Strong Versus Weak States Response

    The notion that a state is 'strong' because it is heavily securitized and/or able to effectively use force to repress dissent is wrong within the context of MENA. We know this to be true for if this lens was used then the majority of the regimes that have disintegrated since 2011 would have been classified as 'strong' and would still be standing. The state apparatuses of Ben Ali, Mubarak, and Qaddafi all had extensive security services and had hitherto been able to crush dissent. However, they were evidently not 'strong' enough to withstand the turmoil which swept the region. This being said, a highly developed security apparatus and the ability to use force to crush dissent do in most cases make a state apparatus stronger but are not what make the state 'strong' to begin with.

    In order to characterize the "typical MENA state" as 'strong' or 'weak' it is important to develop a consistent definition for both. According to the reading by Lisa Anderson entitled The State in the Middle East and North Africa there is a clear disparity between the two. A 'strong' state is characterized by a modern administrative structure that is well-established and stable. According to Anderson a 'weak' state is characterized by a structure that is incapable of consistently reaching the major part of its population to extract resources or provide services and is usually characterized by a patrimonial pattern of recruitment and operations. Thus the strength of a state should be calculated by the sophistication and effectiveness of its structure and apparatus - in short, how well it can function. 

    Using the assumptions and definitions provided above the typical MENA state can be said to be one that is 'weak' or weakening, I say this for it is hard to find an example of a state in the region that doesn't struggle with reaching a large part of its population in terms of making them a part of 'the state'. This could be the Shi'a of the Arabian peninsula, the Berbers of the Maghreb or the Sunni Arabs of Iraq and Syria. A counterargument to this notion is plausible but the second part of Anderson's 'weak' state is not. Every single regime in the Middle East relies on patrimonial patterns of recruitment and operations to a wildly dangerous extent. One can argue to what degree culture and context influence this but the fact is that this inherently weakens the structure of the state and prevents it from growing and evolving. Thus the typical MENA state is inherently weak as not a single state - especially the royal families of the Gulf - has broken the traditional patrimonial pattern of state-building that inherently inhibits the growth and development of the state, weakening its ability to quickly and effectively respond to change. 

    

    Different conceptualizations of 'strong' and 'weak' states cause problems for several reasons. For one, from an academic standpoint it makes it almost impossible to effectively discuss the structure of states if they cannot be uniformly defined in their nature. Secondly, and most importantly I believe, if a state is perceived as 'weak' by one actor and 'strong' by another this could lead to dramatic and violent conclusions. It is obvious that political actors still need to work on their definitions as no one in the West thought the regimes that collapsed in the wake of 2011 to be 'weak' - in contrast they were perceived by most to be 'strong' enough to outlast the turmoil. Thus, different perceptions of strength and weakness can lead to different actions and responses both by local and international actors.

Acting as the crossroads of the globe, the MENA region has always been important politically and has been host to all types of governmental systems, whether they be tribal organizations, theocratic bodies, monarchies, or authoritarian regimes. The political scene of the region today is so complex, yet has been subjected to generalizations about how the state systems there work. Are they all authoritarian-ruled and in complete chaos? Are they all enemies of the Western World? Are they all completely controlled by the powerful force of Islam? As mentioned in "The State in the Middle East and North Africa", the region has not been studied nearly as much as others when it comes to analyzing the ways in which states form and operate, and this has made it harder to truly classify the characteristics and successes/failures of the modern MENA state. The terms "weak" and "strong" states are very relative things: what is weak in one culture or society could be considered strong in another. For example, if we value human rights, healthcare, and educational systems, then the majority of MENA nations today would be considered extremely weak. However, if we consider military organization, revenue from exports (i.e. oil), and the ability to form alliances, then many MENA nations are some of the strongest in the world. So how do we classify this region, which simultaneously sees incredible revenue, global power, and dangerous instability?

For one, we must acknowledge that the MENA region is wholly diverse in political structure and power. It is hard to just say that MENA as a single entity is "strong" or "weak". In world affairs, Iran holds a lot more influence than, say, Lebanon. Syria is run by a dictator and is fighting wars on all sides, while Morocco is a monarchy that is arguably one of the most peaceful MENA states. To me, states like Morocco could be considered strong because they've managed to avoid complete societal disaster in terms of violence. Tunisia could also be considered strong because they have arguably been the most successful state in terms of politics and society after the Arab uprisings of 2011. Libya could be considered weak because they are currently in complete chaos. Syria, Iraq, and Yemen could be considered weak because of extreme instability and the inability of their governments to provide basic care for the people. However, if your definition of a strong or weak state depends on the ability of the state to influence worldwide decision-making, then all countries within MENA would be considered strong. The fact that Iran can influence U.S. and E.U. nuclear decision-making makes it incredibly powerful. The fact that Syria, Iraq, and Libya are home to members of extremist groups that affect global security is very powerful. The fact that Saudi Arabia practically controls the oil market is scarily powerful.

To me, the MENA region can be considered a paradox at times. A state can be extremely strong economically, yet still be one of the worst human rights violators (Saudi Arabia). They can be run by strong authoritarian regimes, but still regress into complete chaos and warfare (Syria). They can hold nuclear programs, but still not be able to provide basic education and healthcare to people (Iran). The diversity of the degrees of power and stability within the region make its political structures hard to define. When every political decision you make has global influence, that should be considered as strong, and most MENA nations have this. But for safety and non-violent progress, many MENA states are extremely weak. It's hard to define because it's so complicated and complex. But thanks to its strategic geography and tribal and colonial pasts, hasn't MENA always been that way?

Definitions of strong and weak, like almost everything else, depend on perspective and experience. Western and Eastern views, Muslim and Jewish backgrounds, and developed and developing nations will all have differing definitions. The debate is constantly evolving and may never end. Today, the MENA region is the center of this debate and will continue to be for quite some time.

Strong vs. Weak States

I would say that the Middle East and North African regions should be considered strong states because throughout history their cultures and ways of life have remained the same even through many hardships.  Conflict and war has ravaged the MENA region for most of its existence.  This area was truly the birthplace of religions and therefore many different groups have fought over whose ideologies are right and who deserves what land for many years.  The fact that these people have survived all of the tragedies that have occurred in this region is what I believe makes them strong.  Although the governments and economies have not necessarily thrived at any point in time, their cultures and the people within them have remained in tact and hopeful for better days in the future.  A state would not be powerful without its people and therefore the strong will of Middle Eastern and North African citizens allow this region to be categorized with strong states in my opinion.

There are many implications that go along with the conceptualizations of strong and weak states.  The strength and weakness of a nation or state can be defined in many different ways.  Some consider brute force and therefore the size of a nation's military to be the most determining factor in it being categorized as 'strong'.  Others believe the financial stability and economic growth of a nation as compared to others as being the most important.  Still some say it is a combination of many parts that make a state strong or the lack of that make one weak.  However, it is important to remember the security dilemma.  If one state is very strong, other states may form alliances against that state and therefore make it weaker.  It is very hard to pinpoint exactly the requirements that make a state strong because in international relations, the balance of power shifts all the time.  So in conclusion, a state cannot truly be categorized as strong or weak but rather can have certain elements that make it strong or weak.    

Strong versus Weak States

When it comes to the state in MENA, we hear many different things. Some say the states are 'strong,' because many states are heavily securitized and are capable of utilizing force to repress dissent, while others say the states are 'weak,' because they experience a lot of instability. But the notion of ‘strong’ states versus ‘weak’ states requires some elucidation. What would you say is the correct characterization of the typical MENA state? In the study of MENA political dynamics (or political dynamics anywhere for that matter) what are the implications of differing conceptualizations of ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ states?

A few thoughts

I’m pleased to see so many thoughtful and engaging responses to my questions last week – we’ll be discussing all this in depth throughout the semester, so don’t worry if you’re feeling confused at this point. Hopefully we won’t have any more interruptions. Let me say a few words about each question I posed.

1. What is the point of Social Movement Theory (SMT)?

I posed this question because there is generally a lot of confusion about what theory (not only SMT) should do. Often it is assumed that the only useful theories are those that can ‘predict’ outcomes in widely different contexts. Indeed, prediction is a coveted ability among many social scientists and remains a key goal for many researchers, not least in the policy-world. Alas, we are not Nostradamus; we cannot predict the future. What we can do is try to explain past phenomena in order to better understand how particular events are likely to play out, given specific circumstances. The social realm is much too complex to boil down to the few sets of variables, to which we are limited when conducting our research. In short, the best we can do is focus our attention on explanation, and thereby furthering our knowledge about empirical phenomena. Accordingly, SMT is specifically concerned with explaining the emergence and outcome of social movements. Its findings can give us hints as to when a social movement is likely to form, what factors need to be present for its ability to take shape and sustain itself, and under what circumstances it is likely to achieve all, some, or none of its goals. Note the lack of confident claims about predicting the formation and outcome of any movement – such confidence is the luxury of the ignorant; as social scientists we know that there is such a huge number of variables at play that we can never make any statement with absolute certainty.  

2. Is there any reason we couldn’t use the same analytical frameworks to study, say, the American Civil Rights movement and movements for political change in the MENA region?

The purpose of this question was to make you think about how the region is depicted as ‘different’ from anywhere else. You may or may not be aware of it, but on a daily basis you are flooded with commentary about the region that is based on particular assumptions about the region as being ‘backward,’ ‘irrational,’ and much more guided by ‘primordial sentiments’ than the ‘modern West.’ Well, 2011 did a lot to challenge that view, in that ‘ordinary’ people (the kind of people most Westerners were unaware existed in the region) took to the streets for political change. Since then, we’re very much back to the old understandings of the region, because Egypt has reverted back to authoritarianism (the scary Islamists would have taken over otherwise), Syria is in the midst of a bloody civil war with sectarian undertones, and the somewhat positive developments in the most promising of the ‘Arab Spring’ countries – Tunisia – is explained by its long-standing exposure to ‘Western values’ (i.e. it has been Westernized enough to have the possibility of success). But these Orientalist understandings do not help us understand the political developments in the region – they obscure the explanations. Egypt’s Islamists were electorally successful because of specific historic developments (which we’ll discuss in depth this semester), not because people are particularly pious or want a return to the days of the Prophet. Syria’s civil war is sectarian because identity politics are used to mobilize and legitimize heinous acts in a power struggle between rivaling factions, not because ‘sectarianism’ is a naturally occurring philosophy in the ‘backwards’ Middle East. All of this means that while social mobilization will take on a ‘local flavor’ wherever it appears, and the possibility of the emergence of movements depends on the political structure (which are the result of specific historical processes – not culture), the broad dynamics and key variables identified by SMT are perfectly applicable to any cultural context. Again, theory is not a perfect representation of ‘reality’ – it’s an abstraction, a generalization, and will not perfectly represent any given case. But we can certainly use the same analytical frameworks to study movements, in whatever cultural or political setting.


3. What use can SMT be in understanding the success of Islamist movements?

This question is related to the previous one in that it asks you to reflect on the applicability of SMT frameworks on MENA-related movements. It may surprise you to find out that the study of Islamist movements as social movements is quite recent – a couple of decades ago this was a real novelty. Part of it is, of course, that people associate Islamist movements with violence, whereas social movements are generally defined as non-violent. But in reality, Islamist movements are not all violent, nor are all social movements entirely non-violent (there is a whole body of literature on why movements choose violent or non-violent tactics). In fact, Islamist movements are highly amenable to analysis through SMT – especially in understanding their ability to operate in autocratic contexts, build mass support, and sustain themselves financially.

SMT Responses

1.) What is the point of Social Movement Theory (SMT)?

Just like all theories utilized in the study of international and intercultural relations, SMT helps provide a lens through which to analyze, understand, and investigate social movements all across the globe. Beyond just the interpretation of movements, one also is able to predict various peoples motivations and the chances of their success in creating an effective social movement.

2.) Is there any reason we couldn’t use the same analytical frameworks to study, say, the American Civil Rights movement and movements for political change in the MENA region?

The American Civil Rights movement had clear leadership, clear goals, and took place in a single country that every corner of the world had a stake in. This made the American Civil Rights movement heavily documented and very visible keeping the government on its toes (within reason) and also kept the movement organized and coordinated. With clean cut faces that lead the movement such as MLK Jr. and even not so clean cut faces such as Malcolm X the whole world knew who to turn to when it came to meeting with government heads and granting demands. While there have been many movements for political change in the MENA region, they usually lack most of the facets that made the American Civil Rights Movement so effective. As we are dealing with a close-knit region versus a country, many movements have spanned borders making their demands hard to fully grasp and put to an official list. When we look at the Arab Spring for example, there was no one defined leader and the issue of ideology came into play a lot and caused much strife and confusion. The MENA region also has a much more rich history causing people to be more resistant to change while America was a nation founded on this idea of change. All of the reasons that make the American Civil Rights Movement inherently different from the many movements in the MENA region also tend to why we can’t use the same analytical frameworks to study both.

3.) What use can SMT be in understanding the success of Islamist movements?

As SMT has provided a lens through which to study the circumstances of social movements throughout history, it can certainly be applied to understanding the success of Islamist movements. Islamist movements, while they include the element of uniting people based on their method of practicing and understanding Islam, also tend to be incredibly organized and hierarchical frameworks that act as functioning governments in the regions that they come to power. Understanding this phenomenon would greatly be helped by the use of theories such as SMT. For example, we could examine the conditions right before certain Islamist groups came into power and see if they could have been prevented. We would also better understand how they even come to power when many include such radical ideals that are so different from the way that they majority of Muslims practice Islam.

Nancy Perez - SMT Response Questions

1.  What is the point of (SMT) Social Movement Theory?

Social Movement Theory seeks to explain collective action of a group in terms of why, when, and how. The point of SMT as a framework is to explain collective action and social mobilization in terms of the behavior of rational actors over time.

2. Is there any reason we couldn't use the same analytical framework to study, say, the American Civil Rights movement and movements for political change in the MENA region?

Naturally, social movements vary in terms of social and historical contexts and multiple theories exist to explain how or why such movements occur - such as resource mobilization, political opportunity, rational choice, and relative deprivation. While movements may be similar in terms of ideal outcome, say a shift in power, they cannot be analyzed under the same framework due to their inherent differences. The differences are not because the people of one region are fundamentally better than those of another, as set forth in the orientalist mindset, but rather because the atmosphere of each area are inherently different from one another.
 Taking the American Civil Rights Movement and the movements for political change in MENA, the two cannot be analyzed in the same light because the two differ in terms of political context, cultural context, and resources. Before the American Civil Rights Movement, the United States was already a well established democracy providing for a majority of its citizens, and it can be argued that this movement held more of a post-materialist focus in its quest for greater civil liberties or freedoms for a group of Americans. Whereas, the movements for political change in the MENA region focus more on the liberation of peoples from political oppression in a different sense. Poverty stricken, corrupt, and abusive, the potential political change in MENA is far different than the type of political change applicable because of the ACRM.

3. What use can SMT be in understanding the success of Islamist movements?

Social Movement Theory can be useful in helping to understand the successes of Islamist movements by providing a framework in which we can look at the movements. SMT serves as a guide by which we look to why, when and how. Thus for understanding the success of Islamist movements we can dissect the resources Islamist movements used to garner collective support the political structure of the state(s) in which social mobilization took place, the hundreds of years of tribal culture, empires, and religious strife that overwhelmed the region. All of this information found through SMT can help to explain the origins of a movement and help to identify the features aided the movement's success, and those that didn't, which can predict the future successes or failures of other Islamist movements.

Social Movement Theory Responses-Jeffrey Chase

1. What is the point of Social Movement Theory (SMT)?

      The point of Social Movement Theory (SMT) is a guide to scholars as they attempt to understand the complexities of social movements and the relationship that they have with the various actors involved. SMT helps to explain how those actors can produce social change by acting in their own rational interests.

2. Is there any reason we couldn't use the same analytical frameworks to study, say, the American Civil Rights Movement and movements for political change in the MENA region?

      Social Movement Theory could be used as a framework to analyze both the American Civil Rights Movement and the movements for political change in the MENA region. There is the same underlying rationality present in both movements. SMT accounts for the different results and methods of these differing movements. Even though some scholars see SMT as not being as applicable to the Middle East as it is to other Western movements, this view is only the result of the fallacy of Orientalism. The differences in the movements are not a result of people in MENA being fundamentally different from those in the West, it is because of the different conditions. These conditions, such as poverty, the limited ability of the government to provide for its people, and authoritarian government systems as mentioned in Social Movements, Mobilization, and Contestation in the Middle East and North Africa. These conditions alter the incentives that are considered in rational choices, so they do need to be factored into the analysis of the MENA movements.

3. What use can Social Movement Theory be in understanding the success of Islamist movements?

      Social Movement Theory can be useful in understanding how the strength and ability of the states that they took place in, how the acquiring of funding and resources, and the other rhetoric that was present in the region affected the actions of the Islamist movements. 

SMT in MENA

1. SMT seeks to explain the collective efforts of people to achieve a common goal. Even though the MENA is considered primitive and backwards but through SMT we understand how the grassroots movements take place there.
2. There is some bias on how the MENA is perceived by the west. However, the important thing is that even the MENA is capable of the same social movements to drive change. The culture of each place is different hence the way the MENA operates may be different from how the American Civil Rights movements had ocurred.
3. There are more than just state actors involved when it comes to social movements in MENA. For example, there are political, international and civil society actors that influenced the success of the movements. If any countries in MENA tried to oppress the voice of the masses, there were different steps taken to transform the outcome, whether it is through an NGO or an international organization.

Social Movements Theory Responses - Jeremy Eckerling

What is the point of Social Movement Theory (SMT)?

Social Movement Theory is a theory that is used to try and explain the numerous multi-faceted aspects of social movements. One of the main questions that it attempts to answer is why people mobilize to achieve their goals. It also tries to determine potential consequences of social movements. These questions can be used to understand more about social mobilization and why it occurs. It can also be used to determine which factors cause successful social movements versus less successful ones. This could potentially be used to determine which areas of the world are ripe for social mobilization, and also potentially how ongoing social movements could turn out. 

Is there any reason we couldn’t use the same analytical frameworks to study, say, the American Civil Rights movement and movements for political change in the MENA region?

The main reason that it would be unwise to use the same analytical framework to study the American Civil Rights Movement and the recent movements in the MENA region is that the two movements are very different. For instance, as A Force More Powerful explained, the American Civil Rights movement was a heavily organized movement. It had definitive and strong leadership in Martin Luther King Jr., had millions of supporters, and had clear goals. No social movement is simple, but the American Civil Rights Movement was very organized and was ultimately successful. For this reason, it would likely be easier to analyze under SMT. However, the recent movements in the MENA region, including the "Arab Spring", have many differences compared to the ACRM. For starters, the ACRM was only in one country, the United States, and was only made up of one movement. In the case of the "Arab Spring", the movements were in multiple countries, therefore creating multiple movements. Some may argue that the movements had shared ideologies, but nonetheless, the movements were distinct in most cases. In any case, the movements were less organized than the ACRM. The movements had numerous different factions, and in some cases, numerous leaders. Because the movements in the MENA region were so incredibly complicated compared to the ACRM, it would likely be more difficult to analyze the "Arab Spring" as a whole under the SMT. However, analyzing an individual movement in an individual country would likely be easier. 

What use can SMT be in understanding the success of Islamist movements?

The rise of Islamic groups such as ISIL over the previous few years is quite remarkable. That some are wondering whether ISIL should be considered a sovereign state is eye-boggling. Even though ISIL has committed atrocities, it is nonetheless a cohesive, well-organized, and successful social movement. We know that ISIL has largely been successful, but SMT can be used to understand why it has been so successful. For example, it could be used to analyze the political situation before the rise of the group, and see if this political situation is a common theme with other successful social mobilization groups. We would then be able to compare the movement with others, and see if it is an anomaly, or if it was a natural occurrence based on the landscape of Iraq and Syria. 

Social Movement Theory

What is the point of Social Movement Theory (SMT)?

The point of Social Movement Theory is to help us further understand how and why social movements take place. It is pluralistic in its approach, including both historical and social contexts. It is a theory, which means that SMT sets forth patterns that can be analyzed to help predict current and future events. It looks into long-term unrest that accumulates, such as political, social, or religious unrest, and how that can lead to a widespread movement for change. It looks at different ways that conflict can be resolved. But also, it identifies actors. And the key actors in large scale social movements are the general population, often workers, which SMT recognizes and values.

Is there any reason we couldn’t use the same analytical frameworks to study, say, the American Civil Rights movement and movements for political change in the MENA region?

I think that SMT would be very helpful in analyzing the American Civil Rights movement because, like the Arab Spring, it did not happen overnight and there were many different triggers. SMT would help identify the actors. In A Force More Powerful, the original actors were the students that were forced into segregation. But that segregation ran much deeper than just the schools. SMT would highlight the fact that the entire city of Nashville was segregated and that there was a dominant group in power. This inequality is one of the main reasons, or whys, for the movement. Another key facet of SMT is what happens once a movement begins, and how the group acts. One aspect of the American Civil Rights movement is resource mobilization. In the documentary, the protesters had very clear organization with specific strategies and tactics such as non-violence and allowing themselves to be jailed.

This theory can also be applied to the MENA region, especially considering Hinnebusch's research of democratization. This case is unique since it is not necessarily a movement built off of unrest among the masses. In fact, Hinnebusch considers MENA to be in the intermediate transitional phase which is that democracy is possible but not necessary. The SMT would explain this because of the negative feelings towards the West and imperialism. Since SMT includes historic contexts, the historic destruction by imperialism in this area explains current social movements or lack thereof.
 

What use can SMT be in understanding the success of Islamist movements?

The Social Movement Theory is especially helpful when understanding Islamist movements because of its pluralistic capabilities. It takes into account culture and social attitudes, which are key to modern Islamic movements. Like Hinnebusch highlights, the Islamic world in MENA was split arbitrarily by borders, without taking into account the general population or cultures. This has led to sub-states and supra-states, which are key actors that SMT would identify. These actors are relevant when attempting to mobilize people as well as understand the general feelings of the people towards certain topics such as Western ideals. They are also significant in the cultural context by identifying distinct identities such as Islam or Arabism.

Question: was there a reading that I missed that went into more detail about what SMT was? The reading seemed to assume that you were supposed to already know what it was.

Social Movement Theory Responces

1. What is the point of Social Movement Theory (SMT)? 
The aim of SMT is to to explain when, how, and why people act together to succeed in achieving common goals.
2.  Is there any reason we couldn’t use the same analytical frameworks to study, say, the American Civil Rights movement and movements for political change in the MENA region?
I think we can use the same frameworks to study the Civil Rights movement and mobilization in the MENA region because the characteristics of both are loosely similar. However, the SMT model may not work perfectly for either. The American Civil Rights movement focused more on legal reform while the MENA movements focused more on social mobilization and the taking back of power from the elites.
3. What use can SMT be in understanding the success of Islamist movements?
We can use SMT to analyze the factors contributing to the rise of Islamist movements and what makes them so attractive to disenfranchised people. We can also use it to see what some of these movements' strengths and weaknesses are. 

What is the point of Social Movement Theory (SMT)?

Social Movement Theory attempts to help us understand why and how specific groups form to take collective action on a cause that is dear to them. Whether it be racial, religious, gender-based, nationalistic, political, or economic, many types of activism are the subject of movements that are comprised of people of very diverse backgrounds. It's important to note that, whether or not you deem the cause to be good or bad, social movements are meant to be a tool for seeking justice for the people that are participating in them. They involve attempts to make change, no matter at what level or degree this change occurs. A social movement can be used to topple an authoritarian government regime, or it can be used to change a community law that is discriminatory. In the introduction of Social Movements, Mobilization, and Contestation in the Middle East and North Africa, Beinin and Vairel point out that historical and contemporary context are essential in understanding the origins and methods of social movements, and that social movements in themselves are usually very complex and ever-evolving entities, especially in the Middle East/North Africa region.

Can we use the same analytical frameworks to study the American Civil Rights movement and movements for political change in the MENA region?

I believe we can use the same analytical frameworks to study the American Civil Rights movement and movements for political change in the MENA region, but we must do so with caution. There are many similarities that are present in almost all social movements, and these two cases are no exception. For real change to occur, there must be passion, organization, and, as highlighted by Hinnebusch in "Democratisation in the Middle East: Dilemmas and Perspectives", discipline. These elements and many others are essential to make your cause a reality. The American Civil Rights Movement had incredible organization and preparedness when it came to implementing marches and sit-ins. As seen in the documentary, this movement received inspiration from previous non-violent struggles, such as Gandhi. What made this movement most successful was the willingness of taking risks in order to support the cause. Passion cannot be underestimated. This is what we also see with the strive for political change in the MENA region. People acknowledge the oppression and injustice they see every day and they seek to do something about it. Like the American Civil Rights Movement, people in this region have demonstrated discipline and passion in many ways, including many of the protests within the Arab uprisings of 2011. However, as mentioned previously, we must be cautious when comparing these two movements. The American Civil Rights Movement was under a democracy and most of Middle Eastern/North African movements are not. Does that make a difference? These MENA region movements are also modern, meaning they have use of social media and the internet. Does that make a difference? This region also has complicated colonial, religious, and tribal/urban histories. Does that make a difference?  

What use can SMT be in understanding the success of Islamist movements?

SMT allows us to acknowledge that social movements, in their participants, causes, and methods, can be extremely diverse and complex. With Islamist movements specifically, there are thousands of years of tribal ethnic context that needs to be taken into account, as well as almost 1,500 years of religious (Islamic) context and 100 years worth of colonial/border context. These issues are rooted in the region and must be included in the analysis of why these movements happen and what methods are used (non-violent protests, violent dictator overthrows, etc.). SMT can also help us acknowledge and understand how political structure must be taken into account in regards to the origins of these movements. With the MENA region, authoritarian dictatorships, monarchies, and theocratic regimes have developed and dominated. What does this contribute to the atmosphere of social movements? Of course, religion as both a tool for the people and a weapon against them, must be taken into account, and SMT theory can help do this. However, as in the words of Beinin and Vairel, this region shouldn't just be defined as "Islam". Complexities within these movements and the passion that ignites them are what make them successful.

1. The point of social movement theory is to explain when, how, and why people act collectively and succeed in achieving their goals.
2. I think we could use the same analytical framework to study the Civil Rights Movement.  Resource mobilization, political constraints, and the countering of the hegemonic discourse were all things that can be seen during the Civil Rights Movement. With that in mind we can apply the ideas when analyzing American social movements.
3. It can help understand the success of the Islamist movements by looking at the actors involved in order to measure the size and spread of the movement itself. We could also use the theory by analyzing the movements resource mobilization. Analyzing how well the movement received funds and made game plans. 

1. Social Movement Theory is crucial because basic human rights and respect are necessary for societies throughout the world to function and prosper.  It is very important that we study the way groups form, take action, and ultimately enact change because this can help us to strive to foster better relationships with people across the globe.  As we saw in the video, history repeats itself and the social movements of years before can ignite new movements at any moment.  By noticing this we can better learn from the past and solve social issues much faster in the future. 
2. The Middle East and North Africa regions have long histories of political turmoil.  The Civil Rights Movement in America had more social than political implications.  Social Movement Theory can definitely be applied to the study of both areas however, in that the analytical frameworks used for each can be studied across both regions.  For instance, while studying the American Civil Rights Movement, it might be in your best interest to analyze racial or religious tensions in determining how the conflict arose.  In the political atmosphere between Palestine and Israel these same two potential reasons may be good to analyze as well even though the focus of the movement is with land, power and government as opposed to basic human rights.      
3. Although the successes of this event are controversial, the Arab Spring proved to be a very important social movement in the Islamist world.  Social Movement Theory can definitely be of use in understanding this movement better in terms of its origins and what it accomplished.  This movement was an attempt to gain more freedoms and democracy for the Islamic people.  

Fedasiuk SMT Responses 1.25

What is the point of Social Movement Theory (SMT)? 

Social Movement Theory (SMT) seeks to both describe and explain when, how, and why people act collectively to achieve goals. By employing SMT, we can understand why groups act the way they do, and make predictions about their actions in the future. Social Movement Theory also analyzes the degree of success groups achieve based on their strategy. 

Is there any reason we couldn't use the same analytical frameworks to study, say the American Civil Rights Movement and movements for political change in the MENA region? 

The primary advocacy of Dr. King in the American Civil Rights Movement was to establish a collective and nonviolent stance against segregation. While opposed by more violent groups like the Black Panthers and the SNCC later on, nonviolence preached by Dr. King was a very effective tactic, as explained in A Force More Powerful. SMT can be used to describe why and how the ACRM was successful because the movement in the United States had clearly distinguished leadership, adequate resources, and (for the most part) defined and universally accepted end goals. In contrast, my understanding of many social movements in MENA is that some movements lack universally accepted end goals, and leadership in organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood is fractured, which manifests in infighting and diminishing political capital. Joel Beinin and Frederic Vairel explain in their article Social Movements, Mobilization, and Contestation in the Middle East that the lack of unifying leadership and dilution of resources plagues many social movements across MENA, making them more difficult to analyze or even to isolate. The "Arab Spring," for example, is a term which homogenizes many unique social movements. On the whole, though, the most salient reason why SMT may be difficult to apply to MENA compared to the United States is because of Orientalism and preconceived notions about the differences in the ways humans operate in "that" region of the world--stereotypes that are frequently perpetuated by Western media outlets. 

What use can SMT be in understanding the success of Islamist movements? 

Social Movement Theory can be used in the analysis of Islamist movements on the condition that individual movements are isolated and studied individually. For example, Eric Trager, a researcher at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, gave a talk at American University last semester detailing "Two Islamisms" and the difference between the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamic State. The success of each of these actors is largely independent of the other, and the means by which they intend to achieve the same end (politicization of Islam) are also very different. Because both ISIL and the MB have a clear hierarchy of leadership, explicit goals and tactics, and a reasonable stream of resources, I am confident that they can be studied using Social Movement Theory.

SMT responses

What is the point of Social Movement Theory (SMT)?

The main purpose of the Social Movement Theory is the show and explain why, how, and when individuals work collectively and meet their successes. SMT provides us with a better understand of past social movements and helps individuals to make future predictions. 

Is there any reason we couldn’t use the same analytical frameworks to study, say, the American Civil Rights movement and movements for political change in the MENA region?

I believe the Social Movement Theory can be applied to The American Civil Rights Movement and the urge for political change in the MENA region, in more ways than one. The same analytical framework (political opportunities/constraints, resource mobilization, and discursive opportunities/constraints) applies to both scenarios. As viewed through the documnetary, the main objective of the American Civil Rights Movement was to bring change through nonviolent protests to eliminate segregation between races. SMT can be utilized here to better understand how, when and why this change was brought about and the effects the rest of the country had on this movement. While I believe this could work, the movements were extremely different and the backgrounds of each movement differ so it maybe not be effective. 

What use can SMT be in understanding the success of Islamist movements?

Social Movement Theory is crutial in better understanding the successes of Islamist movements. SMT allows individuals to inspect the political constraints and opportunities of each movement in a unique matter based upon what is occurring in a specific country. The theory also is used to understand and observe the social hierarchy of a specific state and how interest groups can bring success to a social movement. In addiction, individuals are able to look at what actors took responsibility for what during an Islamist Movement. 

Social Movement Theory

1.  The point of the Social Movement Theory is to explain the actions of people and their success. The SMT analyzes political opportunities, the management of resources, and discursive opportunities.  The SMT essentially analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of a country.

2. I think that the SMT can be applied to anything-including the America Civil Rights movement. The SMT is broad enough to be applicable to any country and situation. The SMT can be seen as an analytical framework, so it simply analyzes the situation and attempts to explain it.

3. The SMT can explain the Islamist movements, and their success, happening in MENA in all aspects. ISIS is a radical Islamist movement currently happening in the MENA area. The goal of ISIS is to have a homeland. With the SMT in place, it is easy to describe the movement. Analyzing ISIS through the SMT, you can (attempt) to delve into the minds of ISIS. You can look at their strength and the use of the resources they have. It is also easy to look at the actors to help explain the actions of ISIS.

SMT Responses (1/25/16)

What is the point of Social Movement Theory (SMT)?

As a subfield of social science, the point of Social Movement Theory is to provide a framework in which we can attempt to analyze the effectiveness of social movements. SMT provides us with the tools needed to understand how social movements come about and why they take the forms that they eventually do. Through SMT, we can better understand social movements, and we can make predictions about the future as well.

Is there any reason we couldn't use the same analytical frameworks to study, say the American Civil Rights Movement and movements for political change in the MENA region?

First, looking at the American Civil Rights Movement, I believe that SMT can easily be applied in this case. As we saw in the documentary A Force More Powerful, the main objective of the American Civil Rights Movement was to eliminate segregation through a collective nonviolent movement. We can use SMT to explain when, how, and why this movement occurred and also to understand the effect that it had on the rest of the country. Because the American Civil Rights Movement had a clear objective, distinguished leaders, and the resources needed to carry out the nonviolent movement, it is possible to analyze its success through SMT.

As for the MENA region, I think that using the same analytical frameworks used to analyze the American Civil Rights Movement (ACRM) becomes a bit tricky. While with the ACRM, there was one clear objective, the political and social conflicts in the MENA region today cannot as easily be simplified enough to produce one clear objective, because there are many different actors in the region with different objectives, so the ideas of how to deal with the movements in the MENA regions may differ depending the actor you talk to and his/her groups' objective. In Social Movements, Mobilization, and Contestation in the Middle East, authors Joel Beinin and Frederic Vairel point out that it is much more difficult to analyze movements in the MENA region because they do not resemble the more paradigmatic movements like the American Civil Rights Movement.  Taking that into account, I think that the same analytical frameworks used to analyze the ACRM can only be applied to the MENA region if there is a way to isolate and identify a group with stable leaders and a concrete agenda. In A Force More Powerful, activist James Lawson states that nonviolent movements are not spontaneous, but they require discipline, strategy, planning, organizing, and recruiting, so using theories like the SMT to analyze the MENA region can only be done once a clear movement is identified.

What use can SMT be in understanding the success of Islamist movements?

The success of the Islamist movement, while unlike most other large social movements, can be analyzed using Social Movement Theory (SMT). When we view those involved in the Islamist movement as rational actors and we take into account the organization and resources behind the movement, we can use SMT to understand and analyze the effectiveness of the Islamist movement.

SMT Responses

1. The point of Social Movement Theory (SMT) is to explain when, how, and why people act collectively and succeed in achieving their shared goals.

2. I think that that the same analytical frameworks - political opportunities/constraints, resource mobilization, and discursive opportunities/constraints can be used to study both the American Civil Rights Movement and political change in the MENA region. However, although I believe that in theory this analysis would work, the contexts - historical, social, and political of both scenarios would have to be taken into account of any analysis. In other words, we could use the same frameworks to analyze these two phenomena but in no way could we expect to see identical origins or results - directly as a result of the two different contexts in which each respective movement occurred.

3. Social Movement Theory is extremely helpful in understanding the success of Islamist movements for it allows us to examine the political constrains and opportunities of each movement on a case by case basis - in context of what is happening in a particular country. This allows us to hypothesize the notion that the reason one movement was successful in one country could be entirely different from the reason for success in another. We are then able to study the conditions prevalent in a certain society and analyze as to why these conditions have occurred and how they have either aided or hindered the rise of Islamist movements. In conjunction with this, the theory allows us to examine the social hierarchy of the country and movement and see how unity or disunity among certain groups can garner success to an Islamist movement.

SMT Responses

1.     The objective of the Social Movement Theory is to explain when, how, and why people act collectively and succeed in achieving their goals.

2.     No, I don’t think there is any reason as to why we couldn’t use the same analytical framework to study the Civil Rights Movement. Political constraints, resource mobilization, and the countering of the hegemonic discourse were all present during the Civil Rights Movement. Which means, we can apply those ideas to analyzing American social movements effectively.

3.     The Social Movement Theory can help us understand the success of the Islamist movements by analyzing their resource mobilization. How effect was the movement at acquiring funding and creating strategies? Additionally, how did the movement handle discursive opportunities. We also can look at the actors involved in the movement in order to see how wide and effective the movement became. Did big actors like the UN get involved or was it mainly civil society actors in MENA who were involved? Based on these characteristics of the SMT can see how successful the Islamist movements were in MENA.