Martin Luther King’s civil rights marches, the anti-Vietnam war protests, LGBTQ marches, and women’s rights demonstrations mobilized large numbers of protesters to fight for their rights and to bring about political change. Since the 1970s, new forms of social movements emerged that were less political and more concerned with the quality of life. Social scientists have developed three major theories to analyze these new forms of protest: The New Social Movement Theory describes why these movements exist, the Resource Mobilization Theory how they seek influence, and the Political Opportunities theory how they can be successful. The first theory reflects the European cultural paradigm and the other two the structuralist US paradigm.

New social movements seek alternatives for the individual’s quality of life as a consumer, employee, and citizen and promote issues that have been marginalized or neglected by mainstream political parties. They mobilize the popular class to resist the dominant class of managers and technocrats and the system logic of money and power. They pursue post-material values and construct a collective identity (Gramsci) through collective interaction. This is in contrast to old-style social movements that pursue material security through class struggle (Marx). New social movements do not per se seek political influence and power but strive for autonomy, self-determination, self-expression, and direct action. They typically work in decentralized networks outside established political institutions (Van der Heijden 2014, Chapter 11).

The Resource Mobilization Theory provides an excellent and practical way to analyze how social movements mobilize resources to seek influence (Van der Heijden, Chapter 10). First, we need to define who are the agents of change. The constituents are at the core, and with their adherents and bystanders, they form the movement. They can mobilize a wide range of resources:

• moral, e.g., exposed by “ambassadors;”
• cultural, e.g., media exposure;
• organizational, e.g., social and organizational networks and presence on the internet and social media;
• human: the people and their capabilities;
• material, e.g., money and office space.

How do social movements get and mobilize their resources? The theory distinguishes:

• self-production, e.g., through campaigning;
• aggregation, e.g., donations and volunteering;
• appropriation, e.g., using other organizations’ resources;
• patronage, e.g., public and private grants.

Analysts can now systematically study how constituents, adherents, and bystanders mobilize five resources in four different ways. Voila!

Are social movements always successful? That depends on the political opportunities the Political Opportunity Theory says (Van der Heijden 2016, Chapter 12; Bell & Ashwood 2016, Chapter 11). Firstly, there needs to be a certain degree of tolerance towards the movement and a ‘window of opportunity’ in parliament or the court system. Secondly, political institutions need to be willing to integrate the movement’s concerns and to create new institutional arrangements. Thirdly, these institutions need to put their words into deeds, such as enacting policies and legislation.

Social movements function on the interface between science and public policy. They are typically not rooted in formal science and public policies that they see as oppressive tools of the military-industrial complex that they so much oppose. Their conception of science is more Kuhnian (see Module Social Production of Knowledge). For social movements, science is socially produced, and a way to construct individual and collective identity and to transform society, including science itself. Like for every aspect of life, they demand total democratization of science.

The New Social Movement Theory emphasizes this cultural role of science. In the Resource mobilization theory, science is considered a resource social movements can mobilize strategically to pursue their mission, mostly through appropriation (see above). The Political Opportunities Theory finally explains that social movements use science to acquire recognition and legitimation by knowledge and political institutions. A tension exists between the demand for the democratization of science as mentioned above and the need to score points with formal institutions. This tension characterizes the broader tension between Realos and Fundis in new social movements – a term used to describe a conflict in the German Green Party in the 1980s and 1990s.

Knowledge, including scientific knowledge, gives new social movements meaning, power, and legitimation. They engage the knowledge that will best meet their mission, values, and goals. This is not “bad,” but an inherent feature of the democratic science-policy model that was developed in the Module Technocracy or Democracy?

 

Review questions: Select a social movement, visit their website, and try to find out how they back up their claims scientifically or otherwise. Do you find their reasoning sound?