Social work theory · Volume F: Community, Collective & Social Change

Social movement theory

Social movement theory explains how and why people come together in sustained, collective campaigns to promote or resist social change outside routine political channels.

1. What it is

Social movement theory explains how and why people come together in sustained, collective campaigns to promote or resist social change outside routine political channels. A social movement can be defined as a network of informal interactions among individuals, groups and organisations, engaged in political or cultural conflict on the basis of a shared collective identity (della Porta & Diani, 2006). Movement theories ask when movements emerge, how they recruit and hold participants, how they persuade the public, and what they achieve. For social work, they explain the collective processes through which many of the profession’s commitments, including civil rights, disability rights and Indigenous self-determination, were won (Reisch & Andrews, 2002).

The field contains several overlapping perspectives. Resource mobilisation theory, which focuses on organisations and resources, is covered in F4. The perspectives below concentrate on political context, meaning-making and identity.

Political opportunity (political process) theory. Political opportunity theory holds that movements arise and succeed when features of the political environment make collective action more likely to be effective. Eisinger (1973) first used the term to explain variation in urban protest. McAdam (1982) developed the political process model from the history of the American civil rights movement, arguing that expanding opportunities, indigenous organisational strength and “cognitive liberation” (a shared belief that change is possible) together produce insurgency. Tarrow (2011) identifies key dimensions of opportunity: increasing access to political participation, shifting alignments, divisions among elites and the availability of influential allies. Kitschelt (1986) showed that differences in national political structures help explain why similar movements took different forms in different countries.

Framing (Benford & Snow). Framing theory examines how movements construct meaning. Drawing on Goffman’s (1974) concept of frames as schemata of interpretation, Snow et al. (1986) described frame alignment: the processes by which movements link their interpretations to those of potential supporters. Benford and Snow (2000) identified three core framing tasks. Diagnostic framing defines the problem and attributes blame; prognostic framing proposes solutions and strategies; and motivational framing provides a rationale for action. Frames resonate when they are credible, consistent and connected to people’s everyday experience and cultural narratives (Benford & Snow, 2000).

New social movement theory. New social movement theory emerged in Europe to explain the environmental, peace, women’s and gay liberation movements of the 1960s to 1980s. Theorists such as Touraine (1981) and Melucci (1996) argued that these movements differed from earlier class-based labour movements. They focused on identity, culture, quality of life and autonomy, were often decentralised, and drew heavily on the educated middle class. Offe (1985) argued that they challenged the boundaries of institutional politics by politicising areas of life previously treated as private.

Collective identity. Collective identity is a shared definition of a group that arises from its members’ common interests, experiences and solidarity. Melucci (1996) argued that collective identity is constructed and continually renegotiated through interaction among participants. Polletta and Jasper (2001) defined it as an individual’s cognitive, moral and emotional connection with a broader community, category, practice or institution. Collective identity explains why people participate even when personal benefits are uncertain, and it is reinforced through rituals, symbols, shared stories and boundary-drawing between “us” and “them”.

Social work and social movements. Social work has a dual relationship with movements. The profession grew partly out of the settlement movement, and social workers have participated in labour, civil rights, welfare rights, feminist and disability movements (Reisch & Andrews, 2002). Movements have also challenged social work itself; the disability rights and psychiatric survivor movements criticised professional control and promoted the principle of “nothing about us without us”. Mullaly (2010) argues that structural social work requires alliances with social movements, since lasting change to oppressive structures depends on collective political action.

2. Historical development

Early sociology treated movements as forms of collective behaviour, often irrational responses to social breakdown. The movements of the 1960s, whose participants were well organised and politically purposeful, undermined this view. American scholars responded with resource mobilisation and political process theories, emphasising organisation, rational strategy and political context (Tilly, 1978; McAdam, 1982). European scholars responded with new social movement theory, emphasising culture and identity (Melucci, 1996). Framing and collective identity research later bridged the two traditions by showing how structural opportunities are interpreted and acted upon (Benford & Snow, 2000).

Social movement theory became independent of general sociology because movements combine structural, organisational and cultural processes that single theories could not explain. Social work engaged with it through radical and structural social work from the 1970s (Mullaly, 2010). Australian activist traditions, including Aboriginal land rights, women’s refuges and disability advocacy, have shaped local practice. Maddison and Scalmer (2006) document the practical knowledge that Australian activists develop through movement participation.

3. Practical guidance

Social movement theory offers social workers the following guidance for macro practice and advocacy.

• Analyse the political opportunity structure. Before launching a campaign, assess which decision-makers are open to change, where elites are divided, and which allies are available (Tarrow, 2011). In Australia, elections, parliamentary inquiries and Royal Commissions can open windows for reform.
• Frame issues deliberately. Build a diagnostic frame that names the problem and its causes, a prognostic frame that sets out a feasible solution, and a motivational frame that gives people reasons to act (Benford & Snow, 2000). Test frames with the people affected.
• Centre lived experience. Support people with lived experience to speak and lead, consistent with the principle that movements of affected people carry legitimacy that professionals lack.
• Build collective identity. Group work, shared stories and visible symbols help participants see their individual problems as shared and political (Polletta & Jasper, 2001).
• Act as an ally. When working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, disability or survivor movements, follow their leadership and use professional resources in support of their goals (Mullaly, 2010).
• Manage the tension with employment. Recognise that agency employment can limit public advocacy. Work through professional associations such as the AASW, unions and coalitions where direct action is constrained.

4. Critical evaluation

Strengths. Social movement theory explains how ordinary people achieve social change and shows that structural change usually depends on organised collective action. Its concepts (opportunity, framing and collective identity) translate readily into campaign planning and advocacy. The theory also reminds social work of its own history and of the movements that have shaped its values (Reisch & Andrews, 2002).

Limitations. The major theories were developed mainly from Western European and North American movements, which may limit their application elsewhere. Political opportunity theory has been criticised as too structural and too broad, since almost any feature of the environment can be described as an opportunity. Framing research can overstate the extent to which leaders control meaning. Social work’s relationship with movements is also uneasy: professionals hold power, may be employed by the state that movements oppose, and have at times been the target of movement critique.

Overall importance. Social movement theory provides social work with an account of collective political action that complements community development and advocacy practice. It explains how issues become public problems and how marginalised groups gain influence. For a profession committed to social justice, it offers both an analytical framework and a reminder that significant change has usually come from organised communities.

5. References

• Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611–639. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.611
• della Porta, D., & Diani, M. (2006). Social movements: An introduction (2nd ed.). Blackwell.
• Eisinger, P. K. (1973). The conditions of protest behavior in American cities. American Political Science Review, 67(1), 11–28. https://doi.org/10.2307/1958525
• Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harper & Row.
• Kitschelt, H. P. (1986). Political opportunity structures and political protest: Anti-nuclear movements in four democracies. British Journal of Political Science, 16(1), 57–85. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000712340000380X
• Maddison, S., & Scalmer, S. (2006). Activist wisdom: Practical knowledge and creative tension in social movements. UNSW Press.
• McAdam, D. (1982). Political process and the development of Black insurgency, 1930–1970. University of Chicago Press.
• Melucci, A. (1996). Challenging codes: Collective action in the information age. Cambridge University Press.
• Mullaly, B. (2010). Challenging oppression and confronting privilege (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Offe, C. (1985). New social movements: Challenging the boundaries of institutional politics. Social Research, 52(4), 817–868.
• Polletta, F., & Jasper, J. M. (2001). Collective identity and social movements. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 283–305. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.283
• Reisch, M., & Andrews, J. (2002). The road not taken: A history of radical social work in the United States. Brunner-Routledge.
• Snow, D. A., Rochford, E. B., Worden, S. K., & Benford, R. D. (1986). Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review, 51(4), 464–481. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095581
• Tarrow, S. (2011). Power in movement: Social movements and contentious politics (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
• Tilly, C. (1978). From mobilization to revolution. Addison-Wesley.
• Touraine, A. (1981). The voice and the eye: An analysis of social movements. Cambridge University Press.