safety and freedom to stop that injustice." Because people know "in their heart of hearts that it [the shooting of the pigeons] is wrong," acts of civil disobedience call forth emotion and force people to consider the morality of the event (H. Prescott, personal communication, October 25, 1996).

One of the other benefits Prescott associates with civil disobedience in the case of Hegin is the actual saving of lives by freeing the birds or disrupting the shoot and reducing the numbers of birds shot. The act of saving a life is beneficial not only to the pigeon but also to the activist, who may spend years fighting for the rights of animals and never play such an obvious role in helping a specific individual. This activity and others, such as bond solidarity in jail, "binds members of the movement together and empowers them like nothing else" (H. Prescott, personal communication, October 25, 1996).

With this positive outlook on the possibilities of protest and civil disobedience, The Fund began to plan direct action strategy. From 1989 to 1992, the number of protesters attending the event grew rapidly. Hegins quickly became one of the main "battlegrounds" for animal rights and the quintessential place to stand up for animals.

The Protest in 1992

Before the event in 1992, The Fund encouraged activists to protest the shoot, running advertisements in animal activist magazines and networking through other national and local groups. It created a press release promising to stage "what is likely to be the nation's largest ever protest on behalf of animals" (Fund Press Release, 1992). The goal was to have as many people as possible engage in protest activities and willingly be arrested for breaking various laws. Though The Fund had been successful in attracting 1,500 protestors, before the event it did little to organize protest activity. A workshop in civil disobedience was optional, and no particular acts were arranged.

Because there had been no attempt to regulate the behavior of the activists, the overall context for the protest was one of chaos and tension. Several incidents led to a feeling of threat and anger. Videos of the event show the Black Berets, an animal rights militia of sorts, taunting spectators, calling them "pigeon sucking perverts," and trying to elicit a response. All people interviewed, including Prescott, agree that there were obscenities, insults, and screaming matches "breaking out all over the park" (H. Prescott; Media representatives #1- #4, personal communications, February 20, 1997). A representative of the local police force attested to the fact that often these escalated to "pushing and shoving matches," each side blaming the other for instigation.

The acts of civil disobedience were also chaotic and largely spontaneous. According to Prescott, those engaging in civil disobedience were "only loosely organized." As shooters started to wound and kill birds, protestors reacted emotionally. They rushed toward the field in an attempt to stop the shooting or pick up wounded birds. As the video and media coverage demonstrate, they often committed the acts of civil disobedience with angry facial expressions and screams of obscenities or unintelligible phrases. While they may have been moved by concern for the pigeons, their reactions conveyed much more anger than sympathy. Typically, they were handcuffed after trying to free the birds or placing their bodies between the birds and the shooters. In addition, other types of law-breaking activities were occurring including clear incidents of harassment. Most of the 114 activists were arrested on charges of disorderly conduct, criminal trespass, theft and harassment (Helgeson, 1992).

Period of Reconsideration

Following the protests of 1992, leaders at The Fund assessed their situation. It was clear that despite many acts of civil disobedience, they had not been able to gain much public support. The most disturbing trend that Fund leaders noticed was the media's approach to the protest. Only minimal attention was given to the actual plight of the pigeons. Reporters chose to focus on the more controversial conflict between supporters and protesters of the shoot. The conflict had captured the media's desire for the sensational, leaving the question of the morality of the event largely unasked and unanswered. A sampling of headlines shows that the large majority of papers focused on the number of protesters arrested, or in attendance, rather than cruelty concerns.

Another unintended and unfortunate result of the protest was that instead of decreasing the numbers attending the event, the actual numbers rose in huge proportions. Residents of the town enjoyed an economic boom as their services were utilized and products bought. They also appeared to enjoy the attention paid to the small town by the national and even international media. Although the protest had been planned to bring negative attention and shame to the town, it actually brought a much-needed economic upswing (B. Tobash, personal communication, February 20, 1997). For this reason, even those residents who did not participate in the shoot began to see the event in a positive light.

H. Prescott and M. Makarian noted that the resulting media coverage and the rise in attendance necessitated a shift in protest activity at the event (personal communications, October 5, 1996). They wanted to demonstrate their sympathy more accurately for the birds and encourage others to adopt their position concerning the shoot. Between 1993 and 1995, The Fund requested that activists, in large part, avoid the event. Instead, a small group of volunteers focused on rescuing wounded pigeons and ignoring participants and taunting onlookers. Their activities clearly were both non-violent and non-threatening.

In 1996, The Fund decided to reinstate some form of civil disobedience. Leaders at The Fund focused on developing an approach to civil disobedience that would better communicate their objections to the shoot and generally be more effective in persuading both the local and national audience to speak out against the event. In so doing, they tried to better understand their audience and more clearly represent themselves. The plan they devised accounted not only for how the civil disobedience would be enacted but also for the overarching protest context in which it would take place.

Protests 1996

The correspondence with activists before the event in 1996 differs notably from that in 1992. Instead of encouraging large numbers to attend, The Fund solicited only a small group of activists. As "peacekeepers," they were told that their job was to assure that "public attention - including media attention - is not distracted from the cruelty of the event by loud and potentially violent confrontations between activists and shoot supporters" (H. Prescott, personal communication, October 25, 1996). In addition, they were to make sure that no one was "put at risk or injured" from any confrontations that did arise. Instead of leaving the activists without a strong sense of purpose or correct behavior, The Fund (1996) sent out a document that reads:


It is essential that our behavior today win us allies in the legislature and among the general public. Our golden rule must be do unto shoot supporters as you would want to be seen doing unto them on television. This year's shoot will be intensively covered by the media, who will be looking for anger, drama and confrontation. We, on the other hand, represent caring and compassion. Our speech and behavior should always demonstrate those qualities to the press and the public. please! for the sake of the pigeons:

Do not engage in name calling, taunting, or trading insults or obscenities with shoot supporters.
Do not make obscene or insulting gestures.
Do not make any statement or any movement that could reasonably be interpreted as threatening, even if you are provoked.
If you are insulted or taunted, ignore it. Do not respond unless you are confident that you can keep your cool and speak without hostility or anger.
If you are assaulted, or believe that you may be, leave the area immediately. Report any assaults to the police.
Do not threaten retaliation.
Do not engage in shoving matches or initiate any physical contact with shoot supporters. In summation, be dignified, courteous, and non-violent at all times, even under provocation. You are here to save pigeons, directly by rescue or indirectly by documenting. This is too important to let yourself be distracted by people who want us to fail.
The context of the protest also was much different in 1996. Because the protestors were focused entirely on saving and treating wounded birds, their activities appeared much more purposeful. They continued the tradition of the last several years by not interacting with the shooters or onlookers who seemed intent on distracting them. The protestors did not shout or threaten anyone in attendance. In addition, the smaller numbers created a less threatening mob presence and allowed for audience members and the media to better see the individual acts of those caring for the birds.

In the midst of this context, those participating in the civil disobedience followed the plans that were carefully constructed prior to their arrival. Twelve activists in two groups of six entered the shooting fields before the event began. Locking steel bicycle locks together, they bound themselves to one another at the neck and then lay down. Their goal was twofold: (a) to prevent the start of the shoot for as long as possible and (b) to make the argument, with their bodies, that the shoot was unjust and should be discontinued (H. Prescott, personal communication, February 21, 1997).

In conducting the civil disobedience, the activists remained silent and at a distance from the crowd. They lay flat on the ground, putting their "health and safety in jeopardy" (Police representative, personal communication, February 20, 1997). Even when the crowd tried to provoke the disobedients, they remained calm and did not respond in any way. When finally they were cut free from the kryptonite octopus, they did not resist arrest and were quietly removed from the field. The shoot was held up for close to two hours. The disobedients acted totally without violence (physical or verbal). In being bound together, they attempted to represent the captivity and helplessness of the birds. This small act of suffering was put forth as a type of representation for the ultimate suffering of the pigeons who were to be wounded and killed.

The Reactions - Audience and Media

Having described and contrasted the protests in 1992 and 1996, I now want to take up the question of audience reaction. Did audience members notice the difference between the two years? If they did, what did they see as different and did they feel one approach was more effective than another in making the argument against the shoot? Through interviews with several sources in Hegins, I am able to offer some tentative answers to these questions. Onlookers often characterize the protest and the acts of civil disobedience in 1992 as disorderly and threatening. Representatives from local media sources concluded that in 1992 the activists' arguments were lost in the angry tone and, as a result, activists were not successful in communicating their messages. Here are a few of their comments:


In years past, the actions, the screaming and yelling had a negative effect on how the protesters were looked at. When they originally came, they were insulting. They would yell at the people and their acts of civil disobedience were more random. They ended up with a negative effect, even though they had a positive goal in not hurting the animals - but it turned out to be negative, because they were not organized and the civil disobedience was rampant. They used the wrong means to achieve their ends. Protesters over the years [before the change in tactics] had more of a negative impact, than a positive one, even on an ambivalent person. (Media representative #2, personal communication, February 20, 1997)
The tone was aggressive. An observer may have felt frightened to some degree. You couldn't know what would happen. Although it is hard to generalize, the typical protester [in 1992] came with a sign saying "Hegins residents are barbarians and savages," wanted to and did engage in oral arguments, wanted to disrupt the shoot by running onto the fields, whatever they could do to stop the shoot. When they first came in, they made themselves very easy for residents to dislikeC partly in how they framed their argument…. It was hard for people to take their argument seriously because they were insulted and put off from the start. (Media representative #4, personal interview, February 20, 1997)

The interpretation of the protesters and civil disobedients as threatening, insulting, and generally chaotic was often passed on from media representatives to the wider public. A sampling of local and national newscasts showed the activists running onto the field and screaming into the crowd. Accompanying this footage is commentary depicting the activists as aggressive and emotional in contrast to the event participants who only are participating in a tradition that raises money for charity. It is obvious from these clips that the media ignored the activists' arguments and that the activists appeared in a rather negative light.

Interpretations and representations of the protest activity were markedly different in 1996. Prescott notes that in that year the protest and, specifically, the civil disobedience were very strategically planned. The protesters wanted to restructure their appearance to serve as a clear argument from conscience. The signs, chanting, and random insulting of the crowd were eliminated. The civil disobedience was also constructed in a clearer and more purposeful way.

Having the 12 disobedients lie down in silence "passed a very strong message - there wasn't a lot you could criticize about what they did" (H. Prescott, personal communication, February 21, l997). Their activities in 1996 were focused on creating a certain meaning, one in which the average onlookerC unfamiliar with the controversy - would be persuaded to see that their cause was just and the activities of the other side were not:


When our side is lying on the field, not saying a word, neck to neck to stop something so horrific, and also saving birds to give them care, and their side is yelling obscenities, drinking, as an outside observer looking in, you cannot help concluding which side is right and which side is wrong (H. Prescott, personal communication, February 21, 1997).
Again, this seems to be supported by the observers I interviewed:


If I had to choose a side, it would be with the protesters, as they were nonviolent this year [1996]. I didn't see anything violent about them. They used the civil disobedience method for the most part; they had a very peaceful protest. The fact that they rushed onto the field and just lay there was definitely nonviolent….So, I did have that kind of bias towards them, in the way they handled themselves. As far as the public [observers/supporters] in viewing them, the public was of course much more raucous and loud and obnoxious and unruly. And, of course, [there was] some violence from the crowd [toward] the protesters, which did have an effect on me to an extent (Media representative #1, personal communication, February 20, 1997).
This was the first year they actually practiced 'true' civil disobedience, and it was quite effective. This [type of] civil disobedience is much more acceptable (Media representative #2, personal communication, February 20, 1997).

[The protest] brought some light to magnify the argument. It showed the outsiders' view. We took for granted, I guess that this was a normal part of life, then we got to see the other side of the coin (Media representative #3, personal communication, February 20, 1997).

[They] decided to restrict the civil disobedience, chanting taunting oral arguments, and concentrate on the argument of animal rights. For the most part, they concentrated on documenting…and veterinary rescue stands. They chose to take the high ground morally, not to lower themselves to trading insults with local residents. I thought that this was a very good idea….It became a lot easier to sympathize with the protesters when they stopped acting like jerks, which is what they were when the protests began (Media representative #4, personal communication, February 20, 1997).

While the national media certainly highlighted the civil disobedience in 1996, both papers and newscasts alike noted that the context was much calmer and the activists had something to say. In a brief review of five newscasts that reported on the shoot, three included a short interview with Prescott about the reasons behind the protest and use of civil disobedience. Instead of portraying the activists as obscene and obnoxious, commentary that accompanied the image of the disobedients locked together concentrated on the question of cruelty and the efforts to stop the shoot. In addition, the media presented the violence of the shoot supporters. Both local and national newscasts showed them carrying signs and screaming at those on the field to get up.

Discussion

At the protests of the pigeon shoot in Hegins, leaders of The Fund wanted to communicate a message about the suffering of the birds. Initially, this suffering aroused their anger, and they represented themselves in anger. At the protest in 1992, those involved in the protest often hurled insults at the crowd, which included a number of children. Their tones were angry, and more than a few loud verbal exchanges were witnessed. Those involved in the civil disobedience were only loosely organized with individuals typically acting by themselves. The combination of random running onto the field, close proximity, and angry tones and facial expressions gave the protest and the civil disobedience a chaotic and hostile appearance. The news media recorded and disseminated this image to a larger public who saw angry images and heard very little about the ethical debate surrounding the protest. In 1992, the protesters and those engaged in civil disobedience were neither nonviolent nor able to demonstrate clearly a willingness to suffer.

In 1992, as a result of loose planning and unsupervised activists, The Fund was unable to use civil disobedience as an effective argument to gain public support. Although they claimed to be arguing for compassion, the activists appeared threatening, angry, and even violent. The activists "bastardized the use of civil disobedience [because] once you become violent or even verbally acostive, civil disobedience is lost to something else" (Media representative #1, personal communication, February 20, 1997). The onlookers were able to dismiss the activists and their point of view specifically because their argument was lost in the hostile tone of the protest, which was more threatening than persuasive.

During the period of reconsideration following the protests in 1992, The Fund sought to restructure its appearance in order to make a more effective argument. Through both a close examination of what had prevented its message from being successful and a return to its original goals for civil disobedience, The Fund crafted ways to appear more favorably to the public. It hoped to increase the likelihood that its argument would be understood and accepted. At the heart of this change was a renewed commitment to use protest and civil disobedience as an argument from conscience rather than from pure emotion.

The most important aspect of civil disobedience that was recognized and respected by the activists in 1996 was nonviolence. The disobedients realized that their argument could not be put forth in violence, as those who were threatened would be unlikely to acknowledge some common ground and therefore could not be persuaded. Almost everyone interviewed agreed that the protesters were more effective when they engaged in "true" civil disobedience and abandoned the angry and violent tone set early on (Media representative #2, personal communication, February 20, 1997). One representative from the local media even suggested that if "they [the protesters] keep it toned down, at a low level, they can win over a good majority of the solid decent people in the town" (Media representative #2, personal communication, February 20, 1997).

The second key aspect of civil disobedience activists acknowledged in 1996 was a willingness to suffer for their beliefs and to communicate that suffering to onlookers. Instead of showing anger at the treatment of the pigeons during the shoot, the disobedients and other activists tried to represent the suffering of the pigeons through their own suffering. It was only when the onlookers could identify with the suffering of the activists (as we all are capable of suffering and wish to avoid it) that the audience recognized a common ground on which to begin discussion. Through their silence, bound and submissive posture, and acceptance of arrest, those involved in the civil disobedience symbolized and accounted for the suffering of the birds.

When members of the audience recognized this relationship, they seemed more likely to question why the activists were willing to suffer for this cause. These questions called forth thoughts regarding their own feelings on the matter. The position, which had been taken for granted, that the pigeon shoot was not a moral issue was finally considered as a result of this public argument. When the issue entered this public realm through the unsettling activity of civil disobedience, there could be a number of exchanges that reshaped the public's position on the issue.

In many ways, 1996 was the turning point in the battle over pigeon shoots in Hegins, Pennsylvania. In 1997 and 1998, The Fund basically stayed away from the event, choosing to capitalize on growing support for its position. The Fund pursued cruelty cases in court and lobbied for bills in the state legislature. After a series of legal rounds, supporters of the shoot agreed to discontinue the event. In 1999, and for every Labor Day since then, the shoot fields in Hegins have been silent. After 10 years and various approaches to the tactic of civil disobedience, the activists are finally crying victory.

Conclusion

In this paper, I have grappled with the complex question of what conditions may make the use of civil disobedience more effective as a tactic on behalf of animals. Although there can be no doubt that every protest context is a unique event, non-violence and a willingness to suffer are important aspects that leaders should consider as they decide what civil disobedience must "look like" if it is used in hopes of being persuasive as argument. Those who wish to advance the movement should consider strategically whether a certain act of civil disobedience truly serves as an argument on behalf of animals by appearing to the targeted audience in a way it can understand. If the audience does not respond sympathetically to an approach, movement leaders may wish to employ a different tactic or change the way in which their future acts of civil disobedience appear.

In order to investigate further the factors contributing to effective civil disobedience, other studies should be conducted. Although case studies provide a deeper look into a unique case, future research could take a more quantitative approach. Asking onlookers at protest events to fill out surveys regarding their reactions to certain instances of civil disobedience would be very informative. Other approaches may include using focus groups or performing content analysis on mediated materials. A study looking at word choice on the part of reporters in describing particular acts of civil disobedience could be very informative.

Whatever the methodology, the issue of effectiveness is an important one. Although there can be no doubt that negotiation, legislation, and litigation are vital tools for activists, there is a power in the public nature of civil disobedience. This power comes from the intensity of conscience that civil disobedience allows the public to see on the part of the activists. Civil disobedience can be an empowering activity for both activists and the general public. Activists join together and publicly advocate their position. The general public witnesses commitments and challenges to the system that extend beyond the voting booth and individual consumer choices. When civil disobedience is truly effective, it can change society's relationship to animals and even revitalize our public sphere.

* Courtney L. Dillard, University of Texas
Correspondence should be sent to Courtney L. Dillard, Department of Communication Studies, CMA 7.114, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712. (Fax) 512. 471. 3504. E-mail: cldillard@mail.utexas.edu
 

References

Becker, C. (1996). [Videotape] Gunblast, culture clash.

Fund Press Release. (September 2, 1992). Silver Spring, MD: Author.

Fund Press Release. (September 6, 1996) Silver Spring, MD: Author.

Glaser, B. & Stauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.

Stephens, M. (1980). Broadcast news. New York: Holt, Rienhart & Winston.

The Fund. (1996). Guidelines for animal protection activists at Hegins, 1996. Unpublished document.


 

For Abstracts of all issues, including the most current, click Article Abstracts

To order Society & Animals Journal, go to our secure online ordering page

You can Search the online issues of Society & Animals, as well as the entire Society & Animals Forum (formerly PSYETA) website,
for topics and keywords of your interest: