Understanding Social Movements

Greg Martin

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• eBook ISBN: 9781136868146
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Political Ideologies
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This book offers a new and fresh approach to understanding social movements. It provides interdisciplinary perspectives on social and cultural protest and contentious politics. It considers major theories and concepts, which are presented in an accessible and engaging format. Historical and contemporary case studies and examples from a variety of different countries are provided throughout, including the American civil rights movement, Greenpeace, Pussy Riot, indigenous peoples movements, liberation theology, Occupy, Tea Party, and the Arab Spring.

The book presents specific chapters outlining the early origins of social movement studies, and more recent theoretical and conceptual developments. It considers key ideas from resource mobilization theory, the political process model, and new social movement approaches. It provides an expansive commentary on the role of culture in social protest, and looks at substantive areas in chapters dedicated to religious movements, geography and struggles over space, media and movements, and global activism.

Understanding Social Movements will be a useful resource for undergraduate and postgraduate students across disciplines wanting to be introduced to or extend their knowledge of the field. The book will also prove invaluable for lecturers and academic researchers interested in studying social movements.

Chapter 1
Introduction

This is a book about social movements. As we shall see, the field of social movement studies has a long history in the social sciences, and the idea of social movement as, broadly speaking, social and political change stretches back to the dawn of sociological thought. Hence, midway through the nineteenth century, Karl Marx famously pronounced, ‘Philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways; the point is to change it’ (Marx, quoted in Thompson 1996: 175, original emphasis). And, in many respects, this captures the essence of what social movements are about. They are collective forms of protest or activism that aim to affect some kind of transformation in existing structures of power that have created inequality, injustice, disadvantage, and so on. This is not to say all social movements are necessarily positive or progressive in nature. For, as we will see occasionally in the book, movements can also be conservative, reactionary, or regressive. The rise of the Tea Party movement in the United States is a recent example.

Should We be Optimistic about Social Movement Radicalism?

As already stated, most social movements aim to affect transformations in politics and society. Indeed, the recent emergence globally of Occupy and of the Arab Spring across the countries of the Middle East was heralded as a beacon of hope for radical politics and democratic change in the contemporary period. Against this, it has been observed, many commentaries tell a rather gloomy and pessimistic narrative of depoliticization, apoliticality, and social movement deradicalization (Dean 2014). In some ways, this reflects sociological accounts of declining civic engagement, part of which involves disengagement from conventional forms of politics and government (Putnam 1995). It also echoes the view that the discipline of sociology itself has been cut adrift from its radical roots, such that, where once disciplinary transformations came from social movements, now we are all too familiar with the image of ‘a conventional textbook on globalization, social change or modernity with a dramatic cover photo of protestors—and a complete absence of social movements within those same covers’ (Cox 2014: 968, original emphasis).

In other ways, these developments reflect scholarly work about ‘diminishing social movement radicalism and a narrowing of possibilities for egalitarian, radical democratic alternatives to existing structures of inequality and domination’ (Dean 2014: 454). Essentially, what Dean alludes to here is the presence of a ‘paradigm’ (Kuhn 1962); that is, a set of beliefs shared by the political theory community (including social movement scholars), which, although highly persuasive, is not necessarily supported by empirical data. Such accounts of the prevalence of political disinterest and apathy are variously premised on a belief in the ubiquity, and indeed hegemony, of neoliberal capitalism and the operation of free markets, which have become key elements in the current political orthodoxy and consensus formed around centrist-right politics. In short, so the argument goes, we are now living out or reaping the consequences of the neoliberal restructuring projects of the Reagan-Thatcher era, wherein, Thatcher once infamously said in an interview for Woman’s Own magazine in 1987 (and I paraphrase): ‘There is no such thing as society, only individual men, women, and their families’. Inevitably, we are left with an impoverished public sphere, not only privatized industries, but privatized lives and selves, the end of ‘the social’ and concomitant rise of (antisocial) economic reductionism and self-interested individualism, and, ultimately, a hollowed-out, morally bankrupt remnant of ‘society’ (see Marquand 2014, for discussion).

The upshot for those who hold a pessimistic view of society and radical politics is that there is no alternative to the current status quo. However, according to Dean (2014: 455–456), such accounts tend to dismiss, or at least gloss over, the potential significance of, for example, the global anti-capitalist movement, which, among other things, was responsible for the successful disruption of the World Trade Organization (WTO) meetings in Seattle in 1999. To be sure, questions as to efficacy such as this lie at the heart of social movement studies. But to what extent do movements like the global justice movement, Occupy, and the Arab Spring actually change things, or ‘make a difference’?

In a powerful interview with journalist Jeremy Paxman, broadcast in October 2013 on the British current affairs program Newsnight, comedian turned radical political commentator-cum-revolutionary Russell Brand talked of the essential irrelevance of mainstream party politics and politicians who continue to support bankers’ ‘right’ to award themselves gratuitous bonuses. Indeed, while British Prime Minister David Cameron has attempted to reassure Britons that ‘we are in this together’, for the most part, this sentiment has added insult to injury, given the bank bailout following the (bank-instigated) global financial crisis (GFC) of 2008 was funded by ‘austerity measures’ subsequently imposed on ordinary citizens.

In a piece he wrote at the time for his guest-edited edition of the New Statesman, Brand quite rightly pointed out that the English riots of 2011 (which need to be seen in the wider context of the bank bail-out) were far from nihilistic and materialistic, as those who condemned them would have us believe. Rather, he said, they were inherently political for the following reason: ‘These young people have been accidentally marketed to their whole lives without the economic means to participate in the carnival’ (Brand 2013: 26; see also Martin 2009, 2011a).

In the context of the austerity-funded bank bailout, it is easy to see why some lack optimism or hope for any genuine alternative. Indeed, what has been especially galling is the establishment’s capacity to rein-vigorate the ideology and institutions of neoliberal capitalism after the near collapse and widespread discrediting of the economic order following the GFC (Jones 2014). However, while to some, disengagement is the only option, others have become so enraged they feel there is no alternative other than to get involved in protest, demonstrations, marches, and the like. This proved to be the case with the Indignados in Spain, Occupy, and the Arab Spring.

What motivates people to become involved in collective action in the first place is of key concern to social movement scholars. Some believe people are motivated by emotions such as anger, indignation, and a sense of injustice; others reckon people are driven by thinking strategically about how they might best achieve political goals collectively. The matter of motivation, in turn, leads us to other areas of interest. For example, one of the principal dilemmas for activists is how willing they are, or should be, to engage with established actors and organizations within the political system. In order to achieve their goals, should social movements engage with and harness the resources of professional organizations and political parties, or should they seek to be autonomous of the existing system and its constituents? Put simply, how far should social movements be willing to go to achieve their goals? Should they remain true to their original radical goals, or should they be prepared to compromise them to affect a modicum of change?

© James May/Alamy

Figure 1.1 A man waves an Egyptian flag in Tahrir Square hours before President Mubarak steps down from office on 11 February 2011

Important here, too, is the idea of social movement ‘success’. Should we ‘measure’ success simply in terms of the attainment of policy or legal goals, such as facilitating the introduction of some anti-discrimination law, or should we conceive of success more broadly in terms of raising awareness, spreading knowledge, and disseminating information, or changing cultural values and attitudes? Movements like the women’s movement and the American civil rights movement brought about widespread transformations across a broad range of spheres (social, cultural, political, legal, economic), while other movements have made more specific or piecemeal contributions.

Social Movements in Society

What we have discussed thus far are among the issues one confronts in the ‘social movement society’ wherein, Meyer and Tarrow (1998: 20) propose, ‘social protest has become more common, more easily diffused and sponsored by increasing numbers and types of organizations’. If this is the case, Meyer and Tarrow (1998: 26) say, and ‘states have become more adept at institutionalizing movements and activists are becoming both more professional and more interchangeable with interest groups in their activities, what will happen to those actors who refuse the blandishments of recognition and legitimation?’ Here we confront a fundamental issue in social movement studies whereby some scholars focus on the relationship between social movements, the state, and wider political system, while others see social movements as eschewing conventional politics altogether.

Those who hold the former view tend to work within political process, resource mobilization, or contentious politics frameworks. Although these perspectives have different emphases, the common denominator is, as Scott (1990: 10–11) puts it, a belief that the telos of social movement activity is the integration of previously excluded issues and groups into the ‘normal’ political process. This is a perspective that was developed principally in the United States, and is one that still holds sway there. As we will learn, this approach can be juxtaposed with approaches developed in Europe, which, from the 1980s, identified the emergence of so-called, ‘new social movements’. The argument here is that contemporary movements differ from the ‘old’ labour movement, in that they are concerned not with socioeconomic issues, but with ‘post-material’ values related to lifestyle and ‘identity politics’, which exist beyond old (i.e., class-based) politics. Unlike their American counterparts, who believe social movements seek to be included in the polity, new social movement theorists argue that movements strive to be autonomous of the political system.

In very broad terms, this rather polarized way of thinking has, and, in some sense still does, mark a distinction between North American and European ways of thinking about social movements. Again, speaking very generally, the distinction has been, and, to some extent still is, reflected in the approaches adopted by the two specialist journals in the field: the North American–based journal Mobilization (established in 1996), and the journal Social Movement Studies (established in Europe in 2002). A caveat is required, however, for although each of these journals has its own take on social movement research, there is nevertheless a lot of cross-pollination of ideas and a high degree of interdisciplinarity nowadays in social movement studies. Indeed, it is hoped that interdisciplinarity is something that comes across in this book—for example, in the inclusion of chapters dedicated solely to religion, space/geography, and media, which are topics that do not ordinarily feature so prominently in social movement textbooks.

Notwithstanding the increasingly interdisciplinary nature of social movement studies, as in other fields, there will still be those who have a preference for one set of ideas or one theory over others. It should be noted, however, that, for the most part, theories about social movements have been generated in the developed north of the globe, which, it has been argued, points to the essential ethnocentricity of social movement studies. Accordingly, it is said social movement studies has not taken seriously enough questions that are, for instance, posed by the global justice movement, such as how the prosperity of the First World has been achieved at the expense of the underdeveloped Third World. With its stress on post-materialism (and neglect of political-economic issues), the new social movement perspective is especially guilty of this. We will consider that and other criticisms of new social movement theory in the following pages. However, by providing case studies and examples of protest and social movements from around the world, it is one intention of this book to remedy, in some small way, the tendency towards ethnocentrism in the social movements literature. But there will undoubtedly be omissions.

Doing Social Movement Research

One thing we will not look at in this book is the area of methodology and researching social movements. Arguably, the prototypical approach to doing social movement research was devised by French sociologist Alain Touraine in the 1970s. Touraine’s (1978: 182) method was one of ‘sociological intervention’, which he defined as, ‘[t]he action of the sociologist bringing social relationships to light and making these relationships the principal object of analysis’. During the 1970s and 1980s, Touraine and his colleagues conducted a number of interventions, including with French student and labour movements, the anti-nuclear movement, and Solidarity in Poland. Unlike other more conventional methodological techniques, ‘sociological intervention does not aim at gathering data; it aims at reconstructing and exploring a struggle to become an actor’ (McDonald 2002a: 249). For example, the sociological intervention with Solidarity:

… pointed to a movement made up of actors involved in struggles for national independence, democracy and labour rights. These dimensions were in tension and at times in conflict, and the success and later fragmentation of Solidarnosc was a story of the construction and deconstruction of the synthesis of these identities.

(McDonald 2002a: 249)

The hope is that a sociological intervention will result in researchers being able to help a social movement ‘move from reliving its experience to analyzing its experience’ (McDonald 2002a: 255, original emphasis). Although he has criticized this approach for conferring on social researchers a role akin to that of a missionary (Melucci 1995: 58), Italian sociologist, and former student of Touraine, Alberto Melucci was nevertheless influenced by Touraine in developing his own research methodology (Melucci 1989: 236). As we shall see later in the book, for Melucci, the formation of a collective identity is crucial to social movements seeking to communicate clear and coherent messages to the broader society. However, more often than not, collective actors will be composed of a plurality of groups, interests, and orientations that can conflict or be in tension with one another. Here too researchers are called upon to intervene in the collective action of social movements. Indeed, although he is attentive to methodological issues, Melucci’s (1989: 251) model nevertheless requires that researchers do not merely reveal the existence of plurality, conflict, and tension in collective action, but that they also play an active part in structuring the gestalt of contemporary social movements and their composite groups.

Over time, research and methods have become important areas of interest for social movement scholars, although it could not be said that there is, as yet, a coherent literature on the topic. Nonetheless, there have been a few journal special issues dedicated to the topic of research methods and social movements, including Qualitative Sociology 21(4) 1998 (‘Qualitative Methods and Social Movement Research’); Social Movement Studies 11(2) 2012 (‘The Ethics of Research on Activism’); and Mobilization 18(4) 2013 (‘Frontiers of Social Movement Methodology’). There are also numerous individual journal articles on this and related areas, including, but not limited to, the following: Crist and McCarthy (1996); Earl (2013); Giugni and Yamasaki (2009); Harris (2012); Hug and Wisler (1998); Lofland (1997); and Walgrave and Verhulst (2011).

Various ways of approaching the study of collective action were considered in an early volume edited by Diani and Eyerman (1992). More recently, Klandermans and Staggenborg (2002) edited a collection, which includes chapters on classic research methods and techniques, such as surveys, interviewing, and case studies. More specialist texts include Joseph et al.’s (2007: 2) edited book on ‘political ethnography’, by which they mean an approach that ‘draws upon close-up observation of politics in action to scrutinize the dispositions, skills, desires, and emotions of a variety of political actors and the meanings that they attach to their practices’.

Some textbooks on social movements do contain information on research methods, although this material can be somewhat limited and, to my knowledge, it never, if ever, appears as a discrete chapter. For example, in her text on social movements, Staggenborg (2011: 47–49) devotes some space to look at the use of different methods in social movement research, such as surveys, in-depth interviews, and participant observation. She notes, but does not consider in any detail, that each method has its strengths and weaknesses, concluding that ‘the use of multiple methods within and across empirical studies has been critical to the development of social movement theory’ (Staggenborg 2011: 49). I use this exa...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• CONTENTS
• List of figures
• List of boxes
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Introduction
• 2 Origins of social movement studies
• 3 Political opportunity, resource mobilization, and social movement organization
• 4 Social movements, old and new
• 5 Protest and culture
• 6 Religious movements and social movements
• 7 Struggles over space
• 8 Media and movements
• 9 Global activism
• 10 Conclusion
• Bibliography
• Index