The Institutionalisation of Social Movements - Essay Example

THE ALISATION OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS AND THE EMASCULATING OF THESE MOVEMENTS Contents Introduction 3 Analysis of Protest and Social Movements4 Institutionalisation of Social Movements 6 Modification of Policing Systems and Institutionalisation of Social Movements 8 Limits of Protesting on Social Movements 9 Sovereignty and Subjectivity 11 Conclusion 11 Bibliography 13 Introduction Change is a constant aspect of our society and our lives because society is dynamic and human societies are bound to adjust their ways of doing things. In the political arena though, change is often prompted by the actions and demands of various aspects and elements of the society. And this often requires some degree of pressure placed on the authorities by various social groups and individual demands. One of the most popular ways through which people can demand change and require the modification of structures in the political and social arena is through the use of social movement and social entities. These movements make demands through various means like lobbying, protesting and other campaigns. This is in contrast with the historic system of overthrows whereby people, mainly men, with dissatisfaction with a given regime, used various means to either overthrow the entire government or military cessations that led to a complete revolution and change in the nation. This paper examines whether the institutionalisation of social movements are emasculating or not. Hence, this research paper will examine the following research question: whether the institutionalisation of social movements is inevitably emasculating or not. To this end, the paper critiques various theories and concepts of social movements and its impact. The paper will draw on contemporary and historical examples in order to critique the topic in order to synthesise different concepts and theories to draw conclusions on the fundamental research question. Analysis of Protest and Social Movements In previous times, protest groups were seen to be an affront to the nation and to the authorities of the state (Marx, 1974). Therefore, the governments, police and authorities in these different nations and communities used informants to spy on these protest groups in order to get inside information about these protesters in order to make arrests (Marx, 1974) . Examples of these situations and phenomenon include totalitarian regimes like Tsarist Russia, the Soviet Union, North Korea and other nations. These countries used various approaches and means to gain information and feedback about protest groups. However, in the West today and in most parts of the world which are democratic, the attitudes and approaches to protests are different. Save for a few countries like Egypt and North Korea today, most countries are nations with freedom of speech and the right to free association. Nations like the United States and the United Kingdom have also come a long way. And the previous system of viewing protestors as enemies of the state has changed significantly due to various changes in the national structures. From the changes in the dynamics of the Western world and democratic world, social movements are somewhat common around the world today. In the event of a major issue or disaster that is considered by a section of the society as important, it is almost a natural response for numerous social pressure groups to sprout up (Walsh & Warland, 1983). For instance, it is identified that in the advent of a nuclear disaster in Japan, there was a massive proliferation of anti-nuclear pressure groups in the country with the sole aim of preventing the country from setting up nuclear power plants. Hence, the police and authorities are seen as the mediating point between maintaining order by controlling these protestors and the need for a change. Scholars also identify that there is a strong engagement between voting and the broader engagement with citizen networks (Walsh & Warland, 1983; Verba & Nie, 1972). This implies that people are mainly influenced by the fact that citizen networks play significant and important roles in influencing political discourse in different contexts. Hence, the different networks and the different groups influence voter turnout and policy debates, thus, people feel there is the need for them to set up these social movements as a means of influencing politicians and authorities in order to change things in their favour and fix issues and matters that are most important in what they do. The deprivation theory is perhaps one of the most significant and the most popular theories that describe and explain the formation of social movements. This theory identifies that people form social groups that are meant to seek change based on the fact that they feel deprived or dejected by the relevant authorities of the society (Walsh & Warland, 1983; Snyder & Tilly, 1972). On the basis of this, it can be said that social movements and groups have the right and the authority to protest and as long as it is viewed as such, the authorities will require the police and other groups to limit their use of force and excessive suppression of these movements. The proxy strength of these voters and social groupings are seen to be an important part and an important aspect of influencing voter power (Verba & Nie, 1972). Therefore, it appears that there is no clear difference between a group of people who vote and a group of electorates who go out protesting. Therefore, the need for recognition is seen to be legitimate and this prevents the authorities from suppressing such demonstrations. Hence, a legitimate social movement is one in which all the members come together to make demands and fight to improve the processes and systems in the community as a means of improving matters and enhancing matters and situations in order to better the lives of people in the society. On the basis of this premise, it can be said that when people come together, and they do things as a group, they tend to have some power and influence over the political system and they are able to make demands and act in various ways and manners that is powerful and almost imperative on the people in authority and in power. Therefore, by default, protest movements are mainly set up with the view of concentrating power and bringing together a lot of people who support the same ideology and the same ends as a means of promoting their end and their vision. The agglomeration of people and the collectivisation of people’s power and rights as individuals puts these social movements into the category of people who have the right and the power to make changes as and when the need arises and the demands are made by the groups of people. Institutionalisation of Social Movements A study revealed that the main motivation includes the need to get some important organisations to carry out their obligations as well as the need to prevent issues and problem and this is directly related to the available of information at every given point in time to these groups of people (Seguin, Pelletier, & Hunsley, 1998). This indicates that the main reason why these groups are formed. This is fundamentally steeped in the fact that these social groups are set up to ensure that organisations and public institutions work hard and they do their best. On one angle, the institutionalisation of this is a natural consequence of moving beyond mere event management on the part of the protestors, hence, it is important for these entities and organisations that carry out various social protests and actions will have to set up contact points and offices in order to keep these institutions in check. This is because the public and social institutions that these pressure groups are perpetual organisations that continue working before, during and after social protests. Therefore, the institutionalisation of these social pressure groups give room for the organisation of protests and this helps them to achieve greater results and gain more successes. With the institutionalisation of these protest groups and social pressure groups comes the creation of organisational forms. It is no coincidence that some authorities define “organisation” as the arrangement of groups of people and factors of production for effective work (Copeland, 2013; Hauswirth, 2007). Therefore in order to attain the optimum checks and balances of public institutions and social organisations, there is the need for these protest groups to become institutionalised in order to act in the best way and manner whenever issues come up. This means the institutionalised social organisations will find and use the best and most important tools and techniques to seek their ends and also compel relevant organisations to hear their pleas and deal with these pleas in the best way and manner possible. Aside getting the best tools, equipment and systems, social pressure groups that are institutionalised are in a better position to act and react in a timely manner and get public entities and the government to do what the people want. This is because a social pressure group organisation will have the effective framework to react to issues as and when they occur. This gives an institutionalised social pressure group a greater chance of reorganising themselves to deal with issues and matters as and when they come up. Institutionalisation of social movements gives the movement the right and the privilege of lobbying and preventing negative circumstances before they come up. For instance, an organisation like the Anti-Defamation League [ADL] of the United States and around the world play a very proactive role in reacting to any issue or matter that threatens the Jewish people around the world. Hence, any issue that comes up, like people reviving Nazi symbols and promoting hate speech against the Jewish people is countered by the ADL which raises awareness about the issue and the incident and seek to get the authorities to deal with the issue before it gets out of hand. Additionally, the Council for Islamic-American Relations play a major role in fighting against discrimination in the United States. They do this by proactively monitoring issues in America and setting up a quick framework through which people can report issues of discrimination that is meted out against them. Through this, matters that come up at all times are countered quickly and the facts are dealt with so that the rights of Muslims are protected without any issue and matters. Modification of Policing Systems and Institutionalisation of Social Movements Scholars identify that the police’s escalated force model of dealing with issues related to groups who demonstrated and created disorder through these demonstrations (Waddington, 2013). However, after the 1970s, most nations moved from the escalated force model to a negotiated management system whereby demonstrations and protests were to be reported and the authorities were encouraged to negotiate with these protestors (Waddington, 2013). Hence, it was natural for nations and communities to institutionalise their social protest movement in order to attain results. The move from the escalated force model to the negotiated management system is seen as recognition of protests as a way of expressing human rights (Della Porta & Reiter, 1998). This is because in the past, when movements that protested were seen to be acting against authority, it was seen to be alright for the authorities to use force against them. An case in point is the issue of the Civil Rights Movement that was seen by many White Americans as a troublemaking group. This is because many White Americans saw the Civil Rights Movement as a group that was challenging the social structures of America, where African-Americans were seen to be people who were only good for certain types of low-class jobs. And the marches were somewhat a kind of challenge to what had been seen as “right”. Therefore, the use of escalated force model was justified by many as a proper cause of action against criminals who had not been apprehended. This is because many saw those marches in Alabama and other parts of Southern USA as illegal. However, after years of coexistence and proper respect for the civil rights and human rights of all Americans, the right to protest and the right to demonstrate has been widely accepted in the country. This is what led to the negotiated management system where it was generally seen as right and appropriate to demonstrate, as long as protestors were not violent and they stayed within the framework of the law. This implies that the transformation of police attitudes and processes has allowed these protest groups and social movement groups to become more entrenched and this has given the impetus for the institutionalisation of these entities. Also, there is a less definite approach in defining what is wrong or negative behaviour that warrants arrests on the part of the police (Bland & Read, 2013). Laws like the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and other related laws have given citizens and ordinary people more protection and this makes it difficult for police officers to carry out arbitrary arrests. Therefore, the power of the police is regulated by these laws in dealing with protestors. They have to respect the rights of every protestor and hence, there is a general tendency for legitimate social movements to protest without harassment from the police. Limits of Protesting on Social Movements Up till now, it seems there is a legitimate right that most organisations that are recognised and other social movements that are institutionalised can carry out demonstrations and protests without issues. However, it appears that they do not have unlimited power and rights to demonstrate. This is because they have the obligation to protest within a framework that is acceptable by the law. There is a fundamental limit placed on protestors in demonstrating and this includes the limit on violent clashes with the police (Her Majestys Chief Inspector of Constabulary, 2009). This is because it is an offence to get violent with the police and carry out acts that are criminal in the presence of a uniformed police man. Hence, it is not right to say that once a person is demonstrating in a legally sanctioned protest, that individual is invincible and above the law. Like every other act in the UK and United States, people are required to stay within the right framework of the law. Therefore, an organisation that is institutionalised and takes permission from the law enforcement authorities to state a protest or demonstration will still need to respect the laws and desist from conducts like assaulting police officers, disobeying orders or going beyond the authorised scope that was presented by the relevant authorities prior to the authorisation of the protest. Another aspect that comes with protests includes the need to desist from causing public unrest. This is because in some areas like the inner cities, legitimate protests often turn violent and people take the law into their own hands and take part in assaults and looting which is seen as an outburst of the social challenges faced in some parts of urban centres (Benyon, 1984). These riots have occurred in various cities of the UK like London, Liverpool and Birmingham where protests over legitimate issues turned violent and there was large scale looting and assault throughout the city (Waddington D. , 2002). Therefore, no matter how emasculating a social movement is, the extent of its power and authority will be called into question if they lead a protest that turns violent. This is because such a protest will be effectively illegal and the organisers will be held responsible in various ways for the impact and results of the protest. Sovereignty and Subjectivity On the other hand, in some cases a social movement could gain legitimacy if it successfully gains recognition and forms an independent sovereign nation (White, 1989). This has happened in many nations where groups that were considered terrorist in some government became legitimate when the government was either expelled or overthrown. For instance, in South Africa, the African National Congress was recognised as a terrorist organisation and its leaders were listed as terrorists in White Apartheid South Africa as well as most of the Western-Capitalist nations including the United States. However, after the collapse of Apartheid, the ANC became a legitimate organisation in the country and they currently rule the nation. Therefore, in cases where social movement gain power through various means of power transfer and gain international recognition under international law, these social movements become legitimised and they do not get any negative records imputed to them. Another example is the case of the Stern Gang and other Jewish groups in British Palestine. These groups used what will be known as terror tactics, but when the State of Israel was formed, the charges made against them by the British were dropped and they were legitimately integrated into the Israeli Army. Conclusion Protest groups and social movements are generally seen to be criminal organisations in totalitarian regimes where the Rule of Law does not exist. However, in Capitalist and mainstream democratic nations, the right to association and freedom of speech allows people to come together to protest and seek political change. This inherently means that social movements can be considered to be emasculating to a large degree because the law in most nations allow them to exist and thrive. Also, social movements are organised into effective entities. This enables them to create a proactive approach and a proactive system through which they can carry out protests and demand change in different aspects of life in a nation. However, in some situations social movements are limited in various ways and forms because of the law and this prevents them from carrying out various acts including assaults and looting during protests. This is because the police has rules on how to control riots and illegitimate protests. However, the police are also limited in various ways and in various forms. In rare cases though, the work of social movements lead to the change of the country’s political structures and this can effectively legitimise and emasculate a protest group or social movement that is somewhat considered to be negative or criminal when there is a change in power. It can be deduced from this research that the institutional of social movement does not actually emasculate them. Rather, the changes in national polity which respects human rights and civil liberties has given social movements that are institutionalised more reputation and more rights. In spite of this, the rights and privileges of institutionalised social movements are somewhat limited by laws that protect other people including the police. Bibliography Benyon, J. (1984). Scarman and After: Essays Reflecting on Lord Scarman’s Report, the Riots and the Aftermath. Oxford: Pergamon. Bland, N., & Read, T. (2013). Policing Anti-Social Behaviour. Police Research Series , 1-51. Copeland, S. (2013). Counselling Supervision in Organisations: Professional and Ethical Dilemmas. London: Routledge. Della Porta, D., & Reiter, H. (1998). Policing Protest: The Control of Mass Demonstrations. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press. Hauswirth, I. A. (2007). Effective and Efficient Organisations?: Government Export Promotion. London: Springer. Her Majestys Chief Inspector of Constabulary. (2009, April 14). Adapting to Protest. 1 & 2 . Retrieved July 12, 2014, from Her Majestys Inspectorate of Constabulary: http://www.hmic.gov.uk/media/adapting-to-protest-20090705.pdf Marx, G. T. (1974). Thoughts on a Neglected Category of Social Movement Participant: The Agent Provocateur and the Informant. American Journal of Sociology , 402-442. Seguin, C., Pelletier, L. G., & Hunsley, J. (1998). Towards a Model of Environmental Activism. Environment and Behavior. Sept , 628-645. Snyder, D., & Tilly, C. (1972). Hardship and Collective Violence in France, 1830 to 1960. American Sociological Review 37 , 520-32. Verba, S., & Nie, N. H. (1972). Participation in America. New York: Harper and Row. Waddington, D. (2002). Contemporary Issues in Public Disorder: A Comparative and Historical Approach. London: Routledge. Waddington, D. P. (2013). Policing Public Disorder: Theory and Practice. London: Taylor and Francis. Walsh, E. J., & Warland, R. H. (1983). Social movement involvement in the wake of a nuclear accident: activists and free riders in the TMI area. American Sociological Review, 1983 vol. 48 , 764-80. . White, R. W. (1989). From peaceful protest to guerilla war: micromobilization of the provisional Irish Republican Army. American Journal of Sociology , 1277-1302. Read More