5 Approaches to Social Movements

Contents

1.  Objective

2.  Introduction

3.  Learning Outcome

4.  Marxist Approach

5.  Structural-Functional Approach

6.  Gandhian Approach

6.1. Coalescence Stage

6.2. Gandhian Methods

7.  Resource Mobilization Theory

8.  Relative Deprivation Theory

9.  Summary

1.  Objective

The main objective of this module is to help learners to get exposure to different approaches to the study of social movements. The module is to show how the different approaches have been crucial in building the sociological perspectives on protests, social movement and revolution. The module also deals with some major questions such as why and how does a social movement emerge, how does it orient to certain situation and prolong till actualisation of collective action, and why some succeed while others fail. A review of the arguments of major approaches to social movement would allow students to introspect into these critical issues.

2.  Introduction

In the study of social movements, the sociological approaches put together a broad framework of thinking thereby promoting a theoretical guide for understanding and exploring social movements. However, it is quite pertinent to see how each approach diverges and converges with one another. The sociologists believe that unlike individual behaviour and action, the collective behaviour and action can be constructed and interpreted in some major unique ways. The sociological approaches go beyond common sense comprehension of the world and use ontological, epistemological and methodological issues to explain a social movement. Classical sociologists like Durkheim, Marx and Weber have analysed the forces of society that shape human life. A continued and overriding concern for the causes and motivations of social movements has gradually given rise to multiple approaches. These approaches therefore play a crucial role in building the theoretical perspective on sociology of revolution, protests and social movement. We are going to discuss here some major sociological approaches, namely, the Marxist approach, the structural-functional approach, Gandhian approach, the resource mobilisation theory and the relative deprivation theory in order to explore the dynamics of social movements, reveal their patterns and posit their explanations.

3.  Learning Outcome

After going through the approaches the students will be able to focus on the explanations related to how do people come together, share common world views, mobilise resources required for collective action and lead social movement. This module aims to help the students to grapple with different sociological approaches in the study of social movements and social transformations.

4.  Marxist Approach

The Marxist approach reflects an inclusive dynamics of social movements worldwide. As the Marxian perspective sees the society as arena of social inequality, its approach reflects on how such inequality creates conflict and causes revolutionary changes. This approach assumes that the central core of any social movement is the social conflict. They however give less importance to non-class conflicts that could be resolved through negotiation and dialogue. Marxist argue that class conflict, which is located in the economic structure of society, in-build in the system of production and distribution, gives rise to exploitative relations between two classes of people: those who owns the means of production and who do not. The few owners of the means of production under the slave, feudal and capitalist systems of production dominate over the large number of subjugated masses. The bourgeoisie under capitalism perpetuate their control over the society by extracting surplus value from those who produce- the labour classes. As a consequence, the antagonistic relations between the propertied and labour classes become inherent in any class divided society. Class struggle therefore becomes the driving force of any society. And such struggle normally takes the form of large scale mobilisation for changing the basic structure of any society. Social movements are not simply expressions of every day grievances as they involve wider structural issues involving economic and political system as a whole. The Marxists continue to fuel the working class movements in the nation-states even after a heavy blow to the communism took place in the Eastern Europe in 1990s. The communist Russia underwent a massive democratic transformation from a communist dictatorship to a multiparty democracy in 1990s (Shleifer and Treisman 2005; Hough 1997).

The communist revolution of 1917 in Russia, Spanish revolution of 1936 in Western Europe and communist revolution of 1949 in China, among others, bear testimony to the strength of revolutionary social movement in altering the social and economic structure of a society. The European Marxists later differed from the views of orthodox Marxists on questions of reform and revolution (Aarons 1972). While some sought to reform capitalism from within through labour movements, others argued for a complete revolution as the only solution to stop capitalist exploitation (ibid). Marxist theorists like Lenin, Trotsky, Gramsci and Mao strongly believed that class revolution is possible if right conditions prevail with right theory, right strategy and right tactics, including revolutionary spirit (ibid). Each took Marxism less a dogma, but a platform to be applied in the given conditions creatively. They also put great emphasis on the ability of masses to overthrow the ruling classes through their collective actions. Apart from the communist world of Russia and China the Marxian movement- the class struggle spread worldwide. In the early 19th century, the Marxists had witnessed localized collective action against western capitalism. In its later phase, especially after the Second World War, they started talking about importance and possibility of class conflicts against global capitalism. Consequently, the Marxian collective movement got dispersed and decentralised all over the world.

In fact, the structural conditions necessary for proletariat revolution reveal the dynamics of social movements. The private ownership and primitive accumulation of property, labour exploitation, economic inequality, etc, inbuilt in capitalism geared up the Marxian optimism for revolutionary social movements in the history (Slaughter 1975). Marx believed that all the classes of a capitalist society will ultimately get polarized into two blocks – haves (bourgeoisie) and have-nots (proletariat). Such polarization is possible when the proletariats are able to develop their class consciousness by changing their social status – from ‘class in itself’ to ‘class for itself’ in capitalistic economy. It is under such a context, class antagonism between workers and capitalists leads to a revolutionary conflict (Morris and Herring, 1984). Working class – the proletariat with their labour power can mobilise collective action against capitalist class – the Bourgeoisie who owns the “means of production” (machines, factories including other productive infrastructure, media, educational system, etc.) and controls the relation of production. The proletariats in fact do not remain silent; they attack the bourgeoisies’ repression and exploitation by organising collective actions – strikes, protests, revolution, social movement, etc (Marx and Engels 1968).

Morris and Herring (1984) argued that workers resist bourgeoisie’s further efforts of exploitation in a process of six stage activities. In the 1st stage, the workers feel and experience their intense sense of self-estrangement and powerlessness. In the next stage, they form trade unions raising demands for higher wages, better working conditions and such other limited objectives while engaging in sporadic rioting and localized violence. In the 3rd stage, the workers develop national and international networks across localities to develop unity and strength. Following this process, they organize themselves into ‘a class for itself’ in the next stage. Only at that stage, the workers’ interests are legally recognised when internal differences among bourgeoisies get intensified. Consequently, in the next stage, the enlightened segments of the bourgeoisie join the ranks of the proletariats and promote activity for collective action. At the final stage, the proletariats could lead an effective revolution against the bourgeoisie to take control of the method of production. The Marxists normally expect that the nature of the struggle of the oppressed should be violent as the exploiter class would hardly surrender their power without violence. Yet, they do not completely deny the possibility of peaceful revolution depending on the strength and means adopted by the state and the propertied classes for the oppression. 

Marxists also predict that communist social unrests occur more in industrial centre than in agricultural fields. It is because the former creates urban centres with industrial workers who are potential enough to develop class consciousness. On the other hand, the peasants in agricultural fields have less chance or take longer time to form common class consciousness. For instance, Chinese revolution caused by the peasants occurred much later than the Russian revolution led by the workers. Thus, industrial capitalism is the necessary pre-condition for the formation of social movement, Vladimir Lenin and Mao Zedong therefore pleaded for modernization and industrialization in Russia and China respectively (apworldwiki2011-12.weebly.com/russian–chinese-revolutions.html). They perceived that a worst situation would come in the industrial centres which would make urban workers thoroughly exploited and better united as compared to the peasants in the agricultural fields. This analysis shows the importance of socio-spatial factors in the formation of social movements. The influence of communist revolution went beyond Russia and China. In countries like Poland, Cuba, Korea, Hungary and Vietnam, the spirit of communist revolution advanced fast.

It should be noted here that the oppressed/repressed workers in Russia and impoverished/exploited peasants in China were agitated by charismatic leaders and moved by the world war situations. The 1917 Russian revolutions occurred just before the end of World War II whereas the 1949 Chinese revolution occurred after the end of World War II. Theda Scokpol (1979) has argued that revolutionary crises in Russia and China had developed when the old-regime states became unable to meet the challenges of international situation. Caught in cross-pressures between domestic class structures and international exigencies, the autocracies and their centralized administrations broke apart, opening the way for social-revolutionary transformations spearheaded by revolts from below. Again, the charismatic leaders like V. Lenin in Russia and Mao Zedong in China could sufficiently convince the masses that they must go for a socialist revolution as only solutions. It may be argued here that the conditions appropriate for any revolution are multiple, and it is therefore, not easy to predict any simple theory in this respect. Moreover, the fall of Soviet Union and recent trends in market globalism have made the possibility of any worker’s revolution almost remote. 

The formation of labour union or trade union also reflects communist ideology. Engels (1844) argued that workers unions are “schools of war” that train workers in class struggle, as a necessary precondition to their own self-emancipation. But, Tony Cliff and Donny Gluckstein (1986) argued that due to improvement in workers’ conditions within capitalism, it cannot be overthrown now. Marx and Engels could also realise the reformative programme and limitation of trade union movement. 

Neo-Marxists like Gramsci (1971) doubted the possibility of any historical law by which the working class movement would inevitably triumph. He wanted to abandon such a fatalistic doctrine and stressed on the need for popular workers’ education (to encourage development of intellectuals) from the working class. Because the capitalists are capable to manipulate the consent (he used the term hegemony to refer to this process) of workers to support exploitative rule. Hence, as compared to Marx, Gramsci gave much thought to the role of intellectuals in a society. He argued that the modern intellectuals as practically minded organisers are capable of producing hegemony through ideological apparatuses like education and media. Among these intellectuals, he particularly stressed on the role of “organic” intellectuals who do not simply describe social life in accordance with scientific rules, but instead articulate, through the language of culture, feelings and experiences which the masses could not express for themselves. For this reason, Gramsci gave a call for development of working-class intellectuals. In fact, Gramsci stressed more on the cultural processes to explain modern social movement.

The changes in the nature of contemporary capitalism have also prompted some sociologists to doubt the orthodox philosophy of ‘industrial conflicts’. Dahrendorf (1959), for instance, argued that there is a divorce between the ownership and control of industry and that, in consequence, the managers as employees can control industry and do not adopt the same attitude towards profit making relations with other employees as do the employers. Using this assumption, it is argued that conflict does not necessarily have an economic class basis, but is created by the distribution of authority. 

Again the role that working class has played in Western capitalist society has come under severe criticism. Thus, C. Wright Mills (1951) finds that trade unions have become managers of discontent and that they have been fully incorporated into the structure of capitalism. Goldthorpe and other’s (1969) research among Vauxhall workers at Luton had made them conclude that workers lack class-consciousness and, therefore, class struggle belonged to the past. There are yet some Marxists who pin their hopes on the outbreak of shop floor protest by workers. Beynon’s (1973) study of the Ford automobile plant in England shows that the shop stewards are more militant, if not revolutionary. On the contrary, Serge Mallet (1975) claims that it is the technically and professionally qualified workers in the most modern industries who have been most opposed to the capitalist organization of industry, and who have taken up most vigorously the traditional working-class struggle to transform the ownership and management of economic enterprises. Bottomore (1973) also agrees that there are some indications of the kind of change that Mallet discusses in the growth of white-collar and professional trade unions and in their increasing militancy and even radicalism. Similarly, Jenkins and Wallace (1996) have found that educated salaried professionals, especially socio-cultural and public sector professionals, display greater protest potential, especially for civil disobedience, and are supportive of emerging “middle class” movements. These protests reflect the rise of new political repertoires, particularly “protest activism,” which combines protest with high levels of conventional participation and is centred among the more educated. 

In recent years the apparent fragmentation of established class structures and the emergence of new social movements – in particular the women’s movement and environmentalism – have altered the traditional expressions of class led movement in society. In a major reassessment, Klaus Eder (1993) has offered a new perspective on the status of class in modernity. Drawing on a critique of Bourdieu, Touraine and Habermas, he re-evaluates the role of the middle classes, traditionally the crux of class analysis, and links class to social theories of power and cultural capital. The result is a cultural theory of class which incorporates the changing forms of collective action and the new social movements of contemporary societies. 

It is worth noting here that the subaltern theorists have stressed on the role of marginalised people in the field of social movements. The effort of these Marxist historians to study ‘history from below’ has evolved a critic of orthodox Marxism: the Marxism ignores the history of the masses or ‘subaltern classes’. It is argued that traditional Marxist scholars ignoring cultural factors have put forward a linear development of class consciousness (Guha 1983). In fact, the class consciousness cannot be viewed as an independent factor external to structural conditions. In a brilliant analysis, James C. Scott (1985) has emphasised on everyday resistance of peasants by which ‘invisible power’ of the marginalised is revealed. Scott’s research finds that the overt peasant rebellions are actually rather uncommon, do not occur when and where expected, and often don’t have much impact. Rather than seeing ‘resistance as organisation’, Scott looks at less visible, every-day forms of resistance such as ‘foot-dragging, evasion, false compliance, pilfering, feigned ignorance, slander and sabotage’. It appears that despite changes in the nature of capitalism today, one cannot totally deny the involvement of different segments of modern classes including occupational groups to develop resistance.

5.  Structural-Functional Approach

This non-Marxist approach considers social movement is pursued in a mass society due to anti-democratic and exploitative policies. Putting emphasis on political institutions and culture, the non-Marxists recognize unequal distribution of material resources or inequalities based on resources in macro level (nation-state economic) and meso level (gender, race and class) as the crucial factors for causing social movement. Some of the theorists also put stress on psychological traits, elite power struggle and manipulation as the non-economic factors for explaining social movement. This approach also stresses on institutionalized injustices and inequalities that “include social barriers to material success, state policies that treat groups unequally, or bureaucratic rules that favour one group (e.g., corporations) over another (workers)” (Smith and Fetner 2007). On the whole, this approach links social movements with the rising aspirations of the people when a political system cannot fulfil. As the gap between expectations of the people and the performance of the system widens, the mass movements emerge creating political instability and political disorder (Huntington 1968). For instance, women’s suffrage movement was emerged due to women’s unequal political access in the United States. Liberal scholars like William Kornhauser, Robert Nisbet, and Edward Shils among others have developed this approach more comprehensively (Shah 2004). 

According to this approach, the formation of collective action means organising activity and efforts for challenging the status quo – the existing power structure and its relation. In turn, the “social movements shaped by structural forces affect the distributions of economic resources and political power and those institutions that play important roles to encourage or discourage social change” (Smith and Fetner 2007). In particular, the social movements are shaped by broad structural forces that affect distributions of economic resources and political power and those institutions that encourage, channel and repress social activism. The challengers, authorities, and other actors shape the evolving contexts for the protest (Earl 2006; Jenkins and Klandermans 1995). Liberal scholars arguing for such changes mostly prefer to substitute ‘revolutionary’ changes of Marxist variety with ‘political’ changes in government and political institutions. Even those who favour revolutionary changes do not accept the Marxian class analysis. 

In the West, for example, we see a history of social movements organized around labour, gender, and race. Each of these categories represents not only a group of people wishing to improve their lot, but also a systemic social division in which one group is allocated less than another. The structural approach to social movements brings to the forefront of analysis the institutionalized injustices and inequalities over which contested politics are fought. The structural functionalists also tress on the institutionalized injustices and inequalities but unlike Marxists they treat these structural conditions as functionally desirable and inevitable to the society. The Marxists, however, argue that the structural conditions perpetuate domination and exploitations and lead toward social conflicts.

The structural-functional approach to the study of social movements can be explained through Smelser’s (1962, 1963) structural strain theory. This theory, identified with the ideas of Parsons’ structural functionalism, explains the formation of social movements. N. Smelser has explored six major conditions/factors responsible for social movement (Morris and Herring 1984). 

N.Smelser has explored six major conditions/factors responsible for social movement. One, the structural conduciveness which refers to a situation when a society is found to have serious and prolong structural problems by which some people continue to live with low living standards or confront political repression. The movements emerged in the Eastern Europe in the near past were the reflection of such structural conduciveness. Two, it is true that no society is free from strains and also no all strains can lead to collective actions. But it is the strains that caused by social structures or the structural strains can spur the social movement. For instance, in the country like India the socially determined exclusion, inequity, injustice, ethnic marginalisation, etc always found to be the crucial factors of social movements. This factor also indicates that the relative deprivation as the prime mover for the social movement. For instance, the people from Eastern Europe joined in the pro-democracy movements comparing their living standards with the people from Western Europe (Macionis 2012). Three, merely a deprivation is not enough to spur social movement; its explanation is also crucial. Thus, the factor- growth and spread of an explanation as explored by Smelser is significant. The explanation of problems- the causes and solutions can induce toward a well organised social movement. For instance, the intellectuals could promote an explanation for pro-democratic movement in the Eastern Europe (ibid). Four-the precipitating factors like long existed discontentment or a series of such related events may cause social movement. For instance, the democratisation of Soviet Union or Mikhail Gorbachev’s program of perestroika (restructuring) could possible because of the long existed discontentment that occurred in a series of pro-democratic events in Soviet Union in the past. Fifth, the mobilization for action as a factor becomes crucial in explaining the formation of social movement. Any social movement can speed up only when the participants are mobilised for collective action- distributing leaflets, staging rallies, and building alliances with sympathetic groups. The solidarity movement in Poland could be the best example. Sixth, the lack of social control. The social movement succeeds depending on the type of government responses- officials, police, and military. Even it so happens that the state can crush a social movement, as for instance, the People’s Republic of China could crush pro-democracy forces in the past.

Thus, the structural deprivation and strains are the pre-requisites indispensable for the formation of social movements. These as the structural forces limiting people’s freedom and progress become conducive for the rising of social movement. For instance, the traditional value system in Indian society causes strains for women. The stereotype images for women perpetuate their domination by their fathers during young age, by their husbands after marriage and by their sons during widowhood in India. Accordingly the job market discriminates them in term of wage and placements; here the working women take double burden of office and home. The gender discrimination affects her choice of education, occupation, etc. Even she cannot decide her marriage partner. It is possible to explain the rise of women’s movement in India with reference to these structural strains and inequalities.

6.  Gandhian Approach

The Gandhian approach to the study of social movements – old and new found to be potentially different from the other approaches. The issues emerged and resolved through social movements are largely end-directed. But the Gandhians believe in the confluence of both ends and means to evolve holistic and progressive (moral value/ethical) forces through any social movement. For Gandhians, social conflict is not what the conflicting groups engage on class interests but to understand their differential interests, unique value relevance and Himsa (violence/hatredness) to one another. Structurally Gandhians critique the project of modernity and western civilisation and unlike western hedonism they prefer to resolve the crisis culturally. It is worth noting here that Gandhi was not against science, he was against scientific discoveries that go against humanity. 

Gandhian formation of collective actions – movement against racial discrimination in South Africa and against peasant exploitation, class repression, British rule, untouchability, gender discrimination, etc, in India thus evolved an innovative one. The social movements led by Gandhi during his life time both in India and abroad and also by Gandhians after Gandhi testify the vigour of western theoretical approaches such as political economic theory, relative deprivation theory and structural strain theory, but without violence. There are a few but most important literature available on the social movement led by Gandhi in Africa and India (see Gandhi 1968 (1993 translated by Desai); Huttenback 1971; Brown 2009, Majumdar 1988, Chandra et.al. 1989).

6.1 Coalescence Stage 

Before Gandhi arrived in1915 the divided factions of congress –the liberal and extremists with their petition and protest strategy respectively had some impact on British administration because they could sensitise each and every class including workers, peasants, middle class and higher class which had grievances against the British rule. However, they could not be united because thewhich had grievances against the British rule. However, they could not be united because the Congress was largely elitists in nature and was yet to include the popular people’s resistance in the countryside (Moradian and Whitehouse 2000). It was Gandhi who could pull all of the classes into common class interests and gave unique movement to congress leaderships then. The coalescence in Gandhian  social  movement  was  possible  due  to  the  antecedent  social  events  and  the  related common issues- social, political and economic that were visualised at that time. During coalescence stage (organizing members and raising public awareness on emerging issues), Gandhi’s leadership traits, ideology and style were potentially used in forming collective actions against the opponents during  pre-Independence  time.  Gandhi  brought  the  issues  to  the  public  by  openly  involving likeminded  national  leaders.  He  also  discussed  with  these  leaders  the  strategy  and  tactics  of Gandhi used his Satyagraha, as his weapon for the success of social movement in India and abroad. The Satyagraha as a method of resistance includes two units: Satya (truth) and Agraha (firm insistence  or  holding  firmly).  It  is  pursued  through  both  dialectical  process  and  dialogical resistance. As a dialectical process, Satyagraha is not a type of ‘passive resistance’ as i) it is theresistance. As a dialectical process, Satyagraha is not a type of ‘passive resistance’ as i) it is the weapon of the strong, ii) it admits no violence under any circumstances and iii) it insists upon truth. David Hardiman (2003) has called this method ‘dialogical resistance’ as the adversary is not an enemy. For instance, unlike Marxists, Gandhi did not believe in class antagonism and struggle.enemy. For instance, unlike Marxists, Gandhi did not believe in class antagonism and struggle. However, the strategy of Satyagraha did not occur to Gandhi all of a sudden. For this, Gandhi’s intellectual backgrounds especially his reading the writings of Tolstoy and Ruskin and especially the racial humiliation he suffered abroad were largely responsible. The turning point of Gandhi’s life was when he was bundled out of first class compartment by a Whiteman on the way from Durban to Pretoria (7th June,1893). He then convened a meeting of the Indians on such serious issue of racial discrimination in South Africa. He thought, after resolving some of these issues he would come back to India; but he was stopped by the Indians there.  He successfully led social movement in South Africa (see Gandhi, 1968 (1993 translated by Desai); Huttenback 1971). He started writing moderate appeals to the South African government in the beginning. And through Natal Indian Congress (NIC) and publication of paper he highlighted the racial discrimination and humiliation against African Indians there. However, no resolution, and no representation of Indians to political office were allowed. On the contrary, the government brought a law explaining that the Indians would carry finger printed registration certificate with them. The moderate appeal against such exclusive racial discrimination was not entertained by the government. In such a situation Gandhi, for the first time, experimented his weapon of “Satyagraha” by declaring that no Indian would carry such certificate even if they would be forced to go into jail. Somehow a negotiation between General  Smuts  and  Gandhi  resolved  that  no  law  would  come  for  finger  printed  registration certificate and however, the Indians could carry it voluntarily. In fact, General Smuts cheated Gandhi which forced him to adhere to non-violent and non-cooperation principles of Satyagraha.in South Africa (see Gandhi, 1968 (1993 translated by Desai); Huttenback 1971). He started writing moderate appeals to the South African government in the beginning. And through Natal Indian Congress (NIC) and publication of paper he highlighted the racial discrimination and humiliation against African Indians there. However, no resolution, and no representation of Indians to political office were allowed. On the contrary, the government brought a law explaining that the Indians would carry finger printed registration certificate with them. The moderate appeal against such exclusive racial discrimination was not entertained by the government. In such a situation Gandhi, for the first time, experimented his weapon of “Satyagraha” by declaring that no Indian would carry such certificate even if they would be forced to go into jail. Somehow a negotiation between General  Smuts  and  Gandhi  resolved  that  no  law  would  come  for  finger  printed  registration certificate and however, the Indians could carry it voluntarily. In fact, General Smuts cheated Gandhi which forced him to adhere to non-violent and non-cooperation principles of Satyagraha. Gandhi retaliated to government by publicly burning finger printed registration certificate without fearing physical torture. While doing so he was beaten up but publicly he withstood it with courage. Gandhi organised his next Satyagraha against the new law of restriction on Indian’s emigration within African cities in 1908. While Indians were not allowed to move to other cities, he along with some Indians from Natal crossed the city frontier into Transvaal to defy the immigration law and consequently got arrested. The result was that the government removed the discriminatory law. The next  Satyagraha  against  poll  tax  imposed  on  ex-indentured  Indians,  invalidation  of  marriage certificates of Indians – Hindu, Muslim and Parsi as their marriages not solemnised like Christians.Gandhi’s  call  of  country  wide  Satyagraha  finally  pressed  the  government  to  withdraw  racial discriminatory law against Indians in South Africa (ibid). After Gandhi came to India in 1915, he started visiting different parts of India with an analytical mind and sharp observation. He did not embark upon Satyagraha all of a sudden though he knew it was a powerful weapon required at that time. He waited people to invite him to lead the movement on their own. Thereafter, he observed the peasants and workers’ repression in the localities where he used his Satyagraha technique later on. The Satyagraha he led in Champaran, Ahamedabad and Kheda was planned and based on his experiences in South Africa (see Brown 2009; Chandra et.al 1989; Majumdar 1988). He first visited the places and had case studies on peasants and workers and analysed them objectively. In case of Champaran agitation against Tinkathia system in Bihar he collected data from about 800 indigo cultivators, and then analysed the production, profit and indigo-cultivators’ rights and entitlements. A committee of inquiry insisted by Gandhi then exposed the exploitative  character  of  indigo planters and  their extent  of exploitation  for  which indigo planters’  insistence  on  indigo  cultivation  was  declared  illegal  and  illegitimate.  The  indigo cultivators therefore got refunded the misappropriated profits; security of tenure and cropping freedom. As a result of which, the indigo planters were forced to leave the Champaran area. In case of Ahmedabad Satyagraha, Gandhi studied and analysed the actual cost and profit of mill owners and justified the grievances of workers on the basis of a tribunal insisted by him and increased their bonus to 35 percent. Fasting is another Gandhian critical method of social movement. His “fast unto occasions  like  after1922  Chauri  Chaura incident, 1934 Communa(Bengal and Delhi) was an unique mass mobilising strategy.l Award incident and 1947 Hindus and Muslims communal violence death”  he  individually  experimented  in  many  notable In the last three movements – non-cooperation movement, civil disobedience movement and quit India movement, Gandhi used Satyagraha to free India from the clutches of British rule. These non-violent movements revitalised inner strength within people to boycott foreign goods and to non-cooperate with government offices, educational institutions, legal courts, etc. Gandhi’s Satyagraha against the salt tax in March 1930 led to the famous Dandi March. During the quit India movement, Gandhi called for individual Satyagraha at all India level and many leaders were arrested. The collective  sacrifices,  efforts  and  actions  through  these  movements  under  Gandhian  leadership including many other movements became more passionate and intense and culminated finally in India’s Independence on the 15th August, 1947. 

6.2 Gandhian Methods

Mahatma Gandhi had chosen the path of non-violence for himself and his followers. Gandhi’s life was history’s longest experiment in non-violent political action. Gandhian ideology stresses on truth, ahimsa, Satyagraha, khadi, charkas, Swadeshi, trusteeship, etc. Thus, the Marxian and the ct as a method of organising movement may appear unfashionable to many in the modern world. But in Independent IndiaSatyagraha to put pressure on the government and they also achieved success to a great extent. For, several visionaries have applied the Gandhian method of non-violence and western approaches to social movement differ widely in this respect. Gandhi’s opposition to confli instance, Vinaba Bhabe in Bhoodan movement, Medha Patkar in Narmada Bachao Andolan and Anna Hazare in anti-corruption movements had followed the Gandhi’s Satyagraha strategy. Leaders of Peace Movement and many other social movements in the world have relied on the Gandhian path to attract the attention of the state and others worldwide. For Gandhi his Satyagraha (holding truth firmly) is a human way of resisting inhuman problems. It refers to an activity of self-suffering, prayer and humble appeals to the opponents for a just cause. The Satyagrahi who believes in Satyagraha develops within him the quality of winability over his opponent not by involuntary hurt and violence but by voluntary non-violence. For Gandhi the people who win the heart and mind of the opponents voluntarily – the strongest and the bravest are called as Satyagrahi. In actuality, it mobilizes collective action including the strategy of fasting, strike, non-co-operation, civil disobedience for a human and pragmatic cause. The Gandhian Approach to the Conflict Resolution goes beyond the approaches of conflict management’ and dispute settlement of modern type. To ensure non-violence in individual level we must have courage for self-suffering and positive attitude to change the heart of the opponent (see Brown 2009; Chandra et.al 1989; Majumdar 1988).

7. Resource Mobilization Theory

This approach is based on rational choice theory. It begins by arguing that motivations of a person are influenced by goals and whenever such goals are not met due to given constraints and available choices, people make rational choice regarding what is the best for them at a particular moment. In other words, rational individuals choose alternatives to get maximum satisfaction and in the process they use their emotion or impulse to join a movement. This theory therefore explains social movement as temporary phenomenon. This theory is called ‘resource mobilisation’ because people depend on available resources to launch a social movement and the success of the movement depends on the strength of these resources. These resources also induce people to join a movement as they see benefits to be drawn later by becoming a part of a movement. Jenkins and Perrow (1977) have therefore argued that social movements take shape when the necessary resources are pumped into it.

The well defined antecedents to collective action – structural deprivation and strains, even with organisational goals and grievances, conflicts and contestation alone may not cause social movements. It depends on resource mobilisation. The effective and efficient use of resources (human, social, physical and financial) can drive social movements. The resource mobilisation theory reveals that no social movement is likely to succeed or even set off grounds without substantial resources (Macionis 2012). Unlike deprivation theory the resource mobilisation approach point out that though deprivation is indispensable it requires mobilisation of resources to cause social movements. The antecedent to collective action is indispensable but the resources required to stimulate it is most important. The resources include money, human labour, media influence, political images, contacts, network, organisational knowhow and leadership skills, etc as driving force for social movement. The role of leaders is crucial in mobilising resources of various types from within and outside to sustain a struggle. Further, the effective use of resources may help the social movement in right direction. According to Macionis (2012) any social movement may rise or fall depending upon how well it attracts people, manages resources, mobilise people and forges alliances. Besides, internal factors like formal organisation with bureaucratic structure, communicative techniques, utilitarian drives and initiatives, etc are important (Jenkins 2001).

Both internal and external resource mobilisation contribute in the formation of social movement. If the insiders lack adequate resources, the outsiders may instil them. For instance, black poor people may be united by the White activists or a higher caste may help mobilise lower caste movement or men can come to the help of women leaders (Macionis 2012). The internet including social media, face book, twitters (Preston 2011), political campaign through YouTube (Pew Research Centre 2011), etc are used as vital resources for mobilising opinions in contemporary times.

8. Relative Deprivation Theory

In his book “Why Men Rebel” Ted Gurr explores why people engage in political violence (riots, rebellion, coups, etc.) and how do regimes respond too (Gurr 1970). He examines the psychological frustration-aggression theory. To him frustration not necessarily leads to violence but only when it becomes sufficiently prolonged and sharply felt. Individual frustration may lead to aggressive behaviour but the collective violence is caused only when group feel relatively deprived. The relative deprivation drives collective violence depending upon the intensity and scope of deprivation. The term “relative deprivation” was first used by Samuel Stouffer and later used by Robert K. Merton to mean to a situation where the persons perceive that they have less than they deserve, they are deprived than they are entitled comparison to their reference groups (Denton Morrison 1971).

This approach explains the felt discrepancy between what a group thinks they deserve and what they think they will get. For Gurr, ‘relative deprivation’, if psychological, may lead to individual crime against another individual; but if it is social as a result of collective deprivation– it leads to collective action by a group against another group. For Gurr, revolutions are the result of collective deprivations. Such deprivations result from the increase in anger against the existing political regime due to the disjuncture between expectations and opportunities that people feel they are entitled to. The relative deprivation as perceived discrepancy between the value expectations and value capabilities determines the possibilities of social movement.

Gurr has also tried to explain why individuals, group and communities join social movements. He discussed three possible patterns of relative deprivations: decremental deprivation, inspirational deprivation and progressive deprivation. ‘Decremental deprivation’ occurs when the value capabilities of a given population decline due to one or several national disasters. To Gurr, the success of Bolsheviks in seizing powers in Russia in 1917 was largely due to decremental deprivation. Russian people suffered from enormous material and human sacrifices during the World War I and these created wide spread discontents. As against the Kerensky government that was involved in this War, people supported Lenin and his party for proposing peace. ‘Aspirational deprivations’ occurs when the value capabilities of a group remain constant while the value expectations increase. Gurr here gives the example of violence caused by black Americans in the 1960s. Blacks demanded immediate equality against the experience of continuing discrimination and prejudices. Finally, ‘progressive deprivation’ occurs when value capabilities stabilise or decline after a period when value capabilities and value expectations have increased together. Gurr cites the examples of rioting in colonies when liberalising tendencies and reforms did not result.

Using this approach, Scokpol (1979) has found that social revolutions in France, Russia and China emerged from specific political crises centred in the structures and situations of old-regime states. It is therefore important to reexamine the pre-revolutionary phase not from the top down (with emphasis on the state, the dominant class, and the international context) perspective, but from the bottom up perspective with emphasis on the structural situation of the peasants in the agrarian economy and in local political and class relations.

9.  Summary

In the study of social movements, the sociological approaches though diverge with one another but each could become a theoretical guide for comprehending the dynamics of social movements. A reassessment of the approaches, undertaken in the module, articulates a prospect for the sociology of revolution. A brief summary can capture the quintessence as well as a critical overview of the approaches.

Marxist approach explains that the class struggle as driving force normally takes the form of large scale mobilisation for changing the basic structure of any society. However, it cautions that the class revolution is possible if right conditions prevail with right theory, right strategy and right tactics, including revolutionary spirit. Marxists see Marxism less a dogma, but a platform to be applied in the given conditions creatively. The Marxists therefore continue to fuel the working class movements in the nation-states worldwide. Apart from the communist world of Russia and China, the Marxian movement spread to non-communist states and became popular in the west. However, unlike Marxian economic conditions, the conditions appropriate for any revolution are multiples, and it is therefore, not easy to predict any simple theory in this respect. Moreover, the fall of Soviet Union and recent trends in market globalism have made the possibility of any worker’s revolution almost remote. It is also acknowledged facts that the capitalistic domination cannot be overthrown now because the workers can improve within capitalism. The reformative programme can also lead to the limitation of trade union movement. And rather the trade unions have become managers of workers’ discontent and have been fully incorporated into the structure of capitalism. Neo-Marxists like Gramsci (1971) doubted the possibility of any historical law by which the working class movement would inevitably triumph. In fact, Gramsci stressed more on the cultural processes to explain modern social movement. The effort of these Marxist historians to study ‘history from below’ has evolved a critic of orthodox Marxism as the Marxism ignores the history of the masses or ‘subaltern classes’. In recent years the apparent fragmentation of established class structures and the emergence of new social movements – in particular the women’s movement and environmentalism – have altered the traditional expressions of class led movement in the society. There are yet some Marxists who pin their hopes for the rise of new political repertoires, particularly in form of a “protest activism”.

According to structural-functional approach, the formation of collective action means organising activity and efforts for challenging the status quo – the existing power structure and its relation. The social movement shaped by broad structural forces therefore can affect the distributions of economic resources and political power that encourage, channel and repress social change. The challengers, authorities, and other actors shape the evolving contexts for the protest. The structural-functional approach to the study of social movements is also better explained by Smelser’s structural strain theory. He explored six major conditions/factors responsible for social movement. This includes structural conduciveness, structural strains, growth and spread of an explanation, precipitating factors, mobilization for action and lack of social control. However, Smelser’s structural-strain theory is not complete as it does not take into account of the other important factors like mass media, international alliance, etc influencing and affecting social movement. 

The social movements led by Gandhi during his life time both in India and abroad and also by Gandhians after Gandhi testify the vigour of western theoretical approaches such as political economic theory, relative deprivation theory and structural strain theory, but without violence. The Gandhian Satyagraha is pursued through both dialectical process and dialogical resistance. As a method of resistance, it becomes the weapon of the strong people- who admits no violence under any circumstances insisting upon truth.

Gandhi did not embark upon Satyagraha all of a sudden though he knew it was a powerful weapon required at that time. He waited people to invite him to lead the movement on their own. Thereafter, he observed the peasants and workers’ repression in the localities where he used his Satyagraha technique later on. The Satyagraha he led in Champaran, Ahamedabad and Kheda was planned and based on his experiences in South Africa. He first visited the places and had case studies on peasants and workers and analysed them objectively. In Independent India, Vinaba Bhabe in Bhoodan movement, Medha Patkar in Narmada Bachao Andolan and Anna Hazare in anti-corruption movements had followed the Gandhi’s Satyagraha strategy. It refers to an activity of self-suffering, prayer and humble appeals to the opponents for a just cause. In actuality, it mobilizes collective action including the strategy of fasting, strike, non-co-operation, civil disobedience for a human and pragmatic cause.

The ‘resource mobilisation’ theory argues that people depend on available resources to launch a social movement and the success of the movement depends on the strength of these resources. The well defined antecedents to collective action – structural deprivation and strains, even with organisational goals and grievances, conflicts and contestation alone may not cause social movements. It depends on resource mobilisation. The effective and efficient use of resources (human, social, physical and financial) can drive social movements. The resource mobilisation theory reveals that no social movement is likely to succeed or even set off grounds without substantial resources. However, this theory does not visualise that those who do not have adequate resources or lack competing resources may as well take part in social movement.

The relative deprivation as perceived discrepancy between the value expectations and value capabilities determines the possibilities of social movement. This approach explains the felt discrepancy between what a group thinks they deserve and what they think they will get. For Gurr, ‘relative deprivation’, if psychological, may lead to individual crime against another individual; but if it is social as a result of collective deprivation– it leads to collective action by a group against another group. For Gurr, revolutions are the result of collective deprivations. The relative deprivation theorists cannot explain why some deprived people go for social movement and others not. It also does not explain the post-movement effects.