Social Movement Theory

Organization in Social Movements

Resource mobilization theory brought organization to the forefront of social movement theorizing. Although earlier collective behavior theories recognized organization as a factor in the rise of social movements, they tended to explain movement mobilization by focusing on determinants such as discontent and the emergence of generalized beliefs. Early resource mobilization work identified the “social movement organization” (SMO) as a key entity within movements. More recently, movement analysts have examined a broad range of “mobilizing structures” in social movements, including movement organizations, social networks, preexisting organizations, and alternative institutions. Scholars have analyzed and debated the ways in which preexisting organizations affect movement emergence and maintenance, the effects of different types of SMO structures on strategy and outcomes, interorganizational cooperation and competition, and the changing organizational composition of movements.

Resource mobilization theorists have viewed organization as critical to both the emergence and maintenance of movements. A variety of preexisting organizational forms, such as social networks and established institutions, are involved in the process of mobilization. Preexisting organizations connect new recruits to movement participants and provide leaders and frames that can be adapted for collective action. New social movement theorists such as Alberto Melucci emphasize how movements develop out of the “submerged networks” of everyday life. Through interactions in small groups, individuals experiment with new [Page 754]cultural forms and develop collective identities, creating the cultural bases for collective action.

To explain movement survival and change, scholars have examined the evolution of various types of organizational structures, including social movement organizations and other organizational forms within social movement communities. After the decline of a period of visible movement activity, movements are sustained through various means. In some cases, movement organizations that attract an exclusive group of participants with a shared culture or that are staffed by professionals keep a movement alive during slow periods. In other cases, a loosely knit movement community, including cultural groups and alternative institutions, sustains a movement during periods of scant political action. One of the interesting avenues of current research is an examination of the ways in which movements move into institutional and cultural domains, creating social changes and spreading movement ideology to these arenas.

Studies of organizational structures are critical to our understanding of social movement strategies and outcomes. In a seminal study, William A. Gamson (1975) demonstrated how organizational characteristics, such as bureaucratization and centralization, affect a challenging group's ability to remain mobilized and achieve movement goals. Further research has continued to specify the advantages and disadvantages of different types of organizational structures, including both the internal characteristics of movement organizations and networks among participants and groups within and across movements. In a study of efforts to unionize California farmworkers, Marshall Ganz (2000) shows how organizational structures that create connections to constituents, opportunities for meaningful and open deliberations among leaders, and leadership accountability are associated with the capacity for effective strategies. Research also suggests that linkages between national and local organizations and connections between a movement and other social movements result in more effective strategies than those employed by movements without such ties.

...