Resource Mobilisation Theory

Resource Mobilisation possiblenessThe study of amicable styles is a very broad and encompassing task with each new movement come new theories, approaches and events that change the field. Social movements, as defined by sociology, burn down be characterized as a assemblage of persons, who, by sharing a common ideology, band together to try and succeed certain political, economic or social goals.1There ar a few standard theories to describe, understand and evaluate the effectives of social movements. Amoung the major theories currently facial gestureed at today are vision militarization, collective behaviour surmisal, frame alignment opening and political opportunities theory. Although each has its own merits and shortcomings, this essay allow for but be examining the strengths and weaknesses of one particular theory, that of preferencefulness mobilization. The strengths focus on the theorys ability to effectively dissect the interactions between various material and non-material resources, the political social schema and mobilization, while the weaknesses will examine the theorys reliance on economic models, its lack of historical perspective and its ignorance to real- origination factors. The conclusion of the paper will also discuss the future use of the theory, its changing adaptations and whether or not the theory itself is still viable in todays world.B History and Assumptions of the TheoryThe history of resource mobilization theory begins pre-dominantly with research done in the 1970s. Unlike opposite theories of social movements at the time, resource mobilization theory, replaced the crowd with the organization, and dismissed the psychological variables of alienation and frustration in favour of the rational actor employing instrumental and strategic reasoning.2It was this difference, which made it stand out amongst academics and prompted a flurry of research to compile an overarching framework regarding resource mobilization. Howeve r, within this framework of the theory lie ii manifest approaches First, the economic or organizational/entrepreneurial model presented by McCarthy and Zald and secondly, the sociopolitical or political/interactive argued more favorably by authors much(prenominal) as Tilly, Diani, and McAdam. Tilly, Diani and McAdams furiousness focuses predominately on employing a political model in order to examine the various processes that are claimed to give rise to social movements.3They base their roots on the structure of grievances, in so far as they look to determine what opportunities, links or networks exists within the aggrieved group, in order to give rise to enough mobilization as to claim a social movement. Factors they included range from various contour lines of political power, to the oft bookinging interests of the state and the aggrieved group and finally to the political resources the group has or may need4. Conversely, the organization/entrepreneurial model emphasizes resource management, the role of leaders and leadership, and the dynamics of organization. This approach is much more economics establish and therefore tries to apply various economic theories to the study of social movements. Charles Perrow, when describing this approach, makes light of the fact that it is much more capitalist based and therefore the organization/entrepreneurial branch makes reference to such ideas as product differentiation, social industry, resource competition, social movement entrepreneurs etc.5The theory also sets aside three principal(prenominal) assumptions when discussing social movements. 1) That economic prosperity and affluence will generally lead to a greater number of social movements.62) That people who players in social movements are inherently rational.73) That the social movements participants must achieve a certain level of political and economic resources for their movement to be a success.8 whence, as nations become more prosperous and generate necessary social movement resources such as education, wealth and communication, these in turn will help spur social movement activity. It therefore follows that this increase in activity will allow rational people to accumulate the resources needful for their social movement to be successful. Kendall defines the theory as such, resource mobilization theory focuses on the ability of members of a social movement to acquire resources and mobilize people in order to advance their cause.9 business that the aforementioned affluence is said to be most beneficial when coupled with an open state, which allows groups to mobilize freely and encourages debate and dissent as it promotes the values of freedom, capitalism and transparency. Also, the growth of the welfare state is often seen as a boost to social movements as the State itself can provide resources to struggling movements in the form of aid, workers or development programs.10The resources that the theory describes range from mate rial to non-material, notwithstanding are said to include, money, peoples time and skills, access to the media, and material goods such as property and equipment.11 barely put, resource mobilization theory describes how effective social movements can be, by examining how the groups involved in social movements both mobilize their supporters and manage their resources. Some theorists, such as Anthony Oberschall have furthered the view that the resources defined by the theory are in a constant state of struggle, in which they are perpetually created, consumed, transferred and/or lost.12Oberschall therefore views social movements much like organizations who vie for a limited number of resources in the political marketplace.13A key feature to remember, is that the resources(or assets) outlined in the theory can be of both material and non-material nature. Material assets include currency, buildings, people, telephones and computers. Non-material assets include ideology, will-power, pol itical support, leadership and solidarity.14The other main aspect of the theory is the mobilization aspect. Mobilization is said to occur when a particular group(in this case one assumes a social movement) assembles the aforementioned resources with the explicit purpose on using them to achieve a common goal, change or message through collective action. A distinction must be drawn between the two, as provided gathering resources is not mobilization. Only when those resources have been collectively assigned to pursue a purpose, is mobilization said to take place.15B. Strengths of the TheoryB1. Explanatory power of the TheoryFoweraker discusses the instructive staying power of the theory, including its ability to adapt over time.16He states that despite it coming under criticism over the past decade or so, The theory has expanded its explanatory power by including a range of ancillary arguments. The first one of these arguments is that social networking has proven to be a decisive quill in aiding the mobilization of social movements.17Authors John Hansen and Steven Rosentone, in the book Mobilization, Participation and Democracy in America discuss the impact of social networks on social mobilization by stating, Social networks multiply the effect of mobilization.18This can be seen in everyday life, as mass communication(often one of the most of the essence(predicate) resources mentioned when discussing resource mobilization theory) has taken off in a guidance that not even States can control. The freedom of the internet makes mobilization not only easy, but participation costs shrink. It therefore comes to no rage that as social networks have grown, so too have the ability of organizers to mobilize transnational social movements such as the global environmental movement, the tea-party movement of the trans-national European movement.Another aspect of this particular strength of resource mobilization theory lies in its explanatory power to explain the vario us dynamics of mobilization to help identify the various resources that social movements need in order to mobilize, the distinctive organizational features needed with condition social movements and the ever maturation relationships between the political system as a whole and these movements.19By moving slightly away from the stringently social/cultural or political and instead focusing more generally on resource management and strategy, resource mobilization theory highlights the growing importance of strategic/instrumental action. It also shows a level of understanding in which the decisions taken by the various actors actively affect the outcome of the conflict between the movement and the system.20B2. Strong analysis of the political system and its interactions with collective actionResource mobilization theory also includes a very important emphasis on the political process. This is a key feature which provides useful insights into the how social movements interact within the political system. Moreover, an examination of the structure of the political system tends to yield interesting results regarding the set of political factors with either facilitate or harm the emergence of social movements.21The theory further goes on to focus on the interactions between collective action, social networks and group identity. Foweraker identifies these as prior social organizational interaction and says, Levels of prior social organization influence the degree and face of social mobilization.22C. Weaknesses of the TheoryC1. Adherence to economic cost/benefit modelsThe first of several weaknesses of resource mobilization theory centre on its apparent affection to an economic rationality, which presupposes various costs and benefits of a common rational participants. Foweraker believes this shortcoming gives rise to two fundamental flaws of resource mobilization theory and described these two problems as such,First, social actors are presumed to employ a narrowly in strumental rationality which bridges a rigid means/end distinction. The careful deliberation of costs and benefits implied by the means/end model falls far short of a universal or complete account of collective action, if only because action may be its own reward. More particularly, to recall Webers analysis of social action, the motives that predispose the actor to act may be not merely instrumental, but habitual, affective and, above all, expressive.23If the theory only cares about the rationality of actors, then it fails to account for what rationality actually is, as the definition of such ranges from one-on-one to individual. If one person enjoys protesting for the sake of protesting and not, as the theory would say, to achieve a goal, then how can the theory describe their rationality as a participant in a social movement?C2. Rationality without reference to social context and lack of cultural considerationsThe second weakness of the theory revolves around an idea of solita ry rationality. Resource mobilization theory assumes that rationality is at all times beneficial, yet with whatsoever social or historical context, it is nearly hopeless to determine how the various costs and benefits of the movements are calculated. Foweraker describes this as a tautological trap, in which the theory, must then define the actors interests in such a way that no matter what choice is made it is always sent to further those interests.24Melucci agrees with this ascertain by stating that, collective action is never based solely on cost-benefit calculation and a collective identity is never entirely negotiable.25As Scott correctly points out, social movements must include, the cultural as well as the goal-directed aspects26for as it stands now, resource mobilization theory understands the how of social movements, but not the why.27Also, an associated weakness of the theory is that it gives little room for any sort of cultural considerations. Scott addresses this notion , by underpinning that without any reasonable consideration of cultural, solitary action seems very unlikely.28C3. Ignorance of real-world variables and factorsThe third overarching criticism of resource mobilization theory stems of its apparent lack of real world considerations. The theory purports to understand the dynamic relationship between social movements, yet pays no heed to events such as political negotiations, bribery, espionage and sabotage. Foweraker outlines political negations as being more commonplace than any other political tool and states, Since rational choice is often a result of interactions with a living political environment, it makes little aesthesis to think of it as uncontaminated by negotiations29Another interesting point made by Scott Lash and John Urry in their paper, The New Marxism of Collective operation A Critical Analysis argue that, the rationality applying to one-off game-like situations does not necessarily apply to long-term relations.30This also applies to the theory of free-riding in which people may enrol in a movement purely because of the advantageous position it will put them in, and not because they truly feel motivated in the movement itself. Therefore resources may be drained and fail if enough free riders are brought on. In particular, the theory fails to explain socials movements that are too weak to distribute discriminating benefits31due exactly to this problem.D. Conclusion and FutureAfter having discussed the various strengths sand weaknesses of resource mobilization theory, this paper will now conclude with a look into the future regarding both longevity of the theory and the overall attractiveness to academics in its current form. Given the overarching criticisms inherit to the theory itself, it should come as no surprise that the theory has lot a lot of ground to other theories of social movements, such as Political Opportunities theory, Frame Alignment theory or any of a new number of New Social Mo vement theories.32However, there is still plenty of underlying merit of resource mobilization theory, which this paper believes will keep it in the foreground of social movement theory for the foreseeable future. This is mainly due to the essential fact that without resources, regardless of how one defines them, social movements just cannot generate enough momentum to sustain themselves. Therefore, taking a look into the various approaches of mobilization with regards to these resources is as important now, than it was in the 1970s. Coupled with its relative desolation and adaptability should make resource mobilization theory a useful tool for the foreseeable future.