The Future of Social Movement Research: Dynamics, Mechanisms, and Processes

Afterword

429 Afterword Have the dynamics of contention changed? This is the question that the social movement scholars who contributed to this volume were asked. The easy answer is that we don’t know, as we haven’t done the proper longitudinal research. At the same time, it is hard to believe that the dynamics of contention have not changed. Over the past years, the world has seemed in constant turmoil, whether we look at China, the Arab world, the African continent, Latin America, Central Europe, or the Western world. Our “all-star team,” including “some of [today’s] most influential scholars in the field” (to cite our two external reviewers), was asked not only to reflect on our focal question but also to respond to each other’s answers. The result is a rich compendium of answered and unanswered questions, of challenges and provoking thoughts, and of directions recommended to take. Reading through the various contributions, I made the final notes that I present in this afterword. I arrange them according to the four concepts that framed the discussion: demand, supply, mobilization, and context. However, I want to start with a comment about dynamics per se. McAdam,Tarrow, andTilly (2001) first started discussion about dynamics and mechanisms, as explained in the introduction by Jacquelien van Stekelenburg and Conny Roggeband. I second McAdam,Tarrow, andTilly’s argument that we must think more in terms of dynamics, mechanisms, and processes. Understanding movement activities, whether contentious or not, is about understanding the processes that generate these activities. This is important as movement activities are the visible aspects of movements. Seeking to understand the dynamics that produce those activities and their consequences is what the study of social movements is all about. Bert Klandermans bert klandermans 430 When we were revising and finalizing our essays, the world exploded into what we began to call “Contentious 2011.” Many of the questions we formulated appear even more relevant in view of actual political events. We asked our authors to form a commentary on the events. The last section of this afterword is based on their responses. Demand, supply, and mobilization are inherently dynamic concepts. For demand to translate into action, supply is needed, and vice versa. Mobilization is the process that brings the two together. I will argue that the formation of demand and the construction of supply are processes that do not get the attention they deserve individually, let alone their interplay. Studies on movement participation are predominantly about mobilization; hence mobilization is the process we know much more about. Yet, as we will see, there is still much to be learned even about the process of mobilization, especially regarding the rise and impact of new information and communication technologies (ICTs). Demand, supply, and mobilization evolve in a context that varies over time and place. Contextualization of the dynamics of demand, supply, and mobilization is therefore crucial, as evidenced by the differences and changes in social and political opportunities in the parts of the world mentioned earlier and by the rise and fall of regimes and the economic and financial crises that recently lashed the world. The contributions to this volume exemplify that the study of movement activity requires a constant interplay of the micro-, meso-, and macrolevels of analysis. The Dynamics of Demand Dynamics of demand are the most psychological of the dynamics of contention . Key processes are grievance formation, identification, emotion work, and empowerment. As we are studying social movements and collective action, we are dealing with shared grievances and emotions and group identification and empowerment. How are such feelings formed and shared? Van Doorn, Prins, and Welschen (chapter 4) suggest that they are socially constructed in interpersonal interactions among people who share a fate. They report findings from focus group discussions of Moroccan youth engaged in identity talk. In earlier work, I coined the term consensus formation for this process of unplanned convergence of ideas. Shared grievances and emotions, group identification, and empowerment imply fundamental psychological processes, but as Van Zomeren (discussion to part I) observes, not many studies of movement participation show awareness of the psychological fundamentals underlying these processes. Van Zomeren urges us to open the black box of dynamics and build into our models of individual participation what we know from social and political psychology about individual behavior. The models afterword 431 he proposes are tested in experimental studies; this confirms the presumed causal mechanisms. The problem...