How do we define issues as worthy objects, and actors as worthy subjects of collective action?

When existing systems of meaning do not constitute a sufficient basis for social action, new norms emerges, defining the existing situation as unjust and providing a justification for action (Turner and Killian 1987:259). Change, in fact, is conceived of as part of the physiological functioning of the system: social movements are accompanied by the emergence of new rules and norms, and represent attempts to transform existing norms. Since the 1980s, the integrationist version of the theory of collective behavior has stressed the processes of symbolic production and of construction of identity, both of which are essential components of collective behavior. In the 1990s, however, some researchers grew dissatisfied with a view of the role of culture in collective action that they regarded as too strategic and rationalistic (in particular schools like Snow Benford 1988, 1992, who were conversant with resource mobilization theory), and started to reemphasize again the part played by emotions in the production and reproduction of social movements. In their view, symbolic production id not only strategically oriented, but it involves more feelings and emotions. Moral shocks developing when deeply held rules and norms are broken are often the first step in individual mobilization; and, indeed, protest organizations work at transforming fear into moral indignation and anger (Jasper 1997:107-14). Movements produce condensing symbols and rhetoric oriented to raise various types of emotions in what has been defined as a libidinal economy of movements.

How is collective action possible?

American sociologists in the 1970s started to reflect on the processes by which the resources necessary for collective action are mobilized. In their view, collective movements constitute an extension of the conventional forms of political action; then actors engage in this act in a rational way, following their interests; organizations and movement “entrepreneurs” have an essential role in mobilization of collective resources on which action is formed. The basics questions addressed relate to the evaluation of cost and benefits in participation in social movements organizations. The capacity for mobilization depends on the material resources (work, money, concrete benefits, services) and/or nonmaterial resources (authority, moral engagement, faith, friendship) available to the group. Beyond the existence of tensions, mobilization derives from the way in which social movements are able to organize discontent, reduce the costs of action, utilize and create solidarity networks, share incentives among members, and achieve external consensus. They type and nature of the resources available explains the tactical choices mad by movements and the consequence of collective action on the social and political system (McCarthy and Zald 1977; Edwards and McCarthy 2004).

What are the determinants of the forms and intensity of collective action?

The most urgent and systematic response to this question has come from the perspective usually defined as “political process” (Tilly 1978; McADAM 1982). This approach share with resource mobilization theory a rational view of action but pays more systematic attention to the political and institutional environment in which social movements operate. The central focus of “political process” theories is the relationship between institutional political actors and protest. The concept which has had the greatest success in defining the properties of the external environment, relevant to the development of social movements is that of “political opportunity structure.” To these others have added, relating to the institutional conditions which regulate agenda-setting and decision-making processes. Characteristics relating to the functional division of power and also to geographical decentralization have been analyzed in order to understand the origins of protest and the forms it has taken. In general, the aim has been to observe which stable ort “mobile” characteristics of the political system influence the growth of less – institutionalized political action in the course of what are defined as protest cycles (Tarrow 1989a), as well as the froms which these actions take in different historical contexts (Tilly 1978).

Discussion

Collective action broadly refers to individuals sharing resources in pursuit of collective goals – i.e., goals that cannot be privatized to any of the members of the collectivity on behalf of which collective action has taken place. Such goals may be produced within movements, but also in many contexts that normally are not associated with movements. For example, political parties and also face the problem of mobilizing their member and providing them with incentive to join and somehow support the organization- if anything through the payment of membership fees; so do interest groups only minding the sectoral- often, very parochial- interests of their specific reference groups (Knoke 1990a; Jordan and Maloney 1997). Let us say that the experience of social movements reflects phenomena with more than passing analogies to other instances political or cultural collective action, taking place within political parties, interest groups, or religious sects.

References

Castells, Manuel. 1996. The Rise of Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell.

Castells, Manuel. 1983. The City and the Grass Roots: Across-cultural Theory of Urban Social Movements. London: Edward Arnold.

Tilly, Charles. 1978. From Mobilization to Revolution. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.