Brandeis University
Sociology 209b
Social Movements
David Cunningham
Fall 2013
Pearlman 211
Email: dcunning@brandeis.edu
Phone: x62633 (office)
781-752-6062 (cell)
Office hours:
Wed. 2:30-4:00,
& by appointment
Class:
Wednesdays 9:00-11:50
in Brown 224
This course covers key frameworks, concepts, and tools related to the study of contentious
politics. It has three central goals. First, it is intended to provide a comprehensive overview of
the literature, which encompasses social movements as well as phenomena variously referred
to as collective behavior/action, revolutions, political violence, industrial conflict, and the like.
This literature is best engaged as a theoretical, conceptual, and analytic toolkit, so rather than
focusing on a diverse range of applications (e.g. youth movements, movements occurring in
particular regions or nations, feminist movements, etc.), we will organize our explorations
conceptually around varied aspects of contention, including: the broad contexts within which
individuals are able to come together to achieve politicized goals, the particular conditions
within which these individuals are coerced, enticed, or propelled to participate in collective
projects, the strategies and frames employed by existing organizations to connect with these
individuals and subsequently work toward specific ends, and the ways in which outcomes are
shaped by interactions among these participants, social movement organizations, broader
publics, and the state. Advances in this literature have been coming fast and furiously over the
past several years, and our second goal is to evaluate the historical trajectory of explanatory
models in light of current (and anticipated future) sociological understandings of contentious
political action. To this end, a portion of each week’s reading and discussion will center on a
general “discussion paper,” usually tied to contentious politics but sometimes oriented to more
general social phenomena. Our third goal follows from the idea that our thinking is best
enhanced through applying models and ideas to cases that interest each of us. Much of our
work this semester will involve relating general approaches, ideas, and processes to
substantive cases of your choosing, with an eye toward extending these frameworks by
evaluating them in light of the nuances and messiness associated with real-world settings.
Readings
Four books are required for this course:
Democracy in the Making: How Activist Groups Form, by Kathleen Blee
Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood, by Kristin Luker
Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930-1970, by Doug McAdam
Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics, by Sidney Tarrow
Each should be available at the campus bookstore and through the usual online outlets. The
bulk of our reading, however, can be found in major Sociology journals. I have included full
citations for each of these articles in the course outline – all should be accessible through
databases available on the LTS webpage and/or held in the Brandeis library. I will also be sure
to post all non-optional readings on our course Latte page at least one week in advance.
Any dismay over the length of the reading list should largely be assuaged by noticing that each
week’s readings fall into multiple categories, denoted by handy symbols: discussion papers
(k), foundational readings (ƒ), topical overviews (…), key empirical studies (i, j), and further
(optional) readings (C). For a typical class, you should be prepared to thoughtfully read four
papers: the main discussion paper for that week, the foundational reading, the topical
overview, and one of the two key empirical studies (i.e. either i or j; note that beginning in
Week 3, I will assign you to one or the other group). For topics of special interest – i.e. those
tied to your article framing assignment, or your particular research focus – the optional further
readings are highly recommended.
Class Format
Class meetings will typically begin by broadly situating the topic at hand, making use of the
“foundational reading” and “topical overview” as well as integrating other important works
into our discussion. We will then move to a consideration of the week’s “discussion paper,”
which ideally introduces an innovative, promising, or otherwise provocative approach to the
class topic. Finally, we will break into smaller groups, divided by your chosen “key empirical
study” and guided by that week’s discussion memos. When we then conclude by coming back
together for a full-class discussion, our aim will be to assess how best to use the empirical
studies and other readings to evaluate the state of the field.
Assignments and requirements
To extend our discussions beyond general theoretical, methodological, and analytic
considerations, we will approach most course topics with an eye toward applying them to
empirical cases of your choice. To support this endeavor, assignments and in-class discussions
will focus on extending, critiquing, or testing ideas related to each week’s theoretical or
substantive topic. More specifically, I expect that, over the course of the semester, you will:
• write one extended (15-25 page) paper, roughly in the form of a refereed journal article. By
Week 4 of the semester (corresponding to our September 25th class meeting), each of you will
have selected and familiarized yourself with an empirical context/case that will serve as the
applied “topic” of this paper. I encourage each of you, to whatever extent reasonably possible,
to access data (broadly construed) related to your context/case (I am happy to provide feedback
about how to most effectively engage in data-gathering), and use this case as a vehicle to
develop an original argument. This paper will be due at the close of the semester, sometime
during the final exam period.
• write a brief (3-4 page) article framing essay, which will take the form of an introduction to a
longer, original (but unwritten) journal-type article. The goal of this framing assignment is to
clearly and efficiently introduce a particular critique/idea that you see as contributing to the
literature, demonstrate how that idea links to existing research, and explain how your
empirical case informs your (again, unwritten) analysis. It is acceptable and even
recommended, though not required, for this essay to serve as a foundation for your longer final
paper. I also recommend that you coordinate the paper with one of the sessions in which you
lead discussion. This essay can be submitted at any point in the semester, but no later than
Friday, November 15th.
• twice over the course of the semester, serve as a discussion leader for an assigned “key
empirical study.” For both of your assigned sessions, you should prepare and post to Latte no
later than 5pm on the day prior to our class meeting a brief (350 word maximum) memo
succinctly summarizing the main argument of the article and a set of 3-5 questions that you see
as productively situating and structuring our in-class discussion. While you should strive to
present clearly the author’s intended argument and contribution, in general you should not
think of these memos as polished products but rather as thought pieces to aid our conversation.
Everyone should familiarize themselves with each posted memo prior to that week’s class
session. During class, discussion leaders will orient and facilitate small-group discussion of the
article and later summarize for the full class the key points that emerged from that discussion.
• actively participate in all class meetings. For the most part, this class works best as a
conversation rather than as a lecture or monologue. In that spirit, your engagement is key, and
therefore strongly encouraged (i.e. expected). I take this component as seriously as your
written assignments, and recommend (i.e. expect) that you come to each class session having
reflected upon the required readings and your colleagues’ discussion memos. As you read
assigned articles, it might be useful to consider: 1) what seems praiseworthy about the paper; 2)
what you might have done differently; 3) particular ideas or approaches that you feel were
mistaken or otherwise misguided; 4) aspects that were unclear or confusing; 5) aspects that
seem to require further elaboration; 6) advantages and limitations to the author(s)’ overall
approach and analysis; and 7) the ways in which you and/or the author(s) might productively
extend the research. I also encourage you to suggest or bring in ideas for teaching related ideas
to undergraduates, and to pay attention throughout the semester to news coverage of any
ongoing cases of political contention.
University Policy on Academic Accommodations
If you are a student who needs academic accommodations because of a documented disability,
please contact me and present your letter of accommodation as soon as possible. If you have
questions about documenting a disability or requesting academic accommodations, you should
contact Beth Rodgers-Kay in Academic Services (x63470 or brodgers@brandeis.edu). Letters of
accommodation should be presented at the start of the semester to ensure provision of
accommodations. Accommodations cannot be granted retroactively.
Course Outline
Week 1 (September 4th): Introductory business
Section I: Foundations
Week 2 (September 11th): Situating and bounding social movements and contentious politics
Discussion paper (k):
Andrew G. Walder. 2009. “Political Sociology and Social Movements.” Annual Review of
Sociology 35: 393-412.
Foundational readings (ƒ):
Doug McAdam, Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930-1970, Ch. 1.
Charles Tilly, “Social Movements as Politics.” Chapter 1 of Tilly & Wood, Social
Movements, 1768-2004 (focus on pgs. 1-5).
Topical overview (…):
John Krinsky and Ann Mische. 2013. “Formations and Formalisms: Charles Tilly and
the Paradox of the Actor.” Annual Review of Sociology 39: 1-26.
Key critical studies (i, j):
David A. Snow. 2004. “Social Movements as Challenges to Authority: Resistance to an
Emerging Conceptual Hegemony.” Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and
Change 25: 3-25.
Larry Isaac. 2008. “Movement of Movements: Culture Moves in the Long Civil Rights
Struggle.” Social Forces 87, 1: 33-63.
Further (optional) readings (C):
Sidney Tarrow. 2011. “Contentious Politics and Social Movements.” Ch. 1 in Power in
Movement.
Week 3 (September 18th): Resource mobilization
k
ƒ
…
i
j
Marshall Ganz. 2000. “Resources and Resourcefulness: Strategic Capacity in the
Unionization of California Agriculture, 1959-1966.” American Journal of Sociology
105, 4: 1003-1062.
Doug McAdam, Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930-1970, Ch. 2.
Bob Edwards and John McCarthy. 2004. “Resources and Social Movement
Mobilization.” Chapter 6 in the Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, and
related addendum on “Resources and Exchange Relationships”
Aldon Morris. 1981. “Black Southern Sit-In Movement: An Analysis of Internal
Organization.” American Sociological Review 46: 744-767.
Holly J. McCammon. 2001. “Stirring Up Suffrage Sentiment: The Formation of the State
Woman Suffrage Organizations, 1866-1914.” Social Forces 80, 2: 449-480.
C
C
C
C
Sidney Tarrow. 1998. “Mobilizing Structures and Contentious Politics.” Ch. 8 in Power
in Movement.
John McCarthy and Mayer Zald. 1977. “Resource Mobilization and Social Movements:
A Partial Theory.” American Journal of Sociology 82, 6: 1212-1241.
Frances Fox Piven and Richard Cloward. 1991. “Collective Protest: A Critique of
Resource Mobilization Theory.” International Journal of Politics, Culture, and
Society 4, 4: 435-458.
Daniel M. Cress and David A. Snow. 1996. “Mobilization at the Margins: Resources,
Benefactors, and the Viability of Homeless Social Movement Organizations.”
American Sociological Review 61:1089-1109.
Week 4 (September 25th): Political opportunity structure
k
James M. Jasper, “From Political Opportunity Structures to Strategic Interaction”
ƒ
…
Doug McAdam, Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930-1970, Ch. 3.
David S. Meyer and Debra C. Minkoff. 2004. "Conceptualizing Political Opportunity."
Social Forces 82:1457-1492.
i
Luders, Joseph. 2006. “The Economics of Movement Success: Business Responses to
Civil Rights Mobilization.” American Journal of Sociology 111, 4: 963-998.
j
Charles Kurzman. 1996. “Structural Opportunity and Perceived Opportunity in Social
Movement Theory: The Iranian Revolution of 1979." American Sociological Review
61, 1: 153-170.
C
Sidney Tarrow. 1998. “Political Opportunities and Constraints.” Ch. 5 in Power in
Movement.
C
Edwin Amenta and Yvonne Zylan. 1991. "It Happened Here: Political Opportunity, the
New Institutionalism, and the Townsend Movement." American Sociological
Review 56: 250-265.
One-page final paper topic proposal/description due
Week 5 (October 2nd): Mobilization and participation
k
Jocelyn Viterna. 2006. “Pulled, Pushed and Persuaded: Explaining Women’s
Mobilization into the Salvadoran Guerrilla Army.” American Journal of Sociology
112, 1: 1-45.
ƒ
Mancur Olson. 1971. The Logic of Collective Action. Harvard University Press. Chs. 1- 2.
…
i
j
Doug McAdam. 1986. “Recruitment to High-Risk Activism: The Case of Freedom
Summer.” American Journal of Sociology 92, 1: 64-90.
Belinda Robnett. 1996. “African-American Women in the Civil Rights Movement, 19541965: Gender, Leadership, and Micromobilization.” American Journal of Sociology
101, 6: 1661-1693.
Bert Klandermans and Dirk Oegema. 1987. “Potentials, Networks, Motivations, and
Barriers: Steps towards Participation in Social Movements.” American Sociological
Review 52, 4: 519-531.
C
C
C
C
C
C
Charles Tilly. 1978. From Mobilization to Revolution. Addison-Wesley.
Doug McAdam and Ronelle Paulsen. 1993. “Specifying the Relationship Between Social
Ties and Activism.” American Journal of Sociology 99, 3: 640-667.
Dirk Oegema and Bert Klandermans. 1994. “Why Social Movement Sympathizers Don't
Participate: Erosion and Nonconversion of Support.” American Sociological Review
59, 5: 703-722.
Roger V. Gould. 1991. “Multiple Networks and Mobilization in the Paris Commune.”
American Sociological Review 56: 716-729.
Hyojoung Kim and Peter S. Bearman. 1997. “The Structure and Dynamics of Movement
Participation.” American Sociological Review 62: 70-93.
Beyerlein, Kraig and John R. Hipp. 2006. “A Two-Stage Model for a Two-Stage Process:
How Biographical Availability Matters for Social Movement Mobilization.”
Mobilization 11: 219-240.
Week 6 (October 9th): Interpretive processes
k
Kristin Luker. 1984. Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood. University of California
Press.
ƒ
David A. Snow, E. Burke Rochford, Steven K. Worden, and Robert D. Benford. 1986.
“Frame Alignment Processes, Micromobilization, and Movement Participation.”
American Sociological Review 51: 464-481.
…
David A. Snow, “Framing Processes, Ideology, and Discursive Fields.” Chapter 17 in
the Blackwell Companion to Social Movements.
i
Pamela E. Oliver and Hank Johnston. 2000. “What a Good Idea! Frame and Ideologies in
Social Movement Research” (and ensuing commentary). Mobilization 5: 37-64.
j
Einwohner, Rachel L. 2003. “Opportunity, Honor, and Action in the Warsaw Ghetto
Uprising of 1943.” American Journal of Sociology 109:650-675.
C
David A. Snow and Robert D. Benford. 2000. “Framing Processes and Social
Movements: An Overview and Assessment.” Annual Review of Sociology 26: 611639.
C
Doug McAdam. 1996. “The Framing Function of Movement Tactics: Strategic
Dramaturgy in the American Civil Rights Movement.” Chapter 15 in McAdam,
McCarthy, and Zald, Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements.
C
Klatch, Rebecca. 1994. “The Counterculture, the New Left, and the New Right.”
Qualitative Sociology.
C
Mark Steinberg. 1999. “The Talk and Back Talk of Collective Action: A Dialogic
Analysis of Repertoires of Discourse among 19th Century English Cotton
Spinners.” American Journal of Sociology 105, 3: 736-780.
Section II. Challenges
Week 7 (October 16rd): Assessing structuralist and culturalist approaches (tentative readings)
k
Bernstein, Mary and Marcie De la Cruz. 2009. "What Are You? Explaining Identity as a
Goal of the Multiracial Hapa Movement." Social Problems 56, 4: 722-745.
ƒ … Jeff Goodwin and James Jasper. 1999. “Caught in a Winding, Snarling Vine: The
Structural Bias of Political Process Theory.” Sociological Forum 14, 1.
i
Tilly rebuttal (“Wise Quacks”)
j
C
C
C
Tarrow rebuttal (“Paradigm Warriors”)
Jeff Goodwin, James Jasper, and Francesca Polletta, eds. 2001. Passionate Politics:
Emotions and Social Movements. University of Chicago Press.
Scott Frickel and Neil Gross. 2005. “A General Theory of Scientific/Intellectual
Movements.” American Sociological Review 70, 2: 204-232.
Jeff Goodwin. 1997. “The Libidinal Constitution of a High-Risk Social Movement:
Affectual Ties and Solidarity in the Huk Rebellion, 1946-1954.” American
Sociological Review 62, 1: 53-69.
Week 8 (October 23rd): New directions: mechanisms, culture, institutions, & selection effects
k
Elizabeth A. Armstrong and Mary Bernstein. 2008. “Culture, Power, and Institutions: A
Multi-institutional Politics Approach to Social Movements.” Sociological Theory
26:74-99.
ƒ
Doug McAdam, Sidney Tarrow, and Charles Tilly. 2001. “What are They Shouting
About?” Ch. 1 in Dynamics of Contention.
i
Doug McAdam, Robert J. Sampson, Simon Weffer, and Heather MacIndoe. 2005.
“‘There Will be Fighting in the Streets’: The Distorting Lens of Social Movement
Theory.” Mobilization 10: 1-18.
j
Doug McAdam, et al. 2010. “‘Site Fights’: Explaining Opposition to Pipeline Projects in
the Developing World.” Sociological Forum 25, 3: 401-427.
Section III: Extensions
Week 9 (October 30th): The patterning of contentious action: Diffusion and cycles of protest
k
Larry W. Isaac, et al. 2012. “‘Movement Schools’ and Dialogical Diffusion of Nonviolent
Praxis: Nashville Workshops in the Southern Civil Rights Movement.” Research
in Social Movements, Conflict and Change 34: 155-184.
ƒ
Verta Taylor. 1989. “Social Movement Continuity: The Women’s Movement in
Abeyance.” American Sociological Review 54: 761-775.
…
Sidney Tarrow. 1998. “Cycles of Contention.” Ch. 9 in Power in Movement.
i
Kenneth T. Andrews and Michael Biggs. 2006. “The Dynamics of Protest Diffusion:
Movement Organizations, Social Networks, and News Media in the 1960s SitIns.” American Sociological Review 71, 5: 752-777.
j
C
C
C
C
C
David Cunningham and Benjamin T. Phillips. 2007. “Contexts for Mobilization: Spatial
Settings and Klan Presence in North Carolina, 1964-1966.” American Journal of
Sociology 113, 3: 781-814.
Ruud Koopmans, “Protest in Space and Time: The Evolution of Waves of Contention.”
Chapter 2 in the Blackwell Companion to Social Movements.
Sarah A. Soule. 1998. “Diffusion Processes Within and Across Movements.” Chapter 13
in the Blackwell Companion to Social Movements.
Gerald Marwell and Pamela E. Oliver. 1993. The Critical Mass in Collective Action.
Cambridge University Press.
Daniel J. Myers. 1997. “The Diffusion of Collective Violence: Infectiousness,
Susceptibility, and Mass Media Networks.” American Journal of Sociology 106, 1:
173-208.
Mark Granovetter. 1978. “Threshold Models of Collective Behavior.” American Journal of
Sociology 83, 6: 1420-1443.
Week 10 (November 6th): Grievances and the mobilization of threat
k
David Cunningham. 2012. “Mobilizing Ethnic Competition.” Theory and Society 41, 5:
505-525.
ƒ
Nella VanDyke and Sarah A. Soule. 2002. “Structural Social Change and the Mobilizing
Effect of Threat: Explaining Levels of Patriot and Militia Organizing in the
United States.” Social Problems 49, 4: 497-520.
…
Jack A. Goldstone and Charles Tilly. 2001. “Threat (and Opportunity): Popular Action
and State Response in the Dynamics of Contentious Action.” Chapter 7 in
Aminzade et al., Silence and Voice in Contentious Politics.
i
Susan Olzak, Suzanne Shanahan, and Elizabeth West. 1994. “School Desegregation,
Interracial Exposure, and Antibusing Activity in Contemporary Urban
America.” American Journal of Sociology 100, 1: 196-241.
j
Thomas V. Maher. 2010. “Threat, Resistance, and Collective Action: The Cases of
Sobibor, Treblinka, and Auschwitz.” American Sociological Review 75, 2: 252-272.
C
Rory McVeigh. 1999. “Structural Incentives for Conservative Mobilization: Power
Devaluation and the Rise of the Ku Klux Klan, 1915-1925.” Social Forces 77, 4:
1461-1496.
C
Susan Olzak. 1992. The Dynamics of Ethnic Competition. Stanford University Press.
C
Sarah Belanger and Maurice Pinard. 1991. “Ethnic Movements and the Competition
Model: Some Missing Links.” American Sociological Review 56: 446-457.
C
Andrew Martin and Marc Dixon. 2010. “Changing to Win? Resistance, Threat, and the
Role of Unions in Strikes.” American Journal of Sociology 116: 93-129.
Week 11 (November 13th): State control and repression
k
Everett C. Hughes. 1962. “Good People and Dirty Work.” Social Problems 10, 1: 3-11.
ƒ
Doug McAdam. 1983. “Tactical Innovations and the Pace of Insurgency.” American
Sociological Review 48, 6: 735-754.
…
Earl, Jennifer. 2011. “Political Repression: Iron Fists, Velvet Gloves, and Diffuse
Control.” Annual Review of Sociology 37: 261-284.
i
David Cunningham. 2003. “The Patterning of Repression: FBI Counterintelligence and
the New Left.” Social Forces 82, 1: 207-238.
j
Bob Edwards and Patrick Gillham. 2013. “Moves of Resistance: Occupy Wall Street
and the Struggle to Protest.”
C
Gary Marx. 1974. “Thoughts on a Neglected Category of Social Movement Participant:
The Agent Provocateur and the Informant.” American Journal of Sociology 80, 2:
402-442.
C
Jennifer Earl and Sarah A. Soule. 2010. “The Impacts of Repression: The Effect of Police
Presence and Action on Subsequent Protest Rates.” Research in Social Movements,
Conflicts, and Change 30: 75-113.
C
Christian Davenport. 2007. “State Repression and Political Order.” Annual Review of
Political Science 10: 1-23.
C
Karen Rasler 1996. “Concessions, Repression, and Political Protest in the Iranian
Revolution.” American Sociological Review 61: 132-152.
C
Jennifer Earl. 2003. “Tanks, Tear Gas, and Taxes: Toward a Theory of Movement
Repression.” Sociological Theory 21, 1: 44-68.
Week 12 (November 20th): Emotions and collective identity
k
Robert Futrell and Pete Simi. 2004. “Free Spaces, Collective Identity, and the Persistence
of U.S. White Power Activism.” Social Problems 51, 1: 16-42.
ƒ
Mary Bernstein. 1997. “Celebration and Suppression: The Strategic Uses of Identity by
the Lesbian and Gay Movement.” American Journal of Sociology 103, 3: 531-565.
…
Francesca Polletta and James Jasper. 2001. “Collective Identity in Contentious Politics.”
Annual Review of Sociology 27: 283-305.
i
Deborah Gould. 2002. “Life During Wartime: Emotions and the Development of ACTUP.” Mobilization 7, 2: 177-200.
j
Francesca Polletta. 1998. “‘It Was Like a Fever...’: Narrative and Identity in Social
Protest.” Social Problems 45, 2: 137-159.
C
Rebecca Klatch. 2004. “The Underside of Social Movements: The Effects of Destructive
Affective Ties.” Qualitative Sociology 27, 4: 487-509.
C
Francesca Polletta. 1999. “Free Spaces in Collective Action.” Theory and Society 28: 1-38.
C
Craig Calhoun. 1993. “‘New Social Movements’ of the Nineteenth Century.” Social
Science History 17, 3: 385-427.
C
Jeff Goodwin, James Jasper, and Francesca Polletta, eds. 2001. Passionate Politics:
Emotions and Social Movements. University of Chicago Press.
Week 13 (November 27th): No class (Thanksgiving break)
Week 14 (December 4th): Movement trajectories and outcomes
kƒ Kathleen Blee, Democracy in the Making
…
Edwin Amenta, et al. 2010. “The Political Consequences of Social Movements.” Annual
Review of Sociology 36: 287-307.
Rory McVeigh and David Cunningham. 2012. “Enduring Consequences of Failed Righti
Wing Activism: Klan Mobilization in the 1960s and Contemporary Crime Rates
in Southern Counties.” Social Forces 90, 3: 843-862.
j
Kenneth T. Andrews. 1997. “The Impacts of Social Movements on the Political Process:
The Civil Rights Movement and Black Electoral Politics in Mississippi.” American
Sociological Review 62: 800-819.
C
Marco Giugni, Doug McAdam, and Charles Tilly. 1999. How Social Movements Matter.
University of Minnesota Press.
C
Doug McAdam. 1988. Freedom Summer. Oxford University Press.