Cool question! I've been trying to do some reading around this since its become quite topical, and I've really enjoyed:

Judith Butler - Notes Toward a Performative Theory of Assembly
Jodi Dean - Crowds and Party

Two that are on my list to check out are:

Elias Canetti - Crowds and Power
Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt - Assembly

Hope these pointers might be useful.

Thank you! I will check out those books. I am wondering if you had any insights from the ones you've read? I feel like I am out of my element. My focus is early christian history, especially after the destruction of the second temple (major crisis of judaism) That was obviously a different time, but there is an abundance of texts, for people at that time, talking about how to make sense of what is happening and protest imperial impositions. I sometimes think there is more to be said in these early texts than anything in the present, but I am aware of classicist biases. I'm wondering about how contemporary resistance is framed.

I tried to grapple with some of the ideas in Jodi Dean's book in a recentish thread which you can read here. Essentially this really got me thinking about collective action and the need for organization in a way that I hadn't really before. Also things like the organisation of public space, and the how democracy always exceeds the formal mechanisms set in place to try and guarantee it, by necessity. Thinking about crowds and acting together is also just really refreshing when the overwhelming imperatives to act are predominantly individualist, rather collective. It also really brings out the embeddedness of humans in the world around them, and how reliance and dependance on others is not always necessarily a fault or something limiting, but something that can be cultivated in the right way to bring out more potentials and greater freedom than were available before.

So perhaps my biggest takeaway wasn't so one one particular insight so much as a point of view from which to think about things: from the perspective of the/a crowd. It's not something that comes naturally (to me) unless you often engage in collective action, or make an effort to highlight at an intellectual level. Hope that makes sense.

But I've been trying to figure out how philosophy relates to protests — Windward

Public protests are failed philosophical-political debates taken to the streets. They are continuation of rational debate by irrational means. Most philosophers are thinkers, not doers. After debating, they tend to agree to disagree. But passionate people are more political, in that what's important is not Truth, but Power : Who rules? Who gets their way?

Philosophers and Historians have learned that War is not the answer. But some have also concluded that we must stand-up to bullies, or remain as slaves. In general, philosophers, such as Stoics, have preferred to remain above the fray, and to turn the other cheek. But that leaves them open to abuse. So, the answer to your question hinges on whether you are Philosophical or Passionate? :nerd:

Santayana : "Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it."

Karl Marx : "Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it."

Klauswitz : "War is the continuation of politics by other means."

Marvin Gaye : "War is not the answer"