Assuming Boycott: Resistance, Agency and Cultural Production is the essential reader for today’s creative leaders and cultural practitioners, including original contributions by artists, scholars, activists, critics, curators and writers who examine the historical precedent of South Africa; the current cultural boycott of Israel; freedom of speech and self-censorship; and long-distance activism. It is about consequences and causes of cultural boycott. Far from withdrawal or cynicism, boycott emerges as a productive tool of creative and productive engagement. Street protests are one side of a worldwide citizens’ movement. Another side is the increasing use of boycotts, one of the most powerful weapons in the organizer’s arsenal: it is an effective and moral lever for civil rights, most notably today in its adoption by the BDS movement. Since the days of the 19th century Irish land wars, when Irish tenant farmers defied the actions of Captain Charles Boycott and English landlords, “boycott” has been a method that’s had an impact time and again. In the 20th century, it notably played central roles in the liberation of India and South Africa and the struggle for civil rights in the U.S.: the 1955 Montgomery bus boycott is generally seen as a turning point in the movement against segregation. Assuming Boycott includes essays by Nasser Abourahme, Ariella Azoulay, Tania Bruguera, Noura Erakat, Kareem Estefan, Mariam Ghani with Haig Aivazian, Nathan Gray and Ahmet Öğüt, Chelsea Haines, Sean Jacobs, Yazan Khalili, Carin Kuoni and Laura Raicovich, Svetlana Mintcheva, Naeem Mohaiemen, Hlonipha Mokoena, John Peffer, Joshua Simon, Ann Laura Stoler, Radhika Subramaniam, Eyal Weizman and Kareem Estefan, and Frank B.
RELATED POSTS
1 Comment
R. Michael Wisner
June 6, 2017 @
4:44 pm
Find it hard to believe Cesar Chavez was not mentioned here. Knew Cesar. Was a pallbearer at his funeral. He once told a small group of environmental activists at a morning breakfast meeting that the UFW had developed the boycott to almost a science. They chose “grapes” to boycott, as a generic target was far more impactful than a named product. That time and time again, they learned when a boycott reaches 4%, not 2% or 3%, but 4% – the boycott target will invariably come to the negotiating table.
R. Michael Wisner
June 6, 2017 @ 4:44 pm
Find it hard to believe Cesar Chavez was not mentioned here. Knew Cesar. Was a pallbearer at his funeral. He once told a small group of environmental activists at a morning breakfast meeting that the UFW had developed the boycott to almost a science. They chose “grapes” to boycott, as a generic target was far more impactful than a named product. That time and time again, they learned when a boycott reaches 4%, not 2% or 3%, but 4% – the boycott target will invariably come to the negotiating table.