Social Movement Theory: Resource Mobilization Theory

Resource mobilization theory argues that social movements succeed through the effective mobilization of resources and the development of political opportunities for members. This article will focus on resource mobilization theory and provide an analysis of the history, applications, and strengths and weaknesses of the theory. An overview of the origins and main principles of resource mobilization theory is included. The application of resource mobilization theory to social movement formation is discussed. The main criticisms of the resource mobilization theory are also explored.

Keywords Action Mobilization; Collective Identity; Conscience Constituents; Consensus Mobilization; Frame; Mass Media; Mass Society Theory; Relative Deprivation Theory; Resource Mobilization Theory; Social Mobilization; Social Movement Theory; Society

Social Movements & Collective Behavior > Social Movement Theory: Resource Mobilization Theory

Overview

The term social movement refers to a deliberate, voluntary effort to organize individuals to act in concert to achieve enough group influence to make or block changes. Social movements are power-oriented groups rather than participation-oriented movements, meaning that the group actions of social movements are not necessarily of primary benefit to individual members, but instead serve the groups' larger goals. Thus, coordinated group actions are undertaken to make changes in the larger socio-political context. Social movements tend to be most successful in open, democratic societies in which social mobility and social change are accepted concepts. Norm-oriented social movements, which are groups that attempt to make changes within a social system, are more common than value-oriented social movements, which seek to change the fundamental goals of a social system (Morrison, 1971).

Resource mobilization theory is one means sociologists use to explain the characters and outcomes of social movements. Understanding the principles, applications, and strengths and weaknesses of resource mobilization theory is vital background for all those interested in the sociology of social movements. This article explains resource mobilization theory in three distinct parts: an overview of the main principles and origins of resource mobilization theory; a description of how resource mobilization theory is applied to analyze and understand the character and success of social movements; and a discussion of the main criticisms of resource mobilization theory.

The Basics of Resource Mobilization Theory

The resource mobilization theory of social movements holds that a social movement arises from long-term changes in a group's organization, available resources, and opportunities for group action. Resource mobilization theory has five main principles (Jenkins, 1983):

1. The actions of social movement's members and participants are rational.
2. A social movement's actions are strongly influenced by institutionalized power imbalances and conflicts of interest.
3. These power imbalances and conflicts of interest are sufficient to generate grievances that lead to the mobilization of social movement's intent on changing the distribution of resources and organization.
4. Centralized and formally structured social movements more effectively mobilize resources and achieve goals of change than decentralized and informal social movements.
5. The success of social movements is heavily influenced by group strategy and the political climate.

The resource mobilization theory of social movements examines structural factors, including a group's available resources and the position of group members in socio-political networks, to analyze the character and success of social movements. According to resource mobilization theory, participation in social movements is a rational behavior, based on an individual's conclusions about the costs and benefits of participation, rather than one born of a psychological predisposition to marginality and discontent (Klandermans, 1984).

The resource mobilization theory of social movements is used to explain how social movements since the 1950s have evolved from classical social movements, which are characterized by local leadership, volunteer staff, collective actions, large membership, and resources donated from direct beneficiaries; to professional social movements, which characterized by professional leadership, paid staff, informal membership, resources donated from outside the movement, and actions that represent the movement but do not require member participation. Resource mobilization theory of social movements explains how social movements mobilize resources, from inside and outside their movement, to reach goals (Jenkins, 1983).

Resource mobilization theory argues that social movements succeed through the effective mobilization of resources and the development of political opportunities for members. Social movements can mobilize both material and non-material resources. Material resources include money, organizations, manpower, technology, means of communication, and mass media, while non-material resources include legitimacy, loyalty, social relationships, networks, personal connections, public attention, authority, moral commitment, and solidarity (Fuchs, 2006).

Resource mobilization theory holds that social movement organizations with powerless or resource-poor beneficiaries require outside support and funding. There are two types of members belonging to social movement organizations: conscience constituents and beneficiary constituents. Social movements often seek out and receive resources from conscience constituents. Conscience constituents refer to individuals or groups outside of the social movement who have a moral alliance with the social movement's cause, goal, or mission. The social movement and the mass media are responsible for framing the social movement's message and character. Resource mobilization theorists have found that conscience constituents tend to contribute more when beneficiaries are framed, by the social movement itself or mass media, to emphasize commonalities with conscience constituents (Paulsen & Glumm, 1995).

Ultimately, the resource mobilization theory of social movements helps to explain the formation of social movements, the process of social mobilization, and the politics of social movements. The connections between resource mobilization theory and the formation of social movements, the process of social mobilization, and the politics of social movements will be addressed below.

The Formation of Social Movements

Resource mobilization theorists analyze why social movements form. Traditional theories of social movements argue that social movements form from the personal grievances that arise from structural and social change. In contrast, resource mobilization theory argues that social movements arise from the long-term changes in group resources, organization, and collective action opportunities. The entrepreneurial theory of social movements, a sub-theory of resource mobilization, argues that the major factor in the formation of social movements is the availability of resources, not personal grievance. Support for the entrepreneurial theory of social movements was garnered from studies of public interest movements of the 1970s. Public interest movements, including the environmental movement, anti-nuclear movement, and consumer-safety movement, were found to be initiated by public-minded entrepreneurs rather than individuals motivated by grievance, alienation, or discontent. Numerous resources, such as the welfare movement, farm worker movement, and Civil Rights Movements, have benefited from the direction of entrepreneurial leadership (Jenkins, 1983).

Social mobilization refers to the process of persuading people to join and support a social movement organization, whether it is through material and non-material means. Social mobilization involves two steps: consensus mobilization and action mobilization. Consensus mobilization refers to the process by which a social movement organization attempts to garner support for its opinions. The consensus mobilization process includes the formation of a collective good, social movement strategy, confrontation with the opposition, and a review of results. Action mobilization refers to the process by which organizations within social movements solicit active participation. Action mobilization is based on the ability of social movement actors and organizers to motivate others to participate. Mobilizing organizations work to make people see that the benefits to participation and the costs of non-participation are high (Klandermans, 1984).

The process of mobilization is used to secure collective control of the resources necessary for collective action. The social movement organization must examine the resources the group has access to prior to mobilization, the strategies the group will use to gain new resources, and the likelihood of people adding new resources to the group.

Resources used to mobilize social movements may be intangible or tangible. Intangible resources, also referred to as human assets or resources, that can mobilize social movements include the specialized resources of organizational or legal abilities, the diverse skills of supporters, legitimacy, loyalty, social relationships, networks, personal connections, authority, moral commitments, and solidarity (Fuchs, 2006). Tangible resources used to mobilize social movements include money, facilities, and means of communication. Institutions, which may influence the mobilization of resources for social movements, include private foundations, social welfare organizations, colleges and universities, the mass media, government agencies, and business and industry.

Resource mobilization theorists consider the following categories of resources to significantly affect the character and success of social movements:

• Instrumental resources are the resources that are used in the attempts to influence and motivate participants.
• Infra-resources refer to the resources that condition and influence the use of instrumental resources.
• Power resources are the resources that provide the means for controlling targets.
• Mobilizing resources refer to the resources that facilitate the mobilization of power resources.

Resource mobilization theorists recognize that resources tend to have multiple uses (Jenkins, 1983).

The Politics of Social Movements

Resource mobilization theorists argue that the outcome and success of a social movement is dependent on the larger political climate. This perspective, referred to as an open system approach, is in contrast to the traditional closed system approach of traditional social movements in which social movements are believed to pass through fixed stages regardless of the political climate. Resource mobilization theorists believe that the outcomes of social movements are influenced by strategic choices, the positions and actions of elites, the support of influential organizations, and governing coalitions and regimes. There are four outcomes for social organization: full success, acceptance without benefits or gains, benefits and gains without acceptance, and failure.

The mass media is an integral part of the political participation effort by social movements. It influences the politics of social movements by informing the elites and public about the actions of social movements as well as interpreting these actions (Jenkins, 1983). Social movements often solicit media coverage through the creation of quasi-political events that will be of interest to the news media. The mass media's depictions of the politics of social movements are usually mixed in tone. Social movements that engage in lawful, peaceful, and conventional forms of political participation tend to receive both positive and negative coverage. Social movements that engage in forceful, violent, or anti-authoritarian acts tend to be depicted in a negative way. Contextual factors that influence media coverage of social movements include the authorities' level of control over the political environment. Media factors that influence media coverage of social movements include the media's use of frames to interpret and represent political events and issues (Paletz, 2002).

The History of Resource Mobilization Theory

Social movement theory as a field of inquiry was founded in the late nineteenth century. The interdisciplinary history of social movement theory includes six main areas of study: resource mobilization theory, mass society theory, relative deprivation theory, structural-strain theory, value-added theory, and new social movement theory. Social movement theory proposes that social movements are, in many instances, created through the use and manipulation of frames. Social movements influence and control their members through tactics such as mobilizing fear, engaging in frame appropriation, social constructionism, and counterframing. Social movements are analyzed in two main ways: social constructionist perspective and frame analysis (Benford & Snow, 2000).

Resource mobilization theory developed in the 1960s in opposition to collective behavior theory (as advocated by Durkheim and Blumer), which considered social movements to be irrational and the outgrowths of personal grievances and discontent (Fuchs, 2006). In the 1960s, social science studies of collective action experienced a paradigm shift. Abstract theories of collective action evolved from a focus on mass behavior in the early twentieth century gave way in the 1960s and 1970s to resource mobilization, which was in turn supplanted by new social movement theory in the 1990s (Edelman, 2001).

Resource mobilization theory developed in reaction to traditional social-psychological analysis of social movements. In developing it, theorists largely abandoned the social-psychological approach that characterized other social movement theories like relative deprivation theory, mass society theory, and collective behavior theory. These social-psychological theories all tended to focus on identifying factors that attract individuals to social movements (e.g. personality traits, grievances, disillusionment, and ideology). They also tended to consider participation in social movements to be irrational and unconventional behavior.

In the 1960s, however, resource mobilization theorists used many of the social movements happening at the time to challenge the assumptions behind the traditional social-psychological theories of social movements. For example, resource mobilization theorists (through their studies of the Civil Rights, student, union, political protest, anti-abortion, environmental, and anti-nuclear movements) found that social movements participants were not wholly marginalized or alienated individuals.

Traditional theories of social movements see the category of social movements as including personal change movements (such as cults and communes) and institutional change movements (such as the labor movement). Resource mobilization theory, however, limits the social movement's category to institutional change movement's intent on reshaping the social structure or distribution of power and resources in society. The three traditional approaches to understanding social movements — relative deprivation theory, mass society theory, and collective behavior theory — are united by their efforts to understand the individual problems that arise from social change. These theories assume that the participants in social movements are often isolated, desperate, and irrational. Resource mobilization theory offers an alternative to this view by focusing on the economic and political variables that can give rise to social movements. It focused on the connections between social movements, institutionalized actions, the rationality of actors in social movements, and the potential for social movements to bring about social change.

In the 1960s, resource mobilization theory eclipsed the traditional theories of social movements to become the dominant theory explaining the origins and characters of social movements. It remained so until the 1990s (Klandermans, 1984).

Applications

Political Opportunities

When applying resource mobilization theory to a social movement, sociologists examine how the movement mobilizes resources and what political opportunities, if any, it creates or seeks out. Resource mobilization theorists look for evidence of material resource used, including the use of money, organizations, manpower, technology, means of communication, mass media; and non-material resource use, including legitimacy, loyalty, social relationships, networks, personal connections, public attention, authority, moral commitment, and solidarity. Resource mobilization theory argues that a group's level of affluence influences whether or not a social movement will form. Resource mobilization theory also recognizes the importance of charismatic leadership for motivating members to mobilize resources (Fuchs, 2006).

Resource mobilization theory argues that social movements arise from the long-term changes in a group's or organization's access to resources and opportunities for group action. For example, resource mobilization theorists seeking to explain the formation and success of the Civil Rights Movement would observe that the early Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s did not use external resources to mobilize and achieve gains, but instead relied on local community networks. By the 1960s, the Civil Rights Movement had made such sufficient gains within institutional realms, such as education and labor rights, that it could successfully mobilize resources from external sources.

Resource mobilization theorists would argue that the Civil Rights Movement was made possible by the urbanization and industrialization of the South, a rise in the number of middle-class African-Americans, increased opportunity for and enrollment in historically African-American colleges, and the expansion of African-American churches. These structural and organizational changes, they would say, repositioned African-Americans in society. Their votes became influential in the outcomes of political elections, and their resources and number of organizations increased as historical, social controls over them lessened.

In contrast, a traditional psych-social explanation of social movements might argue that the Civil Rights Movement emerged from African-Americans' feelings of discontent, alienation, and deprivation. Relative deprivation theorists assert that the early American Civil Rights Movement grew to include a wide range of groups united by a belief in equality and equal access to resources. According to them, civil rights activists framed their demands in the language of relative deprivation, democratic rights, and Christian universalism. This narrative of the Civil Rights Movement highlights the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, the famous public protests, and the passages of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Morisson, 1971). All of these events, relative deprivation theorists argue, demonstrate that the early Civil Rights Movement was born from African Americans' feelings of deprivation in relation to Caucasian segments of society.

Issues

While resource mobilization theory dominated social movement theory from the 1960s to the 1980s, critics have begun to find fault with the theory's narrow political and economic focus. A number of issues pose a major theoretical challenge to the dominance of resource mobilization theory. For example, resource mobilization theory focuses almost exclusively on centralized social movement organizations and ignores decentralized social movement communities. Resource mobilization theory discounts the importance of a collective identity in the actions, characters, and outcomes of social movements, and it does not explain individuals' motivation to join and participate in social movements (Beuchler, 1993). In effect, resource mobilization theory's focus on large-scale analyses can undervalue the micro-level processes of individual motivation, personality transformation, and cultural change (Jenkins, 1983).

Further, resource mobilization theory limits the category of social movements to institutional change movement's intent on transforming the social structure or distribution of power and resources in society, claiming that all social movements are an extension of institutional actions. As a result, it ignores personal change movements, such as cults, communes, and religious sects, which the theory considers to rely on social interactions and charismatic leadership for defining goals rather than institutional structures. By so narrowly defining social movements, though, the theory can limit its applications.

Conclusion

While traditional theories of social movements, namely relative deprivation theory, mass society theory, and collective behavior theory, seek to provide a global explanation of social movements, resource mobilization theory is exclusively used to explain institutional change movements (Jenkins, 1983). Ultimately, resource mobilization theory can limit its usefulness by failing to recognize and account for the psycho-social elements of social movements (Klandermans, 1984).

Terms & Concepts

Action Mobilization: The process by which organizations within social movements solicit active participation.

Collective Identity: The tendency of social movements to form a self-image for individual participants.

Conscience Constituents: Individuals or groups outside of a social movement who have a moral alliance with the movement's cause, goal, or mission.

Consensus Mobilization: The process by which a social movement organization attempts to garner support for its viewpoints.

Frame: A cognitive structure, which guides an individual's or group's perception of reality.

Mass Media: A sector of the media dedicated to reaching large audiences.

Mass Society Theory: An interdisciplinary critique of the mass media's effect on society.

Relative Deprivation Theory: The idea that feelings of deprivation and discontent are related to a desired point of reference (i.e. reference groups).

Resource Mobilization Theory: The idea that social movements arise from long-term changes in a group's organization, available resources, and opportunities for group action.

Social Mobilization: The process of persuading people to join a social movement organization and support it, whether through material or non-material means.

Social Movement Theory: The study of social mobilization including its social, cultural, and political manifestations and consequences.

Society: A group of individuals united by values, norms, culture, or organizational affiliation.

Bibliography

Benford, R. & Snow, D. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611-639. Retrieved May 4, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=3780387&site=ehost-live

Buechler, Steven M (1993). Beyond resource mobilization? Emerging trends in social movement theory. Sociological Quarterly, 34, 217.

Carty, V. (2011). The coalition of the unwilling: Contentious politics, political opportunity structures, and challenges for the contemporary peace movement. Peace & Conflict Studies, 18, 79-115. Retrieved October 31, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocIndex with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=77365637

Cress, D. & Snow, D. (1996). Mobilization at the margins: Resources, benefactors, and the viability of homeless social movement. American Sociological Review, 61, 1089-1109. Retrieved May 4, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=24258740&site=ehost-live

Edelman, M. (2001). Social movements: Changing paradigms and forms of politics. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30, 285-317. Retrieved May 4, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=6533574&site=ehost-live

Fuchs, C. (2006). The self-organization of social movements. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 19, 101-137.

Husu, H. (2013). Bourdieu and social movements: Considering identity movements in terms of field, capital and habitus. Social Movement Studies, 12, 264-279. Retrieved October 31, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocIndex with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=89073156

Jenkins, C. (1983). Resource mobilization theory and the study of social movements. Annual Review of Sociology, 9, 527-554. Retrieved May 4, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=10458287&site=ehost-live

Klandermans, B. (1984). Mobilization and participation: Social-psychological expansions of resource mobilization theory. American Sociological Review, 49, 583-600. Retrieved May 4, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=14858682&site=ehost-live

Morrison, D. (1971). Some notes toward theory on relative deprivation, social movements, and social change. The American Behavioral Scientist (pre-1986), 14, 675.

Paletz, D. (2002). The media in American politics: Contents and consequences. New York: Longman.

Paulsen, R. & Glumm, K. (1995). Resource mobilization and the importance of bridging beneficiary and conscience constituencies. National Journal of Sociology, 9, 37-62. Retrieved May 4, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=10718489&site=ehost-live

Robinson, J. (2011). The meaning of water: "The commons" as a socially constructed discourse. Conference Papers -- American Sociological Association, 1095. Retrieved October 31, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocIndex with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=85658623

Suggested Reading

Albert, K. W. (2013). An analysis of labor union participation in U.S. congressional hearings. Sociological Forum, 28, 574-596. Retrieved October 31, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocIndex with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=89888316

Goldstein, A., & Haveman, H. A. (2013). Pulpit and press: Denominational dynamics and the growth of religious magazines in antebellum America. American Sociological Review, 78, 797-827. Retrieved October 31, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocIndex with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=90495287

Opp, K. & Roehl, W. (1990). Repression, micromobilization, and political protest. Social Forces, 69, 521-547. Retrieved April May 4, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=9103181790&site=ehost-live

Park, H. & Mason, T. (1986). The developmental parameters of relative deprivation theory. Studies in Comparative Development, 21, 85-118. Retrieved May 4, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=6969245&site=ehost-live

Steinberg, M. (1992). Recent social movement theory: Moving from the theoretical margins to Main Street. Sociological Forum, 7, 551-556. Retrieved April 27, 2008 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text: