Striking Differences: Hunger Strikes in Israel and the USA

Despite longstanding traditions of tolerance, inclusion, and democracy in the USA, dissident citizens and social movements have experienced significant and sustained – although often subtle and difficult-to-observe – repression. Using mechanism-based social movement theory, I explore a range of twentieth-century episodes of contention, involving such groups as mid-century communists, the Black Panther Party, the American Indian Movement, and the modern-day Global Justice Movement. Cracking open the black box of state repression, I demonstrate how four interactive social mechanisms – Resource Depletion, Stigmatization, Divisive Disruption, and Intimidation – animate state repression. A fifth mechanism – Emulation – diffuses the effects of these four Mechanisms of Repression. First I delineate a typology of state actions that suppress dissent. Then I shift analytically from these ten actions to the Mechanisms of Repression, explaining how these mechanisms work. Drawing on scholarship from an array of fields, and pulling data from a variety of sources, I explain how the state has engaged in activity that – operating through social mechanisms – inhibits collective action, either through raising the costs or minimizing the benefits of mobilization.     

The Contribution of Social Movement Theory to Understanding Terrorism

The study of terrorism and political violence has been characterized by a lack of generalizable theory and methodology. This essay proposes that social movement theory can contribute a necessary conceptual framework for understanding terrorism and thus reviews the relevant literature and discusses possible applications. Terrorism is a form of contentious politics, analyzable with the basic social movement approach of mobilizing resources, political opportunity structure, and framing. Cultural perspectives call attention to issues of collective identity that allow for sustained militancy, and movement research recommends alternative conceptions of terrorist networks. Previous research on movement radicalization, repression, and cycles of contention has direct bearing on militancy. Emerging perspectives on transnational collective action and the diffusion of tactics and issues informs an understanding of contemporary international terrorism. Research on movement outcomes suggests broader ways of considering the efficacy of political violence. Finally, methodological debates within the study of social movements are relevant for research on terrorism. In sum, a social movement approach to terrorism has much to contribute, and research on terrorism could have important extensions and implications for social movement theory.     

Overcoming a collective action frame in the remaking of an antinuclear opposition

Recent research on social movements considers collective action frames and collective identities to be resources or achievements of social movement activity because they symbolicly link individuals to a collective cause. This paper maintains that a collective action frame operates at a sociocultural level and can be redefined by groups external to a movement. Nuclear power proponents worked to suppress the first cycle of protest against nuclear plants by redefining the movements' collective identity, such that individuals were unable to recognize movement organizations as representative of their interests. Citizens within the Ten Mile Radius, a group opposed to the licensing of the Seabrook nuclear power plant, initiated a second cycle of protest by overcoming the collective action frame imposed on the movement. This case suggests that the articulation and the representation of dissent is constrained due to the inability of social movement groups to retain control over their own collective identity. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Eastern Sociological Society annual meeting, Baltimore, Maryland, April 1994.     

Anti-statism and Difference Feminism in International Social Movements

Feminist strategies that neglect or consistently deplore state action cannot accomplish what women need – because individuals need collectives such as states to solve collective action problems and to move toward more just social arrangements. Strategies that rely heavily on women's differences from men also cannot accomplish what women need – because women are like men in many ways relevant to individual and collective action. Despite these truths, social movements also need some strategies of action that work separately from and sometimes against the state. Moreover, strategies that accentuate the differences between oppressed and oppressing bring needed energy to a movement. The best overall strategy is, therefore, to realize that both states and difference theories are dangerous weapons, and proceed with caution.     

COLLECTIVE IDENTITY IN THE STRAIGHT EDGE MOVEMENT:

Although social movement scholars generally study movement organizations, a great deal of significant collective action occurs in diffuse, noninstitutional contexts. This article uses the straight edge movement to explore the less structured aspects of movement activity and discuss the roles collective identity plays in diffuse movements. The straight edge collective identity promotes individual action within the context of a commitment to a strong identity. This paper shows how a strong collective identity is the foundation of diffuse movements, providing "structure," a basis for commitment, and guidelines for individualized participation. Finally, the article demonstrates that organizational conceptualizations of social movements fail to capture important avenues of cultural protest.     

Organizations,coalitions, and movements

This article uses empirical evidence on networks of voluntary organizations mobilizing on ethnic minority, environmental, and social exclusion issues in two British cities, to differentiate between social movement processes and other, cognate collective action dynamics. Social movement processes are identified as the building and reproducing of dense informal networks between a multiplicity of actors, sharing a collective identity, and engaged in social and/or political conflict. They are contrasted to coalitional processes, where alliances to achieve specific goals are not backed by significant identity links, and organizational processes, where collective action takes place mostly in reference to specific organizations rather than broader, looser networks.     

Certainty,Fairness, and Balance: State Resonance and Environmental Justice Policy Implementation1

Little research has examined how and why institutional context and framing dynamics shape the institutionalization of movement claims into the state’s formal policies, and what the implication of these processes might be for movements attempting to mobilize on the same conceptual terms after institutionalization. In this study, I explore the role institutional context and framing play in the institutionalization of movement claims in a case: the implementation of environmental justice policy in the California Environmental Protection Agency from 2002 to 2007. I ask: How and why were aspects of the environmental justice frame institutionalized into regulatory policy while others were not? I use ethnographic field methods and content analysis of archival data to answer this question and offer two contributions to previous research. First, I add to previous scholarship on the environmental justice movement by identifying the character of newer problems faced by movement actors as they engage in regulatory policy processes with opponents in the United States. Second, I extend social movement framing theory by developing the notion of “state resonance” to understand how and why a collective action frame is institutionalized and implemented in regulatory policy.     

OFFICIAL FRAMES IN SOCIAL MOVEMENT THEORY: The FBI, HUAC, and the Communist Threat in Hollywood

Social movement researchers acknowledge that frames promoted by state managers compete in intense framing contests with collective action frames promoted by social movement entrepeneurs. But they have not analyzed the construction and promotion of these "official frames.'The FBI framing of the communist threat in Hollywood during the 1940s is examined and the limits of the countersubversive anticommunist master frame are explored. State agencies are established as signifying agents, and the construction and promotion of official frames is compared to similar processes for collective action frames.     

Solidarity is in the heart,not in the field: joint Israeli–Palestinian peace movement organizations during the 2014 Gaza War

The social movement literature suggests that social movement organizations that work across difference and power asymmetry are dependent to some degree on shared and unified action in order to construct and sustain a sense of ‘we.’ Yet ironically, for two joint Israeli–Palestinian peace movement organizations, sustaining a cross-conflict collective identity during the 2014 Gaza War did not require unified action, but rather, independent action from the Israeli participants. This article makes the argument that in highly asymmetrical environments, and in particular, protracted conflict environments, unified visible action is not always required for maintaining a collective identity. Structural and cultural forces can impede the ability of activists to work across borders or conflict lines. In these situations, what may be required to sustain a collective identity that crosses over traditional community divides is the willingness of the group with more privilege and power to move forward in activity focused on their own community.     

Class conflict and class collaboration in regional rebellions, 1500 to 1700

Summary I argue that distinctive regional modes of production entailed divergent configurations of interests and differing degrees of mutual dependence between peasants and landlords. Class-collaborative rebellions correlate highly with a mode of production that makes for cooperative interests and interclass dependence, while class-conflict rebellions correlate highly with a mode of production that makes for antagonistic interests and interclass independence. But class-collaboration was unlikely without a target, which the state provided. Yet the state became the target in subsistence regions where the lack of markets made the raising of tax revenues particularly difficult and where subsistence classes were not dependent on the state for markets and, therefore, had little incentive to cooperate with the state. On the other hand, in regions with a commercial mode of production, raising tax revenues was less burdensome and classes tended to be dependent on the state for markets and, therefore, less likely to engage in antistate collective action.The data appear to support my model's predictions. The model fits best for England where, as predicted, class-collaboration rebellions took place in subsistence regions while class-conflict rebellions occurred in commercial regions. The model does less well for France and Spain. In France, most class-collaboration collective action happened in subsistence regions, though few class-conflict rebellions occurred in commercial regions, while the most intense class-conflict revolt of all took place in Lower Brittany - a mixed region. In Spain, class-antagonistic collective action occurred in commercial regions, especially Castile, while rebellions in other commercial regions displayed both class-cooperative and class-antagonistic aspects. In Spain's subsistence regions, there is little evidence of any collective action between 1500 and 1700. In Andalusia, finally, a mixed region, little collective action took place at all, which fits the model's prediction.In brief, though the mode of production may explain the relation between a form of agrarian rebellion and a particular kind of region, it does not explain variations in the incidence of rebellion either between the three nations or between regions with similar modes of production. These crucial issues will be addressed in a future paper.

---

     

Genocide as Contentious Politics

Despite a recent turn towards the study of political violence within the field of contentious politics, scholars have yet to focus their lens on genocide. This is puzzling, as the field of collective action and social movements was originally developed in reaction to fascism (Nazism in particular), while research on collective action and research on genocide has long shown parallel findings and shared insights. This paper reviews the history of this scholarly convergence and divergence, and suggests that recent findings of research on genocide can be improved by the consideration of concepts from social movements and collective action. It then details three theories of the micro‐mechanisms that mobilize individuals for contention – framing, diffusion, and networks – and specifies how they refine existing explanations of civilian participation in genocide. In the conclusion, I suggest that a contentious politics approach to genocide would consider it one form of collective action among others, analyzable within the existing framework of collective action and social movement theory.     

Double‐edged swords? Collective identity and solidarity in the environment movement1

Perhaps by virtue of its theoretical slipperiness, collective identity is often hailed as an important feature of social movements for the role it plays in unifying activists and organizations, and so helping them to develop shared concerns and engage in collective action. However, this paper argues that collective identity is the result of group rather than movement level processes, and although it can unite activists within a single movement organization, it is not always beneficial for the broader social movement. Although movements consist of networks of activists and organizations that have a broad shared concern, differing collective identities within the movement can actually be quite divisive. Based on case studies of three organizations in the environmental movement, this paper shows that activists who are most committed to an organization with an encompassing collective identity develop a strong sense of solidarity with other activists similarly committed to that organization. The resultant solidarity leads to the construction of a 'we-them' dichotomy between organizations within the same movement, increasing the chances of hostility between organizations and factions within the movement.     

From connective to collective action: internet elections as a digital tool to centralize and formalize protest in Russia

Over the past decade, an extensive body of literature has emerged on the question of how new communication technologies can facilitate new modes of organizing protest. However, the extant research has tended to focus on how digitally enabled protest operates. By contrast, this study investigates why, how, and with what consequences a heavily digitally enabled ‘connective action network’ has transitioned over time to a more traditional ‘collective action network’ [Bennett, W. L., Segerberg, A. (2013). The logic of connective action: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 47]. Specifically, the article scrutinizes the trajectory of the Russian protests ‘For Fair Elections.’ This wave of street protests erupted after the allegedly fraudulent parliamentary elections of December 2011 and continued into 2013. As is argued, the protests were initially organized as an ‘organizationally enabled connective action network.’ However, after eight months of street protests, Russian activists reorganized the network into a more centralized, more formalized ‘organizationally brokered collective action network.’ In order to implement this transition, they deployed ‘Internet elections’ as a cardinally new digital tactic of collective action. Between 20 and 22 October 2012, more than 80,000 activists voted online in order to create a new leadership body for the entire protest movement, the ‘Coordination Council of the Opposition.’ As the study has found, activists implemented this transition because, within the specific Russian socio-political context, enduring engagement and stable networks appeared crucial to the movement’s long-term success. With regard to achieving these goals, the more formalized collective action network appeared superior to the connective action form.     

Survivors of Woman Abuse

Abstract

The feminist social work and related literature on abused women has focused on women's processes of empowerment but has overlooked the question of women's movement from individual survival to collective resistance. In this feminist qualitative study, I explore the processes through which survivors of abuse by male partners become involved in collective action for social change. Using story telling as a research method, I interviewed 11 women about the processes, factors, insights, and events that prompted them to act collectively to address violence against women. I found that women's movement from individual survival to collective action entails significant changes in consciousness and subjectivity. Women's processes of conscientization are complex, contradictory and often painful because they involve political and psychic dimensions of subjectivity, protracted struggles with contradictions and conflict, and resistance to knowledge that threatens to unsettle relatively stable notions of identity. I suggest that feminist social work theory and practice must take into account three interrelated elements of women's transformative journeys: the discursive and material conditions that facilitate women's movement to collective action; the social, material and psychic costs of women's growth; and the multifaceted and difficult nature of women's journey in recognizing and naming abuse, making sense of their experiences, and acting on this knowledge to work for change. I recommend that feminist social work practice with survivors recognize that survivors can and do contribute to social change, and develop new, more inclusive liberatory models of working with survivors of abuse.     

Non‐state authoritarianism and diaspora politics

Diaspora politics has been celebrated as a form of transnationalism that can potentially challenge authoritarian regimes. Arguably, opposition groups and political activists can mobilize beyond the territorial limits of the state, thus bypassing some of the constraints to political organization found in authoritarian states. The literature on transnational and extraterritorial repression complicates this model, for it shows that states can use strategies of ‘long‐distance authoritarianism’ to monitor, intimidate and harass diasporic populations abroad. Yet, non‐state actors in the diaspora also sometimes use such repressive strategies to mobilize internally, gain hegemony within the diaspora, and marginalize or eliminate internal rivals. This raises the question of whether such activities can be understood as non‐state forms of authoritarianism. Cases of diasporic politics pertaining to Turkey and Sri Lanka are briefly explored with a view to examining how state and non‐state forms of transnational repression can, under some conditions, result in the dynamics of competitive authoritarianism within a diaspora. In such cases, ‘ordinary’ members of the diaspora may become caught between multiple forms of transnational repression in addition to potentially experiencing marginalization and securitization in their new home.     

Mobilization Processes and the 1989 Chinese Democracy Movement

Using a multimethod strategy, we identify and analyze mobilization processes associated with the rapid emergence of the 1989 Chinese Democracy Movement. We propose that the confluence of macro-, meso-, and micromobilization processes and linkages among them provide a more robust model for understanding social movement dynamics. While the Chinese Democracy Movement was facilitated by economic reforms, regime crises, delayed repression, and the presence of foreign journalists, institutional forces were not sufficient in explaining the rapid and extensive mobilization. Students were able to overcome deficits in organizational and media resources by co-opting extant networks and by developing resonant collective action frames. Their frame alignment strategies and nonviolent direct action tactics tended to resonate with ordinary people's observations and experiences as well as with traditional Chinese narratives of Confucianism, nationalism, and communism. State reactions and counterframings, on the other hand, failed to sway the masses. Instead, participation spread from a few hundred college students to millions of citizens and ended, tragically and ironically, with the "People's Army" slaughtering its own people around Tiananmen Square.     

Political theater and student organizations in the 1989 Chinese movement: A multivariate analysis of Tiananmen

Social movement research has often been divided between organizational and cultural analyses of collective action. Organizationally oriented theorists have viewed indigenous organizational structure as the critical variable in the emergence of collective action. Political culture and cultural frame theorists have focused instead on the cultural frames that resonate with audiences, mobilizing them to action. But social movements cannot be the result of one or the other of these factors. An analysis of the 1989 Chinese movement illuminates the multivariate aspects of this social movement. This movement was a two-tiered movement with an organized student leadership tier and a mass audience. Enmeshed in university organizations and student networks, the student leaders relied on an organizational structure that had been emerging since the mid-1980s. This organized leadership tier employed cultural symbols and acts to mobilize mass audiences that were beyond the scope of the students' organizational linkages. The political theater of the organized student leaders was complemented by institutional changes that had been occurring over the decade of reform in China and a political opportunity that allowed wide coverage of the students' activities.     

COLLECTIVE MOBILIZATION AND IDENTITY FROM THE UNDERGROUND: The Deployment of "Oppositional Capital" in the Harm Reduction Movement

Within social movement literature, the concept of collective identity is used to discuss the process through which political activists create in-group cohesion and distinguish themselves from society at large. Newer approaches to collective identity focus on the negotiation of boundaries as social movement agents interact with social structural forces. However, in their adoption of a perspective that holds identity as a process, these social movement studies neglect the more tangible cultural elements that actors manipulate when they express collective identity. This research project adopts a subcultural perspective in the Birmingham tradition to address the question of how social movement actors reapporpriate symbolic expressions of identity and what meaning systems they draw from that enable them to redefine "stigmatization" as "status" This article offers the concept of "oppositional capital" as a general framework for analyzing the symbolic work that social movement actors perform in their expressions of collective identity. For the purposes of analysis, the primary elements of oppositional symbolic expressions are divided into the four categories of distinction, antagonism, political activism, and popular cultural aesthetics. This article applies the concept of oppositional capital to representations of collective identity of a radical branch of political activism within the social movement of harm reduction. Specifically, it analyzes the zine, Junkphood to describe how actors within this social movement cohort are able to present their collective identity as part of an alternative status system by drawing from an economy of signs that are generally recognized as oppositional.     

The Crowd and Collective Behavior: Bringing Symbolic Interaction Back In

Presented as the Distinguished Lecture at the annual meeting of the Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in August 2005, this article's objective is to illustrate the importance of symbolic interaction in the formation of temporary gatherings, in the dynamic alternation between individual and collective actions that comprise those gatherings, and in the dispersal processes that bring such gatherings to an end. In reviewing the phenomena to be explained, I also call attention to the limitations of the concepts of “the crowd” and of “collective behavior.” Finally, to make sense of the dynamic variation and alternation between individual and collective actions, and the variation in the latter, I champion and extend G. H. Mead's theory of the act as a closed‐loop, negative‐feedback model of purposive action. No lesser model of agency and action is adequate to the challenge of understanding and explaining the phenomena in question.