Evaluate a framework of several factors that explain the emergence and success of a social movement
Introduction
Social movements often embody large ambitions that cannot be realized without collective action. During the 21st century, a myriad of social movements emerged, such as the Sunrise Movement to stop climate change, the #metoo movement for women’s rights, and Black Lives Matter for racial justice. Globally, there has been the New Right movement. While the causes and participants vary greatly, scholars have sought to identify common factors and explain the conditions under which a social movement may realize its objectives.
Social scientists have brought the tools of their disciplines to bear in understanding the complex emergence of collective mobilization. Psychologists focus on the individual level of analysis, while sociologists and political scientists tackle group dynamics and institutional factors that enable or cauterize a social movement. One framework for understanding social movements focuses on three major factors: opportunity, organization, and framing.
Political opportunity
French novelist and poet Victor Hugo is credited with the observation, “Nothing is as powerful as an idea whose time has come.” From a social movement perspective, a moment of ideational awakening may lead to concrete change only when certain stars align. Success is more likely when the broader political context is receptive to the movement's ideas. For example, climate change advocacy gained momentum among the people of wealthy democracies when there was a discourse about this problem by political elites.
Political opportunity is a structural factor that affects whether a social movement forms and prevails in its goals. Structure can include whether political institutions and elites are receptive to specific changes, or whether society is accepting of the message and tactics promoted by a social movement. As David Meyer has suggested, there must be a “space of toleration [in] a polity” (2004, p. 128) for activists to mobilize. And that society must not repress activists so much that they lack either the vocabulary or means to lodge their complaints. Within this structure, activists may choose from a range of tactics regarding how to organize, mobilize, and frame their goals (See Figure below).
Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\): Structure is the broader context within which individuals or groups may act. (Source: Institutions and Norms by Charlotte Lee is licensed underCC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
In the case of the US Civil Rights Movement, markers of political opportunity can be identified in hindsight. These identifiers include the landmark 1954 Brown v. Board of Education ruling by the US Supreme Court, which declared unconstitutional the segregation of schools by race. Political leaders also signaled an opening, in President John F. Kennedy’s 1963 Report to the People on American Civil Rights, stating, “It ought to be possible, in short, for every American to enjoy the privileges of being American without regard to his race or his color.” Such events notified society that powerful formal institutions were willing to change, and the time was ripe for a social movement to activate and accelerate that change.
Organization and mobilization
While the emergence of a political opening is key, a social moment cannot be sustained without strong organizational structures in place. As Lenin observed, a revolution will succeed when carried out by a vanguard party that offers an “organizational weapon” by which revolutionaries may strike down existing institutions. Successful communist party movements, such as those in Russia, China, and Cuba, relied on disciplined, hierarchical party organizations that reached down to cells of activists at the grassroots level.
More contemporary social movements need not have such extreme organization. However, organizational strength is a direct correlate of mobilizational power and momentum. For example, backbone organizations promoted the U.S. Civil Rights Movement. Black churches contained multigenerational communities united by bonds of faith and trust. HBCUs (historically Black colleges and universities) offered spaces for student organizing. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) provided organizational and political resources to advance civil rights through mass protests, coordinated activities, and legal action. All of these organizations had proven capacity for carrying out complex community actions under adverse circumstances; they were also spaces for pooling resources and communicating initiatives to a relatively large audience of proven and potential activists (McAdam 1999).
Organizational forms may be more decentralized and less hierarchical by design. The “leaderless” Black Lives Matter movement in the US is an example. There was no singular set of charismatic leading figures such as Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, Huey P. Newton, or Bobby Seale to set the tone and agenda. Local actions were organized and executed without direction from an organizational headquarters. One strength of this approach is more cellular organization, with new protest repertoires and messages emerging to suit local conditions and audiences. A disadvantage is the potential loss of momentum without clearly articulated and unifying goals.
New information and communication technologies (ICT) have changed the ways a social movement might organize and mobilize. By the dawn of the twenty-first century, there was optimism regarding the possibilities for uniting activists via social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter (Diamond and Plattner 2012). These so-called “liberation technologies” provided a way to organize a social movement in defiance of geographical constraints and even repressive governments. However, some scientists argue that these new technologies have led to “armchair activism” by individuals unwilling to invest real resources into a social movement. Social media platforms have also proven unruly spaces for organizing due to the challenges of misinformation, government interference, and weak bonds of trust between participants. The impact of ICT on the emergence and success of a social movement has thus yielded mixed results.
Framing
Political opportunity, organization, and mobilizational capacity are complemented by the framing of an issue. Framing refers to the ways in which a social problem is defined by, presented to, and resonates with members of a social movement and society more broadly. Thus, it must be culturally appropriate and meaningful.
Under the concept of framing, individuals join a movement because of an affinity for the cause rather than merely out of rational self-interest (Goodwin, Jasper, and Polletta 2001). They must actively engage in “sense making” and determine for themselves, as well as fellow activists, their purpose and goals. Framing can incite emotions such as anger over a perceived injustice but also psychological safety in the belief that one is part of a larger community with shared beliefs.
Framing can sustain the movement and attract additional adherents from society. For example, the modern environmental movement in the US was galvanized by publications such as Rachel Carson’s 1962 book Silent Spring, which offered an evocative and powerful vision (a lifeless natural landscape) for understanding ecological disaster through the concrete example of the overuse of chemical pesticides. This book helped to frame the problem and invoke the shock, anger, and anxieties that are part of the modern environmental justice movement.
International influences
Social movements may diffuse across borders, with activists sharing tactics and resources, as well as providing moral support to one another in their common cause. Given the advent of globalization since the end of the Cold War in 1991, seemingly faraway events may resonate with global audiences. One such example: Deforestation in Indonesia sparked protests in European cities over unsustainable practices in the supply chains of furniture companies that source wood from Borneo. Indonesian environmental activists found common causes with counterparts in the Netherlands.
International "democracy promotion" efforts contributed to increases in democracy since the 1990s. These actions have been led by wealthy democracies (such as those of North America, the Antipodes, the EU, and Japan) to strengthen younger democracies worldwide. Democracy promotion can include a wide range of activities such as government-supported grants to pro-democracy activists in other countries, nonprofit exchanges of information and expertise, and more horizontal exchanges of knowledge and resources between democracy activists worldwide. Pro-democracy movements in countries as varied as Ukraine and Nicaragua receive support from international donors and advisors.
The role of nonviolence
Social movements may employ a vast number of tactics, and are constantly innovating and creating new repertoires based on changing contexts, cultural symbols, and new technologies. For example, pro-democracy Hong Kong protesters created new forms of protest in 2019 as part of their movement to secure democratic rights and autonomy within the People’s Republic of China’s “One Country, Two Systems” framework. One notable tactic was occupying terminals of Hong Kong International Airport, which disrupted the business of a global city reliant on the flow of businesspeople and tourists by air and drew global attention to their plight.
Empirical research comparing nonviolent and violent resistance campaigns has found that nonviolent campaigns are twice as successful as their violent counterparts (53 percent compared with 26 percent) (Stephan and Chenoweth 2008). Note: Stephan and Chenoweth define campaigns as “major nonstate rebellions … [which include] a series of repetitive, durable, organized, and observable events directed at a certain target to achieve a goal,” (2008, p. 8).
The success of nonviolent social movements can be contributed to higher public perceptions of the legitimacy of nonviolent movements as well as greater public sympathy for movements committed to principles of nonviolence. Nonviolent movements also constrain government responses. Further, suppressing a nonviolent movement with force can drive public support -- domestic and international -- even more toward the aims of the social movement.
Non-violent methods do not involve hurting people or causing damage. However, over the course of an event, a nonviolent method may evolve into violence (lawless and destructive behavior). For example, a person may be giving a speech (nonviolent). Someone may object to the speech's content and start a riot (violent).
