In Meyer’s Chapter 7, we see him address not only the process of institutionalization but also the effects that it has on the different factions of a broad social movement. He suggests that these three complementary processes are cooptation, marginalization, and demobilization.
The first brings the one part of the faction to move into institutional politics as it moves from beyond the “borders of mainstream politics to the inside of the political arena” (130). We see this kind of association within social movements today as they try to gain momentum by playing within the rules of the already existing game. In this way, they can establish themselves “legitimately” as they follow the rules, routines, procedures, and norms of mainstream politics. Many new movements are vulnerable to cooptation as it is the safer route to take as they set their prospective achievements being attained in smaller steps as they have to follow all the red tape and rules that has already been established.
The second process is for groups that have been forced outside mainstream politics and their culture has been marginalized. A way that this can be achieved is through repression and forcible exclusion; however, this is sometimes a good thing for groups as they have no one to compromise their stances on their issues of concerns. This can be compared to how we see political candidates compromising their pure stances to nourish internal relationships and appease their constituents. If the groups aren’t worried about gaining access to larger audiences, then this process is actually allowing them to “speak their truths as clearly as possible, albeit to smaller audiences” (Taylor 1989). But we can see this kind of marginalization in our government’s history as social movement leaders of the 1880s onward have been threatened by secret police and sometimes sentenced to extended prison terms for exercising their right to express their opinions that just happened to be different than those of mainstream politics.
Lastly, sometimes when issues lose the spotlight and attention of mainstream politics, their supports and activists demobilize. However, as we talked about in class and as we read in Chapter 3, we know that there are movement professionals who don’t necessarily protest visibly on the streets everyday or rally the troops to sustain the movement, but are quietly and less visibly supporting their cause while sustaining a more career-oriented lifestyle. Although there are some movements who fall of the map as their supports demobilize there are many more that take what they have learned from the experience and pursue other more focused protests. For example, many movements include multiple factions that recognize that it is mutually beneficial to be seen as a one movement, but when the broad movement is demobilized, many individuals “turn their attention to other issues that now seem more pressing, more promising, or more in line with their core mission” (131). Meyers gives the example of the nuclear freeze movement that included multiple different groups, and when the movement faded, these groups didn’t just stop supporting their causes, but instead they turned their attention to their narrower focuses that held them together.
And so as I was reading, I was wondering what you guys thought are the “worst” or “best” fates of movements as they fall into the processes of institutionalization. Personally, I don’t necessarily think that it is a bad thing when super large groups demobilize after becoming marginalized because I think that in many scenarios, politics deludes the true intentions of groups and a reorganization of people with the same core mission once in awhile is a good thing.
Furthermore, I think that Meyers brings up an interesting point of how when these three wings develop in a movement and for example, the institutionalized wing looses momentum, the other two wings become less interested to stay strong as well. Do you guys think that factions are the reasons that movements fail? Or do you think that factions are what truly focus a movement? Do you think the factions of the Occupy Wall Street Movement will help or destroy its momentum?
I think describing movements as “vulnerable” to cooptation gives the concept a negative connotation that Meyer doesn’t imply in the language he uses to describe the process. While I am all for revolutionary challenges to conventional power, I think the most desirable result for a social movement, at least for the silent majority, is cooptation. For those who do not want our conventional institutions of power to completely erupt (and all the mess that comes along with that), cooptation is the best way for their ideas to become policy, or to at least have a chance at doing so. Our government is (or at least used to be) built off of compromise. The process of cooptation is compromise; settling for smaller and more gradual changes. Marginalization and demobilization, while admirable in their dedication to values and persistence, ultimately don’t go anywhere. It seems with social movements, you either compromise & coopt, die out, or completely revolutionize. Cooptation is the correct answer for those who want change without breaking the institution.
^^^ This is Amanda Lineberry, by the way. Sorry!
In the process of institutionalization factions serve as a comprehensive lens to help gauge the trajectory of the movement in reaching its demands. The competition between organizations challenges each faction to go through the strategy and tactics process in order to articulate their best reasoned argument. I think it is important to keep in mind that Meyer mentions how organizations implement tactics from other organizations that they viewed as successful and how this in affect impacts the overall progress of institutionalization. I think it is important for organizations to have a comprehensive knowledge of the cost and benefits of tactics previous movements used in order to identify the right nudge for policy makers because of the danger they pose in limiting how effective the new policy is.
-Joe Harris