Figure 3: The four roles of social movements in relation to the eight stages of social movements (Created by Tom Atlee)

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 9 из 11Следующая ⇒

STEADY STATE I BUILD-UP OF STRESS IN THE SYSTEM

THE EIGHT STAGES OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS 85

superpower status. The public had to be convinced that those things were either not going to happen or that there were acceptable alternatives to nuclear power.

Conclusion

There is no end. There is only the continuing cycle of social movements and their sub-issues and sub-movements. The process of winning one set of demands creates new levels of citizen awareness, involvement, and empowerment that gen­ erate new demands and movements on new issues. This process requires each role of activism and is why, although some roles are more prominent in some stages, all the roles are necessary and important (see Figure 3).

The long-term impact of social movements is more important than their immediate material successes. The 1960s civil rights movement, for example, not only achieved a broad array of immediate rights, but also created a new positive image of blacks among themselves and in the eyes of the rest of society. It estab­ lished nonviolent action as a method for achieving people power and inspired new social movements around the world, including the student, women, and anti- Vietnam War movements.

Finally, people’s social movements advance the world further along the path of meeting the spiritual, material, psychological, social, and political needs of humanity. Regardless of the material results, mere involvement can contribute to peoples personal fulfillment. The emerging people power movements around the

SEEN AS A GENERAL PROBLEM RESOLUTION

86 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

world today might well be transforming themselves and the planet from the present era of superpowers, materialism, environmental breakdown, disenfran­ chisement, abject poverty amidst opulence, and militarism to a new, more human era of democracy, freedom, justice, self-determination, human rights, peaceful coexistence, and ecological sustainability.

4 Believing in the Power of Social Movements

In order to be effective agents of social change, activists must first be open to the possibility that they are powerful and that their social movement might be progressing along the road to success. Even though grassroots activists and their social movements have been powerful and often successful throughout history, most activists still believe that they are powerless and feel that their movement is ineffective and failing. These beliefs and feelings can become self- fulfilling prophesies that create a chain reaction of hopelessness, low energy, depression, burnout, dropout, declining numbers of new participants, and dis­ astrous strategies and tactics, born out of desperation, that ensure the movement’s decline.

To achieve their full effectiveness, activists must avoid the powerlessness trap and believe in their own power and the power and successes of nonviolent social movements. They need to recognize, accept, and celebrate the progress and victo­ ries of their social movement as it travels the long road to success.

Three Unrealistic Beliefs — And How to Overcome Them

There are three ways that activists substantiate their belief that they are powerless and their social movement is a failure: “logical” reasons, buying into the social movements “culture of failure” and an aversion to success.

Overcoming "logical reasons" for believing in movement failure

Activists at MAP workshops offer many reasons for believing that their movement is failing. Here are the most common reasons — along with an alternative per­ spective. While all of these may indeed be true if a movement is failing, they can also be true when movements are progressing along the road toward ultimate

88 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

success. Consequently, by themselves they are false indicators of whether a social movement is failing or succeeding.

Reason 1. “Nothing has changed. The movement is merely ‘treading water.’” After years of effort, activists might see little or no real change in the poli­ cies or practices of the powerholders or in the intolerable conditions that they oppose. The continuation of racism, sexism, corporate control, poverty in the midst of plenty, and environmental destruction seems to validate their feelings.

Response: Social change takes a long time. The status quo is deeply ingrained in the policies and interests of the official powerholders and is, initially, supported by a majority of the population.1 It usually takes many years or decades -tn build up the social awareness and public conviction necessary to induce change. Because the powerholders will be among the last to change their minds and poli­ cies, their actions are a poor basis for judging how well the movement is doing.

Reason 2. “The powerholders are too powerful and will never listen to us.” They pay no attention to either the movement or the public, even though the majority of public opinion may oppose current policies. The movement is like a mosquito attacking an elephant. Yes, movements have been successful before, but those were different times, and their issues were not as central to the powerhold- ers’ greed and privileged position as is our issue.

Response: The powerholders’ strategy is to officially appear as though they are not being swayed by opposing social movements and public opinion. For example, President Nixon publicly claimed to be paying no attention to the anti- Vietnam War movement, even pretending that he was watching a football game on television during one of the big demonstrations in 1969. But after the war we learned that he backed down on many war plans - such as direct assaults on dikes in North Vietnam, which would have flooded much of the country, and the use of nuclear bombs — because of the anti-war movement.

Reason 3. “The movement is always reactive, not pro-active.” The move­ ment only does crisis management, merely reacting to the latest crisis rather than taking the initiative for positive change. The powerholders are totally in charge of the process.

Response: The dynamic struggle between social movements and power- holders is often like a chess match, in which both sides keep reacting to events and to the moves of each other in their effort to win the confidence of the public. Many activists only see one side of this give-and-take — the reactions of the movement. It is more accurate to perceive the whole interplay of both sides, including the reactive crisis management actions of the powerholders.

Reason 4. “The movement is not getting anywhere because it is focusing on an endless series of issues. Why doesn’t everyone all work on the same issue?” The movement jumps from opposing one issue to another — nuclear testing,

BELIEVING IN THE POWER OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS 89

logging old-growth forests, immigration restrictions, corporate globalization, and so forth.

Response: There are many critical problems that need to be addressed immediately, so there needs to be many different social movements. Within each social problem there are many sub-issues that need to be simultaneously addressed, and more sub-issues are continually revealed. Different people and groups need to address the issues that tney are most concerned about and that are closest to their lives and interests, as this is what gives them and the move­ ment the energy for the enormous amounts of volunteer time and action regjxijed.

In addition, a large, centralized movement would inevitably get bogged down in bureaucracy and in-fighting over control. A hierarchy would develop that would sap the energy of the grassroots. It’s better to have many local grassroots groups that are independent but voluntarily cooperate with each other, forming coalitions and organizing joint activities as needed. Moreover, such a decentral­ ized style of movement organization is harder for powerholders and other self-interested groups to infiltrate and undermine.

Reason 5. “The experts, media commentators, TV, newspapers, and powerholders all say the movement is failing.” Nowhere do we hear that the movement is powerful and succeeding.

Response: A mainstream “expert” is extremely capable of explaining the powerholders’ position and justifying the status quo. The role of official analysts — such as government, academic, and mainstream media spokespeople — is also to explain that the powerholders are doing the best they possibly can and that opposition movement groups are illegitimate, nonexistent, communist or anar­ chist, violent, powerless, misguided, and foiling. Activists need to be keenly aware of what the mainstream^ experts are saying in order to look for the kernel of truth and to be able to counter the propaganda being given to the public, but they should also make sure they do not raH lor the powerholders’ perspective.

Reason 6. “The movement is dead.” After several years of intense energy, excitement, high hopes, media attention, and big demonstrations and meetings, many activists believe that their movement has dissipated into a state of low energy, hopelessness, cynicism, and despair. There are fewer people at demonstra­ tions, the same few people attend meetings and lead different groups, there is little media coverage, and key people are lost to burnout or to newer, more exciting issues. How can we revive the movement and again have giant demonstrations and constant front-page coverage?

Response: When social movements progress from the take-off stage to the majority public opinion stage, many people believe that the movement has died. In the take-off stage there are big demonstrations and.jal.lie&, lots of media

90 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

attention, a crisis atmosphere, high energy, and lots of excitement and expecta­ tion for immediate change. But the majority public opinion stage is more low-key and extends over many years, normally with fewer people at demonstrations and local meetings and with less flamboyant media attention. It reflects the change from the rebel role ofStage Four to the chgjige agent role of Stage Six._

While it appears that the movement is waning, in reality it has grown tremendously by winning a majority public opinion and spreading throughout society s^rassroots. The enormouramountoFnew local activity receives much less national media attention, and the hard political struggles using mainstream chan­ nels are for less exciting. The movement is only “dead” if one judges it using the criteria of take-off in Stage Four. To determine how well a majority movement is doing, you have to recognize the progress of the movement through the eight stages and judge it by the criteria of the appropriate stage.

Reason 7. “Any successes’ that might have occurred were accomplished by events and powerful forces outside the movement.” It was the Vietnamese who won the war, Reagan and Gorbachev who signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty that ended the deployment of land-based cruise and Pershing 2 missiles in Europe, and the French government decided on its own to stop nuclear tests in the Pacific and halt the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI).

Response: Most positive developments that are related to social movement issues are connected in some way to the movements actions. For example, the last thing on Ronald Reagan’s mind during his 1980 election campaign was to make a deal with the Soviet Union; his campaign was based on building ever more nuclear weapons to “save the free world” from the “evil empire.” Seven years later, after the new anti-nuclear weapons movement in the United States and Europe won over a great majority of people, Gorbachev was favored over Reagan in West German polls by 80 percent. Only .then did Reagan decide to walk with his arm around “Darth Vader” in Moscow’s Red Square and sign a nuclear weapons treaty. Because movements usually neither recognize nor claim their own successes, they allow the powerholders to claim the successes for themselves. Even move­ ment activists and groups often credit these successes to the powerholders. In 1988, the peace organization Beyond War gave its peace prize to Reagan and Gorbachev for the INF treaty, instead of giving it to the Western peace move­ ments that really made it all happen. (This was rectified the following year, when the prize was given to local peace activists.)

Reason 8. “The movement has not achieved its (long-range) goals.” Corporate globalization continues to expand, the United States still supports dic­ tators, welfare reform has hurt women and children, and the rain forests are still being cut.

BELIEVING IN THE POWER OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS 91

Response: Again, social movements take many years and need to be evalu­ ated by how well they are progressing along the normal path of success, not by whether they have achieved their ultimate goal. The expansion of the movement to deal with new and larger purposes and goals is part o f the process o f social change. During that process, activists learn about problems that were unknown to them at the beginning of the movement and keep moving the goal posts farther away.

Reason 9. “The movement has not achieved any real victories.” Most of the so-called victories were “phantom” successes, because they were replaced by new conditions or policies as bad as, or worse than, the old. For example, the inva­ sion of Nicaragua was stopped, but the low-intensity warfare of the Contras began; atmospheric nuclear testing was stopped, only to be replaced by under­ ground and then computerized testing; the MAI was stopped, but the World Trade Organization continues, and so forth.

Response: Given their proclivity to believe in failure and powerlessness, combined with the lack of a clear model of what the road to success looks like, activists have great difficulty identifying any short-range successes. Many polit- ical scientists report that the most significant step in social change is putting an

i- )n the social and political agendas and then keeping it there.2 Yet move­

f ments never count this as a significant accomplishment. As they achieve short-term goals — like stopping a United States invasion of Nicaragua, bringing the U.S troops home from Vietnam, or ending French nuclear testing in the Pacific — movements see the policies they fought against replaced by other more .devastating policies. T hey may even see the changes as ploys by the government to undercut the movement. Viewed from the standpoint of the Movement Action Plan eight stages, however, in each case mentioned the powerholders were forced to adopt new policies that weakened their position and were more difficult for them to carry out in the long run.

Overcoming the "culture of failure"

All groups, whether they are organizations or nations, have a collective set of assumptions about reality that is, to some degree, shared by most of their members anrl repressed in beliefs, values, attitudes, and behavior. Together, these compose the culture of a group, which is deeply rooted, generally unconscious, and rarely ____ examined as to its validity and usefulness. Moreover, this culture sets narrow stan­ dards for acceptable thinking and behavior - in social movements this is sometimes called “political correctness.”

The culture of social movements often includes a sense of powerlessness, despair, and failure that is consistent with - and sometimes produces - the “logical reasons” for believing that the movement is failing. The following are some of the common symptoms of social activism’s culture of failure, with solutions.

92 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

Symptom 1. A focus on tactics that are isolated from a larger strategic context. The movement’s activities are primarily seen as isolated activities, pro­ grams, and campaigns that are militant or fill up a calendar of events, but are unrelated to a long-range strategy for achieving the medium- and long-term goals of the movement. Over time, many participants despair because they cannot make any connection between their day-to-day efforts and achieving the larger goals they seek.

Solution: Placing the various movement activities within a strategic frame­ work, such as the MAP Eight Stages and Four Roles Models, easily rectifies this. The issue can then be viewed in a larger context and the activities and events planned according to the guidelines suggested by the strategic model.

Symptom 2. The movements analyses emphasize the problem, while excluding an analysis of the process of movement success. A movements decon- structive analysis normally produces an ever-increasing and overwhelming abundance of evidence that the situation is bad and getting worse. It points out how deeply official powerholders and institutions are involved in corruption and lies, how powerful the powerholders really are, and how many people are being hurt or even killed. Producing deconstructive information and analysis about the gravity of a situation is an important strength of social movements; people need reliable information in order to act and make changes. However, a continuous barrage of devastating facts, with no way out, tends to sink people into despair, cynicism, inaction, and ineffective acts of desperation.

Solution: The focus on the problems can be balanced by including recon­ structive analysis. Movement strategists and trainers need to include, as a standard part of social movements, rh<> identificarinn of specific objectives and a - vision of the alternatives along the way. These milestones show how the move­ ment is progressing along the normal path that successful social movements take in achieving their long-term goals.

Symptom 3. Over-emphasizing resistance and protest. Protest and dissent are critical aspects of social movements. However, over time, protest and resist­ ance against the powerholders become wearing and can produce increased anger, burnout, and even self-defeating militaristic activities. Such movements increas­ ingly attract “negative rebels,” and that negative energy keeps more emotionally and politically mature people from joining, even when they would like to be active on a particular social issue.

Solution: In every social movement, the much-needed role of rebel, and its methods of protest and resistance, needs to be balanced with the roles of citizen, change agent, and reformer, as described in Chapter 2. Additionally, the day-to- day efforts of all these roles need to be seen within the eight-stage process for movement success and consciously acknowledged as being supportive o f each other.

BELIEVING IN THE POWER OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS 93

Symptom 4. An emphasis on guilt, rather than conscience, as the primary motivation for activists. A focus on how bad the situation is often implies how bad we are; we see ourselves as a major part o f the problem. We let it happen, con­ tribute to it, or benefit from it. In this way the movement increases feelings of guilt, which can trigger defensive responses of denial, anger, or internalized hatred directed at powerholders or other activists, or can trigger attempts to prove our innocence or goodness through a variety of ineffective or ultimately destructive attitudes and activities.

Solution: It is better to appeal to conscience than guilt. Asking people to act as guided by their conscience challenges them to express their highest values and principles. Acting from our inner spirit brings forth our true nature of caring, compassion, and connection with all people and the planet. This creates hope and positive energy that has staying power and attracts, rather than rejects, others. For example, when Nelson Mandela got out of jail, rather than condemning all whites for the evils of apartheid, he implored all blacks and whites to work together toward a nonracial society.

Symptom 5. Nostalgia for glorious past eras and movements, symbolized by the 1960s. Activists often express the wish that they were involved in the great movements of the past, such as the anti-Vietnam war and the civil rights move­ ments of the 1960s. By comparison, their own movement seems low-key, confusing, undramatic, and ineffective.

Solution: What todays activists don’t realize is that those past movements were quite similar to those of today and that activists, by and large, frit the same way then as activists today. For the first three years and the last four years of the anti-Vietnam war movement, activists felt powerless and depressed. From 1972 to the end of the war in 1975 (immediately following the high-energy years of 1967 to 1971), ever-fewer people attended demonstrations and the war raged as the killing and bombing increased. It seemed that the decade of movement opposition and the majority of public opinion against the war that the movement created were having no effect on the governments war policy. But after the war, much of the credit (and the blame) for the war ending was given to the anti-Vietnam war movement.

Ironically, in many ways conditions are more favorable for activists and social movements today than in the 1960s. Indeed, there are more and bigger movements, tens of thousands of ongoing groups working on social problems, a much more developed political and economic analysis, and a more favorable social and politi­ cal climate for social change — due, in large part, to the legacy of past movements.

Overcoming the aversion to success

Particularly devastating symptoms of social activism’s culture of failure are the attitudes and behaviors by which activists avoid movement success — success

94 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

often seems to be unwanted, feared, and averted. Activists constantly snatch failure from the jaws of success. Some common examples of aversion to success - and the necessary attitude adjustments - follow.

Aversive attitude 1. Believing that the movement is failing because it has not won yet. After months or years of effort, activists often claim that their movement is failing because it has not achieved its ultimate goal, whether it is stopping the nuclear arms race, corporate globalization, domestic violence, or nuclear energy. They are unable to acknowledge any of their movements short­ term successes.

Attitude adjustment: Recognize that this line of reasoning is illogical and not used to judge other endeavors. Performance is normally judged by whether we are making satisfactory progress toward achieving a goal, not by whether we have already achieved it. Parents, for example, do not condemn their daughter for not graduating after the first year at university because they know it’s a four-year process. Activists who judge that their movement is failing because it has not yet achieved its goal, even if it is highly successful in other ways, would continue to view it as a failure right up until it finally succeeds.

Aversive attitude 2. Discounting the accomplishment of previously impor­ tant goals. To solve serious social problems, social movements set goals that could reasonably be expected to take five to ten years to accomplish. However, during the course of social activism, even more serious problems are discovered, and new goals that supplant the earlier goals are set every two or three years. When the older goals are achieved, they are now considered unimportant and are rarely cel­ ebrated or even recognized as successes. This not only denies activists the feeling of empowerment and success, but further demoralizes them and contributes to feelings of powerlessness and despair.

For example, in 1982, stopping deployment of the cruise and Pershing 2 nuclear missiles in Europe was the American peace movements top goal. At the time, this goal seemed crucial, yet difficult to accomplish. Over the next few years, the movement adopted even bigger goals that were considered more important, including a freeze on building all nuclear weapons. When Reagan and Gorbachev signed the INF Treaty in 1986, ending the deployment of cruise and Pershing 2 nuclear missiles in Europe, the American movement hardly noticed. The follow­ ing day, one activist at the Nuclear Freeze office in San Francisco said to me, “What is there to celebrate? They are building five nuclear bombs a day!”

Attitude adjustment: Recognize the importance, power and success of the movement whenever it achieves any of its goals, including those that have been \ pursued for several years. Expect that it will take five to ten years to achieve social \ movement goals, and celebrate when they are achieved. This requires a willingness

to go against activist cultural reluctance to identify and celebrate victories.

BELIEVING IN THE POWER OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS 95

Aversive attitude 3. Animosity towards success. Activists commonly get upset, even angry, when told that their movement is winning,3 but they become quite agreeable and friendly when told of new alarming facts about the grievous situation that they oppose. It is quite acceptable in movement circles to talk about the latest devastating environmental statistics, atrocities by dictators, or dastardly acts of the president, the CIA, or the World Trade Organization. But statements of movement power and success often draw emotionally laden protests and angry denials.

Attitude adjustment: Activists need to cultivate a sense of appreciation for^ the efforts of everyone — activists, citizens, and powerholders who change their policies.

Aversive attitude 4. Adopting the role o f the victim. Many activists seem to have a psychological need to play the role of the victim: the powerless underdog who is helping other powerless victims: “poor me, poor them, poor planet.” At the same time, they can adopt the role of world rescuer, the self-righteous moral hero who alone is working to save the world against all odds; This emotional need to be the powerless victim, underdog, or lone hero is a result of constantly facing major disasters and all-powerful powerholders. It is a form of co-dependency. If a problem is solved or a victory is won over the powerholders, then the activist loses his or her role of powerless victim, underdog, or lone hero. To maintain their self-image, therefore, these activists often unconsciously talk and act in ways that undercut pos­ itive and effective strategies and activities that might achieve movement success.

Attitude adjustment: To be effective, activists need to be committed to self-development and self-empowerment. They need to switch from playing the roles of victim and rescuer to becoming an empowered self who is emotionally, mentally, and physically centered, calm, and fulfilled as a human being.

Avoiding Self-Fulfilling Prophecies

Social movement activists need to be careful not to fall into the all-too-common trap of presuming that they are powerless and their movement is failing. The reasons activists use to support this presumption are poor indicators that a social movement is actually failing. But what is most devastating is that this line of thinking creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.

To a large exrent we create our own reality by the way we interpret existing conditions. Just as we can see a glass that is either half full or half empty, we can see our movement as halfway toward success or half dead. If we believe our move­ ment is failing — whether because of “logical” reasons, because we’ve bought into the culture of failure, or because we have an aversion to success — we can create the following unhealthy movement conditions and possibly produce a self-fulfill­ ing prophecy of failure.

96 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

* Discouragement and despair lead to movement dissipation. Because they believe that their movement is failing and they are powerless, many movement participants and leadership become increasingly discouraged, hopeless, despair­ ing, and burned out. These conditions contribute to a high movement drop­ out rate and to lower levels of energy available to carry out programs. * There is a reduction in recruitment of new members. The depressed state of the movement discourages new people from joining. Groups then sit around as their numbers decline and ask despairingly why there aren’t more people pres­ ent. But who wants to join a group with a negative attitude and low energy, in a state o f collective depression? * Stuck in “protest” mode, activists are less able to work on strategies for achieving positive changes. When activists believe that their movement can­ not achieve change, they are more likely to become stuck in the rebel role of protester and resister, unable to balance this role with strategies and programs to bring about positive change and alternatives. One peace center staff mem­ ber said in a workshop, “I never think about success. I guess I don’t think it is possible.” * Feelings of anger, hostility, and frustration lead to activities, including acts of violence, that turn the public against the movement. Many movement partic­ ipants begin by saying a healthy “no” to unjust conditions, but over time — as they become more informed about just how bad the conditions and power- holders are — they often become frustrated, hopeless, and angry. As they come to believe that their movement activity is having no effect, some turn to acts of desperation, without realizing that such activities hurt the movement by alien­ ating the public. * Activists are unable to acknowledge and take credit for successes. By believing their movement is powerless and failing, activists are less able to either recog­ nize successes when they actually happen or give the movement credit for them. Instead, they allow powerholders to take credit for movement success. Obviously this deprives them of a major source of energy, enthusiasm, empow­ erment, and hope for the future.

Adopt a Realistic View o f Power and Success

You might be more powerful than you know. Your social movement might well be succeeding. Most activists in most past social movements — including those that are now recognized as being extremely powerful and successftd — believed at the time that their movement was foiling. How do you know that you are not having a similar experience? This might be what success looks like and feels like. Your movement might be the most successful in decades. How do you know that it isn’t?

BELIEVING IN THE POWER OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS 97

To adopt a realistic view of social movement power and success, activists need to be open to the possibility that they are powerful and their movement is on the path of success. They also need to take the following steps.

Give up the "advantages" of powerlessness and movement failure

In order to adopt a new model of empowerment and success, activists first need to give up the “advantages” of believing that they are powerless and that their movement is failing. Many activists have a clear understanding of the usefulness of their own victim behavior — of believing that they are powerless and their movement is failing — and their fear of their movement succeeding. The follow­ ing are some brainstormed responses by activists to the question: “What are the advantages to believing that your social movement is foiling and you are power­ less regarding the issue that you are concerned about?”

• “Powerlessness allows us to be unaccountable and not responsible for our actions. After all, if we are not going to be effective anyway, we can do whatev­ er we like and it makes no difference.”

• “In success, there is fear of us being co-opted and ment we hate.”^

• “As underdog we have moral superiority. The more oppressed and powerless we are, the more we can appeal to underdog feelings o f self-righteous superiority and support. We can say it is only us, no one else really cares and is acting except us.”

• “Being powerless allows us to avoid changing ourselves or our organization. We can maintain our old identity and be where we are most comfortable psycho­ logically.”

• “I will have to stop even a reformer.”

• “I don’t want the responsibility that goes with being powerful.”

• “I don’t want to grow up and be successful like my parents.”

• “As a woman, I felt the same way when the feminist movement came along — that I was responsible for my situation and that I could change it. It challenged me to act powerfully.”

Be willing to overcome the fear of success and strive for personal and political maturity

Allowing yourself and your movement to be successful requires personal and political maturity. The change from acting on an unrealistic model of failure to a realistic model o f success requires a major emotional and cultural leap. Redefining your view of yourself and your social movement occurs at many levels, including mental, emotional, spiritual, and cultural.

becoming like the establish- m

being the perennial rebel and become a change agent, or

98 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

• Mental. Activists need to change the way that they interpret the information they receive from their experience and consciously decide for themselves whether their movement is failing or progressing. As they give up the psycho- jifys logical “advantages” of the roles of victim and k>i^ hero, they must identify themselves as empowered citizen-activists in a mtmSnent that is creating real social change.

• Emotional. Activists need to make the emotional changes required to transform themselves from victim to empowered citizen-activist. For example, they need _to stop acting with self-righteous pride, anger, or rage. Instead, they need to V focus on their highest values.

• Spiritual. Each activist needs to be committed to the inner journey of self­ knowing and self-acceptance. Awareness and active exploration of the <fefper dimensions of being human give us strength and appreciation of the goodness and potential that resides^within all ofyisanrl our society. Social change has to include deep changes - not only in our society, but also within each activist and movement organization — that are consistent with the goals we seek. Our means of achieving goals are the ends in the making.

Use strategic social movement models, such as MAP

Social change is complex. Activists need to learn about not only their particular issue, but also how it connects with other issues and the larger social condition. Almost every human endeavor is accomplished through a set of instructions or a model. A model provides a framework for analysis and a structure for planning and acting. In Part I of this book I have described the Movement Action Plan, a practical strategic model that helps activists better understand, strategize, and organize social movements. In Part III we use five different social movements as case studies to demonstrate how MAP applies. In the next section, Part II, Mary Lou Finley and Steven Soifer provide a brief history of social movement theories and compare contemporary academic theories to MAP to make a closer connec­ tion between theory and practice.

5 Social Movement Theories and MAP: Beginnings of a Dialogue

M ary Lou Finley an d Steven Soifer

Social movement theory, whether the work o f sociologists or political scientists, has largely been produced from the outside, looking in. In contrast, the Movement Action Plan (MAP) is both a theoretical model and an action guide developed through practice. Both activists and scholars can benefit from bridging the gap between theory and practice. To encourage this exchange of ideas and experience, in this chapter we provide a brief overview of social science theories on social movements, with a focus on contemporary theory. We also identify several key areas where MAP makes a contribution to social movement theory and parallels existing theoretical insights in the sociological literature on social move­ ments from the activist perspective.

This is a dialogue that some sociologists may find heretical. Since the disci­ pline began, there has been a split between scholars and practitioners that has not occurred in some other fields, such as psychology. Mary Jo Deegan, in Jane Addams and the Men o f the Chicago School, attributes the split to the exclusionary practices in the 19th century that kept women sociologists out of academic posi­ tions and led to the development o f a separate field dedicated to practice — social work.1 This split has diminished somewhat in recent years as interest in applied sociology and clinical sociology has increased. However, these changes seem to have had little effect on the field of social movements. Even though some move­ ment scholars have a personal interest in and are supportive of social movements, few scholarly works address both activists and academics.

Social work, on the other hand, generally relies on “practice theory.” Simply defined, practice theory attempts to make sense of a practitioners experience.

TOO

SOCIAL MOVEMENT THEORIES AND MAP: Beginnings of a Dialogue 101

Practice theory proposes that theory is really only useful as it arises from experi­ ence and informs practice. We believe this approach is sorely needed in the social movement literature, and it is exacdy the contribution that MAP makes.

MAP, which originated as a guide to action, is also a developmental, theo­ retical model of social movements. That is, it is a model that presents a theory of the stages of development of movements. It both theorizes aspects of social movements that have received little attention from movement scholars, and elab­ orates some perspectives found already in the literature. The methods that were used to develop MAP are similar to those used in grounded theory, introduced by sociologists Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss in The Discovery o f Grounded Theory.2 Grounded theory is a method of analysis based on an inductive approach to theory building. According to social workers E.R. Babbie and A. Rubin, “Scientific inquiry in practice typically involves an alternation between deduction and induction. During the deductive phase, we reason toward observations; during the inductive phase, we reason from observations. In practice, both deduc­ tion and induction are routes to the construction of social theories.”3

Like grounded theory, MAP takes an inductive approach: observations from Bill Moyers decades of experience in social movements led to his construction of a model based on lived experience. To understand the contribution that MAP makes to social movement theory, we will first review frameworks proposed by past and contemporary theories.

Paradigms in the study o f social movements

In his recent book, The A rt o f M oral Protest, James Jasper points out that each of the major classical schools of thought in social movement theory seems to be inspired by particular social movements:

... nineteenth century urban revolts gave us crowd theories; the Nazis inspired mass society theories; bureaucratized trade unions contributed rational choice models; the civil rights and labor movements yielded the strategic models of political process; the post-1960s cultural movements suggested identity theory [also known as New Social Movements theory]; religious movements were the paradigm for developing frame analysis.4

Jasper argues that each of these paradigms, or perspectives, sheds light on particular aspects of social movements — “what Robert Alford and Roger Freidland refer to as each paradigms ‘home domain” — but represent “partial insights with little opportunity for synthesis.”5 We will discuss each of these major paradigms briefly, as well as three others: a value-added model, resource mobi­ lization theory, and nonviolence theory.

102 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

The Crowd/Collective Behavior Paradigm

This model is based on studies launched by Gustave Le Bon’s The Crowd, pub­ lished in 1895, in which he described crowds as possessing a “collective mind” that enabled participants to carry out collective actions they would never do as individuals. Actions of crowd participants were perceived to be irrational, sponta­ neous, and often destructive.

Social movements were seen as similar phenomena, generally more long­ term and more organized, but similar in nature to crowds, riots, fads, and other forms of collective behavior. These studies saw social movements from a psycho­ logical perspective, which “reduced protest to the release of pent-up frustration.”6

Mass Society Theories

Efforts to explain the rise of fascist totalitarian movements in Europe resulted in the development o f mass society theories.7 Some scholars argued that a lack o f ties to intermediary groups in society (such as churches, unions, clubs, and commu­ nity groups) made citizens vulnerable to “mass behavior” and totalitarian move­ ments.

Value-Added Model

Neil Smelser, in Theory of Collective Behavior, presents a more comprehensive scheme for understanding social movements. He broke with earlier psychological explanations of movements, arguing that collective behavior is basically a social phenomenon and must be understood by looking at the social context as well as the psychology of the participants. He identified what he termed the “determi­ nants of collective behavior” — the conditions under which collective behavior arises — which included the following:

• Structural conduciveness (Does the basic organization of the society make col­ lective behavior a possibility?)

• Structural strain (Is there something wrong?)

• Growth and spread of a generalized belief

• Precipitating factors (A dramatic event that sets things off)

• Mobilization of participants for action

• The operation of social control (Factors that minimize conduciveness or strain or, later, seek to limit the actions of movement participants by police action, injunctions, societal ridicule, and so on).8

While explanations from these early theories were somewhat useful, they gave little attention to the actors in the situation, and activists were still largely viewed as social deviants. It wasn’t until the social movements of the 1960s — the civil rights movement and the anti-Vietnam War movement — that social scientists

SOCIAL MOVEMENT THEORIES AND MAP: Beginnings of a Dialogue 103

began to view things differently. It was no longer plausible to define activists as deviants after listening to Martin Luther King Jr. Movements and their partici­ pants came to be viewed as values-based, organized efforts to address serious social problems through non-traditional political and social channels.

Post-Sixties Theories o f Social Movements

Rational Choice Theorists

In his 1965 book The Logic of Collective Action, Mancur Olson argued that activists joining social movements make a rational choice, based on a kind of “cost-benefit calculation.” Drawing on perspectives from economic theory, he argued that people are motivated by and act on their own self-interest, and that they join social movements based on “selective incentives,” not altruism or concern for the common good. Participants were seen by Olson in a more posi­ tive light, but this perspective stayed focused on the motives of participants and shed little light on what happened in the course of a social movements history.9

Resource Mobilization Theory

Resource mobilization theory shifts the focus away from the motivation of par­ ticipants to the resources that could be engaged by social movements. This perspective suggests that movements occur when participants are able to mobilize sufficient resources — including people, money, media, and information — to influence the political proceiss. Based on the work of Lipsky and others, resource mobilization theory came to dominate the social science literature on social move­ ments during the 1970s and early 1980s and is still a widely used theoretical framework.10

The Political Process Approach

Since the mid-1980s, the political process model, growing out of the work of Charles Tilly, and applied to the U.S. setting by Doug McAdam (in his study of the civil rights movement) and others such as Tarrow, Jenkins, and Perrow, has grown in importance, particularly in the United States. Political process theory has made two major contributions of importance from our perspective. First, it defined social movements as a part of the political process, but a part that oper­ ates at least partially outside political frameworks and institutions as commonly understood.11 Sociologists with this perspective argued that social movements should be considered a part of political sociology and part of a society’s political process, not just as a form of collective behavior. Secondly, political process theory suggests that to understand social movements, we need to look at what Peter Eisinger calls the “structures o f political opportunity” 12 in the surrounding society.

104 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

This recognizes that new opportunities such as new potential allies, splits among the powerholders, new governmental processes, or new “ideological disposi­ tions”1^ those in power are important factors in movement emergence and development.

New Social Movements Theory

New Social Movements theory arose in Europe in the 1980s as a response to move­ ments of the 1970s and 1980s. It is an attempt to explain the many social movements that emerged around womens issues, the environment, and similar concerns. These movements involved primarily middle-class people and were a major break with the worker-based movements, which had long been strong in Europe and had been based on social class differences. The new movements could not easily be explained by the kind of socialist and Marxist analyses that Europeans had typically applied to movements for social change. New Social Movements theory focuses on how culture influences and is influenced by social movements. Furthermore, it explores many of the dimensions of interest in the political process approach, such as political opportunity structure, using these concepts to compare the emergence of differing social movements in different European societies.14

Frame Analysis

In the mid-1980s David Snow, Robert Benford, and their colleagues used Erving Goffmans concept of frame analysis to explain the ways in which social move­ ment activists conceptualize and publicly discuss ideas about social issues. They pointed out the importance of framing the problem and proposed solutions in ways that appeal to the public and motivate others to join the movement.15 Their work suggested that a movement’s success in framing the issues in appealing ways played a major role in its potential for conducting successful actions and winning over the public. This approach to theorizing was particularly important as it focused more attention on the work that activists do to create social movements.

Nonviolence Theory

Nonviolence theory has been developed primarily by practitioners and is not usually acknowledged by sociologists writing about social movements. Influenced by such diverse writers and practitioners as Henry David Thoreau, Leo Tolstoy, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, the essential idea of nonviolence theory is that nonviolent strategies and tactics, practiced by large numbers of people, can create enormous pressure for change and even topple governments. For example, through non-cooperation with state authority and other forms of nonviolent protest, “people power” can put the authorities in a dilemma. Authorities can either negotiate with movement participants and begin a process of resolving the

SOCIAL MOVEMENT THEORIES AND MAP: Beginnings of a Dialogue 105

issue, or they can use violence against demonstrators, which may result in a loss of support for the authorities themselves. Nonviolence is based upon respect for every person, even one’s.opponents, and works by keeping open the relationship with opponents and seeking to convert them.

Gene’s Sharp’s three-volume work The Politics o f Nonviolent Action is still a key articulation of nonviolence theory. He puts forward a theory of political power that focuses on the need for consent of the governed, with the attendant implication that by withdrawing that consent, ordinary people can have a power that they might not expect to have. He lists over 400 methods of nonviolent protest and describes situations in which they have been used, thus providing a catalogue of strategies and tactics for social activists to consider. He also describes, with cogency and insight, the dynamics of nonviolent action in the interaction between the movement and the powerholders, calling nonviolent strategies a kind of political jujitsu.16

There is much in this work that can help activists as they consider different ways to achieve success and think about how to handle the various responses of the authorities to movement demands and actions. However, Sharp doesn’t give us much help in understanding how movements develop over time or the various kinds of work that activists must be prepared to do.

The Movement Action Plan grows out of the practice of nonviolence. It has been influenced by previous thinking and work on nonviolence and can be seen as a contribution to the literature on nonviolence theory.

Key Concepts in Contemporary Social Movement Theory

In the last decade, contemporary social movement theorists have been creating a synthesis that weaves together insights from resource mobilization theory and the political process model, as well as the recent work of European scholars identified with New Social Movement theory. This synthesis uses three dimensions o f social movements as a framework: movement emergence, movement dynamics (includ­ ing movement strategies and tactics, media response, and interaction with the opposition), and movement outcomes. This new synthesis is grounded in the political process model, which means that it is based in an understanding that social movements are a part of the larger political process. These theorists argue that social movements arise when three factors are present: 17

• Political opportunities

• Mobilizing structures

• Framing processes

Political opportunities

Theorists who developed this concept, including Peter Eisinger and Sidney

106 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

Tarrow, point out that a key factor in the emergence of social movements is often a change in the political context in which the movement operates, such as the openness or repressiveness of the government, the nature o f the party in power, or the openness of current elected officials to the movements point of view. For example, in 1989 when the USSR signaled it would no longer use armed force to keep Eastern Europe within the Communist fold, a nonviolent movement in East Germany, which had been building “underground” for some time, mounted massive demonstrations that were successful in bringing a total change of govern­ ment within a few weeks.18

This perspective has been used to help understand the timing of movement emergence, as well as, in comparative studies, to explain why a movement emerged in one place, but not in another with similar attributes. While this has been an illuminating concept, studies of political opportunities tend to focus on system-level structural conditions that may either facilitate or constrain move­ ment activity, but give little emphasis to the activities of movement activists. From this perspective it may sometimes seem as if a movement is inevitable, a view that ignores the fact any movement is an accomplishment brought about by the work of activists. Tarrow’s discussion of political opportunity structures is instructive:

... while they [political opportunities] do not on their own “explain” social movements, they play the strongest role in triggering general episodes of contention in which elites reveal their vulnerability, new social actors and forms of conflict appear, alliances are struck, and repression becomes sluggish or inconsistent ... Some dimensions of opportunity, like state strength or repressiveness, are more permanent than others, but the outbreak of episodes of contention is not based on stable structure alone.19

Mobilizing structures

The means and manner and vehicles through which social movements mobilize participants is another key factor. Research in this area has identified the impor­ tance of pre-existing networks in movement mobilization,20 the complexity of factors affecting the decision to become an activist or remain a “free rider”21(someone who receives benefits without being a member of the organiza­ tion — for example, a labor union — that achieves them) and the contribution of what Aldon Morris calls “movement halfway houses” (training and education centers such as the Highlander Research and Education Center in Tennessee, Peace Action Centers, trade union schools, and Women’s Centers) in developing and training networks of social activists.22 This concept elaborates one of the key

SOCIAL MOVEMENT THEORIES AND MAP: Beginnings of a Dialogue 107

insights of resource mobilization theory, which suggested that movements emerge when they are successful in mobilizing sufficient resources; one major resource is, of course, participants. Studies o f mobilizing structures have shed light on patterns o f recruitment o f participants and investigated motivations o f participants.23 There has, however, been less work on what it takes to retain membership in movement groups over time, although some studies have noted a pattern of discouragement and dropout in many movements.24 MAP addresses this problem specifically.

Framing processes

This refers to the way in which social movements define, or articulate, the issues with which they are concerned. Snow and Benford, who introduced this concept to the social movement literature, propose that movements:

... are actively engaged in the production of meaning for partic­ ipants, antagonists, and observers... They frame or assign mean­ ing to and interpret relevant events and conditions in ways that are intended to mobilize potential adherents and constituents, to garner bystander support, and to demobilize antagonists.25

Doug McAdam argues that the concept of framing is an important correc­ tive to structural theories, which often seem to suggest that movements are inevitable byproducts of certain structural conditions. For example, he points to Martin Luther Kings work in the civil rights movement as a classic example of successful framing: “In his unique blending of familiar Christian themes, con­ ventional democratic theory, and the philosophy of nonviolence, King brought an unusually compelling yet accessible frame to the struggle.”26 McAdam argues that this meaning-making work is a key part of movement activists’ strategy: they must analyze the problem in such a way as to motivate participants and legitimate their efforts in the eyes of the general public.

To these widely used concepts, Tarrow adds three others that he believes are critical to understanding the trajectory of social movements:

• Repertoires of action. Movement activists, at a given place and time, have an array o f strategies and tactics. New tactics or strategies may be invented and then spread, and this invention of new, successful tactics can be an important com­ ponent of movement growth. We suggest, for example, that the massive occu­ pation of the Seabrook, New Hampshire, nuclear power plant site in 1977 by the Clamshell Alliance, which led to the arrest of over 1,400 activists who were jailed in armories all over New Hampshire for two weeks, was such a new tactic for the anti-nuclear power movement. It sparked a series of similar, nonviolent, direct actions at nuclear power plant sites around the U.S. and elsewhere, as well as the proliferation of activist groups with a similar agenda, signified by the use

108 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

of parallel names such as the Abalone Alliance (California), the Crabshell Alliance (Seattle), and the Keystone Alliance (Philadelphia).

• Cycles of contention or protest. Protest activities tend to run in cycles, partic­ ularly as a new strategy or tactic is developed and is copied by other movement groups. This can result in rapid growth of the movement as it spreads to new communities.

• Institutional response. In order to understand the course of a social movement, it is important to study the response of the powerholders, as well as the response of the police and the media.

Lim itations o f contemporary social movement theory

Despite the additional frameworks and concepts proposed by these researchers, most remain focused on the most publicly visible aspects of a movement s work. The central problem is that researchers do not explore the full spectrum of a movement’s activity. To conduct a more complete analysis they would need to look at both movement organizations and their activities and at movement-ori­ ented activities taking place within regular, institutionalized political channels. This would require, as one movement scholar put it: “a degree of methodological syncretism that runs across the grain of the division of labor in contemporary social science.”27 Because most research stays within sharply defined academic dis­ ciplines, such as sociology or political science, it is difficult for researchers to see the depth and breadth of movement activity.

Doug McAdam has offered a critique of the limitations of contemporary social movement theory. After identifying six “strategic hurdles” for social move­ ments, McAdam argues that theorists must examine movement effectiveness in overcoming these hurdles in order to understand movement successes and failures. The strategic hurdles are:28

• Attract new recruits

• Sustain the morale and commitment of current adherents

• Generate media coverage, preferably, but not necessarily, of a favorable sort

• Mobilize the support of various “bystander publics”

• Constrain the social control options of its opponents

• Ultimately shape public policy and state action

In his critique, McAdam says that social movement theory has not paid enough attention to the following issues, which bear on the six strategic hurdles.

• Lack of study of movement dynamics and movement outcomes. While there has been considerable attention to movement emergence issues, there has been comparatively little work on movement dynamics and movement outcomes, which include the last four hurdles on the list. He notes that there has been

SOCIAL MOVEMENT THEORIES AND MAP:

Beginnings of a Dialogue

much work on the first two topics because of the strong theoretical interest in who joins social movements.29 * Too little focus on activities of activists, particularly in framing processes. In studies of the emergence of social movements there has been more emphasis on structural factors (for example, political opportunities structures) that facilitate and constrain movement emergence, and less focus on the actual activities of activists who create social movements. In particular, activist efforts to frame issues in such a way as to build the support of various constituent publics has received little research attention. * Absence of a focus on activists’ work that creates social movements, that is, the agency of activists. McAdam notes that “the everyday activities of move­ ment participants” have been, ironically, “a neglected topic in the study of social movements.” “We know little about the lived experience of activism or the everyday strategic concerns of movement groups” he says.30 Similarly there has been a lack of focus on what Noel Sturgeon calls “direct theory” — the move­ ments own “theorizing through practice.”31 * Insufficient focus on movement actions in the framing process. Social move­ ments convey their framing of an issue to the public in two ways: through public statements and through their public actions. For example, during the civil rights movement, when activists sat in a restaurant and were refused service, it framed the issue of discrimination in public places through a powerfrd public action. In work on framing processes, according to McAdam, there has been too much focus on the verbal and written words of social movements and not enough focus on the way in which the actions themselves frame issues. He discusses what he calls “the framing function of movement tactics” in his work on the civil rights movement, noting, “It was the compelling dramaturgy of Kings tactics rather than his formal pronouncements” that framed these issues for the public.32 * Insufficient attention to non-movement actors. Research has tended to be too movement-centered and has not paid sufficient attention to the other actors in the situation, for example, the government, the media, and other “bystander publics.” To these critiques offered by McAdam, we would like to add two of our own. First, the study of movement outcomes or results is hampered by confusion about the end point of a movement. Many researchers have looked for outcomes at the end of protest cycles and found that the movement often seemed to have little effect at that point. Some have noted depression and despair among activists as a movement “ends.” Others, especially Tarrow, have noted what they consider a peculiar phenomenon: that although the movement is not successful at its con­ clusion, it often turns out that the goals of the movement are mysteriously enacted two to three

years

later, after the movement seems to be over. Tarrow, writing about movement outcomes, says:

110 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

Cycles of contention are a season for sowing, but the reaping is often done in the periods of demobilization that follow, by late­ comers to the cause, by elites and authorities. The response to cycles of contention is often repressive, but even repression is often mixed with reform. Particularly when elites within the sys­ tem see the opportunity to aggrandize themselves in alliance with challengers, rulers are placed in a vulnerable position [to] which reformism is a frequent response.33

Expecting successful outcomes immediately after a protest cycle is unrealis­ tic, as the MAP model shows. Further stages must be allowed to unfurl before one seeks to determine if the movement has been successful. Looking for outcomes at the end of the protest phase can seriously underestimate the impact of social movements.

Second, no comprehensive theory exists that both explains the overall growth process of social movements and provides a framework for understanding the day-to-day dynamics of social movements. As we have noted earlier, most the­ ories focus on particular aspects of the life of social movements, such as factors necessary for the emergence of a movement or the motivations of participants, but do not provide a comprehensive overview. Particularly significant is the tendency for studies to focus on the protest phase of a movement, but not to include in the definition of a social movement what MAP would consider the later phases of the movement. Some theorists, such as Gamson and Tilly, even suggest that “once a social movement begins to succeed by mobilizing a constituency or gaining formal representation, it ceases to be a movement, even if its goal, membership and tactics do not change.”34

Tarrow frames it somewhat differently, as he sees that movements sometimes act like traditional interest groups, lobbying government bodies, but that when this occurs the study of their activities falls within the purview of political scien­ tists. He acknowledges that the limited definition of social movements can be a problem, but notes that it is an artifact of the disciplinary boundaries within the social sciences and is difficult to overcome in scholarly work;35 Ronald Libby, a political scientist writing about ecological movements, notes this same problem of disjuncture between the work of sociologists and political scientists. He describes what he calls “expressive interest groups,” which he identifies as outgrowths of social movements that have the properties of both interest groups - such as money, expertise, and a political agenda — and the properties of social movement organizations, in that they mobilize citizens for social change. He argues that “the final stage of social movement activity — political campaigns by expressive groups — is often omitted from the analysis.”36

SOCIAL MOVEMENT THEORIES AND MAP: Beginnings of a Dialogue 111

These conceptual limitations and the traditional division of labor between the academic disciplines within the social sciences have been obstacles to the emergence of a comprehensive theory within the social sciences.

MAP and Contemporary Social Movement Theory

MAP makes significant contributions to social movement theory, providing:

• a comprehensive theoretical model of social movements;

• a framework for understanding movement outcomes;

• a framework for understanding movement dynamics;

• a focus on the agency of activists, including the differing roles played by activists at various points in the movement’s development;

• an analysis of what is needed to sustain the morale and commitment of activists;

• an analysis of the importance of framing issues in terms of violations of widely held values; and

• an analysis of the potential for social movements to transform society so it becomes more fully based on a vision of compassion and respect, like that put forward by Gandhi and by Martin Luther Kings “beloved community,” and an understanding of how democracy can be a vehicle for that transformation. These are the areas where there has been little previous research and theorizing.

• MAP provides a comprehensive theory of social movements. Bill Moyer defines social movements as “collective actions in which the populace is alert­ ed, educated, and mobilized, sometimes over years and decades, to challenge the power holders and the whole society to redress social problems or grievances and restore critical social values.” The key phrase to note is “over years and decades.” Moyer views the movement as one entity, which uses various types of strategies over the course of its life — which may extend even for decades. The stages themselves are based on the degree of public support for the movement’s goals (see Chapter 3).

MAP incorporates a more extensive definition of social movements than some theorists do, as it includes activities that are both institutionalized, such as lobbying, and non-institutionalized, such as direct action. In contrast, sociologists interested in protest tend to study Stage Four (and perhaps the stages leading up to it), while political scientists tend to study lobbying efforts, which are more typ­ ically Stage Six activities.

As we noted above, early social movement theorists were concerned partic­ ularly with the collective action aspects of social movements and identified movements as a type of collective behavior. Even recent theorists, such as Tarrow, seem wedded to this perspective. He writes about movements as “contentious pol­ itics” and focuses on the collective action. While much other research describes

112 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

only one aspect or component of a movements lifespan, the MAP Eight Stages Model provides a picture of “the whole elephant.” This is a crucial matter when it comes to understanding movement outcomes.

MAP gives a framework for understanding movement outcomes. MAP makes an important contribution to understanding movement outcomes. By defining social movements as encompassing much more than the direct action /contentious politics stage, it suggests that we must examine movement outcomes not at the end of the direct action phase (or cycle of contention, to use Tarrows term), but at a later point in the process, as the issues make their way through leg­ islative bodies or other decision-making bodies of the powerholders. When a movement has gained the support of a majority of the populace, activists can then effectively use institutionalized channels to bring about change, though at this point the movement may look more like an interest group participating in lobby­ ing than a protest group. The Eight Stages Model makes it clear that this is all part of the movements history and is to be expected in a successful movement. It pro­ vides an alternative frame to Tarrows description of cycles of contention as the “season for sowing,” with the reaping occurring later by “elites and authorities.”37 MAP gives a framework for understanding movement dynamics. MAP addresses many key areas o f movement dynamics. The central thrust o f the model is that appropriate tactics and strategy will vary depending on the stage of the movement. For example, in MAP Stage Two, activists need to develop strategies and tactics appropriate to Stage Two goals: working through existing channels and proving the failure of official institutions. The civil rights movement filed lawsuits and attempted to bring change through the courts; the anti-nuclear power move­ ment made presentations at public hearings sponsored by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; the womens movement, protesting society’s treatment of rape victims, attempted to get local hospitals to serve rape victims more effectively and to get the courts to prosecute suspected rapists.

MAP also sees movements in terms of non-movement players — such as media, opposition, general public, government, and powerholders — and specific target sub-groups o f the populace. It also suggests what activists must accomplish in order to be successful in the chess game of moves and countermoves between the movement and the powerholders for support of the public over time.

MAP places a focus on the agency of activists, including the differing roles played by activists at various points in a movement’s development. The agency of activists is central to the MAP framework; the Eight Stages Model is intended to serve as an activist’s guide for decision-making and for devising tactics and strategies. It addresses matters that are of great concern to those who are invent­ ing and constructing social movements. There is a clear focus on, in McAdams terms, “the everyday activities of movement participants.”38

SOCIAL MOVEMENT THEORIES AND MAP: Beginnings of a Dialogue 113

MAP analyzes how to sustain the morale and commitment of activists. A premise underlying MAP is that the morale and commitment of activists is strengthened when they have an understanding of the larger framework of social movements. Activists are nurtured by understanding the need for long-term work, the benefit of changing tactics and strategy depending on movement stage, and, perhaps most importantly, that “victory” is seldom won at the time of movement take-off. Sustained action of varying types is still required for a movement to be ultimately successful. Activists need to understand that protest is in the middle of a long-term process, with important actions also required both prior to and after the protest stage.

Researchers have identified a particular morale problem that often emerges after major protest activities. James Downton and Paul Wehr note that movement activists think they are foiling and get discouraged. John Lofland writes about the soar and slump of polite protest.39 MAP describes why demoralization emerges and what needs to be done by activists to avoid remaining in this state. In partic­ ular, activists playing the “rebel” role may become burned out at the end of the Stage Four take-off. The MAP models Stage Five, “Perception of Failure,” fits with the observation of these other theorists (see the Stage 5 discussion in Chapter 3).

In MAP, Moyer proposes that depression and drops in morale occur when activists do not have sufficient understanding of the long-term process of social movement success. They may also have difficulty switching from protest to the different actions required for mobilizing the general public to act (see the discus­ sion on the four roles of activists in Chapter 2). MAP makes it clear that it is a major strategic mistake to try to win during the movement take-off stage.

MAP shows the importance of framing issues in terms of violations of widely held values. An important component of the power of social movements lies in activists’ ability to show how powerholder policies violate widely held values such as freedom, democracy, the right to vote, fair treatment, sustainabil­ ity, preservation o f the environment for the next generation, equality, justice. The public can be aroused and will be supportive of movement goals when a move­ ment shows that these cherished beliefs are being violated. For example, activists on both sides of the abortion issue have struggled for a framing that would provide them with the strongest public support. Anti-abortion activists have organized under the slogan “the right to life,” while those supporting women’s right to have an abortion have articulated their position as “womens right to choose.” MAP articulates how the power of a social movement comes from such an aroused public, concerned about the violation of its cherished values.

MAP emphasizes the role of social movements to transform society to a more compassionate community, and the use of democracy as a vehicle for that change. MAP shares a Gandhian, Kingian vision that there is a basic urge in the

114 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

universe for connection to one another, for compassion, for the building of “the good society,” “the beloved community.” Social movements can be a vehicle for that transformation, and democracy, in its broadest sense, can be a vehicle for accomplishing that. In this sense, MAP differs from more traditional academic frameworks, which generally do not take a strong value position. However, it is consistent with academic work in areas such as women’s studies and African American studies, which do have an explicit values base.

MAP encourages the social construction of meaning. It has been argued by Alberto Melucci and others that one of the important tasks of social movements is to construct meaning for social movement activists themselves.40 MAP has played a role in this work for over 20 years. Since it was first presented to activists in the anti-nuclear power movement in 1977, MAP has lived a life within social movements for peace and justice, serving as a training tool for nonviolent activists. In its function as a training tool for movement activists MAP helps activists examine the meaning of their movement experience. It has provided a context — a longer time frame, a definition of the tasks of social movements, a description of specific roles activists can play, and a theoretical model that makes sense of the movement s unfolding — that is more empowering and which places setbacks in a larger picture. Activists’ ability to define and understand their situa­ tion has an impact on their ability to remain involved in and enthusiastic about a social movement, and this in turn affects the sustainability of their movement.

Conclusion

MAP provides a comprehensive theory that addresses many key aspects of social movements. The Eight Stages Model is a framework for understanding strategies, tactics, and other aspects of movement dynamics, as well as a framework for understanding movement outcomes or results. MAP helps to illuminate the work activists do in the creation of social movements and shows how that work must be adapted and modified as the movement gains more popular support (and thus moves from one stage to the next, in MAP terms). It addresses questions of the self-confidence and commitment of activists by identifying pitfalls that can cause morale problems if not sufficiently dealt with by the movement. Finally, MAP goes beyond the usual terrain of social movement theorizing to argue that social movements can be vehicles for revitalizing our democracies, calling us back to our most cherished values and transforming our societies into more compassionate and sustainable communities.

We hope that MAP contributes to the dialogue between scholars and activists, providing theoretical insights grounded in the practice of social movement activists. It would be good if we, as activist scholars and scholar activists, can find ways to work together toward the social transformations our societies so desperately need.

Познавательные статьи:



Где возникла философия и почему?

Относительная высота сжатой зоны бетона

Сущность проекции Гаусса-Крюгера и использование ее в геодезии

Тарифы на перевозку пассажиров