Theories Of Social Movements

Blumer (1951) makes the distinction between ‘general’ and ‘specific’ social movements; with general social movements giving rise to specific social movements. General social movements are described as vague in their aims and unorganised in their directions, yet they still derived from conditions of social unrest. Social unrest can occur when people change their beliefs or values, concerning what they believe they are entitled to, or what society should be like for example. Blumer (1951) refers to this as a ‘cultural shift’.

Individuals’ once unquestioned reality is challenged which can lead to heightened emotions and dissatisfaction. These feelings, together with various mechanisms, can produce the catalyst for a specific social movement. Unlike general SMs, specific SMs have clear objective and are organised and structured. Members have a more collective identity, a “we-consciousness”, and guiding philosophies, rules and expectations (Blumer, 1951). The first mechanism important to the development of the movement is that of ‘agitation’.

Agitation works to cause a cultural shift explained previously, and by promoting different ways of thinking, provoke restlessness. The use of framing may feature heavily here in persuading people they may be being treated unfairly. It is not enough however, to merely cause people to be dissatisfied, some direction must be given in order for individuals to act. Although a leader of a movement may employ different techniques, what they basically say is “you are dissatisfied and so we – we are going to do something about it”.

Agitation produces unrest and the movement will produce the solution. It is during these early stages of a movement’s development that ‘elementary collective behaviour’ may occur.

This refers to behaviour normally associated with crowds or mobs. In a crowd situation, people may not reflect on their actions and normally self-controlled behaviour gives way to more immediate social interaction – this can become unpredictable and creative.

This description of behaviour is very much the line of thought taken by researchers before the 1960s, who saw protestors as acting abnormally and becoming swept up in a crowd. It may be quite demeaning to activists to merely assume they are acting irrationally or compensating for personal inadequacy (Goodwin & Jasper, 2003). It is unclear in Blumer’s account whether these protestors share any important common characteristic, such as social position.

Another mechanism identified by Blumer (1951) as contributing to a movement’s growth is the development of feelings and closeness within the group. As personal reserve breaks down, members will develop a sense of collective support and belonging which, according to Blumer, make for concerted behaviour.