Draft on Anti-Fracking
I.
Introduction
The recent uprisings of the Arab Spring signaled to observers, activists and scholars of
social movements alike the fundamental place of diffusion dynamics within social
movements. From Tunisia to Egypt the fall of authoritarian regimes due to mass
mobilizations and collective action indicate the centrality of the spread of idea, tactics and
personnel to the experience and the study of social movements. The spread of ideas,
tactics and personnel has long been a focus of study within scholarship on social
movements (Tarrow, 1989; Tarrow and McAdam, 2005; Tilly, 2004; Whittier and Meyer,
1997; Wood, 2012; Chabot, 2002; Chabot and Duyvendak, 2002; McAdam and Rucht,
1993). Dynamics of tactical learning within the flow of movement forms, particularly the
transnational spread of tactics has been a recent significant concern of social movement
scholarship (Hertel, 2006; Thorn, 2005; Tarrow, 2005; Wood, 2012).
The current public debate about energy production in the United States tends to focus on
the production and use of petroleum. However, often over looked is the extent to which
the United States generates a significant amount of its energy use from natural gas. In
2011, the United States used roughly 25% of its energy from the extraction of natural gas1
based on technological innovations that have made gas drilling more efficient than
previous eras of energy production. New technologies for drilling and gas extraction,
known as “hydrofracking” include drilling into rock with a combination of water, chemicals
with application of intense pressure in order to “frack” or break the rock and release the
1
US Energy Information Administration report, 2011.
1
Walsh-Russo
desired natural gas. The US Energy Information Administration reported that in 2010 the
increase in the number of drilling sites combined with the increased technological ease—
and relatively low cost--of gas extraction through “hydrofracking” created an increase in
demand of natural gas nationwide. The increase in natural gas extraction and use
(primarily for electricity) has also coincided with an increase in the cost of the most
significant energy source for the United States—a rise in the price of oil. The number of
potential locations for the possible “hydrofracking” of natural gas within the contiguous
United States is around nineteen shale formations, with among the most visible antifracking campaigns in the United States targeting the Marcellus Shale. The Marcellus Shale
is a formation that stretches from upper Tennessee to upper New York State and into
Canada (Article TKTK and EIA report, 2010; see Map I). As significant as the rise of fracking
for energy production may be for energy observers, equally pressing for analysts of
collective action is the concurrent rise of resistance against the use of hydro-fracking by
local communities throughout the United States, from Colorado to Ohio to New York State.
Encompassed with the rise of anti-hydrofracking moblization is the dynamic relationship
between activists against fracking and the recently visible and organized Occupy
Movement. In addition, anti-hydrofracking mobilization is frequently written about and
understood in the American press as a movement localized and contained within rural
communities. Despite its grounding in local—and often rural-based rhetoric and tactics—
anti-hydrofracking is a global campaign that has spread nationally within the United States
and internationally, with anti-fracking campaigns organized in Great Britain to Ireland to
France to South Africa among other states. The following discussion will draw out the
history of anti-fracking within the United States through an account of its domestic
2
Walsh-Russo
mobilization, particularly with respect to tactical ties to Occupy and discuss its loose
affiliation as a possible—although not fully formed--transnational advocacy campaign. The
recent wave of anti-fracking protests within and outside the United States may direct
scholars of contemporary contentious politics to investigate evidence of tactical diffusion
processes and allow further examination of a transnational tactical repertoire (Wood,
2007; Tarrow?).
II.
Literature: What is diffusion? How have scholars understood diffusion
processes?
Scholars of social movement dynamics are embedded within a long analytic tradition of
theoretical and empirical research on diffusion and spillover of protest cycles, tactics,
personnel (Tarrow, 1986 TKTK; McAdam and Rucht, TKTK, Whittier and Meyer, 1997 TKTK).
The case study of recent anti-fracking dynamics, particularly anti-fracking connections to
Occupy tactics, personnel and rhetoric domestically as well as burgeoning anti-fracking
mobilization internationally may further reveal findings into transnational diffusion with
respect to the dynamism within an available transnational tactical repertoire. The global
protest events of 2011 also remind us that the spread of tactics among members and
organizations working for social change is a long standing tradition within the world of
states. While journalistic accounts of the Arab Spring and Occupy! tend to emphasize the spread
of tactics as contagious “wildfire,” analysis of the spread of ideas and tactics has a long
standing place within the social sciences more broadly and the study of states and
social movements more specifically. The tradition in social movements in particular has
been grounded in challenging and unpacking the often accepted notion of “contagion.”
3
Walsh-Russo
Diffusion or the spread of an idea or thing within social science research may be
understood as the spread of something across social institutions and through social
networks. The greater the expansion, the greater the number of individuals affected
(Soule and Strang, 1998). Sufficient studies of diffusion most often provide answers to
question they are addressing with regards to the dissemination of an innovation (an
item, idea or practice) to adopters {individuals, groups, corporate units) through
modes of communication, social structures (networks, community, class) and social
values or cultural practices (Katz 1999:147). The categorical dichotomy between groups
that create diffused items and those who receive those items, and analysis surrounding
the interaction between the spread of an item and the reception within a local
population has a long standing tradition within social science and the study of social
movements. Diffusion studies proliferated throughout the social sciences during the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries, linked by their fundamental search for
explanations and descriptions of social change. Early works on diffusion examined the
spread of a newly acquired item or idea over a single geographic region {Rogers, 1962).
The early paradigmatic models of the diffusion process held that the adoption process
of an idea or thing moved from one stage of adoption to the next, and thus provided
conditions for seemingly fluid acceptance or rejection of a particular innovation,
transmitted--and either adopted or rejected--by structurally equivalent actors.
Cultural symbols and meanings were understood most often as exogenous to diffusion
processes. Research on diffusion within social movements often mimicked the
relationship between cultural processes and structure found within broader social
science diffusion research. Thus, the first studies of diffusion within social movements
4
Walsh-Russo
rarely explored the particular cultural and social conditions that led to the transfer and
exchange of ideas, practices, strategies, organizational forms, and personnel between
and among movements {Guigni, 1999). The basis for cultural elements within diffusion
processes was understood as a residual category used to explain differences in
diffusion processes within different contexts (Giugni, 1999). The study of diffusion within
social movements became an important interest for sociologists of collective action and
contentious politics as evidence from the Civil Rights era and afterwards indicated how
participants drew influence and information from other participants and organizations.
Analysts drew on the theories and methods of early diffusion theorists (Rodgers, 1995;
Lazarsfeld, 1956) and constructed models of diffusion that continued to rely upon earlier
social science studies and their assumptions of how an idea or thing spreads across a
population. In turn, collective action was often understood as an irrational response to
collective strain. The analytic lacunae left important questions unanswered. In response,
sociologists and other social scientists attempted to fill these empirical and theoretical
gaps. Research with an emphasis on interpretive work emerged, garnering attention
towards the effects of cultural processes and mechanisms in determining the shape and
definition of diffusion processes. For studies of diffusion within social movements, this
cultural turn meant more precise theorizing on how actors incorporate meaning, how
they make sense of themselves and others, how social norms alter the spread of an idea
or thing (Jasper and Poll etta, 2001; Strang and Soule, 1998). Furthermore, the evolution in
diffusion studies within research on social movements also meant the generation of
macro-level analysis regarding the effects of diffusion on organizations and collectivities.
5
Walsh-Russo
Trends in diffusion studies and social movement research evolved into answers for
two sets of questions. The first set of questions concerns "Itself with the processes and
mechanisms that create diffusion. What are the various processes through which a
movement's action and organizational forms diffuse? What is the status of these
processes--direct or indirect? What kinds of indirect and direct ties may be most
important for diffusion? Specifically, how might political opportunities and the role of
the state affect diffusion processes? What role does the media or press play in
displaying, transmitting, and shaping repertoires that diffuse? Are groups able to
adopt only from similar groups? What forms of similarity might be most salient and
useful for groups?
The second group of questions concerned the consequences of diffusion. What
are the advantages and disadvantages of diffusion? When and how are groups
advantaged or disadvantaged by adoption? How would advantages of diffusion
manifest among action forms, in terms of tactics, collective identity, and a movement's
sense of efficacy and validity? How would disadvantages of diffusion shape a
movement's self-perception, as reliant and unoriginal? Are repertoires diffused
through only discrete elements or the entire repertoire? propose answers to both
categories of analytic questions on transnational tactical diffusion. Instead of an
analytic focus that examines only the processes and mechanisms within diffusion or the
consequences on a movement of tactical diffusion, the case studies (Chabot, 2001;
Chabot and Duyvendak, 2002) draw on expand the analytic scope to encompass answers
to both sets of queries. In his analysis of transnational diffusion, Chabot (2001) draws
6
Walsh-Russo
on the by now familiar distinct stages of diffusion are no longer applicable to the study
of transnational social movements. Given that elements of a particular repertoire are
what most
often diffuses and not the entire repertoire, and that these elements do so at
different times in a protest cycle, staging as a method and a framework of
understanding diffusion fails to capture the processual components of diffusion.
Furthermore, as recent research demonstrates (Chabot and Smith, 1999, Tarrow, 2002,
Wood, 2003, Wood 2009?) movements that organize and coalesce across nation states do
so not as separate and self-contained entities, but as connected and dynamic sites of
action. The patterns and conditions of dynamism within these contested sites-and the
links between domestic or national sites and transnational actors' actions-need further
investigation and understanding within the transnational social movement literature.
Background
I understand diffusion within social movements to be the spread of three
phenomena:1) individual motivation for participation in social movement activity 2) action
forms, that is, the repertoires of strategies, tactics, ideological and emotional commitments
of a movement 3) and organizational forms, that is, the particular chosen organizational
structure amongst a group of activists. Mechanisms that allow for the transfer of these
forms include social networks, encompassed by both direct and indirect ties, and
brokerage involving third parties that help facilitate diffusion. Research on social
movements and diffusion has most recently begun to grapple with the space and
7
Walsh-Russo
temporality of transnational social movements. Within such movements, where might
cultural references come- from? How can we theorize on the relationship between
information flows and the exertion of power within transnational movements? What other
processes maybe at work besides just the necessary requirement for shared references
and mutual identification? Theoretical and empirical studies on the proliferation of social
movements operating across nation states mount significant challenges to traditional
hypothesis found within the study of social movement diffusion and indicate that
application of these assumptions to social movement analysis demands reformulation
and rethinking. Analyses of transnational social movements led recent scholars towards
further understanding of the particular social conditions that creates diffusion within
social movements, with an emphasis on how political opportunities within a domestic
context shape the availability and success of tactical diffusion (Walsh-Russo, 2008). Early
studies of diffusion research within the broader social sciences emphasized diffusion of
three conditions: 1) flows of information 2) the effects of class hierarchy, power and
influence, and 3) public opinion (Giugni, 1999). Among early theorists, several
fundamental assumptions emerged. First, diffusion as a set of five stages also follows
discreet rules (Chabot: 2002). The staging model was developed as a predictor of the
increase in individuals adopting an innovation after passage of each time period, with
adoption rate increase following the stages of experimentation and adaptation
(Rodgers, 1995: 23; Chabot, 2002:107). 1 The early staging model explicitly links diffusion
of an idea or thing with "newness" and innovation of adaptation. Yet, theorizing on
how adaptation takes place is left unexplored. Instead, early works on diffusion
8
Walsh-Russo
emphasized the importance of compatibility 2 between the thing being diffused across
a population and the sociological and psychological condition of the adopter or group
of adopters (Katz, 1999:149; Tarde, 1903).
1 Sorokin's theories on diffusion included a critique of the S curve, and argued against its
assumption of universalism. Instead given the myriad of diffusion processes, Sorokin
argued, several S curves might exist. (Katz, 1999: 151).
2 The saliency of similarity and compatibility between adopter and transmitter to the
successful diffusion and adoption of an idea or thing continues to be a fundamental
assumption within diffusion research today. See Snow and Bendford,1999.
For early theorists, the most successful cases of diffusion and adoption occurred when
the thing or idea being diffused was most similar to pre-existing structural and cultural
conditions (Tarde, 1903, 1989; Katz, 1999). Moreover, early diffusion theorists argued
for the downward movement of an innovation with regards to social class-an
innovation was assumed to have originated within the dominant upper class and
adopted by subordinate middle and lower classes (Sorokin, 1941). Sorokin's studies of
mobility depict diffusion of an idea or thing often imposed upon by those more
powerful, sometimes adopted unknowingly, and, at other moments, with awareness
by the less powerful. Thus, he offers an account, however flawed, of working class
domination and agency. In this sense, Sorokin echoes Simmel's top-down diffusion
model of fashion, of upper class construction and development of trends and lower
9
Walsh-Russo
class adoption and absorption of those trends (Crane, 1999: 15; Simmel, 1904).
Classical studies eschewed in-depth analysis of cultural practices. In turn, theorists chose
an emphasis on structural mechanisms, such as social networks, that promote internal
diffusion of new information flows, ideas and things within a discreet population (Strang
and Soule, 1998). Because classical studies emphasized sameness, similarity and mutual
identification as fundamental conditions for diffusion within a population, the intrapopulation analysis of classical studies emphasized strong, dense ties amongst
members of a group as a fundamental (structural) mechanism for the transmission of
new information and things.
10
Walsh-Russo
Burt's analysis of structural equivalence (1987) finds that actors within shared, similar
networks often develop competitive strategies for maintaining relations within that
network or tie. Meyer and Strang (1993) argue that during diffusion and subsequent
adaptation actors consider the successes and failures of previous actors' activities.
Modern nation-state legitimacy often rests on conflicts surrounding the elaboration or
restriction of assumed universal rights, articulated through state policies, and often
relying on the support of scientific knowledge. Thus, given the role of the nation-state in
facilitating these values and beliefs, diffusion of innovations in the form of state policies
creates a flow in which innovations are easily expanded. Commonly held assumptions of
modern life-for example, universal rights, the importance of science-allow actors to
engage in competition wi th other actors and share common categories and identities,
together with common, collective understandings and shared meanings. These
similarities provide a foundation for diffusion of new information, ideas and things.
(Meyers and Strang, 1993).
The works of earlier and later classical diffusion studies contributed key insights for
studies of diffusion within social movements and provided researchers with
fundamental assumptions and models to be used as guides for future research. Within
research conducted on social movements and diffusion, findings have helped
contribute to explanations of what types of processes and mechanisms allow for the
successful transfer and adoption of individual participation, action and organizational
forms across and within populations (most often, although not exclusively,
organizations formed and maintained outside formal, mainstream institutions).
11
Walsh-Russo
Moreover, research on diffusion within social movements offered theoretical
contributions to understanding the outcomes and consequences of diffusion. Empirical
and theoretical studies on diffusion within social movements also drew on
interpretative work outside of the social sciences, and thus developed nuanced
analysis of what types of practices diffused across macro- level institutions. Framing
theorists examined how diffusion processes were transformed by interpretations and
meanings held by actors. 3 Drawing on these approaches, the relatively new study of
transnational movements has brought to the theoretical and empirical foreground
questions on the successful diffusion of new tactics and strategies where similarities
between structural position and shared cultural symbols may remain ambiguous
amongst participants. Sociological and political science literature on the study of
contentious politics has increasingly been concerned with questions regarding the
"building blocks" of theoretical construction on transnational diffusion (Hertel, 2003).
The literature may be divided into four components: 1) networks, direct and indirect
ties, and spatial similarities 2) brokerage 3) contagion and 4) cycles of contention and
protest.
,
Diffusion between two channels depends not only upon rational calculations and
interpersonal relations between individuals but also upon the influence of indirect,
non-relational conductors of innovations4 such as various forms of mass
communication. Information may spread across nation states through non-direct ties
when personal relations are not available, provided an analogous self or collective
identity exists between transmitters and adopters.
12
Walsh-Russo
3 Also thereby offered critiques of many of the theoretical foundations underlying classical
diffusion theories.
4 Doug McAdam and Dieter Rucht
13
Walsh-Russo
Two categories along which innovations may flow: direct {network, structural, relational
ties) and non-direct (termed "cultural linkages") channels (Meyer and Strang, 1993).
Meyer and Strang's study of diffusion within social movements emphasized the
temporal dimensions of diffusion as well as the cultural constructions of meaning that
occur before, during, and after the spread of social entities. Epiphenomenal changes
such as the rise of the modern nation-state, the role of scientific theorizing and the
salience of modern scientific practitioners are crucial variables in ensuring the
institutionalization of scientific thought. 5 The rise of institutions such as universities, as
well as the rise of the modern print media, helped ensure the subsequent ease with
which scientific knowledge and theorizing were passed on and spread to a wider
population. Specifically, Meyer and Strang argued that the modern development and
specialization of analytic concepts and categories, the examination of patterned
relations6promotes and speeds up the processes of diffusion within cultural domains7
Tilly's analysis of protest and contention among British workers during the late 18th and
early 19th century introduced repertoire-s of contention into the study of collection
action and social movements (Tilly, 1992, 1994, 1995). Repertoires of action develop
contentious elements when the outcome of claims
5 Meyer and Strang write, "one reason for emphasizing the sciences and professions is that
thes e communities are relatively central, prestig'1ous, influential, and so not o-nly
construct models but are able to promote them vigorously...diffusion...requires support
14
Walsh-Russo
from other kinds of actors...state authorities, large corporate actors,grass-roots activists.
In some way,models must make the-' transition from theoretical formulation to social
movement to Institutional imperative (Ibid,p495)."
6 Ibid, p492.
7Relatedly,Meyer and Strang's early work emphasized the spread of public policy and
other forms of group innovation across nation-states.
maintained by leaders and followers impact the interests of claims-makers (Tilly, 1994).
The spread of contentious repertoires (through interactions of group practices) is
highly constrained by dynamics between claims-makers and actors acting on behalf of
institutions such as the state. Thus, an important component to the diffusion of
repertoires of contention is the struggle between actors. In addition to Tilly, Clemens
(1996), Tarrow (1994) Meyer and Tarrow, (1998) also argue that the spread of
innovation contains a performative mix of "newness" in order to generate notice from
audiences as well as the references, for audience comprehension, to previous
repertoires, (Krinsky, 1999: 2). As Tilly notes, most new innovations die quickly, and
those that survive often operate on the margins of social life. Furthermore$ for claimmakers, successful outcomes help ensure the survival of a repertoire.
Clemens' (1993; 1996) research on American social movements of the late 19th century
draws on Tilly's notion of repertoires as well as the work of neo-institutionalists
15
Walsh-Russo
(DiMaggio and Powell, 1991} and expands on the notion of repertoires as sets of
interactions through examination of social movement organizations' interactions with
institutionalized, state processes. Clemens argues that social movement
organizations draw upon organizational forms that are simultaneously innovative as
well as known, and thus create repertoires of organizational practices. Through the
adoption of familiar and unfamiliar innovations, social movement groups are not wholly
incorporated into the state apparatus, yet nevertheless shape and alter their political
landscape through organizational innovation and creativity that in turn makes available
those innovations to newcomers.
16
Walsh-Russo
The effects of interaction between the state and social movements are also McAdams'
(1994) focus in his conceptual development of spin-off and initiator movements. Spatial
and ideological overfap may lead to the creation of a social movement community, in
which cultural practices from one movement, such as writings, music and art are then
shared and incorporated by another, linked group. While sympathetic to political
process accounts of diffusion provided by McAdam and Rucht, Meyer and Whittier point
out that within the broad public sphere spin-off and spill-over movements draw upon
previously established activist networks for help with establishing new causes,
resources and external support. For example, women from the 1970s feminist
movement were able to use pre-existing activist networks as well as current
employment opportunities-- in politics, Jaw and research foundations, as examples--to
raise financial and ideological support for the emerging anti-nuclear movement of the
late 1970s and 1980s (Meyer and Whittier, 1993). Whittier and Meyer's analysis of the
relationship between feminist and anti-nuclear movements demonstrates the
interaction between the formulation of a collective identity and the diffusion of
practices and ideas. The process of forming communities and enacting collective
identities among group members means developing not only a sense of the groups and
ideas "we" are against, but also who "we" are a part of, the coalitions and groups "we"
are also simultaneously in alignment (Jaspers, 1998; Polletta and Jaspers, 2001). Social
movement communities and activist identities are formulated not only in response to
opposition parties, but in dialoging, speaking and linking to other, emergent
movements similar to their own.
17
Walsh-Russo
Transnational social movement diffusion
As theorists of social movements and diffusion have recently incorporated into their
analyses, technological changes in mass communication and transportation and
subsequent changes among ties between individuals have deepened the intensity and
speed of diffusion, and help account for the spread of a movement's tactics, identities and
goals (Tarrow, 2006). Recent studies on social movement diffusion have also attempted to
capture the specific dynamics that account for the types ofties and spread of a movement
across geographic expanse. Soule's (1995) analysis of shantytown tactics among US college
students expands upon the preliminary findings of McAdam and Rucht's research on the
conditions of cross- national activist networks among the US and German New Left. Soule's
findings on the spread of a particular tactic among college students of similarly ranked
institutions indicate that the strength of indirect ties contributes significantly to the
solidification of a group's collective identity (Soule, p873). According to Soule, the
shantytown tactic diffused across particular higher education institutions, ones that shared
similar structural location as elite, well-endowed, wealthy colleges and universities. Soule's
analysis underscores the connection between similar networks, ties and the establishment
of a sense of solidarity and shared "we-ness" in helping diffuse ideas and practices within
social movement organizations. The construction of shared solidarity and similarity between
transnational dimensions within a set of connected movements is often arrived at, if at all,
through struggle and contestation. Wood provides an (2001, 2003, 2007} account of internal
strategies within recent anti-globalization organizations. Based on observations of
18
Walsh-Russo
organizational meetings, Wood argues the asymmetric relationship between the global North
and South is recreated within the anti-globalization movement's internal relations.8
8 Wood discusses tensions within PGS surrounding undetermined decision-making
processes. One source is the frequent suggestion of the Northern activists to base decisionmaking on consensus.
Beginning with prior organizational and movement experience, participants often bring
divergent knowledge and accounts about the role of social movements in relation to the state
to movement meetings. Wood finds Northern participants frequently involved in anarchist,
direct action, peace and environmental movements, while in the South, participants are
involved with the work of unions, peasant and indigenous movements. Frequently, these
structural dissimilarities, the lack of shared or similar backgrounds and experiences among
participants create conditions through which the construction of similarity and thus coalition
building and the spread of tactics become difficult t_o negotiate. How do these contemporary
transnational movement actors, Wood questions, while acting· in broad coalition with other
actors, strategically respond to particular political and economic contexts and struggle to
maintain ideological commitments that must traverse local and national geographic,
economic, and cultural spheres? Smith's (1997) findings indicate that the more cohesive a
network of transnational organizations within the environment or locale of other transnational
organizations, the greater the facilitation for movement actors to overcome various challenges
and constraints to transnational organization and mobilization. Smith notes in her study that
19
Walsh-Russo
the density of transnational social movement networks within their environment with other
international organizations and non-governmental organizations is increasing-given their
geographic dispersal and frequently overlapping membership. Smith's and Tarrow's (2006)
analysis on the personnel and organizational overlap within the field global organizations
indicates, within the complex world of state borders and non-governmental organizations,
changes or transformations that occur within the transnational space of some social
movements are never complete and the continuation of transformations never secure.
The space or location beyond, above or across state boundaries is continually formed and
reformed. That is, transnational social movement organizations work constantly to
reestablish the realm or space through which their work is done, above or beyond the
broader world of individual sovereign states through which they must also interact and
grow. Leila Rupp's (1997) analysis of early twentieth century transnational women's peace
organizations details an earlier, more nascent version of the transnational sphere and the
work activists devote to its preservation. Rupp's historical account presents how, at least
for the cadre of leaders, friendship ties facilitated by internal interlocutors, established
long standing connections among women participants located geographically throughout
Europe. The close, almost- familial, quality of the social ties among women leaders helped
form a transnational space founded upon the recognition of, even celebration of through
various rituals, participants' preexisting national identities while simultaneously also
advancing international normative understandings of war, peace, and gender. Within
these early forms of transnational organizing, participants' rigorous political engagement
helped develop the template, Rupp argues, for a contemporary transnational collective
20
Walsh-Russo
identity, that is, their work modeled the balance of national with international political
identities, soon after realized in post war international relations with the formation of the
United Nations, as the largest and most influential of international organizations. Thus, the
international women's movement's influence, like much of transnational political organizing
that begins with the abolitionist movement in the late 18th century, extended beyond their
European locale and the historic context of their mobilization attempts.
The internal dynamics of a movement that help extend activist networks, information and
material resources beyond state borders affects the development and maintenance of
amorphous and elusive transnational space.
Thorn's (2009) study of the South African anti-apartheid movement of the mid twentieth
century analyzes the transnational features of the movement, the influence of external and
internal actors on different movement tactics and organizations. Similar to Rupp's analysis of
international women's organizations, anti-apartheid activists' from the 1960s to the 1990s
work through boycotts and sanctions, divestments and disinvestments, drew on both face to
face interactions between key activists as well as in broad coalition with other, external actors.
Thorn documents the influence of the US based Black Power movement on the South African
movement. The outside movements and social ties that helped construct an imagined
community of solidarity activists outside of the state boundary of South Africa helped build
sustained transnational anti-apartheid actions across borders. As the international antiapartheid movement worked through the system of nation states as well as the increasingly
intensified processes of globalization that included an increase in the spread of forms of mass
21
Walsh-Russo
media, according to Thorn, borders of nation-states and national identities also became
increasingly fluid and porous.
Conditions of contemporary globalization, or "internationalization" as Tarrow argues
(Tarrow, 2005), impact how transnational movements shift, change, and spread tactics and
ideas from one setting to another. In evaluating forms of diffusion and its consequences
for a movement, Tarrow and McAdam (2006) conceptualize relational diffusion is a form of
diffusion through which information diffuses from one site to another through familiar ties,
given that activists most likely distribute information with activists they already know than
with less familiar colleagues. As a result, relational diffusion as a component of
transnational movement dynamism carries with it far less transformative potential for a
given movement, since activists are within familiar networks where expectations are clear.
A plethora of factors either stymie or facilitate the transnational diffusion of tactics. These
include internal characteristics of movements themselves, the transnational linksbetween different national movements, and the characteristics of national political
contexts. All of these factors can influence adaptation of new tactics, the transformation
of movement goals and identities, and the process of "creative reinterpretation." In general,
the statements generated from previous, aforementioned studies focus in on the
characteristics and quality of social ties necessary for the spread of tactics. However, in
addition to these questions, further investigation is needed to determine the impact of the
broader political and historical context, particularly the impact of limited or open state
receptivity on the social ties that help facilitate transnational diffusion. That is, 1) the active
22
Walsh-Russo
work movement participants must conduct in order for a sense or notion if collective
identification with a movement to take place, including the recognition that actors share
similar political contexts and struggle between movement sites helps initially spread tactics 2)
and the subsequent reception by domestic states impacts whether or not tactics may be used
or additional, contingent tactical innovation developed. The recent events throughout the
mid-East, Russia and the United States demonstrate the spread of tactics, ideas and strategies
across geographic expanse. Previous empirical studies on transnational movements highlight
how transnational movements as a form of social movement organizing are dynamic sites of
struggle and contestation. I argue further analysis is needed in order to reveal the dynamism
of the struggle within and between transnational movements as connected sites of action.
Furthermore, within the continually shifting transnational space beyond or above state
borders, at least part of the internal work conducted surrounds the choice of tactics,
frequently adapted from external or outside actors, to be used or discarded. Thus,
participants donot passively accept or receive diffused items. Processes of adoption and
adaptation are most often negotiated and contested among actors. As Chabot and Duyvendak
discuss, diffusion across transnational movements involves not only top down, but also
bottom- up adoption, with a reformulation of tactics and strategies by adopters as well as
transmitters (Chabot and Duyvendak 2002: 728). Transnational social movement participants
and their organizations work to challenge cultural practices as well as enact institutional,
structural change {Whittier and Meyer, 1994; Cohen and Arato, 1992). Given the cultural and
structural challenges of such movements to multiple sites of focus, action, and audiences,
elements of a past movement's uniqueness frequently carry over to other movements.
23
Walsh-Russo
Thus, influenced by a preceding, connected movement's knowledge of useful tactics,
movement participants adapt particular organizational strategies, recruitment tactics, and
ideological beliefs from previous movements, and reformulate these tactics among an
array of options.
III.
Case Selection: What is Occupy? How did it spread? (3pgs).
a. Anti-Fracking: a timeline and review
b. Josh Fox’s Gasland
c. President Obama and Republican candidate Mitt Romney offer public support
for expansion of natural gas extraction.
IV.
Findings:
a. Borrowed Items:
b. Occupy ‘Well’ St. as direct action campaign against fracking.
c. “Global Day of Action” known as “Global Frackdown”
Wood writes “ Global days of action are a growing form of transnational contention (p71).”
“Events may include:








Human signs spelling out “Ban Fracking” targeting decision-makers
Protests or street theater outside oil or gas company headquarters or elected officials’ offices
Frackdown mock wrestling event where community members take on oil/gas executives
and/or elected officials
Erect and take down fake drilling rig in park or public square and put up wind turbine
Film screenings of Gasland or Split Estate
Petition gathering actions
Visibility events at key intersections with signs
Assemblies/pot lucks about fracking with community members”
24
Walsh-Russo
“Hydro fracking” or what is otherwise known as “fracking” beneath the earth’s surface is
process What is the topic? What are the concerns within anti-fracking? What’s at stake? What
are its connections to the Occupy movement? More broadly, what is the role of space within
diffusion processes? (3-5pgs).
V.
Discussion and Conclusion:
a. Further research? What can this case study tell us about rural to urban
movement tactics? Does space matter in contention? If so, how?
25
Walsh-Russo