1. INTRODUCTION
The
Social Movements Theory of International Relations has not always enjoyed the
popularity of its siblings. Outside the field, many a raised eyebrow greets its
mention and within the field, there is not enough congruence about its
relevance or lack of relevance. It has been the contention of some authors that
an impasse exists between those who overestimate and those who underestimate
the relevance of social movements in international relations and international
politics.[1]
This
relevance has been questioned in juxtaposition with at least two of the basic beliefs
of the Realist theory of International Relations; its overarching
state-centrism and its denial of the pertinence of moral questions in
international politics. With a “cast iron grip” on international politics such
as Realism has over the discipline, Social Movements Theory has not been
allowed prominence[2]
even as the activities of some social movements have had great historical political
impact.[3]
Against this backdrop, this paper intends to elucidate the Social Movements
Theory of International Relations with a view of according it its place in the
discipline and showing how its relevance is assured in a practical real life
event in modern day International Relations discourse. In doing this, it shall
examine Social Movements as sociological phenomena, critically analyse the
Social Movement Theory while relating it to a core issue in current
international politics and round up with a conclusion.
1.1 Methodology
This
paper shall employ secondary sources as books, journals (web-based), published
articles and written works (web-based) that pertain to the elucidation intended
herein.
As
with many sociological phenomena, there is no clean cut definition of social
movements. Each movement shares some features in common with other movements,
without any feature being both sufficiently inclusive and sufficiently
exclusive to demarcate and identify each or one from the other. What all
movements share in common they tend to share with things other than movements
and yet those characteristics which are unique to some are not shared by all.[5]
However, for the purposes of a paper as such, a working definition is necessary
and though it may neither be all inclusive or narrowed down as to exclude
certain aspects, characteristics and features of social movements together with
the definition aid to delineate the phenomenon.
Loosely
defined, Social Movements, unlike the formally organised and institutionalised
structures of political parties, are an informal collective movement of people
loosely coordinated in their actions with some sort of leadership group to give
its actions coherence which though informally organised, has purpose and
direction.[6] A social movement is not the same thing as a single organization –
although it may also include civic organizations and associations – neither is
it the same as a single protest, but the concept refers to more continuous
action. [7] Sidney Tarrow’s conception
of social movements is similar:
Contentious politics occurs when
ordinary people, often in league with more influential citizens, join forces in
confrontation with elites, authorities and opponents…When backed by dense
social networks and galvanised by culturally resonant, action-oriented symbols,
contentious politics leads to sustained interaction with opponents. The result
is the social movement.[8]
The vacillating nature of social movements was reflected in some of the
definitions advanced by sociologists. Wilson posits:
Social movements nurture both heroes
and clowns, fanatics and fools. They function to move people beyond their
mundane selves to acts of bravery, savagery, and selfless charity. Animated by
the injustices, sufferings, and anxieties they see around them, men and women
in social movements reach beyond the customary resources of the social order to
launch their own crusade against the evils of society. In so doing they reach
beyond themselves and become new men and women.[9]
Robin Cohen cites a recent definition from Byrne who defines social
movements, based on certain characteristics, as:
·
unpredictable (for example, women’s movements do not always arise where
women are most oppressed);
·
irrational (adherents do not act out of self-interest);
·
unreasonable (adherents think they are justified in flouting the law);
and
·
disorganised (they avoid formalizing their organization even when it
seems like a good idea to do so).[10]
2.1 Characteristics of Social Movements
Encapsulating information from prominent social movement researchers (della
Porta & Diani 1999, 16; Ilmonen 1998, 15–16; Melucci 1989, 29; 1996,
292–293) the following characteristics are typical of social movements:[11]
Informal interaction networks: Social movements
consist of networks of actors, which may but not necessarily include formal
organizations. Thus, the term “participants” of social movements is preferable than
“members.”
Shared beliefs and collective identity: Participants of social movements share similar goals, values and
ideals. Based on these they have a feeling of solidarity, sense of belonging,
and a collective identity. Often social movements also have an identified enemy,
which in many instances is the state.
Continuity: Social movements are different from single protest events, since they
do have at least some temporal continuity and single actions are organized and
viewed in the larger context of the movement and its cause.
Focus on conflicting issues: Social movements
typically attempt to accomplish a social change and or protest against some
change. Therefore they tend to cause social conflicts due to the deliberate and
conscious attempt to reorganise and defend society itself.[12]
Use of various forms of protest: Social movements typically engage in various forms of protesting, such
as organizing rallies and demonstrations, boycott campaigns, petitions, or through
civil disobedience.
Progressive changes in “leadership” and
participants:[13] Influence in the
movements progressively changes and shifts as it develops and grows. It may
begin with the strong influence of a charismatic persona, then intellectuals
and, if it survives for long, administrative individuals take the reins. The
character of is participants change along the line as well, at times fanatical
and at other times, sporadic. This heterogeneity can often be the cause of
internal conflicts.
Progressive changes in goals and
strategies:[14] This is similar to changes in leadership and participants. Goals and
strategies in movements have a tendency to progressively change with time
becoming broader and oftentimes vaguer. Such changes are strongly influenced by
relationships between the movement and the larger society and between the movement
and other social movements.
Some processes have been fingered as
key to the historical formation of social movements.
Urbanisation: This resulted in larger settlements, where people of similar goals could find each
other, gather and organize.
Social Interaction: Urbanisation facilitated social
interaction between scores of people, and it was in these urban areas
that early social movements first appeared.
Process of
industrialisation: Industrialisation made for
the gathering of large masses of workers in the same region and makes it
obvious why many of the early social movements addressed matters such as
economic wellbeing, which is so important to the worker class.
Mass Education: Many other social movements were created at universities, where the process of mass
education brought many people together and created the atmosphere for
these movements to thrive.
The development of communication technologies:
This was a huge fillip for social movements as their creation and activities
became easier - from printed pamphlets circulating in the 18th century coffeehouses to newspapers and Internet, all those
tools became important factors in their growth.
The spread of democracy and political
rights:
Democratic ideals and rights like freedom
of speech also
made the creation and functioning of
social movements much easier.
Reform Movements: As the name infers, these are movements organized to carry out reforms
in some specific areas. The reformers endeavour to change elements of the
system for better, e.g. the Civil Rights Movement, Women's Liberation Movement,
Arya Samaj Movement, etc.
Revolutionary Movements: Revolutionary movements deny that the system will even work, are
deeply dissatisfied with the social order and push for radical change. They
advocate replacing the entire existing structure with an objective to
reorganise society in accordance with their own ideological blueprint.
Revolutionary movements generally become violent as they progress, for instance
The Protestant Reformation Movement, the Socialist Movement, the Communist
Revolution of China and in some instances, the Islamist Movement.
Reactionary or Revivalist Movement: These movements aim to reverse social change. They highlight the
importance and greatness of traditional values, ideologies and institutional
arrangements and desiring for these values to remain, they strongly criticize
the fast moving changes of the present. Like their revolutionary movements
counterparts, there may exist strands of reactionary or revivalist movements
who may turn violent.
Resistance Movement: In a typification that almost mirrors the reactionary movement; the
resistance movements are formed to resist a change that is already taking place
in society. These can be directed against social and cultural changes which are
already happening in the areas where these movements originate. The difference
from reactionary or revivalist is that while in the reactionary the change has
completely taken place and a reversal is sought, the change is still ongoing
when the resistance movement comes into being to nip it accordingly.
Utopian Movement: This movement is unique in its attempts to take the society or a
section of it towards a state of perfection. These loosely structured
collectivities envision a radically changed and blissful state, either on a
large scale at some time in the future or on a smaller scale in the present. Though,
its Utopian ideal and the means to attaining it are often vague, many utopian
movements have quite specific programmes for social change such as the Hare
Krishna Movement of the 70s, the Communists and Socialists pronouncement of a
movement towards the classless, casteless society free from all kinds of
exploitation, etc.
Peasant Movement: Peasant movement is an attempt by a group to effect change in the face
of resistance and the peasants constituting this group are people who are
engaged in an agricultural or related production with primitive means and who
surrender part of their yields or its equivalent to landlords or their agents.
The genesis of peasant movements rest in the relationship patterns of different
social categories existing within the framework of feudal and semi feudal
structure of our society. In recent times, the nature and objectives of the
peasant movement have changed to getting remunerative prices for agricultural
produce, to increase agricultural production, to establish parity between
prices of agricultural produce and industrial goods and to get minimum wages
for the agricultural labourers.
Feminist Movement: The feminist movement is a rich and vibrant movement which has taken
different forms in different parts of the world but always in pursuit of
women’s interests. For instance, fifty years ago when India became independent,
it was widely acknowledged that the battle for freedom had been fought as much
by women as by men. The trajectory of this movement is usually traced from the
social reform movements of the 19th century when campaigns for the betterment
of the conditions of women's lives were taken up, initially by men. By the end
of the century women had begun to organize themselves and gradually they took
up a number of causes such as education, the conditions of women's work and so
on. It was in the early part of the 20th century that women's organizations
were set up, and many of the women who were active in these later became involved
in the other movements.
Apart from the few types of social
movements already mentioned, there exists another more elaborate taxonomy for
typifying the movements. This table shows that classification using broad
subdivisions that have two contrasting typifications of movements under each.[17]
|
1.
|
SCOPE
|
Reform Movements (advocating change in norms and laws, e.g. green movement concerning
the environment)
|
|
Radical Movements (dedicated to fundamental change in value systems e.g. American Civil
Rights Movement)
|
||
|
2.
|
TYPE OF CHANGE
|
Innovation Movements (want to introduce or change particular norms)
|
|
Conservative Movements (seek to preserve existing norms)
|
||
|
3.
|
TARGETS
|
Group-focus Movement (focused on affecting groups or society in general e.g. change in
political system)
|
|
Individual-focus Movement (focussed on affecting individuals, e.g. religious group movements)
|
||
|
4.
|
METHODS OF WORK
|
Peaceful Movements (advocate nonviolent means of protest in pursuit of goals)
|
|
Violent Movements (resort to violence and in some cases take the form of a terrorist
organisation)
|
||
|
5.
|
OLD AND NEW
|
Old Movements (movements dating back to the 18th century and composed
mainly of peasants)
|
|
New Movements (movements which became dominant from the second half of the 20th
century, e.g. the feminist and pro-choice movements)
|
||
|
6.
|
RANGE
|
Global Movements (movements that have a global objective or that seek to address
matters on a transnational scale, e.g. the animal rights movement)
|
|
Local Movements (movements with a local scope and objective)
|
3. SOCIAL MOVEMENT THEORIES
Years of study have produced theories
of social movement formulated by sociologists to conceptualise the phenomenon. There
are as many several theories as there are theorists and herein, these theories
shall be examined: The Deprivation theory, Mass-Society Theory,
Structural-Strain Theory, Resource-Mobilisation Theory and what is termed the
“New Social Movements” Theory.
3.1 Deprivation Theory
This theory states that social
movements arise as a result of people’s reaction to a feeling of deprivation;
when people believe they have been deprived of things that they consider they
merit, conveniences that they feel they deserve and privileges that should
accrue to them by necessity.[18] The deprivation theory
thus contends “that social movements have their foundations among people who
feel deprived of some good(s) or resource(s) (therefore,) individuals who are
lacking some good, service, or comfort are more likely to organize a social
movement to improve (or defend) their conditions.”[19]
Relative Deprivation is a strand of the Deprivation theory and it holds that when a
disadvantage is perceived based on some comparison with situations and events
elsewhere, the disadvantaged organise to press for change, be it partial or
total to undo this disadvantage. The example given pertains to research carried
out in the middle of the 19th century by Alexis de Tocqueville
concerning the revolution that occurred in France. He questioned why a similar
uprising did not take place in Germany where living conditions were observably
worse off. He concluded that given this theory, the German peasants had known
nothing about conditions in France and had grown inured to feudal servitude.
They thus had no basis for feeling deprived – a feeling that could have
triggered movements for change. On the other hand, improving social conditions
in parts of France in the latter part of the 18th century raised the
expectations of its people and mirroring James Davies’ prediction, led to the
French revolution.[20]
Criticisms
Several criticisms have been levelled
against this theory. Its failure to adequately point out why social movements
are likely to break out among certain categories of people and not emerge among
stands out as a major weakness of the theory. The absence of a method or
framework to know what indices to look for and what symptoms to identify the
likelihood of the emergence of a social movement were the Achilles’ heel in the
Deprivation theory of Social Movements.[21]
Again, it has been argued that the
feeling of deprivation is often a constant feeling at each point in time.
People feel deprived almost all the time at one level or the other. That being
the case, the theory did not cover what makes one deprived group coalesce into
a social movement and the other does not when all suffer deprivation of some
kind.[22]
In addition, the reasoning behind the
theory was said to be circular and was thus involved in the fallacy of begging
the question.[23]
This is so because the only evidence for deprivation is the social movement and
if deprivation is said to be the cause and the same deprivation is the only
evidence of social movement, the reasoning is circular and therefore,
fallacious.[24]
3.2 Mass-Society Theory
William Kornhauser[25] is credited with the
development of this approach. The theory suggests that people who are isolated
or rendered insignificant by varied societal factors within a broad and complex
society feel attracted to social movements. Their internal notion of detachment
seems to galvanise them to joining social movements. This characterisation
gives a personal rather than political attraction to involvement in social
movements.[26]
To such individuals,
therefore, “social movements, according to this theory, provide a sense of
empowerment and belonging that the movement members would otherwise not have.”[27]
Criticisms
The overwhelming focus
of this theory on psychological origins to the detriment of other factors for
determining a participant’s interest in joining a social movement remains a
sore point for the theory.[28]
However important the individual’s attraction to joining a movement may seem,
it amounts to an unfair reduction to narrow it all down to that singular
reason. It may be more worthwhile considering psychological states and
rationales along with other political, economic and societal reasons that may
impinge on the individual and motivate participation in movements. It should
also be taken into consideration that Aho, in his study of Idaho Christian
Patriotism, did not find that members of that movement were more likely to have
been socially detached. And after all said and done, sometimes, the key to
joining the movement was having a friend or associate who was a member of the
movement.[29]
3.3 Structural-Strain Theory
Developed by Neil
Smelser[30]
in the early 1960s, the Structural-Strain theory identified six social
conditions that foster social movements. They are:
·
Structural Conduciveness
(engenders a belief that there are problems in the society)
·
Structural Strain (engenders
a belief in deprivation)
·
Growth and Spread of an
Explanation (a solution to the problem people have is proposed and spreads)
·
Precipitating Factors (that
catalyst that turns discontent into a movement)
·
Mobilization for Action (the
actual organising for the movement)
·
Lack of Social Control (the
openness of the social condition to exploitation by the movement for change)[31]
Several movements of the pro-democratic
variant in Eastern Europe followed these steps with textbook fidelity.
Conditions were deemed feasible for the changes the movements pushed for and in
many cases, they were successful.
Criticisms
The Structural-Strain approach has been
identified as being distinctly social rather than psychological. However, it
does contain the fallacy of circularity that plagued the Relative Deprivation
theory, relying as it does on deprivation as a cause and an indication of
strain. In addition, the theory did not include important variables of
resources, such as the mass media, into a formula for explaining social
movements and their relative success or failure.[32]
3.4 Resource-Mobilization Theory
This theory emphasizes the part played
by the availability or otherwise of resources in the emergence of social
movements. It argues that social movements are unlikely to emerge or will have
little or no success whatsoever if they do emerge in the absence of necessary
resources. By resources is meant “knowledge, money, media, labour, solidarity,
legitimacy, and internal and external support from power elite.”[33] The key denominator here
is the ability of this theory to explain why some discontented and deprived
individuals are able to coalesce into a movement and operate effectively and
others cannot. By implication, it means that those who never get to form
movements and those movements that died at birth or soon after suffered from a
dearth of resources.
Some of the
assumptions of the theory include:
·
there will always be grounds for
protest in modern, politically pluralistic societies because there is constant
discontent (i.e., grievances or deprivation); this de-emphasizes the importance
of these factors as it makes them ubiquitous
·
actors are rational; they weigh the
costs and benefits from movement participation
·
members are recruited through networks;
commitment is maintained by building a collective identity and continuing to
nurture interpersonal relationships
·
movement organization is contingent
upon the aggregation of resources
·
social movement organizations require
resources and continuity of leadership
·
social movement entrepreneurs and
protest organizations are the catalysts which transform collective discontent
into social movements; social movement organizations form the backbone of
social movements
·
the form of the resources shapes the
activities of the movement (e.g., access to a TV station will result in the
extensive use TV media)
·
movements develop in contingent
opportunity structures that influence their efforts to mobilize; as each
movement's response to the opportunity structures depends on the movement's
organization and resources, there is no clear pattern of movement development
nor are specific movement techniques or methods universal.[34]
Criticisms
The heavy emphasis placed on resources
and their availability has not escaped critics of the Resource-Mobilisation
Theory. There is historical evidence of movements that have weathered the storm
and recorded meaningful achievements without any particular influx of
resources, financial or otherwise. The Civil Rights Movement in the United
States immediately comes to mind. It proves that some movements are effective
even without these resources but dependent on the time and labour of their
participants.
3.5 “New Social Movements” Theory
The complexity of today’s social
environment[35]
calls for novel thinking and the New Social Movements theory attempts just
that. This approach explains the distinctive features of more recent social
movements that deal with global ecology, native rights among others. These
movements turn their focus on the state with the recognition, as
aforementioned, of the state-centric system operating in the international
scene and the knowledge that these governments now have the power to set
policies that affect entire populations.[36]
It gives the New Social Movements a
more international scope to cover as most of them are transnational, united
across borders and pursuing their interests yet. The advanced information and
communications technology has augmented the potentialities of the reach of
social movements on an international scale. These movements have also learned
how to effectively use the mass media and pool all resources that are necessary
and available together for their purposes. Some of these New Social Movements
have tapped into the Internet and have opened themselves to the Social
Networking of the World Wide Web. The 2009/10 Iranian election protests
demonstrated how social networking sites are making the mobilization of large
numbers of people quicker and easier. Using social networking sites such as
Twitter and Facebook, Iranians were able to organize and speak out against the
election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Typical to repressive governments the world
over, the Iranian government ordered widespread censorship of the web and
social networking sites.
It is pertinent to note that the “new”
differs from the “old” social movements in different facets. In the first
instance, the ideological contexts are different. The New Social Movements’
pursuits were framed by concerns about individual and cultural rights and had
to articulate claims about fundamental economic justice or human or political
rights. The ideology was now shaped by values of self-actualisation, community
and personal satisfaction within that community. In addition, the “new”
movements preferred forms of actions that differed from the “old”. Their
actions typified a distrust of politics and favoured small scale and
decentralised organisations which were anti-hierarchical while advocating for
direct democracy. Also, the new movements were associated with the rise of a
new middle class of educated professionals with a cultural or social expertise
rather than being associated with grievances of lower status and economic
groups.[37]
Criticisms
The formulation of the theory is
limiting in the sense that there are groups that will be left out of the
purview of “new social movements.” Contemporary welfare states, for example,
whose characteristics are more diverse than what is postulated in this theory
and a good number of other movements like those for group rights and basic
human rights would find themselves “schemed out” in the consideration
completely.[38]
Though having a sociological bent,
these theories are just as related to International Relations as any other. The
tapestry of interconnectedness is so interwoven as to be impossible to
extricate one from the other. The complex labyrinth of sociological factors
impinges on the practice of International Relations and phenomena in
international relations have broad implications for the practice of sociology,
as we shall see in the context of a current affairs example.
4. Contemporary Example
In a December 4, 2011 article in the
New York Times, Al Baker, writing about the Occupy Movements in America, asks
if the tactics the police are using to contain the demonstrators in Oakland
amount to the militarisation of the American police. The police, who had
planned a surprise night-time invasion, came in bearing helmets and face
shields and doused demonstrators at the University of California with pepper
spray. He noted that though similarities undeniably exist between both security
apparatuses, American law and tradition have tried to draw a clear line between
both forces; for though soldiers are tasked with fighting wars and even killing
enemies, the police are the citizens and the citizens are the police.[39] Something then must have
necessitated this militaristic mien of these “cops” which several other images
from the Occupy Protests prove is not a singular incident but is rapidly
becoming a regular media item.
It is government’s response to a
phenomena for which it was poorly prepared, which has stubbornly refused to go
and to which government has no ready answers – that is the Occupy Movement.
One of their websites describes the
movement as a people-powered unit that began on the 17th of
September, 2011 in Liberty Square in Manhattan’s financial district and has
spread to over 100 cities in the US and actions in over 1,500 cities globally.
The Occupy Wall Street movement is fighting back against the corrosive power of
major banks and multinational corporations over the democratic process, the
role of Wall Street in creating an economic collapse that has caused the
greatest recession in generations. The movement is inspired by popular
uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia, and aims to fight back against the richest 1%
of people that are writing the rules of an unfair global economy that is
foreclosing on the future of a majority of Americans.[40]
4.1 Understanding Occupy Movement
A July 13, 2011 blog post by
Canadian-based Adbusters foundation known for their advertisement-free
anti-consumerist magazine is said to have been the trigger for the Occupy Wall
Street protests. In the post, a peaceful occupation of Wall Street was proposed
to protest corporate influence on democracy, the absence of legal repercussion
for the bankers behind the recent global financial crisis and a growing
disparity in wealth. The internet group Anonymous
encouraged its followers to partake in the protest. Some other small groups
joined in.
As the Arab Spring protests before it –
and which inspired it, the Occupy Wall Street movement itself began to inspire
protests across Europe.[41] All these prototypical
movements that gained traction from the Occupy Wall Street movement had in
common a reliance on social, media, electronic messaging to circumvent the
authorities as well as the feeling that financial institutions, corporations
and the political elite have been malfeasant in their behaviour towards youth
and the Middle class.
Occupy Wall Street in turn gave rise to
the “Occupy” movement in the US and around the world.
In a move that belied media reports
that the protesters did not have any clear demands, the Occupy movement in late
November, 2011 incorporated their aims into a list that included:
·
Campaign for financial reforms
·
Media Democratisation – that media
companies be owned and managed by their staff
·
The creation of citizen boards to influence corporate
regulation and deter regulatory capture
·
“Expropriation” of the health insurance
industry
·
Immediate review of the
constitutionality of the Patriot Act
·
Immediate student loan reform and
gradual implementation of a publicly funded education system
·
Restoration of the social safety net
·
An end to imperialistic wars
·
Employee ownership plans be required of
private corporations
·
Investigation of crimes of the existing
financial industry and replacement of that industry by publicly owned,
worked-managed institutions
·
A truly democratic “economy and
political system that works for the 99%[42]
Some of the movement’s participants
have engendered a culture of diverse and multi-media art production and
distribution many of which are being archived and gathered by institutions like
the National Museum of American History and New York Historical Society. It is
expected that such visually appealing pieces would impact on the mainstream of
the movement through the art-form of imagery and help preserve solidarity and
unity within the structure of the movement. The Internet has also been a
veritable medium for the protesters who have turned to social media like IRC,
Facebook, Twitter and Meetup – using them to coordinate meetings, conference
calls on Skype have helped with meeting Occupy participants in other locations
and some of their events have been live-streamed online.[43]
So as not to drown the voice of the
individual participant in the cacophony, much of the movement’s “democratic”
process occurs in “working groups” where any protester is allowed to have their
say. The important decisions are often taken at “General Assemblies” led by
group facilitators using information gathered from multiple “working groups.”
These Assemblies hold every evening by 7. There, decisions are reached by
consensus and working group proposals are made to the meeting participants who
comment upon them. A stacking system, which has received critical views from
outside the movement, is employed by the protesters when deciding on the
sequence of speakers at these assemblies. This system allows those from the
most marginalised groups – women and minorities – speak first and white males
must wait.[44]
As the movements gain traction across
the world, there is no better way to feel the pulse of their impact than
through the voices of world leaders in countries where they have become a media
item.[45]
In America, President Barack Obama
walked the middle path when on the 16th of October he spoke in
support of the movement but quickly asked the protesters not to “demonise”
financial workers.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown in the UK
was quoted as saying, “There are voices in the middle who say, ‘Look, we can
build a better financial system that is more sustainable, that is based on a
better and proportionate sense of what’s just and fair and where people don’t
take reckless risks or, if they do, they’re penalized for doing so.’ ”
Opposition leader, Ed Miliband had this to add, “The challenge is that they
reflect a crisis of concern for millions of people about the biggest issue of
our time: the gap between their values and the way our country is run.”
Canada’s Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty
said, “There’s growing worry about a lack of opportunities for the younger
generation – particularly in the United States – and it’s up to governments to
ensure youth are able to capitalise on their education and find good jobs…I can
understand some legitimate frustration arising out of that.”
For India’s Prime Minister, Manmohan
Singh, the protests are “a warning for all those who are in charge of the
processes of governance.”
Brazil’s President, Dilma Rousseff
commented, “We agree with some of the expressions that some movements have used
around the world (in) demonstrations like the ones we see in the US and other
countries.”
Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, on his part
condemned the “horrible repression” of the activists and expressed solidarity
with the movement.
A message came from one collective of
the Tahrir Square protesters addressed to the Occupy Movements:
As the interests of
government increasingly cater to the interests and comforts of private,
transnational capital, our cities and homes have become progressively more
abstract and violent places, subject to the casual ravages of the next economic
development or urban renewal scheme. An entire generation across the globe has
grown up realising, rationally and emotionally, that we have no future in the
current order of things.[46]
The international and global consequences of the Occupy phenomenon are
captured in these quotes, first from Naomi Wolf:
Suddenly, the United
States looks like the rest of the furious, protesting, not-completely-free
world. Indeed, most commentators have not fully grasped that a world war is
occurring. But is unlike any previous war in human history; for the first time,
people around the world are not identifying and organising themselves along
national and religious lines, but rather in terms of a global consciousness and
demands for a peaceful life, a sustainable future, economic justice and basic
democracy. Their enemy is a global “corporatocracy” that has purchased
governments and legislatures, created its own armed enforcers, engaged in
systemic economic fraud, and plundered treasuries and ecosystems.”[47]
And from Robert Reich:
The disconnect
between Washington and the rest of the nation hasn’t been this wide since the
late 1960s. The two worlds are on a collision course: Americans who are losing
their jobs or their pay and can’t pay their bills are growing increasingly
desperate. Washington insiders, deficit hawks, regressive Republicans,
diffident Democrats, well-coiffed lobbyists, and the lobbyists’ wealthy patrons
on Wall Street and in corporate suites haven’t a clue or couldn’t care less. I
can’t tell you when the collision will occur but I’d guess 2012. Look elsewhere
around the world and you see a similar collision unfolding. The details differ
but the larger forces are similar. You see it in Spain, Greece, and Italy,
whose citizens are being squeezed by bankers insisting on austerity. You see it
in Chile and Israel, whose young people are in revolt. In the Middle East,
whose “Arab spring” is becoming a complex Arab fall and winter...the Occupier
movement is still in its infancy in the United State but it cannot be stopped.
Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game – an
economy that won’t respond, a democracy that won’t listen, and a financial
sector that holds all the cards. Here, as elsewhere, the people are rising.[48]
5. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
In elucidating the Social Movement
Theory of International Relations, the paper began by examining the Social
Movement phenomenon itself; its definition, characteristic features, processes
of formation and types. Then, the paper analysed and noted some criticisms of
the Social Movement Theories of Deprivation, Mass Society, Structural Strain,
Resource Mobilisation and of the New Social Movement. In addition, to place the
theory in context, an item from current international relations affairs was
used to bring the theory home.
The Occupy Movement was the news item
picked and based on the definition and characteristics, it qualifies as a
social movement. By comparison with movements such as the African-American
Civil Rights Movement (1896 – 1954), it is an extremely young movement.
However, its global appeal and reach within such a short period[49] is a testament to how
relevant to international relations social movements are.
The Occupy Movement, when juxtaposed
with the Theories of Social Movement turns out to be a movement that converges
features of theories with which it is concerned. It has strands of the Resource
Mobilization theory of Social Movement which stresses the importance of
critical resources for the emergence, sustainability and ultimately the
survival of any movement. The wildfire-spread of the Occupy Movement builds on
this: the resources were at hand and its emergence was only a matter of time.
It is noteworthy that resources here imply knowledge, skills, determination,
labour, media, solidarity and support from civil society and non-governmental
groups. However, the Occupy Movement went beyond Resource Mobilization because
had it relied only on these resources, as enunciated above, it probably may not
have had enough of those to sustain itself.
There was perceived social strain as
well, a belief of deprivation of the many in the midst of abundance for a few, a
general sense of anomie which the Movement latched on to. In such a social
structure, as was established under the Structure-strain Social Movement
Theory, these precipitating factors engender a discontented mentality in the
society and that is good enough reason for popular support in the event of the
emergence of any movement. This was the social fillip the Occupy Movement
gained from when it broke out.
Lastly, it bears the character of the
New Social Movements as well, and not just because it is a new social movement
by way of chronology. By strategically occupying Wall Street, the financial
nerve centre of the economy of the United States, the Occupy Wall Street
movement intends to force the hand of the United States government to act
especially in reversing policies that benefit 1% of the population at the
expense of the rest. This is typical of social movements in general. The
“newness” comes in when the movement is taken global and seen not just as
Occupy Wall Street, or Occupy Dataran in Malaysia, but as Occupy Movement. In
addition, these occupy movements are not “occupying” in isolation but are in
communication as advancement in information and communications technology has
augmented the potentialities of the reach of social movements on an
international scale. Social networking on the Internet using media such as
Twitter and Facebook, exchanging information through blogging, sharing videos
of brutality against participants by law enforcements with the world and the
ability to reach a wider audience directly than ever before are all hallmarks
of the New Social Movements and which the Occupy Movements aptly exemplify.
As a movement advocating for a
fundamental change of the value system in the economic realities, political
practice and social space, the Occupy Movement is of a radical typification
with a revolutionary mandate. Oftentimes, such movements tend to be factionist
with the break out of a violent faction.
That has been the case on the local
level with the Jama’atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda’awati wal-Jihad movement popularly
known as Boko Haram. Active since 2002, the movement gained international reckoning
with the outbreak of sectarian violence in the North in 2009. They call
themselves People committed to the propagation of the Prophet’s teachings and
jihad (the full meaning of their Arabic name) and have been the cause of no
less than 327 deaths today.[50] Their daredevil bombing
antics have gone as far as the United Nations building and the Police
Headquarters both in Abuja. They have been seen as opposed to Western education
but many do not go as far as asking why. Based on their experience,
Western-educated Muslims came back corrupt and changed from the upright, devout
adherents that they were prior to their “westernisation.”
As far as movements go, they stake a
claim to being one as well. Revolutionary and extremist, Boko Haram is a local
social movement intent on a violent approach in pursuance of its interests and
goals.
This paper has looked at the Social
Movement Theory of International Relations and related it to a contemporary
movement today. It also identified a local movement with similarities and noted
the violent tendencies of the latter. The paper thus concludes that in
examining Social Movement Theory in International Relations, it should not be
taken in isolation as if it is just a tree but must recognise that it is a part
of a forest. It is pertinent, therefore, to ask the question, “Of what is
Social Movement Theory in International Relations an instance?”
It is an instance of non-state actors
making their impact (a strong impact) on the international (or local as the
case may be) stage even with the realist grip (and its accompanying
state-centric foundations) on international relations.
[1] Gillian Wylie, Social Movements and
International Change: The Case of “Détente from Below”, http://www.gmu.edu/programs/icar/ijps/vol4_2/wylie.htm,
sourced 25 November, 2011 (Hereafter, “Gillian Wylie, Social Movements and
International Change”).
[2] Ibid.
[3] In 18th century England,
an underground pro-democracy movement gathered millions of signatures to urge
the King to establish a democratic constitution. It took a century for that
goal to be realised but
they had set the ball rolling. India
gained their independence from Britain in 1947 through the massive civil
disobedience efforts championed by Mahatma Gandhi. Established groups like the
NAACP and informal groups like Martin Luther King’s drove the civil rights
movement of the 1960s in the United States. In the 80s, Communist governments
in Eastern Europe were overthrown by large prodemocracy protests. In 2003,
massive protests against the proposed natural gas pipeline by the Bolivian
government and the death of about 80 people forced the president to tender his
resignation. See: W. Philips Shively, Power and Choice: An Introduction to
Political Science, Boston: McGraw Hill, 2005, p. 297. (Hereafter, “Philips
Shively, Power and Choice: An Introduction to Political Science”).
[4] The term “Social Movement” was first
introduced by German Sociologist Lorenz von Stein in his book, “History of the
French Social Movement from 1789 to Present (1850). See: Social Movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_movement,
sourced 30th September 2011.
[5] As
Nick Crossley argues in "Making Sense of Social Movements" many
definitions have been offered in the literature but are all problematic. Some
are too broad that they include phenomena beyond what we attribute to social
movements, and yet any attempts to narrow the definition down seem destined to
exclude certain movements or at least the range of their forms and activities.
Going further, he says every definition includes terms which themselves require
definition. Many agree social movements are ‘collective’ ventures, for example,
but what makes a venture count as collective? Is it a matter of numbers? If so,
how many? Is it a matter of a type of interconnection between people, an
organization or network? If so, how is that interconnection itself defined?
Does ‘wearing the badge’ and ‘buying the T-shirt’ make one part of a movement
or must one attend monthly meetings and engage in protest? And if the latter,
what counts as protest? Would wearing the aforementioned badge count as a
protest or must one stand in a group of three or more people waving a placard?
There can be no decisive answers to these questions, he avers. See: Nick
Crossley, Making Sense of Social Movements, Buckingham: Open University Press, 2002,
pp. 5,6 (Hereafter, Nick Crossley, “Making Sense of Social Movements”).
[6] Philips Shively, Power and Choice:
An Introduction to Political Science, p. 298
[7] In
his book, “Social Movements as communities,” Jochen Glaser cited the definition
of Social Movements advanced by della Porta and Diani:
Social movements are “(1) informal networks, based (2)
on shared beliefs and solidarity, which mobilise about (3) conflictual issues,
through (4) the frequent use of various forms of protest.” See: Jochen Glaser,
Social Movements as Communities” http://www.tasa.org.au/conferences/conferencepapers04/docs/THEORY/GLASER.pdf,
sourced 26th November, 2011
[8]
Cited in Nick Crossley, “Making Sense of Social Movements”, p. 8
[9] Robin Cohen, Transnational Social
Movements: An Assessment. http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/csgr/research/abstracts/abwp3999,
sourced 30th November, 2011
[10] Ibid.
[11]
Introduction to Social Movements,
https://www.amk.fi/opintojaksot/0702010/1178190640011/1178273357615/1178273530419/1178273592266.html, sourced 25 November, 2011
(Hereafter, Introduction to Social Movements)
[12] John J. Macionis and Linda M.
Gerber, “Collective Behaviour and Social Movements”, Sociology, http://www.wps.prenhall.com/ca_ph_macionis_sociology_5/23/6034/1544830.cw/index.html,
sourced 30th November, 2011 (Hereafter, John Macionis and Linda
Gerber, “Collective Behaviour and Social Movements”)
[13] “Unlike
an association, a social movement does not possess legitimate leaders in the
sense of being endowed with authority through some formal process. Leaders must
constantly substantiate their claims to leadership by demonstrating the
effectiveness of their influence on the followers. There is a relationship of
reciprocal influence. The followers, for their part, lack institutionalized
means of making their influence felt, such as referendums, legislatures, or
periodic elections of leaders. It falls to the leaders, therefore, to formulate
policies and decisions that will strike a responsive note in their following.
Having advanced such proposals, they must rely on either persuasion or coercion
to create the illusion that these are collective decisions made by the entire
movement. Propaganda thus becomes an important tool of leadership.” See: Social
Movement, http://www.history.com/topics/social-movement, history.com, sourced
29th November, 2011
[14] Ibid.
[15] Social Movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_movement,
sourced 30th September 2011
[16] Social Movement Types, http://www.sociologyguide.com/social-change/social-movements-type.php,
Sociology Guide: A Student’s Guide to Sociology, sourced 30th
November, 2011
[17] Social Movements, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_movement,
sourced 28th November, 2011
[19] Social Movements, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_movement,
sourced 28th November, 2011
[20] James David had predicted that
social movements are more likely to occur in a society when a shorter period of
decline follows an extended period of improvement in the standard of living of
a people. See: John Macionis and Linda Gerber, “Collective Behaviour and Social Movements”
[21] Ibid.
[22] Social Movements, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_movement,
sourced 28th November, 2011
[23] The circular argument is an argument
that commits the logical fallacy of assuming what it is intending to prove and
is also known as begging the question for example saying that, “President
Reagan was a great communicator because he had the knack of talking effectively
to the people.” (see: Circular Argument – Definition, Examples and Observations
http://www.grammar.about.com/od/c/g/circargterm.htm, sourced 29th
November, 2011
[25] William Kornhauser, Professor of
Sociology, Emeritus at Berkeley, was a political sociologist of repute, an
expert on social movements and was known for his pioneering 1959 book, The
Politics of Mass Society. See: In Memoriam http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/inmemoriam/williamkornhauser.htm,
sourced, 29th November, 2011
[26] Ibid.
[27] Social Movements, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_movement,
sourced 28th November, 2011
[28] John Macionis and Linda Gerber,
“Collective Behaviour and Social Movements”
[29] Social Movements, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_movement,
sourced 28th November, 2011
[30] Neil J. Smelser is a University
Professor Emeritus of Sociology and former director of the Center for Advanced
Study in the Behavioural Sciences at Stanford. He joined the UC Berkeley
faculty in 1958 and has authored 15 books including the popular The
Theory of Collective Behaviour. Center
for Studies in Higher Education, Neil J. Smelser http://www.cshe.berkeley.edu/people/nsmelser.htm,
sourced 30th November, 2011
[31] John Macionis and Linda Gerber,
“Collective Behaviour and Social Movements”
[32] Ibid.
[33] Social Movements, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_movement,
sourced 28th November, 2011
[34] Ibid.
[35]
As distinguished from the
“old” traditional social movements such as the labour and trade union movements mainly concerned
with the distribution of material wealth and resources, these “New Social
Movements” have been identified as cultural or identity movements because they
have typically struggled over recognition of previously oppressed, invisible
and unrecognized identities (such as those of sexual minorities), of meaningful
lifestyles, of human-nature-relationship and so on. In other words, protests
and struggles of new social movements are cultural and symbolic in nature; they
attempt to challenge the prevailing cultural codes of the mainstream society.
New social movements are therefore concerned about the symbolic resources: who
gets to define the cultural meanings and codes, who defines the reality we live
in. See: New Social Movements, https://www.amk.fi/opintojaksot/0702010/1178190640011/1178273357615/1178273530419/1178273592266.html,
sourced 29th November, 2011
[36] John Macionis and Linda Gerber,
“Collective Behaviour and Social Movements”
[37]
Social Movement Theories, http://stmarys.ca/~evanderveen/wvdv/social_change/social_movement_theories.htm,
sourced 30th November, 2011
[38] Ibid.
[39] Al
Baker, When the Police Go Military. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/sunday-review/have-american-police-become-militarized.xml,
sourced 4th December, 2011
[40] http://occupywallst.org/about. The
phrase “The 99%” (political slogan used
by protesters of the Occupy Movement) was originally launched as a Tumblr blog
page in late August of 2011 and refers to the concentration of wealth among the
top 1% of the income earners compared to the other 99% who are left to scramble
for the left overs. http://www.en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_movement
[41] Even in Nigeria some Occupy protests
are at this very moment being planned to protest the Federal Government’s
insensitivity if it goes ahead with the proposed removal of subsidies from oil
products.
[42] http://www.en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_movement
[43]
Ibid.
[44] A
similar system is operational in other places that have experienced the rise of
the Occupy Movement: Australia (Occupy Melbourne), Belgium (Occupy Antwerp),
Canada (Occupy Vancouver), Colombia, Cyprus (Occupy Buffer zone – the United
Nations controlled area), Germany (Occupy Berlin), Hong Kong, Israel (Occupy
Rothschild), Italy (Occupy Rome – had turned violent rapidly but was soon to
quieten down), Malaysia (Occupy Dataran), Mexico (Occupy Mexico city),
Mongolia, New Zealand (6 cities), Norway, Republic of Ireland, South Korea
(Occupy Seoul), Switzerland, UK, US. Ibid. It should be noted that the Greeks
took to the streets to protest austerity measures being introduced by the
government which they felt hard done by and protested to register their
disapproval.
[45]
For views of world leaders, see: Ibid.
[46] Ibid.
[47]
Allen Roland and Jim Fetzer, OWS is Trigger for Major Shift in Global
Consciousness http://www.thepeoplesvoices.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2011/11/20/ows-is-trigger-for-major-shift-in-global?tempskin=basic,
sourced 2nd December, 2011
[48]
Ibid.
[49]
“On November 10, 2011, The Daily
Telegraph reported that occupy had been the ‘most commonly
used English word on the internet and in print’ over the past 12 months
according to a top ten list published by media analysis company Global Language
Monitor.” See: http://www.en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_movement
[50] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boko_Haram
