6 Social Change and Social Movements

Contents

1. Objectives of the Module

2. Learning Outcome

3. Introduction

4. Social Structure, Social Change and Social Movement

5. Typology of social movement in relation to social change

6. Relationship between social movement and social change

7. Globalization and social movement

8. New role of State as agent of change

9. Summary

1. Objectives 

The module will help you to create an analytical link between social movements, social structure and social change. It will also make you conversant with the illustrations on social movement and social change made by most leading social scientists. The module also offers a brief comprehension on the types of the social movements and on the globalization and its effect on these movements.

2. Learning Outcomes

The module is about social movements and their sharing of links with the processes called social change and globalization. While going through this module you will learn how social movements create social change in the society and also that social changes trigger for social movements. Such dynamics with globalisation and social movement can be treated in similar manner.

3. Introduction

In any definition of social movement a reference to social change seems to be obvious. In conventional literature it is generally assumed that social movements lead to social change. However, that does not mean social change cannot take place without any social movement. Nor even it is a fact that all movements do aim at social change as there are movements which are aimed at status quo. Hence, the relationship between social change and social movement seems to be intimate, but may not necessarily be complementary all the time. There is no reason to accept – as it may often be the case – that the data and interpretations on social movement are equally applicable in understanding social change. In fact, as sociological concepts, both have different connotations and analytical foci.

Social change both as a percept and as reality is overarching and ubiquitous. ‘Unchanging society’ is not a sociological consideration. In that all societies do change and more often than not it may be the case that social change is the critical factor for constituting the core of conflict but the outburst of it in the shape of a movement is not universal. Social movement both as a concept and as a reality has a career of its own – it grows, matures, and dissolves. Such reasoning do not fit with social change as it cannot be compared with the temporal limits of a ‘biography’ or ‘career’. Social movements are always aimed at achieving certain purpose—may be promoting social change or restricting it. But social change, by definition, is not a conscious process that attempts to pursue a definite goal. Above all, the theoretical promise of both the concepts seems to be at their odds. Unlike the conception of social change, especially in its functionalist orientation, all social movements are defined by the predominance of a critical core, conflictual content and social contradiction. The structure of a movement invariably rests on some form of conflict (Singh 2001: 39).

Besides their conceptual differences, most of the sociologists agree on the fact that one of the major features of social movement is that it is generally oriented towards bringing about change, either partial or total, in the existing system of values and norms, in the power structure, or in mitigating a grievance although there are efforts which are oriented towards resisting change and maintaining status quo (Rao 2000: 2). The idea that social movement is directed towards promoting or resisting change has been largely endorsed by both the Marxists and the Functionalists. Different text book writers on social movement have also endorsed this (Wilkinson 1971). Moreover, as P. N. Mukherji argues, in the largely European discourse, the theoretical premises of both the old and new social movements have their structural bases in social conflict having consequences for social change (Mukherji 2013:2). Hinting at a cultural perspective scholars like Ron Eyerman and Andrew Jamison (1991) have discussed social movements as articulators and transformers of culture. As forms of collective action emerging in social and historical contexts, social movements presuppose and make use of pre-existing forms of social solidarity and communication: culture being the basics. In the process, they draw upon and revitalise traditions at the same time as they transform them.

4. Social Structure, Social Change and Social Movement

P. N. Mukherji (1977) has discussed at length the issue of social structure and social movement. He is of the opinion that social movements are essentially related to social change and therefore to social structure. As such the objective or the goal of any social movement is always to affect the social structure. Social movements are the products of society; they emerge out of certain conditions in the social structure and ultimately affect those societal conditions. While analysing the change promoting objective of social movement, a distinction is often made in sociological literature between structural changes and organisational changes. The former refers to changes in the totality of relationships, positions and their arrangements; the latter signifies changes in the activities and personnel form one position to another.

The objective of ushering in structural change in the society can be attained if, and only if, the social movement is backed by violent activities. M.S.A. Rao (2000) has identified three different levels of structural changes that a movement may seek: reform, transformation and revolution. Reformative changes are partial changes which have occurred in the value system and the corresponding system of social relations. Transformative changes refer to more intense and widespread changes in roles and relationships in terms of command and control over resources, benefits and powers, that is, changes in the power structure. Revolutionary changes refer to total, clear-cut and sudden changes in the value system and power structure and relate to all areas of social life.

The objectives of a social movement when viewed from the perspective of movement outcome are basically two: explicit and implicit. It is always the fact that the movement hinges around the explicit goal that it cherishes. But, in the long run, no matter whether it fails or succeeds, it certainly leaves some normative implications having some bearing upon the social structure. In most cases these implications are inherent in the course of the movement and are thus termed as implicit, if not unintended, goals of social movement. Even if we concentrate on movement goals and success for a movement, we see that most movements have a range of large and small goals. They may try at the same time to change corporate or state policy, transform public attitudes and sensibilities, and bring about personal transformations in protestors themselves. What is more, within a given movement different participants may have different goals, or at least a different ranking of priorities. These goals may shift during course of a conflict. Goals may expand in response to initial success, or contract in the face of failures. When a movement faces severe repression, mere survival may begin to take precedence over all other goals. As movements have different audiences for their words (this issue will be taken up in detail in Module 6) and now we may add that social movements have different goals which they hope to accomplish with each of these different audiences.

5. Typology of social movement in relation to social change 

The intimacy between social change and social movement gets further explored in the way movements are classified. As a diverse field, social movements are classified in a number of ways. One of the critical determining factors of such a classificatory arrangement is based on the nature and course of change towards which social movements are directed. Based on this premise, Ghanshyam Shah (1977), for example, has classified movements into revolt, rebellion, reform and revolution. M.S.A. Rao (2000) has also offered more or less similar typologies: reformist, transformatory and revolutionary. Likewise, P. N. Mukherjee (1977) talked about accumulative, alternative and transformatory social movement. Social movements can also be grouped according to what their members want to change. Some movements pour their energy into changing the behaviour of their own members (viz. cults, Satya Sai Baba movement, Nirankari movement, Ananda Margi movement); others focus outward and try to change the society (viz. anti-dam movement, anti-war movement). On the whole, movements have been classified here according to the relation of their goals to the status quo. Some are willing to live with the status quo, while some want to change it (Smelser 1993: 378). Terms such as rightist or liberal are approximating the first type while progressive, reformatory, transformative or radical are applicable to the latter. However, T. K. Oommen argues that social movements normally do not have the potentialities to root out the existing system completely nor do they succumb to status quo entirely. They, in essence, provide a space for confluence between the old and the new values and structures (Oommen 1977: 16).

Anthropologist David Aberle (1966) further talked about the typology of social movement. Based on his study on the Navajo—a North American tribe—and his emphasis on the four ways through which religion got fused with the changes and transformations that were taking place among the Navajos, he formulated a four tier model. Aberle has put emphasis on typologies like alternative, redemptive, reformative, and revolutionary. This model is considered to be one of the widely referred and influential one to begin with. His model is having a reference to two dimensions: locus of the change sought (i.e. who is the target population) and the amount of change sought (i.e. type of change desired). The locus of change sought has a reference to the target population whom the movement actually wants to change. Is it the individual(s) who’s certain behaviour practices are the locus that a movement is desirous to change? Or is it the group/ collective or the larger society that is to be changed by changing the socio-economic, technological, political, legal orders of a given society through the movement. The amount of change desired by a social movement again could be partial or total. They may bring partial or radical altercations in the social order. Based on these propositions Aberle formulated the following matrix (see Fig. 1) that helps us understand the four types of movement situations and their linkages with the locus and amount of social change desired in a given society. Aberle’s model has been profitably used in understanding the various forms of religious movements. However, this model may prove to be perceptive in analyzing the nature of New Social Movements too.

Source: Based on Aberle (1966)

Thus, to begin with, alternative social movements are to be located at the individual level and advocate for minor change (do-it-yourself efforts that seek to change some aspects of an individual’s behaviour, viz. one embraces to be a participant of anti-liquor movement). Second, redemptive social movements also occur at the individual level but they advocate for radical changes (personal transformation and is typically religious in nature and happens say with conversion, viz. the spread of Christianity is a prime example of a redemptive social movement). Third, reformative social movements occur at a broader group or societal level and advocate for minor changes (social movement that seeks to change only some specific aspects of how society functions, viz. reform movement initiated to establish widow remarriage as normal social practice). Finally, revolutionary social movements occur at a broader group or societal level and advocate for radical changes (movements dedicated to carrying out revolutionary reforms and gain some control of the state, viz. cultural revolution in Communist China during 1966-76).

6. Relationship between Social Movement and Social Change

The relationship between social movement and social change operates at two directions: not only do social movements bring changes, but social change sometimes gives birth to social movements. To avoid repetition this section will deal mainly with elaborating the proposition as to how social change causes movement. We have already discussed in the earlier sections (see 4, 5 in particular) of this module discussing social movement’s capacity to usher in change.

Based on the discussions made earlier it is clear that any discussion on the relation between social movement and social change should be based on a framework that accounts for the interlocking between the existing social structure, its historical rootedness and the vision of a future society that it members share. Given this as a framework, we would be able to see how social movement is not aimed at bringing in social change but at the same time— and perhaps in no mean way—social movement of various sorts were actually mooted by social change only. Smelser has shown how an enormous number of social movements were spawned by the rise of industrial capitalism. The trade union-movement, the consumer movement, the movements to ban child labour and to provide workers’ compensation—all were actually spurred by industrialization. And many of the movements that swirl around us today—such as the environmental-protection movement in its various forms—are products of worldwide industrialization (Smelser 1993: 384). Smelser was actually hinting at those dynamics of the contemporary world to which several other scholars (like Melucci 1989; Touraine 1981; Tilly 1988) have paid special attention to and began to explore a new field of movement studies known as New Social Movements (NSMs).

Drawing their attention to these supposedly new social eventualities rested on post-material claims (like NSMs for peace, transgender, gay identity, human rights, environmental protection, anti-nuclear power) of late capitalist societies, the NSM scholars attempted to argue that worker-owner conflict of Marxist variety seems to have weakened in the contemporary world. The new social movements are not supported by economic classes alone but by groups not necessarily the wretched of earth category, seeking new social cultural goals with an element of protest. They cry out against the large, bureaucratic state apparatus of post-industrial society which try to regulate, manipulate and ultimately oppress the people. Alain Touraine (1981, 1983) in many of his writings talked about the new social movements as potential bearers of new social interests while philosophers like Habermas (1987) has contemplated about the potential civilizational role of the new social movements. It is largely agreed that NSMs help articulate new ways of thinking and feeling about the world. Animal protectionism, for example, developed widespread sympathy for non-human species into explicit ideology of outrage. Overall, the new social movements have raised a very pertinent issue that the objectives or the goals of the movement are numerous, or more accurate to say, there are as many goals as many would be the number of contending parties. It could be well maintained that the NSMs are becoming more and more culture specific in terms of their objectives. NSMs hardly have the potentiality to bring in any fundamental structural change in the existing social order. Even some of them fail to leave any significant impact at the societal level as because their goals are both short lived and easily met with or else they were repressed by the authority without much ado.

In Indian situation also we find several such occasions where in social change instigated movements. Independent India is characterised by rapid urbanization and industrialization, planned economic development, passing of a series of social legislations undermining several traditional values and extending protection to ‘weaker sections’, commitment to ‘socialism’, secularism and democracy, political pluralism as is reflected in a multi-party parliamentary democracy. Each of these elements again influences the origin, the nature and types and the spread of social movements. T. K. Oommen (1977) is of the view that movements based on regional disparity, movements for linguistic states, language movements, and even the movement for the attainment of protective discrimination measures are all fuelled by state initiated policies and programmes of change.

Social change often breeds social movement and movements in turn bring forth additional changes in the society that may resist the original movement. This phenomenon leads towards what is called as counter movement. For nearly every social movement there is a counter movement. The purpose of these counter movements is to resist the efforts of the original movement. Counter movements arise to protect the status quo. Trade union movements, for example, generate capitalist counter movements that try to preserve the free-enterprise system. At any given time, a society is a complex system of movements and counter movements pulling it in different directions (Smelser 1993: 384-385). When the tug-of-war between a movement and a counter movement is finally resolved in favour of the movement, it becomes a part of the social structure. A trade union best explains this phenomenon. As a fixture of the social order, a trade union is aimed at protecting the gains (viz. the workers’ rights against the capitalist enterprise and entrepreneurs) that it secured through movement.

7. Globalisation and Social Movement

Globalisation is a process that has transformed everyday social reality by opening up newer avenues for rapid flow of capital, technology, information, trade, ideas and other resources across the borders. Anthony Giddens defines globalisation as the intensification of worldwide social relations linking and distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many thousands of miles away and vice-versa. He labels globalisation as a dialectical process happening in a two way fashion (Giddens 1996: 64). Globalisation and social movements have a special relationship since the former has promoted the latter by creating platform for transnational resistances through global networks facilitated by the flow of ideas, resources and observers. Globalisation has propelled many social movements and also has affected their structure and functioning especially in case of New Social Movements which dwell upon the forces of globalisation for the augmentation of agenda, strategy and expansion. Gay Seidman cites example of how trade union movements have long tried to build an international alliance of the working-class organisations to support his view that the international appeals in social movements are not new. The activists have sought help abroad and many of them have worked across the border since the middle of the 20th century and have appealed to ‘‘international communities’’ that have been encouraging universal norms to address social practices (Seidman 2000: 344). Movements have often utilised tactics and strategies—that may not necessarily be local—to express grievance and build coalitions across borders.

However, globalisation has faced serious challenges also in the forms of resistances launched by communities across the globe. Porta and Diani hold the view that the transformation caused by globalisation in the social actions, culture of particular societies may lead to resistances from the local to defend cultural traditions against foreign ideas and their intrusions. Reactions of such variety are addressed by forms of nationalistic and ethnic movements, religious mobilizations and also by fundamentalisms (Porta & Diani 2006: 51-52). The movement against globalisation are also often called as ‘Global Justice Movements’. One of the first of such a protest movement took place on June 18, 1999, in several cities and was called as the ‘Carnival against Capitalism’. Perhaps the most well-known protest was the ‘The Battle of Seattle’ that took place on November 30, 1999 with more than 50,000 participants. Examples of such protests are abundant ranging from the developed countries to the developing ones (the huge protest in Mumbai, India against World Social Forum in 2004 is a case in point). In fact, the opposition to neo-liberal globalisation are very heterogeneous and they do also vary in terms of their strategies, organisations, and participants. But what unites them is perhaps their ideological stance. These initiatives known either as anti-globalization protests or as global justice movements are all protesting against the negative consequences of globalisation. They vehemently oppose the unfettered activities of the transnational corporations or target the global trade agreements and international organisations those promote globalisation (Opp 2009: 337). Their ideological stance is self explanatory—that they are against globalisation. It is significant to note that global justice movements are mobilisations mainly in defence of the welfare state.

Globalisation brings material changes and a change in the thought process of perceiving reality of the societies around the world. Those changes create a scope for the expression of contestation and for acts targeted at the very forces of globalisation itself. Social movements against globalisation have had their manifestations in many parts of the world especially those considered to be erstwhile colonies of the imperial powers. India too has experienced many such movements in various forms of resistances registered against the forces of globalisation. The movement against the Vedanta Resources plc – a giant mining company – fought by the tribals of Niyamgiri hills in Odhisa in the recent past, and the fight taken up by the fishermen of Tamil Nadu in Kudankulam against the establishment of a Nuclear plant, might be taken as examples of such local resistances (Das 2015, Harikrishna 2013).

8. New Role of State as Agent of Change

In much of the conventional sociological literature social movements are depicted as a united effort on the part of the deprived social categories to bring about social change. In this sense, movements are viewed more as an oppositional force against status quo. This position stands valid as long as we are ready to consider social movements in the context of a police state that confines its attention to the protection and security of the citizens. However, with the passage of time the role and significance of the state as a principal agent of governance has undergone sea changes. Particularly with the emergence of the notion of Welfare and Socialist states, we are no longer in a position to consider the state merely as a ‘police state’; its overemphasis on security has been replaced by welfare. From being a controlling agency, states of today’s world are increasingly acquiring the image of being a facilitator and in this long journey what was so far being considered as private worries have now become public issues/ welfare concerns. 

In the context of countries like India, the state has in fact inspired to reach out all positive changes necessary for an emerging nation-state. In this process the state has had to mobilize its vast masses into collective actions; the state bureaucracy which was hitherto taken to be an agent of status quo was gradually turned into, at least by definition, an instrument of change and development. This transformation in the functions of the state and the mode of its functioning has tremendous significance for the analysis of social movements in the contemporary world situation, particularly in developing countries (Oommen 1977: 23). Much like what happened in socialist countries —say in China in the name of Cultural Revolution, India has also experienced several such revolutions initiated by the state through its massive bureaucratic and technocratic apparatuses in the name of rural reconstruction measures. That is why the issues like land reform, cooperative, community development, Panchayati Raj, family welfare measures in India are popularized more as reform and/ or as revolutions. This is not to suggest that social movements have lost their relevance since most of their responsibilities to initiate change are now actually taken over by the state. The argument is that the changing role of the state has a tremendous significance in understanding the relevance of social movement in contemporary time and that any analysis of social movement in today’s context would surely be incomplete if it misses to address the implications of these changing dynamics of the state and it’s functioning upon the social movement.

9. Summary

As a concept social movement shares some kind of universality much like the concept of society. In fact, social movement is but one face of what we know as society or as social reality. As social movements originate from within the society and matures within it, what follows is that the universalism of society presupposes the articulation of social movements also as a universal phenomenon. Whatever might be the nature, kind or evolutionary level of a society, all societies contains a critical conflictual core. Although social movement tends to be a universal phenomenon across societies, it should be noted that the nature, form, pattern, and direction of social movements do vary in tune with the spatial and temporal differences of culture. As a universal phenomenon social movement more as organized group behaviour attempts to generate or resist social change. This change orientation helps us understand the different varieties of social movements. The answer to the crucial questions like: What the members want to change? How do they change the existing order? What are the directions of such changes?—opens up the scope for classifying the experience of social movement variously.

Social movements and social change both are sociological concepts having different analytical bases; they share an intimate but not necessarily a complementary relationship. Social change is a social process that attempts to pursue a definitive goal. Social movements are collective actions that focus on political or social issues and carry out, resist or undo social change. They are related to the change of the social structure. Movements may vary according to their nature, the direction of their goals and according to their members. Reform movements are aimed at bringing partial changes to the value system of the larger social system. Transformative movements are for intense and widespread change in the roles and relationships of the politics and the revolutionary movements aims at the clear cut and sudden changes in the value system and power structures in all areas of social life. Social changes also initiate social movements especially changes brought forth by the process of industrialisation worldwide. Workers movements and New Social Movements are the results of such social changes. Social change lead to social movements and the changes brought forth by the latter are often met with resistance known as counter movements. Globalisation has provided international platform for social movements through global networks facilitated by the flow of ideas, resources and observers. However, globalisation also has faced serious challenges in the forms of resistance against the dire consequences brought by it. Those forms of reactions are manifested by social movements of various kinds like – nationalists, ethnic and religious fundamentalist movements. They all protest the negative consequences of globalisation. With the emergence of today’s welfare state, the role of social movements has significantly affected since the state now acts as an agent of social change, thus making it necessary to evaluate the role of state while analysing social movements.