My area of scholarship is really public deliberation. That is, I work on productive (and unproductive) models of community deliberation. But, a boycott is not about deliberation; it's about bargaining. And I've read only a few things on bargaining, and only a few things on political action. So, what I say is worth nothing more than what anyone else has to say--I'm talking through my hat, and I don't have a better hat than anyone else does on this.
The next part is the pedantic part. Some folks like it when I give mini-lectures on rhetoric, and some people feel their boot itch. So, skip to the next section if you're in the latter category.
Pedantic Blather on Deliberation v. Bargaining
Political theorists distinguish between a "deliberative" situation and a "bargaining" one. (Mediation is yet another category, but that isn't what we're talking about, so I won't say anything about it.)
Deliberation is characterized by the giving of reasons. If someone doesn't grant that the given reason is relevant, then the giver has to "redeem" it, or the discourse has to move to something else.
In other words, if I say, "Wal-Mart is great because I like it," and you say, "Thanks for sharing, Trish--do you have any other reasons?", I am obligated to provide other reasons. If we're both operating in good faith, then I do. (And, if we're both operating in good faith, then you don't ask for unreasonable evidence.)
So, one of the problems with deliberation is that it relies on participants having good faith.
(I've partially talked about good faith argumentation in an earlier post, but I keep promising to write a longer one with more. I'm still promising.)
If, however, people aren't willing to engage in good faith argumentation, then the deliberative model falls apart.
Bargaining doesn't depend on good faith, and it doesn't depend on reasons. It depends on threats. That is, if we're bargaining, we're talking about finding some place between what you want and what I want, and where we end up will depend on who can threaten worse consequences. (A union threatens to strike; a company threatens to fire everyone.) For a threat to work, it has to be credible, and it has to be consequential. My threatening to think really bad things about you probably won't get me very far, but neither will my threatening to have wild dogs attack you. I don't control any wild dogs (I don't even control any domesticated dogs). You don't care if I think bad things; you care about being attacked by wild dogs, but that threat isn't credible.
So, is a boycott a good idea?
Here are the arguments as I see them:
Is it a credible threat? Well, surprisingly, yes. I didn't think that when RG4N called for it at their meeting in January, as I thought we aren't their target market anyway. But, the whole point of this new kind of Wal-Mart is that we are their target market. (This is explained, with sources, in the post called "Email from a lurker.") So, yes, a boycott from people like us would bother them.
Is this a wise action?I'm a sucker for experts, so, personally, I intend to defer to the attorney. The other person to whom I would defer on this matter would be Al Norman, of Sprawlbusters, as he's someone who's been successful at stopping Wal-Mart.
Should people boycott Wal-Mart? Yes. Absolutely. Without a doubt. And they should let Wal-Mart know that they are. But, that doesn't mean that ANA should call for a boycott. If it does, the motion should be very carefully worded, and approved by the attorney.
Well, that's my hat.
