Source: https://globalsociology.pbworks.

com/w/page/14711254/Social %20Movements

What Are Social Movements?

In social movements, large groups of people who are usually without political power and influence decide to promote or resist social change through unconventional means. They identify a problem, determine that responsible parties are failing to address it adequately, and therefore take action, themselves. To be more efficient, participants structure their activities into social movement organizations (SMOs). SMOs share the goals of the social movement and work toward these goals. For instance, the environmental social movement structured formal organizations such as Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, or Earth First!. SMOs may specialize on different aspects of the movements cause such as fundraising, lobbying or organizing grassroots campaigns. The table below summarizes the differences between collective behavior and social movements.

Similarities
Participants engage in unconventional behavior that defies social norms and expectations Such participation is strongly influenced by other participants behavior Such participation relieves strain or tension in society or community or organizations.

Differences
Social Movement s
Organized Deliberate

Collective Behavior
Disorganized Unplanned

Long-lasting

Brief

Social movements are more widespread in industrialized nations because diverse populations are less bound by larger societal traditions and customs. Subcultural and countercultural movements abound, and conflicts of interests between groups are inevitable. Conflicts arise when demands for social change by certain groups spark contrary demands to maintain the status quo by other

groups. According to Sidney Tarrow (1994), most societies experience times when social movements are rare and other times when many social movements emerge to promote social change in what he calls waves of protest. Such waves of protest can be sparked by any form of social disorganization provoked by war, economic recession, political crises, technological innovations or rapid population change (such as the Baby Boom). The 1930s and 1960s were such periods of massive social changes and waves of protest in the United States and Western Europe. In the 1930s, the Great Depression caused poverty for large numbers of workers. Dreadful economic conditions launched numerous social movements to promote legislation (such as regulations of the stock market and labor laws) and changes in the social structure. In contrast, the 1960s were a period of economic affluence for the United States, yet conflicts were pervasive and promoted the rise of social movements such as the anti-war movement, the womens rights movement, the Civil Rights movement or the emerging gay rights movement to name the most important. Economic prosperity freed people from basic survival issues, and they concerned themselves more with issues of social justice. Such movements were at least partially successful but also sparked the counter-movement called the conservative revolution that culminated with the election of Ronald Reagan as President in 1981. More recently, waves of protest have emerged on issues regarding the economic, social and political consequences of globalization (Zald, 1992). In other words, social movements are organized responses to social, economic and political conditions where excluded groups experience strain, feel a sense of unfairness, but do not necessarily have access to channels of power that would allow them to find satisfactory resolutions to their perceived issues.

Theories of Social Movements

Relative Deprivation Theory

Relative deprivation theory, developed by Denton Morrison (1971) is a more general theory about why individuals join social movements. A person experiences relative deprivation when she feels that she is not receiving her

fair share of what seems to be available. Therefore, the people who are the worst off are not necessarily the ones experiencing relative deprivation. For instance, research in the Civil Rights movement showed that African Americans who were the most active were not most deprived but were fairly well-off, such as college students or religious leaders but they were the ones who felt the most relatively deprived. Key to the idea of relative deprivation is the notion of expectations, that is, what people think they deserve and want in life. If these expectations are met, people do not experience discontent or relative deprivation. On the other hand, if people compare themselves to their reference groups and find that they have less, they will experience relative deprivation. If an individual feels that everyone else seems to be wealthier or generally seems to have it better, they will experience relative deprivation. A second key to the idea of relative deprivation is the notion of legitimate expectations. Relative deprivation is not simply the idea that people want what everyone else has. It is the idea that they think they deserve it and have a right to it. Therefore, if they do not get what they think they deserve, they think that something should be done to remedy the situation. In other words, expectations are not simple desires. For relative deprivation to emerge, individuals have to perceive their expectations as legitimate. A third key is the notion of blocked expectations, those goals that individuals cannot meet through conventional means. Feelings of relative deprivation result. If expectations are perceived as legitimate AND easy to satisfy, there is no need for social movement. However, if expectations are perceived as legitimate but blocked, individuals will experience discontent and frustration. They will be more likely to want to remedy an unfair situation. Morrison also identifies structural conditions that increase the probability of emergence of social movements (Locher, 2002:256-257):

Large numbers of people must experience relative deprivation; There must be a high degree of interaction and communication between people experiencing relative deprivation;

The more socially alike individuals experiencing relative deprivation, the easier it will be for them to get together and create a movement; Movements are more likely to form in a rigidly stratified society because differences between classes are obvious. The society must have large numbers of voluntary associations to give people a sense that collective activity can make a difference and actually produce beneficial change. Also, a social movement benefits from organizational leadership skills of associations.

Resource Mobilization Theory

In 1973, Anthony Oberschall published Social Conflict and Social Movements in which he formulated the resource mobilization theory focusing on the social and structural factors affecting a movement's success or failure rather than the factors motivating people to join social movements. Oberschall points out that relative deprivation cannot fully explain social movements because there is no perfect society that satisfies all its citizens. Discontent is a common feature. For Oberschall, the key factor in a social movements success or failure is its capacity to mobilize and efficiently manage resources. Resources include things such as money, offices, communication equipment (fax, telephones), computers, volunteer time, media access, network contacts, and alliances. Such resources are usually acquired and managed by social movement organizations (SMOs). SMO efficiency is crucial to the success of the social movement. Social movements cannot succeed without help from participants and outsiders. Oberschall identifies categories of people (human resources) that can be mobilized for the social movement (see table below).

Oberschalls Types of Human Resources

Adherents Conscience Adherents Constituents Conscience
Believer in the movements goals Believer in the movements goals who do not stand to benefit from its success Adherents who provide resources to the movement (time, money, etc.) Adherents who provide resources to the

Constituents movement but do not stand to benefit from

its success

Bystander Publics Free-riders Opponents

Individuals who do not participate in the movement and do not particularly care about the movements goals Bystanders who would benefit if the movement succeeds but do not participate in it Individuals outside the movement who oppose the movements goals and may create a counter-movement to oppose it

For a movement to be successful, it must mobilize and use resources to turn bystander publics and free-riders into adherents and constituents while neutralizing the actions of opponents. For instance, a social movement might conduct marches and demonstrations or sit-ins that will receive media coverage. This requires organization to coordinate transportation, printing and distribution of leaflets, and security services to ensure against disorder that might damage the movements image. Additionally, the SMO may have to fight legal battles and retain lawyers, thus leaving no room for amateurship. Such different strategies involve constant acquisition and management of resources that, according to Oberschall, depend on factors of social structure. For instance, mobilization is easier in societies with relaxed social control exhibited by free speech, freedom of assembly, and civil liberties in general. Mobilization simply cannot occur if a strong and repressive government prevents it. Also, mobilization is encouraged by outside help. The more assistance a movement receives even from individuals who will not benefit from its success, the more efficient mobilization will be. Outside assistance is especially crucial if it comes from groups and individuals with a higher or more respectable standing. Consequently, in Oberschalls theory, ideas alone do not determine a social movements success; ideas becoming widely accepted and institutionalized in the laws of society determine that success. If this happens, the major SMOs become part of the political landscape as interest groups who no longer have to establish their legitimacy.

Political Process Theory

Political process theory focuses rather on macro-sociological issues that make social movements possible. For McAdam, economic and especially political factors are central to the emergence of social movements. More specifically, McAdam identifies three of such factors (Locher, 2002: 265):

Organizational strength: the more organized a group is, the more likely its members are to form a social movement and the more likely the movement will succeed; Cognitive liberation: the more members think their chances of success are good, the more likely they are to make their movement will succeed; Political opportunities: the more mainstream political allies a social movement has, the more likely it will succeed.

For McAdam, availability of these three factors depends on the political system as a whole. Political connections are more crucial than material resources, and political leverage is the major resource for a social movements success.

New Social Movements Theory

The New Social Movements Theory emerged at the end of the 1960s to account for changes in the composition, focus and strategies in some social movements in the Western world (Melucci, 1989; McAdam et al, 1988; Larana et al, 1994; Scott, 1995). New social movements themselves are a response to the massive social changes brought about by globalization. New social movements are diverse but share common foci:

Focus on social and cultural issues instead of the economic issues of traditional social movements. Focus quality of life (environment, peace) and selfdetermination (contemporary womens rights, gay rights) because of roots in high-income countries where survival is a less important issue. Accordingly, members tend to reject bureaucratic organizations and adopt a more participatory style.

Membership largely composed of educated middle-class individuals who see themselves as having multiple identities (in terms of class, race, gender, sexual orientation) that they use and combine to promote multiple but interrelated causes. Distrust for authorities, the government, the business community or the scientific community; although they do not seek to overthrow the government or radically change the social order, movements challenge the legitimacy of institutions of power and promote their own experts (Garner, 1996) or create their own independent research institutes as SMOs. Focus on multiple issues seen as interdependent. For instance, the ecofeminist movement associates environmental issues with patriarchy (Merchant, 1992; Mies and Shiva, 1993), that is, male dominance in society (see section on gender and militarization that defines nature as conquered and possessed, rather than as a partner for the common good). The environmental justice movement makes connections between environmental issues and race problems through the concept of environmental racism, a practice that puts minority groups more at risk of environmental damage than dominant racial or ethnic groups; for instance, more hazardous waste sites or chemical plants are located in minority areas (Bullard and Wright, 1992). Similarly, labor rights integrate human rights considerations into their activism while new social movements link terrorism and the rise of religious fundamentalism to the overwhelming power and influence of western countries (the United States in particular) over poorer countries.

Both a global and local orientation, as reflected in the slogan think global, act local, that might be evidenced by championing both global environmental standards and local recycling regulations in their communities. Efficient use of new communication technologies to establish global connections and networks; such global networks coordinated the massive demonstrations against the World Trade Organization in Seattle

in 1999, against the G8 Meeting in Genoa (Italy) in 2002 and the worldwide protests against the War in Iraq in 2003. The major strength of the theory is to include the influence of macrosociological factors (economic, political and cultural globalization) in analyzing how collective actions and social movements form, focus, and strategize. The theory also captures how such macro-sociological change is reflected in microsociological concerns for social movement participants. For instance, the issue of identity is at the core of debates in many societies:

At the global level (are we becoming citizens of the global village? How should minorities be treated by government? What are the rights of indigenous populations?); At the national level (in the face of globalization, what is the meaning of patriotism in the sense of blind obedience to ones national government?); And at the personal level (Who Am I? What are my different identities and how do they affect my quality of life and potential for selfdetermination?).

The New Social Movements theory emphasizes the mixing of these different levels. At this point, new social movements themselves are extremely diverse so that a unifying theory is unlikely to capture such diversity under a general theoretical banner.

Stages in Social Movements

The previous theories demonstrate that social movements do not develop randomly but are collective responses to social, political and economic factors. Similarly, research shows (Blumer, 1969; Mauss, 1975; Tilly, 1978) that social movements follow specific patterns of development.

Preliminary or Incipiency Stage

Social movements usually start with a general feeling that something is wrong. That feeling generates strain or tension or, as we have seen, a sense of relative deprivation. Such feelings can be related to social, economic or political disruptions. At this stage, leaders might emerge to organize participants or a specific figure might be able to reinterpret individual feelings of discontent as social issues. Such was the role played by Betty Friedan with her book The Feminine Mystique (1963) that redefined womens conditions in the United States and crystallized the contemporary feminist movement. Rachel Carson played a similar role for the environmental movement in her book, Silent Spring (1962) by drawing attention to the impact of human societies on the environment.

Coalescence Stage

At this stage, members start to organize themselves and to raise public awareness concerning the problem. In order to coordinate and structure their efforts, they might create social movement organizations (SMOs). Such structuring requires leadership, tactics and alliances to maximize efficiency of the movement. Raising public consciousness on the issue also involves adopting strategies to use mass media, a potentially powerful recruiting tool. In order to attract media attention, members might engage in collective behaviors such as marches, demonstrations and sit-ins.

Institutionalization or Bureaucratization Stage

At this point, the movement becomes more formally organized, especially if recruiting strategies have been successful and membership has increased. If initially, movement leaders were selected based on charisma, now leadership is based more on rational-legal authority; leaders might become less prophets and more administrators. Bureaucratization also involves increased division of labor (different task roles for the organization), increased hierarchy (less equality between members). The organization might replace volunteers with paid staff. Such a move might help the movement gain in respectability, but such a managerial turn might also displease initial members and there might be a loss of enthusiasm for the cause. Also at this stage, the organization shed most radical and extreme members.

Decline

Even if social movements last longer than collective behavior, they are also temporary. Even though they might last for decades, eventually they end (Locher 2002). However, they do not disappear randomly. There are different ways that a social movement can end. Success Social movements sometimes succeed. The cause they promote might become accepted, and laws might be passed that promote their views. For instance, in 1920, American women gained the right to vote, thus ending the suffrage movement. The Civil Rights movement is also considered successful since the U.S. Congress passed major civil rights laws to equalize the social standing of African Americans vis--vis whites. When movements are successful, they might become part of the system of political institutions. The NAACP was essential to the struggle for Civil Rights. Once the struggle was over, it ceased as a social movement organization to become a political interest group for the African American community. The NAACP is now a mainstream organization. Co-optation

Political authorities may try to undermine a social movement by adopting a soft version of the movements agenda. In addition, they might offer the movements leaders rewarding positions if they work inside the system rather than challenging it from the outside (Meyer, 1993). Of course, movement leaders who accept such positions might then be accused of selling out by movement members. Goal Displacement Social change can be slow, and it is tough to maintain morale and enthusiasm for a cause that might not succeed. Goal displacement occurs when a movement focuses on maintaining itself and its organization rather the cause it was created to promote. Fragmentation Although members of a social movement might share political, social, or cultural views, they might disagree on strategies, alliances or leadership, so conflicts sometimes arise. If conflict becomes impossible to manage,fragmentation might occur, and splits into separate movements (Frey et al, 1992). Repression When the authorities consider a movement too challenging to the status quo, they might simply decide to userepressive strategies of harassment, illegal surveillance, multiple arrests, imprisonment, or outright violence. In South Africa, during apartheid, the white government used all these different strategies to control and neutralize anti-apartheid efforts. Repressive strategies are more likely to be used by non-democratic governments, unconcerned for the legality of their methods. However, in the United States, democratic government has used repression tactics against certain social movements, the labor movement, the Civil Rights movement, and the anti-war movement. As Locher (2002: 245) mentions, in May 1970, National Guardsmen killed 13 unarmed antiwar protesters at Kent

States University in Kent, Ohio. At other times, counter-movements have exercised violence against progressive movements. The Ku Klux Klan is known as a racist movement but in the 1920s and 1930s, it was known for its brutality against labor movement organizers.

Types of Social Movements

Depending on the kind of change desired (partial/limited or total/radical) and the target (individuals or society as a whole), there are different types of social movements: Alternative, Redemptive, Reformative, and RevolutionaryTransformative.

Alternative Social Movements

Type of change: partial/limited Target: individuals

Alternative social movements are least threatening to the status quo and power structure because they only seek limited change in individuals and are not concerned with changing the system. The Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E) movement is a reform movement because it targets a segment of the population (children, teenagers) for limited behavior change (attitudes toward drug and alcohol abuse). Alternative movements tend to have a narrow focus of interest (one type of behavior) and limit their action to that focus.

Redemptive Social Movements

Type of change: total/radical Target: individuals Redemptive social movements have a limited focus (specific individuals) but by radically altering those individuals behavior, they seek to change the whole person. Fundamentalist religious movements and cults are examples of redemptive movements. When religious movements emphasize conversion or being born again, they indicate that they expect a complete individual transformation, radical inner change.

Reformative Social Movements

Type of change: partial/limited Target: society

Reformative movements seek to change certain limited aspects of the social structure in order to improve society as a whole. Members of reformative movements usually try to achieve their goals and effect change from within the system; they do not try to destroy it. Commonly, reformative movements use the legal system to promote their ideas and will try to challenge what they consider to be unfair laws (Greenberg, 1994). If they do resort to unconventional social actions (marches, sit-ins, demonstrations), they will try to avoid violence. Reformative movements are quite common in democratic countries because democracies guarantee freedom of speech and assembly and voluntary political participation. Reformative movements can be either progressive, (promoting change) or reactionary (trying to resist change or reverse changes already in place).

The Civil Rights movement, the womens Suffrage movement, the contemporary Womens rights movement, and social movements such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (M.A.D.D.) are examples of progressive reformative movements. They all worked from within the system to promote social change for the system as a whole. The anti-abortion rights movement, the anti-feminist movement (such as the Eagle Forum), the Christian Right movement, and the Ku Klux Klan are all reactionary reformative movements. Reactionary reformative movements often emerge as a reaction against social change (Lo, 1982; Lyman, 1995). The Ku Klux Klan emerged after the Civil War against the Reconstruction and the rights granted to the black population. It re-emerged again in the 1960s with the first legal victories of the Civil Rights movement. Similarly, the anti-choice movement was revitalized after the Supreme Court decision Roe vs. Wade which made abortion legal in 1973 in the United States.

Revolutionary/Transformative Social Movements

Type of change: total/radical Target: society

Revolutionary movementsare not interested in working within the system. For members of

such movements, the system itself is the problem and it cannot be fixed; therefore, the only solution is to get rid of the system and replace it with a system that members think is better. Revolutionary movements are the most extreme of all social movements and they may openly advocate revolution, that is, the violent overthrow of an existing regime and the reorganization of society as a whole. The Bolshevik revolution (left) in Russia in 1917 was led by revolutionary groups. Fidel Castro gained power in Cuba through a revolution that got rid of the Batista dictatorship. Both the American and the French revolutions replaced monarchical rules with (imperfect) democracies. In the United States, militia movements are considered revolutionary because they actively promote the destruction of the American government. These four types of social movements are summarized inthe table below:

Type of Change Targ et Individ

Partial / Limited
Alternative

Radical / Total
Redemptive

ual Society Reformative Revolutionary

The Significance of Social Movements

Looking back at the history of the United States, there is no doubt that social movements have played an enormous part in shaping this country and its culture and continue to do so; recently, for instance, the gay rights movement has scored legal, political and cultural victories, not just in the United States but in other Western countries as well. Sodomy laws have been declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, the state of Vermont voted to legalize domestic partnerships, as have several western European countries. At

the same time, there is also the emergence of a counter-movement as religious right groups oppose such changes. Such changes underline the fact that, for the most part, in democratic societies different groups have the power to influence their institutions and the culture of their countries in different ways providing that they are organized to do so and understand the system (legal, political, cultural, and economic) in which they operate. There is also no doubt that the process of globalization is shaping the way social movements organize and the type of social movements that emerge out of this radical process of change. Religious fundamentalist movements are on the rise worldwide precisely as a reactionary response to sweeping cultural changes. Environmental and womens rights movements have broadened their scope to promote progressive changes. We now turn to the specifics of social movements in the global context.