國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Chapter 5
CAUSES AND EFFECTS
The last two chapters demonstrated a person’s decision to protest at an individual level. That it is up to the individual to choose if they want to protest, and everyone weighs different factors when deciding to do so or not. By looking at each person’s individual case, we have examined two aspects: motivations and abeyance structures.
Motivations are direct reasons that compelled these students to get involved in protest.
Many of the students disagreed with CSSTA, or disagreed with the government tactics that were done in order to pass it. Because of these reasons, they suddenly felt obligated to get involved and make a difference. On the other hand, for these very same reasons, certain students received a negative reaction moving them against protesting, instead of it encouraging them to protest. These motivations gave them a reason at the exact moment to justify whether to get involved or not. Each individual candidate’s background was also explored and it was speculated how this could possibly impact their willingness to become motivated. These abeyance structures consist of an innate thinking process that can be learned. Depending on one’s environment how they grew up or were educated, they will have more demands for social justice, making it easier to be displeased by society’s conditions. Therefore, if the conditions are right and sparks are flying on the verge of protest, these people will have a larger tendency to become motivated and eventually move towards protest involvement over the long run. This chapter will focus on bringing everything together. Based on the information collected thus far, all
candidates can be compared to create an overall picture determining the causal relation between students’ background and the actions they took during the Sunflower Movement.
All candidates represent students that are stereotypically more prone to protest: leaning to the left side of politics, and supporting green candidates. Yet, they all took a different course of action when it came to how involved they were in the movement. By looking back at their motivations to protest as well as their background, overarching conclusions can be made. Here, we will be able to weigh what motivations are more important than others in protesting and how one’s background can make them more inclined to support the movement wholeheartedly.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
5.1 Motivations and Outcomes
After interviewing all seven candidates, five motivations were determined to have directly impacted their decision whether or not to get involved in the movement. Either, they were interested in politics and news, disagreed with the under-the-table operation, identified with the movement and understood its goals, felt CSSTA was bad for Taiwan, or believed that protesting had to be done in order to be effective and make change. All of these variables are designated with a positive value, so if a candidate identifies with this, it encourages them to have an outcome where they are more involved in the movement. Each of these motivations can also work negatively or have no noticeable difference on their willingness to protest. Motivations are represented by the variable “Y”
in the chart below. The negatives hurting their outcome to protest are marked, while a motivation making no noticeable difference is not mentioned. Their outcome, or their involvement in the movement, is marked by the variable “Z.” The range of Z starts with Z1, representing a student with absolutely no involvement and being completely against joining the movement. It ends with Z5, which represents a student actively involved in the movement as well as convincing others to get involved as well. The data for all seven interviewed candidates in terms of motivations and outcomes are listed in the chart below.
Candidate Motivation Effect Definition
Y1 Interested in politics and often reads news Ming Fong Y1,Y2,Y3,Y4,Y5 Z5 Y2 Disagreed with under-the-table operation
CT Chang Y1(-),Y2,Y5 Z3 Y3 Understood what the movement wanted Leo Y1(-),Y3,Y4(-),Y5 Z2 Y4 CSSTA is bad for the future of Taiwan
Patrick Y1(-),Y2,Y3(-),Y5(-) Z2 Y5 Believed protesting could accomplish something Sophia Y1,Y2,Y3,Y4,Y5 Z5
Wei Ming Y3,Y4,Y5 Z4 Z1 Disagreed with protests, against protestors
Jason Y1,Y2,Y3,Y4,Y5 Z5 Z2 Slightly identified with protestors, did not participate
Z3 Took time to understand circumstances then decided to protest Z4 Participated and spread information to educate others
Z5 Frequently went to site, actively tried to convince others
The motivations chart above is similar to what was represented in Chapter 3, but now it is more complete with all candidates listed along with their respective outcomes.
According to the data, we can immediately see that there is a correlation between the positive number of motivations and how far they went in going to protest. Those with more motivations were more willing to get involved in the movement and spread
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
information to others trying to convince them. Also as expected, those with more negative motivations were less involved in the protest movement altogether. It is also interesting to note that those who were the most invested in the movement (here designated as Z5) had all motivations to protest. Therefore, they truly believed in all aspects of the movement and wanted to change the conditions surrounding CSSTA.
While, negative motivations are not seen until we reach the Z3 level of participation, marking that the student took a while to think about the pros and cons of protesting before choosing to do so. The negative motivations also vary widely between each candidate.
All students who did not participate all have a negative Y1 variable, meaning that they were not interested in politics or the news surrounding the situation to begin with. We can speculate that if they normally engaged themselves in current events, they could have been more affected by the events going on. As they did not seem to express care about politics, this could be a major reason to them choosing not to get involved. Among the other variables of non-participants, Patrick has two additional negative variables, Y3 and Y5, while Leo has only one, Y4. For Patrick, his reluctance to get involved can be reflected by the fact that he wasn’t sure what the movement wanted in Y3, and he also doubted the efficacy he could individually bring by joining, as we can see with Y5. His practicality in decision making ultimately left him able to sympathize with what was happening to the protestors in the event, but he was too late to sort everything out mentally to participate. This end result can also be said for Leo, who also sympathized with protestors but knew he would not join. The difference is that he had an ideological difference with the protesting majority on CSSTA, designated as Y4. Everyone else who participated with at least a Z4 outcome felt very strongly about this as a reason for going out. As Leo believed it would be good from a business perspective, he prioritized this view over the labor viewpoint. He understands both points of view and respects the protestors’ point of view, but his ideological difference in this one area prevented him from supporting the movement. Despite his dissimilar view on this key concept, he still partially identified with the wishes of protestors and hoped that everything could be solved in a peaceful manner.
We can further break down all other motivation factors at an individual level and try to weigh the importance of each one. As mentioned previously, all non-participating students were not interested in politics or news, represented by Y1. Furthermore, we can speculate that more exposure to the relevant Sunflower Movement topics could bring more interest, hence involvement. If we look at Y1 overall, only Wei Ming is without
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
this variable, indicating that there was a period of thinking whether he wanted to protest or not as his interest was not yet settled on the movement. In addition to Y4 playing a strong role in getting people out, we can look at Y2 as another factor that brought non-participants to sympathize with protestors. For Patrick, he would have had only negative associations if it wasn’t for this motivation. Similarly with Leo, he would have had more positive associations regarding the efficacy of the protest Movement if it weren’t for this measurement. But with these strong motivations for and against the movement,
respectively, they moved towards the same outcome. For the Y3 and Y5 variables, these represent weaker variables in pushing one to protest as they are coupled with other factors.
For instance, CT Chang is the only person indifferent to the Y3 variable, yet he was encouraged to participate by long discussions with friends by Y2, the stronger variable in comparison to his other positive variable Y5. Using this chart we can further speculate motivations and outcome in the Sunflower Movement by comparing these positive and negative motivation variables.
5.2 Abeyance Structures and Motivations
All seven candidates were also asked the same questions regarding their
background to determine if there was a connection between this and their motivations to get involved in protest. As explained in the previous chapter, everyone’s background has positive or negative abeyance structures, which could possibly affect how one feels regarding certain motivations towards protesting. These background factors, or abeyance structures, can be a lifestyle that they’ve grown up in, so they would be more inclined to support protest efforts. The three different factors previously mentioned that have a positive effect towards getting involved as explained in Chapter 4 are as follows: part of protest culture, direct networking such as clubs, and influence through school subjects.
An additional abeyance structure of feeling disadvantaged compared to others was also added in. On the other hand, the negative abeyance structures that work towards having negative motivations regarding the protest has been identified as: never protesting before, feeling separate from Taiwanese society, and prioritizing business interests. It should be stressed again that motivations are direct reasons for one to get involved in protest, while abeyance structures is someone’s background, so as to give context where certain
motivations come from. Both of these variables were compared to demonstrate the causal relation between the two. In the chart below, all abeyance structures are labeled as “X,”
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
with the negative abeyance structures being marked. Similar to the last chart, motivations are marked as “Y,” and negative motivations are appropriately marked.
X1 Part of Protest Culture (+) Abeyance X2 Direct Networking, Clubs (+)
Structure Motivation X3 Influenced by school subjects (+) Ming Fong X1,X2,X3 Y1,Y2,Y3,Y4,Y5 X4 Often felt disadvantaged growing up
CT Chang X2,X5(-) Y1(-),Y2,Y5 X5 Never protested before (-)
Leo X7(-) Y1(-),Y3,Y4(-),Y5 X6 Feels separate from Taiwanese society (-) Patrick X5(-),X6(-) Y1(-),Y2,Y3(-),Y5(-) X7 Prioritizes business interests (-)
Sophia X1 Y1,Y2,Y3,Y4,Y5 Y1 Interested in politics and often reads news Wei Ming X2,X4,X5(-) Y3,Y4,Y5 Y2 Disagreed with under-the-table operation
Jason X1,X2,X3 Y1,Y2,Y3,Y4,Y5 Y3 Understood what the movement wanted Y4 CSSTA is bad for the future of Taiwan
Y5 Believed protesting could accomplish something
As displayed in this chart, abeyance structures are the causes (X), while the motivations now represent the results (Y). By looking at the chart at large, we can observe that those without any negative abeyance structures (negative X variables) and only positives (X variables) have very strong motivations. These would later mean that they would be fixed on getting involved in the Sunflower Movement. It is also interesting to note that Sophia, who was part of the protest culture ever since a child, but did not have any school or club influences was just as motivated to get involved as Jason and Ming Fong. For Jason in particular, he was introduced to new ideas regarding protest through school, and was gradually sucked into the abeyance structure. Even though his history isn’t as pronounced as Sophia per se, his motivations to get involved were as steadfast as hers.
This leads us to infer that as long as an individual is a part of an abeyance structure, it allows them to develop a deeply conscious motivated mindset. When it comes time to protest, this mindset prevails and they can join without hesitation. For these people there are no negative background factors that prevent them from prioritizing protesting as the best cause of action. As both Leo and Patrick did not get involved in the protest, they only had negative abeyance structures. They were not part of the abeyance culture to begin with, which can explain their lack of interest in joining the movement. Patrick never protested in movements before (X5), which could explain his reservations about joining in movement and how he questioned its effectiveness (Y5). Both CT Chang and Wei Ming never protested before either, however outside forces such as clubs worked to get them motivated and involved (X2). For example, CT Chang did not want to protest originally because he had reservations about protests in general. He was then influenced
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
by his club where he was able to meet friends from the Law Department. These people were frequently involved in social movements and actively convinced him to support the movement. The same can also be said for Wei Ming, who was more invested in a
politically charged club than CT Chang. Here, he became much closer to people with different mindsets and they successfully convinced him to get more involved with his surroundings. This abeyance structure resonated with him in this area so strong that he eventually picked up a second major in Social Work to learn more about how to help people in need. Coupled with his background as someone growing up with a
disadvantage (Abeyance structure X4), he felt compelled to do more to help others that are now in his former position.
We can also look at each independent variable and compare this to how it affected their motivation. Those with a variable of X1, meaning that they are already a part of the larger protest movement all have very strong motivations to get involved. If one is normally involved in protest acts, it assumes that they are easily moved by social
situations, and believe that action must be taken in order to achieve change. Similarly, we can also see a strong correlation with X3, so that if one became a part of the abeyance structure through their education, they too have very strong motivations in getting involved. As opposed to clubs, these students were not directly recruited in joining the structure; it was instead the school environment where they were inundated with new information about injustices which slowly changed their mind. Therefore, X1 and X3 can be seen as strong variables that usually give people knowledge and strength on all issues enabling them to become motivated. For X4, only Wei Ming came from what he self-identifies as disadvantaged circumstances while growing up. While he didn’t feel different at the beginning of university, this realization after a couple years made him much more adamant in fighting for social justice. This also marks a difference in motivational outcome with CT Chang. As their abeyance structures are nearly identical except this one factor, Wei Ming ended up being one level above CT Chang in terms of becoming motivated. Clubs and networking, or X2, pushed people to get motivated around certain issues, however X1 and X3 allows for people to be more well-rounded regarding social movements altogether. As for negative abeyance structures, only Leo had a predisposition to support business interests (X7). This is the primary reason why he could not get motivated to support the movement as it was against CSSTA. Patrick was the only person who represented X6, where because of his background being raised in
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Thailand, it is a probable cause for him not being familiar with his surroundings in Taiwan. Therefore he relate to much during the protest.
5.3 The Final Effect – Sustaining the Sunflower Movement
As with all waves of protest, everything goes in a cycle. At first comes the wave of enthusiasm: It is new, controversial, and stimulating to be a part of something that could be historic. Expressing personal dissatisfaction through large group protest also brings relief and attention to these issues that many personally care about as well. During this time, social media, news outlets broadcast daily occurrences because it’s fresh in everyone’s mind. But soon, the energy runs out as concessions from the higher authority can be slow and many people that are less driven start to grow tired. Soon, people start leaving, and attention from the media is diverted elsewhere. This is what happened during the Sunflower Movement.
When the rare occurrence in Taiwan society of large protests initially broke out, local media reported the occurrence, pictures were shared on social media, and supporters of the protest started to grow. One of its largest points was a rally for democracy held on March 30, where 350,000 demonstrators stood in front of the Presidential office and urged elected officials to listen to the protestor’s demands. At the same time, social media continuously allowed the protest to expand. In order for protestors to get their message across, organizers looked for sources of money to fund this endeavor. This was accomplished through crowdfunding. An online campaign was launched to fund a full page advertisement in the New York Times. Within 12 hours, $6.3 million NT was raised to cover the costs.42 After this peak of participation was reached, the Movement started to have a slow turndown. While many still supported the movement, the government reaction was slow to respond to the protestors’ demands. As a result, over the next week, the crowd grew weary over their strenuous efforts and their size was noticeably reduced.
With social media, attention and money came in a sudden burst, but with no quick results.
They weren’t sure if their efforts were futile. However, the Legislative Yuan still remained occupied and with the government backed in the corner, only a week after the peak on April 6, a sudden announcement was made by KMT Legislative Speaker Wang Jin Pyng. He promised that the CSSTA will continue to be held up and will not be passed
42 Cheng, Tracey, “Taiwan’s Sunflower Movement: Digital Anatomy of Protest.”
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
until a review was conducted. In addition, a cross-strait regulatory mechanism would be enacted for future agreements.43 The students agreed to vacate the building on April 10, though many were not satisfied with the outcome. Although the announcement was sudden and many were shocked, the process was at an impasse and the government had to budge. The protestors had a bargaining chip by occupying the Legislative Yuan, and they would not give it up until their demands were met. By meeting halfway, the KMT
thought it would be a quick end without tarnishing too much of their reputation and conceding too much. But the protest had already made its imprint on Taiwanese society.
Although the Sunflower Movement only lasted for about three weeks, it renewed political interest with Taiwanese, especially among the younger generation. People were now conscious over what their government was doing. Soon after protests ended, the remaining mobilized activists repositioned their efforts against building Taiwan’s fourth nuclear power plant, a KMT project.44 Also due to the successful ventures of using the
Although the Sunflower Movement only lasted for about three weeks, it renewed political interest with Taiwanese, especially among the younger generation. People were now conscious over what their government was doing. Soon after protests ended, the remaining mobilized activists repositioned their efforts against building Taiwan’s fourth nuclear power plant, a KMT project.44 Also due to the successful ventures of using the