Student protests and social movement theory
Aaron John Peters has a new article up at Left Foot Forward that takes a look at networked forms of social movements, and their superiority to older social movement organisations. I want to take issue with this, and as I’m being lazy, I’ll quote paragraphs and offer my views:
Elsewhere actors like UKUncut and False Economy have functioned in a manner that has been described previously as ‘open source’ behaving in a networked and autonomous manner in making an impact.
The open source paradigm is a much abused one in contemporary political theory. Considering that the OSS ideology came about due to an abundance of defence money coming into US universities allowing students & researchers to do whatever the hell they like. The OSS movement is dominated by global corporations, who finance and provide full time employees to work on the well-known OSS projects – Google (Android/Webkit/Linux/Mozilla), Apple (Webkit), AOL (Mozilla), IBM, Intel, AMD, Red Hat (Linux). OSS also replicates and exacerbates inequality found elsewhere, particularly in participation by women in hacking, which is often seen as a masculine activity. Finally, OSS is not without its (benevolent) dictators. All of this makes me wonder why OSS is such a popular paradigm in critical theory today. There’s been a change in organisational forms over the last two decades or so, but theorists need to give greater specificity.
For such actors there is no structural hierarchy or bureaucracy and anyone who wishes to participate and actively contribute to the group can do so. These networks in many ways represent organising without organisations.
Networks are not an alternative to organisations — a network is just an analytical device that sociologists (and computer scientists) use to understand relations between actors (or nodes). Networks may contain organisations, and organisations may contain networks, both formal & hierarchical and informal & non-hierarchical, as well as everything in between. See Steve Borgatti for more on this point.
There has been something of a debate as to whether such ‘open source’ actors are indeed any better than organisations, with some claiming that such actors will necessarily have to compromise their structures as time goes on and will eventually come to imitate the social movement organisations (SMOs) of the past with top down hierarchies of leaders who represent the interests of ‘members’ rather than participants.
It’s important to draw a distinction between social movements (SMs) and social movement organisations (SMOs). The latter is merely one organised group within a larger social movement, which in turn forms part of the social movement industry (SMI) containing all social movements.
In response to such claims these networks claim that they are inherently more flexible, dynamic and are more capable of reacting to fast changing events than those of centralised, hierarchical organisations with bureaucracies that by their very nature hinder quick and effective decision making as we so desperately saw with the National Union of Students (NUS).
Peters treats the anti-fees social movement as fitting outside of traditional SM/SMO models. This is not the case. Many of the post-1968 New Social Movements started off as informal non-hierarchical organisations—indeed the latest social movements, including the anti-fees one draw much of their rhetorical legacy from the post-68 NSMs. The reason that the linked Wikibook speaks of new social movements more as advocacy organisations is that most social movement organisations went from informal non-hierarchical organisations towards becoming institutionalised as advocacy groups and mass membership organisations. Caniglia & Carmin [1] identify a few reasons for this. Weberian approaches focus on the “iron law of oligarchy”; suggesting that the original goals of organisations get displaced by the singular goal of survival, but Caniglia & Carmin note that studies have found that hasn’t happened in many instances. More recent work treats processes of institutionalisation as an adaptation to circumstances:
SMOs may develop in many different ways and have varying degrees of formalization and professionalization. The degree of formality that is adopted, however, can facilitate as well as impede goal attainment, resource acquisition, legitimacy, and mobilization capacity (Zald and Ash 1966). Bureaucratic organizations often are more successful at gaining access to established political channels (Ferree and Hess 1985), being recognized as legitimate movement representatives (Gamson 1975), and at sustaining ongoing interactions with diverse constituencies including “allies, authorities, and supporters” (Tarrow 1998: 137). Unlike their more formalized counterparts, it appears that informal SMOs are often able to mobilize quickly and adapt to emerging situations (Gerlach and Hine 1970; Piven and Cloward 1977).
They also appear to have fewer barriers preventing them from engaging in disruptive action (Tarrow 1998). At the same time, centralized decision making and a clear hierarchy can facilitate rapid mobilization since they reduce conflict and ambiguity (Gamson 1975; McCarthy and Zald 1973, 1977). While research shows advantages and disadvantages related to various forms, often the internal challenge for an SMO is finding the proper balance between the extremes of formal organization and autonomy (Tarrow 1998).
The difference in institutional linkage is precisely why I don’t believe we should be talking about the anti-fees movement replacing or taking over the National Union of Students. The NUS is a bureaucratic organisation that functions under operational as well as discursive restraints. This is necessary because it is considered legitimate where it matters most—the corridors of state power as well as the mass media. A well run NUS would thus act as a broker, lobbying government and making policy recommendations on behalf of the anti-fees social movement. I thus remain ambivalent on whether or not Aaron Porter should be forced to quit over the inability to commit resources after offering initial support for the occupations. If people feel strongly, they should perhaps work towards not getting him re-elected rather than throwing the NUS into an expensive EGM crisis right when the media is paying attention to it.
A perhaps more fruitful approach to looking at (newer) new social movements would take a serious look at if and how new technology affects the attributes of SMOs described in the quote above. Here’s a few initial ideas:
- Twitter & Facebook lower the costs involved in enabling rapid mobilization, as they can exploit loose ties far more effectively than postal campaigns ever could.
- Technology-enabled new social movements (TNSM?) will be more ephemeral compared to more traditional organisational forms because of the reliance on weak ties, although sheer numbers of people readily connected through communications technology may lead to weak ties becoming strong ones.
- Membership in more than one organisation may lead to increased involvement by individuals overall (see the review by McAdam and Paulsen [2]).
- Division of labour is more likely to be achieved between TNSMOs of smaller sizes across wider geographies due to communications technology, reducing the pressure to institutionalise. This relates somewhat to the Coase’s theory of the firm.
- Care needs to be taken by TNSMs not to subsist within a deliberative bubble. Talking to people far away from the student occupations, it was surprising how relatively little was known that the occupations were occurring, or what their aims were, though they had heard or seen Aaron Porter on the TV or radio. Movement participants who remain permanently plugged into Twitter & FB feeds may not realise the need to get mass media coverage.
- TNSMOs need to connect with other forms of SMOs, or frame their issues in ways which are exploitable by advocacy & lobby groups to effect state-level political change.
- Linkages with political parties will remain important.
Finally, I would ask whether or not the anti-fees social movement functioned without hierarchy at all? Observing the goings on at the UCL Occupation, it was clear that there existed some ‘key nodes’ in the overall network of the social movement. These include foundational members of the National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts, NUS activists from SWSS and Student Broad Left, those with ties to mass media organisations, and trade unionists. Those from NCAFC and the NUS activists were key to kicking off the occupations across campuses and did much to set the initial framing of the issue. They also chose the dates of national protests and provided the promotional literature to get the message out. Individuals within each occupation not tied to the national structures instead coordinated and took part in local actions but were unlikely to have been involved in decision-making at the national levels. This more nuanced view of the internal workings of the anti-fees movement should help place it within the context of already existing social movement research.
[1] Caniglia, B. S, and J. A Carmin. “Scholarship on social movement organziations: classic views and emerging trends.” Mobilization: An International Quarterly 10, no. 2 (2005): 201–212.
[2] McAdam, Doug, and Ronnelle Paulsen. “Specifying the Relationship Between Social Ties and Activism.” The American Journal of Sociology 99, no. 3 (November 1, 1993): 640-667.
Yup, I completely agree.
Considering that the OSS ideology came about due to an abundance of defence money coming into US universities allowing students & researchers to do whatever the hell they like.OMG every time you ls -l they give Israel a candy-covered bomb! /fourlions
Not sure what you mean by that Alex? The role of DARPA in the development of CS departments on the West Coast & MIT Artificial Life Lab is mentioned in both Castell’s Internet Galaxy and Pekka Himanen’s Hacker Ethic.
I don’t buy the idea that these are “weak” ties. In what sense? Gladwell has made a very unconvincing argument for this. I would like to see a more thoughtful argument along these lines because he’s kind of right but kind of wrong too. It a glib distinction. I’m not sure polarities of “weak” or “strong” convey the complexity very well.
The point-to-point ties between individuals of being in social space – on or offline – may be weak, but the relationship of the individual to the whole is strong.
This is the kind of argument made about “foot fall” in public space that Jane Jacobs advanced in the 60s. The presence of other people in a public commons breeds confidence, and a sense of security.
You’re right to stress the distinction between social movements and social movement organisations. There may be a viral stage before a social movement, too, simple celled organisation taht picks a target, attacks, and retreats to fight another day. Anonymous doesn’t have any goals so does it constitute a movement?
The recent protests seem to point to social movement organisations losing momentum, in terms of how they shape public discourse.
You haven’t hung around Portcullis House lately, then. Parliamentary researchers and policy advisors are demoralised. Journalism is losing out to churnalism. Think tanks and NGOs are desperately looking for cash to keep their programmes going. The model of centralised management of news and policy that catalysed under the Thatcher government is looking friable.
I think it’s far from likely that it’s about to be superseded by citizen journalists and crowd sourced political party policy. The existing mechanisms of power will adapt and survive.
All I’m saying is that – right now – the whole thing is looking shaky, no one knows what will happen next, and so the idea of the NUS as being more relevant in the corridors of power than UKUncut et al is, itself, becoming irrelevant.
I agree in part that too much reliance on technology and networks is unhelpful.
We definitely need to organise, but to organise with leaders or through bureaucracies and embedded hierarchies will just send a lot of people home and kill the movement dead.
Increased participation, empowering more people through process and people’s assemblies offers a direct alternative to the arbitrary and sham approach of ‘representative” democracy, which merely copies the capitalist farce (UK Democracy) that the student movement is so angry with.
We should be acting as an alternative as well as articulating one.
@Tom Pain:
Thanks for bringing me up on the Malcolm Gladwell comparison. You’re right that he gets quite a bit wrong – both Dan Drezner and Brayden King have commented on this.
The thousands who appeared at the protests, mobilised through online social networking sites, and through leaflets shoved under the doors in halls I would categorise as having weak ties to the movement if they took participated no further.
Those taking part in the occupations I would categorise as having “strong ties” within the network.
In my last bit, I tried to highlight how the movement did rely on lots of behind-the-scenes organisation, mainly between lots of occupations, much of it being totally invisible aside from tweets made to the wider public.
Fair enough, this isn’t a statement that’s easily captured within social network analysis. However, some attention has to be paid as to how feelings of relating strongly to a social movement are kept up over time, and don’t ebb away just as quickly as they arise.
My suspicion about ephemerality, and it’s only a hunch, comes about mainly because of the quick demobilisation of Obama’s “grassroots” campaign, though that in itself contains a lesson – by co-opting already existing social movement organisations and institutionalising them under “Campaign for America”, Obama also destroyed their vitality.
When I worked for NGOs back in the 90s, the assumption seemed to be 10% – 15 % “churn”. You had to add at least 10% of membership – people paying £15 a year – to keep the income and support at the same level. You’d also have 5 – 7% “barnacles” people who bought their daughter a Greenpeace membership (say) but they never did any more. Then within that, you had fluctuating levels of support depending on the issue and what was happening in the world.
One of the really inspiring things about social media is that you can stop factoring in people giving you money to keep the organisation going as a necessary threshold of success. The Long Tail applies to some respect, because the cost of effective communication is reduced to the point where it’s hardly worth counting.
What social networks seem to do is compress the process by which people have their awareness raised, proverbially (in marketing terms it would be a “call to action”… you’re brand-aware of Nike, Just Do it… and they hope at some point you remember to look at the Nike trainers in the shop) and then the social part of taking action. The follow on from the call to action to the initial response – the participative bit, joining a Facebook Group or retweeting – is almost instant.
This makes it possible for people to be bombarded with calls to action and for the rate of expiry of memes to be high.
Interesting point about Obama. I always found MoveOn, CodePink et al totally unconvincing. They seemed like closed meetings of various colours of political hacks, but with a mic left on. Once the Democrats adopted it as part of their PR strategy they rode the wave of initial enthusiasm for social media, but didn’t grasp the personal, participative nature of it.
The Tea Party – and I shudder to type this – seem to be grasping it. http://twitter.com/#!/GLENNBECK 330 000 followers, almost…
When I worked for NGOs back in the 90s, the assumption seemed to be 10% – 15 % “churn”. You had to add at least 10% of membership – people paying £15 a year – to keep the income and support at the same level. You’d also have 5 – 7% “barnacles” people who bought their daughter a Greenpeace membership (say) but they never did any more. Then within that, you had fluctuating levels of support depending on the issue and what was happening in the world.
One of the really inspiring things about social media is that you can stop factoring in people giving you money to keep the organisation going as a necessary threshold of success. The Long Tail applies in some respect, because the cost of effective communication is reduced to the point where it’s hardly worth counting.
What social networks seem to do is compress the process by which people have their awareness raised, proverbially (in marketing terms it would be a “call to action”… you’re brand-aware of Nike, Just Do it… and they hope at some point you remember to look at the Nike trainers in the shop) and then the social part of taking action. The follow on from the call to action to the initial response – the participative bit, joining a Facebook Group or retweeting – is almost instant.
This makes it possible for people to be bombarded with calls to action and for the rate of expiry of memes to be high.
Interesting point about Obama. I agree with your conclusions. Has the social media industry echo chamber talked up their significance to 2008? I thought the labor groups raised more money. (I.e.: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=98279333)
I always found MoveOn, CodePink et al unconvincing. The tone that came through was preachy. They seemed like closed meetings of various colours of political hacks, but with a mic left on. Once the Democrats adopted it as part of their PR strategy they rode the wave of initial enthusiasm for social media, but didn’t grasp the personal, participative nature of it.
The Tea Party – and I shudder to type this – seem to be grasping it. http://twitter.com/#!/GLENNBECK 330 000 followers, almost…
Very cool dear. It seems like a remarkable post. Great for a student whose are unknown about social media. Thanks mate