Social Movement Theory Overheads Classical formulations (such as - PDF document

1 Social Movement Theory Overheads Classical formulations (such as those of Le Bon and Tarde) conceived of collective behaviour as irrational and as based upon "social contagion" . Oberschall (1973:12) depicts LeBon's view as follows: In a crowd, the rational faculties of the individual, his moral judgment and conscious personality come under the sway of contagion and suggestion frequently originating with a leader. These produce a "mental unity" or uniformity. The characteristic mark of crowds is credulity, mobility, exaggeration of both noble and base sentiments, and suggestibility. The law of the mental unity of crowds applies not only to the "criminal" crowd, e.g., the type of crowd that stormed the Bastile, but to crowds that possess a sense of responsibility, e.g., juries, the electorate, and parliamentary assemblies. Juries have a weak aptitude for rational judgment, they are swayed by suggestion, orators, and unconscious sentiments ... Revolutionary crowds are drawn from the rootless, disorganized, mentally disturbed, criminal classes of big cities. ...

2 Collective Behaviour Early North American theorizing about collective action (a particular focus was behaviour in crowds but also included social movements) referred to this set of phenomena as collective behaviour (see Park and Burgess, 1921; Park, 1967). Collective behaviour was said to occur when a large number of people fail to accept some of the dominant values, norms, and/or leaders in a society (see Blumer, 1939; Smelser, 1962). One of the earliest North American sociologists to give this problem serious attention was Herbert Blumer. Blumer's (1939) work, followed in the footsteps of earlier European theorists (such as Le Bon, and Tarde') in that he concurred that "social contagion" was the main process underlying collective behaviour. Blumer argued that contagion occurred through "circular reaction". Circular reaction refers to: a type of interstimulation wherein the response of one individual reproduces the stimulation that has come from another individual and in being reflected back to this individual reinforces the stimulation. Thus the interstimulation assumes a circular form in which individuals reflect one another's states of feeling and in so doing intensify this feeling. It is well evidenced in the transmission of feelings and moods among people who are in a state of excitement. (Blumer, 1969:70)

3 In contrast to Blumer, Turner and Killian argued that there is substantial diversity amongst the participants in collective behaviour. An emergent norm approach reflects the empirical observation that the crowd is characterized not by unanimity but by differential expression, with different individuals in the crowd feeling differently, participating because of diverse motives, and even acting differently. The illusion of unanimity arises because the behaviour of part of the crowd is perceived both by observers and by crowd members as being the sentiment of the whole crowd. Variant views and divergent forms of behaviour go unrecognized or are dismissed as unimportant. If, however, a complete similarity of the crowd members is regarded as an illusion, another key problem arises. This is explaining the development and imposition of a pattern of differential expression that is perceived as unanimity. Such a shared understanding encourages behaviour consistent with the norm, inhibits behaviour contrary to it, and justifies restraining action against individuals who dissent. Since the norm is to some degree specific to the situation, differing in degree or in kind from the norms governing noncrowd situations it is an emergent norm.

4 Mass Society Theory Kornhauser (1959) has discussed the notion of "mass society". This is really another "breakdown" theory following from classical approaches (e.g., see Durkheim (1933). It argues that with industrialization and subsequent social changes, people have become isolated and alienated. Mass society, as depicted as Kornhauser, refers to a social system in which elites are readily open to influence by non-elites. Simultaneously, non-elites (in particular, those occupying marginal positions in society) are also, highly available for mobilization because they lack attachments to independent groups, the local community, voluntary associations, and occupational groups. Social conditions resemble a "mass society" when populations and elites can emotionally incite one another to extreme actions. Under such circumstances unconstrained social and political movements can develop (even totalitarian ones such as in Nazi Germany). In sum, in mass society, there is a lack of local primary groups and secondary associations to integrate individuals into the normative constraints of the larger society (Knoke, 1990).

5 RELATIVE DEPRIVATION A social psychological approach was developed during the 1960s that attempted to explain collective behaviour by referring to psychological states (see Davies, 1969, Gurr 1970). Relative deprivation refers to a difference or gap between what people believe they have a right to receive (their expectations) and what they actually receive (their achievements). Expectations and achievements may diverge for a number of reasons. First, both achievements and expectations may rise, but expectations may rise faster than achievements . Second, expectations may remain constant while achievements decline. In this situation welfare declines in absolute terms. A third possible scenario, is when there is a period of rising expectations and rising achievements which is followed by a decline in achievements, while expectations continue to rise. This pattern is know as a J-curve (because it can be graphically represented as an upside down and sloping "J").

6 Resource Mobilization and Collective Action The resource mobilization perspective conceives of collective action in terms of the mobilizing, converting, and transferring of resources from one group and one arena of action to other groups and actions (adherents of this approach include Tilly (1978), and Gamson (1975)). Mobilization refers to the process by which a discontented group assembles and invests resources for the pursuit of group goals. Collective action thought of in these terms, covers a wide range of social phenomena. According to Knoke (1990:67) the resource mobilization tradition see the central focus of social movement analysis as the understanding of: how organized groups acquire collective control over resources needed for challenging the authorities and how these resources are applied to affect social and political changes. A resource is anything that permits one social actor to control, provide, or apply a sanction to another: money, facilities, labour, and legitimacy (McCarthy and Zald, 1977: 1220), group size, discretionary time, organizing experience, legal skills, even violence. Mobilization is the process by which such resources become available to a social movement. The crucial concerns are the quantities of resources available to an aggrieved population, the conditions under which supporters will provide them to the movement, the degree to which a movement's formal organizations enjoy autonomy over resource disposal, and how the resources controlled by the opposing government and countermovements affect a movement's success or failure. The theory necessarily spans individual, organizational, and systemic levels of analysis.

7 There are two major strains of resource mobilization theory: 1) the entrepreneurial model, and 2) the political process model. The entrepreneurial model is associated with the work of McCarthy and Zald (1977) and conceives of activists as "entrepreneurs" who are in many ways like business entrepreneurs (likewise, movement organizations resemble business organizations in some key respects). The political process model, associated with the work of Charles Tilly (1978), focuses on the dynamics of political opportunity structures (see also Rule and Tilly 1975; Tilly et al. 1975; Gamson 1975; McAdam 1982). Such opportunity structures are partially created by movement actors, and can serve to either facilitate or constrain movement activity.

8 Steps to Mobilization: The Individual Level of Analysis At the level of the individual, becoming a participant in a social movement can be conceived as a process with four different steps (Klandermans and Oegema 1987): 1. becoming a part of the mobilization potential; 2. becoming a target of mobilization attempts; 3. becoming motivated to participate; 4. overcoming barriers to participate.