The dynamics of social movements

As an enduring, sustained collectivity a social movement undergoes significant changes

during its existence. This characteristic has led some scholars to formulate a theory of a
“life cycle” or “natural history” common to all social movements. Other scholars
question the value of the life-cycle approach to social movements, arguing
that empirical studies of numerous movements fail to support the notion of invariant
stages of development. The American sociologist Neil Smelser suggested as
an alternative a value-added theory, which postulates that while a number of
determinants are necessary for the occurrence of a social movement, they need not
occur in any particular order. Some may be present for some time without effect only to
be activated later by the addition of another determinant. At most it can be said that
the idea of the life cycle permits the discovery of conditions that must be present if any
movement is to proceed from one stage to another. It may also help identify the
conditions that cause a movement to change direction. Still, it can be said that a social
movement has a career; for as it endures it always undergoes changes in many of
its characteristics, though the sequence of these changes may vary from movement to
movement.

Progressive changes in leadership and

membership
One of the most apparent changes is a shift in leadership. In its earliest stages the
strongest influence on a movement is likely to be the charismatic leader who personally
symbolizes its values. At some point intellectuals play a leadership role by contributing
to the developing ideology of the movement. And if a movement endures and grows for
any length of time, administrative leaders arise who are concerned with the practical
matters of organization and strategy. Influence in the movement may shift between
these types.

Usually the membership of a movement grows during its career, which introduces an
element of greater heterogeneity. In the early stages the followers typically are deeply
committed with an almost fanatical dedication to the movement’s values. If the
movement gains a measure of respectability in some segment of society, members may
be acquired who are not deeply committed. They are likely to have significant
reservations about the movement, and their participation is sporadic. This heterogeneity
also can be the basis for internal conflict in a movement. On the other hand, if a
movement is publicly defined as revolutionary and subjected to harsh oppression, the
membership is likely to be reduced mainly to deeply committed converts or to fanatics
who derive some satisfaction from the feeling of being persecuted.
Progressive changes in goals and strategies
The goals rarely remain unchanged. As the movement endures and grows, they are likely
to become broader and vaguer than they were at the beginning. Proposals for limited,
specific reforms become embedded within programs of general social reform. As the
leaders and members begin to acquire a sense of power through early victories, the
power orientations of the movement may increase. Acquisition of greater power by the
population segment that the movement purportedly represents, rather than the
implementation of the values of the movement, then becomes a goal. At the same time,
the statement of the movement’s aim in acquiring power becomes vaguer and more
utopian.

Changes also occur in strategy, which may tend in either of two general directions. It
may emphasize personal transformation, bringing about social change by converting a
majority of society to implement the values by their actions. Or it may emphasize a
strategy of societal manipulation, changing social institutions so that the program may
be implemented without regard to the number of people favouring the new order.
Failure of a movement to gain a large number of converts, combined with indications
that it has at its disposal effective means of coercion, leads to a shift to this type of
strategy.

Strategy and changes in strategy are strongly influenced by the relationship of the social
movement to the larger society and to other social movements. The social structure and
the prevailing belief system may suggest either that change can be brought about by
changing the hearts and minds of the individual members or that individuals have little
effect on the social order. A public definition of the movement as dangerous and
subversive may force it to rely increasingly on a strategy of societal manipulation,
including violent tactics. The opposition posed by a countermovement may have the
same effect, making attempts at persuasion difficult and dangerous and causing a
nonviolent, noncoercive movement to use force.