Pathways to Inclusion?
Social Movement Approaches to Building Solidarity in the Context of Diversity
Jared M. Wright, S. Laurel Weldon, Charles Kuan-Sheng Wu, Fernando Tormos, Valeria Sinclair-Chapman,Kaitlin Kelly-Thompson, and Rachel L. Einwohner[1]
Diversity and Inclusion in Social Movements Research Collaborative
Working Paper
February 5 2018
Corresponding Author: S. Laurel Weldon, ,
765-491-6027; Distinguished Professor of Political Science, Purdue University
Abstract: Social movements have adopted a wide variety of approaches to building and maintaining solidarity across social divisions (such as race, gender, ethnicity and religion), to varying degrees of success. Some scholars have offered models or ideals for individual activists to follow to avoid complicity in these relations of domination but few have undertaken to conceptualize and assess the range of approaches to diversity that social movements do or could employ. This paper offers a conceptual framework that systematizes a set of distinct approaches to building political solidarity in the context of diversity, and develops specific hypotheses about the impact of these different approaches on movement persistence and political success. Drawing on a set of illustrative cases of social movements, we examine the degree to which movements embody the various approaches we identify— namely, active solidarity, pop-up solidarity, drive-by solidarity, and universal deliberative solidarity. We trace the impact of these different models of solidarity on organizational and political outcomes. These analyses generate theoretical insights into efforts to build diverse and inclusive political communities.
Introduction
Divisions of race, ethnicity, sexuality, gender, and religion have become ever more salient as the nations of the world confront challenges relating to immigration and refugee flows, economic crisis and dislocation, and environmental degradation. Building political solidarity across racial, ethnic, and gender categories is a critical goal for communities seeking to address these challenges, since non-violent contestation in civil society is critical for prompting progressive policy change (Chenoweth and Stephan 2011; Piven and Cloward 1993; Santoro 2008,2015; Htun and Weldon 2012; Weldon 2011). However, the basis for that solidarity can seem elusive. How do social movements overcome challenges related to domination and distrust among their adherents, given the power asymmetries between them?
Social movements have adopted a wide variety of approaches to building and maintaining solidarity across these social divisions, to varying degrees of success (Einwohner 1999; Raman 2010; Greenwood 2008; Polletta 2004; Weldon 2006). Some scholars have offered models or ideals for individual activists to follow to avoid complicity in these relations of domination (e.g., Gawerc 2012; Hancock 2011; Rai 2018; Tormos 2017) but few have undertaken to conceptualize and assess the range of approaches to diversity that social movements do or could employ. This paper offers a conceptual framework that systematizes a set of distinct approaches to building political solidarity in the context of diversity, and develops specific hypotheses about the impact of these different approaches on movement persistence and political success. Drawing on a set of illustrative cases of social movements in the U.S. and around the world, we examine the degree to which movements embody the various approaches we identify— namely, active solidarity, pop-up solidarity, drive-by solidarity, and universal deliberative solidarity. We trace the impact of these different models of solidarity on organizational and political outcomes. These analyses generate theoretical insights into efforts to build diverse and inclusive political communities, a pressing question for contemporary political science (Hero 2016).
Diversity and Inclusion in Social Movements
Some scholars see diversity as a political resource (e.g., Young 1990), and argue that attending to intersectionality – the ways one or more dimensions of difference overlap or interact –in social movement organizing and activism can strengthen political influence (Hancock 2016; Tormos 2017; Weldon 2006; 2011). But most scholars argue that greater diversity represents challenges for social movement success and political action. In fact, research suggests that political organizations with heterogeneous constituencies face greater challenges in mobilizing politically due to potentially competing interests and preferences (see, e.g., Przeworksi and Sprague 1986). Political scientists and sociologists who study social movements point to the empowering role of identities, organizations, institutions and other connective ties, but diversity itself is rarely seen as a strength (Meyer et al. 2005; Tarrow 1998;Reger et al 2008;Staggenborg 2011; for exceptions see Tilly 1978; Weldon 2006). For most social movement scholars, increasing diversity and multiple identities among adherents, such as race, ethnicity, nationality, and North-South divisions, are seen as significant challenges (Gitlin 1995; Snow and McAdam 2000; Echols 1989; Beckwith 2000; Smith 2008). How do activists overcome these challenges? And, why do some fail? Few have systematically examined the various approaches activists apply to these challenges. Until now, no one has examined the consequences of these different approaches for social movement outcomes such as organizational persistence and political influence.[2]
We argue that different kinds of solidarity lead to distinct political outcomes and we begin to delineate those different forms of solidarity and their consequences. Specifically, more inclusive, difference-affirming forms of solidarity are more likely to sustain movements over the long term, and ensure broader political impact. We also note that in the short-term, less inclusive forms of solidarity may be as workable or even more powerful, as when short-term, purposive, and narrowly-defined (i.e., in terms of limited goals) movements may have substantive but short-term impacts. This high-impact form of solidarity is less sustainable over the long term. Last, we argue that suppressing difference and emphasizing similarity as a strategy for building cooperation, without the effort to counter internal power differentials, may allow narrow organizations to persist, but these organizations lack vibrancy and have little impact. We also highlight the role of repression in shaping both the form of organizing and the likelihood of political success.
Diversity can mean different things to different people. In this paper, we use diversity in the critical diversity sense, meaning that increasing or attending to diversity means more than ensuring mere difference: It means attending to social groups that are systematically silenced and excluded by broader societal relations of domination and oppression (Herring and Henderson, 2011; Young 1990; 2000). Most social movements are diverse to some degree (including, for example, differences in gender, sexuality, religion, or race/ethnicity). Differences within activist ranks create power asymmetries that can lead to domination and distrust (Gawerc 2012).
Valuing critical diversity means more than ensuring that many different kinds of people are present.[3] Our approach focusses on countering the relations of domination that subvert deliberation and other forms of communicative democracy (Habermas 1987, 1989; Young 2000). Communicative democracy emphasizes coordinating political behavior through communication and persuasion—the only force being the force of the better argument—rather than through bureaucratic rules, economic payoffs or imperatives, or the threat of violence. Marginalized groups must have a voice in social movement deliberations. This requires intentional action to counter intersectionalmarginalization, that is, marginalization that is due to the combination of more than one social structure (Hancock 2016; Collins and Bilge 2016; Strolovitch 2007). When marginalized groups have a voice, identities formed by the intersection of multiple social structures (for example, Black women, or Latinas) can serve as a basis for a stronger solidarity, rather than a liability or basis for division (Hancock 2016; Tormos 2017; Weldon 2006).
What do we mean by solidarity? Solidarity is widely proclaimed in songs, slogans, and speeches, but what it means to be in solidarity is more often assumed than explained. Solidarity is relevant not just for social movements, but also for governments, political parties, religious authorities and international organizations. We define solidarity as the ties between social groups, their ability to act in concert, to cooperate, and act together in pursuit of social change.
Some definitions of solidarity presume a common interest or kinship that undergirds coordinated action, but we define political solidarity in a way that is more agnostic about bases of cooperation. At a basic level, solidarity is a form of intentional coordinated action, when some groups or individuals are motivated to coordinate their behavior with others. Solidarity becomes political solidarity when it pertains to “the activity through which relatively large and permanent groups of people determine what they will collectively do, settle how they will live together, and decide their future, to whatever extent this is within their power” (Pitkin 1981, 343). When groups seek to coordinate their political behavior, we see this as evidence of political solidarity. This can mean sharing resources, symbolic action, or designing programs to mutual benefit.[4]
Solidarity, or coordinated political action, can range from the passive (refusing to take action that would run counter to others’ stated positions - for example, honoring a picket line) to active (engaging with others to jointly define political projects and purposes through a deliberative process). Solidarity also varies in terms of the thickness of the relationship that is sought: Is it a temporary, provisional, bounded solidarity that is the aim, or is it a longer-term political alliance based on shared values or identities, relationships of trust and reciprocity? Is it relatively spontaneous or intentional?Characterized by different combinations along these dimensions, we expect social movements to have varying consequences for diversity and inclusion, and thereby for organizational persistence and movement success over the longer terms, as shown in Table 1.
Approaches to Solidarity, Pathways to Inclusion: Responding to Difference and Dominance
Our question in this paper is how movements respond to diversity and how this affects their political effectiveness and persistence. How should organizations respond to diversity in order to maximize its benefits? The literature on the organizational benefits of diversity emphasizes that diversity does not always have benefits – the benefits depend on the ways that organizations respond. For example, Page (2008) shows that diverse groups are better at problem-solving and are more creative. But these benefits depend on group processes that allow diverse members to contribute to discussions and share their ideas. When some groups are silenced or excluded, or if collaboration is merely formal, with dominant people unilaterally making all the decisions, the benefits of diversity will not be realized. Similarly, some scholars argue that diversity is a political resource, providing a wider set of experiences on which to base political decisions and creating a broader set of groups who can potentially be drawn into political action.These benefits can only be enjoyed, however,if the organizational practices of the movement ensure that diverse groups feel included, symbolically and substantively (Weldon 2006; Young 1990).
Some have argued that the most strategic path for political mobilization is to emphasize universal elements of actors’ identity, or to avoid identity politics altogether (Lilla 2017). Social psychological research has shown that appeals to more universal identities can strengthen political support for social solidarity in the form of support for social programs (Huddy and Khatib 2007). Others have argued that a sort of strategic essentialism, a collective identity that emphasizes similarities over differences, may strengthen social movements and magnify political influence in certain circumstances (Rupp and Taylor 1999; Gitlin 1995; Spivak 1996).
However, democratic theorists and activists argue that if emphasizing universality requires repressing difference, it may backfire as a strategy of strengthening solidarity. Normatively, such an approach worsens relations of domination among groups, as the views of the privileged are asserted as universal perspectives that crowd out or silence the marginalized voices (Young 1990; 2000). Indeed, without formal measures to ensure their voices are heard, the issues confronting marginalized groups tend to fall through the cracks of social movement organizations as part of the “tyranny of structurelessness”(Freeman 1972; Strolovitch 2007; Polletta 2004). When members of marginalized groups do not see themselves represented among movement leaders or spokespeople, and when their ideas and concerns repeatedly fail to attract the attention of the broader movement, members of marginalized groups may feel alienated and excluded (Davis 1998). They may exit the organization, rather than continue to exercise voice (Hirschman 1970). On this view, the problem of diversity is a problem of power differentials, and a failure to address them, not a problem of diversity in itself.
Moreover, while deliberation may be central to participatory versions of democracy (Dryzek 2002; Habermas 1989), many scholars have pointed out the pitfalls of deliberative processes aimed at consensus when it comes to diversity: The ideal of face-to-face democracy, of unmediated deliberation, tends to reinforce homogeneity, privileging majority, dominant groups and suppresses dissent (Mansbridge 1983; Young 1990), especially in social movement organizations (Smith and Glidden 2012). If deliberation is to include a broader public, it must be structured to work against these repressive tendencies (Young 2000; Smith and Glidden 2012).
Taking a series of active measures, a sort of affirmative representation (Strolovitch 2007) helps to ensure that diverse participants are included in movements. This includes measures such as descriptive representation, allowing for separate organization of marginalized groups into caucuses, using a “progressive stack” or organizing speaker lists to ensure diversity in order so that dominant groups do not monopolize the discussion, giving additional weight to issues identified by marginalized groups, among others (Strolovitch 2007; Tormos 2017; Weldon 2006). The thread that runs through each of these efforts is that they represent an intentional, purposive approach to countering power in movement deliberations and activities. They actively seek to create a discussion free from domination (Habermas 1989; Smith and Glidden 2012), and indeed, to counter power in all movement activities (not just deliberations), in a communicative democracy approach to movement organizing (Young 2002). This works best when formal rules and principles of inclusivity are articulated, and tends to work less well when informal, personalized forms of connection (such as friendship) are taken to be models for political practice (Polletta 2004; Freeman 1972; Smith and Glidden 2012; for a different view see Rai 2018).
This theoretical approach has implications for our understanding of the likely success of many types and degrees of solidarity, suggesting a focus on two dimensions along which the approach to solidarity can vary: 1) the degree of passivity or agency required or expected of participants in terms of defining the form and goals of coordinated action, in other words, the degree to which activists areactively engaged in communication, in defining movement goals and discourse, and 2) the degree to which the process of developing coordinated action takes explicit, formal account of cross-cutting cleavages, or intersectional marginalization, in other words the recognition or sublimation of difference, whether movementsintentionally and explicitly act to counter the distorting effects of power expressed in such differences. We note that the categories we generate here are not offered as an exhaustive typology of approaches to solidarity, but rather as a guide to begin sorting out the ways different responses to diversity – and the relations of group dominance it reflects – affect social movement activities and influence.
Active solidarity is the model best supports diversity and inclusion and which will be most associated with long-term persistence and success – at least in the ideal case. Active solidarity is characterized by “thickness” or enduring solidarity that is rooted ingroup norms and is deliberately crafted, sought-out, and nurtured.[5] But there may be other ways to achieve political impact in the shorter term. Many seasoned activists point to the power of coalitions (e.g., Davis 1998). Perhaps shorter-term actions aimed at common ends can achieve political impact with a less-demanding organizational structure, one that does not involve the development of shared identities or even mutual consultation. We therefore consider the thinnest of such coalitional strategies by way of comparison, one we call drive-by solidarity. This approachdescribes a serial strategy employed by some groups to briefly share resources and labor with others before moving on to new campaigns. Such an approach can produce quick, short-term success in some circumstances, but is unlikely to be sustained or develop into a broader social movement.[6]
A third approach, pop-up solidarity, isthe product of relatively short-lived “moments” (whether threats or opportunities – see Tarrow 1998; Tilly 1978) that bring diverse groups together (but go beyond a single instance of contention).In her article on gender as seriality, Young (1990; 1994) describes the ways that specific politically mobilized groups emerge out of broader contexts in response to changes in specific conditions, as in bread riots or the seemingly spontaneous eruption of outrage at police brutality, corruption in elections, or other injustice. Social groups, defined by social structures, are best understood as a sort of series, a loosely constituted social collective which mostly remains inert, insufficiently prominent as a basis for defined political action in a political circumstance. However, in response to perceived changes or specific events, some portion of this group emerges or erupts into action: A group of people – for example, strangers linked only by their common and regularized reliance on public transit, stranded by a cancelled bus or subway – may coordinate to take a taxi to a common destination. Though such instances of collective action work through extant social networks (e.g., churches, neighborhoods, on-line connections), such eruptions can be powerful, even if short lived, capturing public attention and conveying a kind of authenticity in its seemingly organic emergence. In these cases, the kind of organizational structure that lends itself to deliberation, to intentional measures to empower the marginalized, is unlikely to emerge. The longer these movements endure, the more important it will be for them to develop such measures in order to meet the challenge of diversity.
Lastly, universal deliberative solidarity is an elusive form of solidarity, held up as an ideal by many participants in social movements (Smith and Glidden 2012) as well as by political theorists and commentators, based on universal values and deliberative processes without affirmation of group-specific identities. In this view, it is the emphasis of difference itself that creates challenges of diversity for social movements. If diversity is not emphasized, and if common identities or shared values are foregrounded, solidarity will be easier to maintain.