Introduction
To make significant changes working in well-organized social groups is essential as it gives the vigor and teamwork needed to motivate the proper agencies to make the necessary adjustments. Usually, social movements emanate when there is evidence of systematic inequality between the governance and the people. Produced by Aloe et al. (2015), the Battle in Seattle is a fictionalized Hollywood action movie that features the actual 1999 mass protest against World Trade Organization (WTO) ministerial meeting. Important lessons on leadership, team pressure, and strikes, among others, can be learned from the film. The objective of this paper is to critically analyze Battle in Seattle through the theoretical lens and understand collective behavior in a large-scale boycott.
Social Groups in the Film
One of the social groups is the one involving mass peaceful protest against WTO, organized by Jay and Django. They are determined to have their voices heard by raising banners and walking to the shutting access to the convention hall so that the WTO meeting in Santiago does not proceed. Secondly, there is a team of anarchists whose strike is violent. They go about smashing the windows and destroying things even after Jay requests that they stop the violence and join them. Thirdly, there is the labor movement which also matches to air their grievances and register their dissatisfaction with working conditions.
Formal Organizations
The primary formal organization in the film is WTO which was initially known as the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade (GATT). At the time of its formation, there were a total of 23 member countries. The purpose of the GATT was to legalize and expand business globally to achieve a sense of stability and unity among nations. When more members joined the GATT, the organization graduated to WTO in 1995. The objective then was “writing a constitution for a single global economy (Aloe et al., 2015, 00:01:12-00:01:14). The WTO also expanded free trade and vowed that it would assist the developing nations to benefit from international business.
In-Group Vs. Out-Group Interaction
There are various instances of in-group versus out-group interaction in the film. During the protest, there is the group led by Jay which matches peacefully while other anarchist is also striking but breaking things. There are also the police and the national guard versus the civilians. Within the WTO, there are developed nations with veto powers against the developing countries which, according to one of the African representatives, “have been blindsided and marginalized” (Aloe et al., 2015, 1:26:54-1:27: 14). After the arrest, there is a team of prisoners versus the police guards.
Group Pressure
Group pressure is evident when Gordon calls the president of the city, Jim Tobin, informing him that the only way to control the protest is to spray them. Mayor Tobin had earlier promised that as long as the strike is peaceful, the police will not interfere. While still on call with Gordon, the statehouse calls, and the mayor is left with no alternative; his response is, “do what you have to do and do it fast (Aloe et al., 2015,00:20:29). Group pressure from protestors is also evident because, in the end, the WTO does not hold its meeting. In addition, the prisoners are allowed to go free without any criminal record or charges.
Leadership Styles
Jay is the leader of the peaceful protestors; whose leadership style is mostly a servant leader. He takes an active role in the protest and does most of the work of coordinating the strike. He is willing to suffer for the sake of the people and even gets punched by police and is imprisoned. The mayor is also a leader whose method of authority is democratic. During the rally, he agrees with the mass that they have the right to protest, but they should keep the city intact. When pressured to use force against the protestors, he again accepts because the majority of the people in positions support the idea.
Theoretical Perspective
The value-added theory, which proposes that several conditions must exist for group behavior to occur, best describes the events in the movie. One of the necessities is structural conduciveness which, as evident in the film, the people were aware of the problem, and it was possible to hold a gathering. Next is structural strain, which is evident in protestors’ belief that the WTO will not meet their expectations. The third requirement is the growth and spread of common belief, which was enhanced by the leaders. Lastly is the precipitating factor, which in this case was the WTO holding its first-ever ministerial meeting in the United States.
The Rationale for the Specific Date
The date was relevant because that was the first-ever ministerial meeting of the WTO being held in the region. The human rights activist felt that the WTO was capitalistic because their only concern was economic progress. Some alarming cases, such as the increase of genetically modified food forced on consumers, crushing of small-scale farmers, and infant mortalities, are just some of the issues which WTO neglected. Stopping their conference meant that they would reconsider the demands of the people.
Comparison of WTO Protest with Recent Ones on Police Brutality and Racism
First, both protests raised concerns about human rights and discrimination. For instance, in WTO, there were concerns about marginalization of developing nations while in police brutality issues on segregation of non-Caucasians. The other similarity is that the protest was done simultaneously in many countries throughout the world. The difference is that in the case of WTO, the grievances were held against a specific organization, while in more recent cases, it is more about raising awareness to stop atrocities.
Reference
Aloe, M., Amritraj, A., Remillard, M., & Shaw, K. (2015). Hollywood action movies – Battle in Seattle full movies – Latest Hollywood movies 2015 in English HD – video Dailymotion [Video]. Dailymotion. Web.