Social movement

Mario Diani argues that nearly all definitions share three criteria: "a network of informal interactions between a plurality of individuals, groups and/or organizations, engaged in a political or cultural conflict, on the basis of a shared collective identity"[12]

Sociologist Charles Tilly defines social movements as a series of contentious performances, displays and campaigns by which ordinary people make collective claims on others.[8] For Tilly, social movements are a major vehicle for ordinary people's participation in public politics.[13] He argues that there are three major elements to a social movement:[8]

1. Campaigns: a sustained, organized public effort making collective claims of target authorities;
2. Repertoire (repertoire of contention): employment of combinations from among the following forms of political action: creation of special-purpose associations and coalitions, public meetings, solemn processions, vigils, rallies, demonstrations, petition drives, statements to and in public media, and pamphleteering; and
3. WUNC displays: participants' concerted public representation of worthiness, unity, numbers, and commitments on the part of themselves and/or their constituencies.

Sidney Tarrow defines a social movement as "collective challenges [to elites, authorities, other groups or cultural codes] by people with common purposes and solidarity in sustained interactions with elites, opponents and authorities." He specifically distinguishes social movements from political parties and advocacy groups.[14]

The sociologists John McCarthy and Mayer Zald define as a social movement as "a set of opinions and beliefs in a population which represents preferences for changing some elements of the social structure and/or reward distribution of a society."[15]

According to Paul van Seeters and Paul James, defining a social movement entails a few minimal conditions of 'coming together':

(1.) the formation of some kind of collective identity; (2.) the development of a shared normative orientation; (3.) the sharing of a concern for change of the status quo and (4.) the occurrence of moments of practical action that are at least subjectively connected together across time addressing this concern for change. Thus we define a social movement as a form of political association between persons who have at least a minimal sense of themselves as connected to others in common purpose and who come together across an extended period of time to effect social change in the name of that purpose.[16]

Nascent social movements often fail to achieve their objectives because they fail to mobilize sufficient numbers of people. Srdja Popovic, author of Blueprint for Revolution,[30] and spokesperson for OTPOR!, says that movements succeed when they address issues that people actually care about. "It's unrealistic to expect people to care about more than what they already care about, and any attempt to make them do so is bound to fail." Activists too often make the mistake of trying to convince people to address their issues. A mobilization strategy aimed at large-scale change often begins with action a small issue that concerns many people. For instance, Mahatma Gandhi's successful overthrow of British rule in India began as a small protest focused on the British tax on salt.

Popovic also argues that a social movement has little chance of growing if it relies on boring speeches and the usual placard waving marches. He argues for creating movements that people actually want to join. OTPOR! succeeded because it was fun, funny, and invented graphic ways of ridiculing dictator Slobodan Milosevic. It turned fatalism and passivity into action by making it easy, even cool, to become a revolutionary, branding itself within hip slogans, rock music and street theatre. Tina Rosenberg, in Join the Club, How Peer Pressure can Transform the World,[31] shows how movements grow when there is a core of enthusiastic players who encourage others to join them.

Types of social movements[32]

Sociologists distinguish between several types of social movement:

• Scope:
  • reform movement - movements advocating changing some norms or laws. Examples of such a movement would include a trade union with a goal of increasing workers rights, a green movement advocating a set of ecological laws, or a movement supporting introduction of a capital punishment or the right to abortion. Some reform movements may aim for a change in custom and moral norms, such as condemnation of pornography or proliferation of some religion.
  • radical movement - movements dedicated to changing value systems in a fundamental way. Examples would include the Civil Rights Movement which demanded full civil rights and equality under the law to all Americans, regardless of race; the Polish Solidarity (Solidarność) movement which demanded the transformation of a Stalinist political and economic system into a democracy; or the South African shack dwellers' movement Abahlali baseMjondolo which demands the full inclusion of shack dwellers into the life of cities.
• Type of change:
  • innovation movement - movements which want to introduce or change particular norms, values, etc. The singularitarianism movement advocating deliberate action to effect and ensure the safety of the technological singularity is an example of an innovation movement.
  • conservative movement - movements which want to preserve existing norms, values, etc. For example, the anti-technology 19th century Luddites movement or the modern movement opposing the spread of the genetically modified food could be seen as conservative movements in that they aimed to fight specific technological changes.
• Targets:
  • group-focus movements - focused on affecting groups or society in general, for example, advocating the change of the political system. Some of these groups transform into or join a political party, but many remain outside the reformist party political system.
  • individual-focused movements - focused on affecting individuals. Most religious movements would fall under this category.
• Methods of work:
  • peaceful movements - various movements which use nonviolent means of protest as part of a campaign of nonviolent resistance, also often called civil resistance. The American Civil Rights Movement, Polish Solidarity movement or the nonviolent, civil disobedience-orientated wing of the Indian independence movement would fall into this category.[33]
  • violent movements - various movements[34] which resort to violence; they are usually armed and in extreme cases can take a form of a paramilitary or terrorist organization. Examples: the Rote Armee Fraktion, Al-Qaida.
• Old and new:
  • old movements - movements for change have existed for many centuries. Most of the oldest recognized movements, dating to late 18th and 19th centuries, fought for specific social groups, such as the working class, peasants, whites, aristocrats, Protestants, men. They were usually centered around some materialistic goals like improving the standard of living or, for example, the political autonomy of the working class.
  • new movements - movements which became dominant from the second half of the 20th century. Notable examples include the American civil rights movement, second-wave feminism, gay rights movement, environmentalism and conservation efforts, opposition to mass surveillance, etc. They are usually centered around issues that go beyond but are not separate from class.
• Range:
  • global movements - social movements with global (transnational) objectives and goals. Movements such as the first (where Marx and Bakunin met), second, third and fourth internationals, the World Social Forum, the Peoples' Global Action and the anarchist movement seek to change society at a global level.
  • local movements - most of the social movements have a local scope.[35] They are focused on local or regional objectives, such as protecting a specific natural area, lobbying for the lowering of tolls in a certain motorway, or preserving a building about to be demolished for gentrification and turning it into a social center.

A difficulty for scholarship of movements is that for most, neither insiders to a movement nor outsiders apply consistent labels or even descriptive phrases. Unless there is a single leader who does, or a formal system of membership agreements, activists will typically use diverse labels and descriptive phrases that require scholars to discern when they are referring to the same or similar ideas, declare similar goals, adopt similar programs of action, and use similar methods. There can be great differences in the way that is done, to recognize who is and who is not a member or an allied group:

• Insiders: Often exaggerate the level of support by considering people supporters whose level of activity or support is weak, but also reject those that outsiders might consider supporters because they discredit the cause, or are even seen as adversaries
• Outsiders: Those not supporters who may tend to either underestimate or overestimate the level or support or activity of elements of a movement, by including or excluding those that insiders would exclude or include.

It is often outsiders rather than insiders that apply the identifying labels for a movement, which the insiders then may or may not adopt and use to self-identify. For example, the label for the levellers political movement in 17th-century England was applied to them by their antagonists, as a term of disparagement. Yet admirers of the movement and its aims later came to use the term, and it is the term by which they are known to history.

Caution must always be exercised in any discussion of amorphous phenomena such as movements to distinguish between the views of insiders and outsiders, supporters and antagonists, each of whom may have their own purposes and agendas in characterization or mischaracterization of it.

Stages of social movements[37]

Social movements have a life cycle: they are created, they grow, they achieve successes or failures and eventually, they dissolve and cease to exist.

They are more likely to evolve in the time and place which is friendly to the social movements: hence their evident symbiosis with the 19th century proliferation of ideas like individual rights, freedom of speech and civil disobedience. Social movements occur in liberal and authoritarian societies but in different forms. These new movements are activated by a wish for change in social customs, ethics and values which oppress certain communities. The birth of a social movement needs what sociologist Neil Smelser calls an initiating event: a particular, individual event that will begin a chain reaction of events in the given society leading to the creation of a social movement. The root of this event must be the result of some common discontent among a community. Hence, making emergence the first step to a social movement. This discontent will act as the chain that links common people together, as they share the same experiences and feelings of oppression. "Within this stage, social movements are very preliminary and there is little to no organization. Instead this stage can be thought of as widespread discontent (Macionis, 2001; Hopper, 1950).[38]" Emergence is prior to any sort of organized resistance to the condition of society. Jonathan Christiansen's essay on the four stages of social movement dissects further into the historical sociology of how each stage affects the whole movement. The Civil Rights Movement's early stages are an example of the public display of protest that is utilized to push a movement into the next stages. "It was not until after the Brown v. the Board of Education Supreme court decision (1954), which outlawed segregation in Public schools, and following the arrest of Rosa Parks in Montgomery, Alabama for refusing to comply with segregation laws on city buses by giving up her bus seat to a white man, that the American Civil Rights Movement would proceed to the next stage – coalescence."[39] The impact of a black woman, Rosa Parks, riding in the whites-only section of the bus (although she was not acting alone or spontaneously—typically activist leaders lay the groundwork behind the scenes of interventions designed to spark a movement).[40] This leads into coalesce because now the common dilemma and source of oppression is being pinned down, allowing for organizations and appearance to the public eye to be established. The Polish Solidarity movement, which eventually toppled the communist regimes of Eastern Europe, developed after trade union activist Anna Walentynowicz was fired from work. The South African shack dwellers' movement Abahlali baseMjondolo grew out of a road blockade in response to the sudden selling off of a small piece of land promised for housing to a developer. Such an event is also described as a volcanic model – a social movement is often created after a large number of people realize that there are others sharing the same value and desire for a particular social change.

This third stage, bureaucratization, is when movements must become more organized, centered around a more systematic model. The set up and system for going about the construct must be more formal, with people taking on specific roles and responsibilities. "In this phase their political power is greater than in the previous stages in that they may have more regular access to political elites."[39] In this stage, one organization may take over another one in order to obtain a greater status and formal alliance. This 'taking over' may be a positive or negative move for organizations. Ella Baker, an activist who played a role in the NAACP,[41] had proposed to the students of the student movement to start their own organization. This becomes known as the SNCC, the student nonviolent coordinating committee (1960s). The students could have join forces with the SCLC,[42] an already existing organization, but that would have been a poor bureaucratizing decision, as they would succumb to old ideologies. New and progressive ideas that challenge prior authority are crucial to social change.

The declining of a social movement does not necessarily mean failure. There are multiple routes in which a movement may take before proceeding into decline. Success of a movement would result in permanent changes within the society and/or government that would result in a loss of need for protest. Failure is often the result of the incapability to keep a common focus, and work towards the goal in mind. "Failure of social movements due to organizational or strategic failings is common for many organizations.[43]" Such a route would result in the gradual breaking up of an organization, and out of the stages of movement. Co-optation results when people or groups are integrated and shift away from the social movement's initial concerns and values. Repression is another example, when the movement is slowly wiped away from the public platform through means of an outside force, usually being the government. The last route into declining is going mainstream, which is generally perceived as an overall success. This is when goals of the movement are taken into society as a part of daily life, making it a 'social norm.' For example, birth control is still a greatly debated topic on a government level, but it has been accepted into social life as a common thing that exists.

It is important to recognize that though movements may disintegrate and cease to be active, the impact that they have in the social realm is success in its own way. It sparks the notion in new generations that the possibility to organize and make change is there.

Sociologists have developed several theories related to social movements [Kendall, 2005]. Some of the better-known approaches are outlined below. Chronologically they include:

• Marxist theory (1880s)
• collective behavior/collective action theories (1950s)
• relative deprivation theory (1960s)
• value-added theory (1960s)
• resource mobilization (1970s)
• political process theory (1980s)
• framing theory (1980s) (closely related to social constructionist theory)
• new social movement theory (1980s)

Political process theory

Political process theory is similar to resource mobilization in many regards, but tends to emphasize a different component of social structure that is important for social movement development: political opportunities. Political process theory argues that there are three vital components for movement formation: insurgent consciousness, organizational strength, and political opportunities.

Insurgent consciousness refers back to the ideas of deprivation and grievances. The idea is that certain members of society feel like they are being mistreated or that somehow the system is unjust. The insurgent consciousness is the collective sense of injustice that movement members (or potential movement members) feel and serves as the motivation for movement organization.

Photo taken at the 2005 U.S. Presidential inauguration protest

Organizational strength falls inline with resource-mobilization theory, arguing that in order for a social movement to organize it must have strong leadership and sufficient resources.

Political opportunity refers to the receptivity or vulnerability of the existing political system to challenge. This vulnerability can be the result of any of the following (or a combination thereof):

• growth of political pluralism
• decline in effectiveness of repression
• elite disunity; the leading factions are internally fragmented
• a broadening of access to institutional participation in political processes
• support of organized opposition by elites

One of the advantages of the political process theory is that it addresses the issue of timing or emergence of social movements. Some groups may have the insurgent consciousness and resources to mobilize, but because political opportunities are closed, they will not have any success. The theory, then, argues that all three of these components are important.

Critics of the political process theory and resource-mobilization theory point out that neither theory discusses movement culture to any great degree. This has presented culture theorists an opportunity to expound on the importance of culture.

One advance on the political process theory is the political mediation model, which outlines the way in which the political context facing movement actors intersects with the strategic choices that movements make. An additional strength of this model is that it can look at the outcomes of social movements not only in terms of success or failure but also in terms of consequences (whether intentional or unintentional, positive or negative) and in terms of collective benefits.

For more than ten years, social movement groups have been using the Internet to accomplish organizational goals. It has been argued that the Internet helps to increase the speed, reach and effectiveness of social movement-related communication as well as mobilization efforts, and as a result, it has been suggested that the Internet has had a positive impact on the social movements in general.[10][54][55][56] The systematic literature review of Buettner & Buettner analyzed the role of Twitter during a wide range of social movements (2007 WikiLeaks, 2009 Moldova, 2009 Austria student protest, 2009 Israel-Gaza, 2009 Iran green revolution, 2009 Toronto G20, 2010 Venezuela, 2010 Germany Stuttgart21, 2011 Egypt, 2011 England, 2011 US Occupy movement, 2011 Spain Indignados, 2011 Greece Aganaktismenoi movements, 2011 Italy, 2011 Wisconsin labor protests, 2012 Israel Hamas, 2013 Brazil Vinegar, 2013 Turkey).[11]

Many discussions have been generated recently on the topic of social networking and the effect it may play on the formation and mobilization of social movement.[57] For example, the emergence of the Coffee Party first appeared on the social networking site, Facebook. The party has continued to gather membership and support through that site and file sharing sites, such as Flickr. The 2009–2010 Iranian election protests also demonstrated how social networking sites are making the mobilization of large numbers of people quicker and easier. Iranians were able to organize and speak out against the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by using sites such as Twitter and Facebook. This in turn prompted widespread government censorship of the web and social networking sites.

The sociological study of social movements is quite new. The traditional view of movements often perceived them as chaotic and disorganized, treating activism as a threat to the social order. The activism experienced in the 1960s and 1970s shuffled in a new world opinion about the subject. Models were now introduced to understand the organizational and structural powers embedded in social movements.

• David F. Aberle. 1966. The Peyote Religion among the Navaho. Chicago: Aldine. ISBN 0-8061-2382-6
• James Alfred Aho. 1990. Politics of Righteousness: Idaho Christian Patriotism. Washington: University of Washington Press. ISBN 0-295-96997-0
• Paul Almeida. 2019. Social Movements: The Structure of Collective Mobilization. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 9780520290914
• Herbert G. Blumer 1969. "Collective Behavior." In Alfred McClung Lee, ed., Principles of Sociology. Third Edition. New York: Barnes & Noble Books, pp. 65–121.
• Mark Chaves. 1997. Ordaining Women: Culture and Conflict in Religious Organizations. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-64146-9
• Dolata, Ulrich; Schrape, Jan-Felix (2016). "Masses, Crowds, Communities, Movements: Collective Action in the Internet Age". Social Movement Studies. 15 (1): 1–18. doi:10.1080/14742837.2015.1055722. S2CID 141985609.
• Graeme Chesters and Ian Welsh. Complexity and Social Movements: Multitudes at the Edge of Chaos Routledge 2006. ISBN 0-415-43974-4
• Mario Diani and Doug McAdam, Social movements and networks, Oxford University Press, 2003.
• Susan Eckstei, ed. Power and Popular Protest: Latin American Social Movements, Updated Edition, University of California Press 2001. ISBN 0-520-22705-0
• Anthony Giddens. 1985. The Nation-State and Violence. Cambridge, England: Polity Press. ISBN 0-520-06039-3
• Jeff Goodwin and James M. Jasper. 2009. The Social Movements Reader. Malden, Massachusetts: Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-4051-8764-0
• Angelique Haugerud, No Billionaire Left Behind: Satirical Activism in America, Stanford University Press, 2013. ISBN 9780804781534
• James, Paul; van Seeters, Paul (2014). Globalization and Politics, Vol. 2: Global Social Movements and Global Civil Society. London: Sage Publications.
• James M. Jasper. 1997. The Art of Moral Protest: Culture, Biography, and Creativity in Social Movements. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• James M. Jasper. 2014. Protest: A Cultural Introduction to Social Movements. Polity Press.
• Jenkins, J. Craig; Perrow, Charles (1977). "Insurgency of the Powerless Farm Worker Movements (1946–1972)". American Sociological Review. 42 (2): 249–268. doi:10.2307/2094604. JSTOR 2094604.
• Diana Kendall, Sociology In Our Times, Thomson Wadsworth, 2005. ISBN 0-534-64629-8
• William Kornhauser. 1959. The Politics of Mass Society. New York: Free Press. ISBN 0-02-917620-4
• Donna Maurer. 2002. Vegetarianism: Movement or Moment? Philadelphia: Temple University Press. ISBN 1-56639-936-X
• Armand L. Mauss. 1975. Social Problems of Social Movements. Philadelphia: Lippincott.
• Denton E. Morrison. 1978. "Some Notes toward Theory on Relative Deprivation, Social Movements, and Social Change." In Louis E. Genevie, ed., Collective Behavior and Social Movements. Itasca, Ill.: Peacock. pp. 202–209.
• Mölders, Marc; Schrape, Jan-Felix (2019). "Digital Deceleration. Protest and Societal Irritation in the Internet Age". ÖZS. 44 (1): 199–215. doi:10.1007/s11614-019-00354-3. S2CID 189875881.
• Immanuel Ness, ed. Encyclopedia of American Social Movements, 2004. ISBN 0-7656-8045-9.
• Jeff Pugh. 2008. "Vectors of Contestation: Social Movements and Party Systems in Ecuador and Colombia." Latin American Essays XXI: 46-65.
• Adam Roberts and Timothy Garton Ash (eds.), Civil Resistance and Power Politics: The Experience of Non-violent Action from Gandhi to the Present, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. ISBN 978-0-19-955201-6.
• Ryan, Charlotte; Gamson, William A. (2006). "The Art of Reframing Political Debates". Contexts. 5 (1): 13–18. doi:10.1525/ctx.2006.5.1.13. S2CID 59529692.
• Neil J. Smelser. 1962. Theory of Collective Behavior. New York: Free Press. ISBN 0-02-929390-1
• David Snow, Sarah A. Soule and Hanspeter Kriesi, ed. Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, Blackwell, 2004.
• Suzanne Staggenborg, Social Movements, Oxford University Press, 2008. ISBN 978-0-19-542309-9
• Sidney Tarrow, Power in Movement: Collective Action, Social Movements and Politics, Cambridge University Press, 1994. ISBN 0-521-42271-X
• Temelini, Michael (2013). "Dialogical Approaches to Struggles Over Recognition and Distribution". Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy. 17 (4): 2–25. doi:10.1080/13698230.2013.763517. S2CID 144378936.
• Charles Tilly, 1978. From Mobilization to Revolution. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1978.
• Charles Tilly, Social Movements, 1768–2004, Boulder, CO, Paradigm Publishers, 2004 262 pp. ISBN 1-59451-042-3 (hardback) / ISBN 1-59451-043-1 (paperback)
• Leonard Weinberg, 2013. Democracy and Terrorism. New York: Routledge, 2013.
• Quintan Wiktorowicz, Islamic Activism: A Social Movement Theory Approach, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2004.
• Marco G. Giugni, How Social Movements Matter, University of Minnesota Press, 1999, ISBN 0-8166-2914-5
• Rod Bantjes, Social Movements in a Global Context, CSPI, 2007, ISBN 978-1-55130-324-6
• Michael Barker, Conform or Reform? Social Movements and the Mass Media, Fifth-Estate-Online - International Journal of Radical Mass Media Criticism. February 2007. Fifth-estate-online.co.uk
• Dennis Chong, Collective Action and the Civil Rights Movement, University of Chicago Press, 1991, ISBN 978-0-226-10441-6

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Social movements.

Wikiversity has learning resources about social movements

• Mobilization - journal
• Interface: a Journal For and About Social Movements