4 Typologies of Social Movement

Contents

1. Introduction

2. Objective

3. Typology of Social Movement: Section I

3.1 Herbert Blumer’s Typology

3.2 Rudolf Heberle’s Typology

3.3 Neil J. Smelser’s Typology

3.4 Joseph R. Gusfield’s Typology

3.5 David Aberle’s Typology

4. Typology of Social Movements: Section – II

4.1 Religious Movements

4.2 Urban and Rural Movements

4.3 Nationalist Movements

4.4 Race Movements

4.5 Reform Movements

4.6 Revolutionary and Totalitarian Movements

5. Summary

1.   Introduction

Social movement, as a form of collective behaviour and as a means of collective identity formation, develops out of the process of social interaction of the individuals, albeit informal, in an overall context of social and cultural conflict. In this sense social movements are the outgrowth of social action of the individuals in their mundane socio-cultural settings. As the trajectories and forms of social action are very complex, diversified and myriad, social movements also exhibit infinite range of variations along the dimensions of time and space. As a force of social change or to resist it, as the case may be, social movements are always a gradually unfolding political process (Tilly 1979, Tarrow 2011) or a continuous process of contention to take control over ‘historicity’ of a society or the “way it acts on itself” to use Touraine’s (1971: 3) words. Hence, social movements are always in a state of flux. Wilkinson (1971: 46) aptly comments that, “Historically, social movements are multi-dimensional and kaleidoscopic.”

2.  Objective

Such a fluid and dynamic character of social movements makes it a difficult proposition for sociology which attempts to study society scientifically. The challenge before sociology is really concerned with the ways to classify such a bewilderingly diversified phenomenon like social movement, in order to have a systematic understanding and thorough comprehension of it. A number of social scientists have made attempts in this direction. The present module endeavours to have a brief outline of these.

3.  Typology of Social Movements: Section – I

3.1. Herbert Blumer’s Typology

The first notable attempt to classify social movements has been made by Herbert Blumer of the Chicago School. According to him, social movements can be of three kinds – (i) General social movements, (2) Specific social movements, and (3) Expressive social movements (Blumer 1946)

General social movements have their background in the “gradual and pervasive changes in the values of people – changes which can be called cultural drifts” (ibid.: 199-200). Such cultural drifts change the ideas of people, particularly the perception about their rights and privileges. As movements they are unorganized, lack established leadership and recognized membership. The examples of such movements are the women’s movements, movements for the rights of the children, movements to guarantee or to extend the scope of free and compulsory education etc.

Specific social movement, as says Blumer (1946) has a well defined objective or goal. In its attempt to reach the goals, it develops an organization and structure. Recognised and accepted leadership with definite membership having a strong ‘we-feeling’ are important characteristics of such movements. Hence, specific social movements are more organised and structured than the general ones. Blumer mentions about the reform and revolutionary movements as examples of specific social movements.

Expressive social movements, in Blumer’s words, “…do not seek to change the institutions of the social order or its objective character” (1946: 214). The tension and unrest which cause such movements are released in some types of expressive behaviour which might have some influence on the overall personalities of the participating individuals and on the nature of the social order. Religious movements and fashion movements are two important examples of such movements.

3.2. Rudolf Heberle’s Typology

Rudolf Heberle (1949: 348-49) believes that any genuine social movement attempts to bring about, “fundamental changes in the social order, especially in the basic institutions of property and labour relationship.” Through such a sociological conceptualization of social movements, Heberle tries to make it free from its exclusive identification with the movements of the proletariat or the industrial working class, as can be found in the works of Lorenz Von Stein (1850) and Werner Sombart (1909). Heberle (1968) has classified social movements into the following types:

i)  Movement of limited goals: Such movements because of their limited goals cannot attract large number of people. These movements sometimes are designated as “Protest movements,” which are mostly of local, regional or national in character. Although limited in scope, movements of this type can also acquire the character of mass movements which seek to redress grievances of certain groups, for example, the Negro movement, the movement of the Dalits in the Indian context etc.

ii)  Movement aiming at comprehensive and fundamental change: Such movements attempting to bring about deep rooted changes in the social order always attract large number of individuals from across the cross sections of the society. It tends to spread beyond the boundaries of any state and nation or country as such. These are true mass movements of historical significance and can be referred to as social movements in the strict or “classical” sense.

iii)  Socio-psychological types: This classification is based on the motivation of the movement participants.              On this basis, Heberle (1968: 440 ) has classified social movements into following kinds.

i)  “The value-rational ‘spiritual community’ or ‘fellowship’ of believers in the truth of the constitutive ideas and in the practical aims of a movement.

ii)  The emotional-effectual ‘following’ of a charismatic leader.

iii) The purposive-rational or utilitarian association for the pursuit of individual interests.”

In reality we can find a combination of all these types to exist or there may be transition from one type to the other during the course of any particular social movement. For example, we can witness social movements which start as the participants really believing the cause of the movement, but in due course it can attract the opportunists to join the bandwagon.

3.3. Neil J. Smelser’s Typology

Smelser (1962), in his analysis of collective behaviour, has considered social movements (although he avoided the nomenclature, as such) as a particular type of collective action geared by certain types of generalized beliefs. According to him social movements can be of two types, viz. the norm-oriented movement and the value-oriented movement. The value-oriented movement is collective action mobilized in the name of a generalized belief envisioning a reconstitution of values; while the norm-oriented movement is action mobilized in the name of a generalized belief envisioning a reconstitution of norms. The examples of norm oriented movement, in Smelser’s view are the, reform movements and counter-movements and those of value-oriented movement are the “political and religious revolution, nationalist movements, secessions, and formation of cults” (ibid.: 84).

3.4. Joseph R. Gusfield’s Typology

Depending upon the level of organization and the nature of associational network in the movements, Gusfield (1968) has classified social movements as, directed movements and undirected movements. In a much similar vein to Blumer’s (1946) distinction between general and specific movements, Gusfield mentions that the distinguishing features of the directed segment of a movement can be found in its organized and structured groups. It has specific programmes, formal leadership structure, definitive ideology and stated objectives. The undirected phase of a movement is characterized by its transitory character where the perspectives are in the process of reshaping along with the norms and values. It lacks a definite and specific associational context.

It can be noticed that more than a typology, the classification of directed and undirected social movement is a depiction of the life course of any social movement. Every movement since its inception, argues Gusfield, passes through the undirected or unorganized phase to reach the directed phase where it acquires more organizational strength and formal structure. An even more concrete classification can be found in Gusfield’s attempt to typify social movements according to their goals. In this scheme, he has classified movement into two types: the public policy oriented movement and the private persuasion oriented movement. Public policy oriented movement attempts to bring in effective change in the rules of government or other public institutions. For example, in Indian context, mention can be made about the movement of the Patels or Patedars of Gujarat to be included in the list of the Other Backward Classes (OBC) or the more recent movement of the Jats of Haryana for a similar demand. Private persuasion oriented movement, on the other hand, concentrates more on persuading individuals to a line of action and usually ignores the use of public institutions as agents of control. Religious movements, which focus more on conversion rather than enactment of new legislations, belong to this type.

3.5. David Aberle’s Typology

Anthropologist David Aberle (1966) puts forward a fourfold classification of social movements based on two dimensions: the locus of the change sought and the amount of the change sought by the movements. By locus of the change sought, he means whom the movement is trying to change, the individual or the supra-individual? The amount of change desired by a social movement may be partial or total. On the basis of these orientations he has classified movement into four categories viz. Transformative, Reformative, Redemptive and Alterative. While transformative movements such as radical political groups aim at total change in supra-individual level, reformative movements such as movement to reform marriage law seek partial change at the same level. Redemptive movements such as movements of religious cults have the target of total change of the individual while alterative movements like ecological sustainability movements go for partial change of the individuals.

4.  Typology of Social Movements: Section – II

Wilkinson (1971), in his attempt to make a more comprehensive and flexible conceptualization of social movement, has formulated a working concept of social movement in terms of: “I. conscious commitment to change, 2. minimal organization, and 3. normative commitment and participation.” Based on these defining characteristics of social movement, he has classified it in a number of types. In the course of the present exercise some of these main types have been taken up for discussion. These are:

1.       Religious movement, millenarianism and sect

2.       Rural and urban movements

3.       Nationalist movement

4.       Race movement

5.       Reform movement

6.       Revolutionary and totalitarian movements

Out of his awareness of the difficulties involved in typifying too general a concept like social movement in this fashion, Wilkinson has remarked quite justifiably that, “in the typology…each category is purely an ideal type…” (1971: 51). Hence, in reality no social movement can be accurately categorized or identified with any one of the ideal types mentioned above. In fact, there has been considerable overlapping among the several types of social movements. For example, we can mention here the case of the centuries old Jharkhand movement in India. For some scholars it is an ethnic or sub-national movement, for others it is a working class movement, for yet others it is a peasant movement. There are still others who consider it as a reform movement.

4.1 Religious Movement

The major difficulty encountered in any discussion of religious movement is to draw the line of demarcation between religious movement and other social movements. This is primarily because often the goals of religious and other movements coincide. The promise of ‘good life,’ often seen to be the prime mover of any religious movement can be witnessed in other social movements, as well. Moreover, without being confined to the limits of ‘religious ethos,’ religious movements often step in to the realms of politics and culture (Blackham 1966) to make things more complicated. The problem, then, is to how to define a religious movement?

Social scientists and sociologists, from divergent theoretical standpoints, have attempted to arrive at a comprehensive conceptualization of religious movement. Bainbridge (1997: 3) has defined religious movement as a “…relatively organized attempt by a number of people to cause or prevent change in a religious organization or in religious aspects of life.” Admitting that religious movement, as a form of collective action to bring in or resist change, has important similarities with other movements, but “the human feelings about the divine” (ibid: 3) for him, is the central distinguishing mark of any religious movement.

In a similar fashion to Bainbridge, Stark (1996) also talks about ‘ultimate meaning,’ ‘existence of the supernatural’ and the likes as the cornerstones of religious belief system. In his attempt to develop an empirical deductive theory of religious movements, Stark (ibid: 134) defines religious movements as “social enterprises whose primary purpose is to create, maintain and supply religion to some set of individuals.” Bainbridge and Stark’s emphasis on divinity, the ultimate and the supernatural and especially the latter’s consideration of religion as a sort of cultural capital, as can be envisioned from his definition of religious movement, deserve greater attention and closer scrutiny of the sociologists which is, however, beyond the scope of the present exercise. Wilkinson (1971: 55) has provided a more inclusive definition of religion as “…all prevalent systems of faith and worship past and present…” He also touches upon the distinctive characteristics of religious movement which differentiate it from all other movements.

4.1. 1.Characteristics of Religious Movement

The first of these is that all religious movements, “lay claim to a source of doctrinal authority which transcends the individual” (ibid: 55). Such transcendental doctrinal authority need not necessarily be equated or identified with supernatural entities. Teachings of history or principles formulated by any supreme political leader can well be the inspiration or the source of the doctrinal authority.

The second feature is the ability or capacity of religious movements to reorient individual personality and behaviour. Participants of religious movements often feel compelled to reshape their behaviour in tune with the ethics and values of the religious system they adhere to. By participating in the movement or becoming believer of any particular religion, the individuals pass through a stage of re-socialisation leading to distinct changes in their personalities. In this sense, religious movements come very close to Aberle’s (1966) notion of redemptive movements discussed earlier.

The third feature, as says Wilkinson (1971: 56), pertains to the claim of any religion, “to primacy and to authority on the basis of its monopoly of revelatory or rational ideological truth.” Hence, in a world marked by quite kaleidoscopic variety of religions and belief systems, such a claim of supremacy necessarily pits one religion against the other by turning out all the religions mutually exclusive. All the integrative attributes of religion as analysed by many sociologists, notwithstanding, one should be aware, as argues Wilkinson (ibid: 56), about such, “…assertive, combative, conflict-inducing and revolutionary potential of religion.” There have been abundant instances of inter-religious conflict and mobilization throughout the course of human history. Among others, Huntington’s (1993) thesis on “Clash of Civilizations” and Jonathan Fox’s (2000) examination of domestic civilizational conflict have particularly dealt with this type of conflict.

The fourth feature is about the integrative and solidarity building function of religion. Religious movement, avowedly or not, is often directed to reinforce and conserve social order and cohesion. It often contributes positively in the maintenance of the existing social structure and power relations. Such a conservative function of religion has been mentioned by a number of functionalist sociologists from Durkheim to Parsons. However, quite an eloquent expression of this can be found in the writing of Ellwood (1913: 300) when he says, “Religious values or sanctions may attach themselves to any existing institutions, and by so doing they render them much more stable, and so also the whole social order.” In this sense religious movements consolidate group identity and enhance group solidarity, and as says Wilkinson (1971: 56) act as, “…a socially controlled safety-valve for the expression of potentially violent and disruptive passions such as fanatical devotion, envy or hatred.” From these characteristics of religious movement it is apparent that either as a revolutionary force or a conservative one, religion, or for that matter religious movement always operates as the key determinant of the nature and direction of social change.

4.1.2 Theories of Religious Development

Theories of religious development throw light on the mechanism or the processes through which religious movement originates and crystallises. Among a number of such theoretical standpoints a few have been discussed below.

i)     Rationalisation. Max Weber is of the view that religious phenomena are constantly evolving from a less rational state to a more rational one. This involves a gradual increase in the level of sophistication and complexity of religious ideas, doctrines and mechanisms of normative control. This general evolutionary tendency, however, does not imply the disappearance of irrational belief systems which are magical and demonic in nature. The process of rationalization in any society makes people aware about the discrepancy between the normative expectations and their mundane experiences. Deprivation of this sort is more deeply felt in a society which has a more rationalized religious belief system. When people fail to get the resolution of this from the established religions, they turn towards the saviours (may be a prophet or a magician) to achieve personal salvation and justification of human existence. Hence, increasing rationalization of religious beliefs may give rise to religious discontents and the resultant mobilization.

ii)   Sociological  Determinants.  Although  there  is  little  uniformity  in  the  sociological determinants of religious movements, usually during the period of crisis marked by despair, frustration and distress people readily turn towards the prophets and preachers. By ‘prophet’ Weber means a charismatic person who ‘by virtue of his mission proclaims a religious doctrine or divine commandment’ (Weber 1978: 439). Clearly the prophet is a charismatic leader who challenges traditionalism and attempt to establish a new legitimacy. By breaking the power of magic, prophets contribute towards the establishment of rational conduct of life (Weber 2007). As the crisis resolvers the prophets attract, as says Wilkinson (1971: 64), “the alienated urban population of the ghetto or slums, the poor, the unemployed and the rootless,” as their followers, who on account of their relatively disadvantaged socio-economic situation are more inclined to join the religious movements.

iii)   Secularisation. The fundamental proposition of secularisation thesis is that humans will outgrow belief in the supernatural. Such a notion is chiefly anchored in the concept and process of modernisation which, by its very nature, is perceived to be anti-religious. The proponents of secularization thesis expect that with the increase in the magnitude of industrialization, urbanization, and rationalization, religiousness must decrease. This is apparent in Auguste Comte’s idea of social progress where he argues that modernisation, by outgrowing the theological stage, will ultimately usher in the positive stage where the science of Sociology would replace religion as the basis for moral judgments. Philosophers, social scientists and sociologists, from varying standpoints and theoretical moorings like Freud (1961), Marx (1970), Weber (2002), Parsons (1973), Berger (1967), have emphasized upon or expected the decline of the influence of religion under the sway of modernity. Among the different senses in which the concept of secularisation has been used in social science research, Shiner (1967) considers the constitution of an autonomous society as most important, Such a society is separated from religious understanding by limiting the scope of religion to the sphere of private life. In this sense secularization turns out to be a contest or mobilization against the public role of religion to free politics and the political institutions from the overall control and influence of religion.

Question arises, how far these expectations have proved to be true? The advocates of the secularisation thesis point out to the decline in British church attendance for the past hundred years or so as a proof of secularisation. But this justification is too narrow and parochial since secularization does not imply merely a decline in religious belief (Chaves 1994) and cannot, possibly, be gauged through church attendance only. Moreover, the trebling of church membership in the U.S. for the last 150 years, as mentions Stark (1999) is also a counter-point to be noticed. Along with the New Religious Movements of different cults, resurgent Islam and dynamic evangelical Protestantism in the contemporary period also raise serious questions about the palpability of the secularization process (Berger 2008). Presently in global south, there has been a proliferation in the followers of popular religions. Religious mobilisations in the shape of messianic, utopian and millenarian movements are on the rise. Such “revolutionary, religious movements” argues Wilkinson (1971: 70), “continue to exert a strong attraction for the poor, the rootless, the disinherited…” All these, by challenging the viability of secularization thesis, prove the vitality and salience of religious movements.

4.1.3  Millenarianism

The Latin term ‘millennium’ and its Greek equivalent, ‘chilias’, literally mean a period of a thousand years. According to the millenarian tradition, Christ will reappear in the guise of a warrior, vanquish the devil, and hold him prisoner. He will then build the Kingdom of God and reign in person for a thousand years.

The term “millenarian” movement is now used, “…to characterize religious movements that expect imminent, total, ultimate, this-worldly, collective salvation” (Talmon 1968: 349). In the context of the ‘cargo’ or millenarian cults in Melanesia, Peter Worsley notes that in such movements, ‘a prophet announces the imminence of the end of the world in a cataclysm which will destroy everything. Then the ancestors will return, or God, or some other liberating power, will appear, bringing all the goods the people desire, and ushering in a reign of external bliss’ (1957: 11). Anthropologists have used the term to classify movements including messianic, acculturation, nativistic, revitalization and cargo cult. Lindstrom (2002) has clearly delineated the nature of all these. In his words, “… ‘messianic’ describes movements that focus on the advent or the return of a saviour; acculturation movements respond to the disruptions of colonial domination; nativistic movements seek to revive or perpetuate endangered aspects of culture and so re-establish a golden age (Linton 1943); the label ‘revitalization’ highlights the reconstructive and socially therapeutic functions of movement belief and ritual (Wallace 1956); and cargo cults are a specific, Melanesian case in which the anticipated millennium will be a supermarket of Western commoditiese

4.1.3. a. Characteristics of Millenarian Movements

Talmon (1968) following the lead of Norman Cohn (1957) has mentioned the following characteristics of millenarian movements:

1.       Total salvation: Millenarian movements are not aimed at mere improvement but they attempt to bring about utter transformation and perfection. The millennial view of salvation, hence, is revolutionary and catastrophic and is dominated by a sense of grave crisis that can be resolved only by complete salvation.

2.       This-worldly orientation: It believes that the better time is imminent and will come in this earth only, not in some future afterlife in heaven.

3.       Collective orientation: The desired salvation of a millenarian movement can be achieved and enjoyed only collectively. Thus, individual salvation is not important and is viewed only as an offshoot of collective salvation.

4.       Ecstasy: Most of the rituals of millenarian movements exhibit wild and hysterical emotional display. Sexual aberrations and excesses, mass suicides are some of the antinomian tendencies often displayed by millenarianism.

5.       Messianic: The attempted goal of salvation is brought about by a redeemer who claims divine inspiration and acts as the mediator between the human and the divine. Often the leader is viewed as the messiah. Hence, the Weberian notion of charismatic leader and that of the prophet classically fit in with the leadership of millenarian movements.

6.       Ephemeral movement: Millenarian movements often tend to be amorphous and ephemeral in nature although exclusive and sect like discipline can also be traced in some cases. The time dimension of the promised better future attracts a variety of individuals, but the crisis erupts when the deadline fails. The root cause of downfall of most of the millenarian movements lies here. 

Along with these, Shils (1958) has added another important feature pertaining to the ideology of millenarian movements. He believes that the ideology of the millenarian movements is preoccupied with the notion of the evil of the world. The immiscibility of the good and the evil is central to it. Most of the millenarian movements exhibit, Shils argues, “violent hatred of the existing cosmic order, and especially of its earthly beneficiaries, governmental, economic, and ecclesiastical authorities, indeed, of authorities of any kind” (ibid.: 460). Hence, authority is the representative of evil which, millenarianism attempts to abolish. Thus, millenarian movements emerge out of a growing concern over an immanent crisis. Often the dormant class contradiction in any society, ethnic and racial antagonism, anti-colonial sentiment, and agony of the inequitable development induced displaced and dispossessed sections can find a ready outlet for manifestation through the millenarian movements. In India, the tradition of adivasi movements for autonomy presents a plethora of such examples. We can mention about the Santhal Rebellion of 1855, Birsa Munda Movement of 1895-1900 and Tana Bhagat Movement (1914-1919) as some of the classic instance of millenarian movements.

4.1.4     Sect 

The concept of sect plays a central role in Weber’s sociology of religion. He has posed the church as the sect’s analytical and theoretical counterpart. Swedberg (2005: 242) lucidly points out the differences, as drawn by Weber, between church and sect when he says, “While specific religious qualifications are needed to become a member of sect, one typically becomes a member of a church through birth.” Church signifies those ecclesiastical and religious organizations which are more or less tuned up with the established cultural and social order of any given society, while ‘sect’ as a group rejects, to some extent, the wider society. Church is an important institution. The individuals are born into it. It is marked by the institution of priesthood and the ecclesiastical hierarchy, the apostolic succession and the sacrament. Usually being intertwined with the state and the ruling classes the Church becomes part of the social order. The sects, on the other hand, oppose such a compromise of the church and the state. They believe them to be earnest Christians, living apart from ‘the world’, claiming complete civil and religious freedom, whose main ideal is the formation of religious communities composed of truly ‘converted’ persons, on a basis of voluntary membership. In contrast to the objective holiness of the Christian church, they attempt to develop holy communities composed of mature Christians. In practice, this ‘holiness’ is expressed in detachment from the state, from all official positions, from law, force, and the oath, and from war, violence, and capital punishment (Troeltsch 1931). Hence, sect represents an all-out protest movement against the church’s adjustment with the power centre of any society and its values and institutionalizing proclivity.

Niebuhr (1929) and Pope (1942), however, argue that there is an inherent tendency among the sects to be accommodated, routinised and institutionalised. Such a compromise takes place due to the desire for prosperity and better adjustment to conditions of life. In this fashion the sects become denominationalised. Wilson (1995), however, strongly, rejects the denominationalisation thesis put forward by Niebuhr and Pope. He is of the opinion that all sects do not have the same organisation, experience and ideology. While some sects may become denominationalised, others intensify their ethic even consciously to maintain their sectarian orientation. So the denominationalisation argument seems to be based on too hasty generalisation drawn from the experiences of some particular sects within some particular time and space limitation. We can mention the Calvinists, Baptists as some of the examples of Christian sects and the Shaiva, Vaishnava, Shakteya and Smarta as some of the sects belonging to Hinduism. While these Hindu sects experience differential level of denomination, the Ananda Marga is an example of Hindu sect which is still clinging on to its sectarian outlook and ideology.

4.2. Urban and Rural movements

Urban and rural movements are turbulent movements, although often ephemeral or transitory in nature but nevertheless frequent, of urban and rural popular discontents. For their temporary nature these movements are often equated with ‘the mob.’ Let us first deal with the urban or city mob to unveil the nature of urban movements.

4.2. 1. Urban Movements

Hobsbawm (1971: 110) in his book titled “Primitive Rebels” defined mob, “as the movement of all classes of urban poor for the achievement of economic or political changes by direct action – that is by riot or rebellion…”. Hence, urban movement is essentially rooted in the solidarity of the urban poor. In this sense, he argues, city mob is the urban equivalent of ‘social banditry’ (ibid: 6-7), a phenomenon associated, according to him, with the peasant protests of the rural areas.

Unlike Park, Blumer and other protagonists of the Chicago School, who have considered mob as impulsive and aimless collective behaviour, Hobsbawm considers mob behaviour, manifested in the form of riot, as purposeful or rational. He considers mob as pre-political in the sense that it lacks the organizational structure but it hardly means that mob action is purposeless. He believes that classical mob expects to achieve something by rioting. Far from being a casual collection of people united for some ad-hoc purpose, it is a permanent entity although not permanently organized as such.

One can trace the origin of urban movements in the mobs of the 18thcentury which, however, argues Hobsbawm, has tended to disappear to give way to the industrial working class in the contemporary period. The disappearance of mob riot, however, does not imply that urban movements have become irrelevant. On the contrary, the rapid increase in the pace and momentum of urbanization in the developed countries of the north as well as in the underdeveloped south has been, perhaps, contributing more salience to it. The United Nations reports that in 2014, 54% of the world’s population lived in urban areas, which will be 66% by 2050 (United Nations 2014). Obviously the urban issues have either already become or expected to become the major determinants of the contemporary social movements.

The term urban social movement has first appeared in the work of Manuel Castells in the 1970s. By urban social movement, Castells (1983: xvi) means, “Collective actions consciously aimed at the transformation of the social interests and values embedded in the forms and functions of a historically given city.” Thus, it follows that the core issues dealt by these movements are typically urban in nature related to the amenities and facilities provided or organized by the state such as housing, transportation and different social services. Urban movements often seek to develop community control of neighbourhood life. Participants in urban movement are composed of the neighbourhood or groups anchored in the place of residence not in a factory or place of work (Downs 1989). It is the nature of the participants or the very amorphous non-class composition of the neighbourhood, which has led scholars to categorise urban movements as new social movements (Rabrenovic 2009; Fainstain and Hirst 1995).

4.2. 1.a. Characteristics of Urban Movements

In order to distinguish urban movements from other forms of social movements, it is important to have a clear perception about their characteristics. Manual Castells (1983) considers the followings to be the important features of urban movements:

1.       Urban movements consider themselves as urban, or citizen, or in any case related to the city, or to the                urban community in their self-denomination.

2.       They are locally based and territorially defined.

3.       They tend to mobilize around three major goals of ‘collective consumption, cultural identity, and                          political self-management’ (ibid: 328).

These three themes are the integral features of any urban movement. The attainment of the goal of social change by any urban movement largely depends upon the combined reflection of all these dimensions in its programme and practice.

4.2. 2. Rural Movements

Social banditry is the term attributed by Hobsbawm (1971: 23) to most of the rural movements of the pre-capitalist stage. In his words, “It is rural, not urban. The peasant societies in which it occurs know rich and poor, powerful and weak, rulers and ruled, but remained profoundly and tenaciously traditional, and pre-capitalist in structure”. In this sense rural populism, according to Hobsbawm, are ‘archaic’ in nature. Moreover, the overwhelming illiteracy of the rural folk coupled with their spatial isolation from the mainstream due to underdeveloped communication network prevents the formation of organized unionism among the rural people.

Interestingly, modern populism of the rural folk also displays some of the characteristics of the earlier periods mentioned above. These are being, as says Wilkinson (1971: 87): “a certain primitive xenophobia, intolerance, anti-urbanism and anti-industrialism.” Rural populism exhibits strong faith in the essential virtues of the simple people and out rightly rejects elitism, particularly of the urban variety. Thus, the possible specific causes of rural movements appear to be: i) modern, industrial and urban encroachment in rural and/or agricultural sector, ii) the exploitation of moneylenders, particularly in agricultural sector of the rural society, and iii) imposition of the burden of taxation upon rural folk. Many of the peasant uprisings in India since the colonial period to the contemporary era have displayed a complex interplay of these factors.

4.2.2. a. Characteristics of rural movement

From the above discussion the features of rural movement are apparent. These are:

1.       Lack of organizational structure

2.       Ideological ambiguity

3.       Anti-elitism and anti-urbanism

4.       Romanticism

Writing in the Indian context Dipankar Gupta (2005), however, contradicts the issues of romanticisation of Indian village as ‘static’, ‘peaceful’ and ‘timeless.’ He is also critical about the perceived influence of urban encroachment as a potential reason of rural discontents or movements. He firmly believes that the internal dynamics of the rural society itself is responsible for its duress which is leading it more and more to the city rather than the city’s alleged encroachment in the rural areas. Even the farmers’ movement of contemporary India attempts to enter into the urban space to have an increased visibility. Hence, the root of rural movements lies deep within the rural culture itself rather than the proposed urban encroachment.

4.3 Nationalist Movements

As an ideology, nationalism holds that nation is the fundamental and primary unit of human society. Viewed from this standpoint human beings can be subdivided into a number of discrete and separate units or nations, each of which has the right to emerge as a distinct political unit or state. The claim to nationhood has certain distinguishing features. It implies, “The idea of a group of people with a shared culture, often a shared language, sometimes a shared religion, and usually but not always a shared history” (Spencer 1996: 590). On the basis of this cultural homogenity it extends the political claim of self-rule based on the right to self-determination. With this claim the cultural construct of nation enters into the realm of political contestation. Nation as an ‘imagined political community’ (Anderson 2006) or ‘invented’ (Gellner 1965) category often becomes incongruent with the existing arrangement of the states and hence breeds conflict, national or international. Hechter (2000) rightly says that nationalism as a process of collective action attempts to erase such incongruence. Hence, nationalist movement is a form of social movement whose avowed goal is to obtain territorial sovereignty. Olzak (2004), however, thinks that goals of nationalist movements vary from demands for regional autonomy, special status within a federation often based on linguistic distinctiveness to full-scale and total separation from multinational states, regimes, or empires.

4.3. a. Characteristics of Nationalist Movements

From the foregoing discussion, the following major characteristics of nationalist movements become apparent. These are:

i) Nationalist movements are rooted in “identity politics”. Identities on the basis of common culture, language, religion, history and territoriality are constructed contextually and are made the basis of political claims.

ii) Such movements seek control over territory. Control over a particular geographical territory is an integral element of the claim of national sovereignty.

iii) These movements strive for economic development. Progress of the nation is often a coveted demand of many nationalist movements. They often seek to rearrange the existing distribution of economic resources in the favour of their respective nations to bring an end to the existing practice of economic discrimination.

4.3. b. Major forms of Nationalist Movements

i) Cultural linguistic nationalism. Nationalist movements often have their root among the intellectuals. Through their writings, the intelligentsia portray their feelings of national distinctiveness which form the initial claim for political autonomy. Examples of such movements are plenty in the cases of many European, Asian and African nations. In India, for example, we come across the terms Bengalee nationalism, Tamil nationalism etc., which are essentially rooted in the intellectual heritage of the Bengalees and Tamils. At the sub-national or ethnic level also we have witnessed the emergence of a literari tradition among the adivasis viz. the Santhals, Mundas, Bodos, Gorkhas etc., who have been articulating their natoinalist aspiration through writings.

ii) Anti-colonial nationalism in the third world. Nationalism as a political doctrine is European in origin (Wilkinson 1971). Through colonisation nationalist ideology and principles penetrated in the third world countries. Stimulated by the values of nationalism, struggles for national independence in many of the present day third world countries have been directed to overthrow colonial rule. Such struggles for national liberation have adopted two distinct courses of action. The first one is eseentially a non-violent movement against colonial power. Here the permissive attitude of colonial rule has provided the necessary encouragement for the formation of nationalist political parties. In other cases as in Cyprus, Algeria and elsewhere the nationalist movement being outlawed by the colonial rulers had to take rcourse to different violent often extra-legal tactics. In both the cases, viz. violent or non-violent struggle, the mass base and its active support and participation in the movements for national liberation are the necessary conditions of success.

iii) National conscience and national rejuvenation. Emergence of parties and movements formed by minority groups can often be witnessed in long established nation-states, who claim to be the protector or saviors of national honour, prestige and unity. Such parties or factions of ‘national conscience’ are ultra-nationalist in nature until and unless they form coalition with other powerful groups. These parties become prominent and often seize power during the period of great national crisis, economic and political instability. For this nature, such movements, as says Wilkinson (1971), come very close to fascism while not being identical with it.

4.4 Race movements

Race signifies the ‘perception of global variation in human physiognomic and bodily appearances’ (Sanzek 1996: 697). Among the bodily appearances most important marker of race is skin pigmentation. In fact, skin-colour becomes the universal symbol of racial identity as well as the ground or justification for racial prejudice and discrimination and a particular pattern of dominance. Protest against such prejudiced attitude of one race against the other race(s) forms the very contour of race movements. Among these movemenmts, the most prominent are those of the racial emancipation and equality, and racialist movements in America. What follows is a brief discussion of these two types of race movements.

4.4. 1. Types and characteristics of Race movements

4.4.1  a. Movement for racial emancipation and equality

Such movements arise due to racial subjugation and domination of people who possess a distinct racial identity and on that basis try to overthrow the existing pattern of racial dominance. According to Wilkinson (1971), these movements have different features and dimensions as mentioned below:

a.      For emancipation there may be migratory movement to a ‘promised land’ as did the Jews under Moses.

b.      Struggle for racial separation to establish a separate territorial enclave by wresting it from the                               dominanant race. The movement of the Black Muslims in US is an example of this.

c.      Racial minorities, especially the remnants of the original pre-colonial population of any region, may                     take recourse of a bizarre millenarism expecting supernatural forces to act against their conquerors.

d.      Movement for peaceful assimilation into a multi-racial society on the basis of racial equality. The US                   Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a result of such movements.

4.4.2 b. Racialism

Racialism signifies a racial prejudice pertaining to the misconceived belief or myth about the superiority of one’s own race over all others. Juan Comas (1951) have listed five such powerful racial myths which have provided the background of different racialist movements throughout the globe, these are: i) the myth of Negro inferiority, ii) The Jewish myth, iii) The myth of Aryans or Nordic superiority, iv) The myth of the superiority of Anglo-Saxon, and v) The myth of Celticism.

4.5. Reform Movements

Reform movements aim at minor or partial changes in the existing social framework. They do not attempt at the total rejection of societal values and norms. Radical revision of people’s conceptions about the existing societal arrangements is beyond the scope of any reform movement. Reform movements, on the contrary, often accept and favour the status quo while,“focusing change on specified or delimited arenas of life” (Williams 2004: 103). In Aberle’s (1966) classification of social movements, mentioned earlier, we have also come across a similar characterisation of the reformative movement which attempts at partial change of the society. While in U.S.A. the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s stand as a classic example of reform movement, in India we can mention the efforts of Raja Rammohan Roy, Iswarchandra Vidyasagar and the movements of the Brahmo Samaj, Arya Samaj etc. as the greatest attempts at social reform.

4.5. a. Characteristics of Reform Movements

i) The quest for ‘good’ society: Establishing a good society free from all evils, is central to any reform movement.

ii) Religious influence: Apart from its liberal dimension, the notion of ‘good’ society is often shaped by religious principles and ideas. Perhaps, for this, Wilkinson (1971) characterises reform movements as ‘outgrowth’ or ‘sub-movements’ of larger religious movements. Similarly, to many scholars and social historians, the reform movements in India of the 19th century were influnced by and rooted in the spirit of Bhakti movement of medieval India.

iii) Involvement of educated middle class: As a vehicle for planned and directed change, reform movement often attracts the educated and enlightened segment of the middle class. History provides ample evidences where reform movements are led, financed and organised by this section of society. The 19th century waves of reform movements in India, for example, were led by the enlightened middle class personalities like Rammohan Roy, Iswarchandra Vidyasagar, Mahadev Govind Ranade, Jyotiba Phule and others.

4.6. Revolutionary and Totalitarian Movements

Revolutionary movements are distinguished from all other forms of social movements in their avowed goal of ushering in revolutionary reconstruction of society. In this sense revolutionary movements attempt to sweep away existing social, political and economic structures (Wilkinson 1971). To Charles Tilly (1993), exclusive competing claims for the control of the political apparatus or the state are central to revolutionary movements. However, Goodwin and Jasper (2009) consider that what is common to every revolutionary movement is the goal to overthrow the government or state. In contrast to reform movement, which attempts to change limited aspects of society, in revolutionary movement the participants strive to drastically alter or totally replace existing social, economic, or political institutions (DeFronzo 2015).

4.6. a. Different strategies of Revolutionary Movements

To attain their goal of utter transformation of society, revolutionary movements, in Wilkinson’s (1971) opinion, take recourse to various strategies and tactics. These are:

1. Guerrilla warfare: Modern revolutionary movements in Third World countries, for example, in China, Cuba, Vietnam, India etc., often use this strategy to further the cause of revolution. A strong social base among the rural population is, perhaps, a necessary condition for this. In the words of Mao Tse-Tung, “Guerrilla warfare basically derives from the masses and is supported by them, it can neither exist nor flourish if it separates itself from their sympathies and co-operation” (source: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/1937/guerrilla-warfare/ch01.htm ). Guerrilla strategy has not been very successful in urban settings due to the lack of the vital security ensured by the rural retreats and fastness.
2. Revolutionary conspiracies of secret societies: This strategy implies, argues Wilkinson (1971: 139), the ‘cabinet coup of a handful of notables, powerful military officers or ministers, a seizure of control over the organs of government at the top.” Hence, this is a revolutionary strategy quite opposite to that of mass uprisings. Despite its revolutionary consequences, secret group conspiracy, perhaps, is not a revolutionary movement in true sense since it is detached from the masses.
3. The Leninist Strategy: Lenin’s strategy is well informed by Marxist doctrines pertaining to the theory of class struggle and revolution. In Lenin’s view, any revolutionary movement must adhere to the needs and aspirations of the masses to gain their necessary support to seize control of the state. He stressed the need of a disciplined revolutionary communist party to guide the course of revolution.
4. Mass revolutionism: Features of mass revolutionism can be witnessed in many of the student, racial and peasant movements. This strategy is rooted in the implacable hatred to the existing social system and the call is to destroy it. Appeal to the general emotions of the masses is often an important axis of this strategy. The American Black Power movement exhibited this trend. Many of the peasant uprisings in India also have been mass movements. Often Fascist movements take recourse to this strategy of mass revolutionism. But radicalisation of masses should not be based upon spontaneity alone which can degenerate it into splinter groups. Stable leadership and organization, hence, is required to attain the goals of mass revolutionism.
5. Totalitarian movements: Totalitarian movements aim at calculated destruction of all rival parties, loyalties and potential bases of opposition. Totalitarian movements can accomplish these only by a revolutionary seizure of power. Totalitarian ideology, much like the mass revolutionist strategy, considers the existing society fully corrupt, immoral and beyond the scope of reform. So it gives the call for a revolutionary reconstruction of the present society. Totalitarian movements, however, forcefully demand total conformity and loyalty of the people. Hitler’s Nazism as reflected in his idea of National Socialism is a classic example of this strategy

Summary

As the vehicle for promoting or resisting change, social movement is as fundamental to sociology as society itself. The problem of studying social movement scientifically lies precisely in such generality of the concept. In reality, every social movement reflects the contemporary social dynamics existing in any society at any historical point of time. Hence, it is indeed very difficult to classify social movements. The necessity of scientific enterprise, notwithstanding, classification is immensely helpful in unveiling the deeper nuances and intricacies of any social phenomenon. The moot point veers around the ontological scheme or the basis of classification. Empirically the issue boils down to the very rationale of distinguishing one movement from the other.

Following the Weberian lead the types of social movements discussed here are indeed ideal types, constructed analytically to augment our understanding of the complexities, inter-relationships as well as idiosyncrasies of social traits and tendencies represented by the social movements. Although not reality in itself, such typology bears the promise of making our perception of reality more comprehensive and unambiguous.