bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Activism
Authors: Saunders Clare 
Published: January 2013

Abstract
Activism is, in many ways, the most important activity undertaken by social and political movements. In short, activism is the action that movements undertake in order to challenge some existing element of the social or political system and so help fulfill movements' aims. Thus, activism includes a wide range of different actions, from participating in a forum to sabotaging property. Not only does activism vary according to the type of action chosen, but also depending upon the target or targets, which could be local citizens, corporations, local or national governments, international financial institutions, the capitalist system, and so on.
Advocacy Networks
Authors: Bozzini Emanuela 
Published: January 2013

Abstract
Advocacy networks consist of individuals and organizations “who are bound together by shared values, a common discourse and dense exchange of information and services” to defend the causes of others and/or advance a cause in the public interest (Keck & Sikkink 1998a). They organize around campaigns on issues related to a common good, or the defense of rights, and they are thus characterized by a centrality of principled beliefs, normative ideas, and values.
Age and Social Movements
Authors: Fillieule Olivier 
Published: January 2013

Abstract
The notion of life cycle was first used in the social sciences in the 1930s and remained prominent until the end of the sixties in political behavior studies, despite its lack of empirical consistency. The basic idea is that stage specific needs result in the adoption of particular political attitudes. Based largely on Freudian psychodynamic theory, the life cycle approach has mainly been interested in explaining adolescent rebellion (and, more rarely, the conservatism of the elderly) and attempted to attribute social protest in the sixties to young people's life‐cycle characteristics and needs, and to deep‐seated emotional conflicts between youth and adults (Erikson 1968; Feuer 1969). In a more structuro‐functionalist perspective, life‐cycle theory has given birth to a cohort‐generational perspective, in which youth unrest is viewed as a product of a rapidly changing social order and unique growing‐up experiences that exacerbate age‐group relations, and may generate organized protest behaviors. However, contemporary research has found no clear diminution with age in the number of left‐oriented attitudes nor any rush to conservatism more generally, as life cycle theories would suggest. Here, the main result is that social unrest is not causally linked to chronological age and that people do not seem to become more conservative with age (Glenn 1980; Binstock & Quadagno 2001).
Agents Provocateurs
Authors: Marx Gary T. 
Published: January 2013

Abstract
When authorities or elites are challenged by a social movement, they may ignore it or respond with a variety of tools from cooptation to redirection to repression with many points in between. One extreme form of the latter is provocation. The idea of the agent provocateur entered popular consciousness in the nineteenth century as Europe experienced dislocation and conflicts associated with industrialization and urbanization. The concept initially referred to an activist secretly working with authorities who might provide information, sow suspicion and internal dissension, and/or provoke violent actions that would turn public opinion against a social movement and offer legal and moral grounds for its repression. The term has entered popular culture as the name of a lingerie brand and British electronica band.
Alienation and Social Movements
Authors: Langman Lauren , Kalekin‐Fishman Devorah 
Published: January 2013

Abstract
Domination, inequality, injustice, and tyranny have existed since the dawn of recorded history. But with capitalism, based on wage labor, alienation became an inherent aspect of society. And while on the one hand, workers were rendered powerless, at the same time, forces were set in motion to overcome alienation in that modern capitalism might foster revolutionary worker's movements. History has given little support to Marx's theory of revolutionary movements. Working‐class revolutions generally failed, even the Paris Commune was short lived. The “successful” socialist revolutions were peasant revolutions such as in Russia or China, or anticolonial, peasant movements framed in Marxist rhetoric such those in as Cuba, Angola, or Vietnam. Nor did that theory specify the actual process by which grievances or strains foster recruitment into movements, leaders emerged, how issues become framed, what led to the “success” of movements, and the means by which mobilizations foster change.
Anarchism
Authors: Romanos Eduardo 
Published: January 2013

AbstractAnarchism refers to a tradition of social and political thought that in the 1860s emerged as an organized political force. Since then, anarchism has inspired protests, organizations, and movements, mainly in Europe, Russia, and the Americas, but also in other parts of the world. While it may be difficult to talk of “one” anarchist movement, a distinct anarchist current within the history of the labor movement can be identified as well as anarchist tendencies and groups within other social movements. The term “anarchy” comes from the Greekan‐arkhos, meaning “without a leader or ruler.” It was first used in a positive sense, being identified as the ideal form of government, in Pierre‐Joseph Proudhon's (1809–1865)What Is Property?(1840). Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin (1814–1876), and Pyotr Kropotkin (1842–1921) pioneered a broad tradition which has developed in a variety of forms. These range from varying interpretations of how to organize society in economic terms to the more basic distinction between social anarchism and currents farther removed from collective action (e.g., philosophical, individualist, and spiritual anarchism), as well as more specific variations around forms of organization, of action, and the use of violence. In spite of this rich variety, anarchism can be identified by its strong commitment to individual freedom and sovereignty; the opposition to any form of oppression, domination, and authority; the promotion of voluntary, decentralized, and non‐hierarchical associations; and the use of forms of direct action that prefigure a freer society with more solidarity and respect for individual self‐government.
Artistic Currents and Milieus and Social Movements
Authors: Mathieu Lilian , Balasinski Justyne 
Published: January 2013

AbstractArtistic currents and social protest have long been intertwined. One of the most paradigmatic examples of similarities and proximities between those fields is surrealism. It appeared in the early 1920s as a movement, as it gathered on a collective basis various artists (poets, painters, filmmakers, carvers, photographers, etc.) who shared the same aesthetic principles. Those principles were expressed in manifestos that had been written by a charismatic leader, André Breton, whose authoritative methods led to repeated internal challenges, exclusions, and secessions. Like protesters who seek change to the social or political structure, the surrealists sought for a regeneration of the aesthetic norms of their time. Posing as an artistic vanguard, they violently challenged the dominant artistic forms of academism using provocation, scandal, and disruption. But the surrealists did not restrict their criticism to the world of aesthetics; they also set out to challenge the political order by joining the communist movement and by participating in various mobilizations, for example, against colonial wars. Other artistic movements – such as Cobra or Situationism – have adopted the same form of a collective vanguard that intends to challenge both the aesthetic values and the political order.
Barricades
Authors: Offerl Michel 
Published: January 2013

AbstractThe accumulation of objects as an act or tactic of political protest makes its debut in history during the “Day of the Barricades” (Journée des barricades) of May 12, 1588. Cordons were set up to protect Paris from social unrest and people barricaded themselves in, notably with hogsheads (barriques). The same phenomenon plays itself out again on another “Day of Barricades”—August, 27 1648—the first “Fronde” (insurrection) against the young Louis XIV (Descimon 1990). Subsequently, the practice of erecting barricades is not reported in France until the end of the French Revolution, during the days of Prairial year III (May 1795), when the French revolutionaries, who had exclusively used offensive tactics since 1789, deployed barricades as a defensive action.
Biographical Availability
Authors: Beyerlein Kraig , Bergstrand Kelly 
Published: January 2013

Abstract
In the context of social activism, biographical availability refers to the “absence of personal constraints that may increase the costs and risks of movement participation, such as full‐time employment, marriage, and family responsibilities” (McAdam 1986: 70). Individuals who have spouses, children, or less time‐flexible occupations are expected to be less willing and likely to participate in collective action because familial and occupational commitments can reduce the amount of time and energy available for activism and increase the risks associated with it. Theoretically, biographical availability should be more significant in cases of costly or risky social activism, with costs referring to the time, money, and energy requirements of participation and risk referring to the anticipated dangers of participation, such as physical harm or social, financial, and legal repercussions (McAdam 1986). For example, while signing petitions does not involve significant time away from work or children, participating in protest events does, and because this activity could result in arrest, there is potentially an additional risk for those who are employed or who are primary caregivers of children.
Biographical Consequences of Activism
Authors: Giugni Marco 
Published: January 2013

AbstractSocial and political movements have a wide range of effects. The biographical consequences of social movements are one of them. They can be defined as effects on the life‐course of individuals who have participated in movement activities, effects that are at least in part due to involvement in those activities (see McAdam 1989; Goldstone & McAdam 2001; Giugni 2004 for reviews). Other types of effects include political and cultural outcomes. Political consequences are those effects of movement activities that alter in some way the movements' political environment. Policy outcomes, a special category of political outcomes consisting of changes in legislation or other policy measures induced by social movements, are among the most often studied. Cultural outcomes are those effects of movement activities that alter in some way the movements' cultural environment. They are perhaps the most difficult to study empirically as they are not easily identified, they depend on a wide range of other actors and events, and often they make themselves felt only in the long run. In addition, one can also imagine the existence of that which some have called spillover effects, that is, effects of movements on each other.
Bloc Recruitment
Authors: Diani Mario 
Published: January 2013

Abstract
Bloc recruitment refers to “the way in which social movement organizers often recruit members and participants among groups of individuals already organized for some other purpose” (Oberschall 1993: 24; see also Oberschall 1973). This is basically a reformulation of the classic argument about the role of networks in facilitating mobilization (Diani & McAdam 2003). The additional advantage offered by bloc recruitment is that the recruitment effort is considerably lower, inasmuch as it builds upon the trust relations, mutual obligations, and consolidated routines that exist between the members of an already established and operative group.
Brokerage
Authors: Diani Mario 
Published: January 2013

Abstract

In its most basic terms, brokerage refers to the mechanism whereby an actor acts as an intermediary between two other actors that are not directly linked, thus creating a new line of communication and exchange. This premise has been shared widely across the social sciences, yet with different twists and emphases. On the one hand, some views of brokerage stress in particular the profits incurring to those occupying intermediate positions from their specific structural location. Filling “structural holes” (Burt 1992) enables some actors to secure privileged access to scarce resources (e.g., information or advice), as well as to affect other actors' behavior through network‐based mechanisms of dependence. One well‐known instance of this dynamic is given by the so‐called role of the
tertium gaudens
(Caplow 1968, in turn inspired by Simmel), who secures gains precisely by virtue of his/her capacity to play one of the other partners in the relation against the other. Another view of brokerage underlines first and foremost brokers' ability to bridge different social milieus and different cultures (e.g., Marsden 1983; Gould & Fernandez 1989). Although the presence of personal interest aside other motives can never be ruled out, here the main emphasis is on the collective, rather than the individual, consequences of brokerage: for example, brokers are perceived as crucial to the emergence of new collective actors. This is the notion of brokerage that most social movement analysts primarily refer to, without necessarily pitching them explicitly one against the other (McAdam, Tarrow, & Tilly 2001; Diani 2003).
Bureaucratization and Social Movements
Authors: Staggenborg Suzanne 
Published: January 2013

Abstract

Bureaucratization in social movements generally refers to the formalization of social movement organizations in terms of record keeping, decision‐making procedures, and division of labor. Although movement organizations never become as complex in their structures as bureaucracies such as corporations or government agencies, movements often develop organizations that meet minimal standards of bureaucratic organization. In
The Strategy of Social Protest
(1990: 91), William Gamson defines a bureaucratic challenging group as having at least three elements: some type of written document that describes its purpose and operating procedures; a list of members; and three or more levels of internal divisions such as officers, committees, and rank and file members. Although centralization of power is often seen as a feature of bureaucracy, Gamson distinguishes the two as characteristics of challenging groups, noting that bureaucratic organizations may lack a single center of power.
Bystander Publics
Authors: Couldry Nick 
Published: January 2013

Abstract
Bystander publics lack the longstanding political motivation of the engaged publics of political parties or social movements, and so are important for different reasons, depending on one's direction of analysis. For those interested in expanded political agency, bystander publics are the standing reserve of political action, available for recruitment to parties and movements. For those concerned with apathy, bystander publics signal entropy in political systems: the temporarily mobilized lose interest and revert to the “bystander frame” which simply wants an end to conflict. These two contrasting scenarios make this difficult‐to‐define group of rich interest (Gamson 2004).
Case Studies and Social Movements
Authors: Snow David A. 
Published: January 2013

AbstractA case study is one research strategy for studying social movements and movement‐related processes. Other research strategies include ethnography, participant or organizational surveys, experimentation, life histories, and protest event research via newspaper and other media sources. This entry distinguishes the case study from these and other research strategies by sketching its defining characteristics, and then discussing the ways in which case studies can vary, with illustrations drawn from case studies of social movements.
Civil Society
Authors: Diani Mario 
Published: January 2013

Abstract
Until the late 1980s, the term “civil society” was largely absent from the political and social lexicon (Edwards 2004). The restart of interest in this idea has been spurred by a number of quite heterogeneous, if parallel, developments. In the crumbling socialist regimes of Eastern Europe in the 1980s, “civil society” was hailed, in a classic Lockean sense, as the locus of citizens' autonomy and resistance to an authoritarian, invasive state (Seligman 1995). In Western neoliberal democracies, civil society has been seen as one possible alternative to the financial crisis of the welfare state, and as the embodiment of the virtues associated with cooperation and generalized trust and solidarity (Deakin 2001). The European Commission has repeatedly stressed the possible contribution of civil society to reducing its (real or perceived) “democratic deficit.” Its 2001 EU White Paper on Governance paid a lot of attention to the role of citizens and associations, although it remains an open issue whether significant increases in rates of active participation from the citizenry would actually be sustainable for the policy process.
Cognitive Liberation
Authors: McAdam Doug 
Published: January 2013

Abstract

The concept of cognitive liberation was introduced by McAdam (1982) as one of the three central causal factors in his formulation of “political process theory.” The term refers to the process by which members of some aggrieved group fashion the specific combination of shared understandings that are thought to undergird emergent collective action. In particular, McAdam (1982:51) argues that “before collective [action] …can get under way, people must collectively define their situations as
unjust
and
subject to change through group action
” (emphasis added). Thus it is the combination of perceived injustice and collective efficacy that is held to be the subjective linchpin of movement activity. Indeed, McAdam suggests that, notwithstanding the importance of the two more structural components of the model (e.g., political opportunities and established organizations), it is these shared understandings that are the key to movement emergence. As he writes: “while important, expanding political opportunities and indigenous organizations do not, in any simple sense, produce a social movement …Together they only offer insurgents a certain objective ‘structural potential’ for collective political action. Mediating between opportunity and action are people and the subjective meanings they attach to their situations” (1982: 48). So while the political process model has been roundly criticized for its “structural bias” (see, for example, Goodwin & Jasper 1999), in its original formulation, McAdam assigned central causal importance to processes of social construction and collective attribution. On the other hand, in using the term “
cognitive
liberation” to describe these processes, McAdam was clearly ignoring the emotional dimensions of collective action.
Collective Efficacy
Authors: Klandermans Bert 
Published: January 2013

Abstract
Although it would be hard to deny that people who take part in protest activities are aggrieved, grievances do not provide a sufficient reason to participate in collective action. Resource mobilization theorists argue that grievances abound, whereas collective action does not. Therefore, they reason, the key question that needs to be addressed is not whether people are aggrieved, but why some aggrieved people become mobilized, while others do not. Resource mobilization and political process theorists have suggested respectively that the availability of resources and the presence of opportunities play a key role. Groups that have more resources and more opportunities are more likely to succeed in mobilizing collective action. Furthermore, Klandermans (1997) has shown that people are more likely to participate in movement activities when they believe that this will help to redress their grievances at affordable costs. Simon and colleagues (1998) have labeled this the instrumental pathway to movement participation. For the instrumental pathway the key component is collective efficacy—an individual's expectation that collective action participation can make a difference and bring about the desired changes. The more effective an individual believes collective action participation to be, the more likely s/he is to participate.
Collective Identity
Authors: van Stekelenburg Jacquelien 
Published: January 2013

Abstract

From the 1980s onward movement scholars have increasingly emphasized the significance of collective identity as a factor stimulating protest participation. Sociologists were among the first to emphasize the importance of collective identity in protest participation. They argued that the generation of a collective identity is crucial for a movement to emerge (Taylor & Whittier 1992). Similarly, social psychological studies report consistently that the more people identify with a group the more they are inclined to protest on behalf of that group (e.g., Reicher 1996; Simon
et al
. 1998). Apparently, identification with a group is an important reason why people participate in protest on behalf of that group. In order to understand why, we must elaborate the identity concept.
Comparative Research
Authors: della Porta Donatella 
Published: January 2013

AbstractWhile all research is to a certain extent comparative, the concept of comparative research usually refers to studies that compare more than one unit of analysis or, in less inclusive definitions, more than one country. Even though comparative sociology starts to spread, it is especially in political science—with its focus on political institutions—that comparative research became at the same time a broadly used method and also gave the name to a established discipline.
Competition Theory of Ethnic/Racial Conflict and Protest
Authors: Olzak Susan 
Published: January 2013

AbstractCompetition theory of race and ethnic conflict specifies three mechanisms under which racial/ethnic conflict and protest occurs. The first reflects a familiar “racial threat” argument, suggesting that the magnitude of response by dominant groups depends on thetiming and size of the incoming groupand on theclarity of ethnic distinctionsmade between newcomers and residents (Blalock 1967). Thus, particularly large and concentrated waves of newcomers perceived as ethnically or racially distinct are especially likely to receive a hostile response. Furthermore, as migration and immigration of distinct ethnic and racial populations surge, the potential for protest or violence directed against ethnically distinct newcomers becomes more likely (Koopmans & Olzak 2004).
Community Organizing (
U
nited
S
tates)
Authors: Swarts Heidi 
Published: January 2013

Abstract
Community organizing is the process of mobilizing people in the same geographic area to advocate for themselves in enduring organizations. While social movements are usually issue‐based, community organizing (CO) is geographic constituency‐based. It typically addresses multiple issues such as housing, jobs, public safety, healthcare, and community reinvestment. While affluent communities organize also, the term generally refers to organizing residents of poor and working‐class communities into lasting organizations to gain power. Tactics vary from unruly disruption to more conventional methods of rewarding and punishing elected officials through mobilizing voters. While most social movements have geographically organized mobilization, “community organizing” has a more specific meaning. Likewise, while organizing disempowered individuals in communities has occurred worldwide, this review focuses on the United States, where “community organizing” refers to specific traditions with US roots.