Glimpses of the Anti-Sweatshop Movement

Political Process Cheap

Political process theory is the easier of the two schools io provide a clear overview of because the scholars belonging to this camp have produced at least two major volumes that clearly define the central concepts of the theory, synthesizing the work of a large number of scholars-Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements, edited by Doug McAdam, John McCarthy, and Meyer Zald (1996b) and Power in Movement by Sidney Tarrow (1998). In their introduction to Comparative Perspectives on Social movements, McAdam, McCarthy, and Zald (1996a) lay out the concepts of political opportunity structure, mobilizing structures, and framing as they key concepts in political process theory; in Power in Movement, Tarrow adds a fourth key concept, tactical repertoires. I will explain these concepts briefly here, then explore them in more depth as appropriate later in this chapter and throughout the dissertation.

The concept of political opportunity structure can be broadly understood as the idea that larger social conditions, many of which movements have little or no control over, help shape the chances for success or failure of a movement. More specifically, political process theorists have tended to focus on the structure of the state and in what instances that structure creates openings for social movements. These can include factors like how open a stare is to dissent--something usually connected with the degree of democracy—and the existence of factions among the elite who might be potential allies
for movements. Despite this emphasis on wider structures, political process theory is not guilty of structural determinism. The actions of movements as they interact with these strictures matter. If they wish to accomplish anything at all, movements must have mobilizing structures--that is, they must be organized in such a way as to able to recruit people and then motivate them to take action, action that may put them directly at odds with authorities. Most movements’ mobilizing structures involve networks that join together a broad array of groups, which may be organized in a variety of ways (McAdam et al. 1996b; Tarrow 1998). The anti-sweatshop movement, for instance, includes mainstream labor unions, with their highly hierarchical structure, and United Students Against Sweatshops, which is much more decentralized and makes decisions by consensus, as well as a number of non-profits and churches. Despite these differences and occasional tensions, they work closely together, sharing ideas, planning strategy together, and mobilizing their membership to support each others’ campaigns.
Political process theorists analyze what movements do when they take action through two main concepts--tactical repertoires and framing. A movement’s tactical repertoire ^{includes that range of actions with which activists within the movement are} familiar with and will use (McAdam et al. 1996b; Tarrow 1998; Tilly 1978). The anti- sweatshop movement, for instance, has done everything from gathered signatures on petitions to doing sit-ins. Despite their willingness to take such highly confrontational, disruptive actions as sit-ins though, they do not do things such as burning effigies or suicide bombing--these actions are outside their tactical repertoire. Framing refers to the cultural work a movement does, in trying to promote their message in wider social
forums, particularly the mass media. Movements use frames to interpret events in the world around them, highlighting issues they see as unjust, identifying social actors who are responsible for this injustice (usually some group in power), and articulating a way that people can collectively work io right this injustice. If frames do not do these things, it is unlikely they will mobilize people--if there is no obvious target for activism, no one to blame, or if there is to clear way to pressure that target, people have little incentive to take action (Gamson 1992; McAdam et al. 1996b; Ryan 1991; Tarrow 1998).