I’ve often wondered why there is not a higher degree of cooperation among movements. It seems a coalition would be an obvious benefit to everyone interested in social change. Surely the betterment of the collective whole is more important than our individual hang-ups. In their book Social Movements: An Introduction, Mario Diani and Donatella Della Porta’s discussion of movement networks was enlightening on just now complicated these coalitions can be.
Diani and Della Porta refer to these coalitions as networks. There are three different types of networks. The first network is used during times of activity and general consulting. The second is joint members and the third is recruitment of potential activists.
Much of the networking is facilitated on an individual and informal level. In the instance of recruitment, the degree of the individual bond and potentiality of their joining is closely related. For example, if a person has several close friends involved in a movement the chances of that person joining are greater than that of another person who does not have the same connection.
Diani and Della Porta also discuss the circumstances that are conducive to an individual joining a movement. Not only is it important to accept the ideology but it is also important to be in a position that allows protest. Diani and Della Porta point out that many involved in protests are unmarried (Diani: 115). On a personal level I realize I have been less inclined to risk arrest since I have started my family; however, I still risk arrest on occasion. The risks of protest intensify when an individual feels the responsibility of family.
Conversely, family ties can also be the motivation for action that carries great risk. Diani and Della Porta provide the example of Italian terrorists in the 1970′s. Individuals are more likely to join a militant group if other family members are involved.
Some groups require little social networking. This is the case when a group is exclusionary and requires a member to relinquish all their former relationships. Networking is confined to within the group because separation from the rest of the world is priority. Any networking is reserved to groups with the perceived identical ideology.
Commonly, activists are connected to more than one movement. While an individual may only be an official member of one movement, they are likely to have friends involved in other movements. These activists often share information and resources. Diani and Della Porta write “The denser the relationships among the leaders and activists of various movement organizations, the higher the chances of cooperation among them”(Diani: 123).
There are three major benefits of individual having multiple memberships. The first is the speed and volume of information transferred between organizations. The second, is solidarity and trust. Third, is the depth of the history in movements. Naomi Rosenthal’s study of the women’s movement in New York revealed the “historical phases” of inter-organizational networking. The first was strong interaction during the movements for emancipation of women, the termination of slavery and prohibition. This was followed by a period of inactivity when many of the organizations disbanded. However, following this duration there was a resurgence of movements interested in “universal suffrage” (Diani: 123).
Whether organizations decide to compete or cooperate is dependent on many factors. In reality, organizations can actually do both. Diani and Della Porta describe the working relationship of “competitive cooperation” that some organizations share (Diani: 125).
Organizations (aside from exclusionary organizations) realize that they cannot provide services to everyone. While they may compete with similar organizations for resources they also know there are benefits to cooperation. There is strength in numbers.
When there is no cooperation between organizations due to incompatibility of issues there is a state of “neutrality” (Diani: 126). Competition is considered a mute point because these organizations have entirely different support sources.
When organizations share the same support sources and each is vying for the much-sought support the results are “factional” (Diani: 126). Competition is so fierce that the similar organizations attempt to find any difference that would set them apart and sway support their way, i.e. Clinton vs. Obama.
Organizations that are not in competition for the same market but still have similar goals can enjoy a “non-competitive cooperative” relationship. Though they may not share political views they have some incentive for cooperation.
One of the positive results of inter-organizational networking is the introduction of new issues. Activists have a heightened awareness of issues if they choose to interact with members of other movements. Some would argue that this knowledge would dilute a person’s efforts and be overwhelming. While I agree that a person needs to “pick her battles”, I believe that networking enriches the experience. Activists are constantly learning from their peers.
Diani and Della Porta also discuss how the social climate will effect interaction. If organizations are making progress they are more likely to have healthy enrollment and more inclined to have cooperative relationships. If the climate is hostile than dissolution is more likely, leaving little possibility for cooperation.
Diani, Mario. Della Porta, Donatella. Social Movements: An
Introduction. (2000). Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell
Publishers.
Tags: Features, Social Movements
3 Comments
Very Interesting! One of the most illustrative examples of the power of “non-competitive cooperation” that I witnessed first-hand in my lifetime was the movement for the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act. I was working in the late seventies for the Bureau for Hearing Impaired in Madison, Wisconsin. Herb Pickell, the director of this bureau was tireless in his efforts to establish a state office that would serve the deaf population of Wisconsin. Mr. Pickell and other deaf leaders in the community gained the attention of an energetic member of the state legislature and, with his help, presented testimony of deaf individuals along with statistical data that supported the need for a state office that would address the needs of this population. Thus, the Office of Hearing Impairment was established in Wisconsin around 1978 and was housed in Madison. This movement by the deaf population in Wisconsin coincided with movements of other deaf individuals in other states. As one group gained power within a state, it wasn’t long before another group emulated it’s methodology and procedure which, in turn, enabled it to set up it’s own office or agency within it’s own state government. Simultaneously other minority groups with similar needs (blind/visually impaired, physically challenged groups, etc.) were also gaining political clout. Offices for this disability and that disability started springing up all over the country. it wasn’t long before these agencies, offices, and groups recognized that they had mutual political goals. Groups of deaf people, blind people, and other physically challenged and mentally challenged individuals soon became aware that united, they would be even more powerful in establishing laws that would ensure social justice for the individuals they all represented. And so, in meetings that had interpreters that the blind could not see and spoken testimony from the blind that the deaf could not hear, they hammered out legislative proposals sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph, document by document, presented their proposals to their Senators and Congressmen in Washington and voila’ – the American with Disabilities Act was enacted. It was an awesome movement to witness.
Why is there is not a higher degree of cooperation among movements?
The best answer to this question that I’ve seen was provided by Dr. George Lakoff (Don’t Think of an Elephant), who teaches cognitive linguistics at Berkeley in Calif. In his view the reason partially stems from some of the inherent values that underlie the liberal/progressive world-view.
This article is well worth reading.
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml
Especially the section titled: Why haven’t progressives done the same thing?
Dori
I re-read this article TODAY (2/24/11) while marchers for collective bargaining at this moment are gathering in Madison, WI from all over the United States shouting, “Fight like an Egyptian.”
How appropo this piece, Michael Birchard!