* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Readings on Social Movements
Survey
Document related concepts
Social Darwinism wikipedia , lookup
Social Bonding and Nurture Kinship wikipedia , lookup
Sociological theory wikipedia , lookup
Social theory wikipedia , lookup
Social psychology wikipedia , lookup
Premovement neuronal activity wikipedia , lookup
Tribe (Internet) wikipedia , lookup
Social computing wikipedia , lookup
Unilineal evolution wikipedia , lookup
Social perception wikipedia , lookup
Community development wikipedia , lookup
History of social work wikipedia , lookup
Origins of society wikipedia , lookup
History of the social sciences wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
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.