16 Cultural Forms, Techniques, Strategies and Social Movements

Contents

1. Objective

2. Introduction

3. Learning Outcome

4. Social Construction Theories and Social Movements

5. Conceptualizing Culture

6. Social Movements and Culture

7. Summary

1. Objective

This module looks at how cultural forms may influence techniques and strategies of mobilization in social movements and the success and outcomes of social movements. Social movements are related to culture of the group concerned in different ways, the emergence, the impact, and the movement’s cultural forms. This is because, social movement participants are part of a particular culture, these movements often have impact on culture and attitudes, and they have a culture of their own. The objective of this module is to understand all these aspects to understand the interplay of culture and social movements.

2. Introduction

Here we look at how culture intersects with social movements, i.e. how activists’ cultural beliefs and practices shape tactics and strategies of social movement actors. In recent years there has been a cultural turn in the study of social movements as students of social movements have felt the limitations of excessively structural or interest oriented perspectives. In this module, before we understand culture and social movements, we look at how social construction theories have influenced this approach or perspective of studying social movements. Then, we also try to conceptualise culture, though it is a broad term with multiple connotations. Cultural turn in the study of social movements imply a focus on understanding how meanings are constructed, how through interaction and dialogue shared meanings evolve and how people act accordingly, why people participate in social movements, how do they relate to other members, what motivates them to act, how do they express their demands and so on. Understanding all these aspects of social movements is referred to as cultural analysis of social movements. Here we look at four aspects, which are inter-related to each other. First, ‘framing’, which in very simple words implies how a particular issue is framed, what is highlighted, just like the way we fix a frame while taking a photograph. The frame has to be in such a way that the issue resonates with the people, motivate them to act, come together, i.e. it has to connect to the cultural beliefs, practices and histories of the concerned group. Second, collective identity, which implies the shared meanings and understandings which bind a group together such that there is a ‘we-feeling’, a feeling of ‘one-ness’. Third, emotions are crucial to protest, whether in participation, or in forming collective identities, or being motivated by a feeling of injustice (injustice frame). Both concepts of collective identity and emotions of protest are intertwined with cultural practices of the group concerned. Finally, repertoires of contention are tactics or techniques of ways of expressing demands, which are culturally rooted. Through these four concepts we try to understand relationship of culture and social movements.

3. Learning Outcome

This module will help us to understand the relationship of culture and social movements. Framing as a strategy of mobilization and how it forms a crucial aspect of emergence of social movements will be looked into. Next, we will explore how collective identities are formed within a movement. Third, we will look at how emotions play a role in social movements. Fourth, to understand techniques, we will look at the notion of ‘repertoires of contention’. By understanding these four concepts with the help of some case studies, we can understand the relationship of culture and social movements.

4. Social Construction Theories and Social Movements

In the early 1980s, a need was felt to engage with issues of social construction which the earlier theories of resource mobilisation and political opportunity structure did not engage with. Though the rational actor theory indicated that individuals made rational and strategic choices, it was required to understand how meanings were constructed which influenced actions and choices. ‘This mutual influence of context and strategy appropriately directs attention to the large theoretical tensions in political sociology, stated broadly between structure and agency’ (Meyer 2004: 125). The focus was to understand how meanings are constructed and why and how individuals take the actions that they take. These ideas are influenced by the interactionist tradition in sociology, focusing on meaning making, interpretation and interaction. Drawing from Goffman’s concept of framing, William Gamson and David Snow and their colleagues (Gamson 1988; Snow and Benford 1992), explored how ways of framing of a problem influenced whether it will resonate with actors, whether it will be successful in mobilizing. This was considered to be crucial, besides political opportunity structures and resource mobilization. It was established that even if political opportunity structures were present, even if there were resources for a movement to emerge, what was equally important was that frames should resonate with the people. This meant a focus on how meanings were constructed, how frames were formed, how people’s culture influenced their interpretations and interactions. Thus, political process theorists began to incorporate culture in the study of social movements.

A development during the 1970s and 1980s that influenced the cultural turn in the study of social movements was the emergence of new social movements. Movements for rights of women, the LGBT community, and environment – all pointed to establishing one’s own identity and rights. Social movement scholars started paying attention to how identities were formed and shaped within a movement. Another development during the same time was to study movements that were not specifically targeted to the state, movements which aimed more for cultural and attitudinal changes. Thus, social movement studies started focusing on interplay of culture, structure and strategy. Culture came to be studied at all stages of a social movement – how cultural beliefs, meaning making processes may influence participation in social movements, how framing within social movements are mobilization strategies, how movements may also aim for cultural changes.

Some scholars (Polletta 1999; Polletta and Jasper 2001; Armstrong and Bernstein 2008) have engaged with the question of ‘cultural traditions, ideological principles, institutional memories and political taboos’ that influence perceptions of movement actors and also create political opportunities. They have looked at how culture affects the origins, trajectories and outcomes of social movements, when culture may facilitate or impede collective action. These scholars argue that culture is a symbolic dimension of all structures, institutions and practices. It is ‘patterned and patterning’, ‘enabling and constraining’ (Polletta 1999: 67). This conception of culture enables one to understand resonance of particular frames at particular points in time, how movements perform and produce culture through their actions. Before we move on to understand how culture and social movements are related, we must have a clear conception of what culture means.

5. Conceptualising Culture

There are several definitions of culture and it is a broad and somewhat imprecise term. Wuthnow (1987) defines culture as ‘symbolic expressive aspect of social behaviour’. Customs, beliefs, values, artifacts, symbols, and rituals are the elements of culture. Culture can refer to particular spheres (such as the arts), but this understanding is seldom found in movement studies. There are two ways of conceptualising culture, one is a ‘systemic’ view and the other is a ‘performative’ view. The systemic approach affirms the external reality of related conceptions of the world and of patterns of action. It looks at the cultural system as an overarching factor that shapes and constrains the course of mobilization much the way political cultures influence the shape of politics indifferent countries. In this perspective, culture is perceived to be one whole that may influence and channel mobilization processes. It does not take into account the differences, diversities between actors. This approach has a positivist way of looking at culture.

The performative view of culture takes the social actor as the unit of analysis and emphasizes the cultural stock of knowledge that is required to make sense of the world and perform as an actor in it. This approach is essentially Weberian. Ann Swidler (1986) describes ‘culture as a ‘tool kit’ of rituals, symbols, stories, and world-views’ that people use to construct strategies of action. These strategies are composed of diverse bundles of symbols, habits, skills, styles, and known and established linkages between them all, whereby given ends can be achieved in appropriate ways. For our purpose of studying how social movements intersect with culture, the performative view of culture is more important.

6.  Social Movements and Culture 6.1 Framing Perspective

Framing theorists (Snow and Benford 1988) view movement actors ‘as signifying agents actively engaged in the production and maintenance of meaning for constituents, antagonists, and bystanders or observers’ (Benford and Snow 2000: 613). The concept of framing draws from interactionist school especially Goffman (1974) for whom frames denotes ‘schemata of interpretation’ (ibid.: 21). These theorists explore the processes involved in construction of meanings and it entails a notion of the participant as an active agent who negotiates. This framing activity is dynamic, constantly evolving and contentious as it involves generation of frames which differ from each other and existing frames. Framing theorists call this framing activity ‘collective action frames’ which are ‘action oriented sets of beliefs and meanings that inspire and legitimate the activities and campaigns of a social movement organisation (SMO)’ (Benford and Snow 2000: 614). Framing theorists use several concepts to understand collective action frames, how frames are generated, elaborated and get diffused, the factors that facilitate the framing processes and the implication of framing processes for other movement processes and outcomes. ‘Thus, mobilisation depends not only on the existence of structural strain, availability and deployment of tangible resources, opening or closing of political opportunities, and a cost-benefit calculus, but also on the way these variables are framed and the degree to which they resonate with targets of mobilisation’ (Snow and Benford 1988: 213, cited in Oliver et. al 2003). Though these concepts are all used, it is increasingly becoming important to focus on questions of human agency. According to Aldon Morriss, studies on social movements have neglected the role of human agency in its analysis, and hence analysis should incorporate role of ‘agency-laden institutions, frame lifting, tactical solutions, leadership configurations, pre-existing protest traditions and transformative events’ (2000: 452). In fact he argues that social movement studies should bring in the question of leadership and ‘unpack the “black box”’ (ibid.: 451) as leadership plays a major role in emergence, outcome and continuation of a movement.

Framing denotes an ‘active, processual phenomenon that implies agency and contention at the level of reality construction. It is active in the sense that something is being done, and processual in the sense of a dynamic, evolving process’ (Benford and Snow 2000: 614). It is also contentious as frames are formed which may challenge or differ from existing frames. This process of framing activity results in what is referred to as ‘collective action frames’ which are ‘action-oriented sets of beliefs and meanings that inspire and legitimate the activities and campaigns of a social movement organisation’ (Benford and Snow 2000: 614). Framing refers to this ‘signifying work that is to the process associated with assigning meaning to or interpreting’ (Benford 1997: 416).

Collective action frames are not mere summation of different beliefs but it also entails negotiation of the shared meaning. They constitute ‘core framing tasks’ and a discursive, interactive process through which these frames are formed (ibid.: 615). These core framing tasks have three component parts – ‘diagnostic framing’ (problem identification and attribution), ‘prognostic framing’, and ‘motivational framing’. Prognostic framing involves articulation of a proposed solution to the problem and strategies of protest. Motivational framing involves a rationale for engaging in collective action and refers to the agency component of collective action frames. It is by pursuing the core framing tasks that consensus is built among different actors such that they are motivated to act. For the framing perspective meaning is pivotal; ‘meanings are derived (and transformed) via social interaction and are subject to differential interpretations. Hence meaning is problematic…meaning is negotiated, contested, modified, articulated, and rearticulated. In short, meaning is socially constructed, deconstructed, and reconstructed’ (Benford 1997: 410). The framing perspective is widely used in social movement studies, along with the concepts of ‘political opportunity structures’ and ‘resource mobilization’. Framing perspective gives both a micro and also a macro way of analyzing social movements. At a micro level, we can understand how frames resonate with people, what the different ways of looking at it are. At the macro level, frames are understood as strategies of mobilization. If it is a successful frame, then it resonates with the masses. Framing perspective also helps us to analyze conflicts, contention and dispute within a movement, depending on how different people perceive a given situation. Frame analysis look at how frames intersect with key cultural patterns and how they might be strategically used in mobilization. These processes are described through organizational documents, key speeches, public records, and media reports. It is an approach that is particularly relevant in today’s movement environment, in which groups and organizations strategically consider the effects of their actions on the media and on the public at large. This self-reflective quality is especially characteristic of some new social movement groups that, more consciously than ever before, take steps to construct their own collective identities. Let us take look at a case study of a new social movement that emerged in the 1980s, to understand framing processes.

Case Study I: KRRS and framing of GMOs

Karnataka Rajya Raitha Sangha (KRRS) is a farmer’s movement from Karnataka, which emerged in the post Green Revolution context, consisting primarily of rich and middle farmers from two dominant castes of Karnataka, Lingayats and Vokkaligas. In the initial years, the movement was concerned about issues of pricing, loans and electricity charges. From mid 1990s, the movement became an active and strong opposition to the globalisation processes. It staged several protests against the Dunkel draft, organized an intercontinental caravan in Europe with 400 farmers, burnt field trials of genetically modified food. It even ransacked Cargill office and KFC outlet in Bangalore, as a protest against globalisation. One issue that the movement was strongly opposed against is GMOs in agriculture. GMOs in agriculture are encouraged by the government, and pushed by several multinational companies on the grounds that more yield is required and pests would not destroy plants. Hence, Bt variety of the seeds are prepared which contain a chemical that prevents worms, pests to infect the plants. Bt cotton is a GM variety of cotton and is now cultivated in the country. Recently there was a huge protest against Btbrinjal, and now we have a moratorium on Btbrinjal. Several NGOs, social movements, intellectuals, scientists, and farmer’s associations have protested against GMOs in agriculture.

Here we will try to understand how the problem of GMOs was framed, what were the multiple points of conflict and ambiguity. Several NGOs and intellectuals like Vandana Shiva, Suman Sahai, Kavitha Kuruganti have been vociferously protesting against GM, writing about the issue, trying to create a public opinion against GM. The main argument there is that it is not proved to be healthy, and there can be side-effects if we consume those. Also, it tampers with the natural ecological process of production as the seeds are manufactured artificially. It affects the soil variety and the effects are being felt now. There is always a risk that other plants in the same field may get affected when GM seeds are cultivated nearby. There has been many studies done to understand the impacts of GM, and there still exists two different camps, one in support and one against biotechnology in agriculture. Even the ones opposing biotechnology in agriculture frame the problem differently. While NGOs and urban groups emphasise the adverse health and ecological impacts, farmers and peasants (the producers) highlight the questions of livelihood of farmers.

For KRRS, a farmer’s movement, introduction of biotechnology in agriculture was framed as yet another way of ‘Western’ imperialist domination, where farmers would lose their sovereignty and freedom to cultivate what they want. MNCs of the seed industry such as Monsanto, Cargill, Dupont, Syngenta among several others are the enemies of farmers movements like KRRS. To protest against the introduction of GM in agriculture, KRRS organized a campaign ‘Quit India Monsanto’ and slogans such as ‘Cremate Monsanto’ were used. Another campaign was Beeja Satyagraha (Seed Sovereignty), invoking Gandhian movement of Salt Satyagraha. There was also a Bandi March (Cart March) which included throwing imported goods into the sea, again invoking Gandhi’s famous Dandi March. Here we can see that the entire debate on GM was framed by the leader of KRRS, late Nanjundaswamy, as a freedom struggle, just like the Indian national movement. Losing the right to cultivate one’s food in one’s own way is equivalent to losing one’s own freedom, was the way it was framed. Hence all the campaigns, slogans, speeches harped on this aspect of ‘freedom’. Now, this resonated well with the masses as the Indian national movement and imperialism of the West are ingrained in the social memory of the country. It resonated well with the farmers of the movement and these campaigns were successful ones. Here we see how a frame as a strategy of mobilization is successful when it connects to the cultural and social aspects of the community or people. Also, frames are important strategies of mobilization as it should bring more people together, connect diverse people together and minimize the differences between people. Here the whole framing strategy of using the notion of ‘freedom’ resonated with the movement participants and also the larger masses.

6.2 Collective Identity

The concept of ‘collective identity’ forms a key concept in social movement analysis and it is defined as ‘an individual’s cognitive, moral, and emotional connection with a broader community, category, practice, or institution’ (Polletta and Jasper 2001: 285). It is a perception of a shared status or relation, which may be imagined rather than experienced directly, and it is distinct from personal identities, although it may form part of a personal identity’. For scholars of new social movements like Melucci (1988), the concept of collective identity in movements refers to the understandings people have about the meaning and purpose of a particular group or movement, and it is a discursive process. He is insistent that ‘new social movements be seen as ongoing social constructions rather than as unitary empirical objects, givens or essences, or historical personages acting on a stage’ (Buechler 1995: 446). In fact, it is important to understand how collective identities are formed because not only are they integral to social movements, but they are relevant for understanding the movement’s goals, strategies, and tactics. A movement’s collective identity is continuously emerging, forming, reforming between peoples and groups in multiple sites and places of contentious practice. ‘Identities are constructed in dialogues across difference between two or more actors with the result that new cultural forms of knowledge are produced and subsequently appropriated for use in later interactions’(Bakhtin 1981 cited in Holland et. al. 2008). 

What exactly is collective identity? How do we locate it? It is indeed a very slippery concept and there is no consensual definition; while some locate collective identity within the individual, others emphasise something which is generated and created between individuals, which places collective identity in a shared space. It implies a sense of ‘oneness’ or ‘we-ness’ which may be real or imaginary, rooted in experiences of those who comprise collectivity. Thus, if we think of a farmer’s movement like that of KRRS, the collective identity is not only an aggregate of personal identities like, being rural, farmers, Lingayats or Vokkaligas (dominant castes of Karnataka), but also because of similar experiences and exchanges. Similarly, the dalit movement obviously comprises Dalits, but what binds a movement together is the sense of oneness, the collective identity which is rooted in similar experiences, histories, contexts etc.

How is collective identity formed, maintained and carried forward? It is primarily through cultural practices, lifestyle requirements and also through shared leadership, ideologies and organization of the movement. Here we must remember that collective identity is not only seen in case of social movements but also in other organizations as well, say religious groups, nationalism, etc.. It is fluid and constantly emerging, but it is manifested in cultural expressions, it is rooted in culture of the community. Cultural expressions may include wearing a certain kind of attire or a sign that he/she is a member of the movement, it may include songs, poetry and literature that binds the movement together. Some scholars look at relationship between material culture, ritual practices and ritual identity. Wearing a particular kind of clothing as a ‘signifier’ of collective identity is called a symbolic resource which forms a part of movement culture. What is most crucial is shared meanings and consciousness what Melucci calls ‘cognitive frameworks’. Thus, collective identity is crucial to social movements, which includes shared meanings and consciousness rooted in cultural practices, common ideology and organization, symbolic and cultural expressions.

6.3 Emotions of Protest

Some scholars (Goodwin 1997; Jasper 1998; Goodwin, Jasper and Polletta 2000; Robnett 2004) have also pointed out the relevance of incorporating emotions in the understanding of social movements and argued against the binary between emotion and reason. This is because in social movements, emotions play a mediating role between communication and interpretation and they often determine the actions that activists engage in. Emotions pervade all social life, including social movements. Even while there has been a cultural turn in the study of social movements, the study of emotions has been comparatively less. This is because individuals are considered to be rational beings and that they take rational decisions, without emotions playing any role in that. Cognitive frameworks, framings, collective identities are all ways of studying culture and social movements, but how emotions are also culturally rooted and play an important role in social movements, has been neglected. But in reality, many social movement actors are part of movements because of emotional reasons. Whether emotions make an individual irrational or rational is a judgment. For Jasper (1998:398)   ‘emotions are as much a part of culture as cognitive understandings and moral visions are, and all social life occurs in and through culture. We are socialized (or not socialized) into appropriate feelings in the same way we learn or do not learn our local culture’s beliefs and

values…and emotions are learnt and controlled through social interactions’. In the constructionist perspective of social science, emotions are constituted more by shared meanings and understandings, with which we interpret a given situation. When it comes to social movements, there are various kinds of emotions that are involved – anger, outrage, frustration at government or any other apparatus of the state, fellow feeling, love, friendship and solidarity towards other members, hope and despair, sense of achievement and failure, pain and loss, to list a few. “Moral shocks’, often the first step toward recruitment into social movements, occur when an unexpected event or piece of information raises such a sense of outrage in a person that she becomes inclined toward political action, whether or not she has acquaintances in the movement’ (Jasper and Poulsen, 1995). These may be accidents, or an event, or death of a personality which act as triggers. For example, when Tata started building the factory in Singur, that was an event which brought together people of Singur because they were outraged. When the Naxal movement started in Naxalbari (North Bengal), there was a clash between the peasants and the landowners, resulting in death of a few peasants. These are triggers or ‘moral shocks’ which make some people to engage in political activity. During recruitment in a social movement, there has to be frame alignment between the participants and leaders of the movement, and there must be a common perception regarding the problem and ways of dealing with the problem. It is argued that ‘frames are more likely to be accepted if they fit well with the beliefs of potential recruits, involve empirically credible claims, are compatible with the life experiences of the audience, and fit with the narratives the audiences tell about their lives’ (Jasper 1998: 413). This has been the main way in which culture has been incorporated in the study of social movements. Even with regard to the concept of ‘motivational framing’, frames which motivate people to engage in collective action, which affect emotions of people, are successful motivational frames. Another way in which emotions are intertwined with social movements is the way injustice frames create anger and a feeling of injustice among participants which is crucial for participating in a social movement. With regard to collective identity in social movements (which we have already discussed above), emotions again play a crucial role. In understanding how culture intersects with social movements, framing processes, collective identities and emotions are all closely linked to each other. The feelings of solidarity, oneness is what is the foundation stone for collective identity.

Emotions play a role not only in the initial stages and participation/recruitment in a movement but also in maintaining movement culture. Feelings of solidarity, collective identity are reinforced by emotions that lie behind them. Singing, for example, is a cultural act and is often used by many social movement activists. It gives a feeling of solidarity, we-feeling and the emotion of loyalty, hope and strength to fight for a cause. While these help in keeping a movement together, often movements break apart because of feelings of jealousy, envy, mistrust and betrayal. There are umpteen examples of how movements have fallen apart because of ego clashes between two leaders. Splits and factionalism happen not only because of ideological differences but often because of emotional reasons, which we cannot capture with any of the other frameworks other than thinking of importance of emotions in movements.

Case Study II: Chinese student movement 1989

We have seen in the recent past in India how several incidents have stirred the emotions of public resulting in various forms of protest over a period of time for example, the Nirbhaya Rape case led to a nation-wide protest, death of Rohith Vemula (a Dalit student in the University of Hyderabad) also led to similar public outcry. All these are incidents or triggers which affect the emotions of people to engage in political activity. While there has been a visible protest through various social media over these issues, these have not resulted in an organized social movement with a sense of collective identity and ideology. To understand how emotions affect social movements, let us take an example of the Chinese student movement in 1989 (case study done by Yang 2000).

The movement was triggered by Hu Yaobang’s death on 15 April 1989. Hu was asked to resign from his position as general secretary in the Communist Party of China because of his support to the student movement in 1986. After his unexpected death, several posters appeared on the walls of university campuses in Beijing. Some read ‘Those who should have died still live/those who should have lived are dead’. Students felt sadness, anger and shame. On April 1989, a group of students attempted to submit a list of demands to the government, asking for re-evaluation of Hu Yaobang. When their demands were ignored, anger and outrage increased, leading to more and more students joining in the protests. Poems, slogans, sit-ins and confrontations characterized these protests, which kept growing larger. In this emotional climate, students boycotted classes. On April 21 1989, around two hundred thousand protesters gathered at Tiananmen Square waiting for Hu’s funeral.

This led to one of the largest student’s movement in history, and by May 19 an estimated one million people gathered at Tiananmen Square every day. These protests were forcibly suppresses by the government which ordered the military to impose martial law in Beijing. On June 4, the military attacked the protesting students with tanks and rifles, causing thousands of casualties. This is today known as the Tiananmen Massacre. Thus we see, how with a death of Hu, several thousand students gathered to mourn, because they were sad. His death was an event which acted as a trigger for the student movement to become so massive and popular.

6.4 Repertoires of Contention

Protest tactics are ‘learned cultural creations’ as Tilly (1995: 42) emphasizes. People making claims against powerful adversaries almost always select a tactic from their existing “repertoire,” a small subset of the set of all possible tactics. Charles Tilly introduced the concept of the repertoire to capture the subset of tactics and techniques employed by people for making claims against powerful others. “At any particular point in history . . . they learn only a rather small number of alternative ways to act collectively” (Tilly 1995: 42). Protestors express their demands through various claim-making performances such as strikes, sit-ins, barricades etc. These sets of performances are gradually routinised and expressed in various contexts, which are known as ‘repertoires of contention’. Suicide protest is one extreme form of repertoire, as we saw in the recent suicide of Rohith Vemula in Hyderabad, 2016. During the Occupy Wall Street movement human chains were formed. This is again a unique form of repertoire. Women in Manipur marched naked in protest against the AFSPA. These tactics and techniques of protest evolve over time, diffuse, and such ideas are exchanged through networks, nationally and transnationally. For example, Gandhian ideas became known in UK and USA through the cosmopolitan individuals who travelled to the West. KRRS, a farmer’s movement, as a way of expressing protest, stood in front of the state assembly and laughed at all the ministers who walked in and walked out, which came to be known as ‘laughing satyagraha’. Through its transnational networks, this idea spread and during the anti-globalisation protests, protestors also repeated the same, laughed in front of WTO.

7. Summary

The module has looked at how we can understand social movements from a cultural perspective, by focusing on framing strategies, collective identity, emotions of protest and repertoires of contention. It has also looked at why and how there was a cultural turn in the study of social movements, and how we conceptualize culture. What is important to understand here is that, political opportunity structures and resource mobilization theories are not sufficient to understand social movements, it is equally important to understand all these three aspects of social movements.