In this chapter, Meyer details the pattern of political institutionalization of social movements that has come to characterize some movements in the United States. He uses the antinuclear movement of the 1970s, the longer term US populism and agricultural movements, and US labor movements as the exemplars for explaining the patterns and mechanisms of institutionalization.
Meyer provides an operational definition of institutionalization as “…the creation of a stable set of relationships and procedures such that the politics of an issue becomes routine, that is, repeatable for all concerned with minimal uncertainty or risk… The boundaries of possible reforms are reasonably clear to all concerned and are limited” (126). He then outlines several mechanisms of institutionalization:
- “…policy makers can incorporate movement concerns by offering consultation, formal or informal, with representatives of a movement” (126)
- “…elected officials can offer social movement activists a platform or a venue for making their claims” (127)
- “…government can set up more permanent venues for consultation, formally adopting the concerns, and even sometimes the personnel, of a challenging movement” (127)
- “government can institute procedures that give an actor or claimant formal inclusion in a deliberative process” (128)
- “…policy reform can afford activist concerns a place in the process and resources attendant to that place” (128)
- “institutionalization includes norms and values, not only in government, but also in the broader culture” (128) *noted as critical by the author*
What struck me the most about this chapter was the indirect, implicit discussion of legitimacy. To me it seems that at the foundation of this process of institutionalization is a search for the right place, a sense of permanence, the right people, and recognition for the need and the possibility for reform. What the process of institutionalization does for a social movement is accommodating the needs of the cause while providing them with a form of legitimacy. Following this train of thought, if this particular cause is being welcomed into the political system then it must have a legitimate claim to be taken seriously. In the title of this blog post, I ask in jest “Social Movements, Too Legit to Quit?”. But, I think this question has resonance with what Meyer discusses in this chapter because there seems to be a catch-22 with institutionalization. The process does not just fuel the activistism and/or activist participation. The social movement becomes institutionalized and gains legitimacy but gaining legitimacy may prompt activists to question what else they can do for their cause. Can institutionalization make a movement “too legit” and make the activists quit?
After reading this chapter, I’m left considering the following questions which I now pose to you:
- Is the process of institutionalization as described by Meyers just another way of phrasing the process of negotiation? Or is it a grander process of gaining legitimacy? Or is it simply selling out?
- Do you think that institutionalization is necessary or even inevitable?
Can you imagine OWS engaging in institutionalization? Or would that be completely antithetical to the cause?
Brittany Mangold
I found this chapter very interesting because it offers a perspective on the development of relationships between grassroots organizers and the government. While institutionalization can sometimes be limiting to the creation of new demands by protesters, it provides legitimacy to individual movements and offers solutions. It validates the protesters’ claims and establishes a system to combat future grievances. While institutionalization removes the grassroots-feel of the movement, it provides a forum for protesters that legitimizes their concerns, which in turn prompts a listening ear from the legislature. Institutionalization, however, does not negate the need for further protests. As seen in the Civil Rights movement, although desegregation laws had been passed, the grassroots movement led by King and Baker was necessary for implementation of the legislature.
I don’t see institutionalization as a way of selling out. Rather, I see it as the most pragmatic way to achieve success during a social movement. The world is not full of Ella Bakers, and it is nearly impossible for individuals trying to achieve social change to devote their entire lives trying to do so. For example, in the chapter Myers discussed the story of Julia Hill, the women who literally spent two years of her life living in a tree to fight the deforestation of old growth forests. Her protest was extremely sacrificial, and more importatnly was unsustainable. She could not have spent her entire life living in the tree, and thus in regards to her movement institutionalization was the most pragmatic outcome. She was allowed to have her life back and contributed greatly to the cause. Although the compromise that she reached with the lumber company was not exactly what she wanted, it was the most pragmatic solution for the movement and herself, and thus was by no means a sell out.
I would agree with Ethan. There are not many people in this world that are so devoted to a cause to dedicate their lives to this and I believe Meyers makes a similar point in his chapter where he states that “high intensity activism at the height of mobilization is not sustainable over the long haul for those who have to make a living doing something else” (131). The story about Julia Hill actually reminded me of the Occupy Wall Street protesters and the biggest problem for them being the winter season where they wouldn’t even have a space to protest in. Furthermore, in response to the question posed by Brittany, I think institutionalization can definitely be considered to be negotiation because often there are goal shifts and activists are forced to change their tactics, but at the same time it should inevitably also be considered as legitimacy because protesters are given the “legit” opportunity to have a voice.Although it is difficult, I think it’s also important for activists to stay focused and motivated rather than quitting. To me, i think that something (institutionalization) is better than nothing.
-Brittney Quinones
In reply to Brittany’s questions posed at the end of her post, I think Chapter 8 does a great job of answering them. At least, I definitely see the connections between having “friends in high places,” or friends in government, and the legitimacy of an organization or movement. The way I see it I see legitimacy as having to do with following the correct protocol for making your issues heard. So really, institutionalization makes a movement legit to me. It’s like looking at a bunch of kids on a street corner waving signs vs. getting emails from a group with a name and leader that urges your action.
But is it necessary? I think it is. It seems that if you don’t use the proper avenues that the US government has set out to make your voices heard, you can’t really expect many results unless you have a full out revolution. Maybe I’m thinking too black and white, but unless you’re just in it for the screen time on TV holding a sign and yelling, you can’t expect to fix the issue unless you eventually resort to going to government to get it done. This links to what I started talking about, that having friends in government is a great way to legitimize and get results from a movement.
Brittany, you pose interesting questions about the tension between institutionalization and legitimacy. I believe that many protestors would adamantly disagree with the thought that institutionalization is just another form of the process of negotiation. In many ways, the structure of existing institutions is exactly what organizations are against; they are unhappy with governance and bureaucracy as they stand. Negotiation, on the other hand, is seen as necessary for making any steps forward. So, there is a clear distinction between negotiation or compromise and trying to make social change from within the system.
On Friday, John mentioned in our class discussion that in America, we have many avenues of protest which we are supposed to use when we have problems with how our government is handling policy. Unfortunately, many of these “avenues” are blocked by the police or by procedure. For this reason, in order to see progress, I think that activists can’t completely rule out working with the system. There is definitely an opportunity to have symbolic impact, but tangible impact happens by changing law and policy. I agree with Josiah, institutionalization is a good way for a movement to become legit.
Hey guys, after our class discussions and reading your comments and the other discussions on our class blog, I also agree that institutionalization is not only an appropriate but also effective (and maybe necessary) avenue for activists.