History
Boycotting as a tactic has probably been with us since the first nonviolent power struggles. Boycotting is simply the act of withholding support or involvement in some activity as a means of protest. Often the goal of such protest is to force a change in the policy or action being protested. Economic and consumer boycotts are the most common and widely known. But there are also academic boycotts, by students who refrain from attending class; political boycotts, when political parties and/or voters refuse to partake in an unfair political process; and social boycotts, when individuals refuse interaction with an institution or individual. There are also boycotts of speeches and conferences. There was a U.S. boycott of the Moscow Olympics in 1984. An embargo is a form of economic boycott barring trade with a particular nation.

The term
Although many well-known protests throughout history have utilized the tactic of boycotting --most notably the Boston Tea Party of 1773-- the term boycott was first used in Ireland in 1880. Between 1879 to 1882 the Irish Land League, led by Michael Davitt and Charles Stewart Parnell, adopted the tactic of ostracizing landlords when they evicted tenants. The tactic was referred to as social or moral excommunication. Then in 1880, they targeted Captain Charles Cunningham Boycott who was the land agent and rent collector for an absentee English earl, Lord Erne. The Land League had asked Boycott to reduce rents by 25 percent because bad harvests had made famine likely. Boycott instead tried to evict the tenants.

At that time, the American journalist James Redpath was visiting with Davitt. About three days after the decree of social excommunication against Boycott, Redpath was dining with Father John O'Malley from County Mayo, where Boycott was evicting renters. O'Malley noticed Redpath was not eating. When asked why, Redpath said he was troubled by the term "excommunication" and felt the movement needed a more precise word to convey its actions. After a few moments and a brief discussion, Father O'Malley suggested the word "boycott." The term was conveyed to the young activists in the movement and given to reporters in Dublin, and Redpath began to use it in his correspondence with the American press.

Because the locals would not work for him or sell to him, Boycott was forced to hire workers from Ulster, guarded by soldiers, to harvest his crops. The situation forced him to leave Ireland the same year. And that is how the tactic of "boycotting" got its name.

Early History
Gandhi helped popularize the boycott in his campaign for Indian independence from Britain. To make his point about noncooperation with Britain, in 1920 Gandhi called on the people of India to boycott linen imported from Britain, and instead to weave their own cloth by hand. In 1930, Gandhi called for a boycott of British salt to further demonstrate Indian independence from Britain. He and thousands of supporters marched to the sea to gather sea salt instead of paying the small price for British salt.

Since then, the boycott has become an international symbol of resistance, hope, and power.

American farmers called for boycotts of banks and large corporations in the populist revolt of the 1890s. The boycott was revived in the U.S. during the labor movement in the early 1900s. Exploited workers launched strikes and built unions to demand safer working conditions and better pay. During this movement, companies would hire police, soldiers, and thugs to get rid of, and sometimes murder, labor organizers and strikers. The unionists fought back, asking members to refuse buying from any company that would not negotiate with workers' unions. To this day, unions continue to make effective use of the boycott in contract negotiations with corporations.

The boycott was again used, though less successfully, during the period between World War I and II. American Jews called for boycotts of all German goods because of that country's anti-Semitic policies. Although most Americans, including U.S. companies such as Ford, continued doing business with Germany, the Jewish community felt it could not justify providing the German government with additional funds with which to impose its anti-Jewish policies. Even today, many American Jews refuse to do business with U.S. companies that supported the rise of Naziism in Germany.

The boycott entered American history again when it became the backbone of the U.S. Civil Rights movement during the 1950s and '60s. One hundred years earlier, abolitionists in the north had refused to buy products from slave states, not wishing to strengthen the South's economy. A century later, blacks in the South organized campaigns to withhold their spending from businesses that discriminated against blacks, including supermarkets, bakeries, gas stations, and clothing stores. These boycotts succeeded in desegregating numerous businesses.

The most well-known boycott of the Civil Rights movement is the 1955 Montgomery bus boycott. Although blacks were supposed to give up their seats and move to the back of the bus if a white needed a seat, Rosa Parks, a long-time Civil Rights activist, decided one day not to get up. When the driver stopped the bus and kicked her off, it sparked a boycott that helped ignite the movement. Blacks stopped using the Montgomery buses and, in order for the bus system to stay in business, the buses were forced to desegregate. That victory led to many more successful desegregation boycotts.

The boycott was used again by students in Berkeley, California in the early 1960s. They boycotted classes and staged sit-ins in the administration building in what became known as the "free speech movement." As the movement grew, some of the leaders expanded the movement to address other injustices. They joined black hotel workers in picket lines and launched boycotts against establishments that treated workers unfairly. These efforts eventually grew into the anti-war movement against U.S. military involvement in Vietnam. Companies that produced bombs, napalm, and Agent Orange defoliant became boycott targets.

During this same period, impoverished farm workers in California, led by Cesar Chavez, used boycotts in their effort to gain union recognition by powerful growers. Farmworkers had been purposefully left out of President Franklin Roosevelt's labor legislation of the New Deal of the 1940s in order to guarantee support from southern senators who did not want to extend labor rights to the South's predominantly black farmworkers. Consequently, the farmworkers of the 1960s and 70s, primarily Latino, had no rights under the National Labor Relations Act, and attempts to organize farmworker unions were met with firings, violence, and even murder.

The farmworkers realized that their own combined economic clout would not be enough to influence growers. So, when they called for their boycotts of iceberg lettuce and California table grapes, they selected common foods that could be boycotted by any consumer. This was effectively the first time that a large scale boycott carried the action outside of its own ranks, relying on the general consumer for support. But this was in an era of activism and movements for social justice, and the United Farm Workers did not find it hard to win support from followers in the peace and civil rights movements. Its boycotts drew support from prominent politicians and celebrities, and culminated in numerous UFW contracts and rapidly growing membership in the union.

In the late 1970s, a group concerned about the high mortality rate of children in developing countries launched a boycott against Nestle. The company was targeted because of its deceptive marketing practices aimed at poor mothers in the Third World. The Infant Formula Action Coalition (INFACT) claimed that Nestle's marketing methods resulted in hundreds of thousands of infant deaths annually. The boycott gained national prominence when Nestle attempted to sue INFACT, bringing the previously obscure boycott into the headlines.

The Nestle boycott became the first large scale boycott to be launched by a third party, that is, a group other than the one that would benefit from the success of the boycott. Workers had called for boycotts in an effort to improve their lives, as had blacks in the South. But boycotts were changing. No longer were they simply instruments for the poor and disenfranchised to better their own lives; they became tools for middle America, and for all people, to exercise influence outside of their community and to address injustice wherever it occurred.


MoreAbout Boycotts
The boycott has been instrumental in building movements because of its highly unique nature. The boycott has numerous important aspects that make it an ideal movement builder. No other form of protest and influence possesses all of these important qualities; only the boycott makes use of them all. And no other action possesses any of these qualities to the degree that they can be found in the boycott.

directness - Boycotting is direct. Unlike other modes of change, it is not reliant upon another party for its impact. Unlike a vote in an election or one's presence at a protest, the boycott is not dependent upon a tally of votes or media coverage in order for its impact to be felt. With boycotts, you don't have to worry whether your candidate will vote the right way, or whether her votes on issues might be wasted. The boycott impacts the target directly, independent of third party interpretation.

Although the boycott makes a direct impact, the target must still interpret the source of this impact. If the goal is for a company to change its policy, the company must associate lost sales with the boycott effort and not simply with poor advertising or competitors' improving their market share. So the action does require interpretation by the company, the second party, but avoids the need for third party involvement.

Because the boycott is so direct, the ability to boycott is hard to take away from people. It is difficult for governments and companies to force citizens to buy a particular product. Various governments have attempted to outlaw boycotting, but enforcement is virtually impossible.

simplicity - Boycotting is a relatively simple and easy act. Although the issues surrounding a boycott may be complex, what is asked of participants is usually quite easy.

educational - Boycotts are educational tools. In calling for a boycott, you educate the public about an issue. Information is an intrinsic element of any boycott. And once people are participating in the boycott, it presents an opportunity for further education about the issues involved. Participants will want to tell others about the boycott and to defend their position on the boycott. Consequently, they will want information surrounding the issues of the boycott. And because they are involved, participants will want to know the status of the boycott and any developments in the boycott. Such interest presents an ideal opportunity for education.

individual influence - The influence of a boycott is really the influence of individual participants. Each time a boycott supporter avoids a particular brand because of the boycott, the supporter is exercising influence. This power of the individual is implicit in the boycott. People who dismiss boycotts are dismissing the ability of ordinary individuals to exercise power. But the track record for boycotting speaks for itself. Individuals do have influence, and much more than most people think.

collective power - Boycotts are a reflection of the power of collective effort. Although boycotts are a testimony to the power of individuals, that power is magnified when it is joined with the power of others.

Collective effort is nothing without individual participation, and the influence of the individual is limited without involvement with other individuals. Boycotts are expressions of unity and show the potential of cooperation. In an increasingly fragmented and detached world, the collective spirit of the boycott reminds us that we are not alone, and that we don't have to fight society's battles alone.

positive change - Boycotting is the act of doing something positive, and not just the refusal to participate in something negative. In boycotting you not only refuse to reward a targeted activity, you seek to alter that activity. Boycotts create positive change and momentum for further change.

A political vote is often regarded as support for the "lesser of two evils." The economic vote in boycotting is not predicated upon merely supporting a "lesser evil," but upon attacking the "greater evil." In fact, by targeting the "greater evil," boycotts can often influence "lesser evils." Once successful, the boycott is in a stronger position to move forward and target lesser evils.

inexpensive - Boycotts can be conducted with little expense. Typically, boycotts have relied most heavily upon word-of-mouth efforts to generate awareness and support. Historically, boycotts have often been carried out by groups with very little economic clout.

staying power - Because most boycotts last more than a week or a month --often a few years-- conscientious buying can become habitual for participants. Participation requires action over a period of time. Often, the longer the action continues, the more disenchanted the participants will feel about the target. They will regard stubborn targets as less caring, more arrogant, greedy bullies. Because of the personal involvement over a period of time, boycotts tend to be memorable.

For the most part, this creates a lasting effect, with the target not wishing to engender such negative responses from consumers in the future. Furthermore, each boycott creates an underlying network of boycotters already assembled should the company renege on its agreement. Because of these qualities, boycotts are not one-time shots, like elections or demonstrations. A boycott is not reliant on one particular event or outcome; supporters can continue to boycott until they get what they want.

wide appeal - Boycotting as a tactic tends to conjure a positive image with most people. It is not viewed as an approach that is extreme, unfocused, unreasonable, bizarre or obscure. It is used by all types of groups, left and right, and even by companies and countries.

effective - The boycott is a proven tactic. Boycotts have become so universal and instrumental because they are so enormously successful. This is not to say that all boycotts will succeed. Rather, the boycott offers an effective strategy if it is used properly and in an appropriate context. Boycotts require public support, or the potential for public support. If an issue is not likely to generate sufficient support, it is not likely that a boycott for such a cause would be successful. It is also important to carefully choose targets and goals, and to have the energy to carry out a campaign that may take years. Boycotts that can't maintain energy over a long period of time cannot succeed. But boycotts that can arouse public sympathy, and that have the energy and do the proper planning, will almost always succeed. Usually, the only requirement for a boycott to succeed is a particular level of consumer awareness, sympathy, or active support.

There is an impression among the public that boycotts are not effective. This mistaken notion is due to the fact that the media, both alternative and mainstream, tends to ignore boycotts. The public rarely hears of boycott victories, so naturally assumes that boycotts are somehow ineffective.

empowering - The most important aspect of the boycott is its ability to empower. Because they are so direct, and imbue participants with a sense of being an effective part of a larger, collective force, --and because these forces tend to succeed--boycotts tend to be the ideal vehicle to build individual empowerment. That is possibly why boycotts are often at the forefront of movements; once people have become charged andempowered with a boycott success, they tend to want to--and feel they can--accomplish more. But the ability of boycotts to empower is even more intricate when one understands the complexity of empowerment, embodied in the "empowerment principle." This principle holds that empowerment is the end result of several interrelated factors, all of which need to be adequatelt present for empowerment to occur. A sense of responsibility is a key component of feeling empowered. But one is not going to feel responsibility for a condition or situation that one feels powerless to change. Furthermore, people are not going to bother to become informed or involved about issues they feel powerless to affect. So trying to educate the public about critical issues is often extremely difficult, largely because they feel irrelevent to the concerns. So people need to feel that they have actual, real power and influence over a situation before they will feel responsibility to become involved or educate themselves about what they can do. Because each aspect of empowerment --responsibility, influence, interest, education, and action--are all interdependent to a great degree, virtually all of these intervening factors need to be present at the same time in order to achieve a sense of empowerment. If one aspect is missing, an opportunity to empower can easily turn into a missed opportunity. Fortunately, boycotts encompass and utilise every one of these components, which reinforces their reputation as the ideal empowerment tool. Boycotts not only allow people to do something when they would otherwise feel they could nothing; boycotts make people feel they can do even more.

The Philosophy Behind Boycotting
There are various ideas which underlie the concept of consumer boycotting. Foremost among these are: individual responsibility, ethical consistency, one's social values, economic power, and the profit motive.

Individual responsibility is a critical component of boycotting because without a sense of responsibility there could be no boycotters. Ethical consistency refers to applying one's ethics in a consistent manner. Boycotting is a representation of such consistency because, in essence, the consumer is saying: "If I don't believe in these practices, why should I support them with my consumer purchases?" Furthermore, when a consumer chooses to boycott, she is saying that the value she places upon various concerns is more important to her than the convenience, quality, or enjoyment that she gets from the boycotted products. These considerations, individual social values and priorities, are critical to the concept of boycotting.

An understanding and belief in economic power is also a central concept in consumer boycotting. If one doesn't believe that economic power is valuable or can make a difference, then it wouldn't matter or make any difference how one spends one's money. Consumer boycotts suggest an understanding and appreciation of economic power. After all, one's economic power is ultimately the embodiment of her energy, time, and creativity. And, increasingly, it seems that more and more of our time is spent converting our time, energy, and creativity into economic power. Consequently, if we place value on how we spend our lives, then we must carefully consider how this value is utilized in terms of our consumer spending choices. Do we want our time and energy to go toward the creation of vast economic powers that trample all other values in pursuit of profit? If we believe in boycotting, then we also believe that our economic power and how we use it is important.

Another aspect implicit in consumer boycotting is recognition and understanding of the profit motive. Although many boycotters may feel the profit motive may do more harm than good, they recognize its importance in boycotting. Without a profit motive, consumers boycotts would have little influence. Because a corporation is worried first and foremost about increasing its profits, it is vulnerable to changes in consumer purchasing. Although company profits may be at the root of the corporate wrong-doing, the bottom line is also the business's Achille's heel, and points the way to reform those practices.

Regardless of whether a boycott actually impacted the company's profits, the bottom-line is responsible for every boycott that has ever triumphed. Corporations are not only concerned with current profits; they are also concerned about the growth of future profits and the rate of that growth. Even if a company is profiting, it may see a boycott as a threat to its level of profit. If a company feels that a boycott could slow its profits, it may want to settle the conflict rather than risk lost profits down the road.

To succeed, boycotts must understand the role of profit in corporate decisions. And for boycott participants to fully appreciate their role in forcing change, they must understand their role in affecting corporate profits.

Boycotting: A Conservative Tactic?
Although the most well-known boycotts have been called by revolutionary colonists, radical idealists, anti-establishment activists, and social reformers, today the boycott tactic is regarded by many activists as a "conservative approach." Many of the perspectives intrinsic in boycotting are associated with conservative ideas. Individual responsibility, economic power, and the profit motive as a legitimate and appropriate social regulator are all concepts traditionally embraced by conservatives. By contrast, liberals and others who see themselves on the left side of the spectrum typically favor social responsibility, political and social power, and generally see the profit motive as a societal deregulator and, in charitable terms, a necessary evil.

In very generalized terms, where conservatives believe individuals should assume responsibility for correcting societal problems, the left sees the government as responsible for addressing social concerns. Part of this difference can be traced to how the two sides regard institutions and the system. Conservatives typically want to maintain the preserve the present system and are distrustful of institutions that they feel undermine the influence and power of individuals. On the other hand, the left seeks to alter the system and attempts to empower institutions that have influence over such changes.

Whereas liberals feel that social problems originate with an unjust system, and thus look for institutional remedies, conservatives see social problems as the result of irresponsible individuals and look for solutions in individual action. Basically, conservatives do not see the systemic role in social problems, and the left tends to overlook the individual role as irrelevent. Consequently, the left feels a collective responsibility for problems and feels such problems must be addressed collectively, through social institutions. Conservatives do not feel a social obligation to remedy problems caused by others, however, they do feel an individual obligation to protect the system from perceived attacks.

Boycotts: Left & Right
Many, if not most activists are not so concerned with ideology as with action. Nevertheless, there are some generalizations that tend to apply to the way conservatives and leftists regard boycotting. In general, the left feels that boycotts -- by their use of the profit motive and market forces -- legitimize the unjust and amoral market system. They often see boycotts as reactionary, knee-jerk band-aid applications to symptoms that result from systemic injustices.

This has not prevented groups on the left from launching boycotts. Because the left has a great distaste for the market system, many on the left are eager to point out corporate wrong-doing as examples of what's wrong with the system. They eagerly and loudly point the finger of blame at the corporation, its management and shareholders. As a result, the left has offered strong support behind many boycott efforts. However, the left has not been so endeared to boycotts as to the various causes they represent. Boycotts have never been a major focus of the left, and they fail to receive anything but nominal attention. The tactic has always been of less concern than the fight for justice that accompanies it.

Although boycotting by the left can be justified as a tool to attack the corporate system, the left is not interested in justifying the consumer approach to change. Piecemeal change, a boycott here or there, is fine if it helps rally the public against corporate evils. But the left is uncomfortable with the idea that consumers should assume responsibility for attacking and altering corporate practices. After all, attacking corporations successfully implies that consumers have power over corporations, which then implies we have influence over corporate policies and practices. Such thinking does not sit comfortably among the traditional left. First, it suggests that corporate policies can be reformed without overturning the system. Second, by placing the consumer in the driver seat, it undermines the view of the individual as merely a victim of the system. Such power in possession of the consumer implies individual responsibility in how one wields such power. And such concepts of individual responsibility ultimately undermine the focus upon social institutions and systemic change.

But the left has other misgivings with boycotting. They see change as coming from anywhere but the market. The marketplace has always been viewed as the beachhead of capitalism, controlled by 100% pure greed and beyond consideration. Furthermore, the use of economic means to resolve social ills is viewed as elitist because it does not provide an equal role for the economically disadvantaged and disenfranchised in society. This failure to provide equal roles seems to fly in the face of the progressive ideal of equality. And because the economic elite are in a better position to exercise economic power, the economic approach is seen as playing their game and playing into their hands. Additionally, some on the left see boycotts as potentially harmful to workers, while sparing management. It is these ideological underpinnings that have prevented the widespread use of boycotting by the left. Early boycotters, it seems, avoided the debates over ideological purity because the various labels and ideologies had not yet become established.

Conservatives are a different story. While as a group they have not been supportive of boycotts addressing social injustice, they are rather fond of the tactic. Typically, when the left launches a boycott, many conservatives will rally to the corporation's defense, going out of their way to buy its products. Conservatives tend to believe in putting their money where their values are. This is precisely the way they like to see problems addressed. But, naturally, what they consider as problems differ vastly from leftist causes.

While the left is concerned with how society impacts individuals, the right is concerned with how individuals impact society. Not with how individuals in society are impacted, but how the fabric of society is undermined; the traditions, values, norms, and relationships within a society. While they do not believe that society is responsible for protecting individual independence, they do greatly regard their own feelings of independence and feel that they alone are responsible for protecting it.

Conservatives will typically side with business in disputes over exploitation or unfairness. They do not feel that business "owes" society anything. Business is strictly business, and they feel that individuals should have the freedom to conduct business in any way they choose. Conservatives generally feel that the disadvantaged are themselves responsible for bettering their predicament. If a worker doesn't want to be exploited, he can refuse to take the job. They call it voting with one's feet. The fact that the worker is choosing to work instead of quitting implies the worker is benefiting from the work. They tend to feel that hardship and hard work build character. Systemic inequities are viewed as excuses for weakness, laziness, and failure.

Conservatives tend to use boycotts to target threats to social values, issues that might impact their own lives and lives of their family and community. These are often issues of fundamental values and perceived threats to security, property, civil order, and family. The one obstacle that conservatives face with boycotts is that they tend to be very provincial and family-oriented rather than society oriented. Their tendency is to accomplish things quietly, writing checks, talking with friends, making deals. Right-wing conservatives, however, are interested in shaping society and making noise. Consequently, most conservative boycotts have been launched by organizations affiliated with the political and Christian Right-wing.

In their use of boycotts, right-wing conservatives have been much more unified and organized than the left. And because they are concerned with how individuals are altering society, many of their boycotts are aimed at targets they consider influential in changing society: the media. Probably nine out of every 10 right-wing boycotts is targeted at the media, and most often television and TV sponsors. Unlike the left, that views the media as simply one aspect of the system, the right sees the media as central to all social problems. Recently however, some right-wing populists have begun to note how the corporate landscape is radically altering societal structures, relationships and culture. Consequently, elements in the right are increasingly moving in an anti-corporate direction, against what they regard as the "liberal corporate establishment."