Social
movements are a type of group action. They are
large informal
groupings of individuals
and/or organizations
focused on specific political
or social
issues, in other words, on carrying out, resisting or undoing a social change.
Modern
Western social movements became possible through education (the wider
dissemination of literature),
and increased mobility of labour due to the industrialisation and urbanisation
of 19th century societies. It is sometimes argued that the freedom of
expression, education and relative economic independence prevalent in the
modern Western culture
is responsible for the unprecedented number and scope of various contemporary
social movements. However others point out that many of the major social
movements of the last hundred years grew up, like the Mau Mau
in Kenya
Political science
and sociology
have developed a variety of theories and empirical research on social
movements. For example, some research in political science highlights the
relation between popular movements and the formation of new political parties
as well as discussing the function of social movements in relation to agenda setting and
influence on politics.
Definitions
Charles Tilly
defines social movements as a series of contentious performances, displays and
campaigns by which ordinary people made collective claims on others [Tilly,
2004]. For Tilly, social movements are a major vehicle for ordinary people's
participation in public politics [Tilly, 2004:3]. He argues that there are
three major elements to a social movement [Tilly, 2004]:
Campaigns:
a sustained, organized public effort making collective claims on target
authorities;
Repertoire:
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
WUNC
displays: participants' concerted public representation of worthiness,
unity, numbers, and commitments on the part of themselves
and/or their constituencies.
Sidney Tarrow
defines [Tarrow, 1994] 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 interest groups.
The
term "social movements" was introduced in 1850 by the German
Sociologist Lorenz von Stein
in his book "History of the French Social Movement from 1789 to the
Present (1850).
Charles
Tilly claims that the "social movement" did not exist before the late
eighteenth century: although such elements as campaigns, social movement
repertoire and WUNC displays has a long history, only recently had they been combined
together into a proper social movement. The "social movement" was
invented in England North America during the first decades of
the nineteenth century and has since then spread across the globe.[Tilly, 2004]
Tilly
argues that the early growth of social movements was connected to broad
economic and political changes including parliamentarization, market capitalization,
and proletarianization. [Tilly, 2004] Political movements that evolved in late 18th
century, like those connected to the French Revolution and the Polish Constitution of May 3, 1791
are among the first documented social movements, although Tilly notes that the
British abolitionist
movement has "some claim" to be the first social movement (becoming
one between the sugar boycott of 1791 and the second great petition drive of
1806). The labor movement
and socialist movement of the late 19th century are
seen as the prototypical social movements, leading to the formation of communist
and social democratic
parties and organisations. From 1815, Britain
after victory in the Napoleonic Wars
entered a period of social upheaval. Similar tendencies were seen in other
countries as pressure for reform continued, for example in Russia with the Russian Revolution of 1905
and of 1917, resulting
in the collapse of the Russian State around the end of the First World War.
In
1945, Britain
Key processes
The
South African Police Crush Another Demonstration by the Squatters' Movement
Abahlali baseMjondolo, 28
September, 2007
Several
key processes lie behind the history of social movements. The process of
urbanization, which created large cities, facilitated social interaction between scores of people. It
was in cities, where people of similar goals could find each other, gather and
organize, that those early social movements first appeared. Similarly, the
process of industrialization which gathered large masses of workers in the same
region was responsible for the fact that many of those early social movements
addressed matters important to that social class. Many other social movements were
created at universities,
where the process of mass education
brought many people together. With the development of communication
technologies, creation and activities of social movements became easier - from
printed pamphlets circulating in the 18th century coffeehouses
to newspapers
and Internet,
all those tools became important factors in the growth of the social movements.
Finally, the spread of democracy
and political rights
like the freedom of speech
made the creation and functioning of social movements much easier.
Social
movements have been and continued to be closely connected with democratic political systems.
Occasionally social movements have been involved in democratizing
nations, but more often they have flourished after democratization. Over the
past 200 years, they have become part of a popular and global expression of dissent.[Tilly,
2004]
Sociologists
distinguish between several types of social movement:
scope
reform
movements - movements dedicated to changing some norms, usually legal ones. 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 right to abortion.
Some reform movements may advocate a change in custom and moral norms, for
example, condemnation of pornography
or proliferation of some religion.
The nature of such movements is not just related to the issue but also to the
methods used. There could be reformist or radical methods used to achieve the
same end, such as in the case of making abortion legal and readily available.
radical
movement - movements dedicated to changing value systems. Those involve fundamental changes,
unlike the reform movements, Examples would include the American Civil Rights
Movement which demanded full civil rights and equality under the law to all
Americans (this movement was broad and included both radical and reformist
elements), 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 enable 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-automation 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, however they are progressive in ways that movements that
are simply being anti-change (e.g. being anti-immigration) for the sake of it
can never be.
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, which are seen to stand in contrast to 'violent' movements. 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.
violent
movements - various armed movements e.g. the Zapatista Army of National
Liberation, Rote Armee Fraktion.
old and new
old
movements - movements for change have existed since the beginning of society, most
of the 19th century movements 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 - like the feminist movement, pro-choice movement, civil rights movement, environmental movement, free software movement, gay rights movement, peace movement, anti-nuclear movement, alter-globalization movement, etc. Sometimes they
are known as new social movements.
They are usually centered around issues that go beyond but are not separate
from class.
range
global
movements - social movements with global objectives and goals. Movements such
as the first
(where Marx and Bakunin met), second, third
and fourth internationals,
the World Social Forum, the PGA and the anarchist movement
seek to change society at a global level.
local
movements - most of the social movements have a local scope. They are based on
local or regional objectives, such as protecting a specific natural area,
lobbying for the lowering of tolls in a certain motorway, or squatting a
building about to be demolished for gentrification and turning it into a social center.
multi-level
movements - social movements which recognize the complexity of governance in
the 21st Century and aim to have an impact at the local, regional, national and
international levels.
A
difficulty for scholarship of movements is that for most of them, neither
insiders to a movement nor outsiders apply consistent labels or even
descriptive phrases. Unless there is a single leader who does that, 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
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.
Social
movements are not eternal. They 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.
But there must always be polarizing differences between groups of people: in
case of 'old movements', they were the poverty
and wealth gaps. In case of
the 'new movements', they are more likely to be the differences in customs,
ethics and values. Finally, 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.
For example, American Civil Rights movement grew on the reaction to black
woman, Rosa Parks,
riding in the whites-only section of the bus (although it is important to note
that Rosa Parks was not acting alone or spontaneously -- typically activist leaders
lay the groundwork behind the scenes of interventions designed to spark a
movement). 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. Thus, one of the main difficulties
facing the emerging social movement is spreading the very knowledge that it
exists. Second is overcoming the free rider problem - convincing people to join
it, instead of following the mentality 'why should I trouble myself when others
can do it and I can just reap the benefits after their hard work'.
Many
social movements are created around some charismatic leader, i.e. one possessing charismatic authority.
After the social movement is created, there are two likely phases of
recruitment. The first phase will gather the people deeply interested in the
primary goal and ideal of the movement. The second phase, which will usually
come after the given movement had some successes and is trendy; it would look
good on a résumé.
People who join in this second phase will likely be the first to leave when the
movement suffers any setbacks and failures.
Eventually,
the social crisis can be encouraged by outside elements, like opposition from
government or other movements. However, many movements had survived a failure
crisis, being revived by some hardcore activists even after several decades.
Sociologists
have developed several theories related to
social movements [Kendall , 2005]. Some of the
better-known approaches are outlined below. Chronologically they include:
relative
deprivation theory (1960s)
value-added theory
(1960s)
resource
mobilization (1970s)
new social movement theory
(1980s)
political
process theory (1980s)
Deprivation theory argues that
social movements have their foundations among people who feel deprived of some
good(s) or resource(s). According to this approach, individuals who are lacking
some good, service, or comfort are more likely to organize a social movement to
improve (or defend) their conditions (Morrison 1978).
There
are two significant problems with this theory. First, since most people feel
deprived at one level or another almost all the time, the theory has a hard
time explaining why the groups that form social movements do when other people
are also deprived. Second, the reasoning behind this theory is circular - often
the only evidence for deprivation is the social movement. If deprivation is
claimed to be the cause but the only evidence for such is the movement, the
reasoning is circular (Jenkins and Perrow 1977).
Mass society theory
Mass society theory
argues that social movements are made up of individuals in large societies who
feel insignificant or socially detached. Social movements, according to this
theory, provide a sense of empowerment and belonging that the movement members
would otherwise not have (Kornhauser 1959).
Very
little support has been found for this theory. Aho (1990), in his study of
Idaho Christian Patriotism, did not find that members of that movement were
more likely to have been socially detached. In fact, the key to joining the
movement was having a friend or associate who was a member of the movement.
Structural strain theory
proposes six factors that encourage social movement development (Smelser 1962):
structural
conduciveness - people come to believe their society has problems
structural
strain - people experience deprivation
growth
and spread of a solution - a solution to the problems people are experiencing
is proposed and spreads
precipitating
factors - discontent usually requires a catalyst (often a specific event) to
turn it into a social movement
lack
of social control - the entity that is to be changed must be at least somewhat
open to the change; if the social movement is quickly and powerfully repressed,
it may never materialize
mobilization
- this is the actual organizing and active component of the movement; people do
what needs to be done
This
theory is also subject to circular reasoning as it incorporates, at least in
part, deprivation theory and relies upon it, and social/structural strain for
the underlying motivation of social movement activism. However, social movement
activism is, like in the case of deprivation theory, often the only indication
that there was strain or deprivation.
Resource mobilization theory
emphasizes the importance of resources in social movement development and
success. Resources are understood here to include: knowledge, money, media,
labor, solidarity, legitimacy, and internal and external support from power
elite. The theory argues that social movements develop when individuals with
grievances are able to mobilize sufficient resources to take action. The
emphasis on resources offers an explanation why some discontented/deprived
individuals are able to organize while others are not.
Some
of the assumptions of the theory include:
there
will always be grounds for protest in modern, politically pluralistic societies
because there is constant discontent (i.e., grievances or deprivation); this
de-emphasizes the importance of these factors as it makes them ubiquitous
actors
are rational; they weigh the costs and benefits from movement participation
members
are recruited through networks; commitment is maintained by building a
collective identity and continuing to nurture interpersonal relationships
movement
organization is contingent upon the aggregation of resources
social
movement organizations require resources and continuity of leadership
social
movement entrepreneurs and protest organizations are the catalysts which
transform collective discontent into social movements; social movement
organizations form the backbone of social movements
the
form of the resources shapes the activities of the movement (e.g., access to a
TV station will result in the extensive use TV media)
movements
develop in contingent opportunity structures that influence their
efforts to mobilize; as each movement's response to the opportunity structures
depends on the movement's organization and resources, there is no clear pattern
of movement development nor are specific movement techniques or methods
universal
Critics
of this theory argue that there is too much of an emphasize on resources,
especially financial resources. Some movements are effective without an influx
of money and are more dependent upon the movement members for time and labor
(e.g., the civil rights movement in the U.S.
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.
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.
Culture theory
builds upon both the political process and resource-mobilization theories but
extends them in two ways. First, it emphasizes the importance of movement
culture. Second, it attempts to address the free-rider problem.
Both
resource-mobilization theory and political process theory include a sense of
injustice in their approaches. Culture theory brings this sense of injustice to
the forefront of movement creation by arguing that, in order for social
movements to successfully mobilize individuals, they must develop an injustice
frame. An injustice frame is a collection of ideas and symbols that
illustrate both how significant the problem is as well as what the movement can
do to alleviate it,
"Like
a picture frame, an issue frame marks off some part of the world. Like a
building frame, it holds things together. It provides coherence to an array of
symbols, images, and arguments, linking them through an underlying organizing
idea that suggests what is essential - what consequences and values are at
stake. We do not see the frame directly, but infer its presence by its
characteristic expressions and language. Each frame gives the advantage to
certain ways of talking and thinking, while it places others out of the
picture." (Ryan and Gamson 2006:14)
A
few things we know about injustice frames (from Ryan and Gamson 2006):
Facts
take on their meaning by being embedded in frames, which render them relevant
and significant or irrelevant and trivial.
People
carry around multiple frames in their heads.
Successful
reframing involves the ability to enter into the worldview of our adversaries.
All
frames contain implicit or explicit appeals to moral principles.
In
emphasizing the injustice frame, culture theory also addresses the free-rider
problem. The free-rider problem refers to the idea that people will not be
motivated to participate in a social movement that will use up their personal
resources (e.g., time, money, etc.) if they can still receive the benefits
without participating. In other words, if person X knows that movement Y is
working to improve environmental conditions in his neighborhood, he is
presented with a choice: join or not join the movement. If he believes the
movement will succeed without him, he can avoid participation in the movement,
save his resources, and still reap the benefits - this is free-riding. A
significant problem for social movement theory has been to explain why people
join movements if they believe the movement can/will succeed without their
contribution. Culture theory argues that, in conjunction with social networks
being an important contact tool, the injustice frame will provide the motivation
for people to contribute to the movement.
Framing
processes includes three separate components:
Diagnostic
frame: the movement organization frames what is the problem or what they are
critiquing
Prognostic
frame: the movement organization frames what is the desirable solution to the
problem
Motivational
frame: the movement organization frames a "call to arms" by
suggesting and encouraging that people take action to solve the problem.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire