|
SOCIAL MOVEMENT THEORIES
|
| Macro-structural
explanations of Social Movements (SM) |
| FUNCTIONALIST
PERSPECTIVES |
|
 | In 1950s view was that
SM were outgrowth of particular type of social behaviour, known as
collective behaviour |
| These arise out of a
breakdown of traditional order with some underlying shared source of
excitement or stress or anxiety or frustration |
| Breakdown of
traditional patterns of order and social control produce then
elementary forms of collective behaviour which if they persist then
may lead to SM and then may evolve into integrated structures and
new established norms (follows very much the functionalist view of
order and change – gradual) |
| SM were adaptive
responses to strains in transition from traditional to modern mass
societies |
| SM emerge out of
spontaneous and amorphous mass discontent |
| Functions:
SMs contribute to formation of public opinion;
training ground for leaders of political establishment |
|
| Value-added theory (Smelser) |
|
|
|
Emphasized ongoing
interaction between movement and society, identified 6 conditions
necessary for development of SM, in no sequence but each necessary
and each added on to the other |
-
Structural
conduciveness:
organization of society can facilitate the emergence of
conflicting interests
-
Structural
strains:
conduciveness of social structure to potential conflict gives
way to a perception that conflicting interests do in fact exist
-
Growth
of a generalized belief system:
ideology, a shared view of reality that redefines social
action and serves to guide behaviour
-
Precipitating
events:
triggering events, found within or outside social structure
-
Mobilization
of participants
-
Operation
of social control:
response of others in society, e.g. counter movements or governmental
authorities, latter could either open channel of communication or
influence i.e. co-optation, or alter underlying structural
conditions that gave rise to SM, or suppress movement (prevent,
delay or interrupt)
Criticisms:
causal links between 6 factors unclear, what kinds of structures,
what kinds of strains, so more descriptive than explanatory
|
|
CONFLICT
THEORY PERSPECTIVES |
|
SM are special sorts
of interest-group collectivities that attempt to :
| Gain benefits for
individuals, |
| Produce social reforms |
| Gain entry into the
established structures of society |
|
| Resource mobilization
theory |
|
|
Focuses on role of
power and power struggles |
|
Assumes a liberal
pluralistic political structure where there is continual political
realignment, i.e. assumes that there will always be grounds for
protest in modern societies, de-emphasizes
role of mass discontent which is a constant |
|
Society now possesses
the resources (money, political influence, access to media and
workers) to mobilize variety of change efforts that have appearance
of mass based movements |
|
Emphasizes ongoing
transformation of movements through interaction of competing SMO’s
in broader political environment |
|
Requires an
organizational base and continuity of leadership |
|
Views participants as
rational decision-makers who have weighed costs and benefits of
collective action and have decided that goals of protest are worth
time and effort |
Mobilization
process:
1)
creating a potential base of support in the population
2)
forming recruitment networks to tap potential members
3)
arousing motivation among targeted individuals through framing
issues
4)
removing barriers to participation
5)
once activated, commitment is maintained by building a collective
identity and continuing to nurture interpersonal relationships
|
| Political process
theory |
|
|
Concurs with resource
mobilization theory in emphasizing existence of resources |
|
Emphasizes more the
existence of favorable structures of political opportunity |
|
Addresses the issue of
timing of emergence and success of SM, explains why SM often are in
waves or cycles and why some SM are unsuccessful for long periods of
time and then suddenly appear to grow and succeed |
Political
opportunity structures refers
to the receptivity or vulnerability of the political system to organized protest by challenging groups,
when such structures expand there is intense movement mobilization, can
take many forms:
|
Growth of political
pluralism or decline in effectiveness of repression |
|
Elite disunity:
power of political elite is undermined by internal
fragmentation, disunity translates into net gain in political
opportunity, could lead to crisis of regime/legitimacy and thus
revolutionary movements |
|
Broadening of access
to institutional participation in political process, broadening base
of political input |
|
Political elites
support and facilitation: elites
give popular support by encouraging movements to organize by
providing public legitimation and legal or administrative support,
support from the top in order to get electoral support |
Criticisms:
too narrow a focus on structural factors, ignoring role of
culture and ideas
|
| New movement theory |
|
| Emphasizes the
consciousness and culture, ideology, generalized beliefs, values,
and focus on modern societies |
| Developed by European
scholars: movements
emerged in short time span in different Western nations all having
different cultural traditions and national structures of political
opportunity |
| Developed as reactions
to modernizing process in advanced industrial capitalist societies,
reactions to erosion of traditional ways of family and work life
post WWII |
| Overriding issue is
one of “lifespace” and the struggle to regain control of private
spheres of life from state bureaucratic regulation (same as
postmodernism which comes from literary critics of modernity);
promotes autonomy and self-determination as well as
improvements in quality of life |
| Have complex agendas
that go beyond single issue |
| Do not view government
as an ally, inclined to not accept established political or
scientific authority |
| Moral crusades, the
politics of righteousness, agents of cultural renovation, goals are
more cultural rather than political, to change moral climate of
nation, frame issues in absolute terms with little room for
compromise |
|
Differences
from SM of previous decades: |
-
Ideological contexts are different:
framed by concerns about individual and cultural rights,
articulating claims about fundamental economic justice or human or
political rights, an ideology shaped by values about self-actualization,
community and personal satisfaction
-
Preferred action forms are different: distrustful of politics,
favoring small scale and decentralized organizations, anti-hierarchical,
advocating direct democracy
-
Associated not with grievances of lower status and economic
groups but with rise of new middle class of educated professionals whose
expertise is cultural or social rather than technocratic, thus have
insight into threat posed by pursuit of nonmaterial goals by material
conditions of production and institutional framework of welfare state
Criticisms:
limited by types of movements it tries to explain, those of
contemporary welfare states, such movements are more diverse than this
theory purports, e.g. many movements are for group rights or for basic
human rights
|