beyond resource mobilization theory

7/28/2019 Beyond Resource Mobilization Theory

1/7

Beyond Resource Mobilization Theory:

Dynamic Paradigm of Chengara Struggle

M. Manosmita, C. Aruna and K. Libina

Department of Sociology, Pondicherry University, Puducherry 605 014, India

KEYWORDS New Social Movement. Land Alienation. Social Inequality. Dalits. Agricultural Labour

ABSTRACT This paper focuses on Chengara struggle, from the perspective of contemporary movements and compares thefeatures of old social movements and resource mobilization theory. This work is mainly framed through review of relatedliterature as well as analyzing the data collected from 100 participants involved in the movement through an in-depth interview.The paper attempts to examine the application of Resource Mobilization Theory by describing the linkage between the theoryand Chengara struggle.The present paper reveals the theoretical background under social phenomena of movements for liberation.It explores the ideological transformation of old social movements to new social movements, depicting certain similarities anddifferences between both temporal movements. While the old movements focused on ideological discourse of revolution, thenew social movement is more issue oriented. The paper attempts to give a theoretical base to analysis, where the resource

mobilization theory justifies the context of the struggle.

Address for correspondence:Dr. C. Aruna

Assistant ProfessorDepartment of SociologyPondicherry UniversityPuducherry 605 014, IndiaTelephone: +91-413-2654496

E-mail: [email protected]

INTRODUCTION

With the changes in the agrarian structurethe advent of the market economy and with thegrowth of the liberal education; people are moreconscious about their rights and obligations.This becomes the base for the new social move-ments, which is concerned with the whole soci-ety not a particular caste or class. This paperfocuses on two aspects the changing repre-sentation of social movements from the tradi-tionally class bounded conception of the old orclassical to the generally non-class new move-ments or contemporary movements, and is il-lustrated through the Chengara movement, anew social movement in Kerala. The paper alsofocuses upon land alienation, as the base fac-tor for crisis in the Chengara movement (rootedin resource mobilization), which is classified asa new social movement since land is a mobiliz-ing resource for the minority group of the re-search setting.

Resource mobilization (RM) theory is nowthe dominant theoretical framework for analyz-ing social movements and collective actionwithin the discipline of sociology (McCarthy andZald 1977). Resource mobilization theory has

recently presented an alternative interpretation

of social movements. The review traces theemergence and recent controversies generatedby this new perspective. A multifactor model ofsocial movement formation is advanced, empha-sizing resources, organization, and political op-portunities in addition to traditional discontentbehavior. Resource mobilization theory may betraced from early programmatic statements(McCarthy and Zald 1973, 1977; Oberschall1973) through subsequent critiques and refor-mulations (Marx and Wood 1975; Piven andCloward 1977; Perrow 1979; Fireman andGamson 1979; Jenkins 1983; Klandermans1983) to a number of empirical studies whichhave sought to test and modify the theory (Walsh1978; Gamson 1992; McAdam 1982; Morris1984; Rochford 1985; Cable et al. 1988).

Recently the study of social movements hasmoved beyond the limitations of traditional,social-psychological perspectives on collectivebehavior that viewed social movements as gen-erally irrational phenomena. In contrast, recentworks have taken a more dynamic approach tothe study of social movements, examiningamong other issues the strategic problems ofhaving to appeal to various constituencies(Lipsky 1968) and the tactics used by state offi-

cials and business interests to control insurgentefforts (Jenkins and Perrow 1977).

Movements are also seen as structured andpatterned, so that they can be analyzed in termsof organizational dynamics just like other formsof institutionalized action (Oberschall 1973;McCarthy and Zald 1973, 1977; Tilly 1978). Insharp contrast to the earlier collective behavior

Kamla-Raj 2012 J Sociology Soc Anth, 3(1): 29-35 (2012)


2/7

tradition (Turner and Killian 1972; Smelser1962), resource mobilization theory views so-

cial movements as normal, rational, institution-ally rooted political challenges by aggrievedgroups. The border between conventional poli-tics and social movements thus becomes blurred,but does not disappear altogether.

In contrast to traditional socio psychologicalinterpretations, resource mobilization theoryemphasizes the importance of structural factors,such as the availability of resources to a collec-tivity and the position of individuals in socialnetworks, and stresses the rationality of partici-pation in social movements (Oberschall 1973;Gamson 1975; Marx and Wood 1975; McCarthyand Zald 1977; Snow et al. 1980; Gamson

1992). Participation in a social movement is seennot as the consequence of predisposing psycho-logical traits or states, but as a result of rationaldecision processes whereby people weigh thecosts and benefits of participation.

The resource mobilization theory equatessocial movement behavior with political behav-ior (Halebsky 1976). The general model positsthe existence of a polity structure composed ofgroups that have regular, routine, and low-costaccess to societal resources. Excluded groupsare denied this ready access and strive for in-clusion to the polity to gain such privileges.Hence, the model depicts a dynamic and inter-active struggle between the out-polity groups

who seek inclusion and the in-polity groups whoresist such incursions. To facilitate their strugglethe excluded groups organize themselves. Thismakes them better prepared to challenge thepolity groups. Organizations act as repositoriesfor the accumulation and concentration of com-munity resources as well as provide a forum forthe development of leadership potential and thearticulation of group goals (Waterman 1981).

Social movement is built upon the consciouseffort and normative commitment to change theexisting social scenario and active participationon the part of the followers or members. TheChengara movement in Kerala, India is recent

example for the emancipation of the downtrod-den, which aspires for acquiring the permanentownership on the disputed agricultural land. Themovement is understood from a subaltern per-spective, which is a potentially useful analyti-cal paradigm for studying tribal and ethnicmovements in India. This is important to un-derstand the nature of the particular social move-

ment in India and also examine the relevanttheoretical perspectives as well as the changes

occurring over a period of time.The new social movement is understood to

have some degree of correspondence with theimage of society, hence the Chengara landstruggle corresponds to this category. Subalternapproach seeks to restore a balance by highlight-ing the role of the politics as against the elitepolitics played in Indian history. Parallel to thedomain of elite politics there always existedthroughout the colonial period another domainof Indian politics in which the principal actorswere not the dominant groups of the indigenoussociety but the subaltern classes and groups con-stituting the masses of the laboring population

and the intermediate strata in the town and coun-try.Ruggiero and Montagna (2008) argues that

the idea of social movement offers a spectrumthrough which we can view material conflict inan industrial society and equally well, view opin-ion persuasion or disposition in a late modernsociety. Bayley and Bryant (1997) divide coer-cive public protests into legal and illegal pro-test. Each category is further subdivided intoviolent and non violent protest some others di-vided into grass roots and macro movements,social movements are also classified on the ba-sis of issues around which participants get mo-bilized. Some of them are known as the; forest,

civil rights anti- untouchability, linguistic, na-tionalist and such other movements. Some oth-ers classify movements on the basis of the par-ticipant and issues together. Ray and Katzenstein(2005) examine how Indias political contest hasreshaped the panorama of Indian social move-ments.

METHODOLOGY

The Chengara land grab explains a landquestion spanned in colonial and post colonialera. Here, the movement is started by the Dalitsagainst the government and civil society for

getting permanent ownership on agriculturalland and livelihood. In Desais words, the civiland democratic rights of the people are not pro-tected by the constitution as a result of whichthey engage in movements such as Chengarastruggle.

Dalits, major participants of the movementoccupy the lowest position in the caste and class

30 M. MANOSMITA, C. ARUNA AND K. LIBINA


3/7

hierarchy. These subaltern groups have been try-ing to make their own history through the re-

sistance against the upper class elites and statemachinery. In this backdrop the present paperaims to understand Chengara struggle throughthe Resource Mobilization Theory and exam-ine the changing representation in social move-ments.

The research design for the present paper isexploratory cum descriptive. The descriptivecharacter of the study is derived from the inter-pretative methods, which is important of quali-tative tradition. The field area, Chengara is asmall village situated in Pathanamthitta districtin Kerala. Out of 3000 families who have settledin Harrison Malayalam estate, participants from

100 families were interviewed in depth for thestudy. Around 70 percent of the participants ofthe movement belong to scheduled castes, 20percent of them are Dalit Christians, and a smallnumber are Muslims and other caste members.This work is mainly framed through review ofrelated literature as well as analyzing the datacollected from 100 participants of the movement.

DISCUSSION

The socio economic profile of the sampleshows that majority (76 percent) are Hindus,followed by 18 percent of Christians and 6 per-cent Muslims. One half of the respondents are

married and the participants of the movementare from the outskirts of Kerala and most of thembelong to the socially, economically and educa-tionally backward class.

History of the Chengara Struggle

Chengara is a small village situated in Patha-namthitta district in Kerala. Around 70% of thepopulation here are Christians and 25% of themare Hindus and the remaining are Muslims. Thevillage frequents the media due to a land strug-gle, popularly known as Chengara Samaram(Chengara struggle), which is led by Laha Gopa-

lan,under the banner of Sadhujana vimochanasamyuktha vedhi (the United Front of the Poorfor Liberation). The hilly terrains at the south-ern plantation belt of the Pathanamthitta dis-trict in Kerala reverberates with a major landstruggle of an unprecedented nature involvingmore than 3,000 families of the deprived sec-tions of the society- dalits, adivasis and OBCs.

These are the people left out in land reforms ofKerala, once lauded as a grand success. They

demand land and labour to live.When the struggle started, there settled more

than 5,000 dalit, adivasis, and OBC families.The lease held by Harrisons Malayalam Estatefor the 6,000 hectares in Chengara expired in1996. The agitators say that the governmentpromised to hand over the land to the landlessDalits, Adivasis and OBCs by acquiring the landillegally possessed by the plantation owners andpass it on to the land less; but did not do so.They are demanding a minimum of one acre ofcultivable land anywhere in Kerala.

The entire discourse about land alienationwas centred on the 1975 Act; the Adivasi Dalit

Samaram Samithi agitation, which begun inAugust 2001, ushered in a new phase of the landissue in the state. By 2003, land struggles inKerala attained a new order of practices as thesubaltern insurgents were then trying to breakand destroy the then existing structure of powerrelation. The Sadhujana Vimochana SamyukthaVedhi had started agitations focussing on thelandlessness and related issues such as no placefor burial or cremation, which the leaders al-leged had been a regular feature every year andwhich neither the media nor the officialsrecognised in the name of salvaging the vauntedKerala model of development. Land alienationwas recognised as the crucial causative factor

behind there backwardness and the state wasblamed for hoarding most of their land espe-cially tribal land. With the support of the state,large private players (companies) kept hugeamounts of land in their custody without theauthorization to do so. The movement also wit-nessed unprecedented solidarity between onesection of the dalits and tribes.

The movement for land acquisition in Chen-gara was started on 4th August, 2007, under theleadership of Laha Gopalan, in southern plan-tation belt of Athumpumkulam,(specify the ex-act area). They occupy around 500 acres of land.Around 170 permanent workers, who were tap-

ping in the plantation for more than 30 yearslost their jobs. Among these workers 117, be-longs to the Scheduled castes. The HarrisonMalayalam company along with the trade unionshave created a blockade which has culminatedin the deliberate cutting off of food and otheressential supplies to the protesters for more than10 months. On August 14th 2008, the trade

BEYOND RESOURCE MOBILIZATION THEORY 31


4/7

unions lifted the blockade for a period of tendays and issued an ultimatum to the 5000 fami-

lies to leave the plantation site in these dayswhich fuelled the hostile situation.

Hostility made the life harder, in the sensethat it was too difficult to reach their pavements,they have to take through the forest, and theyare women who have to climb up and down hillsto get water for their cooking, etc. Very few chil-dren in the Plantation were getting education;others had to stop their studies due to the finan-cial problems as well as the blockade imposedon them by trade union members. The tradeunion members had imposed hostile while theyhad lost their daily job, which they have donefor last 20 years.

The police have arrested some people on theestate, when they were trying to sell the rubbertapped from the plantation. Harrisons Malaya-lam Plantation claims it owns the rubber treeson the plantation. It approached the High Courtto clear the space of encroachers. The companyhad got the order from the High Court tellingthe government to peacefully evict the familiesin the next three months. Any violence from thestate will result in a huge bloodshed.

The civil society (in sociological discourses,which provided by the plethora of social move-ments and the role of the nongovernmental or-ganizations in socio-economic development) ofKerala reacted to it, when the hostile has been

imposed on them by the trade union of perma-nent workers in the plantation (it includes CITU,INTUC and BMS) when they demand to ensurethe immediate lifting of the blockade and suffi-cient supply of food, medicines and adequatehealth care to the protest camps. Along withthese the government provided medical facili-ties like medical camp and availability of theambulance for 24 hours near to the entrance,the different NGOs had conducted medicalcamps for them.

Chengara Movement Culmination

Though Chengara struggle ran for 795 dayson the demand for five acres (one acre is 0.4hectare) of cultivable land for every participantfamily, the struggle ended abruptly on October6, with clear signs of divisions in the leader-ship and the ranks of the agitators who playedan active role in the struggle. But it was clearfrom the beginning that the Chengara agitation,

if left unsolved, would become a cause for em-barrassment for the Left Democratic Front

(LDF) government in Kerala. In the settlementpackage it was announced by Chief Minister V.S.Achuthanandan, the government promised 50cents each to 832 participant dalit families, oneacre each for 27 tribal families (as it was prom-ised to the Scheduled Tribes in other parts ofthe State) and 25 cents each to the landless oth-ers. In all, land and housing assistance wereoffered to 1,432 participant families whose ap-plications were in the official records. The gov-ernment was also to provide housing assistanceto the landless as well as to those families thathad only less than five cents of land.

At a joint press conference following the

announcement of the package in the presenceof Opposition Leader Oommen Chandy (whoplayed a key role in formulating the settlement),the Chief Minister said it was difficult to findthe necessary land in Kerala even to implementthe package that was being offered and therewas no way the government could fulfill theSVSVs demand for more.

Gopalan, one of the leader said that his or-ganization was accepting the leftover offerunder protest, convinced that this was the bestthat Dalits could expect from both the rulingand Opposition coalitions. He, however, said theagitators would leave Chengara only after theland promised by the government was actually

allotted to them. Some other leaders also claimedthat the package was a sell-out and that it kepta large number of families that were part of thestruggle outside the list of beneficiaries.

Dalits in Kerala are going to lose a lot be-cause of the Chengara package. We are all dis-appointed. There is a clear scaling down of theextent of land that the Scheduled Castes andthe Scheduled Tribes can claim from now on.Dalits were demanding one acre; the packagesays they are eligible for 50 cents. Not long agoAdivasis were promised up to five acres, but thegovernment now says they will get only oneacre. (Frontline 2009). Chengara is yet another

indication of the restlessness that is building upin the lower strata of Kerala society, which issought to be articulated pointedly under a caste(rather than class) identity, and disturbingly, attimes, with extremist overtones.

The movement is having the character ofcultural pluralism, which deals with the changesin the life style and the reconstruction of the



5/7

social structure. They believe that, acquiringagricultural land will make them perfect to live

in this neo liberal economy. Dalits insurgencieshave to be understood in the backdrop of theattempts of the post colonial India to revitaliselandlordism and to promote parasitic landlord-ism. After the land reforms the overwhelmingmajority of tribal communities and dalits inKerala continue to be entirely landless. Most ofthe tribal people were through the past few cen-turies drafted into agrarian society as bondedworkers and otherwise. Chengara, struggle forland acquisition raises the draw backs of the landreforms or the mainstream societys (civilsocietys) attitude towards the backwardness ofcertain groups of people. In Kerala, 85% of land-

less people are Dalits, Adivasis and OBCs. Thestate land reform itself made them land ownersand at the same time landless. The unorganizedsections of the society are organized on the ba-sis of Ambedkars ideas and Ayyankali. ChengaraStuggle as such had some political influence butthere is no core political agenda.

Chengara struggle as a New SocialMovement

Chengara struggle which can also be con-sidered as a new social movement is differentfrom previous ones in terms of their social sup-port bases, goals, structures and styles. Earlier

movements were rooted in the class conflicts ofcapitalist societies. Whereas the new ones aresaid to derive from value cleavages that iden-tify only communities of likeminded people. Thegoals of these movements are said to be collec-tive goods rather than the more narrow self in-terests of older social movements. Their inter-nal structures are also allegedly more decentral-ized, open and democratic than older and morehierarchically organized labor unions. Chengaramovement of Kerala which is a new social move-ment/ contemporary movements are fused ongoals of autonomy, identity, self realization andqualitative life chances, rather than divisible

material benefits and resources.It is somewhat difficult to define what thedifferences between New Social Movement andOld Social Movement. Extensive effort has beenmade by writers in defining the differences par-ticularly among the new social movement theo-rists, who believes that contemporary socialmovements are fundamentally different from old

social movements. The attributes compared (re-fer Table I) are drawn from Chris Rhodess work

(Buechler 1995; Cohen 1985; Gamson 1988,1992; Inglehart 1981; Martell 1994; Melucci1994; Mertig 2001; Offe 1994; Sutton 2000).


Table 1: Comparison of old and new social movements

Components Old social New socialmovements movements

Ideology Political focus Cultural focusSociety In early capitalist In advance capitalist

societies societiesPeriod Pre- 1960s move- Post 1960s move-

ments mentsParticipants Class-based Cross class partici-

pantsIssue raised Class-based issues Non-class/ cross class

issuesGoals Materialist goals Post materialist goalsOrganization Centralized: Formal Decentralized:

and hierarchical Informal and grassroots

Medium of Institutional action; Direct action;change collective action; collective and

political involve- individual action;ment individual life style

The Chengara struggle is a social movementwhich can be interpreted as a new social move-ment as it fulfills the claim of the New SocialMovement theory and are significantly differ-ent from previous social movements of the in-dustrial economy. The primary difference is in

their goals, as the new movements focuses noton issues of materialistic qualities such as eco-nomic wellbeing, but on issues related to hu-man rights. The Chengara struggle comes un-der post 1960s movements in advance capital-ist society. In terms of organization it is seenthat the Chengara struggle is decentralized interms of informal and grass root level partici-pation. Most of the agitators in this movementactively participated in the political activitiesof different political parties and some are alsomembers of trade unions. Moreover, culturalfocus comes when it is related to the identity ofthe downtrodden.

Chengara Movement and ResourceMobilization Theory

The Chengara struggle of Kerala is a newsocial movement that inspired a new wave ofliberation for the downtrodden through its mo-bilization process. Resource Mobilization theory


6/7

concerns more with the process of mobilizationof the movement rather than focussing on the

causes. In the present paper the resource mobi-lization theory is aptly significant. The assump-tion of the theory fulfils the criteria of theChengara struggle giving the movement a theo-retical approach. Studies have been done withrelation to the theoretical approaches to socialmovements but resource mobilization theoryforms a new alternative to the existing theories(Jenkins 1983).

Turner and Killians (1957) formulation ofthe collective behavior tradition was orientedto short-term, spontaneous actions and was notwell-suited to studying ongoing, organized, po-litical forms of protest. Kornhausers (1959)

analysis of a mass society in which only the mostmarginal, socially isolated people would becomeinvolved in collective behavior seemed to fly inthe face of mobilization patterns in 1960s move-ments. Smelsers (1962) assumptions that col-lective behavior involved a short-circuiting ofinstitutional channels by irrational actors un-der the sway of generalized beliefs were an es-pecially inappropriate way to analyze much(though not all) of the protest behavior of the1960s. And Gurrs (1970) synthesis of relativedeprivation approaches ultimately rested on psy-chological models of frustration-aggressionwhich also distorted more than they revealedabout many forms of activism. Against this theo-

retical backdrop, the resource mobilizationtheory framework offered an appealing alterna-tive for many sociologists. In contrast to tradi-tional socio psychological interpretations, re-source mobilization theory emphasizes the im-portance of structural factors, such as the avail-ability of resources to a collectivity and the po-sition of individuals in social networks, andstresses the rationality of participation in socialmovements (Oberschall 1973; Gamson 1975;Marx and Wood 1975; McCarthy and Zald 1976;Snow et al. 1986; Gamson 1992).

The present study on Chengara struggle dealswith the downtrodden, often involved in strug-

gles to establish rights. These include rights tolivelihood, rights to land, and for the humanrights. To the extent that many demands of thesocial movements are based on struggle to es-tablish rights, it may be said that they are partof the attempts to create or recreate a civil soci-ety. It also drew the focus back to issues of iden-tity and culture. The movement also centered

among minority groups which drew some oftheir movements strength from reassertion of

identity place but also on how the movement isorganized. It was called resource mobilizationtheory because the theory purported to show thatthe success of a movement depended on the re-sources available to be used. These resourcesarose from inducting individuals to participateand contribute to the cost. Resources mobiliza-tion is focused on a functional model assumingrational actors and misses psychological factorssuch as frustration and alienation.

Social movements are traditionally seen asextension of more elementary forms of collec-tive behavior and as encompassing both move-ments for personal change and institutional

change like legal reforms and changes in po-litical power. Resource mobilization theoristshave, in contrast, seen social movement as anextension of institutionalized actions and haverestricted their focus to movements of institu-tional change that attempt to alter elements ofsocial structure and the reward distribution in asociety (McCarthy and Zald 1977). Similarlyin the Chengara struggle importance has beengiven to the institutional change whereas landas a source of mobilization played an importantrole in initiating the movement.

The new social movement is seen as illustra-tive of a different style of political involvementcharacterized by decentralization and much

wider public participation than is common intraditional forms of interest group activities.They are also said to be more likely to resort tounconventional political tactics pursuit of theirgoal and to advocate a new world view.

CONCLUSION

The struggle at Chengara is more than astruggle for land; it is a political struggle foridentity and citizenship, and marks a new phasein the history of democratic struggle in Kerala.It is a voluntary struggle entirely initiated bythe landless people who belong to dalit com-

munity who have suffered a lot as landless andmarginalized for several decades. It may seemstrange that it in fact takes up a struggle thathas been left unfinished by the traditional Leftin Kerala as the land reforms have not doneanything for the landless dalits as they weregiven only the residential land for pursuing ag-riculture. There are no changes in the case of



7/7

landless dalit people. Meanwhile they startedmovement against the state and its representa-

tives, the struggle assumes special significanceat a time when more and more peasants, adivasisand dalits are being robbed of their land andtheir traditional, life giving habitat and drivento starvation and suicide.

The present paper emphasizes that theChengara movement has taken place in themodern neo liberal society with the characteris-tics of new social movement. This paradoxicalmovement requires the attention of several dis-ciplines, voluntary and philanthropic associa-tion, social workers for the in depth understand-ing of the problem.

REFERENCES

Bayley S, Bryant R 1997. Third World Political Ecology:London: Routledge.

Buechler SM 1995. New social movement theories.Sociological Quarterly,36(3): 441-464.

Cable S, Edward JW, Rex HW 1988. Differential paths topolitical activism: Comparison of four mobilizationprocesses after the three mile island accident. SocialForce, 66: 951-969.

Cohen JL 1985. Strategy and identity: New theoreticalparadigms and contemporary social movements, Social

Research, 52: 663-716.Fireman B, Gamson W 1979. The creation of political

solidarity in social movement organizations. TheSociological Quarterly, 3: 373-387.

Frontline 2009. A 795-day agitation by landless families,mostly Dalit, is called off after the State governmentannounces a settlement package, Volume 26 - Issue 22:

Oct. 24-Nov. 06.Gamson WA 1975. The Strategy of Social Protest. Wadsworth,

Belmont, CA.Gamson WA 1988. Political discourse and collective action.

In: B Klandermans, H Kriesi, S Tarrows (Eds.):International Social Movement Research, Volume 1,From Structure to Action: Comparing Social Movement

Research Across Cultures. Greenwich: JAI Press. pp.219-244.

Gamson WA 1992. The Social Psychology of Collective Action.In: AD Morris, Mueller C McClurg (Eds.): Frontiers inSocial Movement Theory. New Haven: Yale UniversityPress, pp. 53-76.

Gurr T 1970. Why Men Rebel. USA: Princeton UniversityPress.

Halebsky S 1976. Mass Society and Political Conflict.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Inglehart R 1981. Post-materialism in an environment ofinsecurity. The American Political Science Review,75(4): 880-990.

Jenkins JC 1983. Resource mobilization theory and the studyof social movements.Annual Review of Sociology, 9:527-553.

Jenkins JC, Perrow C 1977. Insurgency of the powerless: Farmworkers insurgency, 1946-1972.American Sociological

Review,42: 249-26. (Republished in Ben Aguire andRussell Curtis (Eds.) Collective Behavior and Social

Movements,Wadsworth, 1992.)

Kornhauser W 1959. The Politics of Mass Society. Glencoe,IL: Free Press.

Klandermans B 1983. Participation in a Social Movement, AMobilization Campaign Studied. (Dutch) Amsterdam:VU.

Lipsky M 1968. Protest as a political resource. AmericanPoliticalScience Review 62: 11441158.

Martell A 1944. Ecology and Society: An Introduction .Cambridge: Polity Press.

Marx GT, Wood JL 1975. Strands of theory and research incollective behaviour. Annual Review of Sociology, 1:363-428.

McAdam D 1982. Political Process and the Development ofBlack Insurgency, 19301970. University of ChicagoPress, Chicago.

McCarthy JD, Zald MN 1973. Resource mobilization: Ananalysis of conflicting theoretical variations. TheSociological Quarterly, 29: 97-110.

McCarthy JD, Zald MN 1977. Resource mobilization andsocial movement: A partial theory.American Journal of

Sociology, 82: 1212-1241.Melucci A 1994. A strange kind of newness: Whats New innew social movements? In: E Laraa, H Johnston, JRGusfield (Eds.): New Social Movments: From IdeologyTo Identity. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, pp.101-130.

Mertig AG, Riley ED 2001. Environmentalism, new socialmovements, and the new class: A cross-nationalinvestigation,Rural Sociology,66, 113-136.

Morris A 1984. The Origin of the Civil Rights Movements.New York: Free Press.

Oberschall A 1973. Social Conflict and Social Movements.USA: Prentice Hall Publisher.

Offe C 1985. New social movements: Changing boundariesof the political. Social Research, 52: 817-68.

Perrow 1979. Insurgency of the powerless: Farm workermovements.American Sociological Review, 42: 249-268.

Piven FF, Cloward R 1977. Poor Peoples Movements. NewYork: Vintage Books.

Ray R, Katzestien MF 2005. Social Movements in India:Poverty, Power and Politics. New Delhi: OxfordUniversity Press.

Rochford EB Jr 1985. Hare Krishna in America. NewBrunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Ruggiero V, Montagna N 2008. Social Movements: A Reader.London: Routledge Press.

Snow DA, Rochford EB, Worden SK, Benford R 1986. Framealignment process, micro-mobilization, and movementparticipation.American SociologicalReview, 51: 464-481.

Smelser N 1962. Theory of Collective Behaviour. New York:Free Press.

Sutton PW 2000.Explaining Environmentalism: In Searchof a New Social Movement. Burlington: Ashgate.

Tilly C 1978. From Mobilization to Revolution.MA: Addison-Wesley, Reading.

Turner RN, Killian L 1972. Collective Behaviour. 2nd Edition.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Walsh EJ 1978. Mobilization theory vis-a-vis a mobilizationprocess: The case of the united farm workers movement.In: Walsh Edward (Ed): Research in Social Movement,Conflict and Change. Greenwich CT: JAI Press, pp. 155-177.

Waterman AS 1981. Individualism and interdependence.American Psychologist, 36: 762-773.


beyond resource mobilization theory

Documents