They carried out demonstrations that compounded their cause and symbolized their unity by carrying out mass burning of British made clothes. This shared experience worked wonders for the demonstration. The cool mobilization factor was established as the people joined forces even with little or no knowledge on the factors behind the conflict with the British manufactures. The people identified themselves with their counterparts and additional action was inspired by virtue of the shared feelings.
The making of biotechnology into a hot cause did not go down well as an illustration of the hot cause, cool mobilization concept. As the green party rose and made its way into the national parliament, the party gained access and a place at the Enquete Komission. Though the activists framed their target in this case biotechnology as a possible Feustian bargain that risked being the source of the resurrection of the Nazi eugenics, this did not create a sense of oneness between the protestors, rather they only rallied because of fear of the said repercussions of the biotechnology, the so called ‘incalculable risks’. In this case, the protestors only did protest from their different groups of communal activities and not as one group. Thereby Rao’s explanation of this concept does not hold water.
The idea that the academics have given a blind eye to the fact that social movements are key to the shaping of the radical innovations seen in the markets is well explained by Rao. This statement holds water as many of the economists have tended to look at the markets as under the influence of an invisible guided hand (Hayagreeva Rao 5). With this mindset, the economists have tended to ignore the fact that the activists that have joined hands have been and will continue to have an effect on the innovations that are in the markets. These activists are not taken to be the