Organizational IssuesThe IssuesMcCarthy & Zald (1973 & 1977)McCarthy & Zald claimsPiven & Cloward: Poor People’s Movements (1977)Haines (1984) Radical Flank EffectsPowerPoint PresentationSlide 8Jenkins & Eckert 1986Mobilization precedes external fundingTiming of Black Protests, RiotsIssues addressed by MovementInterpretation (Jenkins & Eckert)Generalization of patterns to other casesStaggenborg: ProfessionalizationGerlach & HineGerlach & Hine: advantages of this structureActual movement structuresOrganizational IssuesProfessionalization, Patronage, & Effects on MovementsThe Issues1. What organizational forms exist in movements?2. What was the role of professional organizations and outside resources in the movements of the 1960s?3. What are the relationships among types of organizations & among types of activists?McCarthy & Zald (1973 & 1977)•Critiqued “classical” model of social movements as arising from mass base•Argued that professional social movements accounted for much of the rise of action of the 1960s•Professional social movement–Paid staff, Movement careers–Funding from outside the movement (grants) OR from isolated “paper” members who give money but don’t participate or control the organization–Transitory teams: occasional participants in events organized by professionalsMcCarthy & Zald claims•Professional movements increasingly important•Resources, especially external resources, determine whether movements rise or fall•External funding contributed to Black mobilizationPiven & Cloward: Poor People’s Movements (1977)•Disruption produces benefits for the poor•Opportunity to disrupt arises when elites are divided due to crisis or electoral realignment•Organizations “tame” movements and blunt their disruptive potential•Movements decline in impact as their organizations growHaines (1984) Radical Flank Effects•Effect of there being a more radical organization (or broader disruption) on success of moderates.–Negative effects: radicals cause backlash, hurt moderates–Positive: radicals cause disruption, create threat which helps moderates•Examines funding across time for Black organizations•Finds that funding for the movement as a whole and moderates specifically increased between 1950 and 1970•Interpretation: militancy by radicals INCREASED funding for moderatesFunding for Civil Rights Organizations02000400060008000100001200014000160001952 1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970ThousandsNULNAACPLDEFSRCSCLCCORESNCCFunding for Civil Rights Organizations05001000150020002500300035001952 1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970ThousandsNAACPLDEFSRCSCLCCORESNCCJenkins & Eckert 1986•Examines effects of professional organizations & elite funding on the Civil Rights Movement•Combines newspaper data on movement events with funding data•Question 1: What was role of professional organizations & outside money on movement initiation?•Question 2: Did elite funding coopt or channel the movement?Mobilization precedes external fundingJenkins & Eckert 1986Timing of Black Protests, RiotsJenkins & EckertFunding PeakIssues addressed by MovementFunding PeakInterpretation (Jenkins & Eckert)•Funding for Civil Rights organizations declined after 1973, once movement disruption had declined•Funding was targeted on more moderate organizations, especially as the movement cycle continued past the mid-1960s•Funding “channeled” movement organizations in more moderate directions•But there was some funding to known militant organizations which appeared to have been intentionally meant to support them, not to coopt them•Funding did not seem to distract movement from more militant “Black power” agendaGeneralization of patterns to other cases•Insurgency starts local, smaller groups, disruptive•Insurgency draws in resources which fund organizations•The organizations persist after the insurgency declines•Funding for organizations declines when the threat is goneStaggenborg: Professionalization•Data are pro-choice organizations over time•Movement entrepreneurs who start movement organizations are different from movement professionals who maintain them and have movement “careers”•Professional activists tend to formalize organizations = formal membership lists, voting rules, governance structures•Formalization & professionalization of movement organizations stabilizes them in unfavorable conditions•Professionalized movement organizations shift toward more institutionalized tactics & facilitate coalitionsGerlach & Hine•The organizations of a social movement is typically –Decentralized: power & authority tend to be distributed–Reticulate: net-like connections–Polycephalous: many-headed, multiple leadersGerlach & Hine: advantages of this structure•Segmented appeal: different groups can appeal to different constituencies•Loose coordination through coalitions•Can keep the opposition off-guard, as different groups can demand different even inconsistent concessions•Not dependent on any one leader: less risk of cooptation or repressionActual movement structures•Whole social movements are complex•Combine organizations with different kinds of structures: some fairly bureaucratic, others informal•Some movements are relatively centralized in a single organization & a single