INTRODUCTION
Social movements and collective behavior have always been areas of interest for sociologists. Mass society theories were suggested during the 1930s and 40s to explain the rise of fascism in Germany and Italy. Yet Rochford (1982) argues that it was not until the 1960s that sociologists began to take an empirical interest in social movements and collective behavior. This interest was due largely from the interests in the Women's Movement, the Antiwar Movement, and the Civil Rights Movement.
During this period, sociologists often used social psychological and mass society models to explain and interpret movements. These models suggest that certain individuals are predisposed toward movement behavior as a result of the perceived absence of traditional social structures like religion, family, or tightly woven communities (Rochford 1982). Grievances were also thought to play a significant role in the recruitment and mobilization of adherents (Ferree 1985).
During the 1970s the resource mobilization paradigm emerged as an alternative to the social psychological and mass society theories (Klandermans 1984; Mueller 1992; Friedman and McAdam 1992). This approach suggested that the availability of resources and the ability of actors to determine participation according to perceived costs and benefits were more important than ideology and grievances.
Some however have suggested that resource mobilization models place too much emphasis on the rational choices that actors make at the expense of perceived grievances and meaning interpretation (Klandermans 1984; Taylor and Whittier 1992). Many social movement theorists today are incorporating microinteractionist approaches with structural ones to produce complete models.
We have talked about three levels analysis of social movement organizations in class: ideology, environment, and organization. Ideology is the necessary level of analysis that social movement researchers must first come to terms with, because it precedes the other remaining two. This paper will concentrate on ideology and its place in shaping social movements and social movement behavior. I will use various articles to compare and contrast the various views concerning this level of analysis. I will begin with an examination of the two internal roles of ideology; recruitment and mobilization, and then deal with the external role of strategy. Concluding comments will follow to tie up any "loose ends" that may result in an analysis of this nature.
THREE LEVELS OF IDEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS
1. Recruitment
That recruitment processes vary depending upon the organization is evident by the ten articles that I chose to review. Two important features of recruitment that were consistently found are fluidity, and types of recruitment motivations.
By fluidity, I mean that the process of recruitment is dynamic rather than static. This seems to occur along three lines. The first line of fluidity occurs when recruits are approached by the organization in hopes that they will join. Snow (1980) suggests that this process is indeed dynamic because individuals constantly negotiate and renegotiate what it means to be a member of the organization. Also, potential recruits very rarely join a movement without first participating in movement activities (Snow, et. al 1986). It is during this participation that recruits begin to construct meanings or "vocabularies of motives" to explain and rationalize why they are participating (Snow et. al 1986, Benford 1993). Eventually, members come to see their interests and behaviors resonate with the goals of the movement and join.
Secondly, fluidity is evident during identity and interest construction. Ferree (1985) suggests that Social Movement Organizations (SMOs) must present their goals so that potential recruits will discontinue attributing blame to themselves and slowly shift the blame toward the system. The task of the SMO then is to help recruits "reframe" the issue from one of personal failings to grievances with the system. Capek (1993) demonstrates how environmental groups have been successful in developing "environmental justice frames" in her study of a community development struggling over toxic contamination. Capek describes this process by suggesting that there were many influences that worked against attributing problems to chemical waste. Residents initially felt that the problems were of a personal nature. Eventually however, this attitude changed as a local SMO began to cast residents' experiences in terms of an injustice frame. They began to point out that "personal" problems were actually a result of the negligence of others. Thus the system was to blame because it was unjustly taking the rights to a clean and safe environment away.
The final line of fluidity occurs within the internal structure of the organization itself. Organizations may take on and eventually abandon various strategies of recruitment based upon utilitarian decisions. That is to say, if little or no members are recruited, the organization may modify or completely change its strategy. Rochford (1982) gives an example of this when he demonstrates how the ISKCON movement changed its recruitment strategy. Initially, during the early 1960's in New York, members were recruited through networks outside the movement. When the movement moved to San Francisco however, public chanting slowly began to replace outside social networks as a way of gaining new members. This occurred partially because members were slowly being encouraged to remove themselves from ties with those outside the movement. Since members had very little or no social ties outside the movement, public chanting became the only way to recruit new members.
Types of recruitment motivations are the second important component of recruitment. Researchers have debated about the importance of various reasons that members are recruited by SMOs. Four recruitment motivations seem prevalent in the literature, (1) grievances and ideology, (2) structure, (3) cost/benefits, and (4) networks.
Initially, researchers focused on the importance of grievances and ideology as the main motivations for membership (Taylor & Whittier 1992: Friedman & McAdam 1992). It was initially felt that members would sometimes join movements based on emotional decisions rather than rational, calculative action. This view began to disappear during the 1970s when resource mobilization models began to emerge and dominate the literature… (THIS SECTION CONTINUES FOR ABOUT ANOTHER SINGLE SPACED PAGE)
2. Mobilization
A social movement organization must mobilize members after recruitment in order for the movement to be successful. Mobilization occurs in overlapping steps that take place throughout the life of the movement.
First, Klandermans and Oegema suggest that a mobilization potential must be identified (Klandermans & Oegema 1987). This refers to those in a society who are sympathetic to the means and goals of a movement, and therefore could be mobilized. Thus, the mobilization potential is the reservoir from which the movement can draw from.
Once the mobilization potential has been identified, the movement participates in consensus and action mobilization (Klandermans 1984). Consensus mobilization are those attempts that a movement uses in order to gain support. These recruitment processes are directed toward the mobilization potential, and consist of many different strategies. An appeal to grievances through friendship networks and direct mailings are some examples.
Action mobilization, or the process by which a movement calls on specific members for action, occurs once members have been recruited through consensus mobilization. Members may, for example, be asked to participate in marches, donate money, or speak publicly. The SMO will attempt to make the benefits of participation and the costs of nonparticipation as high as possible. They may do this by controlling the type and the scene of the action to be taken.
While Klandermans mobilization process is helpful, it seems to stress the rational choices of actors over the construction of meaning that individual actors attach to these choices. In order to interpret this mobilization process more fully, it is helpful to take into account the "collective action frames" that Benford (1993) refers to. According to Benford, there are three types of frames that are often used by SMOs. The first one is the diagnostic frame. This frame is used by the movement to suggest that a problem exists, and that change is necessary in order to improve the situation. Prognostic frames are those that propose solutions to the problems that are posed (framed) by the diagnostic frame. Finally, motivational frames are those that move people to action. The first two frames achieve what Klandermans refers to as consensus mobilization while the latter achieve action mobilization… (THIS SECTION CONTINUES FOR ABOUT ANOTHER SINGLE SPACED PAGE)
3. Strategy
The final dimension of ideology that scholars have often addressed is that of strategy. Strategy refers to the various tactics SMOs use when trying to achieve their goals. There might be separate strategies within the organization that pertain to specific goals, like strategies to gain a larger membership or to end nuclear waste dumping.
One strategy that appears in the articles that I chose was the framing of various social problems (Rochford 1982: Snow et al. 1980: Snow et al. 1986: Cable 1992: Benford 1993: Capek 1993). These authors suggested that the problems that SMOs face are constructed and reinterpreted so that individuals would begin to blame the system rather than think of the problem as an unfortunate incident or a result of personal failings. Frames are used to define the situation as unjust and unfair, a situation in which the privileges of some have been removed by a more powerful group. The goal of course is to adjust the frame in such a way so that members believe that it is in their best interest to have their privileges reestablished… (THIS SECTION CONTINUES FOR ABOUT ANOTHER SINGLE SPACED PAGE)
CONCLUSION
Every article that was analyzed incorporated social constructionist perspectives. Most of these argued that a combination of social psychological and resource mobilization perspectives was important (Snow et al. 1980: Klandermans 1984: Ferree & Miller 1985: Snow et al. 1986: Klandermans & Oegema 1987: Benford 1993).
Almost all agreed that social networks and grievances were the most important determinants in movement recruitment (Snow et al. 1980: Ferree & Miller 1985: Snow et al 1986: Gamson 1991: Cable 1992: Benford 1993: Capek 1993). Slight differences did appear within some of the positions, however. For example, Snow et al (1986) argue that the issue is not the actual presence or absence of grievances, but the manner in which they are interpreted. Capek (1993) is clearly more interested in the construction of frames that interpret and articulate grievances, while Ferree and Miller (1985) are interested in the construction of the grievances themselves.
Meanwhile, Cable (1992) suggests that grievances, social networks, and structural availability are all important factors in recruitment and mobilization. She argues that grievances are articulated and given meaning in networks, and that the networks are made up of those individuals who are structurally available to participate in the movement. Cable does not however, address the possibility that rational actors may also make decisions to participate based upon cost/benefit analysis… (THIS SECTION CONTINUES FOR ABOUT ANOTHER SINGLE SPACED PAGE)