Note 12/4/07: This is an edited version of an older version of my outcomes lecture which references some articles that were not assigned this term. I am going to be updating these notes to include information about & from the articles not assigned. But if you are trying to get a head start on things, this will let you see what is to be discussed. You will see that a lot of it, but not allof it, overlaps with the points being made by Meyer.Key issues to think about:(1) Why are there more movements (or different kinds of movements) in some eras than others? There was a literature specifically focused on why the movements of the 1960s rose and fell.(2) Why do movements decline? What is the role of repression versus other factors? Either internal weakness or repression.(3) What are the effects of movements? Two sub-questions:a. When/how do movements “win” either policy changes or political incorporation? Issues of cooptation, assessing impact in a multi-actor field, mechanisms of policy impact.b. What are the broader effects of movements? Cultural changes, indirect political consequences, etc. Gusfield linearity. Meyer and Staggenborg “Social Movement Spillover.” Neither of these were assigned this term, but I’ll be bringing up some of these themes.GENERAL ISSUES. About macro factors.There is actually little good evidence at the macro level for the characteristics of nations and historical periods which are especially likely to give rise to social movements of different kinds. The one thing that does seem clear is that historical periods tend to have a particular "movement" character. There are no periods in which there is nothing of a movement character going on, but they sure differ in what kinds and how much. There are certainly cycles of protest, decades which have many more unruly events than others. Some decades have a lot of self-help movements or "orderly" reform organizations, while others have more protests. Some decades have much more violence than others.To some extent, we can explain these cycles by a kind of internal logic. When one kind ofactivity happens and achieves some success, other people get the idea to try the same thing. Use of particular activity escalates until opposition learns how to control it. (Cf McAdam.) I think this is an important process and it should not be ignored.. Add AddedINTERPRETING THE STORMY 1960s: THREE THEORIES IN SEARCH `OF A POLITICAL AGE. By: Jenkins, J. Craig. Research in Political Sociology, 1987, Vol. 3, p269-303, 35p; (AN 15076123) [[This article is not available as a PDF.]]But also need to look at the "macro" factors, what Jenkins calls political opportunity. He contrasts this with "greening" or cultural change theory and with new class theory, arguing that neither accounts for rise, then fall, of movement activity. He also briefly treats "RMII" i.e. organizational resource theory, arguing that professional movements were more a consequence than a cause of the mass mobilization. For the case of the 1960s he documents the shifting electoral alliances that first opened political opportunities and then closed them again. Period of turmoil happened in a climate of Democratic controlled Congress and major reform legislation. Turmoil died down with election of Nixon, greater repression, draft lottery, ascendency of Right, especially after defeat of McGovern in 1972. This electoral argument is persuasive as a majorexplanation for pattern of the 1960s, but scholars have not established whether it "works" for other eras. It is, however, consistent with other theory and cases.Note that Jenkins just ignores all the "breakdown" theories. That general line of theory is that social movements arise in periods of major social change which produce dislocations which, in turn, lead to social movements. The postulated theoretical mechanism has been that dislocations produce psychological distress which, in turn, leads to movement participation. This postulated mechanism has been discredited. But if this hypothesis is recast as a breakdown of social control and/or a breakdown of the unified dominance of the ruling elites (which may be precipitated by economic crisis, among other things), this revised notion of breakdown may be very useful for understanding social movements.III. OUTCOMES(Lots of notes on specific articles)The most important thing to stress is the great variety of different outcomes. Movements have diffuse and indirect consequences.POSSIBLE WAYS MOVEMENTS CAN HAVE EFFECTS.1. Influence legislation. (raises issues of what other alliances, forces were operating, whether legislation is exactly what groups wanted, or only related.)2. Influence public opinion. short term. long term changes -- e.g. permanent shifts in public opinion about women, overt prejudice against blacks.3. Change participants. movement activists become permanently different. They go on to future movements. Or, they bring their changed selves into "mainstream" events. Richard Flacks argued that biggest effect of 1960s movements would be when 1960s people turned 40, started moving into power. (So far, it all seems to be yuppies. Raises the point about "generation." Activists of the period vs others.)4. Change frames of reference, definitions of situation. Language of political discourse.5. Lead individuals to change lives. male-female, black-white. 6. Affect political alignments. Affect structuring of economic opportunities.The most important thing to stress is the great variety of different outcomes. Movements have diffuse and indirect consequences.Gamson, Strategy of Social Protest, sampled 53 challenging groups. Had very simple notions of "success." (1) achieved one or more of group's stated goals, (2) accepted as valid spokesman for group or issue it represents. He found that larger, more centralized organizations which addressed nondisplacing goals and avoided having violence used on them were most likelyto succeed by one or both of these criteria.Gusfield, Linearity and Nonlinearity. Argues that you need a much more diffuse conception of movements and movement outcomes. While not buying all of Gusfield's details, I agree with his basic approach, that it is inappropriate to examine movements simply in terms of a list of goals and whether they are met. But if you do this, it gets much more complex.Consider also notions of movement decline in Zald