Sociology Compass - 2016 - Gallo Cruz - More Powerful Forces Women Nonviolence and Mobilization

Sociology Compass 10/9 (2016), 823–835, 10.1111/soc4.
12405
More Powerful Forces? Women, Nonviolence, and

Mobilization
Selina Gallo-Cruz*
Sociology and Anthropology, College of the Holy Cross
Abstract
In this survey of studies of women’s nonviolent mobilization, I scrutinize “more powerful forces,” the
mobilizing forces of marginalized social actors that add to and make possible the development of
broad-based people power. The study of people power has yet to extensively consider the contribution
of marginalized social actors. Specifically, I ask: (i) What do women contribute to the development of
nonviolent protest power and (ii) What can we learn about mobilizing power, the power of people to
protest nonviolently and gain the franchise they seek, when we expand our analytical lens to incorpo-
rate women’s roles? How do we account for the gendered but often unseen actions taken by margin-
alized social actors? My focus on women in nonviolent mobilization stems directly from my research on
gendered invisibility with an empirical focus on women’s gendered socialization. Here, I review how
gendered social structures shape women’s power of participation and success in nonviolent
mobilization.
People power in nonviolent studies

The concept of power is defined within distinctive epistemological frameworks that structure
the assumptions about what power is, how power operates, and among which types of relation-
ships power can best be understood. In nonviolent resistance studies, people power, the power
of resisters to mobilize and bring about change in the targeted regime, policy, or practice, is a
central unit of analysis.1 The field of nonviolent studies has already made a great contribution
to understanding mobilization and success (Nepstad 2011; Nepstad 2013; Nepstad 2015;
Schock 2013; Schock 2015; Zunes, Kurtz, and Asher 1999), expanding the analytical frame-
work of power from “pluralistic” (weighing how power is held by rulers versus their citizens)
to “relational” (how power is diffused across a polity) and a concern with understanding how
diffuse power can be organized to provide greater opportunities to resist repressive regimes
(Ackerman and Kruegler 1994; Chenoweth and Stephan 2012; Gregg 1935; Lakey 1968; Sharp
1980).
I argue that considering the origins, dynamics, and impacts of people power from the
perspective of women as marginalized social actors significantly enhances this salient framework.
Power is found not only in tension between resisters and their targets. The complexities of how
power is shared and negotiated among resisters can also be understood as shaping how well
collectivities can harness the ability to mobilize a broad-based resistance and how they can effect
a substantial transformation in the polity.
Some feminist scholars have pointed to the implicit male bias in many nonviolent studies as
stemming from the assumptions underlying how power is operationalized.
McGuinness (1993) has cautioned against the limitations of “pragmatist” definitions of
power. For pragmatists, people power is defined as “aggressive measures to constrain or
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

17519020, 2016, 9, Downloaded from https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/soc4.12405 by Syracuse University Libraries, Wiley Online Library on [17/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
824 More Powerful Forces
punish opponents and to win concessions” (Ackerman and Duvall 2000: 2). These measures
comprise both resilience, “the capacity of contentious actors to continue to mobilize collec-
tive action despite the actions of opponents aimed at constraining or inhibiting their activities”
and leverage, “the ability of contentious actors to mobilize the withdrawal of support from
opponents or invoke pressure against them through the networks upon which opponents de-
pend for their power” (Schock 2005: 142-143). McGuinness (1993) writes that problems
with this definition include (i) assumptions that the withdrawal of consent is limited to only
discrete forms of political participation from which women, immigrants, indigenous popula-
tions, and other marginalized actors are actively excluded; (ii) that opponents share common
political values, goals, and vie for common resources and; (iii) that opponents share a common
definition of the situation and what should be done about it. These are problematic assump-
tions because resisters may use different forms of nonviolence based on distinct social loca-
tions, experiences, and world views. If resistance groups want entirely different outcomes,
then which concessions, campaigns, or methods of trying to win them constitute the locus
of people power?
Defining people power more broadly may be a first step in relaxing gendered identifications
in nonviolent studies. Scholar-practitioners note that in addition to “the power of refusal”
there is the equally or perhaps more important “empowerment of acting together. At a min-
imum ‘popular empowerment’ means strengthening people’s sense that they can make a
difference, that there are alternatives to resigning themselves to the status quo” (Clark 2009:
4-5; see also Chabot and Vinthagen 2007; Chabot and Vinthagen 2015; Summy 2009). Power
therefore includes (i) communication, (ii) organization, (iii) disruption, and (iv) alternative
institution-building. These elements are considered in political process accounts of social
movements (cf. Polletta 1999; Zunes Kurtz, and Asher 1999) but are not treated explicitly as
a theorized form of resistance based on constituting a new social, relational structure to subvert
the contested one (Schock 2013). This structural-cultural definition encompasses a larger
movement of building an alternative social policy, system, or culture, beyond any one discrete
campaign.
As Cockburn (1999) has argued, the polity for most international relations theory is based
on a man’s view of politics where male political actors and actions are privileged (see also
Peterson 1992). And many women’s resistance studies have located women’s mobilizing ef-
forts in the communication-structures, organization, and alternative institution-building
spheres of mobilization that this latter view of power encompasses (Taylor and Van Dyke
2004; Taylor and Whittier 1998). Yet, studies of women’s contributions have yet to be fully
integrated into general accounts of what makes nonviolent resistance a people powering social
force.
Gender and power in mobilization

Feminist political science and peace studies scholars have more pointedly outlined major limi-
tations to the male gaze in these areas of research, noting that by promoting a biased account
of privileged actors, forms, and fields of action: (i) we exclude significant dimensions of the pol-
ity where resistance is mobilized (Cockburn 1999; Enloe 2014), (ii) we fail to consider some of
the key actors impacted by conf lict and peace processes (Cockburn 2007; Enloe 2000; Enloe
2014; McAllister 1988; McAllister 1991), (iii) we overlook particular relational dynamics
proven formative to mobilization (Flinders 2006; King 1995; Reardon 1996), and (iv) we
endorse a realpolitik assumption about actors’ nonviolent objectives as ultimately competitive
and eliminative goals, overlooking other foundational movement goals and motivations
(Elshtain 1987).
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Sociology Compass 10/9 (2016), 823–835, 10.1111/soc4.12405
More Powerful Forces 825
The “gender blindness” in the broader study of social movements also limits understanding of
political process. Particular insights into gendered mobilization patterns (who begins to protest
when and how groups learn to protest together in what manners), political and cultural oppor-
tunities (the best ways for forming alliances and building up a case for change), framing forms
(how movement objectives are communicated to the public and to policymakers), and move-
ment identities and organizational composition remain siloized (Zemlinskaya 2010). In turn, the
field offers limited conceptualization in many areas that are imperative to understanding social
movements: movement leadership (Robnett 1997); the differential effect of repression on
stratified- or unequal- populations (Noonan 1995); how diversity of mobilizing populations
shapes resource mobilization and the development of indigenous organizations (Oliver 2013;
West 1981; West and Blumberg 1990); how gendered divisions shape tactical development
and success (Asal, Legault, Szekely and Wilkenfeld 2013; Einwohner, Hollander and Olson
2000); “cognitive liberation,” the realization that now is the time for social change and the idea
of how best to pursue change (Kuumba 2002); strategic innovations (Blee 1991; McCammon
2003); political opportunities (Nagel 1988); international opportunities (Baldez and Montoya
2005); and radicalization (Neuhouser 1995). Gender blindness in nonviolent studies has also
produced a bias that cripples the field’s explanatory capacity.
Concerning the overwhelming focus on male actors where “women are underrepresented to
a shocking degree” (McAllister 1991:23), Pam McAllister’s work (1982, 1988, 1991) has point-
edly provided historical correctives to the omission of women’s participation and women’s
movements from nonviolent histories. With thousands of examples of women activists,
women-led campaigns, and women’s movements, she provides ample empirical evidence that
the gendered power of mobilization follows in many of the same strategic and tactical pathways
outlined as principal forms of nonviolent resistance. Women’s gendered experiences also
provide inspiration for innovations in new forms and approaches.2
I also argue that by overlooking women’s contributions to these movements we fail to take
into consideration how a gendered “cloak of femininity” accords women actors access to differ-
ent cultural and political resources and different forms of social power in nonviolent action
(Gallo-Cruz forthcoming). This effect gets directly at the heart of what feminist theorists de-
scribe as “constitutive power” (Fisher and Embree 2000), where inf luence in nonviolent action
stems from the assumed power of respected social actors legitimately enacting the prescribed
power of their social roles (or in many cases doing just the opposite of what is expected
of them). In particular, I find that nonviolent women activists have invested greatly in con-
structing alternative institutions through constitutive powers, operating off the radar of violent
opponents. Research focused pointedly on high-visibility campaign and protest event analysis
too often fails to consider such constitutive forms of mobilizing power and the social and polit-
ical transformations they inf luence.
People power from the margins
My review here underscores the ways in which an analytical consideration of gender and other
forms of marginalization can strengthen, expand, and challenge some of the tenets of nonviolent
people power theories.
First, women engage with different resources in different ways because of their gendered social experience.
Where real obstacles to resource mobilization exist, some actors use stratification to their strate-
gic advantage. In early abolition activism, women became skilled canvassing and petition-
workers. Canvassing was initially a key tactic for all abolitionists. It was also extremely
exhausting, both physically – from walking sometimes more than 20 miles weekly, and emo-
tionally – the result of being turned away repeatedly in sometimes aggressive manners. All-male
antislavery societies began to farm their canvassing work out to paid, female solicitors (only,
however, after a debate as to whether women should be allowed to play such a public political
role in representing the cause door-to-door). This gendered sequestration of women into
petition-drives allowed them to gain crucial community networking and political advocacy
access (Carpenter and Moore 2014). These networks became valuable resources in the suf-
frage movement that grew out of the increasingly frustrated and disenfranchised abolitionists
(Dorsey 2002).
Women in the civil rights movement were also sequestered into behind-the-scenes and
door-to-door activities. Women organizers took the jobs men did not want, and in the process,
they harnessed their organizing skills as “bridge leaders.” Bridge leaders “initiated ties between
the social movement and the community and between prefigurative strategies aimed at individ-
ual change…and political strategies” directed toward state and institutional change (Robnett
1996: 1664). Perhaps more important was the women bridge leaders’ direct access to emotion
as a mobilizing resource at the grassroots, community level (Robnett 2004). Evans (1980) and
others argue that this is how women became seasoned mobilizers, giving the second wave fem-
inist movement its strength and dynamism.
Beyond gathering resources for “spin-off” movements, the resources accessed by women
have proven vital to the building up of a broad-based movement despite their invisibility as
marginalized actors. Women’s activities in the NAACP were neither highly ranked nor pub-
licly visible and yet, they “allowed the organization…to acquire grassroots stability, generate
NAACP publicity, and have the potential for growth” (Sartain 2007:57). Because member-
ship in the organization was often sporadic, it was women’s auxiliary networks that cohered
into interpersonal commitments and ideological allegiances to keep member bases strong
and build a foundation for the next wave of Civil Rights mobilization. Further, because
teachers were such an essential mobilizing base for integration initiatives and 75% of teachers
were women, they were invaluable to early Civil Rights initiatives. It was women civil rights
activists’ extensive community-organizing work that made the Montgomery bus boycotts
possible, although men stepped in as “torchbearers” after women had “blazed the trails” of
that action (Burks 1993). Women’s roles as community organizers allowed them to mobilize
voter registration (Payne 1993) and tap into the networks necessary to integrate housing
(Knotts 1993) among other great Civil Rights initiatives (see Crawford, Rouse, and Woods
1993).
A gendered frame on people power moves beyond merely mapping or identifying moments
of “cognitive liberation” and through a more complex explanation of how “free spaces”
emerge as alternative mobilization spaces among marginalized communities. Studies of
women’s access to sequestered resources underscore the phenomenological nature of both actor
empowerment and resource domination or access (Baldez and Montoya 2005). Women’s
unique organizing power in different movements has developed out of such diverse situations
as Quaker-fishing wives taking control of local governing when husbands are away on long
sea trips (Faulkner 2011); women becoming more active agents of economic production and
local leadership during World War II (Dobie and Lang 2003); rural women workers shifting
into community leadership roles in rural Latin America during the 1970s economic crisis (Nash
and Safa 1985); women-led tribes during nomadic shifts in Oman (Chatty and Rabo 1997); and
Arab women, excluded from some forms of political organizing, taking the reins with online
networking during the recent Arab Spring (Khamis and Vaughn 2011; Newsom and Lengel
2012). In each of these cases, women’s marginalization before and during mobilization is
correlated with an explicit commitment to nonviolence.
Second, gendered stratification also differentially shapes opportunities for empowerment, where some sectors
are harshly repressed and others forge “invisible” but active “free spaces” for organizing vital to broad-based
mobilization.
A gendered framework on women’s nonviolent resistance helps to articulate the ways in which
opportunities are constituted differently for different actors. As marginalized actors, women are
often invisible to many forms of political power. This creates opportunities in traditionally
female social spaces not available to visible, male actors. For example, women formed the base
and training sector in Indian independence but are virtually absent from the story; women
developed the only movement sustaining public resistance during the Soviet occupation of East
Germany, ultimately providing a resistance springboard to independence (Baldez 2003); and
feminist networks active in the early 1980s in the Philippines expanded democratic conscious-
ness and developed organizing skills vital to the broad-based democracy movement (Roces
2010).
In numerous, sometimes paradoxical ways, gendered ideologies of motherhood have
provided opportune social spaces for mobilization (Zemlinskaya 2010). These have been
broadly open to women motivated not necessarily by feminist ideals of equality in public spaces,
but by womanist sentiments built through shared solidarity based on female suffering (Bouvard
2002; Hill Collins 1996).
Noonan (1995) found that in the highly repressive climate under Chilean dictator Pinochet,
conservative associations for women were supported by the dictatorship. These “invisible
zones” were used by women as resistance-organizing spaces. In a period when feminist organiz-
ing was silenced, there were over 8,000 mothers’ centers in operation. As early as three weeks
after the 1973 coup, women began organizing in support of political prisoners. Their work
largely went unnoticed by the military who considered women politically powerless. This
massive effort resulted in the concerted mobilization of poor women around economic needs,
direct support for democracy, and a resurgence of feminism after 25 years of dormancy (see also
Boyle 1993).
Traditional tropes of motherhood were used to mobilize an international network of women
working for disarmament and suffrage in the early international peace movement (Berkovitch
2002), provided a platform for political organizing power among mothers in the temperance
movement (Dannenbaum 1981; Hope Bacon 1990) and served as a mobilizing agent among
early black women’s political associations in the US (Boris 1993). Traditional women’s roles
and experiences also brought women together to organize across class lines in El Salvador during
the civil war, women’s groups the only nonviolent political groups actively mobilized through-
out the terrors (Stephen 1995). The status of womanhood has brought women across citizen-
ship divides in nonviolent movements in Israel and Palestine (Cockburn 2007) and allowed
opportunities for women protesters in Belgrade in the early 1990s to publicly protest genocide
and to hide draft resisters (Solomun and Reidemeister 1997).
For the marginalized actor, invisibility may mean the freedom to innovate new forms of
discourse and new spaces for empowered actorhood powerful to mobilization. At the local
level, gendered relations may begin to shift incrementally in areas loosely connected to the
polity that in turn open powermakers to the possibility of gendered reforms (McCammon
et al. 2001; McCammon et al. 2008). At the global level, international women’s networks have
supported shifts in global-local organizing efforts from suffrage and peace and disarmament
toward expanding labor rights and protections for working women (Berkovitch 2002). From
the latter half of the twentieth century on, the idea that women are needed, active participants
in the development of the state has become a key opportunity through which women can
mobilize nonviolently in ways not open to men. This access makes women “trailblazers” in
democracy movements, seen most recently in the constitution re-writing efforts in Tunisia
(Charrad and Zarrugh 2014; Labidi 2014) and Egypt (Morsy 2014), and in advocacy for
‘modernizing’ the state in Algeria (Cheriet 2014).
A women’s movement has emerged in the Egyptian democracy efforts to press for a new set
of freedoms that will promise full sovereignty and protections to women’s bodies directly
countering both the old and alternative models (Hafez 2014; Kurtz and Kurtz 2015). Women
had organized for decades against the state repression of women’s rights in, for example, Korea
(Kim and Kim 2010), Egypt (Al-Ali 1997), the Philippines (Roces 2010), Turkey (Aksoy 2015),
Syria (Altalli and Codur 2015), Lebanon (Stephan and Khoury 2015), and Kuwait (al-Mughni
1997) while they worked to build women-empowering institutions and “safe space” networks.
This groundwork provided the necessary “communication structures” and “indigenous organi-
zations” that could help to launch, lead, and sustain nonviolent democracy movements in each
of these countries.
Third, a structural analysis of power can be enhanced with the understanding that different actors access
different forms of power according to socially constructed perceptions of actor status.
Marx and Engels (1972) posited that power could be arrested by the working classes in ways
eluding the perception – but not the reality – of a stratified society. So too has women’s power
in nonviolent resistance proven to be arrested in ways typically unseen – but foundational – to
the structure of contested social relations.
In the US Civil Rights movement, for example, female organizer Diane Nash was laughed
off by King and others as a potentially power-wielding leader (Robnett 1997). But it was Nash
who stepped in to lead in the lunch counter strikes when a succession of male leaders could not
keep their leadership commitments to the group; it was Nash who successfully subdued the
mayor of Nashville after local male religious leaders failed at convincing him to negotiate;
and it was Nash who successfully led the Freedom Rides through dangerous territory after
one of the buses had been firebombed (Gallo-Cruz forthcoming).
In some contexts, women activists may be better able to capitalize on the “element of
surprise” considered key to nonviolence (Gregg 1935; Sharp 1973) because their mobilization
or actions are so culturally unexpected. Such was the case in the miners’ strike led by Mother
Jones in the early 1900s (McAllister 1991), the Rosenstrausse action by the German wives of
Jews in Nazi Germany (Ash 1997) and other nonviolent actions by Jewish women during the
Holocaust (Baxter 2013), the Daddy Warbucks campaign of a women-led draft-burning protest
during Vietnam (Riegle 2013), and women’s creative development of public shaming in tax
boycott protests in Nigeria and Tanzania (George-Williams 2006). In each of these instances,
women’s assumed powerlessness shielded their mobilization.
Diversity and marginalization within movements has generally been noted to create new
opportunities for tactical development and innovation (Asal, Legault, Szekely and Wilkenfeld
2013; Blee 1991; Einwohner, Hollander and Olson 2000; McCammon 2003) with women
developing unique approaches from their gendered marginalization and experience
(Boulding 1976; Taylor and Whittier 1998). The ways in which women workers were treated
differently than men inspired women to develop three of the biggest nonviolent actions in the
history of the South African anti-apartheid struggles. Employers thought they could offer a
concession to women in order to take advantage of women’s labors, but it was women who
mobilized the first anti-pass campaign in solidarity with men (Kuumba 2002). Black women’s
unions – highly constrained in the mixed anti-apartheid organizations – formed their own
semi-autonomous network (Walker 1991). This mobilization resulted in the great march of
1956 (following a smaller action in 1955), one of the biggest and most visible protests. Women’s
unions also astutely suggested the great economic boycott of Port Elizabeth during the
winter of 1985. This action brought a temporary end to bouts of violence and state
repression and won the release of political prisoners (Pyo 2012).
In addition to the key contributions marginalized actors make to the mobilization of people
power, there are also unique challenges marginalized actors face which affect people power in
negative ways.
Intersectional oppressions, the layering of different forms of marginalization, shapes both the objectives and
forms of organizing resistance marginalized actors can contribute to the movement.
The experience of marginalization can vary greatly depending on the unique intersection of
forms of stratification, including gender, race, class, citizenship, and religion among other so-
cially constructed social categories (Doetsch-Kidder 2012; Woehrle 2014). This has a direct
bearing on how marginalized versus dominant groups organize differently across one broadly
defined movement (Oliver 2013). Scholars of women in the Arab Spring note, for example,
that some visible forms of action by women have been given Westernized preference over
others (Newsom and Lengel 2012). Strum (1992) details how much media focuses on violent
resistance in Palestine when many more efforts are nonviolent – and conducted by women.
Cockburn (2007) observed that although womanhood as a master status opened the door to di-
alog among Israeli and Palestinian women in unique ways, working through differences tied to
citizenship and land rights was incredibly challenging and posed serious obstacles to further mo-
bilization across class and citizenship lines.
West (1979) posits that in some instances, a diversity in the forms of marginalization leads to a
diversity of tactics and forms of mobilizing power. She argues that the greatest mobilizing
strength among the US Civil Rights and South African Apartheid movements came through
a greater diversity of resources and constituents. On the other hand, women are marginalized
in pervasive, systemic ways, and their vital contributions are often unseen by other activists.
Thus, women often continue to struggle against their own marginalization and oppression
when power struggles ensue among mobilizers and even after some declare movement success
( Jones 2010). The power to mobilize – as individuals, small movement sectors, or a broad-based
collective – is complex but can be traced to the qualitative expressions of marginalization expe-
rienced by women and other marginalized actors. Relationships among feminists have shown
that deep divisions often arise, defined by racial, class, or other social privileges. These divisions
cause splintering and worse isolation and antagonism among some sectors of these movements
(Gilmore 1996; Ryan 2001). But they can also galvanize new ref lections on in-group dynamics.
Confortini (2012) describes a form of “intelligent compassion” that arose in the Women’s In-
ternational League for Peace and Freedom in the early twentieth century: league women devel-
oped an orientation to their activism that espoused a deliberative inquiry challenging both the
inequalities of global others and the activists’ own privileged perspectives as part of one interre-
lated system of stratification.
An intersectionality lens can also remind us not to lose sight of how marginalization changes
shape after major political transformations. People power could follow other democratization
studies measuring women’s inclusion post regime-change (e.g. Fallon 2008; Jaquette and
Summerfield 2006; Kang 2015; Viterna and Fallon 2008). Galtung’s (1996) structural frame-
work could be more actively incorporated into people power studies, examining not just
negative peace (or the absence of violence as movement success) but positive peace (other forms
of inclusion, and participation) which should include all sectors of the polity, visible and
invisible to public leadership. This would give us new lenses for understanding how different
social actors play different vital roles in mobilization and post-conf lict transformation.
Finally, important to an increasing concern with the transnational dimensions of mobilization, stratified
social actors hold different forms of power in different fields of interaction. When fields overlap or interact, their
power may be diminished or amplified.
Critical theories have long noted that stratification and marginalization are tied to particular so-
cial contexts that define actors and actor statuses in different ways. But we lack an exploration of
stratification and marginalization in the growing attention to field analysis in social movement
studies. Another gendered paradox in nonviolent mobilization is that women may experience
an amplification of power as they mobilize transnationally or even from rural to national polit-
ical contexts. Ray’s (1999) research on women’s movements in India offers in-depth empirical
insights into how complex “field shifts” can be, the movement of actors, institutions, and pol-
icies from one political environment to another (i.e. local to national), as women activists nego-
tiate the changing contexts of class, religion, and other competing social categories that comprise
any particular field of political engagement. Power is not held by one actor in all contexts at all
times. Instead, it emanates through a complex interaction of field-specific forms of authority (on
this point, also see Gawerc 2012) and innovations in alternative cultural resources and social
movement tactics for effectively using such authority. Strategic skill may therefore not only
be contextually derived but also rooted in the socially constructed dimensions of power that link
actors to different forms of resources depending on those different contexts in which they
operate.
This has been seen in many examples: in El Salvador in 1979 where women organized as
mothers and family members of the “disappeared’ gained international recognition as they were
brutally repressed at home (Stephen 1997); in Argentina where the mothers of the disappeared
were the only successful public resistance group during an active genocide against all state dis-
sidents – the mothers were supported in their fight against Videla by a f lood of international
journalists (Gorini 2006); in Vietnam where women’s collectives began the reconciliation pro-
cess with the United States amidst intense political antagonisms (Swerdlow 1993); in Belgrade
where the Women in Black rose, with the support of a transnational feminist network, to be
the only public opposition to the genocide (Cockburn 2007); in South Africa where the Fed-
eration of South African Women integrated the African National and Pan Africanist Confer-
ences into a transnational anti-pass campaign (Kuumba 2002); and in Liberia where women’s
nonviolent resistance eventuated in peace talks between warring factions in neighboring Ghana
(African Women and Peace Support Group 2004; Theobold 2012).
While there is much debate regarding which forms of resistance gain greater amplification
and salience in the international sphere, there are many instances in which women find ironic
or unseen spaces for local organizing even as men experience harsh repression. And many of
these women successfully move into transnational solidarity networks which have historically
carved out a powerful mobilizing free space for women’s mobilization (Feree and Tripp 2006).
Conclusion
In reviewing studies of women’s nonviolent movements, I highlight the many ways in which
the study of gender in nonviolent mobilization adds important insights to people power analysis.
First, women bring gendered skills and have access to gendered resources emanating from
gendered forms of inequality. Second, opportunities for mobilization are also gendered.
Women find free spaces for organizing amidst widespread repression in ways that are
constitutively defined as “women’s.” Third, the power to mobilize and affect change is located
in sometimes unexpected and unseen dimensions of a social system, which women activists have
used with great success, but which continues to pose limitations post-conf lict. Fourth, women’s
overlapping experiences of repression mean that their goals as activists and forms of organizing
are diverse and that other forms of stratification create new obstacles to realizing people
power. And finally, the study of women’s contributions to nonviolence shows that the power
of actors emerges in and is shaped by the field in which they are marginalized. Thus, moving
between political, social, or cultural fields may result in an amplification or a diminishing of
power.
The dynamics of stratification among the mobilized is an important part of understand-
ing the process of empowerment, and one that deserves greater scholarly attention.
Considering mobilization from the margins means challenging assumptions that people
power is evenly shared. In ref lecting on how power works through undertheorized,
underappreciated, and unseen structures of women’s nonviolent resistance, a gendered lens
offers one way of expanding our framework of the complexities of people power in
nonviolent mobilization.
I therefore suggest that we expand analysis to consider women’s organizational dynamics
and contributions and that of other marginalized actors, including but not limited to: rural
and agricultural workers, indigenous peoples, repressed ethnic groups, and class stratification
among mobilizers. And where there are likely gaps in quantitative and global level data on
the experience and contribution of the most marginalized, greater local and case-study quali-
tative research is needed to collect community, organizational, and life stories of resistance from
not only the most visible and celebrated of activists but also from all who contribute to the
early and behind-the-scenes structures of mobilization in different ways. To do so means
moving beyond descriptives of power into theoretical explanation of the many forms and
expression mobilizing power takes. Through inquiry into what constitutes people power
among the marginalized, we can gain a more comprehensive understanding of the complexi-
ties of how people power works.
Short Biography
Selina Gallo-Cruz is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at College of the Holy Cross in Worces-
ter, Massachusetts. She received her PhD from Emory University and her undergraduate degree
from Wellesley College. She has also recently served as a Gender, Conf lict, and Peacebuilding
Fellow at the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at Notre Dame. She has conducted
and published research on the global spread of nonviolence, mobilization against US foreign
military training, global social theory, and consumer movements in healthcare. Currently, she
is preparing a book manuscript on gendered dimensions of nonviolent resistance.
Notes
* Correspondence address: Selina Gallo-Cruz, Sociology and Anthropology College of the Holy Cross, 1 College Street,
Worcester, MA 01610. E-mail: sgallo@holycross.edu
1
The term “people power” originated in the Philippine democracy movement but has since been adopted as the key unit of
analysis for nonviolent studies (Clark 2009).
2
Certainly, much remains to be theorized about the relationships between masculinity and nonviolence (see for example
Bartkowski 2013; Estes 2005); and as peace scholars have noted, effective peace and nonviolent peacemaking necessitates
the transcendence of traditionally gendered actions to embrace positive actions that cross the gendered divide (Flinders
2006; Reardon 1996).
References
Ackerman, Peter, and Jack DuVall. 2000. A Force More Powerful: A Century of Nonviolent Conflict. New York: Palgrave.
Ackerman, Peter, and Christopher Kruegler. 1994. Strategic Nonviolent Conflict: The Dynamics of People Power in the Twentieth
Century. Westport: Praeger.
African Women and Peace Support Group. 2004. Liberian Women Peacemakers: Fighting for the Right to be Seen, Heard, and
Counted. Trenton: Africa World Press.
Aksoy, Hurcan Asli. 2015. ‘Invigorating Democracy in Turkey: The Agency of Organized Islamist Women.’ Politics and
Gender 11: 146–170.
Al-Ali, Nadje Sadig. 1997. ‘Feminism and Contemporary Debates in Egypt.’ Pp. 173–194 in Organizing Women: Formal
and Informal Women’s Groups in the Middle East, edited by Dawn Chatty and Annika Rabo. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
al-Mughni, Haya. 1997. ‘From Gender Equality to Female Subjugation: The Changing Agendas of Women’s Groups in
Kuwait.’ Pp. 195–210 in Organizing Women: Formal and Informal Women’s Groups in the Middle East, edited by Dawn
Chatty and Annika Rabo. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Altalli, Rajaa, and Anne-Marie Codur. 2015. ‘The Syrian Revolution as Lived and Led by Women Activists.’ in Women,
War, and Violence, edited by Mariam M. Kurtz and Lester R. Kurtz. Santa Barbara: Praeger.
Asal, Victor, Richard Legault, Ora Szekely, and Jonathan Wilkenfeld. 2013. ‘Gender Ideologies and Forms of Contentious
Mobilization in the Middle East.’ Journal of Peace Research 50(3): 305–318.
Ash, Barbara. 1997. The Day Hitler Blinked. Research in Review. Fall/Winter Issue. Retrieved on 8/7/2015 from: http://
www.rinr.fsu.edu/fallwinter97/features/hitler.html
Baldez, Lisa. 2003. ‘Women’s Movements and Democracy in Chile, Brazil, East Germany, and Poland.’ Comparative Politics
35(3): 253–272.
Baldez, Lisa, and Celeste Montoya. 2005. ‘Gendered Opportunities and the Formation of Women’s Movements in U.S. and
Chile.’ in The U.S. Women’s Movement in a Dynamic and Global Perspective, edited by Lee Ann Banazsak. Lanham: Rowman
& Littlefield.
Bartkowski, Maciej. 2013. Recovering Nonviolent History: Civil Resistance in Liberation Struggles. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Baxter, Lili Kschensky. 2013. Women in the Holocaust: Same Hell, Different Horrors Lecture, Weinberg Center for
Holocaust Education, The Breman, Atlanta, GA.
Berkovitch, Nitza. 2002. From Motherhood to Citizenship: Women’s Rights and International Organizations. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins Press.
Blee, Katherine. 1991. Women of the Klan: Racism and Gender in the 1920s. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Boris, Eileen. 1993. ‘The Power of Motherhood: Black and White Activist Women Redefine the ‘Political’.’ Pp. 213–45 in
Mothers of a New World, edited by Seth Koven and Sonya Michel. New York: Routledge.
Boulding, Elise. 1976. The Underside of History: A View of Women through Time. Boulder: Westview Press.
Bouvard, Marguerite Guzman. 2002. Revolutionizing Motherhood: The Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo. Lanham: Rowman and
Littlefield.
Boyle, Catherine M. 1993. ‘Touching the Air: The Cultural Force of Women in Chile.’ in ‘Viva’: Women and Popular Protest
in Latin America, edited by Sarah A. Radcliffe and Sallie Westwood. London: Routledge.
Burks, Mary. 1993. ‘Trailblazers: Women in the Montgomery Bus Boycott.’ in Women in the Civil Rights Movement:
Trailblazers and Torchbearers, 1941–1965, edited by Vicki L. Crawford, Jaqueline Anne Rouse and Barbara Woods.
Atlanta: Georgia State University.
Carpenter, Daniel, and Colin D. Moore. 2014. ‘When Canvassers Became Activists: Antislavery Petitioning and the Political
Mobilization of American Women.’ American Political Science Review 108(3): 479–498.
Chabot, Sean, and Stellan Vinthagen. 2007. ‘Rethinking Nonviolent Action and Contentious Politics: Political Cultures of
Nonviolent Opposition in the Indian Independence Movement and Brazil’s Landless Workers Movement.’ Research in
Social Movements, Conflicts and Change 27: 91–121.
Chabot, Sean, and Stellan Vinthagen. 2015. ‘Decolonizing Civil Resistance.’ Mobilization 20(4): 517–532.
Charrad, Mounira M., and Amina Zarrugh. 2014. ‘Equal or Complementary? Women in the New Tunisian Constitution
after the Arab Spring.’ The Journal of North African Studies 19(2): 230–243.
Chatty, Dawn, and Annika Rabo (eds.). 1997. Organizing Women: Formal and Informal Women’s Groups in the Middle East.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chenoweth, Erika, and Maria J. Stephan. 2012. Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Cheriet, Boutheina. 2014. ‘The Arab Spring Exception: Algeria’s Political Ambiguities and Citizenship Rights.’ The Journal of
North African Studies 19(2): 143–156.
Clark, Howard. 2009. People-power: Unarmed Resistance and Global Solidarity. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Cockburn, Cynthia. 2007. From Where We Stand: War, Women’s Activism and Feminist Analysis. London: Zed Books.
Cockburn, Cynthia. 1999. The Space Between Us: Negotiating National Identities in Gender and Conflict. New York: St. Martin’s
Press.
Confortini, Catia. 2012. Intelligent Compassion: Feminist Critical methodology in the Women’s International League for Peace and
Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crawford, Vicki L., Jaqueline Anne Rouse, and Barbara Woods (eds.). 1993. Women in the Civil Rights Movement: Trailblazers
and Torchbearers, 1941-1965. Atlanta: Georgia State University.
Dannenbaum, Jed. 1981. ‘The Origins of Temperance Activism and Militancy among American Women.’ Journal of Social
History 15(2): 235–252.
Dobie, Katherine S., and Eleanor Lang. 2003. Her War: American Women in World War II. Lincoln: iUniverse.
Doetsch-Kidder, Sharon. 2012. Social Change and Intersectional Activism: The Spirit of Social Movement. London: Palgrave
MacMillan.
Dorsey, Bruce. 2002. Reforming Men and Women: Gender in the Antebellum City. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Einwohner, Rachel L., Jocelyn A. Hollander, and Toska Olson. 2000. ‘Engendering Social Movements: Cultural Images
and Movement Dynamics.’ Gender and Society 14(5): 679–699.
Elshtain, Jean Bethke. 1987. Women and War. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Enloe, Cynthia. 2014. Bananas, Beaches, and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Enloe, Cynthia. 2000. Maneuvers: The International Politics of Militarizing Women’s Lives. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Estes, Steve. 2005. I am a Man! Race, Manhood, and the Civil Rights Movement. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Evans, Sara. 1980. Personal Politics: The Roots of Women’s Liberation. New York: Knopf.
Fallon, Kathleen M. 2008. Women and Democracy Movements in Sub Saharan Africa. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
Faulkner, Carol. 2011. Lucretia Mott’s Heresy: Abolition and Women’s Rights in Nineteenth Century America. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Feree, Myra Marx, and Ali Tripp. 2006. Global Feminism: Transnational Women’s Activism, Organizing, and Human Rights.
New York: New York University Press.
Fisher, Linda, and Lester Embree (eds.). 2000. Feminist Phenomenology. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Flinders, Carol. 2006. Nonviolence: Does Gender Matter? Peace Power. Summer. 20-21.
Gallo-Cruz, Selina. Forthcoming. ‘American Mothers of Nonviolence: Action and the Politics of Erasure in Women’s
Nonviolent Activism.’ In 100 Years of the Nineteenth Amendment: An Appraisal of US Women’s Activism, edited by
Holly J. McCammon and Lee Ann Banaszak. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Galtung, Johan. 1996. Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilisation. Oslo: PRIO.
Gawerc, Michelle. 2012. Prefiguring Peace: Israeli-Palestinian Peacebuilding Partnerships. Lanham: Lexington Books.
George-Williams, D. 2006. ‘Bite Not One Another’: Selected Accounts of Nonviolent Struggle in Africa. Addis Ababa: University
for Peace.
Gilmore, Glenda Elizabeth. 1996. Gender and Jim Crow: Women and the Politics of White Supremacy in North Carolina,
1896–1920. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Gorini, Ulises. 2006. La Rebelion de las Madres. Historia de las Madres de Plaza de Mayo. Colombia: Grupo Editorial Norma.
Gregg, Richard. 1935. The Power of Non-violence. Philadelphia: J.P. Lippencott Company.
Hafez, Sherine. 2014. ‘The Revolution Shall not Pass through Women’s Bodies: Egypt, Uprising and Gender Politics.’ The
Journal of North African Studies 19(2): 172–185.
Hill Collins, Patricia. 1996. What’s in a Name: Womanism, Black Feminism, and Beyond. The Black Scholar. Winter/Spring.
San Francisco.
Hope Bacon, Margaret. 1990. ‘Nonviolence and Women.’ Pp. 131–137 in Nonviolence in Theory and Practice, edited by
Robert L. Holmes. Long Grove: Wadsworth.
Jaquette, Jane, and Gale Summerfield. 2006. Women and Gender Equity in Development Theory and Practice: Institutions,
Resources, and Mobilization. Chapel Hill: Duke University Press.
Jones, Angela. 2010. ‘The Niagara Movement, 1905-1910: A Revisionist Approach to the Social History of the Civil Rights
Movement.’ Journal of Historical Sociology 23(3): 453–500.
Kang, Alice J. 2015. Bargaining for Women’s Rights: Activism in an Aspiring Muslim Democracy. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Khamis, Sahar and Vaughn, Katherine. 2011. Cyberactivism in the Egyptian revolution: How Civic Engagement and
Citizen Journalism Tilted the Balance. Arab Media and Society 14. Retrieved from: http://www.arabmediasociety.com/?
article=769 (accessed 11 July 2016).
Kim, Seung-Kyung, and Kyounghee Kim. 2010. ‘Mapping a Hundred Years of Activism: Women’s Movements in Korea.’
Pp. 189–206 in Women’s Movements in Asia, edited by Mina Roces and Louise Edwards. London: Routledge.
King, Mary Elizabeth. 1995. Women and Civil Rights-A Personal Reflection. Presented at the 12th Annual Fannie Lou
Hamer Lecture Series for the Department of Political Science at Jackson State University, October 5, Jackson, MS.
Knotts, Alice G. 1993. ‘Methodist Women Integrate Schools and Housing, 1952–1959.’ in Women in the Civil Rights
Movement: Trailblazers and Torchbearers, 1941-1965, edited by Vicki L. Crawford, Jaqueline Anne Rouse and Barbara
Woods. Atlanta: Georgia State University.
Kurtz, Mariam M., and Lester R. Kurtz. 2015. Women, War and Violence: Topography, Resistance, and Hope. Santa Barbara:
ABC-CLIO.
Kuumba, M. Bahati. 2002. ‘‘You’ve Struck a Rock.’ Gender and Transformation in the US and South Africa.’ Gender &
Society August 16(4): 504–523.
Labidi, Lilia. 2014. ‘Political, Aesthetic, and Ethical Positions of Tunisian Women Artists, 2011–13.’ The Journal of North
African Studies 19(2): 157–171.
Lakey, George. 1968. The Sociological Mechanisms of Nonviolent Action. Oakville: Canadian Peace Research Institute.
Marx, Karl, and Engels, Friedrich. 1972. In The Marx-Engels Reader, edited by Robert C. Tucker, Second edn. New York:
W.W. Norton and Company, Inc.
McAllister, Pam (ed.). 1982. Reweaving the Web of Life: Feminism and Nonviolence. Philadelphia, PA: New Society Publishers.
McAllister, Pam. 1988. You Can’t Kill the Spirit. Philadelphia, PA: New Society Publishers.
McAllister, Pam. 1991. This River of Courage: Generations of Women’s Resistance and Action. Philadelphia, PA: New Society
Publishers.
McCammon, Holly. 2003. ‘‘Out of the Parlors and Into the Streets’: The Changing Tactical Repertoire of the U.S.
Women’s Suffrage Movement.’ Social Forces 81(3): 787–818.
McCammon, Holly J., Soma Chaudhuri, Lyndi N. Hewitt, Courtney Sanders Muse, Harmony D. Newman, Carrie Lee
Smith, and Teresa M. Terrell. 2008. ‘Becoming Full Citizens: The U.S. Women’s Jury Rights Campaigns, the Pace of
Reform, and Strategic Adaptation.’ American Journal of Sociology 113(4): 1104–1147.
McCammon, Holly J., Karen E. Campbell, Ellen M. Granberg, and Christine Mowery. 2001. ‘How Movements Win:
Gendered Opportunity Structures and the State Women’s Suffrage Movements, 1866–1919.’ American Sociological
Review 66(1): 49–70.
McGuinness, Kate. 1993. ‘Gene Sharp’s Theory of Power: A Feminist Critique of Consent.’ Journal of Peace Research 30(1):
101–115.
Morsy, Maya. 2014. ‘Egyptian Women and the 25th of January Revolution: Presence and Absence.’ The Journal of North
African Studies 19(2): 211–229.
Nagel, Joane. 1988. ‘Masculinity and Nationalism: Gender and Sexuality in the Making of Nations.’ Ethnic and Racial Studies
21(2): 242–269.
Nash, June, and Helen Safa (eds.). 1985. Women and Change in Latin America. Westport: Bergin and Garvey.
Nepstad, Sharon Erikson. 2011. Nonviolent Revolutions: Civil Resistance in the Late 20th Century. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Nepstad, Sharon Erikson. 2013. ‘Nonviolent Civil Resistance and Social Movements.’ Sociology Compass 7: 590–598.
Nepstad, Sharon Erikson. 2015. Nonviolent Struggle: Theories, Strategies, and Dynamics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Neuhouser, Kevin. 1995. ‘Worse than Men: Gendered Mobilization in an Urban Brazilian Squatter Settlement, 1971-91.’
Gender and Society 9(1): 38–59.
Newsom, Victoria A., and Lara Lengel. 2012. ‘Arab Women, Social Media, and the Arab Spring: Applying the Framework
of Digital Reflexivity to Analyze Gender and Online Activism.’ Journal of International Women’s Studies 13(5): 31–45.
Noonan, Rita. 1995. ‘Women against the State: Political Opportunities and Collective Action Frames in Chile’s Transition
to Democracy.’ Sociological Forum 10(1): 81–111.
Oliver, Pamela. 2013. ‘Ethnicity, Repression, and Fields of Action in Movement Mobilization.’ in The Future of Movement
Research, edited by Jacqueline van Stecklenberg, Connie Roggeband and Bert Klandermans. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Payne, Charles. 1993. ‘Men Led, but Women Organized: Movement Participation of Women in the Mississippi Delta.’ in
Women in the Civil Rights Movement: Trailblazers and Torchbearers, 1941–1965, edited by Vicki L. Crawford, Jaqueline Anne
Rouse and Barbara Woods. Atlanta: Georgia State University.
Peterson, V. Spike (ed.). 1992. Gendered States: Feminist (Re)Visions of International Relations Theory. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Polletta, Francesca. 1999. ‘Snarls, Quacks, and Quarrels: Culture and Structure in Political Process Theory.’ Sociological Forum
14(1): 63–70.
Pyo, Yein. 2012. South African Blacks Boycott Apartheid in Port Elizabeth, 1985-1986. Global Nonviolent Action
Database. Swarthmore College. Retrieved on 8/7/2015 from: http://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/south-afri-
can-blacks-boycott-apartheid-port-elizabeth-1985-86.
Ray, Raka. 1999. Fields of Protest: Women’s Movements in India. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Reardon, Betty. 1996. Sexism and the War System. New York: Syracuse University Press.
Riegle, Rosalie G. 2013. Crossing the Line: Nonviolent Resisters Speak Out for Peace. Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books.
Robnett, Belinda. 1996. ‘African American Women in the Civil Rights Movement, 1954-1965: Gender, Leadership, and
Micromobilization.’ American Journal of Sociology 101(6): 1661–1693.
Robnett, Belinda. 1997. How Long? How Long?: African-American Women in the Struggle for Civil Rights. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Robnett, Belinda. 2004. ‘Emotional Resonance, Social Location, and Strategic Framing.’ Sociological Focus 37(3):
195–212.
Roces, Mina. 2010. ‘Rethinking ‘the Filipino woman’: A Century of Women’s Activism in the Philippines,
1905-2006.’ Pp. 34–52 in Women’s Movements in Asia, edited by Mina Roces and Louise Edwards. Oxford:
Oxford University press.
Ryan, Louise. 2001. ‘The Cult of Personality: Reassessing Leadership and Suffrage Movements in Britain and Ireland.’ Pp.
196–212 in Leadership and Social Movements, edited by Coli Barker, Alan Johnson and Michael Lavalette. Manchester:
Manchester University Press.
Sartain, Lee. 2007. Invisible Activists: Women of the Louisiana NAACP and the Struggle for Civil Rights, 1915-1945. Baton
Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.
Schock, K. 2005. Unarmed Insurrections: People Power Movements in Nondemocracies. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Schock, Kurt. 2013. ‘The Practice and Study of Civil Resistance.’ Journal of Peace Research 50(3): 277–290.
Schock, Kurt. 2015. Civil Resistance: Comparative Perspectives on Nonviolent Struggle. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Sharp, Gene. 1973. The Politics of Nonviolent Action. Boston, MA: Porter Sargent.
Sharp, Gene. 1980. Social Power and Political Freedom. Boston, MA: Porter Sargent.
Solomun, Zoran, and Helga Reidemeister. 1997. Frauen in Schwarz. Berlin: Ohne Gepäck Filmproduktion.
Stephan, Rita, and Nicole Khoury. 2015. ‘Lebanese Women’s Nonviolence: Action and Discourse.’ in Women, War, and
Violence, edited by Mariam M. Kurtz and Lester R. Kurtz. Santa Barbara: Praeger.
Stephen, Lynn. 1995. ‘Women’s Rights are Human Rights: The Merging of Feminine and Feminist Interest among El
Salvador’s Mothers of the Disappeared (COMADRES).’ American Ethnologist 22(4): 807–827.
Stephen, Lynn. 1997. Power from Below: Women and Social Movements in Latin America. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Strum, Philippa. 1992. The Women are Marching: The Second Sex and the Palestinian Revolution. Chicago: Lawrence Hill Books.
Summy, Ralph. 2009. Understanding Nonviolence in Theory and Practice. Nonviolent Alternatives for Social Change Vol. 1
Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems.
Swerdlow, Amy. 1993. Women Strike for Peace: Traditional Motherhood and Radical Politics in the 1960s. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Taylor, Verta, and Nella Van Dyke. 2004. ‘Tactical Repertoires, Action, and Innovation.’ Pp. 262–93 in The Blackwell Com-
panion to Social Movements, edited by David A. Snow, Sarah A. Soule and Hanspeter Kriesi. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Taylor, Verta, and Nancy Whittier (eds.). 1998. ‘Special Issue, “Gender and Social Movements”.’ Gender & Society 12(6):
622–625.
Theobold, Anne. 2012. The Role of Women in Making and Building Peace in Liberia: Gender Sensitivity versus Masculinity.
Stuttgart: ibidem.
Viterna, Jocelyn, and Kathleen M. Fallon. 2008. ‘Democratization, Women’s Movements, and Gender-Equitable States: A
Framework for Comparison.’ American Sociological Review 73: 668–689.
Walker, Cherryl. 1991. Women and Resistance in South Africa. Cape Town: New Africa Books.
West, Guida. 1979. ‘Twin-Track Coalitions in the Black Power Movement.’ Pp. 71–87 in Interracial Bonds, edited by Rhoda
Blumberg and Wendell James Roye. Bayside, NY: General Hall.
West, Guida. 1981. The National Welfare Rights Movement: The Social Protest of Poor Women. New York: Praeger.
West, Guida, and Rhoda Lois Blumberg (eds.). 1990. Women and Social Protest. New York: Oxford University Press.
Woehrle, Lynne (ed.). 2014. ‘Intersectionality and Social Change.’ Research in Social Movements, Conflict, and Change, Vol. 37,
edited by Patrick Coy. Emerald.
Zemlinskaya, Yulia. 2010. ‘Social Movements through the Gendered Lens.’ Sociology Compass 4(8): 628–641.
Zunes, Steven, Lester R. Kurtz, and Sarah Beth Asher. 1999. Nonviolent Social Movements: A Geographical Perspective. Malden:
Blackwell Publishers.

Sociology Compass - 2016 - Gallo Cruz - More Powerful Forces Women Nonviolence and Mobilization

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Sociology Compass - 2016 - Gallo Cruz - More Powerful Forces Women Nonviolence and Mobilization

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sociology Compass - 2016 - Gallo Cruz - More Powerful Forces Women Nonviolence and Mobilization

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sociology Compass 10/9 (2016), 823–835, 10.1111/soc4.

More Powerful Forces? Women, Nonviolence, and

People power in nonviolent studies

© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Gender and power in mobilization

You might also like