The Blackwell Companion to Sociology (67 page)

Social Movement Politics and Organization

283

identity, culture, and spontaneity. This chapter seeks to intervene in this project by reviewing the growing body of research that is explicitly organizational in its focus and conceptualizes movement politics and organization as interlinked.

Such work promises to move social movement theory beyond such simple

dichotomies as spontaneity versus organization and culture versus structure. At

the same time, organizational approaches need to consider the concerns cur-

rently associated with more culturally oriented frameworks.

The first part of the chapter briefly reviews the original resource mobilization paradigm and describes some of its elaborations and criticisms. The remainder

of the chapter focuses on recent work that emphasizes the more organized

dimensions of social movement politics, examining the organizational processes

that promote institutionalization and the implications of what has recently been called ``the social movement society'' (Meyer and Tarrow, 1998) for the relationship between spontaneity and organization. The chapter concludes with a provi-

sional treatment of what I think is a central problem for future social movement theory: how to integrate organizational and cultural processes in the study of

social movement dynamics. This issue is particularly important in light of the

transnational context of many contemporary efforts at social change.

The Resource Mobilization

Mobilization Paradigm

The original resource mobilization (RM) paradigm staked out its terrain boldly

by proclaiming that in contemporary (that is, advanced capitalist) societies

discontent is relatively constant and therefore cannot explain the emergence

and development of social movements. Instead, the availability of resources

external to the movement accounts for the ups and downs of mobilization.

According to McCarthy and Zald (1977), social movements (which they define

as preferences for change) are increasingly reliant on formalized social move-

ment organizations (SMOs) established by `ìssue entrepreneurs'' (who might go

so far as to manufacture grievances), directed by a professional staff, and more concerned with securing external support (both financial and moral) than creating a mass-based membership of the disenfranchised and aggrieved. McCarthy

and Zald also introduced such concepts as social movement industry and social

movement sector to make the point that social movements can be fruitfully

analyzed using concepts drawn from organizational sociology.

This new focus on organizations as a critical dimension of social movements

created something of a growth industry for sociologists concerned with extend-

ing (and legitimating) the study of those protest movements of the 1960s and

early 1970s in which many of them had actively participated. Resource mobil-

ization theory offered a compelling alternative to the then dominant view that

social movements were manifestations of system breakdown, alienation, and

participant irrationality, only slightly more organized than panics, crazes, and fads. An emphasis on resources and rationality provided a seemingly more

accurate, and less derogatory, portrayal of what the civil rights, feminist, anti-war, and new left movements were all about.

284

Debra C. Minkoff

Mayer Zald, in an essay titled ``Looking Backward to Look Forward: Reflec-

tions on the Past and Future of the Resource Mobilization Research Program,''

summarizes the core assumptions of the RM perspective: (a) since all behavior

entails costs, discontent is not automatically translated into social movement

activity but entails some (at least ``primitive'') weighing of costs and benefits; (b) resources are mobilized from a range of sources, including but not limited to the aggrieved group; (c) organizing activity is critical since resources need to be

aggregated and deployed; (d) state and societal facilitation or repression influences the costs of participation; and (e) movement outcomes are problematic

since there is no simple relationship between the mobilization of social move-

ments and their success (Zald, 1992). This summary combines the premises of

the early McCarthy±Zald formulation of resource mobilization theory and what

some would consider a distinct theoretical development ± the political process

model.

Early political process theorists, while also emphasizing the importance of

organization and rationality, noted that even if resources are widely available, political conditions also influence the costs and benefits of collective action. To understand the emergence of social movements, it is therefore critical to consider changes in the political context, especially the vulnerability of authorities to outside challenges and what their incentives are to repress or facilitate collective action. The focus of these political approaches is on varieties of collective action and outcomes and not on organizational dynamics per se. Organizations matter,

but mainly insofar as they provide local networks that can be used for mass

recruitment and support the development of an insurgent consciousness or

``cognitive liberation'' (McAdam, 1982).

In the political process model, internal group resources (organizations, institutions, constituents) are more central to movement emergence (although not

necessarily development) than external support, which is thought to channel

insurgency in more moderate directions. In addition, the actions of state officials and other political contingencies are determinant. Recent work in the political

process tradition has tended to de-emphasize organizational processes, focusing

instead on macropolitical issues such as the patterning and dynamics of protest

cycles and cross-national comparisons of state structures and protest action.

The Critics

Whether resource mobilization theory and political process models are consid-

ered to be of one piece or separate approaches, both have come under fire for

being too structural and inattentive to psychological and cultural processes. As Steven Barkan succinctly puts it, `Ìn the world of resource mobilization theory, ideology, culture, interpretation, emotions, the minutiae of daily interaction, and other nonstructural aspects barely existed'' (Barkan, n.d., pp. 7±8). A second

criticism has faulted resource mobilization theory for privileging organization

over spontaneity and shifting attention from the disruptive potential of mass

protest to the more institutionalized, and less transformative, world of conven-

tional politics.

Social Movement Politics and Organization

285

These criticisms have been taken up in a variety of ways. Some researchers

have sought to modify the rational actor assumptions of resource mobilization

and political process theories by developing a more nuanced and contextualized

social psychology of mobilization. Here the focus has shifted from interests to

identity, and, more recently, to the role of emotions in social movement

dynamics. Others have responded to the dominance of resource mobilization

theory by arguing for the importance of cultural processes, both at the macro-

level of political discourse and the framing of movement demands, and at the

micro-level of meaning construction. Finally, a number of researchers have

attempted to integrate the new social movements perspective that, although it

developed roughly in tandem with resource mobilization approaches in the

United States, was shaped by a Western European political context and theoret-

ical sensibility. This work posits the centrality of collective identities in contemporary social movements, drawing a contrast to the redistributive concerns of

earlier class-based movements.

Taken together, these various approaches portray recent social movements as

predominately cultural phenomena that emphasize processes of identity con-

struction and are embedded in locally based social networks and less organized

forms of social interaction. Activists are defined less by what they do in the

political or legislative arena and more in terms of cultural or symbolic transgressions in the form of individualized lifestyle commitments and collective actions that attempt to challenge and change cultural discourse and consciousness. ``The media'' and ``the public'' are the main targets of these cultural challenges and strategic action has been replaced by symbolic action ± which can sometimes

appear as the antithesis of strategy.

Although this summary portrayal is certainly overstated it is meant to convey

the extent to which recent advances in social movement theory have eschewed

the field's earlier emphasis on social movement politics and organization. Barkan (n.d.) offers a cogent critique of the emerging cultural paradigm, especially that it has deflected attention from more strategic questions about movement outcomes and success. Still, as he notes, it is worthwhile to consider these theoretical developments sociologically: ``The elements of the emerging paradigm perhaps

hold particular appeal for scholars who have taken part in the women's, gay and

lesbian, and other ``new'' movements, just as the elements of resource mobiliza-

tion held special appeal for scholars who took part in the 1960s movements. If

today's movements are indeed more about identity than about strategy, more

about culture than about politics, then it's no accident that the emerging para-

digm appeals to many of today's movement scholars'' (Barkan, n.d., p. 12).

By the same token, it is important to situate future movement scholarship in

the substantive realities facing social movements today. In the remainder of this chapter I suggest that among the many concerns that activists face one stands

out: the need to negotiate a heavily institutionalized political environment that has ``normalized'' contention so much that it is considered fairly routine. In this new political context, where even many ``spontaneous'' demonstrations are

highly scripted, organizational analysis provides analytic leverage on the

processes by which movements become incorporated into national political

286

Debra C. Minkoff

structures and the implications of movement institutionalization for mounting

sustained challenges against the state.

Social Movement Institutionalization

In some ways, McCarthy and Zald's early portrayal of social movements is even

more accurate today. Social movement issues and actors have been incorporated

into the polity to a striking extent. Movement organizations look and act very

much like interest groups in the US system; green parties have gained consider-

able visibility and, in some cases, influence in Western Europe; and many of the opposition social movements that propelled East European and Latin American

democratic transitions are now established political actors (if not political parties). In contrasting takes on the same phenomenon, David Meyer and Sidney

Tarrow introduce the concept of thè`social movement society'' to capture the

idea that ``classical social movement modes of action may be becoming part of

the conventional repertoire of participation'' (Meyer and Tarrow, 1998, p. 4),

whereas Paul Burstein (1998) argues that social movements and interest groups

are essentially the same, and that even differences between thesèìnterest

organizations'' and parties have diminished.

The institutionalization of social movements is part of a longer historical trend in the nationalization of social movements. As both Tilly (1984) and Tarrow

(1994) have argued, the centralization of power in national states in the eight-

eenth century brought a concomitant shift in the repertoire of collective action from sporadic, spontaneous and, local forms of protest (bread riots, strikes) to more organized modes of action (mass demonstrations, petitions) better suited to putting pressure on national authorities. As a result, social movements, especially national ones, are more organized ± in the sense of being both less

characterized by spontaneous events and, well, more comprised of organiza-

tions.

A related feature of movement institutionalization is a convergence in forms of

action and organization: `òne of the characteristics of the movement society is

that social movements can combine disruptive and conventional activities and

forms of organization, while institutional actors like interest groups and parties increasingly engage in contentious behavior'' (Meyer and Tarrow, 1998, p. 25).

At the same time, so-called contentious behavior has been subject to redefinition as the legitimate repertoire of collective action has changed. Demonstrations and mass protests are more likely to take place by advance arrangement with

authorities and, although such events garner desired media attention and provide an opportunity for increasing solidarity, this ``policing of protest'' certainly undercuts spontaneity and the disruptive potential of collective challenges

(della Porta and Reiter, 1997).

One major implication of these trends is that formal organizations are

now more central than ever to movement politics in most democratic polities.

And movement organizations, unlike occasional outbursts of dissent, are

burdened with the requirements of organizational survival. They need resources

Social Movement Politics and Organization

287

± members, leaders, money ± to establish and sustain themselves. They also need

a minimal level of institutional legitimacy to convince powerful actors and