Suchergebnisse

Social movements have become a constitutive part of contemporary societies, especially so in democratic contexts where the institutional conditions allow for movements to be formed and express themselves freely. They involve conflictual relations with clearly identified opponents, are linked by dense informal networks, share a distinct collective identity, and engage primarily – but not exclusively – in protest activities. Explanations of movement mobilization have typically stressed a number of key factors, or combinations thereof: in particular, grievances, mobilizing structures, political opportunities, and framing processes. This chapter provides an overview of some key aspects relating to the study of social movements. Given the breath of this field, it can only be very selective in doing so. The chapter first addresses the question of the definition of social movements. Then it moves on to looking at the ways in which they have been studied. Finally, it briefly discusses what movements leave behind them, that is, the issue of their outcomes and consequences. The chapter concludes with a summary of the most salient aspects addressed and some directions for future research.

Social movements can be understood as a group of people organized in self-awareness that continuously challenges the existing system and values. This study aims to read the phenomenon of the 212 Movement (2016) in Jakarta, Indonesia using the perspective of the theory of social movements (1848-2013). This research used qualitative approach with descriptive methods. Data collected through observation, interviews and analysis of literatures and news media. This case study found the Movement 212 was able to mobilize millions of people including the category of the Social movement Based on Religiosity because militancy that mingled with voluntary attitudes that were seen in the behavior of the figures and the mass of the action. The religious basis is the main motive for the new social movement 212. The 295.8 km long march carried out by the Ciamis community led by K.H. Nonop Hanafi towards the Jakarta National Monument which later inspired the Bogor and Bekasi people to do the same is a fact of militancy and voluntary which is carried out with a high and sincere awareness on the basis of their religiosity. There are five main actors of this movement, K. H. Nonop Hanafi, Bachtiar Nasir, Muhammad Zaitun Rasmin, Muhammad Alkhathath, and Habieb Rizieq Shihab. This movement has a semi-moderate Islamic ideology with the Islamic model Ahlussunnah Waljama'ah. The implication of this research is the New social movement 212 can uphold Islamic values by upholding the law against what they call the Islamic oppressors. And the other side, the New social movement 212 can be strengthening ukhuwah Islamiyah (Islamic brotherhood), ukhuwah wathoniyah (nationalism), and demanding justice for all the people of Indonesia.

The following syllabus is for a course on "social movement literacy†(SML). The course is currently being taught at Grateford State Prison (just outside of Philadelphia). The basic purpose of SML is to help educate students on how to properly read and understand the nature and function of social movements. SML is not reducible to learning about a handful of specific social movements; instead, SML establishes core skills and knowledges that enable people to recognize, discuss, perhaps participate in and, if need be, intelligently critique, the ideologies, political motivations, and tactics of social movements.

I begin with a discussion of globalisation, of New Social Movements and a critique of "identity politics". Taking for granted that actors in social movements want to create alliances, I identify domination/subordination as a possible common bond among actors. Then, I discuss the obstacles to the building of alliances: anger and guilt, denial of responsibility, inability to really listen and hear, rejection of difference. I end by proposing that to build alliances, we must engage in dialogue, that is collective and individual self-reflection, within beloved communities.

This is the third post in the blog series "Movements and Institutions". The relationship of social movements and institutions should not just be seen as one where political demands can influence policy change in a targeted organization or political system. With a focus on instituting practices, instead of resulting institutions, we can understand all social institutions as institutionalizations, as constantly moving processes with the potential for radical change.

Marxists have sought to critically analyze and contribute to (left revolutionary) popular movements. Yet they have not explicitly theorized the term "movement" nor its relationships to other key Marxist concepts, such as class struggle and hegemony. This book seeks to fill that gap in a historical moment when there are worldwide "anti-systemic" movements against austerity, against inequality, against the "democracy deficit," and to protect hard-won rights for subaltern classes, all within the context of the world's most important economic crisis since the 1930s. Analysis helpfully moves back and forth between theory and empirical cases, with a view to informing more effective revolutionary political praxis. The empirical scope is deliberately and usefully broad. Cases are drawn from a range of national contexts in the global North and South and concern movements from the 19th century up to the present. The book's major shortcoming, however, is its failure to draw upon the whole range of historical materialist theorizing, including work by Black socialists, feminist socialists and Indigenous communists, among others. Nonetheless Marxism and social movements makes a useful, if radically incomplete contribution to both social movement theory and historical materialism.

The rise of social movements in US legal scholarship is a current response to an age-old problem in progressive legal thought: harnessing law for social change while maintaining a distinction between law and politics. This problem erupted in controversy around the civil rights–era concept of legal liberalism defined by activist courts and lawyers pursuing political reform through law. Contemporary legal scholars have responded by building on social science to develop a new concept — movement liberalism — that assigns leadership of transformative change to social movements to preserve conventional roles for courts and lawyers. Movement liberalism aims to achieve the lost promise of progressive reform, while avoiding critiques of legal activism that have divided scholars for a half-century. Yet rather than resolving the law-politics problem, movement liberalism reproduces long-standing debates, carrying forward critical visions of law that it seeks to transcend.

The capacity of Latin American social groups to mobilize has excited the imagination of students of the region since the birth of Latin American studies itself. Alongside the cultural turn, many social movement organizations continue to engage directly with politics. Aspirational goals notwithstanding, in order to improve conditions they devote much of their energy to influencing policy. Although scholars have begun to address the policy impact of Latin American social movements, we have limited systematized understanding of the conditions and mechanisms by which social movement protest affects policy outcomes. This essay argues that a policy process approach offers a useful first cut into more systematic analysis of social movements, protest, and their policy consequences in Latin America. Resumen: Movimientos Sociales, Protesta y Políticas de Gobierno La capacidad de movilización social que evidencia América Latina ha captado el imaginario de investigadores desde los albores de los estudios latinoamericanos. A pesar del giro cultural sobre el tema, muchos movimientos sociales siguen entablando la política de forma directa. Amén de sus metas aspiracionales, en pos de mejorar sus condiciones dedican una cantidad apreciable de sus esfuerzos a influenciar políticas de gobierno. Si bien es cierto que una cantidad no menospreciable de investigadores consideran esos impactos aún hace falta conocimiento sistematizado sobre las condiciones y los mecanismos a través de los cuales la protesta social afecta las políticas del estado. Este ensayo argumenta que enfoques centrados en los procesos de la política pública ofrecen una buena entrada al análisis más sistemático sobre los movimientos sociales, protesta, y sus consecuencias para políticas de gobierno.

International audience ; In recent years a new realm for study of political and sociological phenomena has appeared, the Internet, contributing to major changes in our societies during its relatively brief existence. Within cyberspace, organizations whose existence is increasingly tied to this virtual world are of interest to social scientists. This study will analyze the community of one of the largest online organizations, Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia with millions of volunteer members. Wikipedia was never meant to be a community, yet it most certainly has become one. This study asks whether it is something even more –whether it is an expression of online activism, and whether it can be seen as a social movement organization, related to one or more of the Internet-centered social movements industries (in particular, the free and open-source software movement industry).

Using complexity science, we develop a theory to explain why some social movements develop through stages of increasing intensity which we define as an increase in social focusing. We name six such stages of focusing: disintegration, revitalization, religious, organisation, militaristic, and self-immolation. Our theory uses two variables from the social sciences: differentiation and centrality, where differentiation refers to the internal structure of a social system and centrality measures the variety of incoming information. The ratio of the two, differentiation/centrality (the d/c ratio) is a shorthand way of saying that centrality must be matched by a corresponding level of differentiation to maintain basic focusing. If centrality exceeds differentiation, then the result is a lack of focusing—disintegration. On the other hand, the more differentiation exceeds centrality, the more the system moves into the higher stages of social focusing, from revitalization to the final stage of self-immolation. To test the theory we examine historically indigenous social movements, in particular, the Grassy Narrows movement in northern Ontario Canada. We also suggest how the theory might be applied to explain other examples of social movement, especially millenarian movements at the end of the 20th century. We also suggest sociocybernetic ways the rest of society and the social movement itself can change its own social focusing.

Providing us with a historicisation and contextualization of Bolivia's development of an alternative development model to neoliberalism, this paper engages with the rise in prominence of the country's social movements and the concurrent rise of Evo Morales' MAS party to power during the period of 2000-2005. This approach, the author argues, reflects a neostructuralist take on development, governance and political economy. The relationship between the State and Bolivia's social movements is established and analysed, with the centrality of the latter receiving special attention. Overall, this work provides both an important grounding and analysis in the forces that have shaped the Bolivian national agenda under the MAS.

The collapse of social partnership after the crisis forced Irish and Portuguese trade unions to position themselves as "either social movements or a (increasingly ostracised) state apparatus" (Moore and Engelhardt, in this volume). The cycles of union protest and acquiescence in Ireland and Portugal during the last decade, however, also allow less Manichean conclusions. This chapter therefore makes a case for a different use of typologies. The "social movement vs state apparatus" typology should be used as a heuristic tool to understand the tension between contention and interest intermediation that are present in all unions: and not as a classification devise to put different unions into distinct boxes. Furthermore, the more vertical governance structures of the EU's new economic governance regime transcend national boundaries, the more one must move beyond a Weberian or Gramscian focus on the nation state. Accordingly, the chapter suggests a new research agenda that aims to go beyond the methodological nationalism that is still dominating much of industrial relations and political economy research. ; 18 month embargo - AC

Contrary to what is usually implied by work on the relationship between political opportunity structures and social movements, political institutions are not a general setting offering or denying formal access and political opportunities to every challenge, but rather favor certain types of movements and constrain others. This process of institutional selectivity depends on the relationship between the structure of a given political institution and the movement type and defines social movements as pro-institutional, counter- institutional, or neutral. Accordingly, variation in the movements' action repertoire and degree of success can be observed. Yet, political institutions leave the door open to different interpretations by social actors so that a framing struggle takes place; at stake is the fit between movement demands and the structure of political institutions. The argument is developed through the example of federalism and its impact on two types of movements-namely, regionalist and squatters' movements-and illustrated by discussing their fate in France, the Netherlands and Switzerland. Empirical data suggest that institutional selectivity is to be taken into account to reach a better understanding of the relationship between social movements and their political context.

Economic outcomes have long been neglected by students of social movements. However, recently a number of studies have emerged addressing this topic. This chapter reviews works on economic outcomes of social movements. Economic impacts of social movements are defined here as pertaining to the economic sphere either in terms of government actions to regulate the economy/impose redistribution/reform the practices of companies and corporations, or to changes in social practices and individual behavior with respect to consumption. As such, the current review addresses scholarship on movements' attempts to attain government regulation in markets, governments' direct interventions in markets, and changes in market rules and practices in the social sphere.

Among the many sectors currently engaged in struggle against the corporate food system, small farmers play a particularly important role—not only do they constitute a legitimate alternative to global agribusiness, but also they are the heirs to long traditions of local knowledge and practice. In defending peasant agriculture, rural social movements defend popular control over seeds and genetic resources, water, land and territory against the onslaught of globalized financial capital. A framework called food sovereignty has been developed by the international peasant movement La Via Campesina (LVC), to encompass the various elements of a food system alternative based on reclaiming popular resource control, defending small-scale agriculture and traditional knowledge, rebuilding local circuits of food and labor, and recovering the ecological processes that can make farming sustainable. Recognizing the need to develop "movement people" capable of integrating many ecological, social, cultural and political criteria into their organizational activities, LVC increasingly has articulated processes of popular education and consciousness-raising as part of the global social movement for agroecology and food sovereignty. Given the enormous diversity of organizations and actors in LVC, an underlying feature known in Spanish as diálogo de saberes (roughly the equivalent of "dialogue between ways of knowing") has characterized LVC processes of education, training, formation and exchange in agroecology. The diálogo de saberes takes place at the level of training centers and schools of the LVC organizations, as well as the larger scale of agricultural landscapes and peasant territories. The interactions between peasant, family or communal farmers, their organizations, their youth and their agroecology create social processes that assume the form and dynamic of a social movement in several countries of Latin America.