Conceptualising success and failure for social movements.

• Author: Saeed, Raza

1. Introduction

   The American Civil Rights movement, one of the most significant movements of the twentieth century, altered the socio-political landscape of the United States. Set against racial segregation and socio-political deprivation of the African-American people, it is claimed to have made an everlasting impact on race relations and 'Black and White consciousness'. (1) Almost half a century later, the ripple effects of the movement continue, and recently the ascendancy of Barack Obama to the office of the President of United States was hailed as the biggest victory for the Civil Rights movement yet, which finally signalled for some activists that the 'scourge of race' has been overcome. (2) Conversely, though, considering that strained race relations still exist in some parts of the American society, and the economic deprivation, lack of education and rampant crimes that confront the African-American community, it is argued from other corners that the legacy of the Civil Rights Movement stands against 'glaring failures' (3). Interestingly, these polemical viewpoints are not limited to this movement alone. In the current year, when many are celebrating the centenary of Gandhi's Hind Swaraj--the 'inspired' and 'heroic' work that laid the foundation of Gandhian struggle, (4) and initiated the philosophy that saw the mighty British Empire collapse in just under four decades--there are also those who consider him a reactionary who failed to achieve any real change in the status quo. (5)

   The contrasting perspectives of successes and failures, on these struggles and others, compel us to contemplate how one particular social phenomenon can be considered a feat by some and a defeat by others; the same event can be, and is, perceived as a hurdle, setback, opportunity or an end. What this questions at the least, then, is the basis and objectives of our conceptions of success and failure. Can these categories be applied to an entity as complex as a social movement? Does the issue lie in the black-and-white nature of this classification or does it emerge from the application of a problematic criterion? Generally considered as mutually exclusive concepts, can the notions of success and failure co-exist in a continuum? While embarking on a brief inquiry into these questions, the paper would bring to light the gaps present in the success/failure conceptions present in the social movement literature. It would then argue that these conceptions specifically, and the concepts of success or failure generally, are inherently inadequate to apply to struggles and movements.

   The first part of the paper will outline our definitional perimeter, by recognising and highlighting the theoretical paradigms associated with social movements. The next part will discuss some of the most acknowledged criteria used to gauge the success or failure of struggles. In the third part, the paper will focus on broader societal impacts of movements that are not widely acknowledged by these criteria, but nonetheless are essential for the understanding of this phenomenon. This journey will take us to the understanding that concept of success and failure has an inherent inability to grasp the essence of struggles.

2. Outlining the Perimeter

   2.1. Definitional Issues

   The study of social movements is challenging because it is not a term that refers to a singular, monolithic or unchanging entity; rather, it is a 'convenient fiction for a generally varied and diverse collection of activities'. (6) Some scholars argue that social movements generally have two essential facets: orientation towards social change, and non-institutional or outsider status, (7) while some add the element of collective or joint action to these facets. (8) Other theoreticians focus on the nature of movements, and categorise them into self-help, social reform and religious movements, (9) or divide them into 'respectable, peculiar and revolutionary movements'. (10) Moreover, it is also argued by academics that movements should be differentiated on whether they aim for progression or regression of human rights. (11)

   A phenomenon of such complexity precludes itself from getting encapsulated into a definition. Nonetheless, to clarify what the term refers to in the context of this paper, a perimeter has to be set. Therefore, the paper would adopt the definition expounded by Snow et al.:

   'Social movements can be thought of as collectivities acting with some degree of organisation and continuity outside of institutional or organisational channels for the purpose of challenging or defending extant authority, whether it is institutionally or culturally based, in the group, organisation, society, culture, or world order of which they are a parf [emphasis in the original]. (12)

   The concept of social movement, while excluding interest groups and governmental structures, thus includes a range of social movements, from those that struggle to achieve basic amenities, to those that strive for disbanding of global governance institutions, to full-fledge revolutions. (13) It also recognises employment of contrasting strategies by the movements, from using political or legal resources to engaging in direct action or civil disobedience. For instance, the Brazilian Landless Farmworkers' Movement (MST) which employs both legal and illegal tactics to assert its legitimacy and achieve its goals is one of the more prominent social movements of present time. (14)

   Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge the danger of misconceiving social movements as monolithic entities. It is recognised by theorists, and maintained in this study, that social movements should not be considered as uniform groups with rigid boundaries, but as 'a collection of formal organisations, informal networks, and unaffiliated individuals'. (15) This multitude of actors has convergent, though not necessarily similar, aspirations which connect them to the broader platform of the struggle. Finally, it should be acknowledged that an inquiry on social movement theory is also marred with issues of causation (it is difficult to establish a direct causal chain from movement activities to realisation of goals), (16) presence of a host of actors (for instance role of third parties in realisation of goals) (17), and issues of timing (it is difficult to decide whether achievements are to be assessed in the long run or short run). (18)

   2.2. Conceptual Issues

   There are a number of theories that aim to explicate the linkage between social movement, political landscape and larger society, each of which generates a different understanding of the place and role of struggles in a society. Though a discussion on these models falls outside the scope of this paper, it is nonetheless important to briefly touch upon these to clarify the conception of social movements in the context of this paper.

   Some of the more prominent, and contrasting, models that theorise struggles in society are the Resource Mobilisation Theory, theory of Political Opportunity Structures, and the Political Mediation model. The Resource mobilisation model focuses more on the internal characteristics of movements, such as organisational structure and resources, and considers these factors as being the key to movement success. In this manner it is claimed to have directed social movement research towards social movement organisations. (19) The principal issue raised against this model is that it does not factor the larger socio-political landscape and attributes everything to the internal characteristics and goals of the movements. Furthermore, it fails to predict and incorporate the successes of struggles, such as radical social movement organisations, which are inherently non-hierarchical and 'make an intentional decision to stay thin on resources'. (20) It is also unable to account for mass movements that achieved success despite lack of large membership or material means. (21)

   At the other end of the spectrum, Political Opportunity Structures considers the political landscape as the primary reason for movement formation and success. (22) It portrays movements as 'an epiphenomenon--a sign that policies are changing, but not the cause of changes'. (23) However, it is criticised for depriving social movements and actors of their agency, as it attributes everything to the 'structures and processes which exist outside the meanings actors themselves attach to them'. (24) Extreme positions of Political Opportunity Structures also fail to acknowledge the impact of different social actors in the creation of these political opportunities. Because of this, some scholars assert that the internal characteristics, such as strategies, of movements cannot be completely ignored. (25)

   Though not without several reservations, this inquiry takes the line of Political Mediation Model, as it appropriately selects a middle ground. This model, while mediating the 'relationship between action and outcomes' (26) through a focus on internal dynamics, maintains that in some situations, these dynamics of movements may not achieve their goals. (27) It accepts both internal characteristics of movements and the external socio-political environment as having an impact on movement success. The viability of this model can be illustrated by, for instance, comparing the successful revolutionary movements in Cuba and Nicaragua with the movements that failed to oust the governments in several other Latin American countries. It is argued that the socio-economic and political landscapes in these two countries were not starkly different from other states in Latin America at the time their respective revolutions began. (28) However, the alliance strategies adopted by the movements, and the 'availability of a suitable catalyst' (such as the nature of the regime) both played crucial roles in the triumph of movements in Cuba and Nicaragua. (29)

3. Conceptualising Success and Failure

   3.1. Leading Paradigms

   It is...