Other theories

Since the early 1970s two new strands of theory and empirical research have arisen, one
in the United States and one in western Europe. The first, called resource mobilization
theory, takes as its starting point a critique of those theories that explain social
movements as arising from conditions of social disorganization and strain and as
finding their recruits among the isolated and alienated in society. By contrast, research
mobilization theorists argue that the success of social movements rests mainly on the
resources that are available to it; this means forming coalitions with already-existing
organizations, securing financial support, and mounting effective and organized
campaigns of political pressure. As a result of this emphasis, resource mobilization
theorists downplay the factor of ideology—and irrational factors generally—in the study
of social movements.

The second theory is the new social movement theory. It derives from
an intellectual dissatisfaction with the predominantly Marxist view that treats social
movements as reflecting a fundamental struggle among classes organized around
economic production. That theory, it is argued, has become less relevant as these classes
have been drawn into collective bargaining, the welfare system, and other social
advancements within the state. The “new social movements” that have arisen in their
place are interpreted as struggles against the social inequalities, the dominance of
the mass media, and other features of postindustrial capitalism and the welfare state.
These include youth, feminist, peace, ecological, civil rights, and
racial justice movements. Jürgen Habermas, a German sociologist, interpreted such
movements as protests against the excessive size and rationality of the state and
its bureaucracies and their intrusion into the private worlds of individuals.

The consequences of social movements

It has been suggested that committed participants in a social movement undergo a
psychological reorganization. It is clear that their new sense of security and importance
is acquired at the sacrifice of autonomy. As loyal members they tend to let the leaders do
their thinking for them, suppressing doubts as to the validity of the ideology and the
wisdom of the leaders’ decisions. They repeat their arguments in a dogmatic fashion;
persons who are not in the movement find it difficult to debate with them since they
start from different premises. Their perception is selective in a different way from the
perceptions of persons outside the movement. The ideology, for example, may lead them
to view all governmental authorities as villains, while ordinary citizens view them
as legitimate leaders, some good, some bad. The end product of this surrender of
autonomy may be an altered worldview. Some things taken for granted before becoming
part of the movement will never seem the same again, even after leaving the discipline of
the movement.

The end products of social movements as collectivities attempting to change the social
order cannot be analyzed simply in terms of success or failure. Failure may come as a
result of ruthless suppression of the movement or through widespread apathy. A
movement may wither away because too few take it seriously and it does not develop
enough power to force its program on society. Sometimes the remnants may linger for a
long time as a cult, oriented inward toward the gratifications that the members obtain
from participation but making no serious effort to change the social order.

Success is most apparent when a movement manages to have its power legitimized as
authority. In a successful revolution the social movement becomes the new source of
authority and respectability, and opposition to its values is defined as
counterrevolutionary. In other instances, the movement achieves power through
secession. Failing to compel acceptance of its values in the larger group or society, the
members withdraw into a new social system in which they can attempt to implement the
values separately from a hostile or indifferent society.

A less obvious form of success is the institutionalization of the values or some part of
them. Accepting the legitimacy of the movement’s values, the traditional associations in
the society incorporate them into their own values and implement them without a
transfer of authority to the movement. Thus the Socialist Party of America (1901–72)
saw many of its proposals adopted by the two major political parties and the
government without winning a major election or overthrowing the government.
Sometimes the social movement itself is institutionalized by being accorded authority as
the legitimate custodian of the new values. The movement is then transformed into
a bureaucratic association, as happened with the American labour movement of the
early 20th century and the Congress Party of India after British rule ended.
Lewis M. KillianRalph H. TurnerNeil J. SmelserThe Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica