Download Readings on Social Movements

Readings on
Social Movements
Origins, Dynamics and Outcomes
SECOND EDITION
Doug McAdam
Stanford University
David A. Snow
University of California - Irvine
New York
Oxford
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
2010
s vii
New Social Movements and Political
Opportunities in Western Europe 71
Preface ix
Alternative Uses Course Grid xi
Contributor Biographies xiii
6. Tamara Kay
Labor Transnationalism and Global
Governance: The Impact ofNAFTA on
Transnational Labor Relationships in North
Introduction:
Social Movements: Conceptual and
Theoretical Issues
1
America 87
7. Paul D. Almeida
Opportunity Organizations and ThreatInduced Contention: Protest Waves in
I. Emergence: Facilitating Conditions 9
Authoritarian Settings 106
Part 1
DISRUPTIONS AND THREATS 11
David A. Snow, Daniel M. Cress, Liam Downey,
1.
and Andrew
w: Jones
Part3
RESOURCES AND ORGANIZATION 135
8. Daniel M. Cress and David A. Snow
Mobilization at the Margins: Resources,
Benefactors, and the Viability of Homeless
Social Movement Organizations 137
Disrupting the "Quotidian": Reconceptualizing
the Relationship Between Breakdown and the
Emergence of Collective Action 14
2.
9. Elizabeth A. Armstrong
Jack A. Goldstone
From Struggle to Settlement: The
Crystallization of a Field of Lesbian/Gay
Organizations in San Francisco,
A DemographiC/Structural Model of State
Breakdown 30
3. Nella Van Dyke and Sarah A. Soule
1969-1973 157
Structural Social Change and Mobilizing
Effect of Threat: Explaining Levels of Patriot
and Militia Organizing in the United States 38
10.
Jackie Smith
Globalization and Transnational Social
Movement Organizations 17 2
Part 2
Part 4
POLITICAL OPPORTUNITIES 55
4.
J. Craig Jenkins, David Jacobs, and Jon Agnone
FACILITATIVE SPACES AND CONTEXTS 187
Political Opportunities and African-American
11.
Dingxin Zhao
Ecologies of Social Movements: Student
Mobilization During the 19 89
Protest, 1948- 1997 57
5. Hanspeter Kriesi, Ruud Koopmans, Jan Willem
Duyvendak, and Marco G. Giugni
Prodemocracy Movement in Beijing 189
v
vi CONTENTS
12.
Aldon Morris
20.
Black Southern Student Sit-in
Movement: An Analysis of
Internal Organization 209
Nicholas Pedriana
From Protective to Equal Treatment: Legal
Framing Processes and Transformation of the
Women's Movement in the 1960s 371
13. Robert Futrell and Pete Simi
Free Spaces, Collective Identity, and the
Persistence of U.S. White Power Activism 231
Part 7
THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF
PARTICIPATION: GRIEVANCE,
II. Processes of Micromobilization 253
IDENTITY, AND EMOTION
21.
Parts
SOCIAL NETWORKS
255
14· Marc Dixon and Vincent J. Roscigno
Status, Networks, and Social Movement
Participation: The Case of Striking
Workers 257
15· Doug McAdam and Ronnelle Paulsen
Bert Klandermans, Marlene Roefs, and Johan
Oliver
Grievance Formation in a Country in
Transition: South Africa, 1994-1998 397
22.
Francesca Polletta
"It Was Little A Fever .. :' Narrative and
Identity in Social Protest 411
David Smilde
23. Rachel 1. Einwohner
Identity Work and Collective Action in a
Repressive Context: Jewish Resistance on the
"Aryan Side" of the Warsaw Ghetto 428
A Qualitative Comparative Analysis of
Conversion to Venezuelan Evangelicalism:
How Networks Matter 294
24. Sharon Erickson Nepstad
Persistent Resistance: Commitment and
Community in the Plowshares'Movement 442
Specifying the Relationship Between Social
Ties and Activism 277
16.
395
Part 6
III. Movement Dynamics 459
INTERPRETIVE FACTORS: FRAMING
PROCESSES
317
17. David A. Snow and Scott C. Byrd
Ideology, Framing Processes, and Islamic
Terrorist Movements 319
18.
19.
Mario Diani
PartS
STRATEGIES AND TACTICS
25.
Charles Tilly
Getting It Together in Burgundy,
1675-1975 4 63
Linldng Mobilization Frames and Political
Oppor~unities: Insights from Regional
Populism in Italy 333
26. Doug McAdam
Myra Marx Ferree
27. Mary Bernstein
Resonance and Radicalism: Feminist Framing
in the Abortion Debates of the United States
and Germany 346
461
Tactical Innovation and the Pace of
Insurgency 478
Celebration and Suppression: The Strategic
Uses of Identity by the Lesbian and Gay
Movement 499
M(
34. Joel
TIle
Ac
Cult!
Contents vii
28. William A. Gamson
;al
)fthe
The Success of the Unruly 518
Part 9
35. Sidney Tarrow
Diffusion and Modularity 64 2
IV. Do Movements Matter? 657
EXTRAMOVEMENT DYNAMICS 52 7
29· Ruud Koopmans and Susan Olzak
Discursive Opportunities and the Evolution of
Right-Wing Violence in Germany 52 9
30. Jennifer Earl, Sarah A. Soule and
han
the
It 442
gic
John D. McCarthy
Protest Under Fire? Explaining the Policing of
Protest 547
31. David S. Meyer and Catherine
Corrigall-Brown
Coalitions and Political Context: U.S.
Movements Against Wars in Iraq 568
Part 10
INTRAMOVEMENT DYNAMICS 58 5
32. Verta Taylor
Social Movement Continuity:
The Women's Movement in Abeyance 587
33. Suzanne Staggenborg
The Consequences of Professionalization
and Formalization in the Pro-Choice
Movement 599
Part 11
OUTCOMES AND IMPACTS 659
36. Frances S. Hasso
Feminist Generations? The Long-Term
Impact of Social Movement Involvement on
Palestinian Women's Lives 662
37- Holly J. McCammon, Courtney Sanders Muse,
Harmony D. Newman, and Teresa M. Terrell
Movement Framing and Discursive
Opportunity Structures: The Political
Successes of the U.S. Women's Jury
Movements 676
38. Edwin Amenta, Neal Caren, and
Sheera Joy Olasky
Age for Leisure? Political Mediation and the
Impact of the Pension Movement on U.S.
Old-Age Policy 698
39· Kenneth T. Andrews
Social Movements and Policy Implementation:
The Mississippi Civil Rights Movement and
The War on Poverty, 1965 to 1971 716
34. Joel Andreas
The Structure of Charismatic Mobilization:
A Case Study of Rebellion During the Chinese
Cultural Revolution 623
References 735
Social Movements: Conceptual and
Theoretical Issues
ocial movement and kindred collective action,
such as protest crowds, riots, and revolutions,
are conspicuous and significant social phenomena.
They are conspicuous in that they occur frequently
and are striking features ofthe social landscape. Any
daily newspaper or weekly news magazine is likely
to refer to movement and protest activity in relation to one of the hotly contested issues of our time:
abortion, the death penalty, immigration, same-sex
marriage, global warming, terrorism, globalization,
and layoffs at work. Indeed, it is difficult to think of
a major social issue in which social movements are
not involved on one or both sides.
The movements associated with such issues are
important social phenomena as well, capturing our
attention because they bring into bold relief sizable
numbers of people attempting to promote or resist
change as they act on behalf of common interests
or values. To understand the politics and conflicts
associated with important or contemporary and
historical social issues, it is crucial to acquire an
understanding ofthe character and dynamics ofthe
social movements associated with these issues. The
central objective of this book is to provide such an
understanding by presenting readings that illuminate the dynamics of social movements from their
emergence through the trials and tribulations of
mobilization, development, decline, as well as their
long-term consequences.
In this introduction we provide a working conceptualization of social movements, explain the
various components of that conception, identify
the various sets of social actors relevant to social
movements, discuss the relationship between social
movements and other forms of collective action,
and elaborate the logic for the substantive issues
addressed and the way in which we have organized
the book.
S
CONCEPTUALIZING SOCIAL
MOVEMENTS
Although many definitions of social movements have
been proposed, most of them include the following
elements: (1) some degree of organization; (2) some
degree of temporal continuity; (3) change-oriented
goals; and (3) at least some use of extrainstitutional
forms of action (e.g. street protests, vigils) to supplement more institutional forms of claims making
(e.g., voting, letter writing). Blending these elements
together, we define a social movement as a loose collectivity acting with some degree of organization,
temporal continuity, and reliance on noninstitutional
forms of action to promote or resist change in the
group, society, or world order of which it is a part.' To
elaborate on this definition, we turn to a discussion of
each of its major components.
MOVEMENTS AND SOCIAL CHANGE
Since the promotion or resistance of change is the
raison d'etre of all social movements, we begin
with this defining feature. Caution must be exercised, however, lest we generalize to all movements
as if they are cut from the same cloth. Even though
most social movements are carriers of change,
they vary dramatically in the kinds and degree of
change sought. Virtually all typologies of social
movements acknowledge this point, at least with
respect to the degree or amount of change pursued.
The most common distinction in this regard is
1
>1
2 INTRODUCTION
LOCUS OF CHANGE
Amount of Change
Individual
Social structure
Partial
altel'ative
reformative
Total
I'edemptive
tl'ansformative
between reform and revolution. Neil Smelser (1962)
provides a more subtle distinction, differentiating
between norm-oriented an,d value-oriented movements. NorIIl-oriented movements are concerned
with producing more limited but specific changes
within a social system, often with respect to rules of
access to, and operation within, the various institutional arenas of society. Thus, movements that have
sought to introduce or changt,; labor laws, decriminalize or legalize drugs such as iharijuana, or restrict
or expand immigran( rights would be considered
reform move~ents\V:~!1}~-oriented movements, on
the other hand, are concerned with more fundamental change, and thus seek to alter basic values
and the institutional bedrock on which they rest.
The most obvious examples would berevolution~ry
movements, such as those that birthed the French,
American, and Russian revolutions, or broad-based
struggles, such as the African American civil rights
movement or contemporary gay and lesbian movement, which seek to redefine the fundamental rights
and privileges of citizenship.
A similar scheme is provided by Roy Wallis's
distinc~on between (world-rejecting and world~
qffirming, movements (1984). Although this dichotcinYc wai developed with religious movements in
mind, its application parallels that of the valueoriented/norm-oriented distinction. Thus,worldrejecting movements, like \ value-oriented . Ip.ovements, condemn the prevailingsQciaLol'der as a
whole, including both its underlying values and
institutional arrangements. Like the norm-oriented
movement, the world-affirming movement is less
contemptuous of and hostile toward the prevailing
social order and thus only seeks relatively modest
modifications in the status quo.
One of the problems with the above typology is
that it are based only on one dimension: the extent
of change sought. The fact that change can have a
different locus, or occur at different levels, is not
addressed. Long ago, the anthropologist David
Aberle addressed this oversight in his 1966 book
on The Peyote Religion Among the Navaho. Aberle
differentiates social movements based both on the
amount of change and the locus or level of change
sought. The locus dimension directs attention to the
target of change, which can vary from the individual to some aspect of the broader social structure.
Although any movement can be situated along continua of both dimensions, the crossclassification of
these two dimensions yields four generic types of
movements, as diagrammed in the following table:
Alterative movements seek partial change in
individuals. Presumed or actual character and
psychological tendencies and habits are regarded
as troublesome and in need of change or repair.
Examples of such tendencies or habits targeted for
change by social movements include the use of alcohol, sexual practices, level of personal assertiveness,
abusive interpersonal behavior, and low self-esteem.
In each case, the object of change is some individual shortcoming, deficit, or patterned tendency.
The therapeutic and self-help movements that have
flourished in the United States since the 1970S and
19 80s are examples of movements that seek to do
something about such shortcomings or tendencies.
It is reasonable to wonder whether such selfimprovement efforts are really social movements
inasmuch as the individual is the primary focus of
change. Yet it is difficult to argue with the contention that the alteration of thousands of individuals may be one avenue to social change. Insofar as
self-help themes are mixed with the idea of social
change through personal transformation, as is the
case with the rhetoric of many such groups, they do
constitute a type of social movement.
. The link between individual transformation
and social change is even more transparent in
I
I
I
II
.~..
~.
•.
j
the
men
als ,
seek
vant
and
in in
ill-in
trans
lem i
seen
Relig
best 1
tic ap]
bel' oj
much
as wei
the U
were k
Shoshl
ments
still c1
world
the ma
The
typoloE
ilk seek
they an
the pm
or nent)
tive mm,
ceived t
populat
threaten
a type oJ
shelter)
more COl
or presel
category
lesbians,
The fi
total chal
associatel
movemer
as easily (
of change·
movemen
Social Movements 3
is not
David
, book
Aberle
on the
:hange
l to the
ldividlCture.
19 contion of
{pes of
~ table:
nge in
er and
~garded
repair.
for
ofalcolveness,
esteem.
ndividndency.
lat have
70S and
~k to do
iencies.
,ch selfvements
focus of
contenldividulsofar as
of social
as is the
, they do
~ted
,rmation
arent in
the case of what Aberle calls redemptive movements. These movements also focus on individuals as the object of change or control, but they
seek total rather than partial change. From the
vantage point of these movements, social ills
and problems of all varieties are seen as rooted
in individuals and their misguided behavior or
ill-informed ideas and beliefs. If individuals are
transformed or redeemed, then the larger problem is resolved. Personal transformation is thus
seen as the key to thoroughgoing social change.
Religious movements and cults are among the
best known examples of this highly individualistic approach to broader social issues. Alarge number of such movements surfaced and flowered in
much of the Western world in the 1970s: few were
as well known as the Hare Krishna movement,
the Unification Church (or "Moonies" as they
were known more colloquially), and the Nichiren
Shoshu Buddhist movement. All of these movements are still active in varying degrees, and all
still claim to be interested in transforming the
world by affecting personal transformation of
the masses.
The third category of movement in Aberle's
typology is termed reformative. Movements of this
ilk seek limited change in the social system in which
they are embedded. There is no blanket rejection of
the present order, but an attempt instead to rectify
or neutralize specific perceived wrongs. The objective may be to reduce or remove some actual or perceived threat to the interests of a specific group or
population segment. Or it may involve a category of
threatened species or a specific locale earmarked for
a type ofproject (nuclear plant) or facility (homeless
shelter) opposed by the movement. Perhaps even
more common are movements that seek to improve
or preserve the lifestyle or treatment of a particular
category of individuals, such as women, gays and
lesbians, illegal immigrants, and unborn babies.
The final generic category of movement seeks
total change in the broader social structure and its
associated ideational bedrock. Aberle termed such
movements transformative, though we might just
as easily call them revolutions. Because the amount
of change sought tends to be all-embracing, these
movements are typically the most dramatic and
historically consequential. Some of the more notable examples of transformative movements include
the so-called "great revolutions" (e.g., French,
Chinese, Russian) as well as such sweeping religious
movements as the Protestant Reformation and the
rise and spread ofIslam.
Although movements seldom fit neatly into one
of the four types, they are typically skewed more in
one direction than another along the two-change
dimensions. Thus, a typology such as Aberle's is
useful in helping to illuminate the diversity among
movements, especially in their social change goals.
But, as we will see, the course and character ofsocial
movements are influenced not only by their objectives, but also by the context in which they arise, the
external relations with the communities they are a
part of, as well as their own internal dynamics.
However movements are categorized, the fact
that there are different kinds raises questions about
the sociohistorical conditions that account for their
emergence and why some individuals take part
in them while others do not. But these and other
questions pertaining to the origins, operation, and
dynamics of social movements will have to wait
until we clarify the other fundamental elements of
our conceptualization.
Movements as Collectivities Acting Outside
of Institutional Channels
In thinking of movements as vehicles of change,
it is important to keep in mind that the unit of
analysis is a collectivity-that is, a group of interrelated persons engaged in joint action-rather
than an aggregate of persons acting in a parallel
but disconnected manner. This understanding
helps to distinguish social movements from other
social phenomena that are sometimes related to,
but different from, movements. Social trends are
one such phenomenon. Trends are large-scale,
far-reaching changes in patterns of social organization and behavior over an extended period of
time. Prominent examples of such trends include
industrialization, urbanization, and bureaucratization' as well as long-term changes in employment, family formation, and education. By
disrupting or changing longstanding social routines, such trends may provide the grievance or
4 INTRODUCTlO
organizational bases for social movements, but in
and of themselves they are not social movements.
Nor, in our view, are changes in public opinion
the same as social movements. McCarthy and Zald,
for example, have defined social movements in this
fashion by referring to them as "a set of opinions
and beliefs in a population which represents preferences for changing some elements of the social
structure or reward distribution of a society" (1977:
1217-1218). Sets of change-oriented opinions and
beliefs do not, however, constitute collective action.
They may be a necessary condition for such action,
but again, they are not movements in themselves.
Also sometimes confused with social movements are mass migrations of individuals, as in the
case of a gold rush, a land rush, or a large-scale
migration of large numbers of citizens from one
region of a country to another or across national
borders. Such mass migrations share some characteristics of social movements, but not the most
essential one, namely the pursuit or resistance of
social change through engagement in nonroutine
forms of collective action. Additionally, the behaviors that comprise a mass migration tend to be more
individualistic than collective.
Interest groups comprise one final collective phenomenon that is often seen as synonymous with
social movements. Clearly, interest groups, such as
the American Medical Association or the National
Rifle Association, bear a striking resemblance to
social movements insofar as both seek to promote
or resist change in some aspect of social/political
life. Yet there are differences, the most important
of which is that interest groups stand in a different
relationship to the system of institutionalized policy making. Interest groups are embedded in that
system and are typically regarded as legitimate
actors within the political arena. Social movements,
on the other hand, typically stand at some remove
from the mainstream political system or overlap
with it only precariously. Another important difference follows from this: interest groups pursue
their collective objectives almost always through
institutionalized means, such as lobbying or by
contributing to electoral campaigns, whereas social
movements tend to rely on a mix of routine and
nonroutine tactics. Thus, to paraphrase William
Gamson (1990), interest groups and social movements are not so much different species as members
of the same species positioned differently in relation to the polity. But that differential positioning
is sufficiently important to produce different sets of
strategic and tactical behaviors, and thus different
kinds of collectivities.
Movements as Organizations and
Organized Activity
Dating back to the work of some of the earliest movement theorists, such as Lenin (19 29) and
Michels (1949), the organizational dimension of
social movements has been featured in most treatments of the subject. But it was not until McCarthy
and Zald's (1973, 1977) articulation of the resource
mobilization perspective that this dimension took
center stage and social movement organizations
(SMOs) became the focal unit of analysis. Since
then, there has been ongoing debate about the centrality of SMOs to the operation of social movements and whether formal organization makes
movements more or less effective as vehicles of
significant social/political change (Gamson 199 0;
Melucci 1989; Piven and Cloward 1977)·
In attempting to clarify this debate, Tarrow
(199 8) has distinguished between social movements as formal organizations and the organization of collective action. We think this is an
important distinction, but we also think it is difficult to understand the operation and dynamics
of social movements, including most movementrelated collective actions, without reference to the
organizations that tend to serve as the movement's
organized public face. It is hard, for example, to
think of the AfricanAmerican civil rights movement of the 1960s without recalling groups such
as the National Association for the Advancement
of Colored People (NAACP), the Congress of
Racial Equality (CORE), the Southern Christian
Leadership Conference (SCLC), and the Student
Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC),
who were responsible for the major campaigns that
shaped the struggle. The same is true for just about
any enduring social movement.
Virtually all such movements are associated with
one or more formal SMOs. Local movements may
spawn only one ~
national struggle~
more. No matter
movement, these 1
tize the concerns a
constituencies, thl
social movement
the same coin. It is
of organization ne
nent of the concepl
but without specif1
zation of any sped;
ification because 1
organization-forn
decentralized_anc
the nature and SUc(
selves important to
Movements ExistinJ
Temporal Continuh
The final element 0
ing brief elaboratiol
movements exist OJ
temporal continuit'
distinguish movel;
kinds of collective I
tiona1crowds or gatl
movements are rar,
nomena that are he'
The word movemen
development and co
of changes movelllf
sustained, organizec
cult to imagine any I
pursuing its objectiv
nagging, collective ac
tion, is a matter of deg
of sustained collective
social movements.
Categories of Actors
Social Movements
We have conceptuali:
lectivities working wi
tion and continuity ,
through a mixture of
tutional means. But \
Sodal Movements 5
re~rs
lang
of
~nt
rlimd
of
~at­
thy
lrce
:.JOk
ons
nce
:en)Ve-
lkes
s of
~90;
TOW
Dveani, an
difmics
lentlthe
ent's
e, to
lovesuch
ment
;s of
stian
tdent
fCC),
s that
lbout
lwith
; may
spawn only one such organization, but enduring
national struggles are often represented by many
more. No matter how many SMOs comprise a
movement, these groups tend to carry and dramatize the concerns and grievances of their respective
constituencies, thus making social movements and
social movement organizations opposite sides of
the same coin. It is for this reason that a semblance
of organization needs to be included as a component of the conceptualization of social movements,
but without specifying the character of the organization of any specific movement. We add this qualification because the character of a movement's
organization-formal or informal, centralized or
decentralized-and the impact of that structure on
the nature and success of the movement are themselves important topics for investigation. 2
Movements Existing with Some
Temporal Continuity
The final element of our conceptualization requiring brief elaboration is the observation that social
movements exist or operate with some degree of
temporal continuity. This characteristic helps to
distinguish movements from more ephemeral
kinds of collective gatherings, such as unconventional crowds or gatherings. The point is that social
movements are rarely, if ever, fly-by-night phenomena that are here today and gone tomorrow.
The word movement itself implies some degree of
development and continuity. Moreover, the kinds
of changes movements pursue typically require
sustained, organized activity. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine any movement making progress in
pursuing its objectives without persistent, almost
nagging, collective action. Continuity, like organization, is a matter of degree, of course. But some degree
of sustained collective is an essential characteristic of
social movements.
Categories of Actors Relevant to
Social Movements
We have conceptualized social movements as collectivities working with some degree of organization and continuity to promote or resist change
through a mixture of extrainstitutional and institutional means. But what kind of collectivity is a
social movement? What is the relationship between
the various actors relevant to social movements?
How do we conceptualize movement participants?
How do they differ from other pertinent actors?
Borrowing on the work of Hunt, Benford, and
Snow (1994), we suggest that the various sets of
actors relevant to the course and character of a
social movement fall into three categories: protagonists, antagonists, and bystanders.3
Protagonists
The protagonists include all groups and collectivities that are supporters of the movement or whose
interests are represented by it. They include a movement's adherents, constituency, and beneficiaries.
At the core of a movement's protagonists are its
adherents. The adherents include those individuals who engage in movement activities conducted
in pursuit of its objectives. At a minimum, such
engagement typically involves participating in one
or more movement activities, be it a protest rally,
a sit-in, or a more formal organizational meeting.
Presumably these individuals share certain key values and objectives and identify themselves with the
movement. It is useful to keep in mind, however,
that most adherents are not equally involved. Some
may devote considerable time and energy to movement activities and campaigns, while others may
do little more than write a check or attend an occasional meeting or activity. It is therefore "useful to
distinguish activists from the bulk of the adherents
by the level of effort and sacrifice they give to the
cause" (Turner and Killian 1987: 225).
Most movement adherents are drawn from its
constituency, the second set of actors that comprise the movement's protagonist base. Although
the term is borrowed from politics, it refers in the
context of social movements to the aggregation of
individuals the movement or organization claims
to represent and which typically is a major source
of resources and support. In actuality, not all individuals who comprise a movement's constituency
are wildly enthusiastic about it; some may be indifferent, others sympathetic but uninterested or
unable to provide direct support, while still others
may constitute the movement's primary resource
base. As suggested above, it is from this latter
6 INTRO
group of constituents that adherents are likely to
be drawn.
Turning to the third category of protagonists it
is often assumed that a movement's constituents
are the direct beneficiaries of the change it is trying to effect. Although this is often the case, the
relationship between a movement's constituency
and its beneficiaries is not so simple. If the good
or change sought is a public one, such as clean
air or clean water, then clearly it is not something
that can be secured and/or preserved for a specific
group or aggregation. 4 Instead, the larger public benefits. In such cases, most of the beneficiaries can be thoughts of as free riders inasmuch as
they have contributed neither sympathetic support
nor more tangible resources to the movement.' In
other cases, when the objective of a movement is to
expand the rights and opportunities of a particular disadvantaged group, such as Native Americans
and the disabled, all of the direct beneficiaries may
be constituents, but not all of the constituents will
necessarily be beneficiaries. Consider, for example,
"straights" marching in support of gay and lesbian
rights, men linking arms with women in support
of the Equal Rights Amendment, and over 1,000
northern college students, most of them white, volunteering to go to Mississippi in June 1964 to register black voters and staff"freedom schools" as part
ofthe Freedom Summer campaign organized by the
Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee. 6 In
each of these examples, individuals are supporting
a movement without standing to benefit directly if
movement objectives are attained. Such individuals
can be thought of as either conscience adherents or
conscience constituents, depending on the nature of
support they provide (McCarthy and Zald 1977).
Antagonists
Standing in opposition to a movement's adherents
and constituents are the set of actors we refer to as
antagonists. Included among a movement's antagonists are the targets ofits actions, such as a city, state,
or national government, sometimes a corporation
like ExxonMobil, or perhaps a university where
research or admissions practices are targeted. Any
set of individuals, groups, or institutions can be
the target of the change a movement is attempting
to effect. Since many individuals and groupings
within a movement's field of action may not only
be unsympathetic to the movement's objectives and
activities, but also perceive the movement's interests as antithetical to their own, it is not uncommon
for countermovements to emerge. The objective of
these countermovements is to halt or neutralize
the goal attainment activities of the movement
in question. Thus, the antiabortion or pro-life
movement emerged in response to the success of
the pro-choice movement, as manifested in the 1973
Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision.
Bystanders
The third category of actors relevant to the operation of social movements are bystanders, which
include community members who are initially
uninterested in the issue at hand. Bystanders have
no perceptible stake in the objectives and outcomes
of a movement, and thus remain somewhat aloof
and indifferent. But interest in a movement and
its activities can be activated. In some instances, a
change in orientation may result from disruption of
bystanders' taken-for-granted daily routines. When
this occurs, bystanders are more likely to call for
cessation of the activity than to choose a side. In
other instances, bystander interest is piqued by
movement activities and appeals, often through
the media, and some bystander groups are transformed into constituents or even adherents. And in
still other cases, the actions of movement antagonists, be they the police or countermovements, may
engender opposition to the movement. Just as likely,
however, is the possibility that police are perceived
as overreacting and unwittingly generate sympathy
for the movement. In light of these possibilities, it
is clear that the relationship between a movement's
protagonists, antagonists, and bystanders, including the media, is a dynamic, ongoing process that is
central to a movement's career.
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS AS A FORM OF
COLLECTIVE ACTION
At several points throughout this introduction we
have suggested that social movements are a form of
collective action. Since the term "collective action"
is used
with th
clarify t
such reI
crowds.
Althc
used, th
of the tE
encompa
sued by t'
Sued join
attain thE
level, colIc
common!
Since t
nificant pI
to distingl
are institl
and those t
Since Socia
operation c
dUcing this
actions that
Sidney Tarr
only "takes
tutionalized
but "most 0
part of cons
goals that we'
Still, man
institutional
noninstitutio
those associal
discussed ani
behavior. Brc
refers to "extn
behavior that
actions, rangi
behavior in di
ena, such as fa
and even revo]
Thus, just as Sl
lective action, .
Collective beha1
other variants 0
change-orientec
and temporal cc
ings
Dnly
and
lternon
'e of
llize
lent
-life
s of
1973
per-
1ich
ally
lave
mes
loof
and
~s, a
n of
hen
for
, In
by
Jgh
,nslin
gonay
ely,
ved
thy
>, it
nt's
udIt is
we
lof
Social Movements 7
is used broadly and sometimes interchangeably
with the term "social movement," it is useful to
clarify the relationship between these concepts and
such related constructs as collective behavior and
crowds.
To note the distinction between social movements and other species of collective behavior is
not to say that they do not overlap or comingle at
times. The relationship between nonconventional
crowd behavior activity and social movements is
Although the term collective action is widely
illustrative.
Although some crowds arise spontaneused, there is not a clear, consensual definition
ously
and
dissipate
just as quickly, such as those
of the term. Broadly conceived, collective action
that
spring
up
around
fires and accidents, othencompasses any goaldirected activity jointly purers
are
the
result
of
prior
planning, organization,
sued by two or more individuals. The action is purand
negotiation.
In
such
cases,
they are typically
sued jointly because an individual is unlikely to
orchestrated
by
a
social
movement
and constiattain the objective alone. Thus, at a rudimentary
tute
part
of
its
tactical
repertoire
for
dramatiZing
level, collective action is joint action in pursuit of a
its grievances and pressing its claims. When this
common objective.
occurs,
which is probably the dominant pattern
Since this basic conception encompasses a sigfor
most
protest gatherings, neither the crowd phenificant proportion of human behavior, it is useful
nomenon
nor the movement can be thoroughly
to distinguish between the collective actions that
understood
without understanding the relationship
are institutionalized or normatively sanctioned
between
them.
Thus, while social movements can
and those that fall outside of institutional channels.
be
distinguished
conceptually from other varieties
Since social movements are defined in part by their
of
collective
action
and collective behavior, social
operation outside of institutional channels, intromovements
and
some
crowd phenomena are often
ducing this distinction reduces the number of joint
closely
linked,
especially
when movements dramaactions that bear a resemblance to movements. As
tize their concerns and press their claims in public
Sidney Tarrow notes (1998: 3), collective action not
settings.
only "takes many forms-brief or sustained, institutionalized or disruptive, humdrum or dramatic,"
but "most of it occurs within institutions on the
ORGANIZATION OF THE BOOK
part of constituted groups acting in the name of
AND UNDERLYING LOGIC
goals that would hardly raise an eyebrow."
We have organized this reader around four central
Still, many collective actions fall into the nonissues: the emergence of social movements, microinstitutional category. Traditionally, most of these
mobilization processes, the dynamics ofmovements,
noninstitutionalized collective actions, including
and the outcomes or impacts of social movements.
those associated with social movements, have been
We use these issues as the book's "linchpins"
discussed and analyzed as varieties of collective
because together they focus attention on the charbehavior. Broadly conceived, collective behavior
acter and operation of social movements over their
refers to "extrainstitutional, group problem-solving
life course, from the conditions giving rise to them
behavior that encompasses an array of collective
to their impact and consequences. Although we do
actions, ranging from protest demonstrations, to
not claim to have covered these focal issues exhausbehavior in disasters, to mass or diffuse phenomtively, we do believe that our coverage provides the
ena, such as fads and crazes, to social movements
basis for understanding the central issues in the life
and even revolution" (Snow and Oliver 1995: 571).
histories of social movements as well as some of the
Thus, just as social movements are a form of colfactors associated with movement participation.
lective action, so they also constitute a species of
The issue of emergence focuses attention on
collective behavior. But they also differ from most
the various contextual conditions that nurture the
other variants ofcollective behavior because oftheir
soil for social movements and thus facilitate their
change-oriented goals, semblance of organization,
development.
The first section explores this issue,
and temporal continuity.
with Part 1 considering conditions of disruption
lDUCTION
down or threat, Part 2 taking up political
l1ity as a condition of conduciveness, Part 3
l1g facilitative resources and organizational
, and Part 4 considering the importance of
ve spaces and contexts.
econd section explores processes of microttion as they pertain to differential recruitId participation-that is, why do some
larticipate rather than others? The role of
etworks in relation to this issue is examlart 5. Part 6 examines interpretive framing
~s in relation to micromobilization and parn. And Part 7 considers various social psy:al dimensions ofparticipation, with a focus
ances, identity, and emotion.
third section focuses on the dynamics or
,peration and functioning of social movePart 8 considers movements in action by
tg strategic and tactical considerations. Part
lnes the relationship between movements
ious categories of actors in their environ, operation. And Part 10 looks at internal
~nt processes and dynamics and their implifor the ongoing functioning of movements.
.e book's fourth and last section, we address
:tion of whether movements make any differconsidering their outcomes or consequences.
It is our hope that the chapter introductions and
corresponding selections will increase the reader's understanding of the factors that influence the
course and character of social movements. We also
hope that this book stimulates further interest in
collective action and social movements.
NOTES
This conceptualization of social movements borrows from
and is similar to those provided by Snow and Oliver (1995:
571), Turner and Killian (1987: 223), and Wilson (1973: 9). See
McAdam et at. (2001) for a more political, state-based conception, and Snow (2004a) for a more institutionally and culturally based conceptualization.
2. See Clemens and Minkoff (2004) for further discussion of
the organizational dimension of social movements.
3. See Rucht (2004) for an elaborated and more nuanced discussion of the various sets of actors relevant to the operation
of social movements.
4. Public goods are typically conceptualized as goods that
are indivisible and nonexcludable. This means that public
goods are shared by all within a community whether or not
everyone contributed to their attainment or production. See
Olson (1965).
5. "Free riders" are individuals who benefit from a public
good without having contributed toward attaining it. For
discussion of the concept of free rider, see Olson (1965).
6. See McAdam (1988) for discussion and analysis of the
Freedom Summer campaign.
1.
Erne]
+
Disruptions and Threats
nder what conditions do social movements
emerge? What factors give rise to or facilitate
the emergence and operation of social movements?
Such questions are among the most frequently
asked and researched in the study of social movements. Of the various factors posited as necessary
conditions for the emergence of social movements,
none have received more scholarly attention historically than a cluster of unsettling social conditions
that have been conceptualized metaphorically as
"strains."
The traditional strain argument-dating back
to at least the writings of Emile Durkeim ([1893]
1964) and extending through William Kornhauser's
(1959) treatise on the dangers of "mass society"
(1959) and Neil Smelser's (1962) attempt to develop
an integrative theory of crowd behavior, social
movements, and revolutions-is that social movements are the by-products of the clamor for change
that is triggered by disintegrative events like wars
and economic downturns or by exclusionary social
arrangements that render the victims vulnerable
to the appeals of social movements. Because of its
emphasis on social disintegration, this argument
was dubbed "breakdown theory" in the mid-1970S
(Tilly, Tilly, and Tilly 1975).
From that point on for the next 20 to 25 years,
strain/breakdown arguments, whether structurally or social psychologically oriented, not only fell
out of fashion but were relegated by many social
movement scholars to the dustbin of tried but failed
hypotheses and theories. The reasons for the demise
of strain/breakdown theory have been chronicled
in Steven Buechler's essay (2004), aptly titled "The
Strange Career of Strain and Breakdown Theories
of Collective Action" and are discussed in abbreviated fashion by the first selection included in this
section. But the reasons for the apparent demise
of strain/breakdown theory were not sufficient to
bury it, in large part because of the obdurate fact
that social movements do not arise in an issueless,
trouble-free vacuum. Rather, they arise in response
to events, trends, or social practices that some number of people find or experience as troublesome
and about which they have considerable concern
and often strong passions. So it is not surprising
that remnants of strain/breakdown theorizing
have been salvaged and resuscitated (see Buechler
2004; Goldstone and Tilly 2001; Useem 1998). But
the form of theorizing has shifted from a presumption of a determinant relationship between certain
unsettling conditions to a realization that the relationship between such conditions and movement
emergence is generally likely to be indeterminant
because of the affect of other sets of facilitative conditions discussed in subsequent parts of this section. Additionally, the conceptual nomenclature
for theorizing and discussing these conditions is
changing as well, grounded in large part in the realization that certain social conditions can be experienced and/or seen as disruptive or threatening
without generating social breakdown or chaos. The
title of this section and the three included selections
reflect these changes.
Before summarizing these selections, several
cautionary considerations should be kept in mind.
First, we do not assume that people respond automatically, in a stimulus/response-like fashion,
to disrupting and threatening trends and events.
Rather, as highlighted in Part 6, any response or
action that evolves depends in part on interpretive,
framing processes. At the same time, collective
actors rarely, if ever, manufacture events entirely
apart from the social context in which they find
themselves. In other words, their framing of events
is anchored in part in some set of experienced or
U
11
12 PART I: DISRUPTIONS AND THREATS
perceived empirical conditions. Here we highlight
a number of facilitative unsettling conditions that
have been associated empirically with movement
emergence.
In the first selection, Snow, Cress, Downey, and
Jones provide an alternative conceptualization of
traditional breakdown theory by contending that it
is not associational ties and bonds of solidarity that
are disrupted or broken in the face of unsettling
social conditions or events, but rather patterns of
everyday functioning and routinized expectancies
associated with those patterns. The core argument
is that actual or threatened disruption of takenfor-granted routines and attitudes of everyday life,
referred to as "the quotidian," is especially generative of mobilizing grievances because it renders
problematic and uncertain previously habituated
ways of doing daily life. Snow and his colleagues
also argue that some types of conditions or events
are more unsettling and disruptive of the quotidian
than others. One such category of disruptive events
includes accidents and disasters. A second category
includes intrusions into or violations of culturally
defined areas of privacy and control, such as community or neighborhood spaces, by strangers or
outsiders. A third set of events conducive to quotidian disruption involves dramatic alterations to
subsistence routines because of changes in the ratio
of resources to claimants or demand. The fourth
set of disruptive events involves dramatic changes
in structures of social organization and control,
as when tightly regimented systems of control are
displaced and routinized patterns of hierarchy and
patronage are disrupted, or when there are significant changes in policing practices resulting in the
monitoring, harassment, and arrest of individuals
engaging in patterns of behavior not previous eriminalized. These four types of quotidian-disrupting
events or conditions are elaborated upon and illustrated with the research findings of numerous studies of a variety of movements across time and place.
The second selection provides an elaborated
example of how changes in the ratio of resources to
demand can alter quotidian subsistence patterns by
focusing on the sometimes disruptive effects ofpopulation change. At least since the time of Thomas
Malthus, the late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-
century British economist who proposed a causal
link between population growth and hunger and
poverty, some observers of social movements have
assumed that significant population increases will
increase the scale of poverty to such a degree that
social movement activity will escalate as well.
Today, it is generally agreed that there is little direct
connection between human suffering and the rise
of social movements to alleviate that suffering.
However, the absence of a direct link between population growth and social movement activity does
not rule out the possibility of a more indirect association. Jack Goldstone takes this position in the
second selection, arguing that state breakdown and
revolution in early modern agrarian-bureaucratic
states in both Europe and Asia were stimulated by
dramatic population growth. In his examination of
state breakdown in England between 1640 and 164 2 ,
for example, he found that the English population
grew from just over 2 million to more than 5 million
between 1500 and 1650 and that London alone grew
from 50,000 to 400,000 inhabitants during the
same period. Goldstone does not advocate a simple
demographic approach, however. Instead, he sees
the association between demographic change and
state breakdown and revolutionary social movement activity as more nuanced, as reflected in his
linkage of population change in England and elsewhere to declining state revenues and fiscal crisis,
elite competition and turnover, and an increase
in the mobilization potential of the masses. The
selection included from his book, Revolution and
Rebellion in the Early Modern World, clarifies his
position, which he calls a structural-demographic
model of state breakdown and revolution.
Even though Goldstone's model incorporates a
number of interconnected factors, demographic
change remains the starting point ofthe process and
the unifying theme of the analysis. Moreover, he
establishes population growth as the pivotal factor.
However, it is important to note that demographic
change associated with social movement emergence
may sometimes entail population decline rather
than growth, as revealed by research on the relationship between population change among Native
Americans and the Ghost Dance Movement of 189 0
(Thornton 1981).
Part I: Disruptions and Th,'eats 13
,al
nd
,ve
,ill
lat
:11.
:ct
ise
19.
Ip-
les
iO-
he
nd
tic
by
of
42,
on
on
ew
:he
pIe
ees
nd
ve-
his
se,is,
ase
!he
md
his
hic
sa
hic
Ind
he
:or.
hic
[lce
her
~la­
:ive
19 0
In the final selection of Part I, Nella Van Dyke
and Sarah Soule examine the mobilizing effect
of various types of threat triggered by structural
changes in relation to patriot/militia movement
organizing in the UnitedStates in the 1990S, In particular, they seek to account for variation in statelevel counts of patriot/militia groups and find that
economic restructuring, measured by a decrease in
manufacturing jobs and the decline of the family
farm, affected the mobilization of these movement
groups in the 1990S. This finding was also reaffirmed by an analysis of the patriot/militia groups
across 300 U.S. counties. Together, these findings
not only help to illuminate the reasons for the
emergence of the patriot/militia movement in the
1990S, but also underscore empirically the importance of including measures of disruptive events
and threats in our theorization of social movement
emergence.
Considered together, the three selections that
make up this section provide compelling theoretical
and empirical justification for retaining remnants
of strain theory refashioned in terms of unsettling
quotidian disruptions and threats.