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.
No comments:
Post a Comment