Meyer’s Chapter Three focuses mainly on who and why individuals become active in social movements. The basis of his argument lies in the fact that “movements are always comprised of a wide range of people-people who have an equally wide range of reasons for engaging in social action” (45). It is important to recognize how the perception of those who become involved in social movements has changed over time from a collective behavior theory where participants are recognized as crazy and irrational to a more accepted notion of those who have deep rooted interest in social justice and a cause for their commitment. However, it is interesting how the development of the Occupy movement has made the collective behavior theory re-emerge. While some think that the people participating in Occupy Wall Street are a bunch of crazy hippies and poor people, the demographics show that protestors actually cover a wide array of people who are truly commited to left-wing politics-opposition to corporate capitalism. Instead they strive for radical redistribution of wealth, intense regulation of the private sector, and policies that would protect American jobs from moving overseas.  These facts and statistics proves one of Meyer’s other points that “Activists in social movements are disproportionally advantages in terms of education, resources, familial support, and social connections” (47). This idea resonates really closely with what we’ve learned about Ella Baker in the sense that she also came of a black family that was considered to be privileged during the Civil Rights movement. Meyers also discussed that individuals may dedicate their lives’ careers to social movements, often movement professionals, who are often ignored. Likewise, history of social movements and it’s participants,  especially that of the Civil Right movement, has been distorted. For example, many people think that Rosa Parks was a random woman who challenged the bus system, when in reality she was one of the main women behind the scenes and actually worked for organizations like t he NAACP. An important question to ask here is: Why do those who already have advantages in society feel the need to take it upon themselves and struggle for those who do not? Are there really enough or even any benefits in it for them?

Meyers does indeed identify some reasons why individuals become involved in movements from becoming active in community groups to engaging in new commitments to making them feel as though they have made a difference in the world. But personally, I believe that none of these are enough of a reason. Especially now that our society has been growing into such an individualized culture. In the end, I believe that benefits must be clear and outweigh the costs of participation in any movement. This is when the discussion of the different types of incentives (purposive, material, and solidary) offered by a movement become most relevant. In terms of OWS, it is clear that they have established a high level of solidarity (mainly through the extensive use of social media), but they seem to be failing in terms of purposive and material incentives for their participants, which is probably why the overwhelming public has been discrediting much of the movement’s work. What can OWS do to raise the level of purposive and material incentives? Would listing more specific demands of the US government be enough? What does this offer for those who are involved in the movement and benefitting from the current economic system as it stands?

— Brittney Quinones