Structure and Interaction in Social Movements
“Neglected factors” in the resource mobilization perspective
1988 Volume 39 Issue 1 Pages 2-16
Details
1988 Volume 39 Issue 1 Pages 2-16
The resource mobilization approach has been introduced into studies of social movements since 1980. But in Japan the influence of Marxist theories is strong, and this approach is criticized on the point that it neglects factors such as class structure and ideology. Besides, students who stand for collective behavior or relative deprivation theories stress the significance of factors such as generalized belief, discontent or grievance in the formation of social movements.
Does the approach really make light of these factors ? Disputes between “Breakdown” and “Solidarity” theories tend to mislead this approach. We had better not identify it with the Solidarity theory such as Muncur Olson's Rational-Choice Model. The largest contribution of the Solidarity theories is not to doubt the effectiveness of the structual strain factor, but to have built theories from the viewpoint of movement participants. In this paper, I would like to discuss what the structural factor is and what the psychological factor is from the resource mobilization perspective.
In order to help understand this issue, Charles Tilly's historical studies of collective action and William Gamson's interaction models between authorities and potential challengers are very suggestive. I will adopt “cat-net” (category × network) [Tilly] as the key concept for a unit of interaction. The more intense the group's catness and the more extensive its netness are, the more mobilized potential challengers are.
In the processes of “encounters” with authorities, Catness is made intense by “reframing” acts [Gamson] which promote the collective adoption of the injustice frame. Interaction models suggest the significance of participants' mental processes such as perception and interpretation of their experiences in social movements.
Recent achievements of social history call our attention to the new image of “social structure” and “social change”. Ranges of political, economical, religious and neighborhood networks are different from one another. Netness will be made clear by analyses of the social distance from each challenger to other groups.
