SOCIAL MOVEMENTS THEORY

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.

2. SOCIAL MOVEMENT[4]

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.

2.2 Historical Processes of formation[15]

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.

2.3 Types of Social Movements[16]

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 19^th 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 18^th 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 17^th 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 16^th 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 18^th 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 26^th 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 30^th 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 30^th 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 29^th 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 30^th November, 2011

[17] Social Movements, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_movement, sourced 28^th November, 2011

[18] John Macionis and Linda Gerber, “Collective Behaviour and Social Movements”

[19] Social Movements, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_movement, sourced 28^th 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 28^th 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 29^th November, 2011

[24] John Macionis and Linda Gerber, “Collective Behaviour and Social Movements”

[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, 29^th November, 2011

[26] Ibid.

[27] Social Movements, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_movement, sourced 28^th November, 2011

[28] John Macionis and Linda Gerber, “Collective Behaviour and Social Movements”

[29] Social Movements, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_movement, sourced 28^th 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 30^th 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 28^th 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 29^th 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 30^th 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 4^th 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 2^nd 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