CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.5 LITERATURE REVIEW
1.5.2 Classical Social Theory
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
of Social Protest” by William Gamson (1975) that a clear divergent idea to conceive social movements burst leaving behind the old precepts. Therefore, the “Social Movement Impact Theory” or “Outcome Theory”, as it is now known, is interested in analyzing social movements and the effects they produce in society. Although currently this theory has been in continuous expansion, it cannot be denied it novelty in comparison with others.
Therefore, it provides the opportunity of creating a work that could serve to enrich the worldwide community (Fox Piven & Cloward, 1979; Kitschelt, 1986; Putman, 1988;
Amenta, Carruthers, & Zylan, 1992; Johnston, et al., 1994; Tarrow, 1995; Giugni, et al., 1998; Giugni, et al., 1999; McAdam, 1999; Tilly, 2004; della Porta, et al., 2009; della Porta, et al., 2013)
1.5.2 Classical Social Theory
Classical social theory sees social movements as a cause of a “strain” in the structure.
Following this criterion, these theories try to answer what is the cause provoking the strains. In his book “Political process and the development of Black Insurgency 1930-1970” Professor Doug McAdam provides a model (here observed in Figure 1) that integrates the basic ideas found in most of the classical social perspectives.
Figure1. Classical Model
Source: (McAdam, 1999)
From this figure it can be clearly observed that the classical social theory focus on a psychological state that causes disruption. The proponents following these precepts see a psychological disruption as the reason for social movements to take place. Hence, these kinds of analysts are social psychologists. As an example, the present study retakes
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
McAdam’s brief explanation of the classical theories of Mass Theory, Status Inconsistency and Collective Behavior13.
The “Mass Theory” advocates see it as an organism conformed by intermediate groups without a large structure integrated to the social and political life. Therefore, it is only through isolation or social “atomization” that a strain can be generated in the system creating feelings of “alienation and anxiety”. Thus generating a social movement.
In the case of the theory of “Status Inconsistency”, it is believed that the disparities in the individual’s social ranking can create a strain. As the Mass Theory states, it is through these tensions that the individuals get “afflicted” and “atomize”. If acute it can derive into a social movement.
Finally, there is the case of the “Collective behavior” theory. Although, as McAdam argues, this theory does not clearly presumes a status of inconsistency or atomization, it assumes that any sever social strain can lead to a social movement. As McAdam quotes the human behaviorist Niel J. Smelser “[…] the more sever the strain the most likely is such an episode to appear”. (Political process and the development of Black Insurgency 1930-1970 , 1999)
As this brief summary shows there are three tendencies that can be found. First, the individuals are considered the object of analysis. Thus, psychological problems in the individuals are pointed as the reason for social movements to be created. Second, it is considered that the political system has no flaws or deficiencies. Therefore there is no need to analyze it. Third, as McAdam argues, this leaves out the explanation of why individuals decide to unite in a movement and why historically there has been taking place different movements (Political process and the development of Black Insurgency 1930-1970 , 1999).
13 For further discussion please refer to: Eun-Young, N. (2008). Status Inconsistency and lifestyle among status groups: focusing on cultural capital and social capital. DEVELOPMENT AND SOCIETY , 37 (2), 169-186.
Macy, M. W. (1990). Learning Theory and the Logic of Critical Mass. American Sociological Review , 55 (6), 809-826.
Smelser, N. J. (1962). Theory of Collective Behavior. (N. J. Smelser, Ed.) New York, New York, USA: The Free Press.
McAdam, D. (1999). Political process and the development of Black Insurgency 1930-1970 . (D. McAdam, Ed.) Chicago, Illinois, US: Chicago University Press.
‧
1.5.3 “Social Movements Impact Theory” or “Outcome Theory”
As a response to these approaches William Gamson would propose in his book “The Strategy of Social Protest” (1975) that social movements are more than causal strains. In his groundbreaking work William Gamson analyzes 53 social movements in the United States between the periods 1800 and 1945. This author’s work served to modify the traditional image and produce a new discussion when analyzing social movements.
In his analysis Gamson outlined the constants observed in the groups and established the parameters to understand social movements. At the same time, the author created a ramification to the social movement theory by measuring its success and impacts. Gamson uses the term “challenging group” when referring to social movements and identify them as antagonistic of the political system. Through the term challenging group, he establishes that these have a “formal organization”14 and it is an entity that is capable of hold meetings, planning, issuing statements, calling demonstrations and raise money. Furthermore, Gamson states that in order to understand the nature of these groups it is important to differentiate their three types of “target”15: He states that it is only through this antagonism
14 By “formal” Gamson says that the level of formality varies. For some groups the idea of membership may not be further than a psychological commitment to be part of the group. To illustrate this he mentions the example of being a member of the Democratic or Republican Party. For others, Gamson mentions, a complete protocol of membership may be required such as: “blood oaths or other rituals”. As he states: “formal or informal an organization has name that has taken or given by others”. (The Strategy of Social Protest, 1975).
15 The targets Gamson mentions are:
1) Target of influence: Is a set of individuals, groups or social institutions that must alter their decisions or polices in order for a challenging group to correct a situation to which it objects. This target is the object of actual or planned influence by the group that Gamson calls "antagonist”.
2) Target of mobilization: Are those individuals or groups whose resources and energy the group seeks in carrying out its efforts to change. These are called the group’s “constituency”. There are two ideas behind the usage of the notion of mobilization:
a) Activation of commitment: This is concerning the efforts to move those individuals that are already committed to a particular action (those who are already members of a cause).
b) The creation of commitment: Is the idea of a change from a low generalized readiness to act, to a high-generalized readiness to act collectively (When a high readiness is present, a minimal effort is needed to make the individuals to act, and vice versa).
3) Target of benefits: Are those individuals or groups whom the challenging group hopes will be affected positively by the changes that it seeks from its antagonist. The target group to be the benefit from this objective is called “beneficiary”. Nevertheless, the changes will affect everyone more or less equally whether they are members other group’s constituency or not. (Gamson, The Strategy of Social Protest, 1975)
‧
and constituency that these groups can be identify. To further back these ideas he observed, he provides two criteria that will be followed by these groups:
a) It must be seeking the mobilization of an immobilized constituency: A group is no longer a challenging group once it can call upon an already mobilized constituency whenever it decides to attempt influence. He states, that even established groups are continuously making efforts to maintain its members commitments and its apathy. (Interest groups are excluded)
b) Its antagonist lies outside of its constituency: Only those who challenge legislations, governmental policies, etc. are considered in this category. Those groups targeting influence within their ranks16 and are not looking to influence others outside cannot be include in this description.
Finally to complete Gamson’s sketch of the challenging groups, he argues there is a level of
“success” and the tendency he observed is that the most violent are the more successful.
First the term of “success” is defined by Gamson as a set of outcomes that can be classified in two categories: the “acceptance”17 of the challenging group by its antagonists as a valid spokesman, and whether the beneficiary gains “new advantages”18. Second, through his study Gamson found that 60 percent of the organizations strengthened their cause within
16 Gamson puts the example of messianic or utopian communities that are looking to improve their member’s lives by changing their way of living. These are excluded. (Gamson, 1975)
17 The “acceptance” within a society Gamson argues is a relationship between the challenging group and its antagonists that is constantly changing. At the beginning, he says, is passive or active hostility, or indifference at best. The acceptance entails changing from these positions to a positive relation. Therefore, acceptance consist of:
1) Consultation: this must involve some degree of initiative of by the antagonist (individual accepting the group). For example, when the antagonist invites some members of a group to assists an open hearing of the legislative body as is within their interest. But when the group asks to join this invited it is not within the consultation parameter.
2) Negotiations: if the antagonist is willing to enter negotiations with a group consistently and not only when there is a crisis.
3) Formal recognition: when the antagonists make a formal written recognition of the acceptance of a group as a spokesman of his/her interests.
4) Inclusion: this is the type of acceptance that is characterize by the inclusion of challenging group leaders or members in positions of status or authority in the antagonist’s organizational structure. It is important that the challenging group members maintain their status formally or informally. (Gamson, 1975)
18 Gamson argues that in assessing the achievements of benefits “new advantages”, the groups own perspectives and aspirations are the starting point. Gamson leaves it open to the interpretation of the researcher to whether the benefits have been “real”. To assess this, he argues, is to take into account the benefits that propose that life of people will improve if certain things can happen. If these take place then it can be regarded as new advantages realized. In this way the perspective of the group is taken into consideration. (Gamson, 1975)
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
the society and 75 percent gained new advantages for their beneficiary. Gamson says that if the group reaches its ultimate goal the challenging group would stop to exist, collapse and form other movements or evolve into new objectives.
Thence, through this explanation Gamson argues that challenging groups can obtain and mobilize resources (money and people) to their cause and obtain “success”. This idea contents the Pluralistic perspective of looking at these groups as depending on political context (as it is there where the power lays) and their relative weakness to reach objective.
These ideas over the social movements locked the discussion on the topics of a positive
“success”, disruption/moderation (non-violent vs. violent movements) and internal/external explanations (strength of a movement vs. context in which it moves) (Gamson, 1975;
Giugni, et al., 1999)
The challenges presented to the idea of “success” came immediately with the publication of the book “Poor People’s Movements: Why They Succeed How they fail” of Frances Fox Piven and Richard A. Cloward (1979). In this book, through the construction of the working-class movements, it was established that not all the movements succeed or achieve a better outcome for the beneficiary or society in general. Although the authors do recognize that their intention was not to destroy the idea of a possible success, nonetheless, they recognized that there is also the possibility of negative outcomes.
Piven and Cloward argue that the social context served to limit the actions of the movements. For example, they argue that during 1930’s and 1960’s industrial workers in the United States managed to secure concessions for their acts of civil disobedience.
Nevertheless, as they were vulnerable due to internal leadership problems and external relation with the elites, members disbanded and the bureaucratic organizations that were created collapsed. Therefore, this supported the idea that disorganized and disruptive people threaten a challenging group structure. This perspective was highly criticized.
Gamson produced an essay refuting the idea in which it was accepted that outcomes were not all positives nevertheless his observation already contemplated the continuous struggle of keeping a movement active. (Gamson & Schmeidler, 1984).
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Gamson’s work was continued by other scholars to prove and improve his original findings. The findings were more clearly imprinted in the collaborative work that produce the book “How Social Movements Matter” (Giugni, et al., 1999). In this work Marco Giugni argues that based on new analysis following Gamson’s work, the relation between violence and success was no longer valid. In addition, through this objection Giugni countered the pluralist idea that when a “disruption” takes place there was a violent reaction to it. Giugni argues that the new tendencies, found in the works (cited in that book) of McAdam and Tarrow, Taft and Ross, showed that violence is counterproductive for the movement too. Giugni argues the new tendency of groups, though some might show eruption of violence, they push forward for concession and “moderation” (Giugni, et al., 1999).
On regards of success and failure of a social movement Giugni clearly outlines the dangers of adopting this kind of perspective. This author is supportive of Gamson’s approach in taking the movement objectives as a form of measurement of success, as clearly not doing so would lead to more subjective assessment. Nevertheless, this approach poses the dangers of considering that a social movement is a homogenous entity in which all the actors have the same goals. As this author argues, not all of the results of the social movements meet their goals and sometimes it can produce other unintended positive and negative effects. An example of this was the cases presented by Piven and Cloward’s here previously mentioned.
Moreover, in terms of internal and external explanations Giugni argues Gamson’s work only addresses what he frames as “pluralists/elitist” controversy. This author argues, that there are problems in Gamson’s argument that counters the pluralist view of social movements as: “responsive to external demands that are not too far from proper channels (political ones)” (How Social Movements Matter, 1999). Giughi argues that this “elitist”
perspective of social movement is better argued through professor David Lipsky’s theoretical argument that Giugni paraphrases as ”[…] the acquisition of a stable political resources that do not rely on third parties is an essential condition for challengers to be successful in the long run” (Giugni, et al., 1999). Through this idea, Guigni argues the discussion can be centered on resources mobilization and the political process. From these
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
arguments the discussion would move forward in the community dividing them into two sides. On one side, those who saw a relative “weakness” in the social movement due to the lack of resources. In the other, those that defended that social movement have resources, a disruptive potential to create change and make a favorable political opportunity structure (Giugni, et al., 1999).
1.5.4 Social Movements Impact Theory and Collective Action, reshaping the