Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Eduardo Canel
Two distinct theoretical paradigms dominate the study of social
movements (SMs) in contemporary societies: the first is the European
new social movement approach (NSM); the second is the North American
perspective known as resource mobilization (RM).1 Both seek to explain
the emergence and the significance of contemporary social movements in
(post-) industrial societies. In so doing, both approaches have
reformulated traditional theories of collective action on each side of the
Atlantic.
The theoretical issues each perspective addresses are to a great extent
determined by the different scientific traditions and contemporary debates
in each region. NSM theory, for instance, questions reductionist Marxism,
which assigned the working class a privileged place in the unfolding of
history. RM theory, in contrast, criticizes Durkheims view of collective
action as anomic and irrational behavior resulting from rapid social
change, and it questions relative deprivation theory, which assumes a
direct link between perceived deprivation and collective action. Each
perspective developed in relative isolation from the other, and until
recently there was little theoretical interaction between them. It is
commonly assumed that the theoretical premises of these paradigms are
incompatible, but a close examination indicates otherwise. Although there
are significant theoretical differences, these are partly due to the fact that
each approach examines SMs at different, but complementary, levels of
analysis.
RM theory stresses the political nature of the new movements and
interprets them as conflicts over the allocation of goods in the political
market. Hence, it focuses on the strategic-instrumental aspects of action
and places social movements, simultaneously, at the levels of civil society
and the state. It also places emphasis on continuity between the new and
the old collective actors.
Reactions against Traditional Paradigms
Traditional theories explained collective action in reference to structural
dislocations, economic crisis, and exploitation. The older theories assumed
that the passage from a condition of exploitation or frustration to
collective action aimed at reversing the condition was a simple, direct and
unmediated process. The new paradigms, in contrast, proposed that this
issues, the actors and the constraints as given, and focuses instead on
how the actors develop strategies and interact with their environment in
order to pursue their interests. RM theory, therefore, employs a purposive
model of social action and explains social movements in reference to the
strategic-instrumental level of action (filly, 1985: 74041; 1978: 22831).
The emergence of social movements, and the outcomes of their actions,
are treated as contingent, open processes resulting from specific
decisions, tactics and strategies adopted by the actors within a context of
power relations and conflictual interaction.
There are two main approaches within RM theory: the political-interactive
model (Tilly, Gamson, Oberschall, McAdam) and the organizationalentrepreneurial model (McCarthy and Zald). The first employs a political
model to examine the processes that give rise to social movements. It
focuses on changes in the structure of opportunities for collective action
and on the role of pre-existing networks and horizontal links within the
aggrieved group. It examines issues of political power, interests, political
resources, group solidarity, and so on. The second model focuses on
organizational dynamics, leadership and resource management. It applies
economic and organizational theories to the study of social movements
and, metaphorically, makes reference to such concepts as social
movement industry, resource competition, product differentiation, issue
elasticity, packaging, social movement entrepreneurs, social movement
organizations, and so on. (Perrow, 1977: 201). Organizational theory has
been applied as researchers in this tradition argue that formal
organizations act as carriers of social movements (Zald and McCarthy,
1987: 12). Researchers have focused on two aspects of organizational
analysis: the interaction of social movement organizations with their
environment, and the organizational infrastructure which supports social
movement activity (Gamson, 1987: 24).
RM theorists argue that affluence and prosperity tend to foster SM activity.
Prosperous societies generate a number of resources (such as means of
communication, money, intellectual classes) that can aid SM mobilization
(McCarthy and Zald, 1973; 1977b). These societies also open
opportunities for grievance entrepreneurs to develop and market new SM
products. Affluent societies also give rise to conscience constituents who
donate resources to SMs (McCarthy and Zald, 1973; McAdam et al., 1988:
7023). The growth of the welfare state is also identified as a source of
increased social movement activity. Yet, while NSM theory refers to the
penetration of the life world by steering mechanisms, RM theorists argue
that state agencies facilitate mobilization by providing resources to
grassroots organizations (money, manpower, facilities) through community
development programs.
The dynamics of mobilization
(1970) say that the masses play a more fundamental role than leadership
availability in the emergence of social movements. Freeman (1983: 26)
argues that the relative weight of leaders and masses will vary from case
to case.
The structure of political opportunities
Resource mobilization theorists point out that opportunities for collective
action come and go. The challenge for social movements is to identify and
seize opportunities for action. This implies a cost-benefit assessment of
the likelihood of success, given their evaluation of the possible outcomes
of their actions and the responses of their adversaries as well as those of
their allies. In their day-to-day activities, collective actors develop
strategies, make tactical decisions, form new alliances and dismantle old
ones. But the environment in which social movements operate is not
passive: it is composed of social forces which are actively trying to
influence, control or destroy the social movement (Gamson, 1987: 2).
This means that the outcomes of their interventions in the social and
political fields face considerable uncertainty (Oberschall, 1973: 158).
The structure of political opportunities refers to the conditions in the
political system which either facilitate or inhibit collective action. Political
and cultural traditions, for example, will determine the range of legitimate
forms of struggle in a given society. The degree to which civil liberties and
individual rights are respected in a given society will also facilitate or
inhibit collective action. But repression and facilitation are not determined
unilaterally by sympathizers or enemies of social movements: they are the
result of conflictual interaction and political struggle. According to Tilly,
many of the changes in the patterns of collective action result from drastic
changes in the structure of repression-facilitation. He also argues that the
scale of the action and the power of the aggrieved group will determine
the degree to which these actions will face repression and/or facilitation.
In general terms, the broader the scale of the action and the less powerful
the group the more likely it will suffer repression (Tilly, 1978: 115).
The nature of the political system
Tillys work has focused primarily on the political sphere and the
mobilization of political resources. He views collective actions as efforts by
new groups (challengers) to enter the political system (filly, 1978: 52).
He explains that the relative openness of the political system to
incorporating the interests of new groups will affect the emergence of
SMs. Tillys model has proved useful for historical studies and could be
applied to contemporary exclusionary political systems. It is, however, less
germane to the study of modern SMs. Participants in these movements
are not challengers in Tillys terms, because they come from wellintegrated social groups that are already members of the polity. What they
seek is not entry into the polity but access to decision-making spheres to
influence policy-making.
By drawing attention to the nature of political structures at the national
and local levels, RM theorists have assessed the differential potential for
SM activity among industrial societies, in contrast with NSM writers who
seem to assume a certain similarity of conditions and SMs across
industrial (or post-industrial) societies. Ash-Garner and Zald (1987)
suggest that the emergence and nature of SMs are conditioned by the size
of the public sector, the degree of centralization of the state and
governmental structures, and the nature of existing political parties.
The relative size of the public sector will influence SM activity in at least
two fundamental ways. First, a large public sector places resources
(employment and/or grants and social action programs) in the hands of
the state; these resources can then be used to co-opt, neutralize or
destroy SMs, and/or to promote SM activity by channeling resources to
grass-roots organizations. Second, the size of the public sector determines
the potential politicization of issues and the legitimacy of various courses
of action available to SMs. Societies with less interventionist states with
smaller public sectors are more likely to have more autonomous and less
politicized SMs (Ash-Garner and Zald, 1987: 311).
Ash-Garner and Zald also suggest that the greater the spatial and
functional decentralization of a given political system, the more likely it is
that SMs can be effective and autonomous (310). For instance, SMs can
more effectively press for their demands at the local or regional level in
countries with powerful local or regional governments. Similarly, the
effectiveness of SMs will be increased in those political systems which
provide some degree of autonomy to various branches of government. In
these cases, the target of mobilization can be more clearly identified, as
SMs make demands to specific branches of government.
Political systems that most encourage SM activity are those with multiclass
parties, with diffuse ideological views and weak party discipline,
representing large combinations of interest groups (312). This type of
political structure is found, primarily, in societies with a low degree of
political polarization along class lines. In highly polarized societies, by
contrast, political parties take a central role in mediation, thus reducing
the space for SM activity. These features also influence the degree of SM
autonomy. In societies where political parties do not tightly control the
elaboration and transmission of demands, SMs tend to enjoy a high
degree of autonomy in their membership, strategies, and policy decisions,
and in the selection of channels to place their demands in. In contrast, in
societies which are highly politicized and mobilized by parties and
corporatist groups, SMs tend to be aligned along party lines and enjoy
limited autonomy from the political system (295).
10
the how of social movements; that is, how strategies, decisions and
resources are combined to determine the emergence of an SM.
McCarthy and Zalds useful distinction between SMs and SMOs permits us
to examine the organizational dynamics of social movements by applying
organizational theory. Their analysis of the role of SM entrepreneurs and
the trend towards professionalization highlights tendencies in SMs that
remain unexplored in NSM literature. By taking into consideration
strategic-instrumental action, they can argue that the search for
effectiveness (at this level of action) can undermine potential democratic
participatory tendencies. Thus, the degree to which SMs develop
democratic structures something taken for granted by NSM theorists
becomes a contingent matter.
The emphasis on political processes provides useful insights into the
relationship between SMs and the political system. The focus on the
structure of opportunities makes it possible to identify a set of political
factors that constrain or facilitate the emergence of SMs. Moreover, this
approach makes it clear that SMs engage in politics, although sometimes
employing different means, and therefore the field of operation of SMs
includes both civil society and the political system. RM theory sees social
movements as political actors that operate side by side sometimes in
competition, sometimes in collaboration with traditional political
institutions, an aspect neglected in the NSM literature.
The usefulness of Oberschalls work is its focus on the relationship
between social networks, group identity and solidarity, and collective
action. It calls attention to the importance of shared experiences in the
emergence of social groups and collective action. It also highlights the
potential mobilizing role of tradition and organization in closely knit
communities.
Resource mobilization theory has five basic weaknesses.
First, by focusing exclusively on rational-instrumental action and limiting
the actions of SMs to the political realm, RM theory neglects the normative
and symbolic dimensions of social action. SMs tend to be reduced to
political protests. As Gamson points out, collective actors are presented as
managers of resources in pursuit of common material interests, but their
actions are devoid of cultural meaning (Gamson, 1987). Contemporary
SMs are more than political actors pursuing economic goals and/or
seeking to exchange goods in the political market and/or to gain entry into
the polity. As NSM theory points out, they are concerned with control of
symbolic production, the creation of meaning and the constitution of new
identities.
Second, exclusive focus on the how of social movements on how
strategies, decisions, resources and other elements converge to give rise
11
12
13