Figure 1: Number of Nuclear Reactors in the United States — Planned, Operating, and Under Construction (1960-1999)

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 10 из 11Следующая ⇒

seipnjs

III W6

The U.S. Civil Rights Movement

BiU Moyer1

T he U.S. civil rights movement of the 1960s succeeded in achieving most of its goals and inspired a wave of nonviolent social movements around the world. The movement’s goal was to gain for African Americans those rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill o f Rights, and which, therefore, could be contested in the court system. Obviously, securing those rights is only one part of the larger effort to achieve full freedom and opportunity for blacks equal to that o f white Americans.

It was as a participant in the civil rights movement that I first began to think about the process of social movements. This experience provided a model for the development of the MAP four roles of activism and eight stages of successful social movements.

Stage One: Normal Times (1940-1953)

During this period, the southern United States was a bastion of racism. Schools, public accommodations, jobs, housing, and political participation were segre­ gated. Although racism thrived throughout the country, “Jim Crow” was the name given to the legal edifice of total racism that existed in the South and was openly advocated and enforced by the dominant white culture at all levels of local and state government and by social, economic, and religious institutions. It was backed up by strong social sanctions that included loss of employment, physical violence, and murder.

Mainstream America accepted this blatant violation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as the “Southern Way of Life.” Neither the Democratic nor Republican parties considered this American-style apartheid a social problem or political issue. In 1938, for example, after over 100 Negro lynchings had occurred in that decade, Congress failed to pass an anti-lynching bill.

THE U.S. CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT 11 7

Clearly, even the most severe social problems, by themselves, do not cause a positive institutional response.

However, during this Stage One period, a number of movement activities emerged that achieved some specific changes and set the stage for future events. For example, in 1941, A. Philip Randolph threatened a massive black march on Washington to protest job discrimination and the segregation of the military. Fearing it would split the country and encourage the enemy in time of war, President Roosevelt issued an executive order to end discrimination in defense industry jobs and established the Fair Employment Commission. Although some blacks were employed, the Commission was ineffective. This was the first time that the tactic of threatening a mass demonstration was successfully used at the national level, and it served as a precedent for the future movement.

In 1942, members of the pacifist organization Fellowship of Reconciliation (FOR), including staffers James Farmer and Bayard Rustin, used Gandhi’s method of nonviolent direct action, holding small “sit-ins” to successfully deseg­ regate several restaurants in Chicago. Similar action groups formed in a few other northern cities, resulting in the formation of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) in 1943- For the next decade, CORE’S small-scale, localized, direct action activities helped to reduce blatant segregation in public accommodations in the North.

In 1946, Jackie Robinson and the Brooklyn Dodgers integrated baseball.2 The following year, CORE organized the Journey of Reconciliation in which an interracial group violated segregation laws by traveling in buses to the South, serving as a model for later “freedom rides.” In 1948, President Truman integrated the U.S. military. There were two main reasons for this. Military integration was a small step to end the blatant contradiction of so many blacks fighting and dying in World War II to preserve democracy and freedom that they were not granted at home. As well, it improved the U.S. image in the eyes of the black African colonies, many of which became nations immediately following the war. The U.S. and the rest of the “free world” needed to win these new nations to their sphere of influence in the Cold War with the U.S.S.R. and the Eastern Bloc nations.

None of these efforts precipitated a civil rights movement or a flurry of addi­ tional challenges to racism in other areas, because they were not grounded in a grassroots struggle. However, beginning in the 1930s, a cadre of black lawyers had affiliated with Howard Law School and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (eventually named the NAACP Legal Defense Fund) and developed a legal strategy for integrating public schools in the South. The group ultimately consolidated its many school discrimination lawsuits into the Brown v. Board o f Education o f Topeka case, which went to the Supreme Court. It was this act that precipitated the emergence of Stage Two.

118 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

Stage Two: Prove the Failure o f O fficial Institutions (1954-1956) On May 17, 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court rocked the nation with its decision that separate school facilities were not equal under the Constitution. The Court ordered public schools to be integrated “at all deliberate speed.” At first this was hailed as a great victory for ending racism in education, supporting the NAACP’s claim that racism could be eliminated through normal legal channels by reform­ ers. But this conclusion was soon tested.

The federal governments decision to “force” white children to attend inte­ grated schools affected all whites throughout the South, and most were appalled at the idea. It challenged the dominant racist white culture, the racist-based power structure, and the Jim Crow laws that ensured white supremacy. As a result, Southern whites mobilized a massive resistance movement against the NAACP and the court-ordered attempts to integrate the schools.

State and local governments and even the Congress and executive branch of the federal government refused to enforce the integration of schools. President Eisenhower called for “gradualism,” arguing that each state had the right to create its own plan of school integration. Both the Democratic and Republican parties were vying for support from the racist, all white, southern Democrats. The Supreme Court decision itself did not call for immediate implementation, but specified that integration should occur at “all deliberate speed,” which it left to the racist local governments to interpret. Another reaction to the Supreme Court decision was a resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan and the White Citizens Councils, which used inflammatory racist rhetoric, violence, and mob actions against any efforts to support the integration of the schools.3

The failure to implement the Supreme Court decision proved to the south­ ern black community that the reformer role, and its method of using normal governmental, administrative, and legal channels alone, could not work in the South without the demands of an aroused citizenry.

In the city of Montgomery, however, the stage was set for a new type o f civil rights activity. On Thursday, December 1, 1955, on her way home from work as a seamstress, Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat to a white person, was arrested and taken to jail. This led the black Womens Political Council to call for a boycott of the city’s buses on Monday. A.D. Nixon, a local black civil rights advocate, called an emergency meeting of about 40 black ministers and civic leaders the next evening. They agreed to support the boycott, thousands of promotional leaflets were distributed, and the ministers announced the boycott from their pulpits on Sunday.4 The boycott was 100 percent effective. The young Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was chosen to head up the new organization/movement, the Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA), because he had recently arrived in town and was not involved in the stultifying feuds among the ministers.

THE U.S. CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT 119

Kings speech at the Monday night rally following the successful boycott set the tone not only for the Montgomery boycott, but for the emerging civil rights movement. He called for a combination of militancy and moderation, grounded in both the Christian values of the black community and the democratic values of the nation. He said that they were foil American citizens with a deep-seated belief in democracy, and that their campaign was to highlight the flagrant discrepancy between American ideals and practice. King said that the militant actions of their boycott would be carried out with total love and nonviolence toward the white com­ munity, that they were there to “fulfill the American dream, not to condemn it.”

The boycott lasted for 381 days. The entire black community of 50,000 people was involved. There were weekly mass meetings and an organized car­ pooling system for people to get to work and school. There was also a strong commitment to love and nonviolence based on the words of Gandhi and of the Bible.

The city’s powerholders and racist white community reacted with a series of strategies. MIA car-pool drivers were constantly ticketed by police, and building inspectors placed notices of housing code violations on the buildings used by the movement. When local underwriters refused to give insurance to MIA drivers, Lloyds of London did. About 100 leaders, including Dr. King, were arrested for violating the states anti-boycotting laws. King’s house was bombed.

The drama of the struggle in the heart of Dixie, sustained over time, drew not only national, but worldwide attention. Funding flowed in from around the country. In the heat o f the campaign, the MIA raised its demands to a call for total desegregation of the buses. The boycott eventually ended with total success when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Alabama state and local bus segregation laws in October 1956. After days of mass nonviolence workshops in which blacks received training on how to remain peaceful in the face of provocative attacks, King and others led the peaceful integration of the buses on December 21, 1956. The Montgomery Bus Boycott arose because the movement in Montgomery was in MAP s third stage, Ripening Conditions. Montgomerys black community was a highly politicized environment. The city buses were a daily symbol of seg­ regation and humiliation. The city’s Jim Crow laws required blacks to sit in the back of the bus and to give up their seats as the number of white passengers increased. This bus segregation system had a multitude of weaknesses: it violated the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights; it violated the widely held values of the American people and the image of America that the U.S. government was trying to project around the world as it vied for superpower leadership of the “free” world; the bus company was economically dependent on black riders, who made up about 70 percent of the passengers; and the entire black community of Montgomery was offended by it.

120 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

Furthermore, the key actors were well prepared. Rosa Parks had been a past secretary of the local NAACP, and a month earlier she had attended a two-week training conference at the Highlander Folk School, a Tennessee training center for community social change activists. A.D. Nixon was an officer in a militant union, the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, was a past state president of the NAACP, and had been involved in the threatened March on Washington a few years before. He and Jo Ann Robinson of the Womens Political Council had talked about a boycott of the segregated Montgomery bus system months earlier — they even had made a sample flyer for a bus boycott. Martin Luther King had studied Gandhian nonviolence at university, attended local NAACP meetings, and had just established social and political action committees in his church. The black church was the central pre-existing institution that was available to support the new movement as it took off, as were civic groups such as the Women’s Political Council.

The boycott effectively used all four MAP roles. The citizens kept the cam­ paign grounded in the nations widely held values o f democracy and freedom, and their demands were based on the civil rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Many o f the citizens were based in the Christian church, which was revered by the large majority of whites in Montgomery and within mainstream America. The rebels brought attention to the movement with the nonviolent bus boycott cam­ paign. The entire black community of Montgomery filled the social change agent role by its involvement in the boycott, mass meetings, and car-pooling. Finally, the reformers ultimately won the day through the court case, which was decided favorably by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Montgomery Bus Boycott was the first successful effort that com­ bined both the Gandhian nonviolent action, mass movement approach with the NAACP-type legal tactics. Such mass movements can use political, economic, and legal strategies, or any combination of the three, to achieve their goals. The Montgomery movement was unable to apply either political pressure on the racist city government, especially since most blacks could not vote, or effective economic pressure on the business community, which was not much tied to the city bus company. Ultimately, it was the legal strategy that brought victory.

Rosa Parks’ arrest was the trigger event for the Montgomery bus integration movement, but it did not serve as the trigger event for the launching of the larger civil rights movement because that was still in Stage Two, Proving the Failure of Official Institutions. The Montgomery bus integration campaign was a successful sub-movement of the larger civil rights movement, and it demonstrated that it was possible to change the South’s Jim Crow laws by combining the mass move­ ment nonviolent action method with a legal strategy.

THE U.S. CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT 121

Stage Three: Ripening Conditions (1956-1959) During the last half of the 1950s, three developments made the social movement of the 1960s inevitable. First, the black community became disenchanted with elite leaders’ efforts to end Jim Crow using official channels, such as the courts and lobbying government officials. Second, the effectiveness of the NAACP, which championed this “institutional politics” approach, was greatly reduced in the South due to the white racist systems backlash attacks resulting from the Brown decision. And third, new civil rights groups committed to the mass move­ ment method of direct action sprouted in black communities across the South following the Montgomery Bus Boycott.

Ever since its founding in 1909, the NAACP had been the dominant black protest organization in the United' States. It was a classic professional opposition organization — highly bureaucratic, with key staff and leadership drawn from the professional class, including ministers, teachers, lawyers, and doctors. Its primary activity was limited to the elite-led institutional politics method of educational persuasion and legal challenge. Although it was widely respected by the black community, it did not involve a mass base of ordinary citizens.

Following the NAACP s startling school integration victory at the Supreme Court in 1954, the southern white racist community and power structure set out to destroy the civil rights organization they feared was about to end the “Southern Way of Life.” The all-out war of repression against both the NAACP organization and associated individuals included repressive laws, legal actions, intimidation, loss of employment, physical violence, and murder. In Alabama, the organization was made illegal for nine years. As a result, between 1955 and 1958 the NAACP lost 246 branches and over 49,000 members in the South.5

During this period, the NAACP not only lost its hegemony over southern civil rights efforts, but the reformer role and its bureaucratic style o f organizing lost favor in the black community as well. The stage was set for the emergence of a new style of civil rights activism that was based on mass movements and the rebel and social change agent roles of nonviolent direct action and grassroots organizing.

Inspired by the Montgomery movement, bus boycott campaigns and other civil rights activities sprang up in dozens of black communities across the South, starting in 1956.6 They were invigorated by a new hope that change was possible in the South, and by a realization that the nonviolent mass movement method gave them a powerful organizing tool. The new strategy also allowed them to overcome the traditional divisions within the black community’s leadership by bringing together younger inspired leaders, mostly clergy and students, who were ready to take bold action. Moreover, the nonviolent mass movement approach allowed everyone to actively participate, old and young, men and women, rich and poor, white and black, professionals and working class.

122 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

Sociologist Aldon Morris called these autonomous, civil rights action com­ munities Local Movement Centers (LMCs).7 Based in local black churches, they organized a wide variety of activities — demonstrations, sit-ins, boycotts, educa­ tion, voter registration, nonviolent action training, legal cases, organization development, fundraising, and regular mass meetings — and were also just a place to hang out with others who were ready to be involved in this new effort. Some of the action-experienced people, such as Martin Luther King, traveled extensively to help inspire, organize, and train activists in the multitude of LMCs.

In January 1957, leaders of these LMCs from 11 states met at Dr. Martin Luther King Sr.’s Ebenezer Baptist church in Atlanta and formed an organization that became the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC). Thereafter, SCLC provided communication, coordination, and support for and between the dozens of local protest movements that were previously autonomous. One of SCLC’s principle requirements for membership was that groups agree to promote mass-based, nonviolent, direct action movements. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was chosen to lead the new organization.

The Crusade for Citizenship was one of SCLC’s first projects. Its purpose was to educate and register blacks to vote, taking advantage of the 1957 Civil Rights Act that supported the right to vote. Due to massive white resistance (and the lack of sufficient organization in the black community), the Crusade failed to enfranchise blacks, proving again that the normal racist political system did not work for blacks. However, it did serve to further educate, train, organize, and prepare the black community in the method and the necessity for taking the more militant direct action mass movement approach.

The Gandhian nonviolent mass movement method’s connection to the black southern civil rights movement was strengthened when both King and the Reverend James Lawson made separate trips to India to learn directly from Gandhi’s followers. After two years in India, Lawson returned in 1959 and ran a nonviolent action training program Saturday mornings for black divinity school students in Nashville, Tennessee. Members of this class, such as James Bevel, Diane Nash, Bernard Lafayette, and John Lewis, later became leaders of the 1960s movement. Their group not only studied the theory and practice of non­ violence, but they also experimented with sit-ins and protests against Jim Crow laws in Nashville. Moreover, they planned to begin a full-fledged sit-in campaign early in 1960.

At the same time, NAACP Youth Division members Floyd McKissick and Douglas Moore began conducting trial sit-ins in the restaurants, bus station, and ice cream parlors in Durham, North Carolina. The NAACP did not support these efforts. There were also a number of “outside” sources of support for the new budding movement, including the Highlander Folk School, which helped by

THE U.S. CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT 123

training organizers of the new movement; the Fellowship of Reconciliation and CORE, which provided nonviolence training; and northern black churches and white liberals, which provided some funding.

The stage was set. The black community was organized and trained for a new social movement, expectations were high, local groups committed to mass movement direct action were established across the South, nonviolent direct action was a proven method, the black church and black students were part of the established institutions and existing networks, coordinated by SCLC, that were in place. People were ready to go.

Stage Four: Take-Off (1960-1963)

The widely acknowledged trigger event of the 1960s Civil Rights movement occurred on February 1, 1960, when four black freshmen at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical College in Greensboro, N.C., violated the law by “spontaneously” sitting down at Woolworths whites-only lunch counter. They were refused service, but remained seated until closing time. That night they held a meeting with other students in their dormitory, and rhe next day 30 students resumed the'sit-in. Soon hundreds of students from the ten Greensboro-area black colleges joined in, waiting in shifts to be served, starting the lunch counter sit-in movement.8

Typical of Stage Four take-off, students across the South repeated the sit-in tactic at their local eating establishments. Demonstrators underwent extensive nonviolence action training to prepare them for harassment, arrest, and jail time. Each sit-in was carefully planned and timed. It soon became clear to demonstra­ tors and white authorities alike that the traditional powerholder method of controlling the black community by intimidation and arrest did not work against the mass movement method. In fact, most demonstrators welcomed arrest as a symbol of their involvement in the new freedom movement. And the arrests and physical violence by the powerholders only served to inspire more participants and to promote the cause to the rest of the nation and the world as it was covered by the media. By mid-April, an estimated 50,000 demonstrators had participated in sit-ins in 78 communities, and 2,000 had been arrested.9 Moreover, support demonstrations were soon organized at 100 mostly white colleges in the North.

Ella Baker, SCLC’s executive director, organized a conference, The Southwide Student Leadership Conference on Nonviolent Resistance to Segregation, in Raleigh, North Carolina, on April 15 to 17, 1960. About 120 stu­ dents, representatives from sit-ins throughout the South, attended, and there were another 100 observers, mostly white students active in the North. On the advice of Baker, the students formed a new independent organization, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC).

124 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

SNCC had a small national staff and office and a decentralized structure, giving total autonomy to the local groups. They believed that the traditional bureaucratic organizations of many adult-led civil rights groups were too hierar­ chical for the mass movement direct action method to work. On the other hand, they feared a totally spontaneous, “structureless” model was too loose and chaotic and would be ripe for takeover by activists with strong egos or by agents provo­ cateurs. Consequendy, they developed a third organizational model — a decentralized, participatory democratic model that used Quaker consensus. This contrasted with SCLC s model, which gave autonomy to its affiliate groups but left final decisions to the minister at the top of each organization.

The sit-in movement again showed that the nonviolent direct action and mass movement strategy was an effective method for the black civil rights move­ ment, especially when accompanied with an effective economic, political, or legal strategy. Woolworths, for example, adopted a total integration policy because it suffered economically from the combination of lost black business in the South and the secondary picketing and boycott o f its northern stores. On the other hand, the Nashville sit-in movement of 1960 hurt the profits not only of the restaurants but of all the white downtown businessmen. It ended with a gigantic march to the steps of city hall, where the mayor told the movements spokesperson, Diane Nash, that he agreed to desegregate the lunch counters. This nonviolent mass movement strategy was adopted by the rest of the civil rights movement and by many social movements around the world in the years following.

By the end of 1960, dozens of cities in the “Upper South” had their eating establishments integrated, but much of the “Deep South” remained unmoved. The demolition of the Jim Crow system and the achievement of basic civil rights had only begun to take off. Ultimately, it would require the awakening of the majority of the American people to demand federal intervention through new laws that were seriously enforced.

The following year, in a strategic attempt to force the federal government into the civil rights struggle, CORE launched the Freedom Rides campaign to test the federal laws that guaranteed the integration of the nation’s interstate bus and train terminals. The simple plan was for integrated groups to sit in the front seats of public buses as they went to the Deep South, thereby deliberately violating Jim Crow bus segregation laws. The first bus, with James Farmer, CORE’s executive director, on board, left Washington, D.C., on May 4, 1961. Ten days later, a white mob burned the bus outside of Aniston, Georgia. On May 21, Freedom Riders were physically attacked and beaten by a white mob as they arrived at the Montgomery, Alabama, bus terminal. That night an aggressive white mob threat­ ened King and the Freedom Riders as they held a mass meeting in a church. The next day the federal government was forced to intervene, providing National

THE U.S. CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT 125

Guard protection as a new wave of Freedom Riders left on a bus. However, this group was arrested and imprisoned when the bus arrived in Jackson, Mississippi. During the next months, 300 Freedom Riders were arrested and put in Parchman, Mississippi, jail for up to 50 days each.

The sustained Gandhian-type sociodrama campaign of arrests and impris­ onment of people attempting to integrate bus terminals drew media attention over the summer. The entire nation was upset by the white mob brutality, the violations of the legal civil right of interstate travel, and the complicity of the police as well as the local and federal governments. The social pressure built up to the point that by September, the Freedom Rides succeeded in their goal: the federal Interstate Commerce Commission made a new ruling to desegregate interstate bus and train stations, establishing new penalties for violators, effective November 1, 1961.

Beginning on that date, SN C C sent waves of activists to Albany, Georgia, to test the new law. Their arrests, when they arrived in Albany, were the catalyst for the local adults to respond by creating a new broad action coalition, the Albany Movement. This movement conducted a series of demonstrations, culminating in the arrest of Martin Luther King and 250 others on a “prayer march” on their way to city hall. The towns powerholders were forced to make a verbal promise to obey the federal law by desegregating the terminals. Martin Luther King and the others were let out of jail and agreed to call a halt to the demonstrations.

Albany appeared to be a great success. It was, therefore, a tremendous embarrassment to King and the movement when the city failed to keep its promise. For the next six months the movement unsuccessfully tried to resume its campaign of boycotts and demonstrations, but the broken agreement had taken away its momentum. When Dr. King returned to Albany for his court trial in August 1962, the activists again attempted to rejuvenate the movement by staging marches, rallies, picketing, sit-ins, and other kinds of demonstrations. Over a thousand demonstrators went to jail, including 70 northern clergy. However, police chief Laurie Pritchett adopted a new and effective police strategy. He responded by appearing to be reasonable and with minimal violence, dispersing those arrested to jails in surrounding counties so that the movement ran out of demonstrators before the police ran out of cells. The movement dissipated.

While the movement succeeded in putting severe economic pressure on the downtown businessmen, ending the campaign on the powerholders’ mere promise to meet the movements demands for integration was a fatal mistake. This was a lesson well learned, which King and the movement were intent on not repeating.

Despite failure to achieve its stated goals, the Albany Movement successfully used the mass movement method to mobilize the entire local black community.

126 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

Through the national and worldwide publicity that it focused on Albany’s Jim Crow segregation, the movement alerted, educated, and won the sympathy of the majority of northern public opinion. With the campaign in Albany, the civil rights movement advanced to MAPs Stage Six, Majority Public Opinion.

Stage Five: Perception o f Failure (1964-1968)

Since the Montgomery Bus Boycott, the civil rights movements culture, organi­ zation, and leadership were based in the black Christian church. The movement was characterized by a clear ethic of love and nonviolence, strong clergy leader­ ship, and Gandhi’s method of nonviolent mass movement. Its purpose was integrationist. Black Americans should have the status of full citizens, with equal rights, responsibilities, and privileges, and the opportunity to participate in American life. Their vision was that blacks be integrated into the society just as previous oppressed groups, such as the Irish, Jews, and Poles, had been. As Martin Luther King was fond of saying, the aim was to fulfill the American Dream of equality, democracy, and justice, not to condemn it.

When CORE and SNCC joined with SCLC in 1960 as the primary organ­ izations involved in the southern civil rights movement, they were in full agreement with the principles of achieving integration through nonviolent action. These two groups, however, were secular and organizationally separate from SCLC’s network of church-based Local Movement Centers.

Four years later, when hundreds of northern white students (including myself) participated in the Mississippi Freedom Summer Project of 1964, we expected to encounter anger and hostility from white Mississippi racists, but we were shocked and dismayed to receive a similar response from many (though not all) of the SNCC and CORE staff and volunteers. This was the beginning of an ideological split that festered inside the movement for the next few years. The split became national news during James Meredith’s Mississippi March Against Fear in 1966, when SNCC leaders Willie Ricks, Stokely Carmichael, and H. Rap Brown began shouting “Black Power,”10 challenging the movements “Freedom Now” slogan as the ideological basis for the black peoples movement.

The emergent Carmichael/SNCC-led faction of the movement cited the need for a more militant strategy, abandoning nonviolence. They said that the white powerholders and racist whites would continue to resist violently and would never allow blacks full and equal citizenship. Consequently, they advocated black separatism and black independence by any means necessary, including violence. H. Rap Brown frequently received national publicity as he justified their advocacy of violence, saying things like “Violence is as American as apple pie.” This call was connected to an appeal for black pride, empowerment, and black consciousness, mainly drawn from the activities of Malcolm X and the Black Nationalism

THE U.S. CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT 127

movement, which had gained some popularity at the time. Though a leading figure in the black struggle, Malcolm X played no part in the southern civil rights movement. He advocated separatism, violence, and hostility towards whites, all of which were at odds with the nonviolent integration movement.11

In the face of calls for violence, Martin Luther King said:

I could imagine nothing more impractical and disastrous than for any of us ... to precipitate a violent confrontation in Mississippi. We had neither the resources nor the techniques to win ... Many Mississippi whites, from the government on down, would enjoy nothing more than for us to turn to violence in order to use this as an excuse to wipe out scores of Negroes in and out of the march ...

The problem with hatred and violence is that they intensify the fears of the white majority and leave them less ashamed of their prejudices toward Negroes ... Violence only adds to the chaos. It deepens the brutality of the oppressor and increases the bitterness of the oppressed. Violence is the antithesis of creativity and wholeness.12

At the same time, King realized that the movement needed a “strategy for change, a tactical program that will bring the Negro into the mainstream of American life as quickly as possible. Nonviolent action already has a remarkable record of achievements from buses, lunch counters, public accommodations and voting rights.”13

Stage Six: Majority Public Opinion (1963-1964)

The majority public opinion stage began in 1963 with the Birmingham Movement, the most successful civil rights campaign to date. For seven years, protests had totally failed in Birmingham, Alabama, where the infamous Public Safety Commissioner “Bull” Connor enforced total white supremacy in one of the most racist cities in the South. That changed in April, when Dr. King and SCLC were invited to lead a new civil rights effort in Birmingham. It was a huge endeavor and met with brutal resistance. There were daily demonstrations for 65 days, mass meetings of sometimes over 5,000 people, and thousands of demon­ strators were arrested, at times filling the jails. There, King wrote his famous “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” to the local clergy.

But what most stirred the moral conscience o f the nation and the world was the TV and newspaper coverage of police clubs, water hoses, attack dogs turned on young and old demonstrators, the violence by the state national guard, and the series of bombings, including the bombing of a church where four little girls

128 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

attending Sunday school were killed, which caused Birmingham to be nicknamed “Bombingham.” In spite of such deliberate provocations, the movement remained nonviolent. Finally, on May 10, 1963, the movement ended successfully when the Birmingham political and business powerholders agreed to desegregate the busi­ ness district and also hire blacks.

The Birmingham movement’s success can be attributed to a number of fee tors:

• It used the nonviolent mass movement method effectively, involving the entire local black population.

• It maintained a sociodrama action campaign for 63 consecutive days, with nightly mass meetings and demonstrations that exposed Birmingham’s brutal enforcement of segregation.

• The black community’s demands for basic legal rights won worldwide support through continuous media coverage.

• It remained nonviolent, despite extreme efforts by the police and state nation­ al guard to provoke demonstrators to violence, which would have obscured the discrimination issues and taken away the movement’s moral high ground.

• Its strategy of putting economic pressure on downtown businesses succeeded, as a sustained boycott and demonstrations in the business section kept even white patrons away.

• It had very narrow and focused demands with a specific target group, as opposed to the Albany campaign, which made very general demands.

• It did not give in to the powerholders’ first verbal offer of unsubstantiated promises, as it did in Albany.

• Worldwide news coverage embarrassed the Kennedy administration into pres­ suring the Birmingham powerholders to capitulate.

The Birmingham campaign completed the movement’s process to put civil rights on society’s agenda and won a larger majority of public opinion in support of its cause. The strength of public support became immediately apparent at the conclusion of the Birmingham movement when Martin Luther King and others made triumphant tours of key northern cities. King estimated that over a million people attended those first white-majority mass meetings of the civil rights move­ ment that occurred in Cleveland; St. Louis; New York; Washington, D.C.; Chicago; Los Angeles; and Detroit, to name but a few.14

In the ten weeks after Birmingham, the U. S. Justice Department recorded 1,412 separate demonstrations and 12,500 arrests — and that 275 of the 574 larger southern communities desegregated at least some of their facilities.15 The number of SCLC affiliates grew from 85 to 110. On June 11, President Kennedy urged Congress to pass an administration bill that would prohibit discrimination in public accommodations. By the end of the summer, King concluded that the

THE U.S. CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT 129

movement was responsible for thousands of integrated restaurants, hotels, parks, swimming pools and new job openings. King’s assessment was:

For hundreds of years the quiet sobbing of an oppressed people had been unheard by millions of white Americans ... The lament became a shout and then a roar and for months no American, white or Negro, was insulated or unaware ... White America was forced to face the ugly facts of life as the Negro thrust himself onto the consciousness o f the country and dram­ atized his grievances on a thousand brightly lighted stages.16

On August 28, 1963, the civil rights movement held what A. Philip Randolf called the largest march in U.S. history. The March on Washington had over 250,000 black and white participants. That historic event, in which King deliv­ ered his “I have a dream" speech, demonstrated that the civil rights movement was well into MAPs majority public opinion stage. Moreover, the media treated the march as a significant occasion by giving it sympathetic, banner-headline news­ paper coverage and live television and radio coverage nationally and overseas. Tens of millions of white Americans saw black Americans portrayed in the media in a positive light for the first time. Observing the friendly demonstrators and hearing the persuasive logic and wisdom of a series of black leaders, culminating with King, inspired blacks and informed and won over millions more white Americans. By the end of the summer, a Newsweek survey reported that an overwhelm­ ing majority of whites in the North and South supported laws to guarantee voting rights, job opportunities, good housing, and integrated travel facilities. A large majority in the North and almost a majority in the South favored integrated schools and lunch counters.17 Moreover, King concluded that the biggest reason for hope was the massive alliance for civil rights created among the various seg­ ments of the country during the summer.18 Thousands of student, civil, labor, political, and religious groups engaged in either direct involvement or support efforts for blacks to gain full civil rights in the United States.

The desegregation movement in 1963 created such public political pressure that the federal government was on the defensive. It felt forced to take some kind of decisive action, at least against blatant segregation and Jim Crow laws in the South. Therefore, with King and other civil rights leaders in attendance, President Johnson signed the milestone 1964 Civil Rights Act before a national radio and television audience on July 2, 1964. The Act outlawed segregation and discrimi­ nation in public accommodations — such as hotels, restaurants, movie theaters, public parks, drinking fountains, and other places that provided public services — and in some specific aspects of voter registration and employment. It removed one of the most overt aspects of racism, the “Whites Only” signs.

130 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

Although President Johnson told the civil rights leaders present at the signing that the Act removed the need for any more direct action protest demon­ strations, they recognized that the law was no cure-all. It contained lots of holes. It did not guarantee the right to vote, nor did it provide federal government pro­ tection, nondiscriminatory housing, or relief from poverty.

The logical next target of the movement was the right to register and to vote. Full participation in the political process had long been recognized by the move­ ment as the key to blacks achieving justice and equality in the South; it was also thought to be the most difficult goal. Because the black vote was feared by the racist southern powerholders, it was fiercely opposed. There were local legal obsta­ cles, racist violence, and black fear and apathy regarding voting. But there was also a “hands off” policy on the part of the federal government, including the FBI, which meant the feds would not interfere with racism of any kind that occurred in the southern states. Consequently, it was only now, when the overall civil rights movement was solidly in the majority public opinion stage, that the voting rights sub-movement reached the ripening conditions phase and was ready for take-off.' Mississippi was chosen as the target for the voting rights campaign because it represented the heart o f the Deep South and had several years o f solid grassroots organizing for voter registration. In November 1963, a statewide umbrella civil rights organization called the Council of Federated Organizations (COFO) ran its own “freedom candidates” in a symbolic alternative election, since they were excluded from the official election process. Then on April 26, 1964, COFO estab­ lished the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MFDP) to hold its own unofficial Democratic Party primary elections that summer for the purpose of selecting alternative Democratic candidates who were elected in an open, non- racist process that was in keeping with the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This process challenged the official Democratic Party convention in Atlantic City in September, where candidates were elected in a racist process in which blacks were not allowed to run for office.

The trigger event that launched the take-off stage of the voting rights sub­ movement was the 1964 Mississippi Summer Project, which was sponsored by four major civil rights organizations: SNCC, CORE, SCLC, and the NAACP.19 Over 700 students, mostly northern and white, were recruited, trained, and dis­ persed to work with MFDP groups across Mississippi. Because the project was enormous in size, was an ongoing dramatic event, and put the lives of northern white students at risk, the Summer Project received major media coverage. For the first time, the attention of the entire nation was fixed on the state of Mississippi and its violent racist opposition to black citizens’ right to vote.

Over the summer, four participants were killed and 80 were beaten. Over a thousand arrests were made and 67 homes, churches, and business were bombed

THE U.S. CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT 131

or burned.20 The FBI’s six-week hunt for the bodies of three civil rights workers highlighted the extent of violent opposition to black voting rights. Nevertheless, the MFDP registered over 80,000 people during the summer, and in its unofficial alternative Democratic primary the MFDP elected 68 delegates to the Democratic National Convention. The Democratic Party refused to seat those delegates at the Atlantic City convention. However, the party made a landmark decision that for the 1968 convention, racial discrimination in selecting state party delegates would be prohibited. Members of the MFDP and SNCC were extremely angry and dis­ illusioned, and a split occurred between them and the more established civil rights groups, such as SCLC and the NAACP, which were more willing to accept the less than ideal compromises offered by the Democratic Party.

Then on December 10, 1964, Martin Luther King received the Nobel Peace Prize, which not only promoted his personal status, but also increased the credi­ bility of the entire civil rights movement. All the pieces were finally lined up for the Civil Rights Movement’s end-game challenge to achieve the right to vote.

Stage Seven; Success (1965-1968)

In 1965 the movement launched a voting rights campaign in remote Selma, Alabama. Like Mississippi, Selma represented entrenched racist “bitter end” resistance to black civil rights. The city of Selma, for example, had imposed an injunction against all civil rights public meetings since the failed attempts to inte­ grate its public accommodations the previous July. Strategists thought that a sociodrama campaign against Selma’s severe resistance could evoke such sympathy and outrage that the entire nation would demand a federal voting rights act.

The Selma Campaign was organized joindy by SCLC, SNCC, and the local coalition called the Dallas County Voters League (DCVL). It began with a mass meeting on January 2, 1965, addressed by King. This was soon followed by daily marches to the county courthouse, where blacks tried, mostly unsuccessfully, to register to vote. Continuous confrontations with the authorities led to several thousand arrests. On March 7, in what became known as Bloody Sunday, state troopers and sheriff’s deputies, many on horseback, attacked, beat, and gassed hundreds of demonstrators as they crossed the Pettus Bridge, attempting to march from Selma to the state capitol of Montgomery.

The nation was outraged when the event was highlighted on the TV news and in every newspaper. Sympathy marches were held across the country, and over a thousand people demonstrated outside the White House. Hundreds of clergy and others responded to an emergency call to join the next attempted Selma marches. One northern clergyman, Reverend James Reeb, was beaten and killed by whites outside a Selma restaurant. In response to these events, on March 15, President Johnson submitted a Voting Rights Bill to Congress. He delivered a

132 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

stirring special address to Congress, viewed on television by 70 million Americans, in which he pleaded that “their cause must be our cause, too,” and ended by repeating the movement’s theme, “We Shall Overcome.” Protected by 1,800 Alabama national guardsmen, the march from Selma to Montgomery finally occurred between March 21 and 25. The power of an aroused and out­ raged public sped up the political process, and President Johnson signed the historic 1965 Voting Rights Act on August 6.

There was one last sub-movement led by Dr. King that was clearly focused on black civil rights. After being stymied in their End Slums community organ­ izing effort, SCLC and the local Coordinating Council of Community Organizations (CCCO) launched the Chicago Open Housing Movement. On July 30, 1966, at a mass meeting, Dr. King announced the beginning of a series of marches out to the real estate offices in the whites-only neighborhoods to demand that they serve blacks on a nondiscriminatory basis. Real estate offices were seen as similar to discriminatory restaurants; both were businesses open to serve the public.

During the next four weeks, three days each week, between 200 and 1,000 black and white demonstrators marched (or sometimes rode in cars) from churches in the black community out to the distant white neighborhoods, such as Gage Park and Marquette Park. The marchers were met with the jeers, bricks, bottles, racist signs, Confederate flags, knives, firecrackers, Nazi insignias, and fists of thousands of angry white people. On one occasion, dozens of demonstra­ tors’ cars were blown up (while guarded by Chicago police) and 28 demonstrators were sent to emergency care. The blocks where marchers stopped at real estate offices often looked like war zones, with the large front windows of most of the businesses broken by flying objects. On August 5, in the middle of a march in Marquette Park, Dr. King was hit on the head by a brick. He later commented, “I’ve been in many demonstrations all across the South, but I can say that I have never seen — even in Mississippi and Alabama — mobs as hostile and as hate- filled as I’ve seen in Chicago.”21

Initially, Mayor Richard Daley’s police, though present, provided little pro­ tection for the marchers because the racist white community was a basis of Daleys political power. Eventually, the continuous negative publicity from the national and worldwide television coverage of the carnage led Daley to provide massive and ample police protection for the demonstrators. Moreover, the ongoing expo­ sure of the segregated and racist housing policies in Chicago and, finally, the expected violence against the movement’s impending march to the town of Cicero, known for its violent racism, forced Mayor Daley to make an open housing agreement with CCCO on August 26, 1966. The Summit Agreement included a list of specific steps the city and other business, labor, and govern­

THE U.S. CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT 133

mental organizations pledged to take for fair housing. An independent organiza­ tion , the Leadership Council for Metropolitan Housing, was established to assure the agreements implementation. The Chicago Open Housing Movement also made a critical contribution to the passage of the 1968 Civil Rights Act, which outlawed racial discrimination in housing.

By the end of 1966, the civil rights movement had achieved its primary goal of removing all of the overt racist Jim Crow laws in the South and North. Moreover, it had forced the passage of a series of federal laws and executive orders that legally assured blacks of their civil rights that were guaranteed them by the United States Constitution.

Stage Eight: Continuing the Struggle (1966 to the future)

The civil rights movement was astoundingly successful, especially considering where it started. It created a revolution in the civil rights of African Americans, particularly by ending the racist Jim Crow laws and customs in the South. Moreover, the reverberations of the civil rights movement continue to be felt not only throughout the United States, but worldwide. The movements eighth stage, Continuation, in which it expands its successes while simultaneously protecting against backlash, has been going on since the 1960s.

The continuing expansion of the civil rights movement achievements is evident in both the North and South. The most dramatic changes can be seen in the South in the integration of politics, public accommodations, buses, restau­ rants, schools, universities, sports teams, and the workforce. In her 1994 article “The Fruits of Freedom Summer,” for example, Bell Gale Chevigny reported some indications of the fundamental changes in Mississippi to that date. Mississippi then led the nation with 890 black elected officials. There was a changed racial climate, indicated by the integration of the local police forces and the state highway patrol. The first black law graduate of Ole Miss, 1960s civil rights activist Constance Slaughter-Harvey, was the general counsel to the Secretary of State. Mississippi adopted mandatory attendance in school, the last state to do so. Inlant mortality was drastically reduced, and gross hunger and mal­ nutrition, gross anemia, and parasites had all but disappeared according to Dr. Robert Smith, an African American Mississippian who was co-founder of the Medical Committee for Human Rights in 1964.22

Sub-Movements — From Civil Rights to Anti-Vietnam War and Economic Justice

By the summer of 1965, the civil rights movement had swelled in numbers and stature. Dr. King and the movement were seen by many as representative of the nations highest values. Yet with President Johnsons signing of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, SCLC staffer Jim Bevel ominously concluded, “There is no more civil

134 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

rights movement.”23 A. Philip Randolph called it a “crisis of victory,” because the next barriers to black equality and justice were beyond civil rights; they were issues demanding the radical transformation of the nations social and economic struc­ tures. That is to say, in MAP theory, they were not strictly sub-movements of the black civil rights movements.

Martin Luther King also understood that the problems of both black America and the nation as a whole required solutions far beyond civil rights. Moreover, King was well aware of the risks when he took leadership in promot­ ing the unpopular anti-Vietnam war view and the issue of economic justice. Consequently, during the last two years of his life, King was often vilified by blacks and whites, conservatives and liberals, and civil rights leaders and racists. In addition, he was the target of the fury o f President Johnson and the harassment of J. Edger Hoover’s FBI.24

Anti-Vietnam War

King felt that morally, ethically, and strategically he had to take a public stand and leadership against the United States’ war in Vietnam, regardless of the conse­ quences. He said he could not split himself to support violence against Asians and nonviolence at home. He saw that black soldiers were not only slaughtering Vietnamese, but were being killed themselves, and at twice the rate of white sol­ diers. Moreover, King asserted that the money to end poverty at home was “being squandered on the Vietnam War”25 and that the bombs that were dropped in Vietnam were landing in the streets of American cities.

Martin Luther King was the first leading public figure to come out against the Vietnam War. He delivered a stirring speech at New York’s Riverside church on April 4, 1967. At that time, while there was a small opposition to the war, there was no anti-war social movement. Moreover, one poll showed that 75 percent of Americans and 48 percent of black Americans supported the war. Consequently, King’s worst fears were fulfilled. There was overwhelming hostility to his anti-war stand. Even northern white liberals were so furious with him that they virtually stopped their contributions, which were a critical source of SCLC’s funding. Clearly, most people did not view the anti-Vietnam war effort as a sub­ movement of the black civil rights movement, but as a sub-movement of the peace movement, which they did not support.

However, with King’s public support and with two ex-SCLC staff, James Bevel and Bernard Lafayette, as key organizers, the anti-Vietnam Spring Mobilization campaign escalated into a full-blown mass movement. The trigger events for the movement’s take-off stage were the first giant marches against the war. on April 15,1967,50,000 people marched in San Francisco and over 100,000 in New York City, where Coretta King and Martin Luther King respectively spoke.

THE U.S. CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT 135

By the time King was killed 12 months later, a majority of Americans were con­ verted and the anti-Vietnam war movement had advanced to MAPs Majority Public Opinion Stage. It took another eight years, however, to end the war.

Economic Justice

By 1965, King realized that achieving hill civil rights for blacks, though an impor­ tant milestone, would only be a first step. Even if statutory racial discrimination ended, it would not affect the quality of the lives of most poor black people in either the rural areas or northern city ghettos. Moreover, he believed that the problems of blacks were the result of the economic system, not individual effort alone, and that the problems of poor black people could not be resolved in isola­ tion from solving the plight of all poor Americans, most of whom were white.

King had recognized that poverty was not strictly a civil rights issue, because no American had “economic rights.” The Constitution and Bill of Rights provide only “political rights.” The Poor Peoples Campaign, therefore, was a sub-move­ ment of a much-needed economic rights movement. King saw that poverty was a “structural part of the economic system” and that “there is a need for a radical restructuring of the architecture of American society.”26 He wanted an economic bill of rights for Americas poor people, similar to that set forth in the Marshall Plan for Europe after World War II.27

To achieve these goals, Dr. King and his SCLC organized the Poor Peoples Campaign in January 1968. The campaign called for thousands of poor blacks, Chicanos, Native Americans, and whites to march together from across America to Washington, D.C., where they would challenge Congress and hold massive nonviolent actions until their demands were met. Tragically, just before the cara­ vans of poor arrived in Washington, Dr. King was assassinated. The campaign went ahead, with thousands of poor people living in wooden A-frame huts in “Resurrection City,” along the reflecting pool behind the White House. The cam­ paign ended after three months, with none of its demands met, when a thousand police arrested the demonstrators and destroyed their housing.

The Poor Peoples Campaign did, however, invigorate a variety of efforts and social movements focused on structurally based economic issues, and it can be considered a precursor to the current anti-corporate globalization movement.

Legacy

Finally, the civil rights movement amply demonstrated another facet of move­ ments that successfully complete Stage Eight: it had a social impact far beyond its immediate goals. Black Americans gained a new sense of self-esteem, empower­ ment, and belief in themselves as equal citizens. And the Gandhian method of nonviolent action and mass movements based on love was established as a valid

136 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

and effective means by which ordinary people could address their social problems. The civil rights movement inspired and was used as a model for virtually all the social movements that followed in the United States and many other places in the world, including the student’s, women’s, anti-Vietnam war, anti-nuclear energy, peace, gay and lesbian, economic, and environmental movements.

The Anti-Nuclear Energy Movement

B ill Moyer A

fter a FRUSTRATING decade of opposing nuclear weapons, in 1970 I decided to help create an anti-nuclear energy movement for three reasons:

• Nuclear power was going to become a major danger

• Particular conditions made it especially ripe for the creation of a viable social movement

• A successful anti-nuclear energy movement could be used as a stepping-stone to create an effective anti-nuclear weapons movement.

In 1970, developing both nuclear weapons and nuclear energy was a top pri­ ority of the official powerholders and was supported by a majority of the public. However, unlike nuclear weapons, nuclear energy had three characteristics that made it especially susceptible to the creation of a new nationwide, grassroots, “not-in-my-backyard” social movement:

• The decision to build nuclear power plants was made at the local and state lev­ els by private utility companies and state energy commissions, and these insti­ tutions could be made responsive to an inspired and organized local citizens effort.

• There was an enormous and immediate direct economic and safety impact on those who lived near nuclear reactors and who had to pay for them through their utility bills.

• Nuclear reactor sites provided an ideal target for social movement nonviolent direct actions, similar to the restaurants, buses, and voting registrar offices of the 1960s civil rights movement. Moreover, they existed across the country, so similar strategies and actions could be carried out everywhere simultaneously.

The anti-nuclear energy movement provides a good example of the MAP Eight Stages Model. It also demonstrates both the attrition end-game process of success in Stage Seven and the tenacity of the powerholders who persist when the

1 38 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

issue is central for them. While the movement has stopped the first wave of nuclear reactors, the government and private profit-making utilities are creating a new strategy for energy production that requires a revival of the movement. The anti-nuclear energy movement also raises the question “What is success?”

Stage One: Normal Times (1940s-l960s)

The United States government dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II with the intention of stopping the war. Developing nuclear weapons was also a cornerstone of the powerholders’ campaign to make the U.S. the dominant world super-power. This goal required that the country establish a scientific community with nuclear expertise and a positive nuclear public image. To that end, President Eisenhower and the federal government pro­ moted the nuclear energy industry with the Atoms For Peace program in 1953. This new energy policy was initiated without democratic public debate, and in 1954 the Atomic Energy Act, a law still on the books today, allowed the govern­ ment to prioritize the development of nuclear power, using the argument that it was in the interests of “national security” to overrule state and local concerns.

The government created a new societal myth that described nuclear energy as a modern miracle that would provide clean, safe, and unlimited electricity. It would be too cheap to meter and would launch a new era of affluence for everyone. The actual policy, however, was hidden from the public and presented a different story. To make nuclear energy possible, the federal government provided massive financial, legal, and developmental support. At the same time, all information about the reality of nuclear energy — that it was actually dan­ gerous, dirty, unbelievably expensive, unnecessary, and finite — was suppressed until the 1970s.

Private electrical companies jumped on the nuclear energy bandwagon only after being given outrageous financial incentives that guaranteed enormous profits for merely building reactors. The final incentive was the 1957 Price-Anderson Act, which limited the nuclear industry’s liability in the case of nuclear accidents. The first nuclear reactor, convened from a nuclear submarine, was rushed into com­ mercial service in Shippingport, Pennsylvania, in 1957. With government support it was only 13 years before nuclear energy took off, and by 1970 there were 40 operating nuclear reactors and another 100 being constructed (see Figure 1).

The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) was the federal governments offi­ cial nuclear watchdog agency, assigned to look after the publics welfare. Instead, it promoted nuclear energy at any price, overriding laws, rules, costs, and safety considerations while suppressing all critical information and internal opposition. For example, the public was told nothing about the nuclear accident at Detroit’s Fermi reactor in 1966, an incident similar to the later disaster at Three Mile

THE ANTI-NUCLEAR ENERGY MOVEMENT 139

Island. During normal times (MAP Stage One), such trigger events usually have no impact.

Believing the powerholders’ societal myths, the public gave its enthusiastic support. Nuclear power had a glowing future. Even the budding anti-nuclear bomb movement either ignored nuclear energy or supported it outright.

At this time, any opposition seemed hopeless. It is, therefore, easy to under­ stand why the handful o f people who questioned nuclear power were viewed as crazies, Luddites, or communists who wanted to end our way of life and return us to the stone age. Yet isolated pockets of individuals across the country began to

140 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

doubt the nuclear energy fairy tale and formed small, local, reformer-type organ­ izations that began gathering information and educating themselves and others.

Even during normal times, however, activists can occasionally organize suc­ cessful campaigns around specific sub-issues that more blatantly contradict public sensibilities, which quickly race through the eight stages. For example, during this period groups stopped the plans to dump nuclear waste at Cape Cod and to build a nuclear reactor in Queens, New York. On the West Coast, from 1958 to 1963 young Sierra Club members waged a successful campaign that stopped the Bodega Bay nuclear energy complex, which was to be located at the epicenter of the 1906 earthquake that destroyed San Francisco.

The impact of the powerholders’ influence on professional opposition organizations, even in this first stage, was demonstrated when the Pacific Gas and Electric Company persuaded the Sierra Club’s board of directors not to oppose its plans for building the Diablo Canyon nuclear reactor in San Luis Obispo, California. In response, the clubs founder, David Bower, resigned and founded Friends of the Earth to be more independent of powerholder control.

Stage Two: Prove the Failure o f Official Institutions (1970-1975)

During this period I began my decade-long role as an anti-nuclear energy Paul Revere, alerting the citizenry, especially progressive groups and individuals, and rousing people to action. In 1972 I gave a presentation at an international ecology conference in The Netherlands, sponsored by the Club of Rome, in which I listed the dangers of nuclear power and predicted a forthcoming social movement against nuclear energy that would be launched by a massive nonvio­ lent blockade of a nuclear reactor site and would then spread to all the other reactor sites.1 (This later happened in Whyl, Germany, in 1976, and Seabrook, New Hampshire, in 1977.)

Between 1970 and 1975, the nuclear energy era accelerated. The number of operating nuclear reactors grew from 40 to 55, but more importantly, there were 131 orders for new reactors, a rate of 23 new orders each year. The total number of reactors already operating and being built rose from 140 to 254. Project Independence was well on its way to achieving the goals that President Nixon set in 1974 — 1,000 operating nuclear power plants by the year 2000. By then, it was promised, nuclear power would provide 50 percent of Americas demand for electrical energy, which was expected to double every ten years.

Although all of the nation’s powerholders and an overwhelming public majority favored nuclear energy, new conditions spurred a sudden growth in small, independent, grassroots opposition groups across the country. By the mid- 1970s, I estimated that close to 100 million people lived within 100 miles of new nuclear reactor sites, and there were always a few locals, especially those nearby

THE ANTI-NUCLEAR ENERGY MOVEMENT 141

and downwind, who were concerned enough to get their neighbors together to start asking questions.

They created small, “not-in-my-backyard” reformer groups that did research and held meetings with neighbors, government, and local nuclear utility compa­ nies. Most dramatically, they challenged the building of the reactors at the long and laborious AEC licensing hearings that, by law, had to be held near every reactor site. While many of these opposition efforts were doomed to failure, they clearly demonstrated that the AEC hearings were merely a charade, a blatant pre­ tense of citizen participation, actually set up to rubber stamp the governments approval without seriously considering dissenting opinions, safety, and financial costs for local residents. This violation of democratic values served as a rallying point for opposition.

Participating in the licensing process forced the local opposition activists to undertake extensive research and self-education about nuclear energy; they became expens on the issue. Challenging the powerholders in the licensing process also enabled the groups to document negative aspects of nuclear energy and the failure of official institutions, establish their own public credibility, and start educating their neighbors and the general public. Some opposition groups held statewide citizen initiatives on ballots. Although most of these initiatives lost by a two-to-one margin, they served to educate the public, and a stronger oppo­ sition began to form. And a ballot referendum did succeed in stopping a nuclear plant in politically and environmentally sophisticated Eugene, Oregon.

From the beginning, activists discovered that the nuclear energy establish­ ment had made no effective plans for dealing with the critical problem of disposal and storage of nuclear waste, which had to be kept totally separate from the envi­ ronment for thousands of years. Consequendy, the movement made safe nuclear waste disposal a central sub-issue.

In an example of the typical move-countermove process between social movements and powerholders, the nuclear industry contributed to its own failure through its efforts to defeat a California ballot initiative against nuclear power. The California initiative was defeated by a close margin, but to undercut the movements anti-nuclear energy initiative, Pacific Gas and Electric and otherpow- erholders launched a countermove, promoting a state law, passed in 1975, that ruled no new nuclear power plants would be built until a solution was found for the problem of high-level nuclear waste disposal and storage. This strategy would come back to haunt them as it triggered a process that ultimately led to the cur­ tailment of nuclear energy, first in California, then nationwide..

By the end of this stage, the great majority of public opinion still favored nuclear energy, but public opposition to nuclear energy grew to between 20 and 30 percent, as measured by polls and the results of various referenda.

142 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

Stage Three: Ripening Conditions (1975—1976) During these two years, it appeared to most activists that nothing couid stop the nuclear behemoth, as six new nuclear plants began operating, raising the total of operating reactors to 58. Moreover, in 1975 alone there were 21 new orders for nuclear reactors, raising the total of nuclear plants being built or already operat­ ing to 254. The nuclear industry seemed to be on track to meet Operation Independents goal of 1,000 plants by the millennium, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) continued granting reactor construction and operating licenses to utility companies, despite convincing evidence presented by the growing number of increasingly frustrated opposition groups.

Alongside these gloomy developments, there were many signs that condi­ tions were becoming ripe for the take-off of a full-blown anti-nuclear energy movement and the possible demise of the nuclear industry, though most activists were either unaware of them or gave them little credence. The end of the Vietnam War in 1975 meant the anti-war activists and their organizations were available for a new social movement. Grassroots groups continued to grow in size and numbers to become a substantial new wave of opposition, as tens of millions more citizens were upset to learn that they lived within 100 miles of a new reactor site, making them susceptible to its costs and dangers. And a serious accident at the Browns Ferry, Alabama, reactor, though little publicized, demonstrated the poten­ tial dangers of nuclear power.

In 1976, a powerful new anti-nuclear energy strategy succeeded in the state of Missouri. A statewide referendum ended the states Construction Work In Progress (CWIP) law by a two to one margin. Utilities were counting on the CWIP laws that existed in all the states to pay for the enormous cost of building nuclear power plants. CWIP allowed utilities to collect the billions of dollars needed for construction from their rate-paying customers via their monthly elec­ tric bills during the 10 to 20 years it took to build them. Without CWIP, the cost of building nuclear reactors would be an almost insurmountable obstacle, as the nuclear utility companies would have to borrow money at steep interest rates over a long period of time, increasing the actual cost of building each reactor many times over.

At the same time, two events further undercut the nuclear energy industry. There was a dramatic rise in bank interest rates, which greatly increased the cost o f building reactors, and a decrease in electricity demand reduced the need for the generating capacity. Indeed, in 1976 there were no new orders for nuclear reac­ tors and 17 existing orders were canceled, reversing, for the first time, the growth in the total number of reactors being built and operating. The 1975 peak of 254 dropped to 237, and the federal government quietly reduced its planned number of operating reactors for the year 2000 from 1,000 to 500.

THE ANTI-NUCLEAR ENERGY MOVEMENT 143

While the federal government and the nuclear energy industry continued to promote nuclear energy at the national level, the anti-nuclear energy opposition grew in numbers and determined resistance at the local, regional, and state levels, because that’s where the decisions regarding nuclear plants were made and where the economic, safety, and political impacts were felt by citizens. In 1976, a series of events in California and New England primed these two regions of the country for the take-off of new anti-nuclear energy movements.

In California, citizens challenged the planned Diablo Canyon reactor for three years, not only for the usual reasons, but also because it was sited on an earthquake fault line. When the licensing hearings gave the green light to begin construction, this blatant decision infuriated the local opposition and incited it to the next level of resistance: nonviolent direct action.

In the Northeast, the AEC, ignoring the overwhelming rational and legal arguments advanced by local opponents, decided to license the construction of the Seabrook nuclear plant in New Hampshire. In response, the opponents also turned to nonviolent direct action as a last resort. A few weeks after the AEC deci­ sion, a small number of Clamshell Alliance members held the first civil disobedience occupation of a nuclear plant site in the United States. Then, inspired by the 1976 blockade of a nuclear plant site in Whyl, Germany, by 25,000 people, the Clamshell Alliance announced its plan to organize a Whyl- type blockade of the Seabrook site, starting the next spring.

Typical of the successful ripening conditions stage, all of the above situations were silently growing to the bursting point, like an overblown balloon, ready to explode with the right pinprick. But still, the conditions seemed far short of what was needed to stop the expanding number of operating nuclear reactors, while the government and electric utility industry continued promoting the glories of nuclear energy. Although public opinion against nuclear energy rose to about 30 percent, the question of nuclear energy still was not on society’s agenda of hotly contested issues, and all the powerholders and a large public majority supported it.

Stage Four: Take-Off (1977-78)

In the spring of 1977, the opposition to nuclear power turned into a full-blown, nationwide social movement. The trigger event was the arrest and jailing of 1,414 Clamshell Alliance protesters who were blockading the Seabrook nuclear reactor’s construction site. For two weeks, the civil disobedience action and subsequent jailing were the top news story across the United States and in many other parts of the world. Through daily national television and radio interviews, many ema­ nating from jails across New Hampshire, the protesters were able to educate the public about the follies of nuclear energy and for the first time were publicly rec­ ognized as a legitimate opposition.2

144 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

During the incarceration, demonstrations sprang up across the country in support of the jailed protesters. True to take-off stage dynamics, within weeks the Seabrook action inspired the formation of hundreds of new anti-nuclear energy groups, which rapidly became organized into scores of alliances that conducted similar demonstrations and blockades at the nuclear reactor sites near their homes.3 By August, thousands protested and 500 people were arrested at the Diablo Canyon nuclear reactor construction site in California.

The anti-nuclear energy movement was led by a wave of independent local and regional groups and individuals. It brought together several different con­ stituencies that effectively carried out the rebel role of nonviolent direct action, including civil disobedience. The primary constituencies included:

• Not-in-my-back-yard (NIMBY) anti-nuclear energy activists and inspired local citizens, who were taking the last-resort action of civil disobedience

• A large number of energetic, politically radical young people, often from universities and high schools, who swelled the numbers participating in civil disobedience

• A small in number, yet critical collection of preexisting groups devoted to non­ violent social change, such as the American Friends Service Committee and the Movement for a New Society, which provided much of the guidance and train­ ing for the nonviolent demonstrations, campaigns, and civil disobedience

These anti-nuclear energy rebel activists created new methods of working for fundamental social change that combined Gandhian-Kingian nonviolence, a radical political-economic-environmental analysis, the energy of youth, and new democratic methods 6f participatory democracy, such as consensus deci­ sion-making and the affinity group method of collective organization. This new social action style was later carried into succeeding movements on other issues, such as the anti-nuclear weapons and non-intervention in Central America movements.

In this stage, the movement achieved important concrete successes. In 1978, some local and statewide referenda against nuclear energy succeeded. Kern County, California, for example, defeated the planned Wasco nuclear plant by reversing the two-to-one vote of 1976. New Hampshire, home state of the Seabrook site, voted against CWIP and also voted out pro-nuclear, anti-Clamshell Alliance incumbent Governor Meldrim Thomson Jr. There was also a turnaround in national public opinion. Polls showed that in June 1977, 61 percent were in favor of nuclear power and 22 percent were against, but in the fall of 1978 only 39 percent were in favor and 52 percent were against — a gain of 30 percent opposing nuclear energy in one year!

Moreover, in this 1977-78 period there were again no new orders for nuclear power reactors, while 42 previously ordered reactors were canceled,

THE ANTI-NUCLEAR ENERGY MOVEMENT 145

further reducing the total number of reactors already operating or being planned from 237 to 195. The nuclear industry was in a quiet tailspin. Despite these set­ backs, the powerholders fervently maintained their promotion of nuclear energy, publicized the start-up of six new reactors and the take-off of the nuclear energy era, warned about future blackouts and a weakened America without nuclear energy, and attacked the new movement as naive, violent, and anti-American.

Many exuberant activists had high expectations that the new movements size, the extensive media coverage, and the rightness of their cause, along with the new majority of public opinion, would force the powerholders to end nuclear power soon.

Stage Five: Perception o f Failure (1978-1982)

While the anti-nuclear energy movement achieved the goals of Stage Four and progressed to Stage Six, beginning in 1978 some activists became stuck in Stage Five. Less than a year after dramatic demonstrations and mass arrests, and with a narrow majority o f public opinion against nuclear energy, some rebel activists mis­ takenly believed the movement was ineffective, powerless, losing, and dying out. They became disheartened by some of the facts: not one reactor had been directly stopped by nonviolent action, six new reactors had been started up, and the targets of the movements biggest demonstrations — the Diablo Canyon and Seabrook reactors — were still being constructed. In addition, the number of people attending blockades had drastically decreased and fewer people were willing to get arrested.

Because they mistakenly believed that nuclear power would be immediately stopped by ever increasing numbers of people doing massive civil disobedience blockades of construction sites, these rebels were devastated when reactor con­ struction continued. What they didn’t know was that this pattern was typical of the process of success of Stage Four. They mistakenly judged that the movement was losing because it had not achieved its goal of stopping nuclear power or even stopping Diablo Canyon and Seabrook, when they should have based their judg­ ment on whether or not the movement had achieved the goals of Stage Four and was progressing along the normal road of movement success to Stage Six.

Some in this small minority of activists assumed the role of ineffective rebels. They mistakenly believed in the romantic myth that nuclear power could be stopped in Stage Four by radicalizing masses of people, 10 to 20,000, who would use militant, disruptive tactics to blockade construction sites. For several years the ineffective rebels broke off from the mainstream anti-nuclear energy groups. In New England’s Clamshell Alliance, for example, they formed the Coalition for Direct Action, were called Hard Clams, and claimed they used “direct action” instead of the “milquetoast” nonviolent actions that had been used by the Soft

146 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

Claras. After several years of ineffective attempts at harassing the police through direct action tactical maneuvering, this strategy waned.

The Soft Clams, on the other hand, had already understood that they could not stop the Seabrook plant through direct action alone. They planned and pursued a social change agent role with a Stage Six strategy of educating, involv­ ing, and mobilizing the general public in a long-term social movement process, while still using nonviolent actions when strategically appropriate.

Stage Six: Majority Public Opinion (1978-1990)

By 1978, a strong anti-nuclear energy social movement emerged that had grass­ roots groups, organized into regional and statewide alliances, challenging every nuclear reactor site in the country. Because the issue was now on the public agenda with majority public support, the movement was not only able to con­ tinue its nonviolent protest actions (though on a lower scale), but was also able to take an assertive role in challenging the social foundations of nuclear power and advocating alternatives.

Most of the recent anti-nuclear energy converts, both individuals and organ­ izations, began using the power of their new majority to pursue mainstream methods for social change. The primary role of the anti-nuclear energy movement changed from the rebel to the Stage Six-appropriate social change agent and reformer. Instead of direct action, the movement focused on mobilizing the local groups and the general public in a wide variety of political, social, legal, and eco­ nomic strategies to coerce both the state governments and electrical utilities to stop nuclear energy and replace it with sustainable, safe alternatives.

The most critical of the economic strategies was a challenge to the Construction Work In Progress laws that still existed in most states. Movement groups across the country had astonishing success in eliminating CWIP in almost every state. Consequently, there was a complete reversal in the econom­ ics of nuclear power. Nuclear energy went from being “too cheap to meter” to being too expensive for utilities to provide because they suddenly had to borrow billions of dollars, at high interest rates, to build reactors. This was a major -reason why the cost of constructing nuclear plants increased by three to ten times the original estimates.

The anti-nuclear energy movement then countered the utilities’ efforts to raise the vast sums of money they needed to construct new reactors. The move­ ment organized campaigns to stop potential loans from reactor investors, such as non-nuclear utilities, banks, municipalities, and individuals.

The movement also used a number of political strategies. With a majority of the public now opposing nuclear energy, state and local referenda against nuclear power were more likely to succeed. The Rancho Seco reactor was closed in 1988,

THE ANTI-NUCLEAR ENERGY MOVEMENT 147

shortly after a close vote by the people in Sacramento, California, and referenda also closed several reactors near Seatde, Washington.

Over the next decade, two reactor accidents served as powerful re-trigger events: Three Mile Island (1979) and Chernobyl (1986). Each accident was fol­ lowed by months of Stage Four-like protest demonstrations, new levels of public fear, and increased public opinion against nuclear power. Demonstrations across the county culminated when 125,000 protesters marched to the nations Capitol on May 6, 1979.

A West Coast re-trigger event occurred in California in 1981 when the AEC decided to allow low-power testing at the Diablo Canyon reactor. This precipi­ tated the biggest anti-nuclear demonstration since 1977, which included 1,905 arrests over several weeks, the largest civil disobedience action ever at any reactor site. This proved to be the peak of the rebel protests. When the NRC again announced the low-power start-up of Diablo Canyon in 1984, 500 people were arrested, a significant, but lower number. This was the last of the big civil disobe­ dience actions at reactor sites.

Following several years of concerted effort, movement lobbyists in Washington defeated the Clinch River breeder reactor by a 52 to 46 vote in the Senate on October 23, 1983, taking away a key source that the nuclear industry counted on for fuel for nuclear power plants. The U.S. Supreme Court placed another huge nail in the coffin of nuclear power with its 1983 decision to uphold the California law prohibiting new nuclear power plants until there was an ade­ quate method in place for storing nuclear waste.

The national outcry following the Three Mile Island accident put a public spotlight on the federal governments Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which was responsible for the safety of nuclear power. As a result of public and social movement pressure, the NRC quickly adopted new, stronger safety regulations for the design and construction of nuclear power plants that for exceeded the require­ ments in existence at the time. This greatly increased the cost and prolonged the construction time for all of the reactors being built. For some, however, it spelled the end. For example, in January of 1984, the NRC denied an operating license to the almost completed Byron, Illinois, nuclear plant because of faulty construc­ tion, and Commonwealth Edison then canceled the $3.7 billion plant. Three days later, Public Service of Indiana canceled its half-completed Marble Hill reactor at a cost of $2.5 billion, and Cincinnati Gas and Electric then canceled its 97 percent complete Zimmer reactor in Ohio.4

Throughout this stage, activists in the reformer role continued to challenge the NRC on many issues. One strategy focused on getting the NRC to enforce its requirement that in order to be licensed to operate, every nuclear plant must have in place an effective community evacuation plan that had the acceptance and

148 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

cooperation of the proper local authorities. This put the power to accept or reject nuclear reactors in the hands of local governments, which were much more polit­ ically responsive to their constituents. Consequently, the national powerholders became split from many of the local governments and state governors, who were compelled to challenge the licensing of reactors because of the violation of this requirement.

During this stage, dozens of nuclear utility companies had to cut back or abandon their nuclear reactor plans due to severe financial crises — even bank­ ruptcy in some cases. The economic crunch on nuclear utilities was caused by a wide array of interconnected and accumulating factors including:

• reactor construction costs that were five to ten times the original estimates;

• high interest rates on the billion-dollar loans that were needed for each reactor;

• construction times that were 10 to 15 years longer than expected;

• faulty design and construction of reactors;

• a cost-plus mentality on the part of contractors;

• poor business management;

•• stricter safety regulations and enforcement by the NRC; and

• years of delay caused by citizen-based legal and political challenges.

The situation of the Long Island Lighting Co.’s Shoreham reactor illustrates these factors. In 1987 it was over a decade behind schedule, and costs had risen to 15 times the original estimate; the company was paying $2 million a day just in interest on the loans.5 In 1989 the Seabrook I reactor finally started up, but its owner went bankrupt and canceled Seabrook II. These were all victories resulting from the movement’s reformer efforts. On top of this string of defeats, the demand for electricity dropped from a 7 percent to a 1 percent annual increase, making most of the proposed nuclear plants unnecessary since most areas already had enough generating capacity for the foreseeable future.

Despite the anti-nuclear energy movement’s dramatic progress on so many fronts, there were also signs that discouraged activists. First, typical to successful movements in Stage Six, there was a dramatic decline in both the numbers and size of nonviolent demonstrations against nuclear power since the 1977-79 heyday. Even after the 1986 Chernobyl accident, only-200 people marched in Washington, D.C., and a mere 74 were arrested at the nearly completed Seabrook reactor site.6 A second, and perhaps more serious, discouraging sign for activists was that from 1978 to 1990, 42 new nuclear power plants started up — one every 18 weeks! — raising the total number of operating reactors from 71 to 113. Moreover, both Diablo Canyon and Seabrook, the two reactors that most publicly defined the movements opposition to nuclear power, started operating.

However, there had not been a new order for a reactor (that was not subse­ quently canceled) since 1973. All indications were that the number of operating

THE ANTI-NUCLEAR ENERGY MOVEMENT 149

reactors in the United States would steadily decline. The four reactors listed as “under construction” were set for cancellation, and there were no prospects for new reactors being ordered in the foreseeable future. Nuclear power was seen not only by the public, but also by banks and utilities, as too expensive, and uneco­ nomical compared to alternatives, unnecessary, too risky, politically unpopular, and too dangerous.

Stage Seven: Attrition Success (1991 to the juture)

Within 30 years, the anti-nuclear energy movement has achieved astonishing success, reversing the nuclear energy era that was promoted by the nation’s pow- erholders and supported by the public. The movement advanced to the success stage in 1991, when the number of operating nuclear power plants dropped for the first time, from 113 to 112. The number of operating nuclear reactors con­ tinued to steadily decline throughout the decade, reaching 103 by 1999. The remaining reactors are expected to close down as they complete their life expectancy or are shut down for economic, safety, or other reasons. This will spell the end of this generation of nuclear power, because there are no more reactors under construction and there has not been a sale for a new nuclear plant in the U.S. for 28 years. Pro-nuclear energy forces are suffering a colossal defeat, but the movement is engaged in a long-term process of attrition that may last another 30 years until all of the present reactors are closed. This protracted demise is guaran­ teed by the fact that hundreds of billions of dollars have been invested in operating reactors that provide 20 percent of the nations electricity. In addition, the gov­ ernment and the nuclear power industry still strongly advocate nuclear power as the future centerpiece of a strong America.

The powerholders have a multifaceted strategy to revive and re-invent domestic nuclear power. The George H. W. Bush administration, for example, created the National Energy Strategy in 1991. This initiative called for the revival and massive proliferation o f nuclear power plants. It promoted new societal myths claiming that nuclear power was the main “alternative” to Middle Eastern oil and would also prevent global warming caused by fossil fuel plants. The Bush admin­ istration also canceled the nuclear industry’s billion-dollar debt to the government for uranium enrichment and in 1992 lobbied Congress to permit “fast track” licensing for reactors. The Department of Energy also produced a pro-nuclear energy curriculum for secondary schools, called “Science, Society and Americas Nuclear Waste.” Finally, the nuclear industry’s U.S. Council for Energy Awareness spends $20 million a year to promote nuclear energy.7

The anti-nuclear energy movement continues its efforts to shut down oper­ ating nuclear reactors and also to oppose powerholder attempts to extend their legally allowed life. The Citizens Awareness Network, for example, has groups in

150 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

New York and throughout New England that helped shut down four reactors since 1992 — Yankee Rowe, Maine Yankee, Haddam Neck, and Millstone-1.

Stage Eight: Continuing the Struggle (1992 to the future)

The anti-nuclear energy movement is in the long-term attrition process o f achiev­ ing total success in its original goal of defeating the first generation of nuclear power plants. Its work, however, is far from done. It needs to continue working on ongoing sub-issues, such as closing existing reactors and opposing nuclear waste transportation and waste sites. It needs to combat the powerholders’ new strategies to revive nuclear energy, while simultaneously promoting its larger goal of achieving a paradigm shift in the nation’s energy policy.

Some of the other key sub-issues, each requiring its own sub-movement, that have emerged in Stage Eight are the following:

• Deregulation of electricity. The powerholders want to deregulate electricity generation so that they can control electrical production and the price for all sources of energy production, raise electricity rates to make ever-bigger profits, and avoid state control in a new unregulated “free market” energy system.

• Conglomerate control of the energy industry. The powerholders also launched a grand strategy to reconfigure the energy industry into mega-conglomerates that will take the decision-making away from local communities, local utilities, and statewide utility commissions. This means the powerholders alone can decide whether to build reactors and raise electrical rates.

• Reactor debt bailout. Unbelievably, nuclear utilities want states to have electri­ cal consumers pay for the $135 billion that private utility companies owe for their own mistaken decisions to build the existing nuclear power plants. Some states, like California, have already agreed to this.

• Mixed Oxide Fuel (MOX). The powerholders are trying to have the produc­ tion of MOX fuel accepted as government policy. MOX is a means to recover plutonium from nuclear weapon warheads and from spent reactor fuel and to reprocess it as new fuel for nuclear reactors. Advocates argue that producing MOX would help resolve the question of what to do with nuclear warheads and spent reactor fuel and would reduce the cost of running nuclear plants.

• Sell nuclear reactors overseas. The U.S. nuclear industry has always tried to sell reactors overseas, especially in Third World nations, but sales have been drasti­ cally reduced there, too. Consequently, the U.S. powerholders have been trying to include the sale of nuclear reactors as part of economic assistance programs, especially to former Communist nations, such as North Korea and the states that used to make up the Soviet Union.

• Buying off environmental organizations. A final utilities strategy has been to “buy off” thousands of non-profit groups, especially those professional

THE ANTI-NUCLEAR ENERGY MOVEMENT 151

opposition organizations that deal with energy issues, by giving them philan­ thropic donations (these were as high as $110 million in 1996 & 19978).

The anti-nuclear energy movement has a range of strategies and constituen­ cies fighting these powerholder moves, and a wide variety of environmental, alternative energy, and community organizations, as well as local and state gov­ ernments and utilities are promoting a paradigm shift to the alternative of a soft energy path. Energy conservation and solar and wind energy generation would not only replace the need for nuclear energy, but would also reduce the demand for electricity produced by oil, coal, and gas fossil fuel plants. Finally, the move­ ment needs to achieve the goal of publicly owned and state-regulated electrical power so that people can better promote conservation and alternative energy sources and control their electricity generation, distribution, and finances.

The Gay and Lesbian Movement in the United States

Nancy Gregory1

A

LTHOUGH the beginning the

of 1969 the Stonewall gay and lesbian riot is annually movement commemorated in the United as States, marking the movements origin actually dates back to 1924, when the Society for Human Rights was founded by an itinerant preacher in Chicago. Since then, through the Homophile Movement, the turmoil of lesbian separatism, and the crisis of the AIDS epidemic, the Gay and Lesbian Movement has made significant progress. Whether it has achieved success in terms of its legal goals is arguable. If, however, as Dennis Altman contends, “the gay movement is as much aimed at overcoming the internalized self-hatreds and doubts of homosexuals as it is at ending legal and social restrictions,”2 it can be deemed successful. Although many gay men and lesbians remain closeted, the predominant internalized homophobia of the past has given way to self-acceptance for the majority of gay people.

Stage One: Normal Times (1945-1960)

Many commentators cite the social upheavals brought about by World War II as the genesis of a “gay awakening” in the U.S. In both sex-segregated military units and female-dominated factories, gay people found new opportunities to meet each other.3 In addition, the 1948 publication of the Kinsey report on male sexual behavior described a significantly greater incidence of homosexual activ­ ity than had previously been assumed. In the post-war U.S., the prevalence of homosexuality — though widely considered to be a perversion — entered the consciousness of both gay and straight Americans.

THE CAY AND LESBIAN MOVEMENTS IN THE UNITED STATES 153

The post-war U.S. also saw the rise of McCarthyism, which branded homo­ sexuals as “sex offenders” and “security risks” and included them in the so-called anti-Communist purges of the period. Many gay people were rejected for federal employment and expelled from the military between 1947 and 1950. In 1953, President Eisenhower issued an executive order that explicitly barred homosexu­ als from federal employment. Repression by the powerholders was not confined to employment, either; bar raids and police entrapment of homosexuals occurred regularly, with scores of people being arrested at a time. Given the widespread homophobia during this period, the powerholders needed to exert virtually no effort to convince the public that this discriminatory treatment was legitimate and necessary. In this climate, the majority of gay people gathered furtively in clubs and bars to fulfill their personal social needs

It was not until the founding of the Mattachine Society in 1951 that an organized opposition to the discrimination could be identified. Based in Los Angeles, chapters of the Mattachine Society opened in several large U.S. cities through the 1950s, with the aim of bringing homosexuals together, educating both homosexuals and heterosexuals about the issues that confronted gay people, and seeking civil rights for gay people as other minorities had done.4 In 1955 a comparable organization for women, the Daughters of Bilitis (DOB), was founded in San Francisco.5 The DO B’s mission was more modest than that of the original Mattachine Society and focused primarily on public education. During the 1950s, DOB was also successful in establishing chapters throughout the United States. Though small in membership and limited in scope, Mattachine and DOB were vitally important to the movement as they provided the first sig­ nificant opposition to the status quo.

Two additional events during this period marked opposition to the major­ ity’s view of homosexuality. In 1951, Edward Sagarin (whose pseudonym was Donald Webster Cory) published The Homosexual in America, which argued for tolerance of homosexuals and presented gay life from the perspective of a gay writer. In 1953, several Mattachine members published One-, the first publicly dis­ tributed homophile magazine in the U.S. When the U.S. Post Office banned the distribution of One in 1954, its publishers filed suit, claiming an infringement of their First Amendment right to free speech. In a rare early victory for the move­ ment, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of One in 1958.

Stage Two: Prove the Failure o f Official Institutions (1% 1-1964)

With gay men and lesbians gathering together in small groups in many of the major U.S. cities, the Homophile Movement (as the pre-Stonewall movement was known) had emerged by 1961. Consistent with Bill Moyer’s assertion that a movement’s source of power lies in the strongly held beliefs and values of the

154 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

people, “gay men and lesbians joined with other minorities in the 1950s in pressing for liberal democratic societies to live up to their self-professed ideals of ‘liberty, equality, and the pursuit of happiness’ for all.”6 Given the extreme hos­ tility its members faced, however, the early Homophile Movement cautiously — even apologetically — sought tolerance from society. Beginning in 1961, the movement experienced the first rumblings of a more activist approach, prima­ rily from Frank Kameny, founder of the Washington, D.C., Mattachine Society. Kameny and other leaders of the opposition had to “prove the failure of official institutions” to their fellow gay people as much as to the public at large.

Kameny’s personal awakening came in 1957, when he was fired from his position with the U.S. Army Map Service because of his homosexuality. Rather than accept this discriminatory treatment, Kameny appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. In March 1961, the Court refused to hear the case, letting the lower court rulings against Kameny stand and ending his legal battle. In November 1961, Kameny founded the D.C. chapter of Mattachine, taking a self- described “activist militant” approach. Kameny was considered militant at the time because he refused to accept the powerholders’ view of homosexuals as “sick,” “sinners,” or “perverts.” Rather than defer to so-called experts theorizing about the “problem” of homosexuality, he insisted that the experts could not know more about homosexuals than homosexuals themselves.7 In 1962, Washington Mattachine drafted a statement of purpose calling for full equality between homosexuals and heterosexuals, and sent copies to the president, vice- president, the entire Supreme Court, and every member o f Congress. In addition, the group published a quarterly newsletter, which it sent to selected members of the federal government, including J. Edgar Hoover, director of the FBI, who had the Washington Mattachine under surveillance.

Kameny’s opposition extended to the current leadership and attitude of the movement as well, and he took his “anti-sickness” message to the Mattachine Society New York (MSNY) in 1964. By asserting that “Gay is Good” (echoing Stokely Carmichael’s slogan “Black is Beautiful”) and that gay people should take pride in their homosexuality, Kameny was successful in motivating the MSNY to elect a new leadership and embrace an activist strategy.

The anti-sickness campaign was also waged by the DOB. Barbara Gittings, who founded the New York DOB in 1958, became the editor of the group’s pub­ lication, The Ladder, in 1962. She immediately sought to move the journal toward a gay-positive, mass-movement position. Fearful of this new militancy, however, the DOB leadership stripped Gittings of her post in 1965.8

Given the timidity within the movement and the hostility without, the pow­ erholders continued to be able to operate in a discriminatory and repressive manner with virtually no opposition. Having accepted the sickness label themselves, most

THE GAY AND LESBIAN MOVEMENTS IN THE UNITED STATES 155

gay people were completely ready to defer to the pronouncements of the medical establishment and the restrictions o f governmental authority. Thus the primary task of the movement at this stage was to convince gay people that the problem was not in themselves, but in the social and legal institutions that oppressed them.

Stage Three: Ripening Conditions (1965-1968)

On the first day of 1965, a public confrontation with San Francisco authorities marked the beginning of a new stage in the movement. The previous year, a group of liberal clergy — seeing the connection between the Homophile and civil rights movements — had founded the Council on Religion and the Homosexual to reach out to the gay community. On New Year’s Day they staged a costume ball to raise funds for the new organization. The San Francisco police were intent on disrupting this first widely publicized event produced for the city’s gay commu­ nity. They photographed and filmed guests as they arrived at the ball and “inspected” the premises nine times during the course of the evening. Three people, including a heterosexual ally were arrested and charged with obstructing a police officer in the performance of his duties; eventually, all three were acquit­ ted on a technicality. The ball and the trial garnered significant media attention and roused the anger of many gay San Franciscans. As they personalized the issue, some, for the first time, began to perceive themselves as members of an oppressed minority group.9

The social upheavals of the 1960s, and particularly the civil rights move­ ment, had a significant impact on the development of ripening conditions. In May 1965 a small group of homophile activists took their protests public with demonstrations at the White House, Pentagon, Civil Service Commission, and State Department, and on July 4 a group picketed Independence Hall in Philadelphia. These actions received an unprecedented amount of national media coverage, and even ran on the major wire services. A coalition group, ECHO (East Coast Homophile Organizations), continued to stage public demonstra­ tions through 1965 and 1966, and in 1967 the Homophile Action League was founded in Philadelphia. League chapters soon appeared in other major cities.

A combination of rising expectations and a personalization of the problem produced a critical mass of discontent in the Homophile Movement during Stage Three. Though many gay leaders continued to promote an assimilationist approach, more and more activists embraced the notion of gay pride and equal­ ity. These movement forces gained support in 1968 when the North American Conference of Homophile Organizations (NACHO) resolved that homosexuality was as valid as heterosexuality10 This coalition of 26 organizations from around the country endorsed Frank Kameny’s slogan “Gay is Good” and adopted a Homosexual Bill of Rights, which outlined the movements immediate goals;

156 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

1. Private consensual acts between persons over the age of

consent shall not be an offense 2. Solicitation for any sexual act shall not be an offense

except upon the filing of a complaint by the aggrieved party, not a police officer or agent 3. A persons sexual orientation or practice shall not be a

factor in the granting or receiving of federal security clearances, visas, and the granting of citizenship 4. Service in and discharge from the armed forces and

eligibility for veterans benefits shall be without reference to homosexuality 5. A persons sexual orientation or practice shall not affect

his eligibility for employment with federal, state, or local governments, or private employers.11

By the end of Stage Three, the time was right for the emergence of a new social movement. Within a year of the NACHO conference, the Homophile Movement would be supplanted by what eventually became known as the Gay and Lesbian Movement.

Stage Four: Take-Off (1969-1972)

On the Friday night of 27-28 June 1969, New York police raid­ ed a Greenwich Village gay bar called the Stonewall. Bar raids were an American institution ... and in the preceding three weeks, five New York gay bars had already been raided. What made the Stonewall a symbol o f a new era o f gay politics was the reaction of [those] ... who confronted the police first with jeers and high camp and then with a hail of coins, paving stones, and parking meters. By the end of the weekend, the Stonewall bar had been burned out, but a new form of collective resistance was afoot: gay liberation.12

The Stonewall riot was the trigger event o f the gay and lesbian movement in the U.S. Writer and activist Margaret Cruikshank describes Stonewall as “a sym­ bolic end to victim status,”13 and a gay journalist writing in 1969 called it “the hairpin drop heard ‘round the world.”14 Though the mainstream media coverage was negative, the riot provided the catalyst for which younger, more militant gay men and lesbians were waiting.

One month after Stonewall, the Gay Liberation Front (GLF) was founded in New York City. In December 1969 the Gay Activist Alliance (GAA) was

THE CAY AND LESBIAN MOVEMENTS IN THE UNITED STATES 157

formed there as well. The two groups pursued different strategies: the GLF stressed coalition building with other oppressed groups to fight for the disman- ding of repressive economic and social structures, while the GAA focused solely on gay liberation and emphasized the need to focus on rights guaranteed by the Constitution.15 Though they took different approaches, however, both the GLF and GAA focused on organizing the grassroots for confrontations with the pow- erholders. With chapters in large and small cities around the country, both groups liberally employed “zaps” — such as gay kiss-ins, sit-ins, and disruptions of meet­ ings — as well as more traditional pickets and marches to dramatize the oppression of gay people and to demand sexual freedom and equal rights. Civil disobedience was used for the first time in the movement during this period, as a small number of activists chained themselves to furniture and fixtures in power- holder strongholds, such as the New York City Council chamber, the offices of New York City mayor John Lindsay, and the offices of Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern.

While some of its members continued to apply pressure outside the system, the GAA also worked for change within it. Embarking on a course of legislative advocacy, the GAA lobbied unsuccessfully in 1970 for a gay rights ordinance in New York City. In 1971 the GAA called on New York State to implement civil rights legislation as 3,000 gay men and lesbians marched on the capitol building in Albany. Other large demonstrations were held in 1970 in New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Chicago to commemorate the Stonewall riots. In 1971, what later became known as Gay Pride Day was celebrated by people in Philadelphia, Detroit, and Washington, D.C. The breadth of the new movement was demonstrated in that year and the next: 65 gay and lesbian activists in Missouri attended the first-ever gay liberation meeting in that state; 200 Connecticut gay people marched on police headquarters in Bridgeport to protest official harassment; and gay activists in Ohio and Hawaii were successful in their efforts to repeal sodomy statutes.

Media powerholders, including the Los Angeles Times, Harper’s magazine, and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, were targets of GLF/GAA zaps during Stage Four. One protester was even able to get onto the set o f the CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite, holding up a sign proclaiming “Gays Protest CBS Prejudice” during a live broadcast.16 The oppositions demonstrations paid off in 1970, when two GAA activists were guests on the Dick Cavett Show, and in 1972, when The New Republic acknowledged the increasing political power of gay men and lesbians in an article entitled “The Gay Vote.” Also in 1972, gay men received unprecedented mainstream media attention with the airing of an ABC television movie, That Certain Summer. The gay press acclaimed the movie for its positive, non-stereotypical portrayal of a gay couple.17

158 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

In Stage Four, the general public certainly became aware of the gay and lesbian movement, if not supportive of it. As GAA activist Arnie Kantrowitz wrote: “Nineteen seventy-one was the year we grew loud enough to be heard, and like us or not, America could no longer deny that we were there.”18 Neither could the powerholders. By 1972, they could no longer refer to gay people as “sex mur­ derers,” as they had done in 1949, but the “sin” and “sickness” labels still stuck, preventing the opposition from effectively characterizing gay men and lesbians as members of an oppressed minority group deserving of equal rights. According to Kantrowitz, “[In 1971] we truly believed that once we had presented our case to the nation, our rights would be granted immediately. It took a lot of battering before we realized we were in for the long haul.”19

Stage Five: Perception o f Failure (1973-1989)

Though the gay and lesbian movement in 1973 didn’t enjoy the level of public support that usually indicates a movement has successfully taken off, it had achieved that level within the gay and lesbian community. In fact, for many gay people the movement had been so successful at liberating their personal lives that they concluded the struggle was over. In addition, the increasing professionaliza­ tion of the movement (the National Gay Task Force and the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund were both incorporated in 1973) allowed the gay rank and file to participate by writing checks instead of protesting, a trend that alienated the activists of the previous stage. According to one, “gay respectability” was the “anti-activist gay theology” of the POOs, which focused on mainstream lobbying and civil litigation efforts.20 Paradoxically, while gay and lesbian visibil­ ity had never been greater, fewer and fewer people attended Gay Pride marches and rallies.

The detrimental consequences of this move to a solely insider strategy were demonstrated at the 1976 Democratic National Convention in New York City. Without the influence of ultra-liberal George McGovern, Democratic Party pow­ erholders retrenched and retreated on gay rights, prohibiting any discussion of gay and lesbian concerns at the convention. Gay activists called for a 10,000-strong rally to protest this exclusion, but only 600 demonstrators showed up.21

A second factor that sapped the movement’s strength in 1973 was the rise of lesbian separatism. Greatly influenced by the womens movement (though les­ bians had to fight for visibility and acceptance there), many lesbian feminists rejected the gay rights movement as irredeemably misogynist and sexist. “Lesbians are feminists, not homosexuals,” Jill Johnston wrote in 1975.22 Because lesbian separatists also denounced gay women as people who “relate genitally to women, [but] give their allegiance to men,” deep divisions were created between lesbians, as well as with gay men.23 The gap continued to widen over the next 12 or more

THE GAY AND LESBIAN MOVEMENTS IN THE UNITED STATES 159

years as women and men created separate social and cultural communities. Occasionally an especially threatening action by the powerholders — such as California’s Briggs Initiative in 1978, which aimed to drive gay and lesbian teach­ ers from public schools — brought the two camps together in opposition, bur it wasn’t until the AIDS crisis produced a tremendous anti-gay backlash in the mid- 1980s that gay men and lesbians were truly reunited.24

No one can deny the enormous toll the AIDS epidemic has taken on the gay community and the movement. In addition to the decimation of the community by illness and death, ignorance produced bitter splits within the movement in the early days o f the epidemic, as some leaders supported powerholder efforts to close gay bathhouses and others denounced them as yet another example of “pushing morality under the guise of medical expertise.”25

While gay men and lesbians responded to this community emergency with increased skill and expertise, the energy required for basic crisis management meant that little was left for other demands. However, by the late 1980s the extreme anti-gay backlash engendered by the AIDS epidemic — evangelical min­ ister Jerry Falwell had described AIDS as “God s punishment upon homosexuals” — galvanized the movement for a new round of activism.26

Stage Six: M ajority Public Opinion (1973-1982)

In Stage Six, Moyer says, “the movement’s chief goal... is to nurture, support, and empower grassroots activists and groups.” By 1973, the infrastructure of the gay and lesbian community was in place to pursue this goal as over 1,000 local organ­ izations had sprung up around the country. In addition to providing services and support to gay men and lesbians, many groups sponsored programs to educate heterosexuals about gay people and the discrimination they faced.27 This outreach to the straight community was especially important in religious institutions, as charges of immorality continued to hinder the movement’s efforts to convince a majority of the general public that gay people comprised a legitimate minority group in need of protection from discrimination. In 1973, several mainline Protestant denominations launched the National Task Force on Gay People in the Church to seek reforms in the National Council of Churches.

It was at the local level that activists enjoyed the most political and legisla­ tive success. Between 1973 and 1977, local organizations were able to secure anti-discrimination legislation in dozens of municipalities. Gay and lesbian Democratic clubs were formed in cities around the country, and openly gay politicians ran for public office. On the national level, in 1973-74 the move­ ment celebrated a major defection from the powerholders’ camp when the American Psychiatric Association (APA) voted to remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. Without the backing of the APA, the “sickness” label

160 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

began to lose its potency with the general public. Also during this period, the American Bar Association adopted a resolution calling for the repeal of all sodomy laws (1973), the National Teachers Association added sexual orientation to its anti-discrimination policy (1974), and the U.S. Civil Service Commission removed its ban on hiring gay people for civilian federal government jobs (1975).28

Despite these cracks in the armor, the powerholders — led by the emerging religious right — unleashed a forceful backlash against the movement in 1977. Demonizing gay people as “child molesters” and a “threat to the family,” the so- called Save Our Children campaign was launched in Dade County, Florida, by pop singer Anita Bryant. It was an attempt to overturn gay civil rights legislation that had been enacted only six months before.29 Encouraged by a larger than 2 to 1 victory in Florida, and with the strong support of Jerry Falwell and others in the religious right, Bryant took her show on the road and led anti-gay referendum campaigns throughout the country. In 1978, gay rights legislation was repealed in St. Paul, Minnesota; Witchita, Kansas; and Eugene, Oregon.30 Inspired by Bryants success, California State senator John Briggs launched a voter initiative in 1978 that would have expelled all gay and lesbian teachers from the public school system, along with any straight teachers who “presented homosexuality positively.”31

Fortunately, the Briggs Initiative proved to be a re-trigger event for the movement. Only 3,000 gay San Franciscans had protested the Dade County repeal in 1977; in 1978, a record 250,000 turned out for the city’s Gay Pride Day. In addition, when the Briggs Initiative made the ballot in California, 30 organi­ zations, using an array of tactics, were formed around the state to block it. Indicative of the level of public support the movement had achieved by this stage, the gay and lesbian opposition was able to garner anti-Briggs endorsements from several large labor unions and from African-American and Chicano leaders, including Cesar Chavez.

In November 1978 the movement celebrated two great victories and suf­ fered one devastating loss. The tide of anti-gay referendum success was stopped when California voters rejected the Briggs Initiative by 58 to 42 percent, and when Seatde voters chose to retain their city’s gay rights ordinance, 63 to 37 percent.32 Only three weeks later, however, San Francisco’s newly elected city supervisor and beloved gay activist Harvey Milk was assassinated. On May 21, 1979, when Milk’s assassin was convicted only of manslaughter, thousands of people rioted in the city. The maturity and discipline of the movement was evident the following night when 10,000 demonstrators — monitored by 400 lesbian and gay peacekeepers — gathered nonviolently in the Castro district to celebrate what would have been Milks 49th birthday. That fall, in reaction to the

THE CAY AND LESBIAN MOVEMENTS IN THE UNITED STATES 161

growing anti-gay backlash, the first-ever national gay rights march drew 100,000 protesters to Washington, D.C.

The AIDS epidemic provided the movement’s next rallying point — for both the powerholders and the opposition. Though the disease had been identi­ fied in 1981, and the number of afflicted gay men grew exponentially thereafter, it wasn’t until Rock Hudsons death in 1985 that AIDS received much public attention. Then, as Sarah Schulman writes, “as soon as the dominant culture noticed AIDS, they started to distort its meaning and use this visibility to isolate and punish people who were infected. In other words, 1985 proved that hetero­ sexual awareness equaled AIDS hysteria.”33 Ignorance and fear were potent tools the powerholders used to maintain the publics support; to the religious right’s “immoral” label, they added “diseased.”

This strategy worked well in the mid-1980s, when legislation was introduced in jurisdictions around the country to limit patient rights in the name of public health. It also made it easy for the U.S. Supreme Court to halt judicial progress on the right to privacy in its 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick decision, which upheld the con­ stitutionality of Georgias sodomy statute. What made the Bowers decision particularly oppressive was the feet that the justices specified they were ruling in regard to the legality of homosexual sodomy, not heterosexual sodomy.34 Lesbians were caught up in the AIDS backlash as well, and anti-gay violence against both men and women increased while the powerholders stalled on providing sufficient resources to fight the disease.

Having achieved the maturity of Stage Six, the movement was able to respond to the AIDS epidemic and the resulting anti-gay backlash through a variety of channels. Professional opposition organizations such as the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and the Human Rights Campaign Fund documented the incidence of anti-gay hate crimes and lobbied the powerholders for legal pro­ tections and increased funding for AIDS. A principled dissent group, ACT UP (AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power), formed chapters throughout the U.S. to stage dramatic direct actions, including civil disobedience, to protest powerholder indifference to the AIDS crisis. Finally, hundreds of grassroots groups around the country provided services to people with HIV/AIDS; fought local batdes, such as those to ensure HIV-positive children were allowed to attend public schools; and continued to press for gay visibility and equal rights.35

In October 1987, gay and lesbian activists mobilized a second round of national protests in Washington, D.C., drawing 500,000 demonstrators for a march to the Capitol and 600 protesters for civil disobedience actions at the Supreme Court. The breadth of the gay and lesbian movement was demonstrated at these events, not only by the diversity of the participants, but also by the array of their demands. In addition to attention to HIV/AIDS issues, the movement’s

162 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

other goals —■ civil rights protections, unobstructed military service, and domes­ tic partnership and custody rights — were all extensively addressed.36

Stage Seven and Stage Eight: Success and Continuing the Struggle (1990 to the future)

Through a process of attrition, the powerholders have yielded on several impor­ tant issues since 1990. In recognition of the equal status of people with HIV and AIDS, the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act included HIV/AIDS in its anti- discrimination provisions. Also in 1990, the first federal pro-gay legislation was enacted when the Hate Crimes Statistics Act became law. The Act requires the Justice Department to collect data on hate-motivated violence, whether the hate is based on religion, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. Passage of the Hate Crimes Act was significant because it represented the first time the federal government acknowledged the minority status of gay people on an equal basis with other rec­ ognized groups.

After stalling at two, several more states have passed anti-discrimination leg­ islation since 1991. Presently 12 states — California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Nevada, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin — and over 100 localities have civil rights laws on the books according to the Human Rights Campaign website in January 2000. In 1992, a voter initiative in Oregon to prohibit anti-discrimination legis­ lation was rejected. Though a similar amendment passed in Colorado that year, in 1994 the Colorado Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional, and in 1996 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld that ruling by a six to three decision.37

According to Urvashi Vaid, former executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force:

Gay, lesbian, and AIDS activists made 1992 a pivotal year for two reasons. First, because we mounted the most effective national political effort of our movement’s history and helped to defeat a President; and second, because the straight media and candidates took notice.38

It may have been “the economy, stupid,” but the fact that Democratic pres­ idential nominee Bill Clinton could endorse federal gay civil rights legislation, call for an end to the ban on openly gay and lesbian soldiers in the military, actively court the gay and lesbian vote, and win the presidency, was a significant victory for the movement. The movement’s political strength was further demonstrated at the April 30, 2000, Millennium March on Washington for Equality when President Clinton addressed hundreds of thousands of demonstrators via video­ tape to tout his administration as “the most inclusive in history.”39 The 2000

THE GAY AND LESBIAN MOVEMENTS IN THE UNITED STATES 163

march marked the first time in four national demonstrations that the country’s highest-ranking political office-holder addressed the crowd. While Clinton’s record in office has been disappointing, his acknowledgment — as a central pow- erholder — of the opposition is definitely a sign of movement success.

Another significant indication of movement success was the April 2000 passage in Vermont o f the Act Relating to Civil Unions. The Vermont law allows same-sex couples to join in legally recognized civil unions and thus become enti­ tled to over 300 benefits — including child custody and visitation, medical decisions and family leave, estate inheritances, and tax breaks — available under state law to married couples. Since the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines marriage as an institution reserved exclusively for heterosexuals, the impact of the Vermont victory could be even more critical if, as expected, the Civil Unions statute is used to challenge the constitutionality of the DOMA under the U.S. Constitution’s “full faith and credit” clause, which requires states to recognize marriages performed in other states.40

While it has been difficult to achieve legal recognition of same-sex couples — only two other states, California and Hawaii, and 48 localities currendy have domestic partnership laws on the books — more and more employers have acknowledged the partners of their gay and lesbian employees. In June 2000, the “Big 3” U.S. automakers — Ford, General Motors, and Daimler Chrysler — with the backing of the United Auto Workers union, agreed to extend health care ben­ efits to the domestic partners of employees. The new policy “marked the first time that virtually an entire sector of American commerce, along with its leading union, decided collectively to provide domestic partner benefits.” When Coca- Cola announced, also in June 2000, that it would provide health care coverage to the same-sex partners of employees, it joined over 3,400 employers nationwide, including 99 Fortune 500 companies, to extend such benefits.41

Despite these movement victories, the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard, a gay University of Wyoming student, and the ongoing, though much less publi­ cized, harassment and violence faced by gay people, prove that “continuing the struggle” is more important than ever. Further evidence chat the fight goes on came in June 2000 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, by a five to four deci­ sion in the case of Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, that the Boy Scouts could continue to ban gay males from the organization. The Court’s decision was viewed as especially threatening because of the fear that it will be used in the future by other large, open membership groups to circumvent hard-won state and local anti-discrimination Jaws.

In its final stage, according to the Movement Action Plan, a social move­ ment must both follow up, ensuring that its success is maintained, and carry on, striving for the achievement of its other goals. The gay and lesbian movement is

164 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

clearly institutionalized, and gay and straight people alike support it through pro­ fessional opposition organizations, direct action groups, and grassroots associations. It has much more to accomplish now that its issues are on the public agenda. As the slogan of the direct action group Queer Nation says, “Were here. We’re queer. Get used to it.”

9 The Breast Cancer Social Movement

M ary Lou Finley I

N THE 1990s, a new women’s health movement with a focus on breast cancer emerged in the U.S. political arena. The movement gained national visibility with the 1991 organizing of the National Breast Cancer Coalition, an advocacy group set up to lobby federal politicians in Washington, D.C. This coalition now has more than 300 member groups, which provide education, support, and advo­ cacy for women with breast cancer throughout the country.

The breast cancer movement aims to increase women’s participation in deci­ sions concerning breast cancer, both at the individual and societal levels. Local groups focusing on both support and advocacy have joined together at the national level to lobby for public policy changes that will strengthen efforts to —

• treat and seek a cure for breast cancer;

• provide increased access to health care and other protections for women with breast cancer; and

• prevent breast cancer.

There has been a powerful interaction between other components of the women’s movement, the overall women’s health movement, and the breast cancer movement, and victories in the larger women’s movement have played a critical role in the unfolding of the breast cancer movement. In MAP terms, the breast cancer movement can be seen as a sub-movement of the women’s health move­ ment, operating in many respects independently, but also clearly part of a larger impetus toward change in the status of women.

Background: The Womens Movement and the Womens Health Movement

The contemporary wave of the women’s liberation movement (as it was then called) began in 1969-70, with the formation of a number of womens conscious­ ness raising groups and action groups, and the publication of several influential

166 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

books that presented an analysis of womens oppression to a wider public. (Particularly noteworthy were Betty Friedans The Feminine Mystique (1963), Robin Morgans edited anthology Sisterhood is Powerful (1970), and a series of booklets called Notes from the First Year, Notes from the Second Year, and Notes from the ThirdYear, published in 1969, 1970, and 1971, and later reprinted in Radical Feminism (1973), edited by Anne Koedt, Ellen Levine, and Anita Rapone).

The womens liberation movement challenged male control over womens lives, male-dominated institutions, and the widespread discounting of issues of importance to women such as child care and housework. The impetus for the movement came from two directions:

• From women who had been active in the civil rights movement and other late 1960s movements and who saw the relevance of analyses they learned about in those movements to their own situation.

• From a more mainstream effort of professional women, originally coalesced at a conference called by President John F. Kennedy in 1963.2

From the beginning, the womens health movement was an important sub­ movement, applying a feminist analysis to womens health issues, particularly reproductive issues. The womens health movement sought to place more infor­ mation about health matters into women’s hands through publications such as Our Bodies, Our Selves, first self-published as a newsprint booklet by the Boston Women’s Health Book Collective and sold for 30 cents in 1970.3 With this new information, women began to question their doctors — at that time over 92 percent male4 — as a part of the larger effort to gain control over their own lives. Women challenged obstetrician-gynecologists about many aspects of childbirth and reproductive health care, and other women began a movement to return to midwifery and home births. Some groups fought in the courts and through the government for women’s right to have a legal abortion. Under the banner of reproductive rights, women also fought to end forced sterilizations foisted upon poor women.5

The larger women’s movement focused on a wide range of issues including equal access to everything from school sports to medical schools, equal pay and equal treatment on the job, and more representation in the political arena. This last effort was particularly important for the breast cancer movement. The National Womens Political Caucus encouraged the election of more women from both parties. By the 1990s, when breast cancer issues began to come before Congress, there were over 40 women in the House of Representatives and 6 women in the Senate, which was an important factor in the early successes of the breast cancer movement.

While the breast cancer movement did not g?iin national visibility until the early 1990s, these earlier activities laid the groundwork for the movement. They

THE BREAST CANCER SOCIAL MOVEMENT 167

happened during a time of growth and change in the overall women’s movement, when women were gaining more access and more rights in many arenas. For example, in the early 1990s a woman headed the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for the first time. Women were gradually gaining more and more seats in medical schools until, in 2000, nearly half of medical students in the U.S. were women.6 Those victories in the larger movement provided the context for the changes that were relevant to the breast cancer movement.

Much of the work of this movement has come from local groups, which spearheaded many of the early efforts and which provided — and still provide — a source of support and education for women with breast cancer as well as a vehicle for advocacy and activism. However, for the sake of brevity I will focus chiefly on the activities of the national movement.

Stage One: Normal Times (1950

s

~1960

s

)

The breast cancer movement, like the rest of the womens health movement, was in Stage One up to approximately 1970. Breast cancer was largely a private expe­ rience, with women patients expected to trust their physicians — who were almost invariably male — to make decisions for them regarding treatment for cancer. Breast cancer was spoken of in whispered tones even among women; in the 1950s, one could scarcely say the word “breast” in polite company.

However, in the early 1950s an organization called Reach to Recovery began to provide woman-to-woman support for breast cancer patients during hospital­ ization. This group could be seen as an early precursor o f later movement support groups. Women who had survived breast cancer offered support to women under­ going treatment. The group functioned within the framework of traditional womens roles, with members offering women advice on, for example, how to feel feminine and keep a husband happy after the loss of a breast.

Stage Two: Prove the Failure o f Existing Institutions (1973—1986)

This stage began about 1973, somewhat later than other sub-movements in the womens health movement, such as those focused on reproductive rights. A sense that the medical establishment was failing women with breast cancer began to develop during this time. The standard treatment since the 1890s, radical mastec­ tomy — an extensive surgery that involved removal of the entire breast and some underlying muscles — had serious side effects and was often not effective, as many women still died within a few years of the surgery.7 Few doctors would entertain the possibility o f other, less drastic surgeries because o f the American medical estab­ lishment’s practice of observing the current “standard of care.” Any physician who provided anything else put himself at professional risk. Meanwhile, breast cancer incidence continued to increase, affecting 1 out of 14 women in the U.S.

168 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

This situation began to shift in the mid-1970s, as European research began to show that less drastic surgeries might be equally effective. Controversies over types of surgery arose within the medical establishment. Physician George Crile’s What Women Should Know About the Breast Cancer Controversy — a work that was considered “radical fringe” for its time — revealed these debates to women themselves.

Popular books and articles began to appear, providing public education about breast cancer and encouraging patients to be involved in decisions about treatment, particularly the type of surgery they underwent. In 1974, Betty Ford and Happy Rockefeller, wives of President Gerald Ford and New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller, publicly discussed their breast cancers and called attention to the need for breast cancer detection, thus helping to bring breast cancer “out of the closet” and into the public eye and breaking the hold of the privatization of the breast cancer experience.

In 1975, Rose Kushner, a Washington, D.C.-based journalist, who was in many respects a one-woman breast cancer movement in those days, wrote about her breast cancer experience in Breast Cancer: A Personal History and Investigative Report.8 She also opened the Breast Cancer Advisory Center in Rockville, Maryland, to provide information to women lacing a breast cancer diagnosis. Kushner began organizing local support and education groups called Y-ME for women with breast cancer. (The groups were named for her book, retitled Why Me? in its 1977 reprinting.)

While these activities began to bring the issue into public view, the medical establishment continued to resist suggested changes and no cure was in sight. Women began to feel more and more that the health care system, which they relied upon, did not work for them regarding breast cancer, fulfilling the goal of MAP’s Stage Two.

Stage Three: Ripening Conditions (1986-1991)

Stage Three is the period when the groundwork is laid for change: vehicles for change are identified, networks developed, and early victories are won on some sub-issues. For the breast cancer movement, this stage began in the 1980s.

First, local activist groups formed, focusing on both support for women with cancer and activist agendas. In 1986, Jackie Winnow founded an Oakland group. Winnow had been active in providing support for AIDS patients in San Francisco prior to her breast cancer diagnosis, and she took her cues from the strong AIDS activist movement. In 1989, Susan Shapiro, a young woman active in the femi­ nist community, who had been diagnosed with breast cancer, launched a group in Cambridge, Massachusetts. She wrote an article entitled “Cancer as a Feminist Issue” for a local feminist paper and called for the formation of a group that would

THE BREAST CANCER SOCIAL MOVEMENT 169

combine political action, direct service, and education.9 Dr. Susan Love, who would play a significant role in Stage Four (see below), was a member of this group. Also in 1989, several groups o f women with breast cancer formed the Long Island Breast Cancer Coalition and, after learning that Long Island had a partic­ ularly high rate of breast cancer, called for a scientific investigation of possible environmental causes.10 Other groups were founded focusing on the needs of women of color and lesbians.

Another set of activist groups formed to lobby for informed consent laws at the state level. These laws would require doctors, who at that time made the deci­ sions about what treatment their breast cancer patients received, to provide women with a choice o f type o f surgery and between surgery and other treatments for breast cancer. The medical establishment strongly opposed these laws, seeing them as intrusions into the domain of physician expertise. However, determined groups of women activists, primarily breast cancer survivors and their friends and relatives, launched intensive lobbying campaigns.11 Informed consent laws regard­ ing choice of breast cancer surgery were passed in 17 states.

In MAP terms, we could say that this sub-issue (and the sub-movement sur­ rounding it) gained widespread support because the customary treatment of women by their doctors (which sometimes involved performing biopsy and mas­ tectomy as a part of one surgery, so that the woman entered the operating room not knowing if she had cancer and awoke having lost a breast) violated widely held values about personal choice, which were increasingly being applied in the health arena. Though the larger movement was only in Stage Three, these locally based groups formed a sub-movement that was able to push through to Stage Seven, Success, on the issue of informed consent.

Another small but significant early victory came when Rose Kushner was appointed to the National Cancer Advisory Board as a consumer representative, the first such representative in the Boards history. The National Association of Breast Cancer Organizations, a group of mainstream medical providers and researchers, was formed in 1986.

Women continued to write about their breast cancer experiences, sometimes as a conscious part of the feminist movements emphasis on telling our stories and developing a collective analysis out of those stories. Particularly important was Audre Lorde’s Cancer Journals, published in 1980. Lorde was a well-known African American feminist poet when she was diagnosed with breast cancer; in her own inimitable way she visualized an “army of one breasted women” demanding more funding for breast cancer research and treatment. Lorde brought an impor­ tant literary voice to this issue until she died in 1992 from breast cancer.

In the mid 1980s a massive, expensive research project on breast cancer pre­ vention was set in motion when funding for the Womens Health Initiative, as it

170 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

was then called, was finally approved. The Initiative included research on the pre­ vention of both breast cancer and heart disease. The ten-year fight for this research funding was spearheaded by Dr. Maureen Henderson, a high-powered medical academic at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, who was one of the few women physicians from the pre-1970 era, and who used the status she had gained professionally to fight for breast cancer prevention research. The movement’s efforts to obtain funding through normal channels in the NIH were not successful, so Henderson took the fight to Congress, where she gained crucial allies in the Women’s Congressional Caucus. This was perhaps the first mobiliza­ tion of women in Congress on behalf of women’s health issues, and it laid the groundwork for later requests to Congress from the breast cancer movement.

About 1990 the National Institures of Health established the Office for Womens Health Research and began to require research proposals to more fully address women’s health research. As one of the first initiatives in women’s health research, the Center for Disease Control established a program to provide free breast and cervical cancer screening for poor women without health insurance.

Stage Four: Take-Off (1991-1992)

These events paved the way for movement groups to succeed in gaining major public visibility for the issue of breast cancer. The spark that triggered the take-off was subtle, but powerful. In 1991, Dr. Susan Love, a breast cancer surgeon (and an early activist in the Cambridge feminist cancer group), published a book enti­ tled Dr. Susan Loves Breast Book and went on a speaking tour to promote it. At her readings and presentations she was struck by the strong responses she received from women who clamored for more political action about breast cancer. She concluded that the time was ripe for a national movement. Dr. Love and Fran Visco, a Philadelphia attorney and breast cancer survivor, together with other breast cancer activists founded the National Breast Cancer Coalition (NBCC), with over 200 local groups as members.

The NBCC was instrumental in reframing the issue so that it had a sharper focus — breast cancer rather than cancer in general; a clear constituency — women, particularly younger women in their 30s and 40s; and a new set of demands — a focus on the causes of the disease and on a cure. The Coalition clearly defined its constituency as breast cancer survivors and their families and friends. And it demanded that a cure be found, dropping the medical establish­ ment’s focus on detection and screening. The group’s slogan, printed on posters, pins, and T-shirts, was: “Breast Cancer. Say it. Fight it. Cure it. Damn it!”

For the NBCC’s first action in the fall of 1991, members organized a massive letter-writing campaign. Within six weeks they gathered 600,000 letters, far more than the 175,000 they had attempted to collect, and presented

THE BREAST CANCER SOCIAL MOVEMENT 1 71

them to Congress and the president. President Bush did not acknowledge this request, but Congress increased the 1992 breast cancer research budget from $ 102 million to $142 million.

Though this movement did not use civil disobedience as many other move­ ments do in Stage Four, it had its own brand of feistiness. Women in their 30s, 40s, and 50s, mothers and grandmothers, stepped outside their traditional roles to become demanding and strong. The life-threatening conditions they faced gave them strength and a kind of moral power, which commanded attention as they shifted their role from patients to political actors.

The NBCC also supported the Long Island Breast Cancer Coalitions call for an investigation into possible environmental causes of breast cancer, though it was not a major focus in 1991-92.

Stage Five: Perception o f Failure

The movement did not show signs of the feeling of failure and sense of power­ lessness that afflict many movements after their initial take-off. It had some strong, obvious successes early on (see the description of Stage Seven, below), as well as a central movement group that clearly recognized these successes, which may have played a role in the avoidance of this pitfall. Also, this movement appeared to have fewer negative rebels at its take-offstage. This is the group that has the most difficult time after take-off and is most prone to declines in morale and feelings of powerlessness. The negative rebel role is most often associated with young, rebellious men, and may be little in evidence in a movement of mothers and grandmothers.

Stage Six and Stage Seven: Majority Public Opinion and Success (1993-2000)

The breast cancer movement received massive public support during and shortly after the take-off stage and won significant victories very quickly; hence I am combining the discussions of Stages Six and Seven.

With this large base of public support it has been possible for the movement to work through mainstream institutions and pass relevant legislation. The National Breast Cancer Coalition had an important victory in its first year of exis­ tence: activists demanded more funding for breast cancer research, and Congress doubled the amount! Particularly remarkable was Congress’s decision, in 1992, to allocate $210 million from the Department of Defense budget for breast cancer research, establishing the Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program. Congress took this extraordinary step because it was convinced of the necessity for such funding, but found itself locked into a budget allocation pro­ cedure that did not permit further domestic spending. There was room for further defense spending, however, in an amount that was approximately equivalent to

172 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

the National Cancer Institutes budget for breast cancer research, thus effectively doubling research funding in one year. This was a major victory, which heartened activists and strengthened the movement.

The 1993 success of a major campaign demonstrates the massive early support for the movement. That year the NBCC collected 2.6 million signatures on a petition calling for a National Breast Cancer Action Plan and delivered them to President Bill Clinton, leading to the adoption of the action plan with NBCC president Fran Visco as co-chair.

Other early victories included a Congressional decision to order a study of environmental links to breast cancer on Long Island (in response to the concerns of the Long Island Breast Cancer Coalition and others), and more survivor-con­ sumer participation in key decision-making roles. Patient/consumer representatives have been included on:

• Panels considering funding decisions after peer review in the Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program

• National Cancer Advisory Board

• National Cancer Institute Director Search Committee

• National Breast Cancer Action Plan co-chair In November 1999, in preparation for further lobbying of Congress and those running for congressional offices, the NBCC commissioned a public opinion poll, which found that:

approximately 90 percent of the respondents agreed that breast cancer research should be a national priority; and more than half of respondents indicated that they would be more willing to vote for a political candidate if he or she made finding a cure for breast cancer a top priority.12

This poll showed very clearly that breast cancer research has gained over­ whelming public support. Further evidence of this success came in the fall of 2000 when news reports indicated that Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore made his support for breast cancer issues the focus of an important cam­ paign speech.

Stage Eight: Continuing the Struggle (1990s to the juture)

The National Breast Cancer Coalition has continued massive lobbying efforts each year to maintain the gains in research funding won in 1992. In spite of many budget cuts, and even after the Republicans took over Congress, funding has been more or less maintained.

It has been a tougher challenge to retain the Department of Defense Breast Cancer Program funding, but this is a favorite of the movement because it is a newer program, which means there is more survivor/consumer input into the

THE BREAST CANCER SOCIAL MOVEMENT 1 73

decisions about which research is to be funded. The program was funded for $175 million in 2000, and there is a strong lobbying effort to maintain it at that level for 2001.

The NBCC has become increasingly sophisticated in its lobbying efforts. For example, it provides a website (www.stopbreastcancer.org) where members and supporters can easily access information on the positions members of Congress have taken on these issues. The website also lists contact information, so breast cancer movement activists can let their representatives know where they stand.

As it continues the struggle, the breast cancer movement has raised new issues and focused attention on long-term concerns about access to health care, which have been slower to reach success. Many of these sub-issues are at Stages Two and Three at this point, but continue to gather additional support. For example the NBCC s legislative priorities for 2000 included:

• Increasing access to breast cancer treatment for uninsured low-income women who are screened and diagnosed with breast or cervical cancer in the existing program operated by the federal Center for Disease Control.

• Strengthening protection from future insurance and employment discrimina­ tion in the wake o f the discovery o f the breast cancer gene.

• Increasing Medicare coverage for breast cancer patients participating in research clinical trials.

• Passing a strong and enforceable patients bill of rights for patients in managed care health plans.13

In October 2000 President Clinton signed into law a bill fulfilling the first priority regarding the provision of access to breast cancer treatment for uninsured, low-income women.

There is also a major new focus on the environmental links to breast cancer. The incidence of breast cancer is higher in the U.S. than in many other countries, and, significantly, when women migrate to the U.S. from other countries, their breast cancer rates soon approximate those of women born in the United States. This strongly suggests that there is something in the environment — food supply, water, or air — that plays a major role in breast cancer. Given this evidence, there has been strikingly little research on the causes of breast cancer, particularly poten­ tial environmental causes. Research on the impact of pesticides on breast tissue has suggested that pesticides may be a factor, as such chemicals have been shown to accumulate in breast tissue and to be present at higher levels in women with breast cancer than those without it. Some have argued that there are massive numbers of chemicals used in plastics, food wraps, etc., that mimic hormones, particularly estrogen, and that these chemicals may be implicated in breast cancer, which has long been known to be affected by estrogen.

1 74 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

Breast Cancer Action, a group in Berkeley, California, has been tracking potential environmental links for over a decade. The national movement has been somewhat slow to pick up this issue, though it is now a major focus; new research funding for the National Institute of Environmental Health is a major NBCC pri­ ority this yeat.

NBCC is also doing its own investigations regarding environmental links to breast cancer, developing a position paper, identifying gaps in research, and reviewing the outcome o f research currently underway. As the movement becomes more sophisticated in its understanding of the issues, its advocacy work can only be strengthened.

This focus on the causes of breast cancer represents a major paradigm shift for the breast cancer movement. This paradigm shift, with its emphasis on the environmental links to cancer and the corporate links to environmental prob­ lems, suggests that the breast cancer movement may soon be ready to join with other movements in efforts to fight those forces of modern culture that are destroying Earth’s life-support systems, as Bill Moyer discusses in the Conclusion of this book.14

Conclusions

What is remarkable about this movement is that it succeeded, a very short time after take-off, in obtaining Congressional approval for one of its major goals: dramatic increases in funding for breast cancer research. In addition, it won vic­ tories on some of its minor goals: patient/survivoi participation in decision-making, and an early environmental study. This victory also highlights earlier victories in the larger women’s movement and womens health movement, which paved the way for the breast cancer movement’s success. For example, efforts to end discrimination against women in high positions had resulted in the appointment of a woman director of the National Institutes o f Health. Efforts to elect women to political office resulted in a rapid expansion of the number of women in Congress, who were there to give support on these issues. Dr. Susan Love’s work as a breast cancer surgeon was pivotal in the launching of the national movement; her success in the formerly male bastion of surgery was a result of earlier battles to open spaces for women in medical schools and to over­ come women’s traditional socialization, which discouraged them from attending medical school and choosing “male” specialties.

Early successes were also no doubt assisted by the specific focus on breast cancer and by the nature of the disease itself. Breast cancer is widely viewed as a particular tragedy for women because it is the leading cause of death for women in their 40s. Though the rate of breast cancer is higher in older women, breast cancer’s visibility among younger women in the midst of career and motherhood

THE BREAST CANCER SOCIAL MOVEMENT 175

has had a galvanizing effect, and those women have been particularly strong, ener­ getic, and powerful advocates. Further, breast cancer is an “equal opportunity” issue, afflicting rich and poor, powerful and powerless, liberal and conservative alike. Strong support in Congress came from liberal Democratic senator Tom Harkin, who in the early 1990s headed the Senate Committee on Health and Human Services and who had lost two sisters to breast cancer, as well as from Republican Congresswoman Barbara Vucanovich of Nevada, who was herself a breast cancer survivor. The movement’s decision to focus public attention on women with breast cancer (a shift away from the medical establishment’s focus on physicians and researchers) was powerfully effective. In this way, this movement reinforced the goals of the larger women’s movement: women were actively taking charge of their lives and becoming public, political actors on behalf of their own needs and issues.

However, it has been more difficult to achieve progress in the search for environmental links to breast cancer and in demands for increased access to care. These will continue to require a strong movement. There are vested interests in the chemical industry that are likely to discourage research on the potential rela­ tionship of environmental toxins to breast cancer. (For example, Berkeley’s Breast Cancer Action found that AstraZeneca, the company that created Breast Cancer Awareness Month in 1985, also produces a variety of pesticides and chemicals (some of which are known to be carcinogenic), as well as tamoxifen, which is used in treatment for breast cancer patients.15 Success in this work may require alliances with other groups working on environmental issues, particularly toxics in the community.

The problem of access to health care for the poor and uninsured is a major national dilemma with many vested interests. This problem will not be easily resolved for women with breast cancer, and it too may require alliances with other groups fighting for general access to health care for the poor and uninsured.

The breast cancer movement has provided a much-needed wake-up call during this era of rising breast cancer incidence. Women survivors, families, and friends have banded together to call attention to this critical health problem and have been able to bring more resources into the fight against the disease and to provide support and assistance for women who have been stricken. This move­ ment remains vigorous, and seems certain to continue as a potent political force in the future.

The Globalization Movement

Juliette Beck1

MAP IS A USEFUL MODEL for analyzing contemporary social movements. In this chapter, I apply the MAP stages and roles to the current globalization movement. The many sub-movements such as those against the World Trade Organization (WTO), debt cancellation, genetic engineering, sweatshops, and those for ecological economics, fair trade, and indigenous peoples rights are still discovering that they are part o f one global movement challenging an unjust global economy that is dominated by a handful of multinational corporations. This chapter will focus on the key legislative challenges to the “corporate power grab” agreements of the 1990s (specifically NAFTA, GATT/WTO and Fast Track) and the mass protest in Seattle to show the progression o f this historic social movement against corporate rule and for an ecologically sustainable and socially just global society in the United States.

Multinational corporations control almost every aspect of modern life, from the food we eat to the news we learn from to the government we live under. In the last few decades, multinational corporations have grown so huge that 51 of the 100 largest economies in the world are corporations. The role of governments has been relegated to implementing policies that help corporations increase their profits, even when these policies are detrimental to workers, the environment, community well being and future generations. Countries in the global south are forced to participate in the global economy according to the rules set by corporate-dominated institu­ tions like the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the WTO. The U.S. movement is joining the decades, if not centuries old, global resistance to this unjust system that can also be described as neoliberalism or neocolonialism.

Under corporate globalization, progress is defined by expanded economic growth (GDP), as measured by profit generating activity. This growth, the corporations argue, is best achieved by allowing corporations unrestricted access to

THE GLOBALIZATION MOVEMENT 177

cheap labor, natural resources and consumer markets. To achieve this, governments have now created both a sophisticated legal framework that gives unprecedented new rights to private investors and institutions that have the power to enforce these rules, even when they conflict with popular will. Also, corporations’ insatiable appetite for growth, and the consumerism created to feed this system, have created an environmental crisis of epic proportions that may soon prevent 80 percent of humanity from being able to meet its most basic human needs.

An alternative, “people’s globalization” worldview encompasses a shared commitment to building a peaceful, environmentally sustainable and socially just global society. Progress would instead be measured by ecological health, the advancement of human rights, and community-defined quality of life. This vision celebrates diversity and will most likely be made up of self sustaining, regional and local economies. Trade in goods and services would be done in a way that raises living standards when workers and farmers are fairly compensated. As this move­ ment history shows, grassroots globalization and fair trade have already begun to promote the cooperation and compassion needed to create an ecologically sane society in which everyone has dignified work, housing, education, healthcare, nutritious food and a healthy community.

Stage 1 - Normal Times - Free Trade is the Rising Tide that Lifts All Boats

Free trade has been billed by economists and opinion makers as key to advancing global economic growth, peace, and stability. Thus, Congress has historically approved trade agreements with little debate. Since 1974, Congress has readily transferred the authority to negotiate trade agreements to the executive branch through a legislative vehicle called “Fast Track.” This mechanism prevents Congress from amending trade agreements negotiated by the White House and limits Congressional debate. Both NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement) and the Uruguay Round of GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) that established the WTO were undemocratically negotiated, mainly by the Bush Administration, and passed under Fast Track with the Clinton Administration publicly touting the benefits as the “rising tide that lifts all boats.” Historically, trade agreements dealt only with tariffs, duties and quotas between countries. Yet the agreements of the 90s were quantum leaps in corpo­ rate power. In addition to opening up markets, these “corporate managed trade” agreements contained provisions that limit governments’ ability to regulate cor­ porate activity and foreign investment occurring within their countries. The agreements expanded the reach of the corporations into more subjective areas of domestic policy such as food safety, taxation and government procurement. NAFTA and WTO were more about ushering in an era of corporate rule than promoting trade in goods and services. Congress passed NAFTA and GATT in

1 78 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

1993 and 1994 respectively in spite o f activists best efforts to show how these cor­ porate globalization initiatives would negatively effect wages, jobs, the environment, development, highway and food safety, and democracy itself.

Stage 2— The Failed Experimentt

In June of 1997, Public Citizens Global Trade Watch, a Washington based public interest organization founded by Ralph Nader that continues to play a key “reformer role”, released a report called “The Failed Experiment, NAFTA at Three Years.” This report was one of many well-researched documents that critics used to prove that NAFTA had failed to live up to its promises and in feet was causing more harm than good in all three NAFTA countries — Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. The report challenged the myth that “trade equals prosperity for all” with hard statistics showing that NAFTA had resulted in decreased wages, worsening of the border environment, as well as increased layoffs, threats to food and highway safety, and drug trafficking. The toothless NAFTA side agreements that had been set up to protect labor rights and the environment, created a new bureaucracy to air complaints, but did nothing to help workers settle disputes against renegade corporations nor did they help communities clean up industrial contamination.

Organized labor was instrumental in building the case against NAFTA-style trade agreements. In 1997, the 13 million member strong AFL-CIO passed a res­ olution against Fast Track, reinforcing their position that all trade agreements should contain enforceable labor and environmental protections. The Teamsters, playing the role of “reformer,” stepped up their campaign against the still unim­ plemented NAFTA cross border trucking agreement that was to allow sub-standard Mexican trucks and ununionized, underpaid drivers to transport goods all over the U.S. by 1995.

In Spring of 1997, the NAFTA Accountability Act was introduced in Congress. This legislation would have required NAFTA to be renegotiated if gov­ ernment assessments found that the impacts of NAFTA had caused more harm than good. Grassroots groups around the country such as the volunteer run group “Bay Area 50 Years is Enough” organized letter writing campaigns and fair trade coalition meetings with members of Congress to gain support for the legislation. Although the measure was never brought up for a vote, these efforts helped build public awareness of the failure of NAFTA and proved critical to the success of the next major trade battle in Congress against Fast Track.

Stage 3 - Ripening Conditions- More Free Trade Failures and the Birth of Creative, High Tech Resistance

The battle to defeat “Fast Track” trade negotiating authority is a successful sub movement that is now in the seventh stage. The Citizens’ Trade Campaign, a key

THE GLOBALIZATION MOVEMENT 179

change agent network, set strategy and coordinated district meetings with repre­ sentatives of organized labor, Sierra Club, National Family Farm Coalition and other grassroots groups and their members of Congress during the 1997 August congressional recess. Armed with job loss data and real life stories of WTO and NAFTA failures, teams of citizen lobbyists convinced a majority of congress members that NAFTA had foiled workers and the environment and should not be expanded vis a vis Fast Track. Around the same time, the W TO s tribunals were ruling against protections for clean air, dolphins, and endangered sea turtles - proving environmentalists’ worst nightmares true. Groups that had previously thought the W TO “reformable” reversed their position and joined the “W TO has got to go” chorus.

Fair trade activists followed up the Congressional visits with letter writing campaigns, phone banks, public debates and creative actions, such as, staging a funeral with tombstones depicting the factories that laid off workers and moved factories to Mexico under NAFTA. Carefully crafted “fair trade not free trade” messages were delivered to the general public. The Teamsters, for example, passed out peanuts at a San Francisco Giants baseball game with a “Nuts to NAFTA” flyer attached. All of the tactics used during the Fast Track battle were critical to publicly demonstrating the “victims” of NAFTA and developing a majority public opinion against “free” trade in fovor o f “fair” trade.

On September 25,1997 the Clinton Administration withdrew the Fast Track bill because it lacked enough votes to pass Congress. This was a historic victory that shook the corporate elites to the core. Unfortunately, the defeat of Fast Track only strengthened the resolve of business groups to advance their agenda in other venues, such as the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) and the WTO.

The MAI was a “bill of rights” for multinational corporations that had been negotiated in secret until Public Citizen obtained a copy of the text and posted it on the internet, sparking a successful year long international campaign. Because the MAI sought to limit the authority of local governments to regulate foreign investment, the issues of democracy and local sovereignty enabled foir trade activists to garner the support of local governments, a key “reformer” constituency. In November 1998, for example, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a resolution opposing the MAI. By next foil, the twenty-nine wealthy countries that had been negotiating the MAI ended the talks. While the MAI battle may appear to have gone through all the MAP stages, it is actually in stage six. The MAI agenda is spreading into other corporate globalization venues, such as the Free Trade Area of the Americas. Opponents have not yet implemented new laws to make corporations accountable to the communities they operate in.

In order to galvanize support for international trade, President Clinton invited the WTO to meet in the U.S. in the foil of 1999 and launch a

180 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

“Millennium Round” of global trade talks. Clintons hubris could not have back­ fired in a more dramatic way than the events that shook Seattle November 30- December 4, 1999. The Geneva-based institution’s lack of transparency and democracy made it a sitting duck for media savvy fair trade organizers. The WTO functions like a global government because it has the power to both create and enforce rules for the global economy. In its four year history, the W TO’s secret tri­ bunals consistently ruled in favor of corporate interests in a variety of areas such as public health, against the European ban of bovine growth hormone fed beef, and family farms, against a European pact with poor Caribbean banana farmers.

By the time the WTO came to Seattle for its annual meeting, it had a clear track record o f violating key values o f how a public institution, particularly one that functioned like a global government, should operate. Most people agreed that the rules for the global economy should be written in a forum that is open, fair, and democratic. This message helped build even more support for fair trade. A late 1999 poll by the University of Maryland found that 78 percent of Americans thought the WTO should pay more attention to environmental and labor concerns.

In London in the late 90s, a submovement called “Reclaim the Streets” was emerging that inspired artists and activists to reclaim public spaces and transform financial centers into “festivals of resistance” using art and culture, such as giant puppets and rave music. On June 18, 1999, a coalition of groups held a “global car­ nival against capitalism” to coincide with the G-8 (eight wealthiest countries) meetings in Cologne, Germany. All around the world, parties and protests were held in financial districts and outside stock exchanges, banks and multinational cor­ porations. In San Francisco on June 18, Art and Revolution, a local anarchist-artists collective helped mobilize over 2,000 people to take over the downtown financial district and stage a big street party without any permits. One of the banners block­ ing an intersection read, “globalize liberation, not corporate power.” This creative action was a warm up for the W TO protest and helped launched the road to Seattle. The newly formed Direct Action Network (DAN) and other movement building groups used to playing a “rebel role”, such as Rainforest Action Network, Global Exchange and the Ruckus Society, put out a call for a “mass nonviolent direct action to shut down the WTO on the morning of November 30.” DAN organized a road show designed to teach people mass action skills, such as nonviolence, affinity group formation, and consensus decision making. Activists also learned how street theater and giant puppets could be used to demonstrate the real life impacts of seemingly abstract economic policies and deescalate police violence. The roadshow was an important part of creating a new culture of resistance and helped inspire entire communities of activists, many from the northwest environmental movement that was experienced in the art of nonviolent civil disobedience, to put their bodies on the line to stop the WTO.

THE GLOBALIZATION MOVEMENT 181

Stage 4 TAKE OFF - “ The B an k o f Seattle” The Seattle WTO protests were clearly the trigger event that launched the anti- global corporatization movement into the fourth MAP stage in a dramatic and victorious way. Then President Clinton had completely underestimated the power of grassroots activism in the age of the internet. Over 50,000 people took to the streets in a festival of resistance on November 30, including many thousands from organized labor. The global elites were caught off guard despite the widely publi­ cized plan to shut down the opening meeting by physically blocking the entrances to the convention center. The successful action immediately triggered a violent crack down by the police. Images of tear gas and storm trooper-like cops rico­ cheted around the world. No more than a couple dozen black clad, self-described anarchists took to destroying windows of mainly multinational corporations like Starbucks and Nike, yet the televised media in particular blew both the property destruction and the images of the few people carrying out the “ineffective rebel” role out of proportion.

Movement activists were immediately consumed in a debate over property destruction. Although the nonviolence guidelines had asked participants in the mass action not to destroy property, there was a conscious effort not to judge each other’s tactics or marginalize people who supported property destruction. Others noted that property destruction effectively alienated mainstream people and advo­ cated instead for strictly nonviolent “mass movement building” tactics that would more readily attract people who were not yet part o f “the movement. ” People who believed that it was important to fight capitalism by physically destroying private property were playing out the negative rebel role. This fed the police strategy of depicting the protesters as “violent” in order to justify the excessive use and display o f force.

Before the tear gas had even cleared in Seattle, the call went out for “A16” to be the next mass action, this time aiming to shut down the spring meetings of the World Bank and the IMF on April 16 and 17, 2000 in Washington, DC. Over 20,000 people participated in A16, including members of the AFLCIO, whose last minute endorsement ensured a repeat showing of the famous Seattle coalition - an important labor and environmental alliance that was symbolized by the uniting of “Teamsters and turtles”. The World Bank/IMF delegates were bused in at 5am before protesters had time set up to blockades, but the capital city itself was shutdown for two days, as police had advised people not to come to work in the downtown area.

While most people recognized that A16 had successfully raised awareness of how corporate globalization was exacerbating global poverty and environ­ mental destruction, many emails and discussions echoed the concern that “mass action” might not be sustainable and inclusive enough to attract other people to

182 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

participate in the burgeoning movement. Many also questioned the movements commitment to anti-racist organizing in the communities of color that are bearing the brunt of corporate globalization in the U.S. Mass actions that did little to further local organizing efforts were harshly criticized. Yet calls went out for Seattle style mass-actions at the Republican and Democratic National Conventions (RNC and DNC respectively) and other meetings of the global financial elite including the World Economic Forum in Melbourne, Australia and World Bank/IMF fall meetings in Prague.

The numbers of participants at the RNC and DNC was smaller than at A16 and the Seattle WTO protests. The civil disobedience actions, scutded by the police, were ineffective at garnering media attention or disrupting the convention activities. Just as they had done in Washington, DC during A16, the police used devious tactics to mischaracterize activists as “violent, Moltov cocktail-making, ‘negative rebel’ anarchists.” The police raided the convergence center where thou­ sands had gathered for workshops, meals, art making and planning meetings. They also held bogus press conferences aimed at criminalizing activism in the eyes of the public. In Philadelphia, rumors were leaked that the protesters threw acid filled eggs at the police. A number of people were arrested on completely trumped up charges and held on $1 million bail. A sense of “movement failure,” as pre­ dicted in MAP stage five, was emerging.

Despite well organized actions that linked corporate globalization with local economic rights efforts, such as a the Kensington Welfare Rights Union march in Philadelphia, and the sweatshop workers’ and immigrant rights march in Los Angeles, the political impact of the convention protests was marginal at best. The movements demands to curtail the global reach of corporations were unad- dressed: The Democratic Party leadership wouldn’t even entertain a debate to change the trade plank in the party platform that called for supporting the previ­ ously rejected Fast Track trade negotiating mechanism. Both parties unabashedly hobnobbed with corporate elites at ritzy parties sponsored by the likes of tobacco giant Philip Morris, Washington lobbyist firm Patton Boggs, and the nuclear industry association.

Both existing and newly formed movement groups helped put globaliza­ tion on the social agenda in new and creative ways. On September 26, 2000, the date of the World Bank/IMF meetings in Prague, over 60 grassroots coalitions — spearheaded by the national labor activist network called Jobs with Justice — organized actions to support local efforts aimed at curbing corporate power, such as union organizing campaigns. This was an important step in spreading the global justice movement to community groups while engaging internationally focused activists in local economic justice struggles.

THE GLOBALIZATION MOVEMENT 183

Stage 5 — Perception o f Failure To date the best examples of Stage 5 burnout and depression have occurred among people who thought the goal of the protests at the RNC and DNC should have been to shut down the conventions. Many of the activists in Prague had also hoped to shut down the World Bank and IMF meetings as well, yet the protest­ ers there barely succeeded in getting past the police barricades to the building where the meetings were taking place. At the DNC, the role o f direct action was actually downplayed by many local organizers who questioned the merit of exposing activists of color and local communities to more police violence. Activists that had come to Los Angeles looking for the “next Seattle” instead found mainly mass marches on issues ranging from “human need not corporate greed” to police brutality.

The focus on violence - both against the protesters and the police - was nearly the only news being reported by the mainstream media. Consequently, many organizers frequently dismissed the mainstream media (and thus the public) as irrelevant. The Independent Media Centers (www.indymedia.org), however, provided activist-created news to millions online around the world.

The Direct Action Network (DAN) is experiencing some MAP stage five patterns of dropout and confusion. While DAN is expanding in some cities, in other places, like San Francisco, meeting attendance has declined and the group is struggling to define its work.

Meanwhile, the global elites are reacting to the movement’s success by pro­ moting new societal myths of “compassionate globalization” or “globalization with a human face”. This is essentially a deceptive public relations strategy in which they acknowledge the legitimacy of some of the movements demands— such as debt cancellation for the worlds poorest countries — but do nothing to change the economic policies that are making corporations wealthy at the expense of the majority. Their actual policies could be seen in Washington, D.C. right after the WTO protests in Seattle. Congress passed two corporate managed trade bills - the deceitfully named “African Growth and Opportunity Act” and a trade pact with China. Some fair trade activists were devastated, believing that these defeats indicated that the movement has failed, or worse yet, they said that it doesn’t even exist.

Stage 6 - Majority Public Opinion: Time to reclaim our power, rebuild communities and restore the Earth.

The global corporatization movement is now entering into the sixth MAP stage. Polls show that a majority of the U.S. public supports the concerns being raised by the movement. A poll reported in the September 11, 2000 Business Week cover story revealed that 74 percent of the public believe that corporations have

1 84 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

too much power. 95 percent of those polled agreed with the statement: “U.S. cor­ porations should have more than one purpose. They also owe something to their workers and the communities in which they operate, and they should sometimes sacrifice some profit for the sake of making things better for their workers and communities.” A number of sub-movements are adopting strategies to translate this popular sentiment into systemic change.

Fair trade groups are using a number of strategies to put globalization on the political agenda of federal, state and local legislators. Over 700 groups from 80 different countries have signed on to an international campaign to demand that governments “sink or shrink” the WTO. In California, the senate has established a committee to explore the states role in global trade policy, specifically the way that NAFTA and the WTO have trumped local sovereignty. For example, a Canadian chemical corporation, Methanex, is now using NAFTA’s corporate court to seek $970 million in compensation for profits lost when the state phases out MTBE, a toxic groundwater pollutant partially produced by Methanex.

Groups arc also putting forth solution-oriented proposals. Public Citizen is working on an alternative to Fast Track that will ensure that trade policies are developed in a democratic, balanced way. Civil society organizations and trade unions united under the umbrella of the Hemispheric Social Alliance have drafted a “people’s globalization” initiative called the Alternatives of the Americas. This document contains specific policy recommendations on issues ranging from food security to immigration. It will be used to educate various sectors of society includ­ ing the media and decision makers about a positive alternative to the Free Trade Area of the Americas, a corporate globalization pact that is currently being nego­ tiated in secret by all the governments in the western hemisphere except Cuba.

Human centered economic alternatives to the corporate controlled global economy, such as community supported agriculture, fair trade, community banking and local currencies, are being successfully implemented in piecemeal fashion by groups working within the alternatives sub-movement. These ecolog­ ically sane and socially just alternatives should be coalesced and expanded as parr of a clearly defined stage 6 strategy. Fair trade certified coffee is one such alter­ native that is now being sold in cafes and supermarkets throughout the country thanks to the work of change agent groups like Equal Exchange, Transfair USA and Global Exchange. Fair trade coffee is certified by an international, non-profit agency that ensures farmers in the global south receive credit and a fair price for their coffee ($1.26 per pound). The fair trade seal also guarantees consumers that the coffee was grown under humane and environmentally sustainable conditions. Fair trade helps people in the global north recognize that they play an important role in advancing human rights and sustainability in this interconnected global economy.

THE GLOBALIZATION MOVEMENT 185

Movement activists and organizations now need to clearly define and artic­ ulate a vision for an environmentally sustainable, peaceful and socially just society. Some have described this paradigm shift as “deglobalization” or “localization”— the process of returning power and control over the economy to local communities. Democratic control over investment decisions will help ensure that private enterprises serve the needs of local communities, not the other way around. Unaccountable and irresponsible multinational corporations and institu­ tions should be eliminated. The World Bank, IMF and WTO will need to be replaced with democratic entities that can facilitate the transformation to a socially just and ecologically sustainable era. Activists should be careful not to resuscitate the flawed and failed global institutions that are trying to recover from their legitimacy crises by offering some changes and benefits, such as debt cancel­ lation, to impoverished communities.

The movement towards a new global era that esteems the life cycle, not the money cycle, will be community driven and will take many forms. Movement activists can now help accelerate this values transformation by engaging all sectors of society - formers, workers, parents, teachers, etc. - in a visioning process to illu­ minate how to live in a democratic, sustainable and equitable way. Activists can catalyze grassroots globalization by sharing examples from communities, such as indigenous peoples, that are living sustainably. With every major ecosystem in rapid decline from overconsumption, progress and personal growth will have to quickly take on new meanings. Society is at a critical crossroads - either resources get allocated according to those who can afford to buy them, or social activism creates a new system where every child born has access to food, education, health­ care, meaningful work in the future and a nurturing community. This change starts with each of us learning to love and respect all life everywhere, not money and material wealth.

Conclusion Toward the Future

I

N a Catholic MARCH

1959, I was voted out of the Presbyterian Church because I invited and a Jew to talk to the youth group. This incident led me to the Quakers, which in turn prompted my early “retirement” as a management systems engineer for an international corporation, just three years after graduating from Pennsylvania State University. I knew that I wanted to do something more mean­ ingful with my life. I had no idea that it was the start of “the sixties” and never suspected that I was beginning my new profession as a full-time activist.

It is from this vantage point, as a lifelong activist, that I look back at the evo­ lution of contemporary social movements in the United States. I participated in many of the important social movements of the last 40 years, and it has been my privilege to work with and train thousands of activists in these and other move­ ments, nationally and internationally.

In the 1960s, the civil rights movement launched the modern era of social activism in America. Larger numbers of people began participating as social movements addressed an ever widening array of society’s problems and condi­ tions. In each succeeding decade the number of people and of movements has increased, and more complex tools of analysis and organizing methods have been developed. My own analysis, the Movement Action Plan, grew into a detailed framework for strategically understanding and conducting social movements as I worked to create change and help increase the effectiveness of others.

The following review of the contributions and the limitations of modern social movements is based on my experience and attempts to refine my own thinking by studying the theories of analysts in other fields. In reflecting on these, I believe that 21st-century social movements must take on the even broader agenda of personal and social transformation, and I propose several new strategic directions for activists to consider.

CONCLUSION: Toward the Future 187

Modern Era Social Movements

The civil rights, anti-Vietnam War, and anti-nuclear war movements of the 1960s were all “issue oriented” and were energized by the emergence of socially con­ scious youth and by the new student and counterculture movements. Participants in this new era of citizen activism used the nonviolent principles and methods developed by Gandhi and King, which have been adopted by many succeeding movements in the United States and around the world.

In the 1970s, influenced by the womens movement, some activists began to consider the importance of individual change in the process of social change. Feminism, especially, turned the spotlight on the destructive impact patriarchy had on personal and social relationships. Influenced also by Quakers and the human potential movement, activism was increasingly characterized by new models and methods for democratic group dynamics and organizational forms, such as collectives and consensus decision-making. These were integrated into the anti-nuclear energy movement that took off in 1977 with the Seabrook nuclear power plant occupation and arrests.

The focus of social activism expanded during this decade to include a wide range of disenfranchised groups — women, gays and lesbians, students, working- class people, native Americans, and people of color. By putting the issues of these groups on the public agenda, social movements fostered an awareness of the shadow side of American life in the modern era. The primary goal of these move­ ments was to give marginalized populations their rights and bring them into lull participation in mainstream society.

Understanding and describing the way in which American society violated the rights of these oppressed groups and its own deeply held cultural values was facilitated by an analytical approach known as “deconstructionism.” Deconstructionists focused on revealing what was wrong with an oppressive, patriarchal, capitalist society. The “multiculturalism” movement emerged and advocated that marginalized and oppressed people should not only reclaim their heritage and cultures, but should also be widely acknowledged and honored.

In order to honor and support all the different oppressed groups, with their values and politics that sometimes conflicted with other oppressed groups, multi­ culturalism adopted the principle of “pluralistic relativism.” This was a new egalitarian worldview that advocated every groups right to its own culturally based reality and version of “truth,” which was to be considered as valid as any other. Consequendy, any claims to universal values or truths (such as the impor­ tance of nonviolence or environmental sustainability) that challenged the truths of any marginalized individual or group were often resisted as being hierarchical and oppressive, just as the dominant society was oppressive.

1 88 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

The belief in “radical freedom” was simultaneously adopted by a wide range of political and cultural groups, including the youth-based counterculture, anar­ chists, political Yippies, multiculturalists, and liberation movements on the left. Ironically, it was also an ideology long held by libertarians and free-market capi­ talists on the right. Its impact was heightened by the counterculture of the 1970s, whose “me generation” proclaimed the view that all people and groups should be free to “do their own thing.” Ironically, this fit in nicely with modern society’s fundamental principle that everyone should seek his or her own self-interest in the cut-throat, competitive marketplace, whether in the realms of economics, politics, or the dynamics of activism.

While recognizing the important and revolutionary contribution that the application of pluralistic relativism has made on behalf of marginalized groups, social analysts Ken Wilber and Robert Kegan, among others, have also challenged the unhealthy and reactionary versions of personal politics.1 They point out the dangers of extreme individualism, which gives unquestioning support to individ­ ual freedom without a corresponding responsibility, especially when it is based on egocentric narcissism, epitomized by the attitude “Do your own thing.” They charge that such extreme individualism undermines the higher goal of achieving a more evolved society that is based on cooperation and unity among individuals, and relationships among diverse groups based not only on their differences but also on their commonalties and mutual concerns.

These critics also see the importance of placing social activism in the larger framework of human developmental stages. They identify many of the problems that concern activists as typical of the particular stage an individual or society has reached. A critical role of social activism, therefore, is to help individuals and soci­ eties progress from one developmental level to the next in a healthy way. I believe these larger developmental theories are important tools for social activism and have been incorporating them into my own thinking and training, Many activists, however, might reject these and all other developmental theories as being hierar­ chical and oppressive, stifling individual freedom.

Social activism continued to grow in the 1980s, and politically engaged cit­ izens took on bigger global issues. Two new mass social movements emerged — the anti-nuclear energy and the anti-nuclear weapons campaigns — and two others took off — one against the U.S. intervention in Central America and the other against apartheid in South Africa, both of which included the inspired par­ ticipation of faith-based institutions and individual activists. These movements received worldwide attention and advanced international activism.

All of these issues required an extensive analysis of military, political, and economic policies and systems at home and internationally. Mass-based organiz­ ing, nonviolent actions, and sustained campaigns characterized each of these

CONCLUSION: Toward the Future 189

movements, many of which had sub-movements that progressed through MAP s eight stages and used all four roles of activism — citizen, rebel, change agent, and reformer.

While virtually all of the issues and social movements of the previous three decades remained in the last decade of the 20th century, the 1990s was also a time of international social activism. After the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, activists challenged the expansion of the power of global corporate-market capitalism. Many groups actively opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), and the World Trade Organization (WTO). The anti-WTO demonstration in Seattle at the end of 1999 signaled the take-off stage of a world­ wide movement against corporate capitalism’s expanding control over the political economies and social policies of nations throughout the world.

This movement has expanded beyond the specific issues addressed by move­ ments in previous decades to confront the corporation-controlled global political-economic system itself. It turns the spotlight on the undemocratic and oppressive nature of global corporate control, especially with regard to people in the Third World, but also as it is destructive to workers, the society, and the envi­ ronment in the U.S. and other industrialized nations. Consequently, the movement against corporate domination includes groups addressing such varied issues as homelessness, poverty, social services, food safety, labor, health care, civil rights, the environment, democracy, and Third World debt.

The activism of the 1990s increased cooperation among social movements around the world, including those in Third World countries, and connected labor and environmental issues with international and domestic concerns. The anti- corporate globalization movement is also the first social movement to take full advantage of Internet technology to gather data and mobilize diverse groups into action across great distances.

Modern era social movements — pluses and minuses

Many of the movements from the 1960s through the 1990s were successful in achieving at least a portion of their goals and objectives. They have developed sophisticated tools of analysis and organization and adapted and popularized the use of the nonviolent direct action methods of Gandhi and Martin Luther King. In addition, during this period social activism made three other critical contribu­ tions to social change: deconstructionist analysis, multiculturalism, and pluralistic relativism, all of which we will have to address differently in the 21st century.

• Deconstructionist analysis. During a period when the powerholders are trum­ peting the wonders and success of the modern era of economic growth and prosperity through the “free” market, privatization, and globalization, social

1 90 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

activists have developed devastating critiques of what is wrong with every facet of- present-day society. They have painted a vivid picture of how social systems and institutions are failing to live up to the moral and ethical principles of democratic nations. These movements are grounded in well-documented rational analysis of the problems and how they are caused by society’s power- holders, social systems, and institutions.

• Multiculturalism. While the powerholders and media laud the unprecedented success of the modern era, social movements include large populations that were marginalized, disenfranchised, or oppressed. The goals of liberation move­ ments arising from these marginalized populations include overcoming oppres­ sion and prejudice; building the pride and strength of their own communities; and gaining rights, privileges, and a place in society on an equal basis with everyone else. An increasing sensitivity to diversity issues has made social activism a far more inclusive and powerful force for social change.

• Pluralistic relativism. A critical aspect of diversity is to honor the experience, culture, and perspectives of every group in society, especially the oppressed and disenfranchised. Normally these voices either go unheard or are dismissed in favor of the views of the powerholders and the dominant paradigm, culture, or group. Pluralistic relativism sees truth as being relative to the experience and culture of each diverse group and, therefore, tends to be fiercely anti-hierarchical. Activism of the last 40 years has also been characterized by some critical strategic limitations that must be overcome if social movements are to be successful in the new millennium.

• Most citizen activism has been based on an underlying belief in the viability and unlimited continuation of the modern era’s mantra of ever-increasing econom­ ic growth and prosperity.

• Efforts to change society’s oppressive and unjust social systems and institutions have been carried out without a parallel effort to change the consciousness of individuals, including those in social movements, or to change the culture of activism itself.

• The ideologies of deconstruction and cultural relativism, which have under­ pinned the sensitivity to individualism and diversity, were often raised to the level of “political correctness,” resulting in movements violating their own val­ ues and principles. For example, the politically correct line that “everyone can do their own thing” gave the green light for relatively few people to act out their anger and rage and advocate physical skirmishes with the police and prop­ erty damage, such as in the anti-corporate globalization demonstrations in Seattle and throughout 2000. This behavior, however, violated the wishes of the organizers of those events, who called for total nonviolence. The minority who wanted violence were able to do their own thing, but the demonstration

CONCLUSION: Toward the Future 191

organizers and great majority of participants were not able to do their own thing, which was to have a totally nonviolent demonstration.

• There was another critical problem that limited social movement effectiveness in the new era of social activism: it had few strategic models, such as MAP, to guide it. Because 21st-century activists also lack adequate theories and direction for the new task of social transformation, I will introduce some in the next section.

Five Strategic Guidelines for Social Activism in the 21st Century

We are in a time of crisis and opportunity. It is a time of crisis because the present social system is making critical problems worse and is not sustainable; it is destroying the environmental life-support systems, depleting critical resources, and threatening human life on the planet. At the same time, we have the oppor­ tunity to achieve a momentous leap forward to a new era and a new way of being human as part of our historical, evolutionary developmental process.

In the 21st century, social activism has a critical role to play in assisting a transition from the present modern era to a new ecological era of human equality and environmental sustainability. To meet the challenge of the new century, social activists need to consider adopting the following five strategies. 1. Continue to expand local, national, and international efforts to alleviate the

world’s immediate problems and crises The worlds immediate social problems and crises are ongoing, and the modern era continuously creates new problems and bigger crises. Some activists have become discouraged because social problems continue to snowball despite their gallant efforts, and some of today’s crises seem too big to tackle. But imagine just how much worse off we would be without the social activism of the last 40 years — or the past 200 years. The crises we now face can only be successfully chal­ lenged by social movements that engage people at the local, regional, and inter­ national levels to connect their issues to changes in the larger social systems. Only such interconnected worldwide activism can bring about the necessary paradigm shifts discussed below. 2. Recognize that the world’s critical social and environmental problems cannot be solved within the present modem era of maximum material growth and prosperity We live in a brief period of history chat glorifies the modern industrial philoso­ phy of material economic growth and prosperity. Led by the United States gov­ ernment and mammoth conglomerate international corporations, virtually all the worlds nations, leaders, and institutions proclaim their allegiance. Even China, Russia, Poland, and other former Communist states are participating through the corporate-led globalization systems institutions, such as the World Bank and the World Trade Organization. Activists must be aware of two of the

192 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

most commonly used societal myths supporting this philosophy, and the socie­ tal secrets that discredit them.

. The first societal myth is that the international system of growth and pros­ perity will end poverty, hunger, and disease and create political democracies around the world. The powerholders trumpet that the modern era has brought unprecedented levels of economic growth and prosperity that will continue indef­ initely into the future. They rightly point out that hundreds of millions of people have achieved levels of consumption, affluence, health, and longevity undreamed of, even by royalty, a century ago. There are approximately 23 economically “devel­ oped” nations and all the rest are told that they are “developing” countries.2

The first societal secret of the modern era is that while it is creating growth and prosperity for some, it is creating poverty, hunger, disease, and reduced quality of life for the great majority. Despite its obvious success, the modern era of economic growth and prosperity has a colossal downside: it creates astounding economic, social, and environmental problems. Instead of being helped by the modern eras corporate globalized system, the majority of people in Third World countries experience increasing poverty, hunger, disruption of traditional culture, loss of land, unemployment, oppressive or dictatorial gov­ ernments, and warfare. While these problems affect well over 50 percent of the people in the “developing” countries, even 10 to 15 percent of the people in the United States experience various degrees of poverty, slum housing or homeless­ ness, unemployment, incarceration, or inadequate medical care.3 This downside of the modern era is totally excluded from the accounting system that is used to guide corporate and governmental decisions.

Moreover, the powerholders’ primary strategies to solve the worlds problems stemming from the modern era — economic growth and direct aid programs — not only fail to help, but usually make the problems worse. The chief strategy is to promote more economic growth on the theory that a “rising tide lifts all boats.” But while decades of record-setting worldwide economic growth has created tens of millions more middle- and upper-class consumers, it has produced even more poor people. The capitalist market system inherendy continues to distribute most of the benefits of growth to the affluent minority and most of its costs to the poor majority. Consequently, the growth o f the market economy has produced a widen­ ing gap between rich and poor, both within nations and between the already rich and poor nations, as well as creating additional environmental devastation.4

Additionally, the foreign aid programs that purported to help the poor in the “developing” nations have created mountainous debt and dependency relation­ ships, and enable the imposition of “structural adjustments” that benefit international corporations and investors. Both of these have also forced the cur­ tailment of social services and other benefits to the poor, thereby increasing the

CONCLUSION: Toward the Future 193

poverty and suffering of the majority. This strategy does not work for the poor even in the United States, the world’s leader in economic growth and prosperity, where the top 1 percent of the population owns as much wealth as the bottom 95 percent, and where 10 to 15 percent of the population still lives in poverty.5

Finally, while there is increasing pressure on Third World nations to adopt the facade of democracy through national elections, the democratic rights of all countries are being supplanted by the autocratic power of corporation-dominated international institutions such as multinational corporations, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization.

The second societal myth of the modem era of growth and prosperity is that everyone can eventually live at Western levels of consumption. “Economics is the science of growth,” was the injunction of university economic textbooks when I attended classes in the 1950s, and growth remains the centerpiece of western economics. Today, as they gather under the banner of globalization, vir­ tually all the worlds powerholders pledge themselves to joining the bandwagon of globalized economic growth. The presumption is that their populations can be become full partners in the era of material consumption. The advocates of world­ wide globalization raise up the ultimate vision of a future time when the rising tide of continuous economic growth and prosperity will have lifted all “develop­ ing” boats. As President Clinton, the leader of world globalization for the past eight years, said, “All o f us now have to build a global economy that leaves no-one behind.”6

The second societal secret is that not only is it impossible to achieve the promised growth and prosperity for the world’s poor, but it is even impossible to sustain the current level o f growth and prosperity because it is destroying our environmental life-support systems, depleting natural resources, and leading to ecological disasters and economic collapse. For three decades there has been mounting indisputable evidence that unfettered growth and consumption are destroying environmental life-support systems and depleting key natural resources. Many scientists fear that this environmental devastation will result in catastrophes and threaten human existence on the planet, at least as we now know it.7Most activists are familiar with this litany of problems, which includes the melting of the polar ice that threatens to flood the world’s coastal cities; depletion of the protective ozone layer; global warming that will change the world’s weather patterns and threaten agriculture production; and pollution or depletion of criti­ cal resources such as water, air, arable land, and oil.

These problems exist today, just when the nations with the majority of the world’s people — China, India, the former Soviet states, and many Third World nations — have adopted concerted policies to start participating fully in the era of economic growth and prosperity and achieve the goal of becoming developed.

1 94 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

This is a flawed dream. A research project that measured the effect of humanity’s “ecological footprint” reports that it would take from five to six Earths to bring everyone up to the level of today’s U.S. economy. The researchers conclude that the process of developing more nations will simply speed up the current race to ecocide.8 Moreover, most of today’s programs that are supposed to alleviate envi­ ronmental and resource problems of growth and prosperity will merely delay the inevitable collapse and thereby increase its impact when it eventually occurs. 3. Realize that the goals of most social movement programs are based on false expec­

tations about the success of the modern era of economic growth and prosperity Almost all social movements — including those that advocate peace, ending poverty and hunger, developing the Third World nations, or helping economical­ ly disenfranchised groups — are based on the goal of providing everyone with their just and full benefits of economic growth and prosperity. While these are important and laudable efforts, social activists need to investigate fully whether this goal is attainable and sustainable based on the limits of the natural world.

Even much of the current anti-corporate globalization movement is hin­ dered by a belief that the global system of growth and prosperity can work for everyone. This ignores the reality of limited resources and the degradation of the environment caused by modern industrialism and the consumer society. It would be irresponsible for social activists to promote programs that help the oppressed and poor to participate in the modern era’s worldwide economic system if it either structurally cannot include them or will collapse even sooner if it does. It is incumbent on social activists, therefore, to develop a strategy of transformation to a new just and sustainable 'era that will consider everyone equally. 4. Organize strategically for transformation from the modern era of economic

growth and prosperity to a new era of ecology, justice, and sustainability

To achieve this transformation to a new paradigm, activists need to became famil­ iar with the developmental nature of individuals and societies. Just as we as individuals develop through stages from birth to death, societies may be seen as passing through developmental stages. With this in mind, today’s social and envi­ ronmental problems can be viewed as resulting from the present developmental stage, which I have called “the modern era of economic growth and prosperity.” Solutions to the world’s problems ultimately require a developmental transforma­ tion to a new human era. Consequently, social activists need to consciously develop analyses, visions, strategies, and programs within the larger context of cre­ ating a momentous paradigmatic leap to a new era. Replace the growth and consumption paradigm with an ecological and well-being paradigm

While the modern era of economic growth and prosperity has many positive characteristics, including a high production of goods and service, technological

CONCLUSION: Toward the Future 195

advancement, democratic forms of government, ideological values of civil and human rights, and a stable and established social order and authority, it has a massive downside. This downside includes economic growth and prosperity accruing only to the economic elite, whether individuals or corporations; enor­ mous social, political, and economic stratification, with an ever-widening gap between the minority of haves and majority have-nots; scarcity amid plenty; an ideology of adversarialism and competition; the destruction of the environment and depletion of natural resources; an emphasis on the private market over com­ munity benefit and control; and the promotion of individualistic psychological qualities of egocentrism, narcissism, insecurity, low self-esteem, and dependency. In fact, these problems are so built into the modern era of civilization that anthro­ pologist Richard Heinberg has concluded that the characteristics are fundamental aspects of each of the 21 recorded civilizations over the past 5,000 years.9

There are many descriptions of and different names given to the alternative era of ecology-justice-sustainability. Some of its features would include improved quality of life for all instead of materialistic quantity and affluence for some; an end to the insecurity of scarcity by guaranteeing everyone on earth that their physical needs — the basic necessities of life — would be met; a low maximum limit on material affluence; an emphasis on cooperation, caring, and sharing; development of non-material aspects of human potential; economic principles, based on the limits of Planet Earth, that would maintain ecological and resource preservation and a steady state economy; maximum political and economic decentralization; participatory democracy; universal values, such as identified in the United Nation’s Declaration of Human Rights; democratic global structures of integration, coordination and, where necessary, enforcement; and, finally, indi­ vidual transformation from an egocentric to a universal caring psyche.10 The most important thing now is not so much a completed vision, but to engage people from every country in the process of creating and achieving such a vision of the new era. Create an analysis, vision, and action strategy for transformation First, as part of the process of engaging people in creating a paradigm shift, activists need to develop an analysis that shows that the problems we are addressing are caused by the modern era itself and can only be ultimately solved by a new era that includes the next developmental step for humanity. Second, we need to identify and describe a preliminary vision of a new human era that can solve the problem. Finally, the movement needs to conduct strategic actions that are part o f the trans­ formation from the present to the envisioned next era. This could include a wide variety of actions, including educating activists and the public regarding the need for a paradigm shift and creating building blocks toward the new society in what­ ever ways are possible.

1 96 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

Use existing developmental theories o f societal transformation Fortunately there are theories of societal transformation, such as those of Don Beck, Ken Wilber, and Robert Kegan, that activists can use to help them develop analyses, visions, strategies, and actions for personal and social change.11 For exam­ ple, Spiral Dynamics, promoted by Don Beck and Chris Cowan, is a theoretical framework that describes eight stages of human development that can be applied to individuals, societies, or the human species as a whole.12 This model can help activists create strategies for social transformation and also help them analyze how the reactionary shadow side of social activism itself now works against the trans­ formation process.

Ken Wilber describes the positive role that social activism plays in the process of social transformation, as well as its shadow side, including ways that distortions of activism are inadvertently a barrier to achieving positive social change.13 Robert Kegan describes five levels of individual psychological and rela­ tionship development through which people need to progress to function in a truly peaceful society. Overcome activists’ resistance to social transformation Many activists have long recognized the need to include strategies for social trans­ formation in their social movements, and some have already begun to use these and other theoretical models. There are, however, a number of reasons why many activists are bound to be resistant. First, they are too busy on the front lines and have no time for anything else, or they are afraid that any new effort will take the focus from current programs that are addressing immediate serious social issues.

Other activists will oppose transformation because it requires new personal qualities and new organizational values. Individual activists will need to learn the skills of cooperation and caring, and social movement organizations will need to value unity and develop respect for the deeply held values, myths, and beliefs of all cultures, including those of their opponents. While this will be difficult to accomplish out in the world, it will also be difficult for some activists to make the necessary changes within themselves.

In addition, Beck, Wilber, Kegan, and others point out that the process of social transformation will require adding reconstruction to deconstruction analy­ sis, unity to diversity, and universal integralism to pluralistic relativism. Many deconstructionists, however, have been so focused on criticism and what’s wrong that they have also criticized all different progressive ideas and cannot support positive holistic visions for the future. Many of those promoting diversity, differ­ ences, and separateness have difficulty thinking in terms of commonalties, alliances, cooperation, unity among all groups, and building bridges between the oppressed and the dominant groups. Finally, “ideological” multiculturalists, who promote pluralistic relativism and difference among groups as their end goal, have

CONCLUSION: Toward the Future 197

trouble with social transformation efforts that include universal values and truths and global systems and structures because, as Ken Wilber points out, they see all developmental theories as hierarchical, all universal truths as elirist, and all hier­ archical structures as oppressive.14 Include personal and cultural transformation as a central strategy for creating a peaceful world — starting with activists ourselves and our organizations Social movements have primarily focused on changing social systems and institu­ tions to achieve their goals of a more peaceful, democratic, just, and sustainable world. However, there are many reasons why these goals cannot be achieved with­ out equal attention to creating personal and cultural transformation — starting with activists ourselves.

Ken Wilber and others point out that human society is made up of three interconnected and interdependent parts: individuals, culture, and social systems and institutions, the “I”, “we,” and “it.”15 They are different aspects of the same whole; consequendy, one can’t be transformed for long without the requisite changes in the other two. Therefore, even if a society’s social systems and institu­ tions were transformed to the peaceful paradigm, the change would not last without a parallel transformation of that society’s individuals and culture. Similarly, the good society is unlikely to develop without individual change because, outside of dictatorships, social system and institutional change usually folbws personal and cultural change on the part of at least some of the popula­ tion. Finally, to achieve personal and cultural change in society, social activists have to lead by example, demonstrating the desired alternative we seek.

The transformation from the modern society of individuals striving to achieve personal gain and prosperity in a competitive marketplace to a new coop­ erative, ecological, just, and sustainable society involves a paradigm shift. This shift has been described by social critic Riane Eisler as moving from a “domina- tor” to a “partnership” model of human relationships.16

At the individual level, this involves a developmental leap from an egocen­ tric, competitive, and self-serving personality. Many theorists have identified three general stages of individual moral development. Ken Wilber labels them as pre- conventional, conventional, and post-conventional.17 Feminist psychologist Carol Gilligan identifies four developmental stages: selfish, caring, universal caring, and integrative.18

For a large number of individuals, making this transition would be quite a psychological leap. As Paul Shepard suggests in Nature and Madness, the modern era of civilization requires a “psychological juvenilization” and a “selfish immatu­ rity.”19 People who are selfish, arrogant, prideful, overly logical, controlling, and fiercely competitive are considered normal in modern culture because these per­ sonality traits are necessary and appropriate in a dominaror and consumer society.

198 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

If humanity is to survive the 21st century, however it must switch to a new peace­ ful era that requires a new human consciousness. To paraphrase Einstein, we cannot create a new partnership society with the same mentality that created the present dominator society. If we do not change ourselves, we cannot change the world. The need for a spiritual perspective Linda Stout, founder of Spirit In Action, repons that in her national survey, grass­ roots activists across America said that spirituality was one of the most critical things missing in activism.20 Although this is not a term that has been much accepted in social movement culture, it is understandable why it is so strongly missed. Spirit refers to the strong inner urge for meaning in our lives, an urge that involves a deep, positive connection with each other, the planet, and an evolving universe. Compassion, kindness, love, equality, support, and caring, therefore, are qualities of spirit. They bring us back in touch with our true nature. When we experience these qualities we tend to feel more fulfilled, joyful, energized, and happy. These are also the qualities of the peaceful model that we seek.

Social movements and their organizations, however, are often characterized by just the opposite traits, such as competitiveness, self-righteousness, and arro­ gance. When we act towards others in angry, selfish, controlling, greedy, competitive, and hostile ways, we tend to feel separate, unfulfilled, and unhappy, and our bodies then react in ways that are physically unhealthy. These are quali­ ties that separate us from our true nature and are characteristic of the dominator paradigm of our present society.21

Social activism that is engaged in the work of transforming ourselves and our society from the dominator to a peaceful partnership model of human rela­ tionships, therefore, can be experienced as spiritual work. Spirit is found in the process itself, as we are involved in the politics of meaning that connect us to our human nature.

Social movement activism would be more effective if it included this kind of personal transformation. Movement activists and their organizations need to “walk their talk” by modeling the new way of being in the peaceful era that is required to ultimately resolve the problems that concern them. Remember Gandhi’s dictum, “the means are the ends in the making.” In addition, more people would join social movement organizations, and fewer would drop out, if the movement offered a friendly, safe, trusting, fulfilling, fun, supportive, and loving environment.

Next Steps

To address the important issues of the 21st century, social activists not only need to continue what we are doing, but must also overcome some of the traditional limitations of activism, as well as adopt new approaches to address the larger issues

CONCLUSION: Toward the Future 199

lacing humanity. In order to be catalysts to convert our current planetary crises into opportunities for human transformation, activists must change ourselves and our activism. Some might form study-action groups to apply MAP to current social movements and begin new activities that are part of the long-term process o f the transition to a peaceful paradigm, both in our personal lives and in our social movement activities and organizations.

There is reason to believe that we can make this transformation and assist the global society in making a paradigmatic leap. Social transformation theories tell us that the universe is in a constant state of change and that even big trans­ formations happen much more quickly and more often than we think. And sociologist Paul Ray and Sherry Ruth Anderson have found that 50 million Americans, who he calls “cultural creatives,” are already in favor of the social transformation described above.23

My hope is that this book enables the MAP models and methods to reach a broad audience of social activists, concerned citizens, students, and teachers, and increases their understanding and effectiveness in bringing about social change. I believe that facing up to the impending resource wars and environmental crash, although initially a depressing thought, could motivate tens of millions of people to support the need for a fundamental shift to a peaceful era. Finally, I hope that my reflections in this chapter will encourage social activists to place the transfor­ mation from the modern dominator era of growth and consumerism to a new peaceful era of ecology, justice, and sustainability at the center o f their own efforts.

GLOSSARY

Actual policies and practices. These are the policies and practices that the powerholders are really implementing, which are deliberately kept hidden from the public because they violate widely held values, beliefs, traditions, laws, and expectations. They are the opposite of the official policies and practices. Affinity group. A method of organizing, used in many nonviolent direct actions, that gathers activists into small groups that make decisions by consensus. For example, instead of arriving at demonstrations as an unorganized collection of individuals and friends, potential partici­ pants are urged to form into groups ahead of time. When all participants are in affinity groups, even large demonstrations are organized. Agent provocateur. A person hired by the powerholders to infiltrate a social movement to gather intelligence or to disrupt, disable, de-legitimize, or destroy a social movement, organiza­ tion, or individual activist. Many of the behaviors of agents provocateurs and negative rebels are indistinguishable.

Bureaucratic management. The powerholders’ first level of strategy, which is to prevent a social problem from becoming a public issue. Campaign. A prolonged social movement activity composed o! a series of demonstrations and different events focused on a particular issue, goal, and powerholder target, which could last for a period of weeks, months, or years, such as a strike, boycott, or series of sit-ins at a particular restaurant or group of restaurants in a particular town. Change agent role. The social movement function performed by activists to educate, organize, and mobilize grassroots citizenry on a social problem. It is especially predominant in MAPs Stage Six. Citizen role. The function performed by activists, which represents the universal values, beliefs, and behaviors (e.g., justice, democracy, and freedom) that are widely accepted and deeply believed by the general population.) Civil disobedience. A demonstration or activity in which the participants deliberately violate a law in order to raise a larger social value. Nonviolent demonstrators typically notify the authori­ ties ahead of time and cooperate with diem. They are willing to accept the consequences of violating the law, which might include going through legal procedures, including time in jail. COINTELPRO (Counterintelligence Program). The counterintelligence program that the White House and FBI set up in the 1960s to disrupt and neutralize the anti-Vietnam war movement; it eventually was used against many other people and movements. Construction. Construction is a political, philosophical, sociological or psychological perspective that says people or social systems construct their own reality. Crisis management. The powerholders’ second level of strategy, which is to prevent a social problem that has suddenly become a public issue from becoming a political issue that is seriously debated in the halls of government.

GLOSSARY 201

Deconstructive analysis. In Doing Democracy, the term “deconstructive analysis” is used to describe the way in which social movement activists and multiculturalists, especially since the 1960s, critically claim that much of political, economic, social and psychological life has been defined and created by the powerhoiders and the social systems and institutions to the benefit of the powerhoiders and disbenefit of everyone else, especially marginalized groups. Demonstration. A social movement event or action that usually lasts one or more days, such as a march, picket, or rally, which may or may not include civil disobedience. Dialectic. A debate between conflicting points of view; a process o f change chat involves an interplay between opposite tendencies, leading to a new perspective; to proceed in a process of logical argumentation. Dilemma demonstration. A nonviolent action demonstration that is strategically designed to put die powerhoiders in a lose-lose dilemma: their position is eroded whether they arrest/attack the demonstrators or let the demonstration continue. Endgame. The final parr of MAP’s Stage Seven, in which the social movement finally succeeds in achieving its goal. Endgame strategy. The strategy by which a social movement or a sub-movement can most likely achieve its goal or a sub-goal and complete the seventh stage of MAP Four roles of activism. The four archetypical functions of activists in a social movement (citi­ zen, rebel, change agent, and reformer) that, according to MAP theory, need to be effectively fulfilled by participants if a social movement is to succeed. Grand strategy. The ultimate strategy of social movements, which is to promote participatory democracy so that the people have control over the political, economic, and environmental sectors o f their lives. Grassroots. People, activists and organizations that are based and grounded at the local level. Growth and prosperity. The powerhoiders of the industrialized nations, led by the United States and joined by the powerhoiders of most countries, tout “growth and prosperity” as the guiding mantra, goal, and purpose of the modern industrial era. They proclaim success by pointing to record-breaking levels of economic material growth, affluence, and consumption that are achieved through the worldwide market, dominated by international conglomerate corporations, and increasingly mediated by supra-organizations like the World Trade Organization. Holarchal development. The perspective that the evolutionary development of individuals, cultures, nations, and the universe takes place by each succeeding level or stage differentiating itself from the previous stage, then including it and all the other previous stages. Consequently, each succeeding stage is more complex and is both a whole in itself and a part of the next stage. This contrasts with pathological hierarchic development in which each stage replaces all of the previous stages. The MAP eight stage model is an example of holarchal development. Initiative. Some states allow citizens to put propositions on the ballot during an election for voters to support or defeat. Some of these “initiatives” are legally binding decisions, while oth­ ers are mere opinion polls. Lunch counter “sit-in” movement. The 1960 social movement in which black and white stu­ dents sat in the seats of lunch counters and restaurants that refused service to African Americans until they were arrested or eventually served. The sit-in movement launched the 1960s civil rights movement. MAP (Movement Action Plan). A set of strategic theories and models that explains the process of success for social movements. It is used by theorists and activists to understand, ana­ lyze, and conduct social movements.

202 GLOSSARY

Model. A model is a standard lor imitation or comparison. It can be a simplified representa­ tion of a system or phenomenon, with any hypotheses required to describe the system or explain the phenomenon.

Negative rebel. Activists who ineffectively perform the rebel role of social movement activism. NIMBY (Not-in-my-back-yard). Those who oppose nuclear reactors and other environmental hazards in their own locality. Official policies and practices. The policies and practices that powerholders publicly proclaim, as opposed to their actual policies and practices, which they hide from public view. Paradigm. A model or conceptual framework that gives “a unified perspective over a range of experiences." It can “explain and help us understand why events occur as they do,” which in turn guides our choice of beliefs and actions. Paradigms can be used to get populations to sup­ port or reject political, economic, social, and environmental perspectives of reality. Example: Planet Earth is flat and the universe revolves around it.1 Paradigm shift. The move from one paradigm to another, such as the shift from believing the world is flat to believing it is round. People Power Model. A theory that political, economic, or social power and control ultimate­ ly resides in the ordinary citizens. Pluralistic relativism. Acknowledgment of the existence, experience, culture, and perspectives of every sub-group in society or the world, especially minorities, the oppressed, non­ dominant, and the disenfranchised. Truth is seen as being local and relative to each group. This perspective tends to challenge all efforts at universal truths (except the claimed universal truth of pluralistic relativism that there is no universal truth) as being hierarchic and oppressive. POO (Professional opposition organization). Social movement organizations that primarily carry out the reformer role. They often have a traditional organizational structure with a strong executive director and a board of directors, and are located in national and state capitals. Power. The ability to get what one wants. Political power is having the means, influence, and pressures, including authority, rewards, and sanctions, to achieve your objectives. Power can be held by the state and private institutions and by the people opposing them.2 Power elite. That small minority that uses social systems and institutional structures to wield an inordinate amount of political, economic, and social control, primarily to the benefit of themselves and others of their choosing and to the disbenefit of the majority population and the general welfare. Power elite model. A theory of power that says political-economic power is primarily held by the power elite, who have control over the general population. Powerholders. Those institutions, corporations, and individuals that hold a preponderance of political and economic power through socio-political-economic structures and relationships, rather than mere personal attributes. Rebel role. The function performed by activists that involves protest activities, such as demonstrations, rallies, marches, and blockades, to resist powerhoider policies and programs that violate universal values. It is especially predominant in MAP Stage Four. Reform. A change in laws, policies, procedures, programs, etc., that is generally considered to be progressive. However, many acts purported to be reforms are reactionary and regressive, such as many so-called tax or welfare reforms. Reformer role. The function performed by activists that primarily uses parliamentary, judicial, legislative, administrative, electoral, and other normal official institutional channels to achieve social change.

GLOSSARY 203

Re-trigger events. Trigger events that happen in Map Stages Six, Seven, and Eight that precipitate a brief period o f nonviolent social actions and conditions that are similar ro those that occur at the beginning MAP’s Stage Four, “Movement Take-off.” Sdtyagraha (Gandhi’s view of power). The powerhoiders' power is based on the consent of the people; to function, it requires their cooperation, submission, and obedience. The power of social movements, therefore, is based on the ability to mobilize the populace in a moral struggle in which the people withdraw their consent, using methods such as noncooperation, defiance, disobedience, refusing benefits, and creating alternatives. This moral struggle requires total nonviolence in atcitude and actions towards people and property. Social movement. A collective action in which the populace is alerted, educated, and mobi­ lized, over years and decades, to challenge the powerhoiders and the whole society to redress social problems and restore critical social values. Societal myths. The widely held, socially acceptable beliefs, values, ideologies, and slogans that are used by the powerhoiders to justify social conditions and the powerhoiders’ policies and programs. They are the opposite of societal secrets. Societal secrets. The social conditions and powerholder policies, programs, opinions, and other behaviors that grossly violate society’s widely held values, beliefs, laws, and traditions, but are deliberately hidden from the public by the powerhoiders and are the opposite o f the societal myths. Sociodrama action campaign. A dramatic nonviolent direct action demonstration that pub­ licly reveals the societal secrets and how the powerhoiders’ actual policies and programs violate widely held and cherished values and beliefs. The action can be carried out over a period of time, making it a campaign; actions are often repeated in many different places at once, such as the civil rights movement’s lunch counter sit-ins. Strategy. The plans, tactics, methods, utilization o f people and resources, maneuvers, timing, etc., that are carefully crafted to best achieve a social movement’s short- and long-term goals. At a less lofty level, strategy sometimes merely refers to the best option at the time. Sub-movement. Social movements usually have many sub-issues or goals, each with its own social movement, called a sub-movement. Sub-movements go through the MAP eight stages at their own pace, separate from each ocher and the larger movement. For example, the restaurant sit-in movement successfully went through the eight MAP stages in 1960, but the larger civil rights movement was still in Stage Four, Take-off. Tactics. Any of the many plans and activities to achieve smaller goals within a specific strategy. “Take-off” stage. The fourth MAP stage in which a social movement, sparked by a trigger event, bursts into the public spodight and rapidly spreads around the region, nation, or beyond. Theory. A theory is a set of general statements that provide an explanation for some phenomenon in the world. The goal of theory is to both explain and predict what happens under particular circumstances. Theories help researchers (and the general public) identify important questions to ask and identify what information must be collected to attempt to make sense out of a given situation. Trigger event. An event that dramatizes a social problem and puts it into the public spotlight. At the start of MAP Stage Four, it puts the problem into the public spotlight for the first time and launches the rebel stage of the movement. When it happens in later stages, this process is repeated for a shorter period of time. Trigger events occurring before Stage Four usually go unnoticed.

NOTES

Introduction

1. Robert A. Goldberg, Grassroots Resistance:

Social Movements in Twentieth Century America (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1991), p. 4.

2. John D. McCarthy and Mayer Zald,

“Resource Mobilization and Social Movements: A Partial Theory," American Journal o f Sociology 82, no. 6 (1977): 1212-

1241.

3. Bill Moyer, Doing Democracy (Gabriola Island,

BC: New Society Press, 2001), p. 1.

4. Gene Sharp, The Politics o f Nonviolent Action,

3 vols. (Boston, MA: Porter Sargent, 1973).

5. For this history' of the origins of social move­ ments we are indebted to Sidney Tarrow, Power in Movement: Social Movements, Collective Action, and Politics, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1994). Especially see Part I, “The Birth of the Modern Social Movement,” pp. 29-70.

6. See William A. Gamson, The Strategy o f Social

Protest (Chicago, 1L: Dorsey Press, 1990) for an exception to this.

7. Sociologists Michael Bassis, Richard Gelles,

and Ann Levine, in defining theory, say that “a theory' is a set of relatively abstract state­ ments that explains some aspect of the world. The ultimate goal of scientific theory is to explain and predict phenomena, and ... (more immediately) to lead researchers to ask good questions, to formulate interesting problems, and to pose intelligent hypotheses” (Sociology: An Introduction). Feminist thinkers such as Dale Spender have defined feminist theory in an “expansive way,” noting that it “reaches out to movements for political change on one hand and reaches within to the inner reality' of women’s lives on the other,” and that “it often takes a less abstract form than other theory”

(Feminist Theorists: Three Centuries o f Key Women Thinkers). Patricia Hill Collins, in her discussion of the traditions of black women intellectuals, notes that “very different kinds o f... ‘theories’ emerge when thought is joined with pragmatic action” (Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics o f Empowerment). These scholars have been useful to us in our consideration of the nature of theory.

8. Every time a new social movement takes off

with big demonstrations and civil disobedi­ ence, the powerholders and media are quick to frame it as being “just like the 1960s,” to project the idea that big social movements were something that happened in the 1960s, not now. This is a deliberate strategy to dis­ courage people from recognizing the reality that they are creating a new social movement right now. (And yes, it is like the 1960s.) 9. See M. Edelstein, Contaminated Communities:

The Social and Psychological Impacts o f Residential Toxic Exposure (Boulder, CO: Wesrview Press, 1988), and A. Levine, Love Canal: Science, Politics and People (Lexington, MA: Lexington, 1983). Part I: The Movement Action Plan

Chapter 1

1. Alaine Touraine, The Voice and the Eye: An

Analysis o f Social Movements (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1981).

2. I first came across this term in a talk by

Richard Gregg, and then in his book The Power o f Nonviolence (London, UK: James Clark, 1960), Chapter 2.

3. See Arnold Toynbee, The History o f

Civilization abridged, 6 vols. (London, UK: Oxford University Press, 1987).

4. See Murray Dobbin, The Myth o f the Good

NOTES 205

Corporate Citizen: Democracy Under the Buie o f B ig Business (Toronto, ON: Stoddart Publishing, 1998); Michael Parenti, Power an d the Powerless (New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press, 1978); Robert Alford and Roger Friedland, Power o f Theory (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1985); G. William Domhoff, Who Rules America Now? (Englewood Cliffs, NJ; Prentice Hall, 1983).

5. Gene Sharps Social Power and Political

Freedom. (Boston, MA: Porter Sargent, 1980), P- 27. 6. See Parenti, Power an d the Powerless, and

Domhoff, Who Rules?. 7. See Gene Sharp, Social Power, especially

Chapter 2. 8. Chuck Collins and Felice Yeskel, Economic Apartheid in America (New York, NY: The New Press, 2000), p. 105. Chapter 2 1. JoannaMacy, World As Lover, W orldAsSelf

(Berkeley, CA: Parallax Press, 1991), p. 35. 2. Richard Gilber, “The Dynamics of Inactions,”

American Psychologist (November 1988). 3. Ward Churchill, et.al., The Cointelpro Papers:

Documents from the FBI's Secret Wars Against Domestic Dissent (Boston, MA: South End Press, 1993). 4. Leigh Barker, “Violence, Infiltration and Sabotage,” Animals Agenda (July/August 1989). Chapter 3 1. A movements progression through the eight

stages is holarchical not hierarchical. While each succeeding stage has its own distinct characteristics, it also includes all of the previ­ ous stages. A movement in Stage Six, for example, can have aspects of the previous five stages. 2. Hannah Arendt, On Revolution (New York,

NY: Viking Press, 1963). 3. Roger W. Cobb and Charles D. Elder,

Participation in American Politics: The Dynamics o f Agenda-Building (Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, 1972). Chapter 4 1. Except in most dictatorships and police states. 2. Roger W. Cobb and Charles D. Elder,

Participation in American Politics. 3. An exception is the first six months of the

cake-offstage, when activists are excited about their social movement. Part II: Social Movement Theory and MAP

Chapter 5 1. Mary Jo Deegan, jan e Addams and the Men o f

the Chicago School, 1890-1918 (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press, 1988). 2. Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss, The

Discovery o f Grounded Theory (Chicago, IL: Aldine, 1967). 3. Allen Rubin and Earl R. Babbie, Research

Methods fir Social Work, 2nd ed. (Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishers, 1993), pp. 43-44.

4. James M. Jasper, The A rt o f M oral Protest

(Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1997), p. 20. 5. Ibid. 6. Ibid., p. 21. 7. William Komhauser, The Politics o f M ass

Society (Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1959). 8. Neil Smelser, Theory o f Collective Behavior (New York, NY: Free Press, 1962), pp. 15

9. Mancur Olson, The Logic o f Collective Action

(New York, NY: Schocken, 1965). 10. M. Lipsky, “Protest as a political resource”

American Political Science Review 62, pp.

1144-1158. 11. Doug McAdam, “Conceptual origins, current

problems, future directions,” in Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements, edited by Doug McAdam, John D. McCarthy, and Mayer Zald (Cambridge, UK; Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 23-40. 12. PK. Eisinger, “The Conditions of Protest

Behavior in American Cities,” American P olitical Science Review 67 (1973) 11-28, cited in McAdam, “Conceptual origins.” p. 23 13. McAdam, “Conceptual origins.” p. 23 14. See Enrique Larana, Hank Johnston, and

Joseph Gusfield, New Social Movements: From Ideology to Identity, (Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1994). 15. Scott A. Hunt, Robert Bedford, and David A. Snow, “Identity Fields: Framing Processes and the Social Construction of Movement Identities,” in New Social Movements: From Ideology to Identity.

16. Gene Sharp, The Politics o f Nonviolent Action,

206 NOTES

3 vols. (Boston, MA: Porter Sargent, 1973). There is a rich literature on nonviolence, which we do not have the space to review thoroughly here. See the bibliography for fur­ ther references.

17. See Doug McAdam, John D. McCarthy, and Mayer Zald, eds., Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 2.

18. Bronislaw Misztal and J. Craig Jenkins,

“Starting from Scratch is Not Always the Same: The Politics of Protest and the Postcommunist Transitions in Poland and Hungary," in The Politics o f Social Protest: Comparative Perspectives on States and Social Movements, edited by J. Craig Jenkins and Bert Klandermans (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1995), pp. 324-340.

19. Sidney Tarrow, Power in Movement: Social

Movements, Collective Action, and Politics, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998), pp. 199-200. In the first edition of his book (1994), Tarrow used the term “cycles ol protest," which has been cited by other researchers since then. However, in the second edition of his book (1998) he noted that he preferred the broader term “cycles of contention.”

20. Jo Freeman, The Politics o f Women's Liberation

(New York, NY: David McKay, 1975).

21. Edward J. Walsh and Rex Warland, “Social

Movement Involvement in the Wake of a Nuclear Accident: Activists and Free Riders in the TM1 Area,” in Social Movements: Readings on Their Emergence, Mobilization, and Dynamics, edited by Doug McAdam and David Snow (Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Co., 1997).

22. Aldon Morris, The Origins o f the Civil Rights

Movement: Black Communities Organizing for Change (New York, NY: Free Press, 1984), pp. 139-173- See also Myles Florton with Judith Kohl and Herbert Kohl, The Long Haul: An Autobiography (New York, NY: Doubleday,

1990), the life story of the founder and long­ time director of the Highlander Research and Education Center (earlier called the Highlander Folk School) Also see the video You Got to Move, directed by Lucy Phenix (1985) for an excellent video history.

23. Pamela Oliver, “If You Don't Do It, Nobody

Else Will: Active and Token Contributors to Local Collective Action,” in McAdam and Snow’s Social Movements. (See discussion of Snow, Zurcher, and Ekland-Olson’s work on recruitment to a Buddhist movement in America.)

24. See James Downton and Paul Wehr, The

Persistent Activist: How Peace Commitment Develops and Survives (Boulder, CO: Westvicw Press, 1997) for an exception.

25. David A. Snow and Robert D. Benford.

“Ideology, Frame Resonance, and Participant Mobilization,” in Prom Structure to Action: Social Movement Participation Across Cultures, edited by Bert Klandermans, Hanspeter Kricsi, and Sidney Farrow (Greenwich CT: JAI Press, 1988). pp .197-217, cited in McAdam, “The framing function of move­ ment tactics: Strategic dramaturgy in the American civil rights movement” in McAdam et al, Comparative Perspectives, p. 338.

26. McAdam, “Framing function,” see above p

347.

27. Tarrow, Power in Movement.

28. McAdam, “Framing function,” p. 340.

29. Ibid.; Paul Burstein, Rachel Einwohner, and

Jocelyn Hollander, “The Success of Social Movements: A Bargaining Perspective,” in Jenkins and Klandermans' The Politics o f Social Protest, also notes the lack of research on movement outcomes.

30. McAdam, “Framing function,” p. 339.

31. Noel Sturgeon. “Theorizing Movements:

Direct Action and Direct Theory,” in Cultural Politics and Social Movements, edited by Marcy Darnovsky, Barbara Epstein, and Richard Flacks (Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1995), p. 36.

32. McAdam, “Framing function,” p. 354.

33. Tarrow, Power in Movement, p. 202.

34. Burstein et al., “Success of Social

Movements,” p. 277; see also Gamson Strategy o f Social Protest.

35. Tarrow, Power in Movement, (1st ed.) (1994)

p. 154.

36. Ronald Libby, Eco-Wars: Political Campaigns

and Social Movements (New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1998) p. 23. (Sec pp. 17-23 for fuller discussion).

37. Tarrow, Power in Movement, p. 202.

38. McAdam, “Framing function”, p. 339.

NOTES 207

39. Downton andWehr, The Persistent Activist,

see especially p. 6 and pp. 67-68; see also John Lofland, “The Soar and Slump of Polite Protest: Interactive Spirals and the Eighties Peace Surge,” Peace and Change 17 (1992), pp. 34-59. 40. Alberto Melucci, “The Global Planet and the

Internal Planet: New Frontiers for Collective Action and Individual Transformation,” in Darnovsky, et al’s C ultural Politics. Part IE: Case Studies

Chapter 6 1. Thanks to Ellen A. Johnson for her research

contribution to this case study. 2. For how baseball began the desegregation bat­ tles see William Marshall, Baseball's Pivotal Era, 1945-52 (Louisville, KY: University Press of Kentucky, 1999), and Bruce Adelson, Brushing Back Jim Crow: The integration of minor-league baseball in the American South (Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia, 1999). 3. See AJdon D. Morris, The Origins o f the Civil

Rights Movement: Black Communities Organizing far Change (Boston, MA: The Free Press, 1984), pp. 26-30. 4. The Montgomery Bus Boycott story is widely

told. See, for example, Martin Luther King, Stride Toward Freedom: The Montgomery Story— Birth o f Successful Nonviolent Resistance (New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1958); Taylor Branch, Parting the Waters: America in the King Years 1954-63 (New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1988), pp. 143-205; David J. Garrow, Bearing the Cross: M artin Luther King, Jr., and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (New York, NY: Morrow, 1986), pp. 11-82. 5. See Morris, Origins, pp. 12-16, 26-39. 6. Other lesser-known mass-based integration

campaigns occurred in Baton Rouge, Tallahassee, and Birmingham and also served not only to inspire, but also to provide the methodology, experience, and leadership that helped the emergence of the new mass move­ ments across the South. 7. See Morris, Origins, pp. 40, 73. 8. Ibid., pp. 197-215 for a description of the

early months of the sit-in movement. 9. Madeleine Adamson and Seth Borgos, This

M ighty Dream (London, UK: Roudedge &

Kegan Paul, 1985), pp .84-86. 10. Stephen B. Oates, Let the Trumpet Sound: The

Life o f M artin Luther King (Scarborough, ON: Signet, 1982), p. 400. Black Power had been used for years by such African American lead­ ers as Paul Robeson and Adam Clayton Powell 11. Though near the end of his life it was widely

reported that Malcolm X was coming closer to Dr. King’s view. 12. Martin Luther King, Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community? (New York, NY: Bantam, 1967), pp. 31 and 70-71. 13. Ibid., pp. 110-112. 14. Martin Luther King, Why We Can’t Wait (New York, NY: New American Library, 1964), p. 118. 15. Inge Powell Bell, CORE and the Strategy o f

Nonviolence (New York, NY: Random House, 1968), p. 11. 16. King, Why We Can't Wait, p. 112. 17. Ibid., p. 121. 18. Ibid., p. 117. 19. The Student Nonviolent Coordinating

Committee (SNCC), the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). 20. Doug McAdam, Freedom Summer (Oxford,

UK: Oxford University Press, 1988). 21. Oates, Let the Trumpet Sound, p. 413. A fuller description of the Chicago open housing campaign can be found on pp. 411- 416. 22. Bell Gale Chevigny, “The Fruits of Freedom

Summer,” The N ation (August 8/15, 1994), p. 154. 23. Adamson and Borgos, This M ighty Dream , p.

97. 24. Oates, Let the Trumpet Sound, p. 444. 25. Garrow, Bearing the Cross, p. 539.

26. Martin Luther King, Where Do We Go From

Here, pp. 8 and 157. 27. King, Why We Can’t Wait, pp. 136-137, and

Oates, Let the Trumpet Sound, p. 460. Chapter 7 1. This speech was subsequendy published as

“De-Developing the United States Through Nonviolence” in several progressive publica­ tions. Throughout the rest of the decade I

208 NOTES

distributed over 50,000 reprints of the article as I traveled across Western Europe and the United States giving talks and helping new anti-nuclear energy groups form. At first I often received hostile responses from activists who either supported nuclear energy or did not want the focus turned away from the anti- Vietnam War effort. Copies are available for three dollars. See the author contact informa­ tion in the appendix. 2. My own Philadelphia Life Centers affinity

group had 30-minute daily interviews from jail on National Public Radio. Instantaneously, nuclear power became a hody debated public issue. 3. For example, after two weeks in jail in the

Manchester, New Hampshire, armory, I drove direcdy to Kansas to attend the founding meeting of the Sunflower Alliance, composed of dozens of new local action groups from around that state. 4. See “Pulling the Nuclear Plug,” in Time

M agazine (February 13, 1984), p. 12. 5. See “States Rights and Shoreham’s Future,” in the New York Times (February 21, 1987), p. 3. Also see “Pulling the Nuclear Plug,” in Time M agazine (February 13, 1984), p. 12, and “Something rotten in Suffolk?” in Forbes M agazine (February 11, 1985). 6. “Seabrook protest — 74 arrested,” in San

Francisco Sunday Examiner & Chronicle (May 25, 1986), p.A-8. 7. See Harvey Wasserman, “Bush’s Pro-Nuke Energy Strategy,” in The N ation (May 20, 1991); Theodore M. Besmann (of the govern­ ment’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory), “A Brave New Era For Nuclear Power,” in die San Francisco Chronicle (July 14, 1990); Jim Weiss, “Nuclear Power — the next genera­ tion,” in In These Times (February 22, 1993). 8. See, “Prevent the death of democracy,” in the San Francisco Bay Guardian (December 9, 1998), p. 11. Chapter 8 1. Nancy Gregory lives in Baltimore, Maryland. This is a revised version of a paper she wrote in 1995 while a student in Steven Soifer’s Social Work and Social Action class.

2. Dennis Altman, The Homosexualization o f

America. (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1982), 120

.

3. E. Marcus, M ak in g H istory (New York, NY:

Harper Collins, 1992). 4. W.J. Blumenfeld and D. Raymond, Looking at

Gay and Lesbian Life (New York, NY: Philosophical Library, 1988). 5. E. Marcus writes, “According to historian John D ’Emilio, the name Mattachine was taken from mysterious masked medieval fig­ ures, who, one of the organization’s founders speculated, might have been homosexuals.” Later in M aking H istory, Marcus explains that the name Daughters of Bilitis “was inspired by the heroine of the fictional Songs o f Bilitis, which was written by the late-nineteenth-cen- tury author Pierre Louys, who portrayed Bilitis as a sometime lesbian and contempo­ rary o f Sappho.”

6. B.D. Adam, The Rise o f a Gay and Lesbian

Movement (Boston, MA: Twayne Publishers, 1987). 7. Marcus, M aking History. 8. Adam, Rise o f a Movement.

9. Marcus, M aking History. 10. Adam, Rise o f a Movement.

11. Marcus, M aking History, 92. 12. Adam, Rise o f a Movement, p. 75. 13. Margaret Cruikshank, The Gay and Lesbian

Liberation Movement (New York, NY: Routledge, 1992), p. 69. 14. Cited in M. Thompson, Long Road to

Freedom: The Advocate History o f the Gay and Lesbian Movement (New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press, 1994), p. 19. 15. Blumenfeld and Raymond, Looking; T.

Marotta, The Politics o f Homosexuality (Boston, MA; Houghton Mifflin,1981). 16. Marcus, M aking History.

17. Thompson, Long Road. 18. Ibid., p. 49, 19. Cited in Thompson, Long Road, p. 50.

20. Marcus, M aking History. 21. Thompson, LongRoad. 22. Cited in Adam, Rise o f a Movement, p. 94. 23. Mary Daly, Gyn/Ecology (Boston, MA: Beacon

Press, 1978). Cited in Adam, Rise o f a Movement, p. 94. 24. Sarah Schulman, My American History (New

York, NY: Routledge, 1994); Thompson, Long Road.

NOTES 209

25. Thompson, Long Road.

26. Cited in Adam, Rise o f a Movement. 27. Blumenfeld and Raymond, Looking. 28. Thompson, Long Road.

29. Adam, Rise o f a Movement. 30. Ibid.; Marcus, M aking History.

31. Adam, Rise o f a Movement. 32. Ibid.; Marcus, M aking History.

33. Schulman, My American History. 34. N.D. Hunter, S.E. Michaelson, and T.B.

Stoddard, The Rights o f Lesbians and Gay Men: The Basic ACLU Guide to a Gay Person’s Rights, 3rd ed. (Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1992). 35. Marcus, M aking History, Thompson, Long

Road.

36. Thompson, Long Road. 37. Report of the Lambda Legal Defense and

Education Fund, 2000 (www.Udef.org). 38. Thompson, Long Road, p. 391. 39. “Hundreds of Thousands March on Capitol

to Support Gay Rights,” in the Baltim ore Sun (May 1, 2000), p. 3A 40. Report of the Human Rights Campaign,

2000 (www.hrcusa.org) and LLDEF, 2000 41. HRC, 2000, LLDEF,2000. Chapter 9 1. An earlier draft of this paper was presented at

the Association for Health Services Research meerings in Chicago in June 1995- 2. For early histories of the feminist movement

see Jo Freeman, The Politics o f Womens Liberation (New York, NY: David McKay, 1975); and Sara Evans, Personal Politics: The Roots ofWomen’s Liberation in the C ivil Rights Movement and the New Left New York, NY: Random House, 1979). 3. The current edition is Our Bodies, Our Selves

fo r the 21st Century, still written by the Boston Women’s Health Book CoUective (New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1998). This book has sold over 4 miUion copies and been translated into many languages. 4. John Eason, “Women in White,” University o f

Chicago M agazine 93 (October 2000), p. 20. 5. For a history of the early years of the women’s

health movement see Sheryl Burt Ruzek, The Women’s H ealth M ovement: Fem inist Alternatives to M edical Control (New York,

NY: Prager, 1978). 6. Eason, “Women in White.” 7. Michael Baum, “Breast Cancer — Lessons

from the Past,” Clinics on Oncology 1, no. 3 (November 1982), pp. 649-660. 8. Rose Kushner, Breast Cancer: A Personal

History and Investigative Report (New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1975). In 1977 this book was revised and reprinted under a new title, Why M el W hat Every Woman Should Know About Breast Cancer to Save H er Life (New York, NY: New American Library, 1977). In the introduction, Rose Kushner indicated that she had learned that “we aren’t ready for a book boldly titled Breast Cancer.” The denial is too great. 9. The stories of both Winnow and Shapiro are

covered in Alisa Solomon, “The Politics of Breast Cancer,” Village Voice 36, no. 20 (May 14, 1991), p. 22. 10. Ibid., and Tatiana Schreiber, “Environmental­

ists and Breast Cancer Activists Tell New York Commission: Act Now!” Resist 2, no. 4 (April 1993), p. 1. 11. See Theresa Montini, “Gender and Emotion in the Advocacy for Breast Cancer Informed Consent Legislation,” Gender and Society 10, no. 1 (February 1996), p. 9. 12. “Campaign Vote Breast Cancer,” C all to

Action 6 (March 2000), p. 6. 13- “NBCC Legislative Update,” C all to Action 6

(March 2000), pp. 4-5. 14. For a review of recent literature on environ­ mental links to breast cancer see Sandra Steingraber, “The Environmental Link to Breast Cancer,” in Breast Cancer: Society Shapes an Epidemic, edited by Anne Kaspar and Susan Ferguson (New York, NY: St Martin’s Press, 2000), pp. 271-299. 15. For further information on chemical compa­ nies and breast cancer see: Peter PhiUips and Project Censored, “#2 Censored: Chemical Corporations Profit off Breast Cancer,” in Censored 1999 (New York, NY: Seven Stories Press, 1999); Barbara Brenner, “Seeing Our Interests Clearly” and “Follow the Money II,” Breast Cancer Action (1998), available at www.bcaction/news/9902.02.html; and Sharon Ban and Liza Gross, “Cancer, Inc.,” Sierra (September-October 1999). All of the above are cited in Paul Ray and Sherry Ruth Anderson, The Cultural Creatives: How 50

210 NOTES

Million People Arc Changing the World (New York, NY: Harmony Books, 2000).

Chapter 10

1. Juliette Beck is the coordinator of the Global

Democracy Project for Global Exchange where she focuses especially on the interna­ tional movement against corporate globaliza­ tion of the political economic system. Conclusion

1. See the works of Ken Wilber and Robert

Kegan cited below.

2. 1 call them the over-industrialized and never-

to-be-developed nations.

3. Chuck Collins and Felice Yeskel, Economic

Apartheid in America (New York. NY: The New Press, 2000).

4. Between 1960 and 1990, the greatest eco­

nomic growth era in human history, the gap between the richest and poorest nations dou­ bled according to a UNESCO report (see David Suzuki and Holly Dressel, Naked Ape to Superspecies [Toronto, ON: Stoddard Publishing, 1999]). While the elites in the world’s industrialized nations proclaim that increased economic growth will create pros­ perity for everyone in what they call the “developing” nations, the U.S, Space Command doesn’t think so. In its Year 2000 document called Vision for 2020, the Pentagon states that because of corporate “globalization of the world economy” there will be a widening gap between the “haves and have-nots." And space superiority will be needed to protect challenges to corporate con­ trol around the world.

5. Collins and Yeskel, Economic Apartheid.

6. Sydney Morning Herald (December 16, 2000),

p. 13.

7. There have been many dire warnings of

impending environmental and resource disas­ ter, including the World Commission on the Environment and Development (1987); the Warning to Humanity signed by 1,600 scien­ tists, including half of the living Nobel Laureates (1992); and the 2000 report of the prestigious U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, made up of hundreds of the world’s leading scientists, which concluded that global warming was far more serious than the panel had thought. The Earth's tempera­ ture could increase by 2.7 to 11 degrees this

century without major corrective environmen­ tal efforts. (San Francisco Chronicle, October 26, 2000, p. 3).

8. Mathis Wackernagel and William Rees, Our

Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth (Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers, 1996).

9. Richard Heinberg, A New Covenant with

Nature (Wheaton, 1L.: Theosophical Publishing House, 1996).

10. Some of these concepts and ideas can be

found in Richard Heinberg, New Covenant: Charlene Spretnak, Resurgence o f the Real (London, UK: Routledge, 1999); Donella Meadows, et al., Beyond the Limits: Confronting Global Collapse, Envisioning a Sustainable Future (New York, NY: American Forum, 1992); James Baines, The Peace Paradigm (East Orange, NJ: Global Education Associates, 1970); Joe Dominguez and Vicki Robin, Your Money or Your Life (Seattle, WA: New Road Map Foundation, 1985); and many others.

11. See Ken Wilber, Boomeritis (Boston, MA:

Shambala Press, 2001), Integral Psychology (Boston, MA: Shambala Press, 2000), The Integral Vision (Boston, MA: Shambala Press, 1999), and the introductions to volumes seven and eight of The Collected Works o f Ken Wilber (Boston, MA: Shambala Press, 1999). Also see Chapter 10 of Robert Kegan, In Over our Heads (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994), which describes how heroic efforts to help disenfranchised groups fully enter into modern society are "not about the limits of modernism" itself, but that every­ one should be brought equally into it.

12. Don Beck and Christopher Cowan, Spiral Dynamics (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1996).

13. See, for example, Ken Wilber’s books

Boomeritis and The Integral Vision, and the introduction to volume seven of The Collected Works o f Ken Wilber.

14. See Wilber, Collected Works, vol. 3, pp. 413-

421, 620-626. Jeremy Bernstein coined the term “ideological multiculturalism” in his book The Dictatorship o f Virtue.

15. This is a fundamental theory on which

Wilbers philosophy is based and runs throughout all of his work. It’s called the big three and is a contraction of the four quad­ rants framework.

NOTES 211

16. Riane Eisler, The Chalice and the Blade (San

Francisco, CA: Harper & Row, 1987). 17. Wilber, Collected Works, vol. 4, p. 190. 18. Ibid., pp. 329-330, 368. 19. As quoted in Heinberg, New Covenant, p. 56. 20. Linda Stout, “Barriers to Movement

Building,” unpublished report, 2000. See Spirit in Action’s web site (www.spiritinac- tion.net). Linda is also helping to set up local “circles of change” groups around the country. 21. Medical scientists now report that our bodies

respond with a stronger immune system and other signs of physical health when we exhib­ it these positive qualities and likewise exhibit

unhealthy symptoms, such as high blood pressure and a weakened immune system, when we are under stress or angry, depressed, or unhappy. 22. Paul H. Ray and Sherry Ruth Anderson, The

C ultural Creatives (New York, NY: Harmony Boob, 2000). Glossary

1. See Mark B. Woodhouse, Paradigm Wars

(Berkeley, CA: Frog Ltd. Boob, 1995). 2. Gene Sharp, Social Power & Political Freedom

(Boston, MA: Porter Sargent, 1980), page 27.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Part I: The Movement Action Plan

Alford, Robert & Roger Friedland. Power o f Theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1985.

Arendt, Hannah. On Revolution. New York, NY:

Viking Press, 1963.

Baines, James. The Peace Paradigm. Vol. 1, no. I of The Whole Earth Papers. East Orange, NJ: Global Education Associates, 1970.

Barker, Leigh. “Violence, Infiltration and

Sabotage." Animals Agenda (July/August 1989).

Bassis, Michael, Richard Gelles, and Ann Levine.

Sociology: An Introduction. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Random House, 1984.

Beck. Don and Christopher Cowan. Spiral

Dynamics. Malden. MA: Blackwell, 1996.

Burns, James MacGregor and Stewart Burns. The

Pursuit o f Rights in America. New York, NY: Knopf, 1991.

Churchill, Ward, et. al. The Cointelpro Papers:

Documents fo n t the FBI's Secret Wars Against Domestic Dissent. Boston, MA: South End Press, 1993.

Cobb, Roger W. and Charles D. Elder.

Participation in American Politics: The Dynamics o f Agenda-Building. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, 1972.

Collins, Chuck and F:elice Yeskel. Economic

Apartheid in America. New York, NY: The New Press, 2000.

Collins, Patricia Hill. Black Feminist Thought:

Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics o f Empowerment. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Routledge, 2000.

Dobbin, Murray. The Myth o f the Good Corporate

Citizen : Democracy Under the Rule o f Big Business. Toronto, ON: Stoddart Publishing,

1998.

Do m hoff, G. William. Who Rules America Now I

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1983.

Dominguez, Joe and Vicki Robin. Your Money or

Your Life. Seattle, WA: New Road Map Foundation, 1985.

Downton, James and Paul Wehr. The Persistent

Activist: How Peace Commitment Develops and Survives. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997.

Edelstein, M. Contaminated Communities: The

Social an d Psychological Impacts o f Residential Toxic Exposure. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1988.

Eisler, Riane. The Chalice and the Blade. San

Francisco, CA: Harper & Row, 1987.

Gamson, William A. The Strategy o f Social Protest.

Chicago, IL: Dorsey Press, 1990.

Gilber, Richard. “The Dynamics of Inactions." American Psychologist (November 1988).

Goldberg, Robert A. Grassroots Resistance: Social Movements in Twentieth Century America. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1991.

Gregg, Richard. The Power o f Nonviolence. London, UK: James Clark, 1960.

Heinberg, Richard. A New Covenant with Nature.

Wheaton, IL: Theosophical Publishing House, 1996.

Kegan, Robert. In Over our Heads. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press, 1994.

Lauer, Robert H. and Jeanette C. Lauer. Sociology: Contours o f Society. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury. 1998.

Levine, A. Love Canal: Science, Politics and People.

Lexington, MA: Lexington, 1985.

Macy, Joanna. World As Lover, World As Self.

Berkeley, CA: Parallax Press, 1991.

McCarthy, John D. and Mayer Zald. “Resource

Mobilization and Social Movements: A Partial

BIBLIOGRAPHY 213

Theory.” American Journal of Sociology 82, no. 6 (3977),1212-1241.

Meadows, Donella, et.al. Beyond the Lim its:

Confronting Global Collapse, Envisioning a Sustainable Future. New York, NY: American Forum, 1992.

Parenti, Michael. Democracy fo r the Few. New

York, NY: St. Martin’s Press, 1985. -------- . Power an d the Powerless. New York, NY:

St. Martin’s Press, 1978. Ray, Paul H. and Sherry Ruth Anderson. The

Cultural Creatives. New York, NY: Harmony Books, 2000. Sharp, Gene. Social Power an d Political Freedom.

Boston, MA: Porter Sargent, 1980.

-------- . The Politics o f N onviolent Action. Three

volumes. Boston, MA: Porter Sargent, 1973. Spender, Dale. Feminist Theorists: Three Centuries

o f Key Women Thinkers. New York, NY: Pantheon, 1983- Spretnak, Charlene. Resurgence o f the Real.

London, UK: Routledge, 1999. Stout, Linda. “Barriers to Movement Building." Unpublished report, 2000. See Spirit in Action’s web site, www.spiritinaction.net.

Suzuki, David and Holy Dressel. N aked Ape to

Superspecies: A Personal Perspective on Humanity and the Global Ecocrisis. Toronto, ON: Stoddart Publishing, 1999. Tarrow, Sidney. Power in Movement: Social

Movements, Collective Action, and Politics. Second edition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Touraine, Alaine. The Voice and the Eye: An

Analysis o f Social Movements. Cambridge, U K Cambridge University Press, 1981.

Toynbee, Arnold Joseph. The History o f

Civilization. Volumes I-VI, abridged. London, U K Oxford University Press, 1987. U.S. Space Command. Vision for 2020. Available

at www.spacecom.af.mil/usspace. Wackernagel, Mathis and William Rees. Our

Ecological Footprint: Reducing H um an Im pact on the Earth. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers, 1996. Wilber, Ken. Boomeritis. Boston, MA: Shambala

Press, 2001. -------- . Integral Psychology. Boston, MA:

Shambala Press, 2000. -------- . The Integral Vision. Boston, MA:

Shambala Press, 1999.

-------- . The Collected Works o f Ken Wilber. Boston, MA: Shambala Press, 1999. Wilhelm, Richard and Cary F. Baynes. The 1

Ching. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1977. Woodhouse, Mark B. Paradigm Wars. Berkeley,

CA: Frog Ltd. Books, 1995. Young, Alfred F. “The Framers of the

Constitution and the Genius of the People.” In These Times (September 9-15, 1987). Part H. Social Movement Theories and MAP

Bondurant, Joan V. Conquest o f Violence: The

Gandhian Philosophy o f Conflict. Revised edi­ tion. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1965. Burstein, Paul, Rachel Einwohner, and Jocelyn

Hollander. “The Success o f Social Movements: A Bargaining Perspective.” In The Politics o f Social Protest: Comparative Perspectives on States an d Social Movements. Volume 3 o f the Social Movements, Protest and Contention Series, edited by J. Craig Jenkins and Bert Klandermans. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1995. Cooney, Robert and Helen Michalowski. The

Power o f the People: Active Nonviolence in the United States. Philadelphia, PA and Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers, 1987. Deegan, Mary Jo. Jane Addams and the Men o f the

Chicago School, 1890-1918. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Press, 1988. Dellinger, David. Revolutionary Nonviolence. New

York, NY and Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs- Merrill, 1970. Downton, James and Paul Wehr. The Persistent

Activist: How Peace Commitment Develops and Survives. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997. Duncan, Ronald (ed.). Selected W ritings o f

Mahatma Gandhi. London, UK Fontana/Collins, (1951) 1971.

Easwaran, Eknath. Gandhi the M an: The Story o f H is Transformation. Tomales, CA: Nilgiri Press, 1997. Eisinger, Peter K “The Conditions of Protest

Behavior in American Cities.” American Political Science Review 67 (1973), 11-28. As cited in Doug McAdam, “Conceptual origins, current problems, future directions,” in

214 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements, edited by Doug McAdam, John D. McCarthy, and Mayer Zald, pp. 23-40. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Eppsteiner, Fred. The Path o f Compassion: Writings

on Socially Engaged Buddhism. Berkeley, CA: Parallax Press, 1988. Freeman, Jo. The Politics o f Women's Liberation.

New York, NY: David McKay, 1975-

Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy o f the Oppressed. New York,

NY: Herder and Herder, 1970

Gamson, William A. The Strategy o f Social Protest.

Chicago, IL: Dorsey Press, 1990. Gandhi, M.K. Non-Violent Resistance

(Satyagraha). New York, NY: Schocken Books, 1951. Gandhi, M.K. An Autobiography or The story o f my Experiments with Truth. Translated from the Gujarati original by Mahadev Desai. 2nd ed. Ahmedabad, India: Navajivan Publishing House, 1940. Glaser, Barney and Anselm Strauss. The Discovery o f Grounded Theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine, 1967. Goffman, Erving. Frame Analysis. New York, NY:

Harper Colophon, 1974. Gregg, Richard. The Power o f Nonviolence. New

York, NY: Schocken, 1966.

Harding, Vincent. Hope and History: Why We M ust Share the Story o f the Movement. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1990. Horton, Myles with Judith Kohl and Herbert

Kohl. The Long H au l An Autobiography. New York, NY: Doubieday, 1990. Hunt, Scott A., Robert Benford, and David A.

Snow. “Identity Fields: Framing Processes and the Social Construction of Movement Identities.” In New Social Movements: From Ideology to Identity, edited by Enrique Larana, Hank Johnston, and Joseph Gusfreld. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1994.

Ingram, Catherine. In the Footsteps o f Gandhi:

Conversations with Spiritual Social Activists. Berkeley CA: Parallax Press, 1990. Jasper, James M. The A rt o f M oral Protest: Culture,

Creativity, and Biography in Social Movements. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1997. Jenkins, J. Craig and Charles Per row. “Insurgency of the Powerless: Farmworker Movements

(1946-1972).” American Sociological Review 42 (1977), pp. 249-68. Johnston, Hank, Enrique Larana, and Joseph

Gusfreld. “Identities, Grievances, and New Social Movements.” In New Social Movements: From Ideology to Identity, edited by Enrique Larana, Hank Johnston, and Joseph Gusfreld. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1994. King, Jr., Martin Luther. Autobiography o f M artin Luther K ing Jr. Edited by Claybome Carson, New York, NY: Warner Books, 1998.

Kornhauser, William. The Politics o f M ass Society.

Glencoe IL: Free Press, 1959. Kruse, Corwin. “Mobilizing Impressions:

Impression Management as a Selective Incentive for Participation in Social Movement Organizations.” Presented at the meetings o f the American Sociological Association, San Francisco, August 1998. Lakey, George. Powerful Peacemaking.

Philadelphia, PA and Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers, 1987. Le Bon, Gustave. The Crowd: A Study in the

Popular Mind. New York, NY: Penguin (1895) 1977. Libby, Ronald T. Eco-W ars: P olitical Cam paigns

an d Social Movements. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1998. Lipsky, M. “Protest as a political resource'

American Political Science Review 62 (1968), pp. 1144-1158. Lofland, John. “The Soar and Slump of Polite

Protest: Interactive Spirals and the Eighties Peace Surge." Peace and Change 17 (1992), pp. 34-59. Lyman, Stanford M. (ed.). Social Movements:

Critiques, Concepts, Case Studies. New York, NY: New York University Press, 1992. Lynd, Staughton. Nonviolence in Am erica: A

Documentary History. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill, 1965. McAdam, Doug. P olitical Process an d the

Development o f Black Insurgency, 1930-1970. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1982. -------- . “Conceptual origins, current problems,

future directions.” In Com parative Perspectives on Social Movements, edited by Doug McAdam, John D. McCarthy, Mayer Zald, pp. 23-40. Cambridge, UK; Cambridge

BIBLIOGRAPHY 215

University Press, 1996. McAdam, Doug, John D. McCarthy, and Mayer

Zald (eds.). Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996. -------- . “Introduction: Opportunities, mobiliz­

ing structures and framing processes — toward a synthetic, comparative perspective on social movements.” In Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements, edited by Doug McAdam, John D. McCarthy, Mayer Zald, pp. 1-21. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996. McAdam, Doug and David Snow (eds.). Social

Movements: Readings on Their Emergence, M obilization, and Dynamics. Los Angeles, GA: Roxbury Publishing Company, 1997. McAllister, Pam, ed. Reweaving the Web o f Life:

Feminism and Nonviolence. Philadelphia, PA and Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers, 1982. -------- . You Can't fa ll the Spirit. First o f the

Barbara Deming Memorial Series: Stories of Women and Nonviolent Action. Philadelphia, PA and Gabriola Island, BC; New Society Publishers, 1988. McCarthy, John D. and Mayer Zald. “Resource

Mobilization and Social Movements: A Partial Theory.” American Journal of Sociology 82, no. 6(1977), pp. 1212-1241. Melucci, Alberto. "The Global Planet and the

Internal Planet: New Frontiers for Collective Action and Individual Transformation.” In C ultural Politics an d Social Movements, edited by Marcy Darnovsky, Barbara Epstein, and Richard Flacks. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1995. Misztal, Bronislaw and J. Craig Jenkins. “Starting from Scratch is Not always the Same: The Politics of Protest and the Posccommunist Transitions in Poland and Hungary.” In The Politics o f Social Protest: Comparative Perspectives on States an d Social Movements. Volume 3 of the Social Movements, Protest and Contention Series, edited by J. Craig Jenkins and Bert Klandermans, pp. 324-340. Minneapolis, MN: University o f Minnesota Press, 1995. Morris, Aldon. The Origins o f the G v il Rights

Movement: Black Communities Organizingfbr Change. New York, NY: Free Press, 1984. Oliver, Pamela. “'If You Don’t Do It, Nobody

Else Will’: Active and Token Contributors to Local Collective Action. ” In Social Movements: Readings on Their Emergence, M obilization, and Dynamics, edited by Doug McAdam and David Snow. Los Angeles, CA Roxbury Publishing Company, (1984) 1997. Olson, Mancur. The Lope o f Collective Action.

New York, NY: Schocken, 1965. Rubin, Allen and Earl R. Babbie. Research

Methods fo r Social Work. Second edition. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishers, 1993. Sharp, Gene. The Politics o f Nonviolent Action.

Three volumes. Boston, MA: Porter Sargent, Publishers, 1973. Sharp, Gene. Exploring Noviolent Alternatives.

Boston, MA: Porter Sargent Publisher, 1970.

Shields, Katrina. In the Tigers Mouth: An

Empowerment Guide for Social Action. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers, 1994 (originally published in Australia in 1991 by Millenium Books, E.J. Dwyer Pry Ltd.). Sibley, Mulford, ed. The Quiet Battle: Writings on

the Theory an d Practice o f Nonviolent Resistance. Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1969. Sivaraksa, Sulak. Seeds o f Peace; A Buddhist Vision fo r Renewing Society (especially Chapter 9.

“Buddhism and Nonviolence.”) Berkeley, CA: Parallax Press, 1992. Smelser, Neil. Theory o f Collective Behavior. New

York, NY: Free Press, 1962. Snow, David A. and Robert D. Benford.

“Ideology, Frame Resonance, and Participant Mobilization.” In From Structure to Action: Social Movement Participation Across Cultures, edited by Bert Klandermans, Hanspeter Kriesi, and Sidney Tarrow, pp. 197-217. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1988. Snow, David A., Louis Zurcher, and Sheldon

Ekland-Olson. “Social Networks and Social Movements: Microstructural Approach to Differential Recruitment.” In Social Movements: Reading; on Their Emergence, M obilization, and Dynamics, edited by Doug McAdam and David Snow, pp.122-132. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Company, 1997. Sturgeon, Noel. “Theorizing Movements: Direct

Action and Direct Theory.” In Cultural Politics and Social Movements, edited by Marcy Darnovsky, Barbara Epstein, and

216 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Richard Flacks, pp. 35-51. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1995.

Tarrow, Sidney. Power in Movement: Social

Movements, Collective Action, and Politics. 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Thich Nhat Hanh. Being Peace. Berkeley, CA:

Parallax Press, n.d.

Thoreau, Henry David. “Civil Disobedience.” In

Walden and Other Writings o f Henry David Thoreau, edited by Brooks Atkinson. New York, NY: Random House, 1937 (originally published 1849).

Tilly, Charles. From Mobilization to Revolution.

Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1978.

Tolstoy, Leo. The Kingdom o f God is Within You.

New York, NY: Noonday Press, (1905) 1961.

Walsh, Edward J. and Rex Warland. “Social

Movement Involvement in the Wake of a Nuclear Accident: Activists and Free Riders in theTMI Area." In Social Movements: Readings on Their Emergence, Mobilization, and Dynamics, edited by Doug McAdam and David Snow. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Company, 1997.

Wink, Walter, ed. Peace is the Way: Writings on

Nonviolence from the Fellowship of Reconciliation. Maryknoll NY: Orbis Books, 2000

.

Young, Andrew. An Easy Burden: The Civil Rights

Movement and the Transformation o f America. New York, NY: Harper Collins, 1996. Part m. Case Studies

The U.S. Civil Rights Movement

Adamson, Madeleine and Seth Borgos. This

Mighty Dream. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985.

Adelson, Bruce. Brushing Back Jim Crow: The

integration o f minor-league baseball in the American South. Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia, 1999.

Bell. Inge Powell. CORE and the Strategy o f

Nonviolence. New York, NY: Random House, 1968.

Branch, Taylor. Parting the Waters: America in the

King Years 1954-63. New York, NY: Simon &C Schuster, 1988.

Chevigny, Bell Gale. “The Fruits of Freedom

Summer.” The Nation (August 8/15, 1994), p. 154.

Garrow, David J. Bearing the Cross: Martin Luther

King, Jr., and The Southern Christian Leadership Conference. New York, NY: Morrow, 1986.

Lewis, John. Walking with the Wind: A Memoir o f

the Movement. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1998.

King, Martin Luther. Stride Toward Freedom: The Montgomery story — Birth of.successful nonvio­ lent resistance. New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1958.

-------- . Why We Can't Wait. New York, NY: New

American Library, 1964.

-------- . Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or

Community? New York, NY: Bantam, 1967.

McAdam, Doug. Freedom Summer. Oxford, UK:

Oxford University Press, 1988.

Marshall, William. Baseball's Pivotal Era, 1945-

52. Louisville, KY: University Press of Kentucky, 1999.

Morris, Aldon D. The Origins o f the Civil Rights

Movement: Black Communities Organizing for Change. Boston, MA: The Free Press, 1984.

Oates, Stephen B. Let the Trumpet Sound: The Life o f Martin Luther King. Scarborough, ON: Signet, 1982.

Ralph, James. Northern Protest: Martin Luther King, Jr., Chicago and the Civil Rights Movement. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1993.

The Anti-Nuclear Energy Movement

Berman, Daniel and John O’Connor. Who Owns

the Sun: People, Politics and the Struggle for a Solar Economy. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing, 1996.

Caldicott, Helen. Nuclear Madness. Brookline,

MA: Autumn Press, 1978,

Faulkner, Peter, ed. The Silent Bomb. New York,

NY: Random House, 1977.

Ford, Daniel, ed. Melt Down: The Secret Papers o f the Atomic Energy Commission. (Originally published as The Cult o f the Atom). New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1982.

Fuller, John G. We Almost Lost Detroit. New York,

NY: Ballantine, 1976.

Gofman, John W. Radiation and Human Health.

San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books, 1981.

Gofman, John W. and Arthur R. Tamplin.

Poisoned Power. Emmaus, PA: Rodale Press, 1971.

\

BIBLIOGRAPHY 217

Gyorgy, Anna and friends. No Nukes: Everybody’s

guide to nuclear power. Boston, MA; South End Press, 1979. Olson, McKinley C. Unacceptable Risk: The

Nuclear Power Controversy. New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1976. Reynolds, W.C., ed. The California Nuclear

Initiative: Analysis and Discussion o f the Issues. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Institute for Energy Studies, 1976.

The Risks o f N uclear Power Reactors: A Review o f

the N R C Reactor Safety Study WASH-1400. Cambridge, MA: Union of Concerned Scientists, 1977. Smeloff, Ed and Peter Asmus. Reinventing Electric

Utilities: Competition, Citizen Action and Clean Power. Washington, DC: Island Press, 1997. Wohl, Burton. The China Syndrome. New York,

NY: Bantam Press, 1979. The Gay and Lesbian Movement Adam, B.D. The Rise o f a Cay and Lesbian

Movement. Boston, MA: Twayne Publishers, 1987. Altman, Dennis. The Homosexualization o f

America. Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1982. Blumenfeld, W.J. and Raymond, D. Looking at

Gay and Lesbian Life. New York, NY: Philosophical Library, 1988. Cruikshank, Margaret. The Gay and Lesbian Liberation Movement. New York, NY: Routledge, 1992. Human Rights Campaign. July 7, 2000.

Available: www.hrcusa.org “Hundreds of thousands march on Capitol to

support gay rights.” Baltimore Sun (May 1, 2000), p. 3A. Hunter, N.D., S.E. Michaelson, and TB.

Stoddard. The Rights o f Lesbians and Gay Men: The Basic ACLU Guide to a Gay Persons Rights. Third edition. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1992. Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. July

7, 200(j. Available: www.lldeforg Marcus, E. M ak in g H istory. Newark, NY:

HarperCollins, 1992.

Marotta, T. The Politics o f Homosexuality. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1981.

Moyer, Bill. The Movement Action Plan. Second

edition. San Francisco, CA: Social Movement

Empowerment Project, 1987. Schulman, Sarah. My American History. New

York, NY: Routledge, 1994. Thompson, M. (ed.). LongRoad to Freedom: The

Advocate History o f the Gay and Lesbian Movement. New York, NY: St. Martins Press, 1994. The Breast Cancer Social Movement Altman, Roberta. Waking Up, Fighting Back: The

Politics o f Breast Cancer. Boston, MA: Little Brown, 1996. Bait, Sharon. Patient No M ore: The Politics o f

Breast Cancer. Charlottetown, PEI: Gynergy Books, 1994. Batt, Sharon and Liza Gross. “Cancer, Inc.” Sierra

(September-October 1999). Baum, Michael. “Breast Cancer — Lessons from

the Past.” Clinics on Oncology 1, no. 3 (November 1982), pp. 649-660. Beck, Melinda with Emily Yoffe, Ginny Carroll,

Mary Hager, Debra Rosenberg, and Lucille Beachy. “The Politics of Breast Cancer.” Newsweek, 66, no. 24 (December 10, 1990). Boston Women’s Health Book Collective. Our

Bodies, Our Selves for the 21st Century. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1998.

Brady, Judy (ed..). 1 in 3 : Women with Cancer Confront an Epidem ic. Pittsburgh, PA/San Francisco, CA: Cleis Press, 1993. Brenner, Barbara. “Seeing Our Interests Clearly.” Breast Cancer Action (1998). Available at www.bcaction/news/9902.02.html.

-------- . “Follow the Money II.” Breast Cancer

Action (1998). Available at www.bcaction/news/9902.02.html. Buder, Sandra and Barbara Rosenblum. Cancer in Two Voices. San Francisco, CA: Spinsters, 1991. “Campaign Vote Breast Cancer,” C all to Action 6

(March 2000), p. 6. Clorfene-Casten, “The Environmental Link to Breast Cancer.” M s. 3, no. 6 (May/June 1993), p. 52. -------- . “Inside the Cancer Establishment.” Ms.

3, no.6 (May/June 1993), p. 57. Crile, George Jr., M.D. What Women Should

Know About the Breast Cancer Controversy New York, NY: Macmillan, 1973. Eason, John. “Women in White.” University o f

Chicago M agazine 93 (October 2000), p. 20.

218 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Evans, Sara. Personal Politics: The Roots o f Women's

Liberation in the C ivil Rights Movement and the New Left. New York, NY: Random House, 1979. Faulder, Carolyn. “The Nation with the Highest

Death Rate Debates Prevention.” M s. 3, no. 6 (May/june 1993), p. 58. Freeman, Jo. The Politics o f Womens Liberation.

New York, NY: David McKay, 1975- Friedan, Betty. The Fem inine M ystique. New York,

NY: Dell Publishing, 1963. Kaspar, Anne and Susan Ferguson (eds.). Breast

Cancer: Society Shapes an Epidemic. New York, NY: St Martins Press, 2000. Koedt, Anne, Ellen Levine, and Anita Rapone.

Radical Feminism. New York, NY: Quadrangle Books, 1973. Kushnet, Rose. Why M e3. What Every Woman

Should Know About Breast Cancer to Save Her Life. New York, NY,: New American Library, 1977. Originally published as Breast Cancer: A Personal History and Investigative Report. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1975. Lorde, Audre. The Cancer Journals. San Francisco,

CA: Spinsters, 1980. Love, Susan, M.D., with Karen Lindsey. Dr.

Susan Love’s Breast Book. Third edition. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishers, 2000. (First edition published in 1990.) Montini, Theresa. “Gender and Emotion in the

Advocacy for Breast Cancer Informed Consent Legislation.” Gender and Society 10, no. 1 (February 1996), p. 9. Morgan, Robin (ed.). Sisterhood is Powerful: An

Anthology o f Writings from the Women’s Liberation Movement. New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1970. “NBCC Legislative Update,” C all to Action 6

(March 2000), pp. 4-5. Phillips, Peter and Project Censored. “#2

Censored: Chemical Corporations Profit off Breast Cancer.” In Censored 1999. New York, NY: Seven Stories Press, 1999. Ray, Paul and Sherry Ruth Anderson. The

Cultural Creatives: How 50 M illion People Are Changing the World. New York, NY: Harmony Books, 2000. Rennie, Susan. “Breast Cancer Prevention: Diet

vs. Drugs.” M s. 3, no. 6 (May/june 1993), p. 38. Ruzek, Sheryl Burt. The Women's Health

Movement: Fem inist Alternatives to M edical Control. New York, NY: Prager, 1978. Schreiber, Tatiana. “Environmentalists and Breast

Cancer Activists Tell New York Commission: Act Now!” Resist 2, no. 4 (April 1993), p. 1.

Sofia, Virginia. The Journey Beyond Breast Cancer:

From the Personal to the Political. Rochester, VT: Healing Arts Press, 1994. Solomon, Alisa. “The Politics of Breast Cancer.”

Village Voice 36, no. 20 (May 14, 1991), p. 22. Sreingraber, Sandra. “The Environmental Link to

Breast Cancer.” In Breast Cancer: Society Shapes an Epidemic, edited by Anne Kaspar and Susan Ferguson, pp. 271-299. New York, NY: St Martin’s Press, 2000. Stocker, Midge (ed.). Cancer as a Womens Issue:

Scratching the Surface. Chicago, IL: Third Side Press, 1991. The Globalization Movement Anderson, Sarah and John Cavanaugh with Thea

Lee. Field Guide To The Global Economy. New York, NY: The New Press. Danahar, Kevin and Rober Burbach, eds. Globalize This!: The Battle Against the World Trade Organization and Corporate Rule. Monroe, ME: CommonCourage Press, 2000. Dobbin, Murray. The Myth O f The Good

Corporate Citizen: Democracy Under the Rule o f B ig Business. Toronto, ON: Stoddart, 1998. Griswold, Dan. “The Future of the WTO.” Special issue of The Cato Journal: An Interdisciplinary Jo u rn al o f P ublic Policy Analysis 19, no. 3 (Winter 2000). (This is pro-WTO.) Greider, William. One World Ready O r Not. New

York, NY: Touchstone, 1998. Johnson, Chalmers. Blowback: The Costs and

Consequences o f American Empire. New York, NY: Owl, 2001.

Korten, David. The Post-Corporate W orld: L ift

after Capitalism. West Hanford, CT: Kmnarian Press and San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc, 1999. Landy, JoAnn, Ellen Frank, Martin Thomas,

Saskia Sassen, and Robin Hahnel. “Symposium on Globalization: Hard Questions for the Left.” New Politics 8, no. 1 (Summer 2000), pp. 12-42. Mander, Jerry and Edward Goldsmith, eds. The

Case Against the Global Economy an d ftr a turn

BIBLIOGRAPHY 219

toward the local San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books, 1996. O’Meara, Patrick, Howard Mehlinger, and

Matthew Krain. Globalization and the Challenges o f a New Century: A Reader. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2000. (A wide range of perspectives, from conservative Jeffrey Sachs to Tupac Amaru, Revolutionary Movement of Peru.) Sassen, Saskia. Globalization and its Discontents: Essays on the New M obility o f People and Money. New York, NY: New Press, 1998.

Shrybman, Steven. A Citizen's Guide to the World

Trade Organization. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and James Lorimer & Co., 1999. Sweezy, Paul and Harry Magdoff “After Seattle: A

New Internationalism?” Special issue of Monthly Review 52, no. 3 Quly/Aug, 2000). Wallach, Lori and Michelle Sforza. Whose Trade

Organization? Corporate Globalization and the Erosion o f Democracy. Washington, DC: Public Citizen, 1999.

INDEX

A “A 16 “ protests (2000), 181, 182

Abalone Alliance, 108

Act Relating to Civil Unions (Vermont 2000), 163 ACT UP (AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power), 161 activists

mature model for, 39—40

roles of.

See

four roles of social activism

AEC (Atomic Energy Commission), 138, 143, 147 affinity group model, 144

AFL-CIO, 178

agents provocateurs,

17, 33, 34, 35, 36, 60

AIDS, 159, 161-162, 163 Albany Movement, 125-126 Alford, Robert, 101 Altman, Dennis, 152

American Bar Association, 160

American Friends Service Committee, 144

American Psychiatric Association (APA), 159 Americans with Disabilities Act (1990), 162 anarchistic organization, 62 anti-apartheid movement, 23, 77

anti-globalization movement. See globalization

movement

anti-nuclear movement, 4-5, 32, 54, 56, 66, 94,

137-138

Stage One of, 138-140 Stage Two of, 140-141

Stage Three of, 142-143

Stage Four of, 143-145 Stage Five of, 145-146

Stage Six of, 146-149 Stage Seven of, 149-150 Stage Eight of, 150-151

anti-toxic waste movement, 6, 31

anti-Vietnam War movement, 3, 67, 74, 88, 93,

134-135 Arendt, Hannah, 49

Art and Revolution, 180 AstraZeneca, 175

Atomic Energy Act (1954), 138

Atomic Energy Commission, 138, 143, 147 attrition, 76 B Babbie, Earl R., 101

Baker, Ella, 123

“ Battle o f Seattle”.

See

Seattle protests (1999) Beck, Don, 196

Benford, Robert, 104, 107

Berkeley in the 1960s,

Bevel, Jim (James), 122, 133-134

Birmingham movement, 127-129 Black Power movement, 126-127 Bloody Sunday (Selma, Alabama), 131

Bower, David, 140

Bowers v. Hardwick,

Boy Scouts o f Am erica v. D ale,

Breast Cancer: A Personal History and Investigative

Report,

Breast Cancer Action, 174, 175

Breast Cancer Advisory Center, 168 breast cancer social movement

background to, 165-167 Stage One of, 167

Stage Two of, 167-168 Stage Three of, 168-170

Stage Four of, 170-171 Stage Five of, 171

Stage Six of, 171-172 Stage Seven of, 171-172

Stage Eight of, 172-174

Briggs Initiative, 159, 160

INDEX 221

Briggs, John, 160 Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, 120 Brown, H. Rap, 126 Brown v. Board o f Education o f Topeka, 117, 118 Brown v. J.S ., 49, 51 Browns Ferry nuclear accident, 142 Bryant, Anita, 160 bureaucratic management, 49 bus boycott. See Montgomery bus boycott Bush administration, 149, 177 Bush, George, 171 C Cancer Journals, 169 Carmichael, Stokely, 126 change agent role, 25-26 effective vs. ineffective, 29, 31 Chavez, Cesar, 160 Chernobyl, 66, 147, 148 Chevigny, Bell Gale, 133 Chicago Open Housing Movement, 132-133 citizen role, 22-24 effective vs. ineffective, 28, 30 Citizens Awareness Network, 149-150 Citizens’ Trade Campaign, 178-179 civil disobediance, 3. See also nonviolent protest Civil Rights Act (1957), 122 Civil Rights Act (1964), 129-130 Civil Rights Act (1968), 133 civil rights movement, 3, 23, 51, 54, 76. See also

lunch counter sit-in movement; Montgomery bus boycott debate over nonviolence in, 126-127 legacy of, 135-136 Stage One of, 116-117 Stage Two of, 118-120 Stage Three of, 121-123 Stage Four of, 123-126 Stage Five of, 126-127 Stage Six of, 127-131 Stage Seven of, 131—133 Stage Eight of, 133 sub-movements of, 133-135 Clamshell Alliance, 4-5, 107, 143 Clinch River breeder reactor, 147 Clinton administration, 177 Clinton, Bill, 162-163, 173, 179-180, 181, 193 co-opting of social movements, 72-73, 75, 76

Coalition for Direct Action, 145-146 COINTELPRO Papers, 35 Committee for Direct Action, 60 confirmatory bias, 23, 28 Congress of Racial Equality. See CORE Connor, T. Eugene “Bull”, 127 Construction Work in Progress (CWIP) laws, 142,

146 Contras, 70 Coordinating Council o f Community Organizations (CCCO), 132 CORE (Congress of Racial Equality), 117, 124,

126, 130, 131 Cory, Donald Webster (Edward Sagarin), 153 cost-benefit analysis, 103 Council of Canadians, 52 Council of Federated Organizations (COFO), 130,

131 Council on Religion and the Homosexual, 155 Cowan, Chris, 196 Crabshell Alliance, 108 Crile, Geoige, 168 crisis in Stage One, 48 in Stage Two, 50 in Stage Three, 53 in Stage Four, 58 in Stage Five, 63 in Stage Six, 75 in Stage Seven, 79 in Stage Eight, 83 crisis management, 72-73 crowd/collective behaviour paradigm, 102 Cruikshank, Margaret, 156 Crusade for Citizenship, 122 CWIP laws, 142, 146 D Dallas County Voters League (DCVL), 131 Daly, Richard, 132 DAN (Direct Action Network), 180, 183 DaughtersofBilitis (DOB), 153, 154 deconstructive analysis, [get earlier references], 92,

187, 189-190, 196 Deegan, Mary Jo, 100 Defense of Marriage Act (1996), 163 Democratic National Convention Atlantic City (1964), 130,131 Chicago (1968), 35

222 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

Los Angeles (2000), 182, 183

New York City (1976), 158 Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research

Program, 171-173 Department of Energy, 149

Diablo Canyon reactor, opposition to, 140, 143,

144, 145, 147

Dick Cavett Show,

Fermi reactor accident, 138

Ford, Betty, 168

four roles of social activism.

See also

change agent role, citizen role, rebel role, reformer role

barriers to effectiveness of, 27-38 in civil rights movement, 120

and eight stages, 84-85 157

importance of, 21-22 dilemma demonstrations, 55

playing effectively, 38-41 Direct Action Network (DAN), 180, 183

frame analysis theory, 104 disillusionment, 59-64, 74—75.

See also

failure

Free Trade Area of the Americas, 179, 184 “Doing-Your-Own-Thing".

See

DYOT

Freedom Riders, 124—125 Downtown, James, 113

Freidland, Roger, 101

Dr. Susan Love’s Breast Book,

Friedan, Betty, 166 dramatic showdown, 76

Friends of the Earth, 140 DYOT (“Doing-Your-Own-Thing”), 20, 35-37,

G 188,190-191

Camson, William A., 110 E

Gandhi, Mohandas, 3, 11-12, 66, 104, 111, 189, ECHO (East Coast Homophile Organization), 155

198 ecological footprint, 194

GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade), economic justice, 14, 135.

See also

fair trade; glob­

177-178 alization movement

Gay Activist Alliance, 156-157 education, integration of, 118

gay and lesbian movement eight stages ol social movements, 42-43.

See also

Stage One ol, 152-153 Stages One

through

Eight

Stage Two of, 153-155 and four roles, 84-85

Stage Three of, 155-156 Eisenhower, Dwight D., 118, 138, 153

Stage Four of, 156-158 Eisinger, Peter, 103, 105-106

Stage Five of, 158-159 Eisler, Riane, 197

Stage Six of, 159-162 End Slums, 132

Stage Seven of, 162-164 endgame.

See

Stage Seven

Stage Eight of, 162-164 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 81

Gay Liberation Front (GLF), 156-157 Equal Exchange, 184

Gay Pride Day, 157, 160 F

Gilber, Richard, 33 “Failed Experiment, NAFTA at Three Years”, 178

Gilligan, Carol, 197 failure

Gittings, Barbara, 154 aversion to success contributing to, 93-98

Glaser, Barney, 101 culture of, overcoming, 91-93

Global Exchange, 52, 180, 184 perception of.

See

Stage Five

Global Trade Watch, 178 failure of official institutions, proving.

See

Stage Two

Fair Employment Commission, 117 fairtrade, 177, 179, 184

Fal we II, Jerry, 159, 160 Farmer, James, 117, 124

Fast Track legislation, 177. 178, 179 Fellowship ot Reconciliation (FOR), 117

Fem inine M ystique, The,

globalization movement

background to, 176-177 Stage One of, 177-178

Stage Two of, 178

Stage Three of, 178-180 Stage Four of, 181-182

Stage Five of, 183 Stage Six of, 183-185 globalization, movement against, 36, 42

INDEX 223

goals o f activists in Stage One, 47 in Stage Two, 50 in Stage Three, 53 in Stage Four, 57-58 in Stage Five, 62 in Stage Six, 74 in Stage Seven, 78-79 in Stage Eight, 82-83 Goffman, Erving, 104 Gorbachev, Mikhail, 90, 94 H Hard Clams, 145—146 hard left, 34 Harkin, Tom, 175 Hate Crimes Statistics Act, 162 Heinberg, Richard, 195 Heilman, Lillian, 38 Hemispheric Social Alliance, 184 Henderson, Maureen, 170 hierarchy, 36, 62 Highlander Folk School, 120, 122-123 Homophile Movement, 153-156 Homosexual in America, The, 153 homosexuals, movement for rights of. See gay and

lesbian movement Hoover, J. Edgar, 33, 154 housing, segregation and integration of, 117,

132-133 Hudson, Rock, 161 Human Rights Campaign Fund, 161 hunger, movement to end, 30ne I Independent Media Centers, 183 J Jasper, James, 101 Jenkins, J. Craig, 103 Jim Crow laws, 116, 118, 119, 120, 124 Johnson, Lyndon B., 12, 76, 78, 129-130,

131-132, 133,134 Johnston, Jill, 158 Journey of Reconciliation (1947), 117 jujitsu, moral and nonviolent, 12, 55, 105 K Kameny, Frank, 154, 155 Kantrowita, Arnie, 158 Kegan, Robert, 188, 196 Kennedy, John F., 128, 166

Kensington Welfare Rights Union, 182 Keystone Alliance, 108 King, Coretta, 134 King, Martin Luther, Jr., 11, 23, 24, 33, 103, 104,

107, 111, 118-119, 120, 122, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128-129, 131, 132, 134, 189 Kinsey report, 152 Koedt, Anne, 166 KuKluxKlan, 118 Kushner, Rose, 168, 169 L Ladder, The, 154 Lafayette, Bernard, 122, 134 Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, 158 Lawson, James, 122 Le Bon, Gustave, 102 lesbian movement. See gay and lesbian movement Levine, Ellen, 166 Lewis, John, 122 Lipsky, M., 103 Local Movement Centers (LMCs), 122, 126 Lofland,John, 113 Long Island Breast Cancer Coalition, 169, 171 Lorde, Audre, 169 Love, Susan, 169, 170, 174 lunch counter sit-in movemenr, 3, 55, 117,

122-126 lynchings, 116 M MAI (Multilateral Agreement on Investment), 179 majority public opinion. See Stage Six Mandela, Nelson, 23, 93 MAI* Model activists, roles of in. See four roles of social activism assumptions of, 19 genesis of, 4-6, 101, 114, 186 grand strategy of, 18, 64-67 nonviolence in, 11-12, 105- See also nonviolent

protest participatory democracy and, 10-12, 18, 19 power and. See power, powerholders and social movement theories, 100-101, 111-114 stages of. See eight stages of social movements;

Stages One through Eight sub-movements and, 42—43 March on Washington (1963), 129 Marcos, Ferdinand, 78 masectomies, 167, 168

224 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

mass society theories, 102 Mattachine Society, 153, 154 McAdam, Doug, 103, 107, 108-109, 112 McCarthyism, 152 McGovern, George, 158 McKissick, Floyd, 122 Melucci, Alberto, 114 Meredith, James, 126 Mechanex, 184 militancy, counterproductive. See negative rebel role Milk, Harvey, 160 Millenium March on Washington for Equality,

162-163 Milosevic, Slobodan, 77 miltary, segregation of, 117 Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MFDP),

130,131 Mississippi Summer Project, 130-131 Montgomery bus boycott, 54, 118-120 Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA),

118, 119 Moore, Douglas, 122 Morgan, Robin, 166 Morris, Aldon, 106, 122 movement in Stage Four, 55-57 in Stage Five, 59-61 in Stage Six, 64-72 in Stage Seven, 76-77 in Stage Eight, 80-81 Movement Action Plan. See MAP Model Movement for a New Society, 144 movement halfway houses, 1Q6-107 multiculturalism, 187, 190, 196—197 Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), 179 N NAACR 121-122, 130, 131 NAACP Legal Defense Fund, 49, 117, 118 Nader, Ralph, 178 NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement),

177-178, 179 naive followers, 34 Nash, Dianne, 122, 124 National Association of Breast Cancer

Organizations, 169 National Breast Cancer Coalition (NBCC), 165,

170-171 National Energy Strategy, 149

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, 161 National Gay Task Force, 158 National Institutes of Health, 170 National Task Force on Gay People in the Church,

159 National Teachers Association, 160 National Womens Political Caucus, 166 negative rebel role, 32—38, 60, 61 New Republic, 157 New Social Movements theory, 104 Nicaragua, 70-71 Nixon, A.D., 118, 120 Nixon, Richard, 77, 88, 140 nonviolent protest, 11-12, 23, 24, 40, 55 debate over in civil rights movement, 126-127 debate over in Seattle protests, 181 in Stage Six, 65-66 theories of, 104-105 training in, 61,63 “normal times”. See Stage One North American Conference of Homophile Organizations (NACHO), 155-156 North American Free Trade Agreement, 177—178,

179 nuclear power, movement against. See anti-nuclear

movement Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), 142, 147 O official vs. actual policies, 16 Olson, Mancur, 103 One, 153 Operation Independent (Project Independence),

140, 142 opposition in Stage One, 46 in Stage Two, 49 in Stage Three, 51-52 O ur Bodies, Ourselves, 166 P Pacific Gas and Electric, 140,141 paradigm shifts, 25, 68, 71, 83 Parks, Rosa, 54, 118, 120 participatory democracy, 10-12, 18-19, 62 change agent role and, 25-26 patriotism, 22—23, 28, 33 perception o f failure, See Stage Five Perrow, Charles, 103 personal feelings, 39, 40

INDEX 225

personal opportunists and rebels, 34 personal transformation, 40-41, 97-98, 197-398 pitfalls for activists. See also negative rebel role in Stage One, 47-48 in Stage Two, 50 in Stage Three, 53 in Stage Four, 58 in Stage Five, 63 in Stage Six, 74-75 in Stage Seven, 79 in Stage Eight, 83 pluralistic relativism, 36, 187, 188, 190, 196 policies, offical vs. actual, 16, 46-47 political process model, 103-104 Poor People’s Campaign, 135 POOs. See Professional Opposition Organizations power distribution of, 12-13 elite, model of, 13-14 people, model of, 14—15 powerholders, 13-14 actual policies of, 16, 46-47 societal secrets and, 15, 30,192-194 in Scage One, 46—47 in Stage Two, 49 in Stage Three, 52 in Stage Four, 57 in Stage Five, 61 in Stage Six, 69-73 in Stage Seven, 77-78 in Stage Eight, 81 practice theory, 100-101 Prague protests (2000), 182, 183 Price-Anderson Act (1957), 138 Pritchett, Laurie, 125 Professional Opposition Organizations (POOs), 14,

26, 29, 31, 32, 46, 52, 56-57, 67 Project Independence (Operation Independent),

140,142 prophesies, self-fulfilling, 95-96 public and public opinion. See also Stage Six in Stage One, 47 in Stage Two, 50 in Stage Three, 53 in Scage Four, 57 in Stage Five, 61 in Stage Six, 73-74

in Scage Seven, 78 in Stage Eight, 82-85 Public Citizen, 52, 178, 184 Q Queer Nation, 164 R Radical Feminism, 166 Rainforest Anion Network, 180 Rancho Seco reactor, 146-147 Randolph, A. Philip, 117, 129, 134 Rapone, Anita, 166 Ray, Paul, 199 re-trigger events, 66, 76 Reach to Recovery, 167 Reagan administration, 70 Reagan, Ronald, 78, 90, 94 rebel role, 24 effective vs. ineffective, 28, 30-31 negative, 32-38, 60, 61 “Reclaim the Streets”, 180 Red Brigades, 34 Reeb, James, 131 reformer role, 26 effective vs. ineffective, 29, 31-32 reproductive rights, 166 Republican National Convention (Philadelphia

2000), 182, 183 resource mobilization theory, 103 Ricks, Willie, 126 ripening conditions. See Stage Three Robinson, Jackie, 117 Robinson, Jo Ann, 120 Rockefeller, Happy, 168 Roe v. Wade, 80, 82 Rossevelt, Franklin Delano, 117 Rubin, Allen, 101 Ruckus Society, 52, 180 Rustin, Bayard, 117 S Sagarin, Edward (Donald Webster Cory), 153 Sanctuary Movemenc, 66 Sandinistas, 70 Satyagraha, 11-12 Schulman, Sarah, 161 SCLC (Southern Christian Leadership

Conference), 122, 123, 126, 130, 131, 134 Seabrook reactors, protest against, 56, 60, 66, 107,

140, 143-144,145-146,148

226 DOING DEMOCRACY: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements

Seattle protests (1999), 36, 34, 56, 180, 181, 189 segregation and integration of education, 118 of housing, 117, 132-133 oflunch counters, 122-126 of military, 117 of transit, 118-120 Selma Campaign, 76,131-132 Shapiro, Susan, 168 Sharp, Gene, 2, 13, 105 Shepard, Matthew, 163 Shepard, Paul, 197 Shoreham reactor, 148 Sierra Club, 140 Sisterhood is Powerful, 166 Slaughter-Harvey, Constance, 133 Smelset, Neil, 102 Smith, Robert, 133 SNCC (Student Nonviolent Coordinating

Committee), 123-124, 125-126, 130, 131 Snow, David, 104, 107 social movements. See also MAP Model activist roles in. See four roles of social activism agents provocateurs and, 17, 33, 34, 35, 36, 60 co-opted, 72-73, 75, 76 conditions for take off of, 56-57 culture of failure and, 91-93 defined, 1-2, 10 evolution of, 2—3. See also specific movements overview of modem era, 187-189 stages of. See eight stages of social movements;

Stages One through Eight strategic guidelines for future, 191-199 strategy of, 16-18 theories of. See theories o f social movements theories of and MAP, 100-101, 111-114 undermined by violence, 11, 30-31* 32-38, 96,

181 societal beliefs, 15, 16-17 citizen role and, 22-23, 30 societal myths and societal secrets, 15, 192-194 Society for Human Rights, 152 sociodrama action campaigns, 55, 56 sociology and social work, 100-101 Soft Clams, 145-146 Southern Christian Leadership Conference. See

SCIC Southwide Student Leadership Conference (1960),

123 Spiral Dynamics, 196 Spirit in Action, 198 spiritual perspectives, 198 Stage One, 43, 46-48 of anti-nuclear movement, 138-140 of breast cancer movement, 167 of civil rights movement, 116-117 of gay and lesbian movement, 152-153 of globalization movement, 177-178 Stage Two, 48-51 of anti-nuclear movement, 140-141 of breast cancer movement, 167—168 of civil rights movement, 118-120 of gay and lesbian movement, 153-155 of globalization movement, 178 Stage Three, 51-54 of anti-nuclear movement, 142-143 of breast cancer movement, 168-170 of civil rights movement, 121-123 of gay and lesbian movement, 155-156 of globalization movement, 178-180 Stage Four, 54-58 of anti-nuclear movement, 143-145 of breast cancer movement, 170-171 of civil rights movement, 123-126 of gay and lesbian movement, 156-158 of globalization movement, 181-182 movement in, 55-57 negative rebel role and, 33 Stage Five, 59-64 of anti-nuclear movement, 145-146 of breast cancer movement, 171 of civil rights movement, 126-127 of gay and lesbian movement, 158-159 of globalization movement, 185 movement in, 59-61 Stage Six, 64-75 of anti-nuclear movement, 146-149 of breast cancer movement, 171-172 of civil rights movement, 127-131 of gay and lesbian movement, 159-162 of globalization movement, 183-185 strategic goals in, 67-68 strategic program in, 64-66 twelve phases of, 68-72 Stage Seven, 75-79

INDEX 227

}

of anti-nuclear movement, 149-150

Touraine, Alaine, 11 of breast cancer movement, 171—172

toxic waste, movement against, 6, 31 of civil rights movement, 131-133

Toynbee, Arnold, 12 o f gay and lesbian movement, 162-164

Transfair USA, 184 Stage Eight, 80-86

true believers, 34 of anti-nudear movement, 150-151

Truman, Harold S., 117 of breast cancer movement, 172-174

truth, relative, 25, 36, 187 of civil rights movement, 133

U of gay and lesbian movement, 162-164

U.S. Civil Service Commission, 160 Stonewall, 156

U.S. Council for Energy Awareness, 149 Stout, Linda, 198

V Strauss, Anselm, 101

Vaid, Urvashi, 162 Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee

value-added model of social movements, 102-103 (SNCC), 124-124, 125-126, 130, 131

Vermont Act Relating to Civil Unions (2000), 163 Sturgeon, Noel, 109

Vietnam War, movement against, 3, 67, 74, 88, 93, sub-movements, 42-43, 89

134-135 of dvil rights movement, 133-135

Visco, Fran, 170 success. See Stage Seven

voting franchise, 13-14, 76, 122, 130-132 aversion to, overcoming, 93-98

Voting Rights Act (1965), 76, 77, 80, 131-132, realistic view of, 96-97

133-134

T

Vucanovich, Barbara, 175

take-off stage. See Stage Four

W

Tarrow, Sidney, 2-3, 103, 105-106, 107-108,

Wallace, George, 77 109-110, 111

Wasco nuclear plant, 144 Teamsters, 178, 179

Weather Underground, 34 That Certain Summer, 157

Wehr, Paul, 113 theories of sotial movements, 4, 196

What Women Should Know About the Breast Cancer crowd/collective behaviour paradigm, 102

Controversy, 168

frame analysis theory 104

White Citizens Councils, 118

limitations of, 108-111

Whyl reactor, 140, 143

and MAE 100-101, 111-114

Wilber, Ken, 188, 196, 197

mass society theories, 102

Winnow, Jackie, 168

New Social Movements theory, 104

Women’s Congressional Caucus, 170

nonviolence theory, 104—105

Women’s Health Initiative, 169-170

political process model, 103-104 rational choice theories, 102-103 resource mobilization theory, 103

womens movement, 3, 68, 163-167, 175. See also

breast cancer social movement W>men’s Political Council, 118, 120

three factors and, 105-108

Woolworth’s, 124

value-added model, 102-103 Thomson, Mddrim, Jr., 144

World Trade Organization. See WTO WTO (World Trade Organization), 177, 179

Thoreau, Henry David, 3, 104

X

Three-Mile Island, 66

X, Malcolm, 126-127

Three-Mile Island nudear accident, 138-139, 147

Y

Tilly, Charles, 103. 110

Y-ME groups, 168

Tolstoy, Leo, 3, 104

About the A uthors

Bill Moyer worked for many years as a trainer and consultant to social activist groups and social movements. He worked in the civil rights movement and for the American Friends Service Committee in the 1960s. In the 1970s he was a co-founder of the Philadelphia Life Center and the Movement for a New Society, and worked with others there to train activists from around the world. In the 1980s he was particularly active in the peace movement in Europe. From 1986 onward he lived in San Francisco and traveled extensively training activist groups in the theory and practical applications of the Movement Action Plan model, personal devel­ opment for activists working to strengthen their own practices and their activist groups, and organizing for social transformation. Bill Moyer died of cancer in October, 2002, in San Francisco.

Readers wishing to contact those who are carrying on Bills training work can consult the website www.doingdemocracy.com.

JoAnn McAllister is a researcher and program development consultant focus­ ing on individual and community intervention and the process of change. She has been active in a variety of social movements and in developing com­ munity-based organizations for over 25 years. Currently she is an analyst for the San Francisco Superior Court focusing on domestic violence. For program development, evaluation, and research assistance based on social change strategies contact her at:

Context Consulting P.O. Box 31937 San Francisco, CA 94131-0937 jmcallister@igc.org

(1933-2002)

Mary Lou Finley has been active in social movements since she worked on Martin Luther King’s staff in Chicago in 1965-66 . She has a Ph.D. in soci­ ology from the University of Chicago and is now on the faculty of the B.A. Completion Program at Antioch University in Seattle, where she teaches courses on social movements; homelessness; globalization; women’s health; race, class, and gender; and other social issues.

Mary Lou Finley Antioch University, Seattle mlfinley@antiochsea.edu

Steven Soifer is an Associate Professor of Social Work at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, and received his Ph.D in social welfare policy from the Heller School at Brandeis Universiy. He teaches community organizing, social action, community development, and social planning/social change. He has been involved in many local, state-wide, national, and international movements, including the anti-intervention movement in Central America during the 1980s and the ongoing effort to bring peace to the Middle East.

Steven Soifer University of Maryland ssoifer@ssw.umaryland.edu

For information on teaching MAP in colleges and universities contact either Mary Lou or Steven.

Juliette Beck is the coordinator of the Global Democracy Project for Global Exchange where she focuses especially on the international movement against corporate globalization of the political economic system.

Nancy Gregory lives in Baltimore, Maryland, and has been an active member of the gay and lesbian movement for over 15 years.

Political US s

$16.95/Can ocial will are gone. be S22.95

movements alive But with has appear stories the Science & Government / to follow often unpredictable paths. One week the news of thousands in the streets; the next week, the thousands movement withered and died - or has it just changed shape?

Doing Democracy argues persuasively that the apparent ups and downs of a social move­ ment's fodunes generally follow a pattern that can be used to plan and carry out more effective social action. Based on decades of experience, the authors present a lucid model of the eight stages through which social movements typically evolve, and outline the four roles that activists play in fostering social change. They link the Movement Action Plan to several theories of social movements and then examine five movements through the lens of this model - civil rights, anti-nuclear energy, gay and lesbian rights, breast cance r, and globalization - demonstrating its impressive analytic and strategic power. Compelling and accessible, Doing Democracy will appeal to activists and organizations working on all issues; to academics in a variety of disciplines; as well as to all interested in better under­ standing the social movements they hear about in the daily media.

Clearly written, useful, wise, informative, and well-grounded in experience. Doing Democracy is essential reading for every activist who wants to achieve real change, and for every citizen who wants to know how democracy really works. David C. Korten, author of When Corporations

Rule the World

This is not only fine strategic counsel from one of our wise elders, it is also good social science, and gives activists the kind of sharp insight they need to win with their good causes. Paul H. Ray, co-author of The Cultural Creatives:

How 50 Million People are Changing the World

... a treasured handbook for movement building! Its clear, historical, theoretical, practical, and visionary blueprint for movement building will inspire you and serve as a guide for strategic action. Linda Stout, founder of Spirit In Action, and author of Bridging the Class Divide

... has provided my students with more "Aha" moments per page than any other text I've used. Steve Chase, Director, Environmental Advocacy and Organizing Program, Antioch New England Graduate School

There is an art to understanding social move­ ments and Bill Moyer has captured it in this important book. Maude Barlow, Volunteer Chair, Council of Canadians

Bill Moyer is the originator of the MAP model. He has spent more than 40 as a full-time theorist, writer, organizer, consultant, educator and participant in social movements focused on a wide variety of issues on three continents.

JoAnn McAllister, a social action researcher and consultant to communit based organizations, has been active in social movements for 25 years.

Mary Lou Finley is a sociologist at Antioch University in Seattle, and a long-time activist.

Steven Soifer has been involved in local national and international social move­ ments and teaches at the University of Maryland, Baltimore.

ISBN 978-0-86571-418-2

5 1 6 9 5)

780865 714182

US$16.95/CADS22.95 *= New Society Publishers

www.newsociety.com

ANCIENT FOREST FRIENDLY: PRINTED ON 100% POST-CONSUMER RECYCLED PAPER

Познавательные статьи:



Организация работы процедурного кабинета

Статус республик в составе РФ

Понятие финансов, их функции и особенности

Сущность демографической политии