social movements - march 25

Question 1

Our use of social media affects our

Answer 1

1. Identity (how we see ourselves)
2. Social relations (the patterned connections we form with others)
3. Social activism (the ways in which we seek to cause social change)

Question 2

identity and social media

Answer 2

• We can hide/suppress parts of ourselves and pretend to be things we’re not in ways not possible in face-to-face interaction
• Also shapes how we understand how to be—eg influencers influencing us to buy things or act in a certain way
• Can lead us to compare our insides to somebody else’s outsides (how we feel to how other people are posting, even though that’s not an accurate representation)
• Can also make us feel like we’re in a panopticon (prison setup with a guard tower in the middle, there could always be someone watching)
• Although some positive effects—people can trial themselves online, become more confident in themselves, discover aspects of their identity etc, eg closeted people finding community online and gaining the courage to come out

Question 3

Social relations and social media

Answer 3

• People tend to use social media to augment telephone and face-to-face communication, not to replace them
• Social media tend to increase interaction and build community—but not community in the traditional sense
• Bc community has traditionally been a physical place, plus you couldn’t choose who was in your community or how you interacted with them
• Social media—community becomes portable, choosable, etc etc etc

Question 4

social activism and social media

Answer 4

Finally, social media open up new ways of engaging in social change
People advocate and spread awareness of a wide variety of causes using social media
People also use social media to mobilize others for demonstrations, petitions, meetings, support concerts, and fundraising
Biggest examples—the Occupy movement and also Arab Spring

Question 5

collective action

Answer 5

Collective action: occurs when people act in unison to bring about or resist social, political, and economic change

Question 6

routine collective action

Answer 6

Routine collective actions tend to be nonviolent and follow established patterns of behaviour in bureaucratic social structures
“There’s a way to protest, a socially acceptable way to take collective action, we have rights enshrined in law about this”
Eg mothers against drunk driving

Question 7

non-routine collective action

Answer 7

Non-routine collective action tends to be short-lived and sometimes violent
Sometimes the usual conventions cease to guide people’s actions
People may for example form mobs and engage in riots
Eg the riots at the US Capitol buildings on January 6th
Also btw pre-1970 people used to think people in like riots n shit joined a group mentality and lost their sense of reason. But now we know that’s an exaggeration and we need to look at other causes

Question 8

social movements

Answer 8

Social movements: collective attempts to change all/part of political/social order by:
1. Rioting
2. Petitioning
Usually one of the first steps—easy, nonviolent, doesn’t cost a lot of money
3. Striking
4. Demonstrating
Different from a riot
Often organized, police know they’re gonna happen and might send a car or two out to just watch and make sure everything is chill, there are zones where it’s allowed vs not, but generally in Canada we have the right to peaceful assembly
5. Establishing pressure groups, unions, and political parties
PPC rising after like the pandemic etc etc
- “broader, umbrella category” (social movements is)
- collective action is like the organized component of these broader social movements–social movements are the BROAD overall thing

Question 9

The Vancouver Riot of 1907

Answer 9

The 1907 Riot occurred in Chinatown after a speech was made against Chinese, Japanese, Hindu, and Sikh immigration
Dude named Fowler made the speech
Subsequent newspaper coverage claimed the riot resulted less from social conditions than from the incitement of foreign hoodlums
Blamed outsiders (Americans) inciting the incident

Question 10

Breakdown Theory (will be on exam)

Answer 10

Until about 1970, non-routine collective action was explained by breakdown theory
Breakdown theory: suggests that social movements emerge when traditional norms and patterns of social organization are disrupted
At least one of these must be met:
1. Socially marginal or poorly integrated group
People on the fringes of society
2. Group has its norms strained or disrupted
They can’t behave in the way they normally do, or smth along those lines
3. Group loses its capacity to act rationally
Gets caught up in the inherent madness of the crowd, “go crazy”
Supposedly
Variant of structural functionalism btw—sees collective action as a result of something in society not functioning, and sees this as a response to that

Question 11

Discontent of socially marginal people (breakdown theory)

Answer 11

Breakdown theorists often single out such socially marginal, outside agitators as a principal cause of riots
Eg recent migrants to the area, who are unsettled and not familiar with the norms of the area
A large number of the ordinary people who participate in riots, mobs, lynchings, etc. are poorly integrated in society

Question 12

Violation of norms (breakdown theory)

Answer 12

The violation of norms is sometimes called strain
2 of these in Vancouver—cultural and economic
Tons of new Asian people coming into the country. Cultural strain in that there’s a huge demographic shift. economic strain was there was tons of economic growth, causing many people’s expectations for their lives to fall out of line with reality
Strain: refers to breakdowns in traditional norms that precede collective action

Question 13

Relative deprivation theory

Answer 13

“Intolerable gap between the social rewards people feel they deserve and the social rewards they expect to receive”
Eg money, education, etc etc
Importance is the gap between what people think they should get and what they’re getting
People are most likely to engage in collective action when rising expectations (economic boom etc) exceed social rewards (recession or war)

Question 14

Inherent irrationality of crowd behaviour

Answer 14

People lose their individuality and willpower when they join a crowd and develop a feeling of invincibility in the crowd that allows them to yield to instincts they would normally hold in check
Contagion: the process by which extreme passions supposedly spread rapidly through a crowd like a contagious disease

Question 15

Assessing breakdown theory

Answer 15

Social marginality, strain, and contagion were unable to fully explain what happened in Vancouver in 1907
Since the 1970s, sociologists have uncovered flaws in all three elements of breakdown theory and proposed alternative frameworks for understanding collective action
We’re not dismissing breakdown theory or its ideas, just saying that it’s not the or the only explanation

Question 16

Assessing social marginality

Answer 16

The Vancouver Rally had been organized locally by Vancouver trade unionists, ex-servicemen, and clergymen—all long-standing pillars of the community
So it wasn’t all about outside agitators
If the seed hadn’t already been planted, no amount of outside agitation would have gotten it going
In most cases of collective action, leaders and early joiners tend to be well-integrated members of their communities, not socially marginal outsiders

Question 17

Assessing contagion

Answer 17

No evidence suggests that the violence of the 1907 Vancouver Riots was premeditated, nor that the events were spontaneous acts of “contagion”
Non-routine collective action tends still to be organized by social structures—eg if the ralliers hadn’t been racist there’s no way they would have rioted
While non-routine collective action may be wild and violent, it is usually socially structured
Eg even in a mob, relatives and friends are more likely to cluster together and interact

Question 18

Assessing strain

Answer 18

In general, levels of deprivation (absolute OR relative) are not commonly associated with the frequency or intensity of outbursts of collective action
Feelings of deprivation common/necessary in people who outburst, but it’s not the only condition/deprivation alone doesn’t guarantee a riot

Question 19

Beyond breakdown theory (post-1970s)

Answer 19

Non-routine collective action is a two-sided phenomenon
Breakdown theory alerts us to one side: collective action is partly a reaction to the violation of norms
Collective action is also a response to the organization of social life
It’s a long-term response to social issues, requires organization in order to happen

Question 20

Social movements (post breakdown theory)

Answer 20

People often find it difficult to turn their discontent into an enduring social movement
So what turns discontent into a full-fledged social movement
Social movements emerge from collective action only when the discontented succeed in building up a more or less stable membership and organizational base
Can’t have a social movement without people
Once this is accomplished, they typically move from an exclusive focus on short-lived actions to more enduring and routine activities
This takes time, energy, and money—so clearly social breakdown alone can’t result immediately in a social movement, bc that takes time energy and money

Question 21

Solidarity theory

Answer 21

Solidarity theory: suggests social movements are social organizations that emerge when potential members can:
1. Mobilize resources
2. Take advantage of new political opportunities
3. Avoid high levels of social control by authorities
Eg hard to get a message out when you’re scared of being killed if you speak out (happening in Russia when people speak out about the war)

Question 22

Mobilize resources

Answer 22

Most collective action is part of a power struggle
The struggle usually intensifies as groups whose members feel disadvantaged become more powerful relative to other groups
Eg look at the history of the gay rights movement—started out small but is now way bigger
Resource mobilization: refers to the process by which social movements crystallize because of increasing organizational, material, and other resources of movement members

Question 23

Political opportunities

Answer 23

Political opportunities for collective action and social movement growth occur (most often) during election campaigns (or other kinds of political change)
“Vote for me and i will give you this this and that”
People promising certain things if they get elected, this ensures social traction ensues
Or when ruling political powers become unstable (like if a super majority party loses the majority?)
Or when elite/privileged gr

Question 24

Avoid high levels of social control by authorities

Answer 24

Government reactions to protest influence subsequent protests
Social control: refers to methods of ensuring conformity and means by which authorities seek to contain collective action, including co-optation, concessions, and coercion
But social control measures don’t always have the desired effect
Using force moderately or indecisively often backfires—if people think the government isn’t stable or decisive or trustworthy etc they tend to revolt more

Question 25

Strikes and unions: resource mobilization

Answer 25

Resource mobilization has an effect on the frequency of strikes
In Canada between the mid-1940s and mid-1970s, strike activity was high when the following existed:
1. Unemployment was low
Which indicates a strong economy
Workers know business and governments can afford to pay them more
2. Union membership was high
U don’t technically have to be in a union to strike but it sure as hell helps
3. Governments were generous in their provision of social welfare benefits

Question 26

Strikes and Unions: Political Opportunities

Answer 26

Opportunities for union growth are greater when privileged groups and the institutions they control are divided and therefore become weaker
Comparing Canada to the US helps us look at this
Despite being super similar countries, Canada had wayyy more unionized people than the US—like 30% to 11% i think? US had a unified political group making it difficult for union rights to be put in place, while Canada had divisive political groups all competing and therefore offering more union rights to get votes
Opportunities for union growth are fewer when privileged groups are socially cohesive and backed by strong institutions