In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

We are only beginning to understand how a social movement emerges under conditions of political authoritarianism and stringent social norms that militate against speaking out. In this chapter, I seek to explain the dynamics of mobilization where associations are prohibited; the voices of opposition where civil society has been subverted; and the taking of risk in the face of overwhelming concern for privacy and the protection of familial reputation. Even under such constraints, a powerful and articulate Islamist social movement emerged in Saudi Arabia to challenge the regime. How can we explain the politics of contention under such conditions? Resource mobilization theorists would be frustrated in their search for answers. The emphasis on organization , structure, rational decision-making, recruitment strategies, and garnering of resources leads to explanatory dead-ends under such sociopolitical conditions . Scholars who seek to “rationalize contention” argue that participation is a calculated response to objective conditions of political and economic exclusion (e.g., Oberschall 1973; McCarthy and Zald 1977; Jenkins 1983). In this approach, material resources—such as money, communications, facilities, volunteers—are the keys to social mobilization and the development of movements . The leaders of social movement organizations offer incentives to potential recruits, and movement entrepreneurs then direct the action of followers . Most attention is focused on formal organizations, though increasingly informal networks are being given their due.1 Given much less attention, however , are the broader social processes in which any decision making is deeply embedded and the critical roles of ideological debate and symbolic resonance in the formation of political preferences. Fortunately, analyses derived from the framing perspective have added the cultural dimensions of struggle to the structural and organization foci of re250 Ten Making Conversation Permissible Islamism and Reform in Saudi Arabia Gwenn Okruhlik source mobilization theory. This is a much needed enhancement. Frames are tools that lend order and sense to an otherwise confusing world by providing language that captures or constructs the meaning of problems. Social movement activists frame political struggle in ways that resonate with publics and mobilize sympathizers. For a frame to resonate among a population, Benford and Snow (2000) argue, it must have empirical credibility, experiential commensurability , and narrative ¤delity. That is, the frame must “¤t” with a person’s previous beliefs, experiences, and cultural narratives. For Swidler (1995), social movements are able to choose vocabulary and symbols from a “cultural tool kit” so that they can provide common scripts to people. In their volume on culture, Johnston and Klandermans (1995) argue that social movements arise out of what is culturally given but that they are also a fundamental source of cultural change. The work of Williams and Kubal, in particular, extends framing literature to provide a powerful tool to explain the particular form that contention has assumed in Saudi Arabia. They argue that the contours of the cultural repertoire both constrain and facilitate contention because the repertoire demarcates what is acceptable or unacceptable. There are boundaries to what is considered legitimate behavior. A social movement ¤nds its niche in the political terrain by tapping into recognizable rhetoric and symbols (1999, 229). Their concern, then, is with the ¤t between a frame and the wider cultural environment, rather than the ¤t between a frame and the experiences of an individual. That ¤t determines the resonance of a social movement. This perspective is refreshing in that it allows for change in cultural repertoires; its boundaries shift over time. What is appropriate at one moment may give way to new, innovative forms of contention. Examining the relationship between frame and culture in this manner allows us to capture the complex struggle over symbolic politics in Saudi Arabia . It gives shape and meaning to such political struggle and thus provides a way to talk about the politics of contention in Saudi Arabia that moves beyond mere description. In this chapter, I demonstrate how this ¤t between culture and frame produced innovative collective action and agency under conditions of authoritarianism and self-censorship. In doing so, I highlight the nuanced differences within the Islamist social movement in Saudi Arabia in order to tweak and expand the applicability and power of social movement theory, without stretching concepts beyond their recognizable meaning.2 In the case of Saudi Arabia, a “loose” de¤nition of a social movement is an appropriate starting point: a solidarity network with potent cultural meaning (Melucci 1985). Communal identities and cultural frameworks are far more relevant than are formal organizations, hierarchies, or membership lists. Social movements re®ect and are...

Share