The KMP (peasant movement of the philippines) movement generation, activity, and continuity in philippine society 1

The breakdown perspective or the collective behavior theory, resource mobilization theory, political process model, and new social movement approach, nonetheless, offer useful guiding co

INTRODUCTION

Social movements are complex enduring collectivities that involve varying of degrees collective action and mobilization, organization, and continuity, and a world outlook that defines the range of their goals Movements operate in different environments They are continually influenced by social events and processes external to them Movements, in turn, work to influence the same events and processes relevant to their existence and operations In essence, the emergence or generation, activity, and continuity of enduring social collectivities constitute movement dynamics I derive this perspective from three theorists and authors whose general and specific definitions of social movements are pertinent to my study

McAdam (1997: xviii) defines a social movement as “a collectivity acting with some degree of organization and continuity outside of institutional channels for the purpose of promoting or resisting change in the group, society, or world order of which it is a part” More specifically, Tarrow (1998: 4) refer to social movements as

“those sequences of contentious politics that are based on underlying social networks and resonant collective action frames, and which develop the capacity to maintain sustained challenges against powerful opponents” And in contrasting social movements with other social actors, Scott (1990: 6) states that “they are distinguished from other collective actors, such as political parties and pressure groups, in that they have mass mobilization, or the threat of mobilization, as their prime source of social sanction, and hence of power They are further distinguished from other collectivities, such as voluntary associations or clubs, in being chiefly concerned to defend or change society”

The persistence of social movements in the 21st century is instructive in that they continue to play a significant role in society, specifically as oppositional forces

Most social movement theories and approaches, however, have “analyzed social movement organizations from a reform perspective, emphasizing movement participants' demands to be recognized by, and incorporated into, the dominant culture” (Fitzgerald and Rodgers, 2000: 573-574) This tendency or practice creates a gap in comprehending the totality of social movements because radical organizations are evaluated or studied primarily in terms of their impact to other moderate or conservative organizations and their impact on public policy (ibid.) But radical organizations, like the KMP, do not primarily aim to influence public policy or other organizations The breakdown perspective or the collective behavior theory, resource mobilization theory, political process model, and new social movement approach, nonetheless, offer useful guiding concepts to the study of social movements Their application, however, should not be mechanical to put into effect a contextualized examination of radical social movements especially those in the Third World.1

From another related angle, it is very tempting to dismiss the role of ideology

in analyzing present day movements “Ideology”, as Buechler (2000: 200) puts it,

“has become an orphan in social movement theory” Yet some of the most active movements in the Third World today are intensely ideological (Jimenez, 2002: 56), even in advanced capitalist countries Moreover, “the social movement theory of the

‘end of ideology’ is premature, and it limits our ability to conceptualize the larger role of ideas in activism” (op cit.) Ideology likewise defines the orientations of social movement organizations, which in turn explain to a significant degree the nature and extent of their engagements with the state and other social forces

In social movement studies, peasant movements and politics have received wide attention while “literature on peasant politics is dominated by a rich and

1

See Chapter I, A (1-4) for an elaborate discussion of social movement theories and Chapter I, A (5) and B for their applicability in the study of KMP

eloquent discussion of violent peasant rebellion and revolution” (Fox, 1990) However, after the proliferation of classic peasant revolt literature in the late 1960s

and the 1970s, organized rural struggles again threate n to become hidden histories

in the 1990s (Starn, 1992: 91-92) The situation could be attributed to at least two

reasons First, scholars have turned their attention towards the everyday forms of peasant resistance (Fox, 1990: 3).2 Second, more scholars have also shifted their focus on ‘new social movements’ emphasizing urban politics and investigating organizations such as human rights, environmental, gender, and ethnic/racial

movements (see also Edelman, 1999: 17)

Moreover, Starn (1992: 91) critically claimed that “peasant mobilization has received little attention in the literature on new social movements due to the greater visibility of urban politics ” (citing the studies of Touraine 1981, 1988a; Laclau and Mouffe 1985; Gilroy 1987).3 More deeply, “it is easy” according to him “to ignore or dismiss peasant organizing as outdated class politics” And as the “everyday forms of resistance” (Scott, 1985) paradigm dominates the field of peasant or rural studies (Fletcher, 2001), the tendency to loose sight of the frequency and force of open peasant movements or collective radical action (Starn, 1992: 92) exists.4

A Background of the Study

2 Among others, I note two exceptions to this assumption First, Lichbach (1994: 383-418) examined three different forms of peasant struggles – everyday forms of peasant resistance, unorganized rural movements, and organized peasant rebellions using the concept of “selective incentives” to demonstrate how peasants solve Olson’s paradox of collective action Second and a very recent one, Korovkin (2000: 1-19) examined the relationship between hidden resistance and the rise of political organization in the analysis of land struggles in the Ecuadorean Andes The article emphasized on the structural context and cultural underpinning of both covert and overt peasant actions

The Philippines offers an interesting landscape for the study of social movements, specifically those with more radical orie ntations A brief look at the country’s characteristics and historical conditions pertinent to the thriving of social movements describes the milieu of the whole study

First, foreign powers (Spain, U.S., Japan, and U.S again) took turns in colonizing and controlling the country Centuries of colonization and decades of neo-colonization left an indelible mark in the country’s social, political, economic, cultural, and military system An equally interesting part in this peculiar political history, however , lies in the process how Filipinos responded to these aggressions In all historical accounts, various movements emerged and launched numerous armed and unarmed oppositions in which peasants and other rural sectors played a major role This second condition points to the long and militant Filipino tradition of peasant and nationalist uprisings and revolution against foreign and domestic powers

Another condition conducive to protest and agrarian “unrest” is embedded in the country’s agrarian landscape Land ownership and control in the Philippines is concentrated in the hands of a few and agrarian reform laws and policies have been

inefficient and ineffective in addressing rural inequalities and violence (see also Fox,

1990: 6) Peasant politics in the Philippines thrives and revolves around the issue of effecting a thorough agrarian reform and rural development program

Fourth, Philippine society has undergone significant political changes in the last four decades It has “experienced a pattern of populist and clientelist party competition, dictatorship, and return to civilian rule” (Fox, 1990: 6) This was followed by a regime that aimed to project a “strong state” image and perceived to have enhanced the country’s “competitiveness” while still being captured by the oligarchy (Rivera, 1996) and the ephemeral reign of another ‘populist’ president

State changes point to another condition in Philippine society that structure the opportunities open to social movements in advancing their interests and goals Peasant movements in particular have responded variably to state changes and agrarian policies of different governments

Fifth, organized protest has been an outstanding feature of Philippine politics for the past several decades and social movements have figured prominently in protest activities Specifically, two political revolutions backed up by large-scale street demonstrations and organized protests ousted the Marcos dictatorship in February 1986 and the Estrada regime in January 2001 Boudreau (2001: 19-20) captures the complex configuration of protest organizations in Philippine society

“The most obvious distinction between movement (organizations and)

networks are ideological shadings from left to right, but the history of

Philippine protest has largely been a history of Marxist, social democratic,

socialist, communist, or liberal organizations”…

Philippine protest organizations are confoundingly involuted Most groups contain (1) one or more leading political organizations, representing

one vision of different shades of the same idea; (2) NGOs, unions,

education centers, research groups, and other institutions staffed by

movement organizers or analysts; (3) sectoral mass organizations; and,

often, (4) underground or armed components…”

The convergence of the aforesaid historical conditions significantly influenced the orientation and political practices of Philippine social movements in the last four decades Today, critical segments of the Philippine leftist movement still embark on nationalist and anti-colonial programmes and ideologies Compared to other Southeast Asian countries (e.g., Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand) and many parts of the world, the leftist movements in this country have not been (completely) vanquished by the state and forces that are reactionary to leftist ideals Organized protests and struggles predominantly emanate from these organizations In social movement nomenclature, this ensemble of movement organizations could clinically

be referred to as a “social movement industry” (see also Boudreau, 2001: 19)

B Problematique and Objectives of the Study

This study is about KMP (Peasant Movement of the Philippines), a radical peasant movement The study revolves basically around two arguments Very similar with the claim of Fitzgerald and Rodgers (2001), I argue that KMP, as radical social movement, should be primarily studied or investigated based on processes and structures internal to itself – ideology and consciousness building, organization, mobilization, and assessment of outc omes By focusing on these aspects, radical organizations could be understood in their own terms and best differentiated with other movement organizations.5

Second, social movements are a structural, historical and dialectical phenomenon and process Movements are structural in the sense that they are not separate from and are continually influenced by their environment They are likewise historical on two counts First, movements do not “suddenly” appear As Isaacman (1993: 254) puts it, “(rural) social movements are not just momentary aberrations, but are often part of a long oppositional history which over time took many shapes and forms, part of a larger engagement in the political world” Another dimension that explains the historical nature of protest is that it is not “radically discontinuous from other aspects or periods in participants’ lives” (Boudreau, 2001: 165) And they are dialectical because they exist and interact with other forces in society and in the process of engagement they transform or reproduce society and vice versa

In this respect, I employ a contextualized approach to the study of KMP and take into account the movement’s politics at the different levels level of engagement, the broader social processes and conditions, and the processes and structures internal

5

Fitzgerald and Rodgers (2001: 573) proposes an alternative approach by utilizing what they call as

“ideal type characteristics for the internal structure, ideology, tactics, methods of communication, and measures of success that differentiate radical organizations from their moderate, reformist counterparts.”

to the movement The examination of these three aspects bridges the twin argument

of a grounded and qualified study of a radical social movement organization This approach, nonetheless, embarks on the basic concepts offered by social movement theories like the resource mobilization theory, the political process model, the breakdown theory, and the new social movement approach, e.g., organization, resources, political opportunity structure, ideology, identity, mobilization space and structures, and assessment of movement outcomes and consequences

If organized protest has been a defining character of Philippine politics, how

do peasant social movements advance their agenda of social reform and transformation in Philippine society? At what levels and with what means do they carry out opposition? How do broader social conditions and processes affect movement orientation, options, and tactics? How do internal processes and structures shape the character and dynamics of movements themselves?

Anchored on the aforesaid problematique, the study aims to conceptualize

movement dynamics by examining the interplay of social processes and conditions (external factors) and movement processes and structures (internal factors) at the different le vels of engagement The central objective has three corollaries First, I

investigate the conditions of movement emergence and development in Philippine rural society to explain the structural causes of agrarian protest Second, I analyze specific processe s and structures internal (but not exclusive) to radical movements to underscore how organizations operate in their environments Third, I probe on the different levels where KMP launches its oppositional politics to demonstrate the scope and range of protest that movements carry out in Philippine society

Embedded in the problematique and objectives of the study are empirical research questions that need to be addressed They are as follows:

1 What critical social conditions and how have their convergence facilitated the emergence and development of peasant organizations and movements in Philippine society? What are the basic concerns of peasant organizations and movements and to what social forces, structures, or processes do they address their demands?

2 How have past and present organizations interacted or dealt with the state and dominant social forces in Philippine society? How does the changing and unchanging character of Philippine state and agrarian society influence the range of militancy of activities and political options open to peasant organizations?

3 What specific and general conditions contributed to the establishment

of the KMP? What are the political, organizational, and ideological characteristics of the movement? Given its national democratic orientation, how does the movement measure the appropriateness or even the validity of this standpoint vis-à-vis the present state of Philippine society?

4 At what levels does KMP challenge the state and other dominant forces in Philippine society? How and why does the movement elevate local peasant struggles to the national level and the national struggles

to the international level?

5 In what arenas of struggle does the movement advance the interests of its constituent peasant organizations? As a radical peasant movement,

to what extent does it adhere to extra-parliamentary politics? How does the movement measure the correctness of this particular political standpoint and strategy vis -à-vis the advancement of peasant interests?

6 With what specific movement means or processes does KMP initiate and sustain its oppositional activities? How do organizational, advocacy and educational, and mobilization work interact? In what terms does the movement assess its achievements in these lines of work?

7 In mobilizing its member organizations and other sections of society,

to what processes and structure does the movement rely upon? How

do political opportunities affect the mobilization of resources, the building and utilization of networks, consciousness-building activities, and the organization of collective action?

8 To what external and internal factors can the movement’s continuity

be attributed and how can they be correlated? Can a hierarchy between the two factors be established in its fifteen years of existence?

9 In a span of fifteen years, how have the tactics or actions of the movement changed or varied? What are the changes and innovations

in the KMP’s repertoire of protest actions? To what factors or

conditions can the se be attributed? Are they relative to space, issue,

opportunity, or organizational readiness or capacity?

10 Given its emphasis on long-term societal goals and secondarily on

short-term objectives, how does KMP gauge the achievement of

movement goals and aims? Specifically, what indicators are used to

assess movement successes/gains and failures?

11 How can the correlation between movement processes and structures

be explained at the different levels of political engagement? To what extent are these processes and structures dependent on the levels of

engagement?

C Significance and Contribution of the Study

The perceived contributions of the research to the existing body of knowledge can be categorized under the following topics – social movements, peasant politics, and Philippine political dynamics By pr oblematizing a radical peasant movement, this research dovetails several important works, concepts, and theories in social movement studies First, the twin argument of calling for a grounded and qualified approach to the study of KMP is basically an extension of Buechler’s (2000: xiii) structurational approach to collective action and Fitzgerald and Rodgers’ (2000: 573-574) “theoretical model of radical social movement organizations”.6

Second, the consideration of broader social processes and structures are indicative of the recognition of the role that political opportunities play in movement dynamics An investigation, however, of the dynamics of oppositional movements in

the Philippines would reveal that these movements thrive in mixed opportunities

Third, the focus on ideology and consciousness-building acknowledges the important role of “insurgent consciousness” (Smith, 1991) or “cognitive liberation” (McAdam, 1982) in movement activity as emphasized by the political process model The study asserts that it is not the end of ideology after all Fourth, the analysis on organization derives from the major concerns of both the resource mobilization

6

See Chapter I, A for an elaborate discussion of these approaches

theory and the political process model An added dimension to this, however, is the blending of the political and cultural aspects in the explaining investigating organization as a movement process (Buechler, 2000: 204) Fifth, the considerable emphasis on mobilization is inspired by the resource mobilization theory and the creation of “mobilization space” by Apter and Saich (1994)

Sixth, the importance given to assessment of outcomes as a critical movement process contributes to the argument that determining the success of radical organizations is not the same with organizations of different orientation Both internal and external factors should be considered (Fitgerald and Rodgers, 2000: 586-588) Lastly, the emphasis on the class and anti-colonial character of the KMP is informed by the argument that many contemporary social movements in the Third World are actually “people’s movements” and their struggles are a manifestation of the “democratic assertion of people’s rights”; and this is instructive in that “the pursuit of freedom is not over” (Mohanty, Mukherji, and Tornquist, 1998: 9-10)

From the aforesaid theoretical extensions and applications emerge the two

empirical contributions of my study The first relates to political scaling It critically

considers the process of linking local, national, and international issues and struggles

to one another, the impact of which impinges not only on movement processes (ideology, organization, mobilization, and assessment of outcomes) but on how movements take advantage of “open” opportunities and how they innovate on situations of “closed” opportunities

The second contribution relates to the structure of political opportunities It could be seen that in the political history of oppositional movements in the Philippines, movement generation, activity, and continuity are directly dependent on the openness of the structure Movements could very well become active in a

“closed” structure (Kurzman, 19996) More so, the Philippine political structure could be perceived to have been predominantly both an “open” and “closed” system

In this respect, movements thrive in mixe d opportunities

On the other hand, this study clearly calls for a renewed attention on peasant politics – an effort among many to “elevate the peasantry from the footnote to the page” (Shanin, 1971: 261) The Elsonian argument of the “disappearing peasantry” (Elson, 1997) does not in many significant ways mean the end of peasant politics Rural or peasant movements, for instance, could emerge “involving people who may derive a majority of their income from the urban economy, but who want to protect the rur al base which still serves as their social security and cultural anchor” (Baker, 2001: 26) More specifically, it is a renewed effort of studying rural political mobilization and organized peasant struggles at the dawn of the 21st century

Finally, in Philippine literature on social movements and peasant politics, no one has concentrated on the KMP as a case of academic study Hence, this proves to

be the maiden effort to academically problematize one of the largest and organized peasant movements in the Philippines and Southeast Asia Moreover, the problematization of Philippine peasant politics in the 21st century contributes to a better understanding of the country’s political dynamics where rural forces or peasant-based organizations continue to constitute a major component of Philippine protest

well-D Structure of the Study

Chapter I discusses the theoretical foundations It begins with an analysis of social movement theories – the breakdown perspective or the collective behavior theory, resource mobilization theory, political process model, and the new social movement approach – and underpins the terms of their application in the study of

KMP’s politics From such analysis follows the presentation of the theoretical framework where I discuss the three components of a contextualized approach to the study of social movements In section three, I explain the methodological implications of the framework while the last section deals with the limitations of the study, its scope, and the problems encountered in research

Chapter II presents a situationer for the Philippine agrarian landscape and considers the character of the Philippine state The first section basically highlights the facilitating context and conditions of rural protest , e.g., landlessness, other exploitative and oppressive agrarian relations, the current trend of land use conversion, and the nature of Philippine agrarian laws and policies The second section presents a theory of the Filipino state and discusses prominent scholarly works The cha pter concludes by emphasizing the structural basis of Philippine protest

Chapter III provides a history of Philippine peasant movements It begins with a theoretical consideration of peasant politics and movements to provide a perspective in understanding the historical emergence and development of peasant movements It discusses in detail the long and militant tradition of peasant struggles throughout Philippine history I also emphasize the patterns and changes in actions, orientations, organization, mobilization, and other movement processes to demonstrate their development through time

Chapter IV introduces the main subject of the study I discuss the emergence and development of KMP and its facilitating context This is followed by an examination of the movement’s political standpoint, organizational structure and dynamics, agenda, and strategies and programme of action to illustrate its radical and peculiar character as a social movement

Chapters V, VI, and VII deal with the empirical chapters and illustrate movement dynamics at the different levels of engagement Chapter V considers the local dimension of KMP’s politics It begins with a brief history of peasant struggles and movements in the Southern Tagalog region and the province of Batangas and discusses the struggle of a hacienda -wide organization to demonstrate local movement dynamics Chapter VI accounts for the engagement of KMP at the national level and focuses on the activities of the national office

In Chapter VII, I take into account the two remaining aspects of KMP’s oppositional peasant politics The first section discusses the extension of the domestic (local and national) opposition of the movement It demonstrates how the movement launches opposition at the international level The second section delves into the intricacies that go with KMP’s oppositional politics It essentially elaborates on the practical and theoretical issues oppositional about oppositional movements

Chapter VIII concludes the study by reviewing the basic arguments of the study It underscores the major findings by answering the analytical problems posed

It then conceptualizes movement dynamics at the different levels of engagement and reality The chapter ends by discussing the implications of the study to future research

CHAPTER I Theoretical Foundations

In the last five decades, the emergence and persistence of social movements have been subject to many interpretations and theorizing Their existence relates to society and state in general and to specific movement structures and processes in particular Theorists evolved various explanations and interpretations of social movements through time dealing with their emergence, activity, success and failure, and life course, nonetheless characterized by agreements and disagreements in their methods and focus Among these, the study is particularly interested in the four major theories and approaches to the study of social movements – the breakdown or collective behavior theory, resource mobilization, political process model, and the new social movement approach

The emergence and persistence of social movements are diverse social phenomena that necessitate a composite approach for comprehension and theorizing What makes social movements more interesting even is that their actions or political practices cannot be sufficiently explained through one approach or theory alone Instead, “what is needed are several theories specifically tailored to particular categories of action” (Gamson, 1982: 24) To this end, I present in the first section an examination of various social movement theories and concepts and underpin their universality and specificity, relative to the investigation of the political practices of KMP Section B explains the analytical construct used in the study and elaborates on its four critical components, namely, levels of engagement, social political processes and conditions, movement processes and structures, and arenas of engagement Section C clarifies the methodological implications of this analytical construct while Section D deals with limitations of the study

A Social Movement Theories

1 “Breakdown” or “Collective Behavior” Theory

The classical explanation as to why collective action occurs, hence, movement emergence, lies in the argument that society has undergone some structural or system dysfunction This ‘negative’ social process refers to both specific and general breakdowns in society’s normal functions triggering conflict and people

to mobilize, e.g., deprivation of liberty, goods and services, heterosexual

relationships, autonomy, and security (Useem, 1985 cf Sykes 1958), crime waves (ibid, cf Gurr, 1976), profound dislocations (ibid cf Piven and Cloward, 1977),

disintegration of structures of solidarity (Useem, 1985), demographic changes (Goldstone, 1991), competition (Bélanger and Pinard, 1991), social disorientedness

(Tarrow, 1998 cf Kornhauser, 1959) or deep and widespread discontent Social

movements are hence a function of society’s undoings Otherwise known as the

“breakdown” theory or “collective behavior theory”, this perspective dominated social movement studies from the 1950s through the 1960s until the early 1970s

(Tarrow, 1998; Cohen and Arato, 1992; Useem, 1985 cf Kornhauser, 1959, Smelser,

1962 and Davies, 1962)

Useem (1985) pointed two complementary facets of the breakdown model that emphasize different sets of controlling structures that keep people from mobilizing for conflict First, a breakdown causes disorganization that ruptures inherent social regulatory mechanisms Urbanization and migration, for instance, dislocate segments of population creating a mass of isolated, anomic individuals

readily “available” for mobilization (cf Kornhauser, 1959 and Smelser, 1962)

Moreover, disorganization increases “discontent” within a population – individuals develop irrational beliefs about how they can satisfy the resulting unfulfillable desires

and resort to collective action (cf Smelser, 1962 and Davies, 1962, 1969) Second, the

“more economically-oriented facet of breakdown emphasizes society’s ability in normal times to meet people’s needs” Due to society’s dysfunction, e.g., recession, economic stability of the individual is threatened and without employment,

“discontent results, followed by protest” (cf Piven and Cloward, 1977)

Jenkins and Perrow (1977), moreover, summarize the classical model as follows: (1) Discontent, traced to structural dislocations, accounts for collective attempts to bring about change (2) The resources required to mount collective action and carry it through are broadly distributed – shared by all sizeable social groupings

(3) The political system is a permeable structure (cf Gamson, 1968b) and that it can

respond to all organized groups with grievances (4) If insurgents succeed, it is due to efforts on the part of the social base and if they do not, presumably they lacked competent leaders, were unwilling to compromise, or behaved irrationally, e.g., using violence or breaking laws

In a more detailed manner, Cohen and Arato (1992: 495) itemized the shared assumptions of collective behavior theorists – Kornhauser (1959) for mass-society theory and Smelser (1962) for the structural-functionalist model First, there are two distinct kinds of action: institutional-conventional and noninstitutional-collective Second, noninstitutional-collective action is action that is not guided by existing social norms but is formed to meet undefined or unstructured situations Third, these situations are understood in terms of a breakdown, due to structural changes, either in the organs of social control or in the adequacy of normative integration Fourth, the resulting strains, discontent, frustration, and aggression lead individuals to participate

in collective behavior Fifth, noninstitutional-collective behavior follows a “life cycle,“ open to causal analysis, that moves from spontaneous crowd action to the

formation of publics and social movements Sixth, the emergence and growth of movements within this cycle occur through crude processes of communication: contagion, rumor, circular reaction, diffusion, and etcetera

On the one hand, it is very true that much empirical evidence points to the fact that collectivities or movements have hitherto acted on grievances caused by some social strains Grievance is always an important component of protest and collective action On the other hand, social maladies or society’s malfunctions are not the only factors that can trigger protest and collective action As it is said, a breakdown or grievance resulting from such is a necessary component of movement emergence and activity but it is not a sufficient explanation as to why and how groups organize and mobilize For instance, grievances can always be present but do not necessarily generate social movements unless they are located in a larger dynamic of ideological contestation (Buechler, 2002: 203) Breakdown-deprivation theories, nonetheless, rightly identify changes in consciousness such as rising discontent and grievances as key factors in social movement emergence (Smith, 1991)

Another basic underpinning of directly correlating protest to social dysfunction is to treat the former as a similar social or human aberration Society with all its divisions does not act in consensus always Defiance, protest, or mobilizations cannot be crudely interpreted as a social deviance (Boudreau, 2001) or pathological, irrational, and anomic Interestingly, dominant social forces to discredit movements challenging their authorities and status have time and again used this line

of reasoning

2 Resource Mobilization Theory

After dominating the field of social movement studies, the breakdown theory was challenged by a new strand of theorizing in the West in the late 1960s and early

1970s In the U.S., social scientists focused on the process of organizing collective action rather than on movement emergence This theory put primacy on the resources available to movement organizations and the ability to mobilize them as the measure

of success or failure, hence, resource mobilization theory (RMT) Social movements are rational actors that calculate the cost and benefit of alternatives available and necessary for collective action (McCarthy and Zald, 1976) The emergence and proliferation of movements are basically attributed to an improvement in the status of organized groups thereby minimizing the cost or risk of mobilization, which in turn augments the probability of success (Jenkins, 1983)

The primary task then of social movements is to access and utilize external resources (ibid.) By forging alliances and partnerships with government or its institutions or political parties, i.e liberal democratic elements, the movement is able

to access greater resources and protect itself from state repression The openness of the political space provides the movement resources for collective action (Goño, 1995) The strength or weakness and success, hence, of movements are heavily measured in terms of breaking through state institutions

In a quite utilitarian mode, the RMT clinically considers leaders as

“entrepreneurs”.7 They are like collective action sales agents who professionally take

advantage of every opportunity to access and utilize available resources and mobilize

people in the “social movement industry” (McCarthy and Zald, 1973) Resources that

perta in to people, money, and allies (Pasuk, 2002) include movement members upon whom leaders provide a range of incentives for action and unity, namely, material (e.g., money), solidary (e.g., identity, belongingness) and purposive (e.g.,

7

This perspective could be traced from establishing a parallelism between “social movements and social movement organizations on the one hand, and firms and industries on the other The analogy suggests special attention to issues of resource attainment, product diversification, and the like” (Marwell and Oliver, 1984: 2)

fulfillment) Organizations, old or new, are therefore crucial to generate and realize movement participation (McAdam, 1982)

In sum, Cohen and Arato (1992: 498) enumerates the common assumptions of the variants of the RMT – Olson for the strictly individualist, utilitarian logic of pure rational actor;8 McCarthy and Zald for the “organizational-entrepreneurial approach”; and Tilly, Oberchall, Gamson, Klandermans, and Tarrow for the “political process model” First, social movements must be understood in terms of a conflict theory of collective action Second, there is no fundamental difference between institutional and noninstitutional collective action Third, both entail conflicts of interest built into institutionalized power relations Fourth, collective action involves the rational pursuit of interests by groups Fifth, goals and grievances are permanent products of power relations and cannot account for the formation of movements Sixth, movements form because of changes in resources, organization, and opportunities for collective action Seventh, success involves the recognition of the group as a political actor or increased material benefits Eighth, mobilization involves large -scale, special purpose, bureaucratic, formal organizations

Interestingly, some of the “weaknesses” of the RMT could be discerned by looking at how proponents critique the breakdown model of collective action First, resource mobilization theorists assert that grievances are a constant and possess no

“predictive power” (Useem, 1985).9 It therefore provides scant attention to the importance of mobilizing beliefs, values, and other meanings (Noonan, 1995) Changed consciousness is largely ignored based on the claim that discontent is

8

Marwell and Oliver (1984: 3) claims that Mancur Olson’s work, The Logic of Collective Action

(1965) was the building block of the RMT Olson’s (1965: 2) argument that “rational, self-interested invididuals will not act to achieve their common or group interests” triggered the problematizat ion of mobilization

9

Useem refers to the likes of Jenkins and Perrow (1977), Oberschall (1978b: 298), McCarthy and Zald (1977: 1214-15), and Snyder and Tilly (1972)

ubiquitous, and therefore, unproblematic (Smith 1991) However, resource mobilization theorists or innovators have added new variables in their analysis that deal with the importance of social psychological factors to mobilization, e.g., frame alignment processes (Snow, et al 1986), master frames (Noonan, 1995), and the dialectic of discourse (Ellingson, 1995)

Second, Useem (1985) highlights their perception that overemphasizes the importance of organized groups as the medium for collective action and undermines the possibility of such action unfolding among less- or dis-organized groups “They emphasize protest by integrated, skilled, intelligent, organized sectors of a group, and

oppose the image of rebellion as the work of the canaille”

3 Political Process Model

Also in the U.S., another social movement model emerged and aimed to improve on the resource mobilization theory.10 With less emphasis on resources, this theory elaborated on the importance of opportunities available or the political process that is conducive or not conducive to movement organizations, hence, called the political process model or political opportunity theory.11

McAdam (1997: 34) states that Eisinger (1973: 11) used the term “structure

of political opportunities” three years after political scientist Michael Lipsky (1950: 14) wrote about the vulnerability or receptiveness of the broader political system to demands of particular groups A major finding of Eisinger in his study of riot behavior in 43 American cities points to the fact that “incidence of protest is

related to the nature of the city’s political opportunity structure” He defined

“political opportunity structure” as “the degree to which groups are likely to be able

to gain access to power and to manipulate the political system” (1973: 25)

A variant of the RMT, the political process model focuses on the structure of political opportunities, organizational strength, and insurgent consciousness to explain the emergence and life course of social movements Political opportunity or its relative availability refers to any event or broad social process that affects the political system and occasions a shift in political opportunities, e.g wars, industrialization, international political realignments, prolonged unemployment, and widespread demographic changes (Smith 1991)

Tarrow (1988) summarizes the main variables in models in political opportunity – 1) degree of openness in the polity, 2) stability or instability of political alignments, 3) presence or absence of allies and support groups, 4) divisions within the elite or its tolerance for protest, and 5) the policymaking capacity of the

government (see also Noonan, 1995) These factors reveal how and why “strategies,

structures, and outcomes of similar movements in different places” vary

Political opportunity is increased when there is general political instability, an enhanced political position, and when there is ideological openness The three forms

of increased political opportunity results into a relative increase in power which in turn increases the probability of insurgent actions in the form of social movements (McAdam, 1982: 41-43).12 This process, however, should not be perceived in a mechanical way so as to assume a direct causality Political opportunity or the political process, however, may not always be conducive in order to precipitate the emergence or success of a movement Opportunities have both “objective and

12

For a case in point as to how political process can affect the outcomes of two farm workers movement from 1946 to 1972 in California and Texas, see Jenkins and Perrow, 1977

subjective” definitions and a “closed” opportunity may hasten a revolution instead (see Kurzman, 1996)

Moreover, the utility of political opportunities is not uniform when we consider the particularities existing at different levels of social reality and engagement In Boudreau’s words, “political opportunities are relative and acquire meaning only in relation to a movement’s social base and collective strategy Conditions that encourage middle -class demonstrations in favor of electoral reforms, for instance, may not encourage farmers to occupy hacienda lands” (2001: 48) Nor

an assumed expanded political space may attract all existing radical peasant organizations to re-channel their actions to institutional and formal-legal channels

Organizational strength, the second component, considers five key resources that enable insurgent groups to exploit said opportunities First, strong integration and increasing solidarity rather than breakdown among individual and organization members are the facilitating forces for movement generation Second, there are trained leaders and existing organizations serve as their training ground Third, an efficient communication network enhances information dissemination and exchange Fourth, motivation based on solidary incentives is effective Fifth, “enterprise tools” are in the disposition of the organization for basic operations, e.g., meeting places, telephones, typewriters, computers, and other facilities (McAdam, 1982: 44-46) McAdam (1983) further stressed the importance the “level of indigenous organization within the aggrieved population” as one of the two structural factors in the emergence

of widespread insurgency; the other one refers to the “alignment of groups within the larger political environment”

On one hand, expanded political opportunity and organizational strength are necessary conditions for the generation of social movements They constitute a kind

of “structural conductivity” for social movement emergence On the other hand, they are insufficient to generate insurgent action To transform political opportunity and organizational strength into action necessitates a social-psychological factor, which is

“cognitive liberation” or “insurgent consciousness” It refers to a “collective state of understanding which recognizes that social change is both imperative and viable” (McAdam, 1982: 48-51) Smith (1991: 62) elaborated on the aspects of insurgent consciousness – 1) recognition that the felt grief is actually structurally or intentionally caused, 2) that the cause is identifiable, 3) that the grief is underserved and unjust, 4) that unless organized action is taken the grief will continue, and 5) that

if organized action is taken there is a reasonable change that the grief will end

In sum, the availability of encouraging political opportunities, organizational capacity, and an insurgent consciousness all contribute to movement emergence and activity Any of these factors alone does not constitute sufficiently the base to produce and sustain a social movement as “expanding political opportunities may go unexploited because of organizational weakness, while indigenous organizations may fail to capitalize on their strengths because of escapist or defeatist attitudes among members and activists with a passionate insurgent consciousness may be crushed by hostile political environments” (Smith, 1991: 64) But once insurgent consciousness

is born, it becomes an independent varia ble that affects organizational strength and can further open political opportunity (ibid 65)

From a vantage point, the political process model or the theory of political opportunity is a considerable improvement of the breakdown perspective and the resource mobilization theory on two critical grounds First, while it recognizes the critical role of deprivations and grievances in generating movements it does not perceive protest in terms of social deviance or that grievances automatically and

directly cause movements to develop Second, it deals with grievances rather than treat them as insignificant and considers the role of broader political processes and structures in the emergence and continuity of movements

Noonan (1995), however, raises the applicability issue of the political opportunity structure to Third World states that do not fit neatly into its existing frameworks She argues that political opportunity models do not explain why women are actively protesting at a time their male counterparts were silenced The models do not have a concept of cultural opportunity structure and are not culturally sensitive in understanding protest They tend to neglect cultural opportunities and are gender blind She then proposed a synthesis between “rational” and “psychological” models and uses “collective action frames” as the bridge

4 New Social Movement Approach

Also in the 1970s, another perspective evolved in Western Europe, a little later though than in the U.S (Pasuk 2002) This approach concerns the non-classness

or the newness of social movements that emerged in the 1960s – peace, environmental, gender, and human rights movements The study of these new social movements emphasizes “identity” politics (Cohen 1985), hence called the “new social movement approach” (NSM) or the “identity-centered” paradigm, and became

a vogue in the late 1980s and early 1990s.13

Not particularly interested on social strains, resources, strategy, organization, and opportunities, the NSM approach is basically concerned in the struggle over

meanings or the social construction of meanings (Buechler 2000: 204 cf Eyerman and

Jamison, 1991; Morris and Mueller, 1992; Larana et al., 1994; and Johnston and Klandermas, 1995), on cultural aspects rather than on political aspects, on micro-

13

For a brief account of the origins of NSMs, see the article of Buechler (1995) entitled “New Movement Theories”

Social-level or the every day life politics, on new processes or actors (Touraine, 2002: 94), specifically on the rank-and-file section of movements Buechler (2000) considers Castells, Touraine, Habermas, and Melucci as the four major theorists of this

paradigm (cf Buechler 1995: 441-464).14

A very important characteristic of the perspective under consideration is its principle of autonomy from the state Unlike the breakdown theory or the resource mobilization paradigm, it believes that political participation only marginalizes movements and undermine their historical (Touraine, 2002) and symbolic (Laclau and Mouffe, 1985) character and function On this note, Edelman (1999: 18) makes a correlation between the “NSMs’ identity politics and its post-modern scholarship with some of the more dehumanizing aspects of contemporary neoliberal economics”

on two grounds First, its politics and postmodern thinking “have helped reproduce

the fragmentation of the popular classes sought by the state and the market” (cf Vilas

1993: 42) Second, “the pursuit of identity politics as an end in itself may contribute not to the alliance-building that might temper the most oppressive aspects of the market (and ultimately weaken the identities themselves), but to perpetuating the

divisive processes that gave rise to those identities in the first place” (cf Harvey,

1993: 64 and Castells, 1997)

One needs, however, to grapple with the context from which it was formulated Written in the context of a post-industrial or information society, the struggle of and between social forces are no longer anchored on economic or political terms but rather on issues of social norms and identity where people or individuals are no longer workers but consumers who are manipulated by the technologies of media and markets As Habermas puts it, new contradictions in society do not

14

For a more succinct account and comparison on Touraine, Laclau and Mouffe, and Castells, see Escobar, 1992, pp 34-42

anymore emanate “in the areas of material reproduction; they are no longer channeled through parties and organizations” but they take place instead “in areas of cultural

reproduction, social integration and socialisation" (Edelman, 1999 cf Habermas 1981:

34)

Second, the NSM approach evolved as not only as a reaction to the breakdown perspective but more directly to Marxist theory of class analysis, hence, rejecting structural and economic determinism (Touraine, 2002: 89) Edelman (1999: 20), however, posits that the replacement of “class reductionism with class

rejectionism” (cf Vilas, 1993: 40) “often obscures more than it reveals and is part of a

more general inattention to political economy and the workings of the state that often

places social movements outside of history” (cf Adam, 1993: 317, Fox 1990: 2-3,

Harvey 1993: 54-55, and Williams, 1983: 172-73)

And how can we explain the condition wherein movement struggles occur

“precisely at the intersection between” class- and identity-based movements

(Edelman, 1999: 20 cf Hellman, 1995: 167)? For that matter, how can the NSM

approach and its postmodern or post-materialist or classless thinking be applied to the experiences of “the impoverished inhabitants of today’s crisis-ridden Third World or the scholars who work with them (ibid.)? In India, however, Omvedt (1993) contests that in the 1980s the new movements were not class-based and uninterested in socialist politics, referring to community, minority, religion, women’s rights, and

environmental movements (see Chandhoke, 1995 and Pasuk 2002)

On a more theoretical plane, Touraine (1981) pertains to social movements as the “work that society performs upon itself” Later, he specified this “work” as

“historicity” that refers to the “set of cultural models that rule social practices” (1988b) This perception considers Western European societies as the model of