CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.5 LITERATURE REVIEW
1.5.5 Collective Action
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 debate
The remarkably contribution of Professor Charles Tilly and Sydney Tarrow comes in to shape the ideas around social movements. These two authors would found in each other’s collaboration, at times close, a stable ground to build on each other’s arguments to further develop the theory and the understanding of the possible outcomes social movements.
Through Tilly’s use of the theory of Collective Action Tarrow would also incorporate certain elements to enrich the conceptions around it. Although all sociologists recognize the origins of these conceptions of collective action (Marx, Engels Lenin and Gramsci), these two authors rephrased the perspective and provided stable and eloquent grounds to understand them. Eventually more researchers would incorporate these ideas to their theories. (della Porta, et al., 2009). In order to understand this approach lets begin by defining collective action.
1.5.5 Collective Action
Tarrow explains that the term of “collective action” has three key elements that have been taken from Marx, Engels, Lenin and Gramsci. Tarrow argues, that Marx’s answer as he confirmed “[p]eople will engage in collective action, when their social class is in fully developed contradiction with its antagonists.” Tarrow says, that Marx and Engels managed to understand that collective action was rooted in the structure. What Marx failed to answer was “why those who revolt fail?” Here, as Tarrow argues, Lenin would pick up this question and offer two structural solutions. He would propose trade-union interests (to have a support of the ideas) and a guardian of the “real” interests of the worker. In this case, as
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Tarrow explains, Lenin appointed him as such leader. Nevertheless, it would be the Italian politician theorist Antonio Gramsci that would realize that organization was not sufficient.
Tarrow argues, that Gramsci came up with a formula to solve Lenin’s structure. This consisted of two principal ideas: 1) the fundamental task of the party was to create a historic bloc of forces around the movement, and 2) was to create a cadre of “organic intellectuals” to complement other intellectuals. Thus, Tarrow argues, provided the element of culture and historicism to the structure in this “collective action” (Power in Movement, 1995).
Furthermore, Tarrow summarizes and states that collective action is in essence “movements are sustained interactions between aggrieved social actors and allies, and opponents and public authorities” (Power in Movement, 1995). Thus, he argues that it is in Tilly’s explanation of the concept “repertoire of contention” that lays the medullar structure of a social movement and the explanation of collective action. Tarrow quotes Tilly to complete the explanation as conceived in our days as: “the whole set of means [a group] has for making claims of different kinds of different individuals or groups” (Power in Movement, 1995).
Tarrow explains, based on the evolution of the concept that in its essence is a structural and cultural theorem. He explains and quotes Tilly when he says “well established actions”, are not only what people “do”, but he argues, it is “what they know how to do and what others expect them to do.” (Power in Movement, 1995) Tarrow explains that these actions are a collection of activities such as sit-ins, protests, etc. Moreover, he argues that these actions change over time, but not drastically rather, as he says, “glacially”. He explains changes in the repertoire resulted from a further intervention of the nation state in the society to retrieve taxes and wage war. Therefore, as he continues his argument, “[s]uch structural changes lay behind the dramatic changes in the repertoire at the beginning of the modern capitalist state” (Power in Movement, 1995).
Tarrow argues that Tilly’s approach on collective action poses a problem as Tilly tries to incorporate the concept of “repertoire of contention”. Tarrow argues in his work that Tilly’s perspective is broad and unclear when Tilly describes it as: ”[…] social movement that
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
appears as a form of collective action, along with the seizure of grain, the force illumination, the strike, the election rally, the demonstration and other forms of action”
(Power in Movement, 1995). He states that this is a lose definition that needs to be corrected as it could denote any type of movement. Tarrow explains that Tilly’s stand on collective action is that early forms of action were “local and patronized.” This poses, as he argues, the problem of not being able to distinguish between what allowed local movements become national and autonomous. Therefore, he argues that in order to explain this concept better, there is the need to divide between old and new repertoires. He argues that in this way it could be clear the difference the rise of national movements. Moreover, Tarrow suggests this method can reveal the “modularity”19 of the emergence of the new repertoire.
Tarrow argues that when looking at particular movements, old repertoires have two principal characteristics. Retrieving the ideas of the French historian Marc Bloch, Tarrow identifies that: a) in old repertoire the challenger and challenged was direct and, b) the forms of collective action used were attached to the challenger’s grievances and their antagonism to their enemies. Through this explanation Tarrow identifies 4 types of old collective action: Bread (periodic food riots), Belief (religion and religious conflicts), Land (customary land rights) and death (due to violent death and funerals in repressive systems).
The new modular repertoires, Tarrow explains, are more general than specific. He argues that they were more indirect rather than direct, flexible rather than rigid, focusing in a few important routines that could be adapted to the confrontation. In this way, Tarrow says:
“[o]nce used and understood it could be diffused elsewhere and employed on behalf of the broader claims of wider social coalitions.” (Power in Movement, 1995) Tarrow argues that as new claims were spread and how others put them into practice, the older forms of collective action were provided with more general meanings and combined with new schemes. As an example of these spreading actions Tarrow puts forward the example of the
19 By modularity Tarrow refers to: “[…] the capacity of a form of collective action to be utilized by a variety of social actors, against a variety of targets, either alone, or in combination with other forms.” (Power in Movement, 1995)
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
“barricade” in France. Originally was first appeared in the Paris neighborhoods to protect the small communities from intruders. In the eve of the revolution 1830 people from other neighborhoods in Paris had become aware of the practice and during the revolution end up serving an offensive purpose. Tarrow explains, they serve an internal and external function.
They serve as protection from hostile troops and as a rally point that provided the opportunity of creating social network.
Additionally, Tarrow argues that in order for these repertoires to spread communication is basic (diffusion). The author mentions the enormous advantages that were brought since literacy and printing was invented. This way, he argues, “[w]ith out the capacity to read, potential insurgents would have found it hard to learn of the actions of others with similar claims.” (Power in Movement, 1995) Nevertheless, he explains, it was not as much literacy but the ownership of books, readership of diaries and pamphleteering that the message got spread.
Tarrow completes the outlook of collective action with three remaining concepts of
“mobilizing structures”, the “cycles of collective action” and “outcomes”. Basing his conclusions on Gamson’s work, Tarrow answers the question “once an opportunity appears, how is collective action diffused, coordinated and sustained? He argues, although individuals are the ones who decide to join a movement or not, it is the environment created by the leaders’ movement that will influence the will of others. In collective action the leaders’ role is seen with an increasingly importance. Therefore, what he calls “mobilizing structures”, which are the social networks and institutions stimulating membership, are at the end very important too.
On the other hand, Tarrow explains that by cycles of collative action he refers to the opportunities that appear in the political system for collective action to appear. He states,
“It is through the political opportunities seized and created by protesters, movements and allies that major cycles of protest and revolution begins.” By this Tarrow argues that new opportunities rise when new movements and allies are created. The interaction of these new groups and alliances makes the social interaction more dense and complex. Therefore, Tarrow would argue that the most important “outcome” of opportunities created by the elite
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
is that protestors would create collective action. Nonetheless, most importantly the waves of movements looking for opportunities that serves as catalysts of mayor social changes and national power struggles. In this way, Tarrow integrates a sketch of the evolution of collective action that was absent in previous pluralistic and “Social Movement Impact Theory”.