Social movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sociology

 History
 Outline
 Portal

Main theories

 Structural functionalism
 Conflict theory
 Symbolic interactionism

Methods

 Quantitative
 Qualitative
 Historical
 Comparative
 Mathematical
 Computational
 Ethnography
 Ethnomethodology
 Network analysis
 Positivism
 Critical theory

Subfields and other major theories

 Conflict
 Criminology
 Social constructionism
 Culture
 Development
  Deviance
 Demography
 Education
 Economic
 Environmental
 Family
 Feminist sociology
 Gender
 Health
 Industrial
 Inequality
 Knowledge
 Law
 Literature
 Medical
 Military
 Organizational
 Political
 Race and ethnicity
 Religion
 Rural
 Science
 Social change
 Social movements
 Social psychology in sociology
 Stratification
 Science and technology
 Technology
 Urban
 Utilitarianism

Browse

 Bibliography
 By country
 Index
 Journals
 Organizations
 People
  Timeline

 v
 t
 e

A social movement is a type of group action. Social movements can be defined as "organizational
structures and strategies that may empower oppressed populations to mount effective challenges
and resist the more powerful and advantaged elites".[1] They are large, sometimes informal,
groupings of individuals or organizations which focus on specific political or social issues. In other
words, they carry out, resist, or undo a social change. They provide a way of social change from the
bottom within nations.[1]
Modern Western social movements became possible through education (the wider dissemination
of literature) and increased mobility of labor due to the industrialization and urbanization of 19th-
century societies.[2] It is sometimes argued that the freedom of expression, education and relative
economic independence prevalent in the modern Western culture are responsible for the
unprecedented number and scope of various contemporary social movements. However, others
point out that many of the social movements of the last hundred years grew up, like the Mau Mau in
Kenya, to oppose Western colonialism. Either way, social movements have been and continued to
be closely connected with democratic political systems. Occasionally, social movements have been
involved in democratizing nations, but more often they have flourished after democratization. Over
the past 200 years, they have become part of a popular and global expression of dissent.[3]
Modern movements often utilize technology and the internet to mobilize people globally. Adapting to
communication trends is a common theme among successful movements.[4] Research is beginning
to explore how advocacy organizations linked to social movements in the U.S.[4] and
Canada[5] use social media to facilitate civic engagement and collective action. The systematic
literature review of Buettner & Buettner analyzed the role of Twitter during a wide range of social
movements (2007 WikiLeaks, 2009 Moldova, 2009 Austria student protest, 2009 Israel-Gaza,
2009 Iran green revolution, 2009 Toronto G20, 2010 Venezuela, 2010 Germany Stuttgart21,
2011 Egypt, 2011 England, 2011 US Occupy movement, 2011 Spain Indignados, 2011 Greece
Aganaktismenoi movements, 2011 Italy, 2011 Wisconsin labor protests, 2012 Israel Hamas,
2013 Brazil Vinegar, 2013 Turkey).[6]
Political science and sociology have developed a variety of theories and empirical research on social
movements. For example, some research in political science highlights the relation between popular
movements and the formation of new political parties[7] as well as discussing the function of social
movements in relation to agenda setting and influence on politics.[8]

Contents
[hide]

 1Definitions
 2History
o 2.1Beginnings
o 2.2Growth and spread
o 2.3Key processes
 3Mass Mobilization
 4Types of social movement
 5Identification of supporters
 6Dynamics of social movements
 7Social movement theories
o 7.1Deprivation theory
o 7.2Mass society theory
o 7.3Structural strain theory
o 7.4Resource mobilization theory
o 7.5Political process theory
o 7.6Framing perspective
 8Social movement and social networking
 9See also
 10References
 11Further reading
 12External links

Definitions[edit]
There is no single consensus definition of a social movement.[9] Mario Diani argues that nearly all
definitions share three criteria: "a network of informal interactions between a plurality of individuals,
groups and/or organizations, engaged in a political or cultural conflict, on the basis of a shared
collective identity" [10]
Sociologist Charles Tilly defines social movements as a series of contentious performances,
displays and campaigns by which ordinary people make collective claims on others.[3]For Tilly, social
movements are a major vehicle for ordinary people's participation in public politics.[11] He argues that
there are three major elements to a social movement:[3]

1. Campaigns: a sustained, organized public effort making collective claims of target

authorities;
2. Repertoire (repertoire of contention): employment of combinations from among the following
forms of political action: creation of special-purpose associations and coalitions, public
meetings, solemn processions, vigils, rallies, demonstrations, petition drives, statements to
and in public media, and pamphleteering; and
3. WUNC displays: participants' concerted public representation
of worthiness, unity, numbers, and commitments on the part of themselves and/or their
constituencies.
Sidney Tarrow defines a social movement as "collective challenges [to elites, authorities, other
groups or cultural codes] by people with common purposes and solidarity in sustained interactions
with elites, opponents and authorities." He specifically distinguishes social movements from political
parties and advocacy groups.[12]
The sociologists John McCarthy and Mayer Zald define as a social movement as "a set of opinions
and beliefs in a population which represents preferences for changing some elements of the social
structure and/or reward distribution of a society." [13]
According to Paul van Seeters and Paul James defining a social movement entails a few minimal
conditions of ‘coming together’:
(1.) the formation of some kind of collective identity; (2.) the development of a shared normative
orientation; (3.) the sharing of a concern for change of the status quo and (4.) the occurrence of
moments of practical action that are at least subjectively connected together across time addressing
this concern for change. Thus we define a social movement as a form of political association
between persons who have at least a minimal sense of themselves as connected to others in
common purpose and who come together across an extended period of time to effect social change
in the name of that purpose.[14]

History[edit]
Beginnings[edit]

Satirical engraving of Wilkes by William Hogarth. Wilkes is holding two editions of The North Briton.

The early growth of social movements was connected to broad economic and political changes in
England in the mid-18th century, including political representation, market capitalization,
and proletarianization.[3] The first mass social movement catalyzed around the controversial political
figure, John Wilkes.[15] As editor of the paper The North Briton, Wilkes vigorously attacked the new
administration of Lord Bute and the peace terms that the new government accepted at the
1763 Treaty of Paris at the end of the Seven Years' War. Charged with seditious libel, Wilkes was
arrested after the issue of a general warrant, a move that Wilkes denounced as unlawful - the Lord
Chief Justice eventually ruled in Wilkes favour. As a result of this episode, Wilkes became a
figurehead to the growing movement for popular sovereignty among the middle classes - people
began chanting, "Wilkes and Liberty" in the streets.
After a later period of exile, brought about by further charges of libel and obscenity, Wilkes stood for
the Parliamentary seat at Middlesex, where most of his support was located.[16] When Wilkes was
imprisoned in the King's Bench Prison on 10 May 1768, a mass movement of support emerged, with
large demonstrations in the streets under the slogan "No liberty, no King."[17] Stripped of the right to
sit in Parliament, Wilkes became an Alderman of Londonin 1769, and an activist group called
the Society for the Supporters of the Bill of Rights began aggressively promoting his policies.[18] This
was the first ever sustained social movement; -it involved public meetings, demonstrations, the
distribution of pamphlets on an unprecedented scale and the mass petition march. However, the
movement was careful not to cross the line into open rebellion; - it tried to rectify the faults in
governance through appeals to existing legal precedents and was conceived of as an extra-
Parliamentary form of agitation to arrive at a consensual and constitutional arrangement.[19] The force
and influence of this social movement on the streets of London compelled the authorities to concede
to the movement's demands. Wilkes was returned to Parliament, general warrants were declared as
unconstitutional and press freedom was extended to the coverage of Parliamentary debates.
The Gordon Riots, depicted in a painting by John Seymour Lucas

A much larger movement of anti-Catholic protest was triggered by the Papists Act 1778, which
eliminated a number of the penalties and disabilities endured by Roman Catholics in England, and
formed around Lord George Gordon, who became the President of the Protestant Association in
1779.[20][21][22] The Association had the support of leading Calvinist religious figures,
including Rowland Hill, Erasmus Middleton, and John Rippon.[23] Gordon was an articulate
propagandist and he inflamed the mob with fears of Papism and a return to absolute monarchical
rule. The situation deteriorated rapidly, and in 1780, after a meeting of the Protestant Association, its
members subsequently marched on the House of Commons to deliver a petition demanding the
repeal of the Act, which the government refused to do. Soon, large riots broke out across London
and embassies and Catholic owned businesses were attacked by angry mobs.
Other political movements that emerged in the late 18th century included the
British abolitionist movement against slavery (becoming one between the sugar boycott of 1791 and
the second great petition drive of 1806), and possibly the upheaval surrounding
the French and American Revolutions. In the opinion of Eugene Black (1963), "...association made
possible the extension of the politically effective public. Modern extra parliamentary political
organization is a product of the late eighteenth century [and] the history of the age of reform cannot
be written without it.[24]
Growth and spread[edit]

The Great Chartist Meeting on Kennington Common, London in 1848.

From 1815, Britain after victory in the Napoleonic Wars entered a period of social upheaval
characterised by the growing maturity of the use of social movements and special-interest
associations. Chartism was the first mass movement of the growing working-class in the world.[25] It
campaigned for political reform between 1838 and 1848 with the People's Charter of 1838 as its
manifesto – this called for universal suffrage and the implementation of the secret ballot, amongst
other things. The term "social movements" was introduced in 1848 by the German
Sociologist Lorenz von Stein in his book Socialist and Communist Movements since the Third
French Revolution (1848) in which he introduced the term "social movement" into scholarly
discussions[26] - actually depicting in this way political movements fighting for the social rights
understood as welfare rights.

Martin Luther King Jr. was a leader in the Civil Rights Movement, one of the most famous social
movements of the 20th century.

The labor movement and socialist movement of the late 19th century are seen as the prototypical
social movements, leading to the formation of communist and social democratic parties and
organisations. These tendencies were seen in poorer countries as pressure for reform continued, for
example in Russia with the Russian Revolution of 1905and of 1917, resulting in the collapse of the
Czarist regime around the end of the First World War.
In 1945, Britain after victory in the Second World War entered a period of radical reform and change.
In the post-war period, Feminism, gay rights movement, peace movement, Civil Rights
Movement, anti-nuclear movement and environmental movement emerged, often dubbed the New
Social Movements[27] They led, among other things, to the formation of green parties and
organisations influenced by the new left. Some find in the end of the 1990s the emergence of a new
global social movement, the anti-globalization movement. Some social movement scholars posit that
with the rapid pace of globalization, the potential for the emergence of new type of social movement
is latent—they make the analogy to national movements of the past to describe what has been
termed a global citizens movement.
Key processes[edit]
Several key processes lie behind the history of social movements. Urbanization led to larger
settlements, where people of similar goals could find each other, gather and organize. This
facilitated social interaction between scores of people, and it was in urban areas that those early
social movements first appeared. Similarly, the process of industrialization which gathered large
masses of workers in the same region explains why many of those early social movements
addressed matters such as economic wellbeing, important to the worker class. Many other social
movements were created at universities, where the process of mass education brought many people
together. With the development of communication technologies, creation and activities of social
movements became easier – from printed pamphlets circulating in the 18th
century coffeehouses to newspapers and Internet, all those tools became important factors in the
growth of the social movements. Finally, the spread of democracy and political rights like
the freedom of speech made the creation and functioning of social movements much easier.

Mass Mobilization[edit]
Nascent social movements often fail to achieve their objectives because they fail to mobilize
sufficient numbers of people. Srdja Popovic, author of Blueprint for Revolution,[28] and spokesperson
for OTPOR!, says that movements succeed when they address issues that people actually care
about. “It’s unrealistic to expect people to care about more than what they already care about, and
any attempt to make them do so is bound to fail.” Activists too often make the mistake of trying to
convince people to address their issues. A mobilization strategy aimed at large-scale change often
begins with action a small issue that concerns many people. For instance, Mahatma Gandhi’s
successful overthrow of British rule in India began as a small protest focused on the British tax on
salt.
Popovic also argues that a social movement has little chance of growing if it relies on boring
speeches and the usual placard waving marches. He argues for creating movements that people
actually want to join. OTPOR! succeeded because it was fun, funny, and invented graphic ways of
ridiculing dictator Slobodan Milosevic. It turned fatalism and passivity into action by making it easy,
even cool, to become a revolutionary; branding itself within hip slogans, rock music and street
theatre. Tina Rosenberg, in Join the Club, How Peer Pressure can Transform the World,[29] shows
how movements grow when there is a core of enthusiastic players who encourage others to join
them.

Types of social movement[edit]

Types of social movements.[30]

Sociologists distinguish between several types of social movement:

 Scope:
 reform movement - movements advocating changing some norms or laws. Examples of
such a movement would include a trade union with a goal of increasing workers rights,
a green movementadvocating a set of ecological laws, or a movement supporting
introduction of a capital punishment or the right to abortion. Some reform movements may
aim for a change in custom and moral norms, such as condemnation of pornography or
proliferation of some religion.
 radical movement - movements dedicated to changing value systems in a fundamental way.
Examples would include the Civil Rights Movement which demanded full civil rights and
equality under the law to all Americans, regardless of race;
 the Polish Solidarity (Solidarność) movement which demanded the transformation of
a Stalinist political and economic system into a democracy; or the South African shack
dwellers' movement Abahlali baseMjondolo which demands the full inclusion of shack
dwellers into the life of cities.
 Type of change:
 innovation movement - movements which want to introduce or change particular norms,
values, etc. The singularitarianism movement advocating deliberate action to effect and
ensure the safety of the technological singularity is an example of an innovation movement.
 conservative movement - movements which want to preserve existing norms, values, etc.
For example, the anti-technology 19th century Luddites movement or the modern movement
opposing the spread of the genetically modified food could be seen as conservative
movements in that they aimed to fight specific technological changes.
 Targets:
 group-focus movements - focused on affecting groups or society in general, for example,
advocating the change of the political system. Some of these groups transform into or join
a political party, but many remain outside the reformist party political system.
 individual-focused movements - focused on affecting individuals. Most religious
movements would fall under this category.
 Methods of work:
 peaceful movements - various movements which use nonviolent means of protest as part of
a campaign of nonviolent resistance, also often called civil resistance. The American Civil
Rights movement, Polish Solidarity movement or the nonviolent, civil disobedience-
orientated wing of the Indian independence movement would fall into this category.[31]
 violent movements - various movements which resort to violence; they are usually armed
and in extreme cases can take a form of a paramilitary or terrorist organization. Examples:
the Rote Armee Fraktion, Al-Qaida.
 Old and new:
 old movements - movements for change have existed for many centuries. Most of the oldest
recognized movements, dating to late 18th and 19th centuries, fought for specific social
groups, such as the working class, peasants, whites, aristocrats, Protestants, men. They
were usually centered around some materialistic goals like improving the standard of
living or, for example, the political autonomy of the working class.
 new movements - movements which became dominant from the second half of the 20th
century. Notable examples include the American civil rights movement, second-wave
feminism, gay rights movement, environmentalism and conservation efforts, opposition to
mass surveillance, etc. They are usually centered around issues that go beyond but are not
separate from class.
 Range:
 global movements - social movements with global (transnational) objectives and goals.
Movements such as the first (where Marx and Bakunin met), second, third and fourth
internationals, the World Social Forum, the Peoples' Global Action and the anarchist
movement seek to change society at a global level.
 local movements - most of the social movements have a local scope.[32] They are focused on
local or regional objectives, such as protecting a specific natural area, lobbying for the
lowering of tolls in a certain motorway, or preserving a building about to be demolished for
gentrification and turning it into a social center.

Identification of supporters[edit]
A difficulty for scholarship of movements is that for most of them, neither insiders to a movement nor
outsiders apply consistent labels or even descriptive phrases. Unless there is a single leader who
does that, or a formal system of membership agreements, activists will typically use diverse labels
and descriptive phrases that require scholars to discern when they are referring to the same or
similar ideas, declare similar goals, adopt similar programs of action, and use similar methods.
There can be great differences in the way that is done, to recognize who is and who is not a member
or an allied group:

 Insiders: Often exaggerate the level of support by considering people supporters whose level of
activity or support is weak, but also reject those that outsiders might consider supporters
because they discredit the cause, or are even seen as adversaries.
 Outsiders: Those not supporters who may tend to either underestimate or overestimate the level
or support or activity of elements of a movement, by including or excluding those that insiders
would exclude or include.
It is often outsiders rather than insiders that apply the identifying labels for a movement, which the
insiders then may or may not adopt and use to self-identify. For example, the label for
the levellers political movement in 17th-century England was applied to them by their antagonists, as
a term of disparagement. Yet admirers of the movement and its aims later came to use the term, and
it is the term by which they are known to history.
Caution must always be exercised in any discussion of amorphous phenomena such as movements
to distinguish between the views of insiders and outsiders, supporters and antagonists, each of
whom may have their own purposes and agendas in characterization or mischaracterization of it.

Dynamics of social movements[edit]

Stages of social movements.[33]

Social movements are not eternal. They have a life cycle: they are created, they grow, they achieve
successes or failures and eventually, they dissolve and cease to exist.
They are more likely to evolve in the time and place which is friendly to the social movements: hence
their evident symbiosis with the 19th century proliferation of ideas like individual rights, freedom of
speech and civil disobedience. Social movements occur in liberal and authoritarian societies but in
different forms. However, there must always be polarizing differences between groups of people: in
case of 'old movements', they were the poverty and wealth gaps. In case of the 'new movements',
they are more likely to be the differences in customs, ethics and values. Finally, the birth of a social
movement needs what sociologist Neil Smelser calls an initiating event: a particular, individual event
that will begin a chain reaction of events in the given society leading to the creation of a social
movement. For example, the Civil Rights Movement grew on the reaction to black woman, Rosa
Parks, riding in the whites-only section of the bus (although she was not acting alone or
spontaneously—typically activist leaders lay the groundwork behind the scenes of interventions
designed to spark a movement). The Polish Solidarity movement, which eventually toppled the
communist regimes of Eastern Europe, developed after trade union activist Anna Walentynowiczwas
fired from work. The South African shack dwellers' movement Abahlali baseMjondolo grew out of a
road blockade in response to the sudden selling off of a small piece of land promised for housing to
a developer. Such an event is also described as a volcanic model – a social movement is often
created after a large number of people realize that there are others sharing the same value and
desire for a particular social change.
One of the main difficulties facing the emerging social movement is spreading the very knowledge
that it exists. Second is overcoming the free rider problem – convincing people to join it, instead of
following the mentality 'why should I trouble myself when others can do it and I can just reap the
benefits after their hard work'.
Many social movements are created around some charismatic leader, i.e. one
possessing charismatic authority. After the social movement is created, there are two likely phases
of recruitment. The first phase will gather the people deeply interested in the primary goal and ideal
of the movement. The second phase, which will usually come after the given movement had some
successes and is trendy; it would look good on a résumé. People who join in this second phase will
likely be the first to leave when the movement suffers any setbacks and failures.
Eventually, the social crisis can be encouraged by outside elements, like opposition from
government or other movements. However, many movements had survived a failure crisis, being
revived by some hardcore activists even after several decades later.

Social movement theories[edit]

Main article: Social movement theory
Sociologists have developed several theories related to social movements [Kendall, 2005]. Some of
the better-known approaches are outlined below. Chronologically they include:

 collective behavior/collective action theories (1950s)

 relative deprivation theory (1960s)
 marxist theory (1880s)
 value-added theory (1960s)
 resource mobilization (1970s)
 political process theory (1980s)
 framing theory (1980s) (closely related to social constructionist theory)
 new social movement theory (1980s)
Deprivation theory[edit]
Deprivation theory argues that social movements have their foundations among people who feel
deprived of some good(s) or resource(s). According to this approach, individuals who are lacking
some good, service, or comfort are more likely to organize a social movement to improve (or defend)
their conditions.[34]
There are two significant problems with this theory. First, since most people feel deprived at one
level or another almost all the time, the theory has a hard time explaining why the groups that form
social movements do when other people are also deprived. Second, the reasoning behind this
theory is circular – often the only evidence for deprivation is the social movement. If deprivation is
claimed to be the cause but the only evidence for such is the movement, the reasoning is circular.[35]
Mass society theory[edit]
Mass society theory argues that social movements are made up of individuals in large societies who
feel insignificant or socially detached. Social movements, according to this theory, provide a sense
of empowerment and belonging that the movement members would otherwise not have.[36]
Very little support has been found for this theory. Aho (1990), in his study of Idaho Christian
Patriotism, did not find that members of that movement were more likely to have been socially
detached. In fact, the key to joining the movement was having a friend or associate who was a
member of the movement.
Structural strain theory[edit]
Social strain theory, also known as value-added theory, proposes six factors that encourage social
movement development:[37]

1. structural conduciveness - people come to believe their society has problems

2. structural strain - people experience deprivation
3. growth and spread of a solution - a solution to the problems people are experiencing is
proposed and spreads
4. precipitating factors - discontent usually requires a catalyst (often a specific event) to turn it
into a social movement
5. lack of social control - the entity that is to be changed must be at least somewhat open to the
change; if the social movement is quickly and powerfully repressed, it may never materialize
6. mobilization - this is the actual organizing and active component of the movement; people do
what needs to be done
This theory is also subject to circular reasoning as it incorporates, at least in part, deprivation theory
and relies upon it, and social/structural strain for the underlying motivation of social movement
activism. However, social movement activism is, like in the case of deprivation theory, often the only
indication that there was strain or deprivation.
Resource mobilization theory[edit]
Resource mobilization theory emphasizes the importance of resources in social movement
development and success. Resources are understood here to include: knowledge, money, media,
labor, solidarity, legitimacy, and internal and external support from power elite. The theory argues
that social movements develop when individuals with grievances are able to mobilize sufficient
resources to take action.The emphasis on resources offers an explanation why some
discontented/deprived individuals are able to organize while others are not.[38]
In contrast to earlier collective behavior perspectives on social movements—which emphasized the
role of exceptional levels of deprivation, grievance, or social strain in motivating mass protest—
Resource Mobilization perspectives hold "that there is always enough discontent in any society to
supply the grass-roots support for a movement if the movement is effectively organized and has at
its disposal the power and resources of some established elite group" [39] Movement emergence is
contingent upon the aggregation of resources by social movement entrepreneurs and movement
organizations, who use these resources to turn collective dissent in to political pressure.[38] Members
are recruited through networks; commitment is maintained by building a collective identity, and
through interpersonal relationships.[citation needed]
Resource Mobilization Theory views social movement activity as "politics by other means": a rational
and strategic effort by ordinary people to change society or politics.[40] The form of the resources
shapes the activities of the movement (e.g., access to a TV station will result in the extensive use TV
media). Movements develop in contingent opportunity structures that influence their efforts to
mobilize; and each movement's response to the opportunity structures depends on the movement's
organization and resources[citation needed]
Critics of this theory argue that there is too much of an emphasis on resources, especially financial
resources. Some movements are effective without an influx of money and are more dependent upon
the movement members for time and labor (e.g., the civil rights movement in the U.S.).[citation needed]
Political process theory[edit]
Political process theory is similar to resource mobilization in many regards, but tends to emphasize a
different component of social structure that is important for social movement development: political
opportunities. Political process theory argues that there are three vital components for movement
formation: insurgent consciousness, organizational strength, and political opportunities.
Insurgent consciousness refers back to the ideas of deprivation and grievances. The idea is that
certain members of society feel like they are being mistreated or that somehow the system is unjust.
The insurgent consciousness is the collective sense of injustice that movement members (or
potential movement members) feel and serves as the motivation for movement organization.

Photo taken at the 2005 U.S. Presidential inauguration protest.

Organizational strength falls inline with resource-mobilization theory, arguing that in order for a social
movement to organize it must have strong leadership and sufficient resources.
Political opportunity refers to the receptivity or vulnerability of the existing political system to
challenge. This vulnerability can be the result of any of the following (or a combination thereof):

 growth of political pluralism

 decline in effectiveness of repression
 elite disunity; the leading factions are internally fragmented
 a broadening of access to institutional participation in political processes
 support of organized opposition by elites
One of the advantages of the political process theory is that it addresses the issue of timing or
emergence of social movements. Some groups may have the insurgent consciousness and
resources to mobilize, but because political opportunities are closed, they will not have any success.
The theory, then, argues that all three of these components are important.
Critics of the political process theory and resource-mobilization theory point out that neither theory
discusses movement culture to any great degree. This has presented culture theorists an
opportunity to expound on the importance of culture.
One advance on the political process theory is the political mediation model, which outlines the way
in which the political context facing movement actors intersects with the strategic choices that
movements make. An additional strength of this model is that it can look at the outcomes of social
movements not only in terms of success or failure but also in terms of consequences (whether
intentional or unintentional, positive or negative) and in terms of collective benefits.
Framing perspective[edit]
Reflecting the cultural turn in the social sciences and humanities more broadly, recent strains of
social movement theory and research add to the largely structural concerns seen in the resource
mobilization and political process theories by emphasizing the cultural and psychological aspects of
social movement processes, such as collectively shared interpretations and beliefs, ideologies,
values and other meanings about the world. In doing so, this general cultural approach also attempts
to address the free-rider problem. One particularly successful take on some such cultural
dimensions is manifested in the framing perspective on social movements.
While both resource mobilization theory and political process theory include, or at least accept, the
idea that certain shared understandings of, for example, perceived unjust societal conditions must
exist for mobilization to occur at all, this is not explicitly problematized within those approaches. The
framing perspective has brought such shared understandings to the forefront of the attempt to
understand movement creation and existence by, e.g., arguing that, in order for social movements to
successfully mobilize individuals, they must develop an injustice frame. An injustice frame is a
collection of ideas and symbols that illustrate both how significant the problem is as well as what the
movement can do to alleviate it,
"Like a picture frame, an issue frame marks off some part of the world. Like a building frame,
it holds things together. It provides coherence to an array of symbols, images, and
arguments, linking them through an underlying organizing idea that suggests what is
essential - what consequences and values are at stake. We do not see the frame directly,
but infer its presence by its characteristic expressions and language. Each frame gives the
advantage to certain ways of talking and thinking, while it places others out of the picture."[41]
Important characteristics of the injustice frames include:[42]

 Facts take on their meaning by being embedded in frames, which render them relevant and
significant or irrelevant and trivial.
 People carry around multiple frames in their heads.
 Successful reframing involves the ability to enter into the worldview of our adversaries.
 All frames contain implicit or explicit appeals to moral principles.
In emphasizing the injustice frame, culture theory also addresses the free-rider problem. The
free-rider problem refers to the idea that people will not be motivated to participate in a social
movement that will use up their personal resources (e.g., time, money, etc.) if they can still
receive the benefits without participating. In other words, if person X knows that movement Y is
working to improve environmental conditions in his neighborhood, he is presented with a choice:
join or not join the movement. If he believes the movement will succeed without him, he can
avoid participation in the movement, save his resources, and still reap the benefits - this is free-
riding. A significant problem for social movement theory has been to explain why people join
movements if they believe the movement can/will succeed without their contribution. Culture
theory argues that, in conjunction with social networks being an important contact tool, the
injustice frame will provide the motivation for people to contribute to the movement.
Framing processes includes three separate components:

 Diagnostic frame: the movement organization frames what is the problem or what they are
critiquing
 Prognostic frame: the movement organization frames what is the desirable solution to the
problem
 Motivational frame: the movement organization frames a "call to arms" by suggesting and
encouraging that people take action to solve the problem

Social movement and social networking[edit]

For more than ten years, social movement groups have been using the Internet to accomplish
organizational goals. It has been argued that the Internet helps to increase the speed, reach and
effectiveness of social movement-related communication as well as mobilization efforts, and as
a result, it has been suggested that the Internet has had a positive impact on the social
movements in general.[5][43][44][45]
Many discussions have been generated recently on the topic of social networking and the effect
it may play on the formation and mobilization of social movement.[46] For example, the
emergence of the Coffee Party first appeared on the social networking site, Facebook. The party
has continued to gather membership and support through that site and file sharing sites, such
as Flickr. The 2009–2010 Iranian election protests also demonstrated how social networking
sites are making the mobilization of large numbers of people quicker and easier. Iranians were
able to organize and speak out against the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by using sites
such as Twitter and Facebook. This in turn prompted widespread government censorship of the
web and social networking sites.
The sociological study of social movements is quite new. The traditional view of movements
often perceived them as chaotic and disorganized, treating activism as a threat to the social
order. The activism experienced in the 1960s and 1970s shuffled in a new world opinion about
the subject. Models were now introduced to understand the organizational and structural powers
embedded in social movements.

See also[edit]
Wikimedia Commons has
media related to Social
movements.

 Anti-jock movement
 Civil resistance
 Counterculture of the 1960s
 Countermovement
 Global citizens movement
 List of social movements
 Moral shock
 New social movements
 Nonviolent resistance
 Political movement
 Reform movement
 Revolutionary movement
 Social defence
 Social equality
 Teaching for social justice
 Union organizer
 Online social movements

References[edit]
1. ^ Jump up to:a b Deric., Shannon, (2011-01-01). Political sociology : oppression,
resistance, and the state. Pine Forge Press. ISBN 9781412980401. OCLC 746832550.
2. Jump up^ Weinberg, 2013
3. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Tilly, 2004
4. ^ Jump up to:a b Obar, Jonathan; et al. (2012). "Advocacy 2.0: An Analysis of How
Advocacy Groups in the United States Perceive and Use Social Media as Tools for
Facilitating Civic Engagement and Collective Action". Journal of Information
Policy. SSRN 1956352  .
5. ^ Jump up to:a b Obar, Jonathan. "Canadian Advocacy 2.0: A Study of Social Media Use
by Social Movement Groups and Activists in Canada". SSRN 2254742  .
6. Jump up^ Buettner, R. and Buettner, K. (2016). A Systematic Literature Review of
Twitter Research from a Socio-Political Revolution Perspective. 49th Annual Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences. Kauai, Hawaii:
IEEE. doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.4239.9442.
7. Jump up^ Pugh, Jeff (2008). "Vectors of Contestation: Social Movements and Party
Systems in Ecuador and Colombia". Latin American Essays. XXI: 46–65.
8. Jump up^ de,, Leon, Cedric. Party & society : reconstructing a sociology of democratic
party politics. ISBN 9780745653686. OCLC 856053908.
9. Jump up^ Opp, Karl-Dieter (2009). . Theories of political protest and social movements:
A multidisciplinary introduction, critique, and synthesis. Routledge.
10. Jump up^ Diani, Mario (1992). "The concept of social movement". The Sociological
Review. 40 (1): 1–25. doi:10.1111/j.1467-954X.1992.tb02943.x. ISSN 0038-0261.
11. Jump up^ Tilly, 2004, p.3
12. Jump up^ Tarrow, 1994
13. Jump up^ McCarthy, John; Zald, Mayer N. (May 1977). "Resource Mobilization and
Social Movements: A Partial Theory". The American Journal of Sociology. 82 (6): 1217–
1218. doi:10.1086/226464. JSTOR 2777934.
14. Jump up^ James, Paul; van Seeters, Paul (2014). Globalization and Politics, Vol. 2:
Global Social Movements and Global Civil Society. London: Sage Publications. p. xi.
15. Jump up^ Charles Tilly. "BRITAIN CREATES THE SOCIAL MOVEMENT" (PDF).
16. Jump up^ Cash 2006, pp. 204–26.
17. Jump up^ Cash 2006, pp. 216–26.
18. Jump up^ "The Society for the Supporters of the Bill of Rights
(SSBR)". www.historyhome.co.uk.
19. Jump up^ Rudbeck, Jens (2012). "Popular sovereignty and the historical origin of the
social movement". Theory and Society. 41 (6): 581–601. doi:10.1007/s11186-012-9180-
x.
20. Jump up^ Brayley, Edward Wedlake; James Norris Brewer; Joseph Nightingale
(1810). London and Middlesex. Printed by W. Wilson, for Vernor, Hood, and Sharpe.
21. Jump up^ "Lord George Gordon". Retrieved 2009-07-25.
22. Jump up^ Horn, David Bayne; Mary Ransome (1996). English Historical Documents
1714-1783. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-14372-1.
23. Jump up^ Joanna Innes (8 October 2009). Inferior Politics:Social Problems and Social
Policies in Eighteenth-Century Britain. Oxford University Press. p. 446. ISBN 978-0-19-
160677-9. Retrieved 15 September 2013.
24. Jump up^ Eugene Charlton Black (1963). The Association British Extra Parliamentary
Political Organization, 1769-1793. Harvard University Press. p. 279.
25. Jump up^ "Chartism: the birth of mass working class resistance". Retrieved 2012-12-
17.
26. Jump up^ Tilly, 2004, p.5
27. Jump up^ Westd, David (2004). "New Social Movements". Handbook of Political
Theory.
28. Jump up^ 1973-, Popovic, Srdja,. Blueprint for revolution : how to use rice pudding,
Lego men, and other nonviolent techniques to galvanize communities, overthrow
 dictators, or simply change the world. Miller, Matthew I., 1979- (First ed.). New
York. ISBN 9780812995305. OCLC 878500820.
29. Jump up^ Tina., Rosenberg, (2011). Join the club : how peer pressure can transform
the world (1st ed.). New York: W.W. Norton &
Co. ISBN 9780393068580. OCLC 601108086.
30. Jump up^ Aberle, David F. 1966. The Peyote Religion among the Navaho. Chicago:
Aldine. ISBN 0-8061-2382-6
31. Jump up^ Roberts, Adam and Timothy Garton Ash (eds.), Civil Resistance and Power
Politics: The Experience of Non-violent Action from Gandhi to the
Present Archived 2014-11-15 at Archive-It, Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2009. ISBN 978-0-19-955201-6, contains chapters on these and many other social
movements using non-violent methods.[1]
32. Jump up^ Snow, David A., Sarah Anne Soule, Hanspeter Kriesi. The Blackwell
companion to social movements. Wiley-Blackwell. 2004. ISBN 0-631-22669-9 Google
Print, p.4
33. Jump up^ Graph based on Blumer, Herbert G. 1969. "Collective Behavior." In Alfred
McClung Lee, ed., Principles of Sociology. Third Edition. New York: Barnes & Noble
Books, pp. 65-121; Mauss, Armand L. 1975. Social Problems as Social Movements.
Philadelphia: Lippincott; and Tilly, Charles. 1978. From Mobilization to Revolution.
Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1978.
34. Jump up^ Morrison 1978
35. Jump up^ Jenkins and Perrow 1977
36. Jump up^ Kornhauser 1959
37. Jump up^ Smelser 1962
38. ^ Jump up to:a b McCarthy, John; Zald, Mayer N. (May 1977). "Resource Mobilization
and Social Movements: a Partial Theory". American Journal of Sociology. 82 (6): 1212–
1241. doi:10.1086/226464.
39. Jump up^ Turner, L.; Killian, R. N. (1972). Collective Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, N.J:
Prentice-Hall. p. 251.
40. Jump up^ Gamson, William A. (June 1974). "The Limits of Pluralism" (PDF). CRSO
working papers (102): 12. Retrieved 12 April 2015.
41. Jump up^ Ryan and Gamson 2006, p.14
42. Jump up^ Ryan and Gamson 2006
43. Jump up^ Ope;, J.A.M. (1999). "From the Streets to the Internet: The Cyber-Diffusion
of Contention". Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 566:
132–143. doi:10.1177/0002716299566001011.
44. Jump up^ Eaton, M. (2010). "Manufacturing Community in an Online Activity
Organization: The Rhetoric of MoveOn.org's E-mails". Information, Communication and
Society. 13 (2): 174–192. doi:10.1080/13691180902890125.
45. Jump up^ Obar, J.A.; Zube, P.; Lampe, C. (2012). "Advocacy 2.0: An analysis of how
advocacy groups in the United States perceive and use social media as tools for
facilitating civic engagement and collective action". Journal of Information Policy. 2: 1–
25. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1956352. SSRN 1956352  .
46. Jump up^ Shirky, Clay. Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without
Organizations. Penguin Press HC, The, 2008. Print.

Further reading