Social Movement Coalitions PDF

Social Movement Coalitions
Oxford Handbooks Online

Holly J. McCammon and Minyoung Moon
The Oxford Handbook of Social Movements
Edited by Donatella Della Porta and Mario Diani
Print Publication Date: Nov 2015

Subject: Political Science, Comparative Politics, Political Behavior
Online Publication Date: Jul 2015 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199678402.013.38
Abstract and Keywords
Study of social movement coalitions receives growing attention from movement scholars.
This chapter reviews the literature on collaborative collective action. After providing a
definition of social movement coalitions and exploring types of movement alliances, we
organize our chapter around two research questions evident in the coalition literature.
First, which circumstances foster (or impede) coalition work? Research suggests that
shared beliefs and identities, prior social ties among activists, opportunities and threats
in the broader context, and organizational resources all play a role in coalition formation.
Second, what consequences result when movement groups pursue their goals in
collaboration with one another? Although the literature is somewhat sparse in this area,
we review studies exploring changes in activist organizations, movement mobilization,
and political outcomes as well as the influence of coalition efforts on how long-lived
coalitions themselves may be. We conclude our chapter by pointing to areas in need of
additional research.
Keywords: coalitions, alliances, allies, collaboration, cooperation, collective identity, social ties, opportunities,
threats, resources
IN most cases, social movements are amalgamations of diverse groups, often with the
same general goal, but with differences in specific agendas, identities, and strategic
orientations. Increasingly social movement scholars note this complex nature of social
movements and have begun to consider coalitions in social movements as an important
means of orchestrating joint work. While a body of scholarship on movement coalitions is
emerging, there remains additional work to be done. This chapter reviews this literature,
examines its main themes, and identifies important avenues for future research.1 After
discussing definitions of movement coalitions, we discern two foci in the research:
examinations of key facilitators of coalitions and studies of their consequences.
Page 1 of 17
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use.
Subscriber: University College London; date: 04 May 2018

Defining Social Movement Coalitions

Social movement coalitions occur when distinct activist groups mutually agree to
cooperate and work together toward a common goal.2Zald and Ash (1966), in an early
treatment of coordinated action among movement groups, distinguish coalitions from
mergers, stating that a “coalition pools resources and coordinates plans, while keeping
distinct organizational identities.” Mergers, on the other hand, entail groups uniting into
one organization with one organizational structure and a fused identity. More recently,
Tarrow (2005: 163–164) differentiates networks and coalitions by defining networks as a
set of loose ties among groups often with some information exchange but little or no
actual purposive, collaborative action. Ellingson, Woodley, and Paik (2012) point out that
information sharing in broader networks can bolster inter-organizational trust that, in
turn, can lead to coalition activities, as groups build on weak ties and make (p. 327)
decisions to pursue mutually-agreed-upon activism. Social movement coalitions, then,
might be said to reside on a continuum between mergers and networks, as a mid-range
relationship entailing cooperative joint action while distinct organizational identities and
structures remain intact.
Social movement coalitions can form within social movements or can emerge across
different social movements. Scholars note that a variety of movements reveal coalition
work, including the LGBT (D’Emilio 1983), women’s (Gilmore 2008); environmental
(Lichterman 1995; Murphy 2005), civil rights (Mantler 2013), and labor movements
(Williams 1999). Researchers also describe activist coalitions across social movements,
between labor and other civil society organizations (Dixon and Martin 2012; Heery,
Williams, and Abbott 2012), immigrant rights and queer movements (Luibheid and
Khokha 2001), environmental and peace groups (Beamish and Luebbers 2009), and
religious and environmental groups (Ellingson, Woodley, and Paik 2012).
Levi and Murphy (2006) add a temporal dimension, recognizing both short-lived and
longer-term coalitions. They distinguish between “event” and “enduring” alliances, with
event coalitions occurring when collaborators coordinate their actions only relatively
briefly around a specific protest event. Enduring coalitions, on the other hand, take place
when activist groups formalize a more durable cooperative relationship that often
involves joint decision-making structures and agreed-upon rules for participation. These
more permanent alliances may result in an umbrella organizational structure with its own
staff and funding to coordinate coalition work.
In addition to the degree of formalization and permanency, social movement coalitions

can vary along other dimensions. Di Gregorio’s (2012) research considers the intensity of
coalition structures, noting that some alliances are based on strong bonds with frequent
interaction while others involve only a few concrete exchanges among groups. In
Page 2 of 17

addition, studies by both Van Dyke (2003) and Mix (2011) tell us that some coalitions form
around single issues, while others are more expansive, encompassing multiple concerns.
Not surprisingly, scholarship on social movement coalitions reveals important diversity in

membership composition as well, with considerations especially of race, ethnic, class,
political, and religious diversity within alliances (Beamish and Luebbers 2009; Okamoto
2010; Roth 2010). Moreover, researchers (Banaszak 2010; Isaac 2010) observe that some
movement organizations join in partnerships with state actors when they share social-
change goals. Suh (2011) considers that such alliances may entail the institutionalization
of social movement actors and in some cases even a moderation of their demands and
tactics. Almeida (2010) investigates coordinated efforts between Latin American
democratization movements and oppositional political parties, coining the term “social
movement partyism.” We note as well the rapidly growing literature on transnational
social movement coalitions, which can include a variety of actors, for instance: local
social movements, international non-governmental advocacy groups, (p. 328) the media,
and regional and international inter-governmental organizations (Bandy and Smith 2005;
Tarrow 2005; von Bülow 2011).
Circumstances Facilitating and Hindering

Coalition Formation
A sizeable portion of the scholarship on social movement coalitions explores
circumstances facilitating alliances among movement groups (Van Dyke and McCammon
2010). Four sets of circumstances are prominent in this literature.
Page 3 of 17

Shared Ideology, Identity, Interests, and Goals
A common finding is that groups sharing ideological orientations, similar identities, or

common interests and goals are more likely to form alliances (Bandy and Smith 2005; Di
Gregorio 2012; Park 2008). Research also confirms the reverse phenomenon: distinct
ideologies can impede coalition formation (Barkan 1986; Gerhards and Rucht 1992; Diaz-
Veizades and Chang 1996). Studies also reveal that partnerships become possible when
an important ideological shift occurs for one group, bringing it more closely into
ideological alignment with another group (McCammon and Campbell 2002; Cornfield and
McCammon 2010).
But similar ideologies may not be a sufficient condition for coalition work. Scholarship
affirms as well that sometimes challengers may share broad goals and have awareness of
one another but still not engage in collective-action collaboration. A few studies help us
understand why. Lichterman (1995) examines grass-roots environmental groups and finds
agreement on broad environmental goals, but a “personalized” orientation with emphasis
on traditions of individualism in the white, middle-class group he studies limits
collaborations with other local environmental groups. Similarly, Roth (2010) investigates
second-wave US feminist groups and finds that a politics of “organizing one’s own”
discouraged coalitions across racial and ethnic lines. Non-collaborative ideational
orientations can override shared goals and impede collaborations. A similar avenue of
scholarship considers the breadth or particularism of group beliefs and framing efforts to
explain who coalesces. Van Dyke (2003), for instance, finds that among college-student
groups, multi-issue groups with a broader expanse of interest areas were more likely to
form alliances. Rohlinger and Quadagno (2009) similarly discover that as a politically
conservative group framed its efforts using a more “particularized world view” with a
narrower understanding of its political agenda, the group was less likely to engage in
cooperative activism. Such scholarship alerts us to the need for more attention to the
specific content of the belief systems and frames deployed by activists and how these can
influence coalitions. For instance, when are ideological differences too extreme to
overcome?
(p. 329) Social Ties
Just as prior social ties among individuals heighten chances of collective mobilization,
pre-existing relationships between groups can determine who will become coalition
partners (Van Dyke 2003). As noted, a growing body of research looks closely at how
groups with diverging views can find a path to collaborative activism. This research
fruitfully considers small group processes that occur as potential or actual coalition
partners interact and negotiate differences in order to build and strengthen ties. Beamish
and Luebbers (2009) examine cross-movement collaborations with race, class, gender,
and place diversity and outline various steps that fuel successful exchanges, identifying
both “cause affirmation” in which one group recognizes the grievances of another group,
Page 4 of 17

and “co-development of commitments” in which groups join the struggle of other groups,
both as crucial ingredients heightening solidarity. In addition, movement coalition
scholarship on social ties has begun to use advanced network analysis to examine links
among groups (Park 2008; Di Gregorio 2012).
An intriguing area of research considers “bridge builders” or “brokers,” that is,

individuals with membership in more than one group who facilitate communication, trust,
and coordinated efforts between organizations, both within and across movements
(Grossman 2001; Obach 2004; Borland 2010; Reese, Petit, and Meyer 2010; von Bülow
2011). Such brokers, too, can help divergent groups negotiate differences. We view this
as an exciting avenue of investigation that could dovetail with emerging social movement
research on activist leadership (Morris and Staggenborg 2004). Further, coalition brokers
can be critical to transnational movement coalitions, that draw on diverse groups and
networks from around the globe (Bandy and Smith 2005; Tarrow 2005).
Opportunities and Threats in the Broader Context
Studies reveal that the broader political context can have an important influence on
whether activist groups form coalitions. In her seminal study, Staggenborg (1986) finds
that political opportunities, such as the repeal of anti-abortion laws, prompted pro-choice
organizations to join together to take advantage of a more receptive political
environment. But a variety of studies suggest that threats confronted by activists may be
a more pivotal influence (McCammon and Van Dyke 2010). A number of researchers
provide empirical evidence showing that threats to activist goals play an important role in
sparking coalitions (Dolgon 2001; Grossman 2001; Van Dyke 2003; Meyer and Corrigall-
Brown 2005; Dixon and Martin 2012). McCammon and Campbell (2002) study alliances
between the US woman suffrage movement and temperance activists, revealing that
when these groups face political defeats at the hands of legislators, they are more likely
to engage in joint action. Similarly, Chang (2008), in a study of the democracy movement
in South Korea, finds that government-sponsored repression heightens the likelihood of
coalition formation among democracy proponents, even as state repression lowered the
number of overall protest events.
McCammon and Campbell (2002) take the argument about threats even further,
(p. 330)
suggesting, based on their evidence, that while threats lead to alliance building, political
opportunities do little to foster coalitions. This claim is echoed by Poloni-Staudinger’s
(2009) comparison of environmental movements in Britain, France, and Germany. She
finds that open domestic political opportunity structures do not intensify environmental
coalitions, while closed structures bolster coalition activism. Like McCammon and
Campbell, Poloni-Staudinger concludes that when the political opportunity structure is
open and thus more receptive to movement demands, there is little incentive for
movement activists to seek coalition partners, and rather the costs of alliances can
outweigh the benefits. Threats, on the other hand, can encourage activists to seek new
strategies, coalition formation being one such option. della Porta’s (1995) investigation of
Page 5 of 17

Italian activists, however, reveals that closed political opportunities can fragment
movements. She finds that during such periods groups rely more heavily on ideological
incentives to mobilize participants, and this can introduce ideological conflict that stands
in the way of alliance formation.
The final chapter has not yet been written on the role of political opportunities and
threats in fostering coalition work. An important direction for future research is to
explore the conditions under which either or both may have their greatest influence. For
instance, Obach (2010) reports that provisions in tax laws may encourage some groups to
collaborate while discouraging other organizations from joint action. Additionally, as
Staggenborg (1986) and Diani (1995) suggest, it may be that both political opportunities
and threats can matter simultaneously. Moreover, the degree of political openness or
closure may have ramifications for alliances, with highly open or extremely closed arenas
derailing coalition work, albeit for different reasons. A recent study by Kadivar (2013)
indicates an important avenue for additional research. Kadivar investigates alliances
during the Iranian reform movement and examines activist perceptions of opportunities
and threats as they make decisions about coalition formation. Using the concept of
“perception profiles,” Kadivar disaggregates distinct dimensions of the political
landscape and the ways in which perceptions about these political dimensions can lead to
or hinder activist alliances. At this juncture, we know little about the perceptions and
incentives that encourage activist coalitions.
Resources
As resource mobilization theorists (McCarthy and Zald 1977) convey, activists are
unlikely to mobilize without critical resources to support their efforts. Research suggests
that a similar dynamic governs coalition work: group collaboration is more likely when
resources are plentiful (Van Dyke 2003; Cornfield and Canak 2007) and when the sources
of partner groups’ funding are distinct and non-competitive (Hathaway and Meyer 1993).
Barkan’s (1986) study of the US civil rights movement supports these assertions. He finds
that rivalries among civil rights organizations over scarce funding (p. 331) hindered the
ability of these groups to coalesce. Diaz-Veizades and Chang (1996), in fact, find that
when resources decline, coalitions are likely to dissolve.
But as Hathaway and Meyer (1993) point out, available resources are likely to be shaped
by circumstances in the larger political environment. A crisis or threat may provide an
influx of new resources to activists, such as occurred in the 1980s nuclear freeze
movement. This, in turn, can heighten levels of coalition work. Broader circumstances
driving resource levels and their impact on coalitions are not well understood. Moreover,
we know little about which resources are crucial to coalition formation. Our review
suggests that the role of resources is an understudied area generally in coalition studies
and one warranting substantial further investigation.
Page 6 of 17

Conjunctural Causation in Future Research
An important direction for future study of the circumstances producing social movement
coalitions is consideration of conjunctural causality (Borland 2010; McCammon and Van
Dyke 2010). While we have discussed the individual influence of a variety of factors, many
of these circumstances combine to foster movement coalitions. For example, as
Staggenborg (1986) suggests, when activist groups share members, overlapping
constituents can help overcome ideological differences to smooth a path for activist
partnerships. Additionally, McCammon and Van Dyke (2010) in a meta-analysis observe
that the most fertile ground for coalition activity appears to be the combination of shared
beliefs and plentiful resources. Additionally, the way in which threats interact with other
conditions to foster coalitions calls for more attention; for instance, at what level of threat
can ideological differences or lack of resources be ignored and coalitions occur?
Understanding more fully such conjunctural causality is a necessary next step for future
research.
Consequences of Coalitions
While numerous studies consider the circumstances fostering coalition work, fewer
examine the consequences coalitions produce. This remains an understudied area with a
need for closer scrutiny (Staggenborg 2010). Among existing studies, we identify various
types of outcomes that social movement coalitions have influenced: organizational
change, movement mobilization, political outcomes, and survival of coalitions.
Organizational Change
Movement alliances can generate consequences for the member organizations within
coalitions. As Lee (2011) and Mix (2011) show, one important organizational (p. 332)
consequence is that coalitions can provide member organizations with resources and
further network-building opportunities, which may, in turn, enhance their organizational
stability. Collaborations also can affect organizations’ deployment of tactics, ranging from
tactical diffusion (Wang and Soule 2012) to tactical innovation (Meyer and Whittier 1994).
Organizational framing can also be influenced. Croteau and Hicks (2003) and Luna (2010)
document shifts in framing strategies as a result of alliance work, often when one group
realigns its frames to better mesh with a coalition partner. These organizational
influences are not surprising, given that coalition partners often closely interact,
predisposing them to learn from one another. Meyer and Whittier (1994) show that
coalition efforts between the US women’s and peace movements in the 1980s resulted in
a spillover of feminist frames and tactics into peace organizations.
Page 7 of 17

A coalition not only affects the collaborating organizations; it can also influence the
formation of new social movement groups, but the direction of the effect is not yet
certain. In her study of the global environmental movement, Murphy (2005) finds that an
increased number of coalitions limit access to resources generally, reducing founding
rates of new, non-coalition organizations. On the other hand, in the Korean democracy
movement, coalition activism helped found a new social movement organization, a large
labor group during the democratization period (Lee 2011). Understanding the
organizational consequences of movement coalitions is clearly an area in need of further
examination.
Movement Mobilization
Coalitions can fuel social movement mobilization more generally, including the number of
individual participants in a specific protest event and the overall scale of an ongoing
campaign. Gerhards and Rucht (1992) examine two distinct protest campaigns in
late-1980s West Germany and find that coalition structures bolstered the size of specific
protests, turning them into large-scale events. Luna (2010) draws a similar conclusion,
finding that March for Women’s Lives, a 2004 march in support of reproductive justice,
grew in size because of coalition participation. But while the mobilization goal of
coalitions is often enhanced, not every attempt ends in success. Jones and his colleagues
(2001) suggest some coalitions are more effective than others in recruiting large numbers
of protest participants. They find that the most effective form is “network invocation.”
This occurs when a single movement organization leads the planning and decision making
while drawing on other organizations to assist.
When it comes to transnational coalitions, their impact on domestic mobilization is not

yet fully understood. Widener (2007) shows that cooperation with international
organizations weakens domestic mobilization by discouraging network-building efforts at
home. On the other hand, Juska and Edwards (2005) demonstrate that effective
transnational collaboration between a US-based organization, the Animal Welfare
(p. 333) Institute, and a Polish farmers’ organization, Samoobrona, brought new Polish
allies into the mobilization, which ultimately was crucial to the success of the anti-
corporate campaign. This may be another case where the causal influence varies
depending on broader circumstances, conjunctural circumstances not yet being well
understood by researchers.
Political Outcomes
Scholarly study provides evidence that coalitions can produce a third type of outcome:
political results, such as legislative or policy changes. But the findings are not yet
conclusive. Some scholars show the significance of coalition work for such political
successes, while others argue that coalitions alone cannot achieve a political victory.
Page 8 of 17

Studying social movement–political party coalitions in Latin America, Almeida (2010)

shows that such coalitions achieve political success by preventing passage of unfavorable
legislation. Banaszak’s (2010) research on US feminist political insiders from the Kennedy
to Clinton administration considers alliances between state and social movement actors
and finds that state–movement partnerships contribute to policies promoting gender
equality in employment and education. Moreover, transnational coalitions to eradicate
child labor in Bangladesh also succeeded in establishing laws to protect children from
under-aged labor exploitation (Brooks 2005). But Joyner (1982) proposes a different
perspective, that coalitions alone may not be sufficient for political success. She analyzes
allied women’s groups’ efforts to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in Illinois and
concludes that even with a strong coalition the Illinois ERA Ratification Project was not
able to win a political victory.
Various strains of research provide clues that may help us understand such divergent
findings. Banaszak (1996) and Crawhall (2011) indicate that large coalitions
encompassing a substantial number of groups increase the likelihood of a positive
political outcome, although others suggest size may not matter (Joyner 1982; Knoke
1990). Dixon and colleagues (2013) as well ask what shapes coalition political success.
They find that different political outcomes in two labor coalitions can be attributed in part
to coalition “fit,” where fit refers to collaborations between labor and non-labor
organizations with mutual trust, a shared sense of commitment, and common objectives.
Where such fit occurred, the coalition was more successful. A study by Arnold (2011) also
indicates the importance of trust, shared knowledge, and the ability to jointly problem
solve as key for politically successful coalitions. Haydu (2012) finds, however, that when
coalition members’ core objectives differ from one another, frame brokers were critical in
that they played an important role in introducing new tactics to the coalition which
eventually helped to win passage of important federal legislation. Researchers studying
the political outcomes of coalitions are beginning to understand when such partnerships
may succeed, but additional research will bring a more definitive understanding.
(p. 334) Survival of Coalitions
Finally, some scholars examine coalition longevity as a type of outcome. Long-lasting

coalitions may not be the ultimate goal, but it can be critical to achieving other outcomes.
Scholars have investigated why some coalitions survive while others dissolve quickly.
They find that avoiding or managing conflict and threats, both internal and external, to
the coalition is the key to an enduring coalition.
Coalitions are often composed of diverse organizations, and differences in ideologies,

cultures, and strategies can create tensions. Williams (1999) argues that coalitions are
more likely to endure when they acknowledge threats to cooperation and resolve internal
conflicts. Kleidman (1993) finds that when internal tensions endure, coalition members
eventually drift away. Avoiding competition for resources and constituents by
differentiating one’s group from other member organizations helps sustain functioning
Page 9 of 17

coalitions (Hathaway and Meyer 1993; Krinsky and Reese 2006). Moreover, Guenther
(2010) finds that weak coalitions, in which organizations are loosely connected to one
another with low demand for ideological unity, contributed to the durability of trans-
regional feminist alliances in East Germany. In his study of coalitions between labor and
environmental groups, Mayer (2008) demonstrates that developing a joint identity within
blue–green coalitions was an important factor for their long-lasting collaboration.
Factors external to coalitions, such as a favorable context for mobilization generally,

influence longevity as well. Krinsky and Reese (2006) show that some labor-community
coalitions in US workfare-justice campaigns were able to persist because of relatively
weak opposition from employers. On the other hand, unfavorable political contexts can
make it hard to sustain coalitions. Meyer and Corrigall-Brown (2005) find that US
coalitions against the war in Iraq weakened and member organizations turned their
attention back to their core identities after experiencing political defeats when the US
President rejected movement claims and instead framed the war as a success. Attempts
to reconcile these findings, however, with the important role threats can play in coalition
formation suggest that we do not yet fully understand how unfavorable political
environments influence coalition efforts.
Additional Possibilities for Future Research on

A few scholars note other types of coalition outcomes, but as yet we know little about
them. For instance, coalitions are likely to offer benefits for individuals who participate.
Hathaway and Meyer (1993) and Lee (2011) discuss such individual-level outcomes,
(p. 335) telling us that coalition actors gain training, mentoring, career benefits, and
solidarity incentives. In addition, it may be that movement alliances produce negative

effects for member groups, when such groups realize that the costs of coordinated action
outweigh the benefits (Staggenborg 2010). Unexpected consequences can also occur.
Murphy’s (2005) study of the global environmental movement provides evidence that the
growing number of transnational coalitions resulted in the unintended and negative
outcome of curtailing movement expansion, by channeling available resources to coalition
partners and making it difficult for new organizations to form outside the coalition. Few
scholars as yet have examined the negative or unintended consequences of movement
coalitions.
The study of social movement coalitions is a vibrant area of research, but one still in need
of additional scholarship. For instance, researchers often do not consider that coalition
types vary, for instance, in terms of duration, extent, size, and formalization. It may well
be that different types have different antecedents and consequences. As this chapter
Page 10 of 17

shows, we have learned much thus far about alliances among movement groups, but
study of movement coalitions is also an area ripe for additional scholarly attention.
References
Almeida, Paul (2010). “Social Movement Partyism: Collective Action and Oppositional
Political Parties.” In Strategic Alliances: Coalition Building and Social Movements, edited
by Nella Van Dyke and Holly J. McCammon, 170–196. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Arnold, Gretchen (2011). “The Impact of Social Ties on Coalition Strength and
Effectiveness: The Case of the Battered Women’s Movement in St. Louis,” Social
Movement Studies. 10: 131–150.
Banaszak, Lee Ann (1996). Why Movements Succeed or Fail: Opportunity, Culture, and
the Struggle for Woman Suffrage. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Banaszak, Lee Ann (2010). The Women’s Movement Inside and Outside the State. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Bandy, Joe and Smith, Jackie (2005). Coalitions across Borders: Transnational Protest and
the Neoliberal Order. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Barkan, Steven E. (1986). “Interorganizational Conflict in the Southern Civil Rights

Movement,” Sociological Inquiry. 56: 190–209.
Beamish, Thomas D. and Luebbers, Amy J. (2009). “Alliance Building across

(p. 336)
Social Movements: Bridging Difference in a Peace and Justice Coalition,” Social Problems.
56: 647–676.
Borland, Elizabeth (2010). “Crisis as a Catalyst for Cooperation? Women’s Organizing in

Buenos Aires.” In Strategic Alliances: Coalition Building and Social Movements, edited by
Nella Van Dyke and Holly J. McCammon, 241–265. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Brooks, Ethel (2005). “Transnational Campaigns Against Child Labor: The Garment
Industry In Bangladesh.” In Coalitions across Borders: Transnational Protest in the
Neoliberal Order, edited by Joe Bandy and Jackie Smith, 121–139. Lanham: Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers.
Chang, Paul Y. (2008). “Unintended Consequences of Repression: Alliance Formation in

South Korea’s Democracy Movement (1970–1979),” Social Forces. 87: 651–677.
Cornfield, Daniel B. and Canak, William (2007). “Immigrants and Labor in a Globalizing
City: Prospects for Coalition Building in Nashville.” In Labor in the New Urban
Page 11 of 17

Battlegrounds: Local Solidarity in a Global Economy, edited by Lowell Turner and Daniel
B. Cornfield, 163–177. Ithaca: ILR Press.
Cornfield, Daniel B. and McCammon, Holly J. (2010). “Approaching Merger: The

Converging Public Policy Agendas of the AFL and CIO, 1938–1955.” In Strategic
Alliances: Coalition Building and Social Movements, edited by Nella Van Dyke and Holly J.
McCammon, 79–98. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Crawhall, Nigel (2011). “Africa and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
People,” The International Journal of Human Rights. 15: 11–36.
Croteau, David and Hicks, Lyndsi (2003). “Coalition Framing and the Challenge of a
Consonant Frame Pyramid: The Case of a Collaborative Response to Homelessness,”
Social Problems. 50: 251–272.
della Porta, Donatella. 1995. Social Movements, Political Violence, and the State: A
Comparative Analysis of Italy and Germany. New York: Cambridge University Press.
D’Emilio, John (1983). Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.
Di Gregorio, Monica (2012). “Networking in Environmental Movement Organisation

Coalitions: Interest, Values or Discourse?” Environmental Politics. 21: 1–25.
Diani, Mario (1995). Green Networks: A Structural Analysis of the Italian Environmental
Movement. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Diani, Mario and Bison, Ivano (2004). “Organizations, Coalitions, and Movements,”
Theory and Society. 33: 281–309.
Diaz-Veizades, Jeannette and Chang, Edward T. (1996). “Building Cross-Cultural

Coalitions: A Case-Study of the Black-Korean Alliance and the Latino-Black Roundtable,”
Ethnic and Racial Studies. 19: 680–700.
Dixon, Marc and Martin, Andrew W. (2012). “We Can’t Win This on Our Own: Unions,
Firms, and Mobilization of External Allies in Labor Disputes,” American Sociological
Review. 77: 946–969.
Dixon, Marc, Danaher, William F., and Kail, Ben Lennox (2013). “Allies, Targets, and the
Effectiveness of Coalition Protest: A Comparative Analysis of Labor Unrest in the U.S.
South,” Mobilization. 18: 331–350.
Dolgon, Corey (2001). “Building Community amid the Ruins: Strategies for Struggle from
the Coalition for Justice at Southampton College.” In Forging Radical Alliances across
Difference, (p. 337) edited by Jill Bystydzienski and Steven Schacht, 220–232. London:
Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
Page 12 of 17

Ellingson, Stephen, Woodley, Vernon A., and Paik, Anthony (2012). “The Structure of
Religious Environmentalism: Movement Organizations, Interorganizational Networks, and
Collective Action,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 51: 266–285.
Gerhards, Jürgen and Rucht, Dieter (1992). “Mesomobilization: Organizing and Framing
in Two Protest Campaigns in West Germany,” American Journal of Sociology. 98: 555–595.
Gilmore, Stephanie (2008). Feminist Coalitions: Historical Perspectives on Second-Wave

Feminism in the United States. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.
Grossman, Zoltan (2001). “ ‘Let’s Not Create Evilness for This River’: Interethnic
Environmental Alliances of Native Americans and Rural Whites in Northern Wisconsin.”
In Forging Radical Alliances across Difference, edited by Jill Bystydzienski and Steven
Schacht, 146–159. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Guenther, Katja M. (2010). “The Strength of Weak Coalitions: Transregional Feminist

Coalitions in Eastern Germany.” In Strategic Alliances: Coalition Building and Social
Movements, edited by Nella Van Dyke and Holly J. McCammon, 119–142. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Hathaway, Will and Meyer, David S. (1993). “Competition and Cooperation in Social
Movement Coalitions: Lobbying for Peace in the 1980s,” Berkeley Journal of Sociology.
38: 156–183.
Haydu, Jeffrey (2012). “Frame Brokerage in the Pure Food Movement, 1879–1906,” Social
Movement Studies. 11: 97–112.
Heery, Edmund, Williams, Steve, and Abbott, Brian (2012). “Civil Society Organizations
and Trade Unions: Cooperation, Conflict, Indifference,” Work, Employment and Society.
26: 145–160.
Isaac, Larry (2010). “Policing Capital: Armed Countermovement Coalitions against Labor
in Late Nineteenth-Century Industrial Cities.” In Strategic Alliances: Coalition Building
and Social Movements, edited by Nella Van Dyke and Holly J. McCammon, 22–49.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Jones, Andrew W., Hutchison, Richard N., Van Dyke, Nella, Gates, Leslie, and Companion,
Michele (2001). “Coalition Form and Mobilization Effectiveness in Local Social
Movements,” Sociological Spectrum. 21: 207–231.
Joyner, Nancy Douglas (1982). “Coalition Politics: A Case Study of an Organization’s

Approach to a Single Issue,” Women & Politics. 2: 57–70.
Juska, Arunas and Edwards, Bob (2005). “Refusing the Trojan Pig: The US-Poland
Coalition Against Corporate Pork Production.” In Coalitions across Borders: Transnational
Page 13 of 17

Protest and the Neoliberal Order, edited by Joe -Bandy and Jackie Smith, 187–207.
Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Kadivar, Mohammad Ali. 2013. “Alliances and Perception Profiles in the Iranian Reform
Movement, 1997 to 2005,” American Sociological Review. 78: 1063–1086.
Kleidman, Robert (1993). Organizing for Peace: Neutrality, the Test Ban, and the Freeze.
Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.
Knoke, David (1990). Organizing for Collective Action: The Political Economies of
Associations. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Kreps, Sarah E. (2011). Coalitions of Convenience: United States Military Interventions

after the Cold War. New York: Oxford University Press.
Krinsky, John and Reese, Ellen (2006). “Forging and Sustaining Labor-Community
(p. 338)
Coalitions: The Workfare Justice Movement in Three Cities,” Sociological Forum. 21: 623–
658.
Lee, Jung-eun (2011). “Insularity or Solidarity? The Impacts of Political Opportunity

Structure and Social Movement Sector on Alliance Formation,” Mobilization. 16: 303–324.
Levi, Margaret and Murphy, Gillian H. (2006). “Coalitions of Contention: The Case of the
WTO Protests in Seattle,” Political Studies. 54: 651–670.
Lichterman, Paul (1995). “Piecing Together Multicultural Community: Cultural

Differences in Community Building Among Grass-Roots Environmentalists,” Social
Problems. 42(4): 513–534.
Luibheid, Eithne and Khokha, Sasha (2001). “Building Alliances between Immigrant
Rights and Queer Movements.” In Forging Radical Alliances across Difference: Coalition
Politics for the New Millennium, edited by Jill M. Bystydzienski and Steven P. Schacht,
77–90. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Luna, Zakiya T. (2010). “Marching Toward Reproductive Justice: Coalitional (Re) Framing
of the March for Women’s Lives,” Sociological Inquiry. 80: 554–578.
Mantler, Gordon K. (2013). Power to the Poor: Black–Brown Coalition and the Fight for
Economic Justice, 1960–1974. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Mayer, Brian (2008). Blue–Green Coalitions: Fighting for Safe Workplaces and Healthy
Communities. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
McCammon, Holly J. and Campbell, Karen E. (2002). “Allies on the Road to Victory:
Coalition Formation between the Suffragists and the Woman’s Christian Temperance
Union,” Mobilization. 7: 231–251.
Page 14 of 17

McCammon, Holly J. and Van Dyke, Nella (2010). “Applying Qualitative Comparative
Analysis to Empirical Studies of Social Movement Coalition Formation.” In Strategic
Alliances: Coalition Building and Social Movements, edited by Nella Van Dyke and Holly J.
McCammon, 292–315. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
McCarthy, John D. and Zald, Mayer N. (1977). “Resource Mobilization and Social
Movements: A Partial Theory,” American Journal of Sociology. 82(6): 1212–1241.
Meyer, David S. and Corrigall-Brown, Catherine (2005). “Coalitions and Political Context:
US Movements Against the War in Iraq,” Mobilization. 10: 327–344.
Meyer, David S. and Whittier, Nancy (1994). “Social Movement Spillover,” Social
Problems. 41: 277–298.
Mix, Tamara L. (2011). “Rally the People: Building Local–Environmental Justice

Grassroots Coalitions and Enhancing Social Capital,” Sociological Inquiry. 81: 174–194.
Morris, Aldon D. and Staggenborg, Suzanne (2004). “Leadership in Social Movements.”

In The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, edited by David A. Snow, Sarah A.
Soule, and Hanspeter Kriesi, 171–196. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
Murphy, Gillian (2005). “Coalitions and the Development of the Global Environmental
Movement: A Double-Edged Sword,” Mobilization. 10: 235–250.
Obach, Brian K. (2004). Labor and the Environmental Movement: A Quest for Common
Ground. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Obach, Brian (2010). “Political Opportunity and Social Movement Coalitions: The Role of
Policy Segmentation and Nonprofit Tax Law.” In Strategic Alliances: Coalition Building
and Social Movements, edited by Nella Van Dyke and Holly J. McCammon, 197–218.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Okamoto, Dina G. (2010). “Organizing across Ethnic Boundaries in the Post-Civil Rights
Era: Asian American Panethnic Coalitions.” In Strategic Alliances: Coalition Building
(p. 339) and Social Movements, edited by Nella Van Dyke and Holly J. McCammon, 143–
169. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Park, Hyung Sam (2008). “Forming Coalitions: A Network-Theoretic Approach to the

Contemporary South Korean Environmental Movement,” Mobilization. 13: 99–114.
Poloni-Staudinger, Lori (2009). “Why Cooperate? Cooperation among Environmental

Groups in the United Kingdom, France, and Germany,” Mobilization. 14: 375–396.
Reese, Ellen, Petit, Christine, and Meyer, David S. (2010). “Sudden Mobilization:
Movement Crossovers, Threats, and the Surprising Rise of the U.S. Antiwar Movement.”
In Strategic Alliances: Coalition Building and Social Movements, edited by Nella Van Dyke
and Holly J. McCammon, 266–291. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Page 15 of 17

Rohlinger, Deanna A. and Quadagno, Jill (2009). “Framing Faith: Explaining Cooperation
and Conflict in the U.S. Conservative Christian Political Movement,” Social Movement
Studies. 8: 341–358.
Roth, Benita (2010). “ ‘Organizing One’s Own’ as Good Politics: Second Wave Feminists
and the Meaning of Coalition.” In Strategic Alliances: Coalition Building and Social
Movements, edited by Nella Van Dyke and Holly J. McCammon, 99–118. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Staggenborg, Suzanne (1986). “Coalition Work in the Pro-Choice Movement:

Organizational and Environmental Opportunities and Obstacles,” Social Problems. 33:
374–390.
Staggenborg, Suzanne (2010). “Conclusion: Research on Social Movement Coalitions.” In

Strategic Alliances: Coalition Building and Social Movements, edited by Nella Van Dyke
and Holly J. McCammon, 316–329. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Suh, Doowon (2011). “Institutionalizing Social Movements: The Dual Strategy of the
Korean Women’s Movement,” The Sociological Quarterly. 52: 442–471.
Tarrow, Sidney (2005). The New Transnational Activism. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Van Dyke, Nella (2003). “Crossing Movement Boundaries: Factors That Facilitate
Coalition Protest by American College Students, 1930–1990,” Social Problems. 50: 226–
250.
Van Dyke, Nella and McCammon, Holly J. (2010). Strategic Alliances: Coalition Building
and Social Movements. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
von Bülow, Marisa (2011). “Brokers in Action: Transnational Coalitions and Trade
Agreements in the Americas,” Mobilization. 16: 165–180.
Wang, Dan J. and Soule, Sarah A. (2012). “Social Movement Organizational Collaboration:
Networks of Learning and the Diffusion of Protest Tactics, 1960–1995,” American Journal
of Sociology. 117: 1674–1722.
Widener, Patricia (2007). “Benefits and Burdens of Transnational Campaigns: A

Comparison of Four Oil Struggles in Ecuador,” Mobilization. 12: 21–36.
Williams, Heather L. (1999). “Mobile Capital and Transborder Labor Rights Mobilization,”
Politics and Society. 27: 139–166.
Zald, Mayer N. and Ash, Robert (1966). “Social Movement Organizations: Growth, Decay
and Change,” Social Forces. 44: 327–341.
Notes:
Page 16 of 17

(1.) We thank Mario Diani and Donatella della Porta for helpful comments on an earlier
draft of our chapter.
(2.) Here we focus on coalitions in social movements, acknowledging that coalitions occur
in other domains as well, for instance, in party politics and military campaigns (see, e.g.,
Kreps 2011). See Diani and Bison (2004) for a discussion of types of coalitions.
Holly J. McCammon
Holly J. McCammon is Professor of Sociology at Vanderbilt University with secondary

appointments in Law and Human and Organizational Development. Her research
centers on women’s activism, including use of litigation as a social movement
strategy. She has published widely on women’s collective action, including her book
The U.S. Women’s Jury Movements and Strategic Adaptation: A More Just Verdict.
Minyoung Moon
Minyoung Moon, Department of Sociology, Vanderbilt University
Page 17 of 17

Social Movement Coalitions PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Movement Coalitions PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Movement Coalitions

Oxford Handbooks Online

Print Publication Date: Nov 2015

Abstract and Keywords

Subscriber: University College London; date: 04 May 2018

Defining Social Movement Coalitions

In addition to the degree of formalization and permanency, social movement coalitions

Subscriber: University College London; date: 04 May 2018

Not surprisingly, scholarship on social movement coalitions reveals important diversity in

Circumstances Facilitating and Hindering

Subscriber: University College London; date: 04 May 2018

Shared Ideology, Identity, Interests, and Goals

A common finding is that groups sharing ideological orientations, similar identities, or

(p. 329) Social Ties

Subscriber: University College London; date: 04 May 2018

An intriguing area of research considers “bridge builders” or “brokers,” that is,

Opportunities and Threats in the Broader Context

Subscriber: University College London; date: 04 May 2018

Subscriber: University College London; date: 04 May 2018

Conjunctural Causation in Future Research

Subscriber: University College London; date: 04 May 2018

When it comes to transnational coalitions, their impact on domestic mobilization is not

Subscriber: University College London; date: 04 May 2018

Studying social movement–political party coalitions in Latin America, Almeida (2010)

(p. 334) Survival of Coalitions

Finally, some scholars examine coalition longevity as a type of outcome. Long-lasting

Coalitions are often composed of diverse organizations, and differences in ideologies,

Subscriber: University College London; date: 04 May 2018

Factors external to coalitions, such as a favorable context for mobilization generally,

Additional Possibilities for Future Research on

solidarity incentives. In addition, it may be that movement alliances produce negative

Subscriber: University College London; date: 04 May 2018

Barkan, Steven E. (1986). “Interorganizational Conflict in the Southern Civil Rights

Beamish, Thomas D. and Luebbers, Amy J. (2009). “Alliance Building across

Borland, Elizabeth (2010). “Crisis as a Catalyst for Cooperation? Women’s Organizing in

Chang, Paul Y. (2008). “Unintended Consequences of Repression: Alliance Formation in

Subscriber: University College London; date: 04 May 2018

Cornfield, Daniel B. and McCammon, Holly J. (2010). “Approaching Merger: The

D’Emilio, John (1983). Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities. Chicago: University of

Di Gregorio, Monica (2012). “Networking in Environmental Movement Organisation

Diaz-Veizades, Jeannette and Chang, Edward T. (1996). “Building Cross-Cultural

Subscriber: University College London; date: 04 May 2018

Gilmore, Stephanie (2008). Feminist Coalitions: Historical Perspectives on Second-Wave

Guenther, Katja M. (2010). “The Strength of Weak Coalitions: Transregional Feminist

Joyner, Nancy Douglas (1982). “Coalition Politics: A Case Study of an Organization’s

Subscriber: University College London; date: 04 May 2018

Kreps, Sarah E. (2011). Coalitions of Convenience: United States Military Interventions

Lee, Jung-eun (2011). “Insularity or Solidarity? The Impacts of Political Opportunity

Lichterman, Paul (1995). “Piecing Together Multicultural Community: Cultural

Subscriber: University College London; date: 04 May 2018

Mix, Tamara L. (2011). “Rally the People: Building Local–Environmental Justice

Morris, Aldon D. and Staggenborg, Suzanne (2004). “Leadership in Social Movements.”

169. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Park, Hyung Sam (2008). “Forming Coalitions: A Network-Theoretic Approach to the

Poloni-Staudinger, Lori (2009). “Why Cooperate? Cooperation among Environmental

Subscriber: University College London; date: 04 May 2018

Staggenborg, Suzanne (1986). “Coalition Work in the Pro-Choice Movement:

Staggenborg, Suzanne (2010). “Conclusion: Research on Social Movement Coalitions.” In

Widener, Patricia (2007). “Benefits and Burdens of Transnational Campaigns: A

Subscriber: University College London; date: 04 May 2018

Holly J. McCammon is Professor of Sociology at Vanderbilt University with secondary

Minyoung Moon, Department of Sociology, Vanderbilt University

Subscriber: University College London; date: 04 May 2018