Here is an excerpt from Steve Dubb’s article, “On Boycotts and Blackouts, Mobilizing and Organizing: Understanding the Basics” in Nonprofit Quarterly (Dec. 15).
Peter Levine, political science and philosophy professor at Tufts University, writing after the February 28 single-day general boycott, outlined the conditions that enable targeted boycotts to succeed:
- A goal: what the boycott aims to achieve.
- A target: a decision-maker who is capable of doing something relevant to the goal.
- A demand: something that the target could agree to do.
- A cost: something that the target will lose if they don’t meet the demand.
- Negotiators: individuals who can credibly agree to stop the boycott if the target complies sufficiently.
- A message: a description of the boycott that is aimed at relevant third parties, such as observers who are undecided about the issue.
- Accountable leaders: people who decide on the previous six points and are answerable to those who actually boycott.
Although Levine does not raise this point, it is often the case that boycotts are most effective when connected to a broader movement, such as an alliance with unions. For instance, the grape boycott of 1965–1970 was linked to labor organizing among farm workers. Similarly, the current call for consumers to boycott Starbucks is linked to a campaign by workers from within to achieve union contracts for baristas.
So, why would anyone organize a general boycott or “buy nothing day,” which has hardly any of the features of targeted boycotts? Levine, for the record, mentions that he himself participated in the February 28 blackout, so he’s not disparaging general boycotts. It is simply that the goals of such actions should be understood differently.
General boycotts are less about seeking leverage to change policy, and more about spreading basic political education—like raising awareness that corporations do in fact dominate the US economy—as well as building at least the rudiments of a common sense among participants that they are part of a larger movement.
While buy nothing days are likely to be an inadequate means for directly affecting policy, they can certainly be a valuable form of outreach to large groups of people. And if there is appropriate post-event follow-up, they can begin to motivate people to build the deep person-to-person connections and organizational infrastructure necessary for sustained social change.
Organizing…involves building deep personal connections and an institutional infrastructure that sustains movement between peak mobilizational moments.
The rest of the article is also useful. For further reading, you could consider: The Montgomery Bus Boycott and The ISAIAH Trash Referendum from the SNF Agora Institute’s collection of Case Studies.
