Social Oppression May Be A Necessary Factor But It Is Not Sufficient In Generating Social Movements.

Social oppression may be a necessary factor but it is not sufficient in generating social movements.

Today, social movements represent significant organisations in social, political and economic spheres. They provide a means of granting power to the individual in the form of collective action and their expansion in strength and size since the mid-18th century has seen various theories and empirical research put forward in an attempt to explain their appearance, growth and spread. Social oppression is one factor consistently inherent in the research surrounding social movements. However, whilst historically social oppression has indeed played a fundamental role in generating social movements, that movements continue to be closely connected with democratic political systems where social oppression is limited, has raised questions surrounding the assumption that social oppression is sufficient in generating social movements. In this essay I will examine why, without the right resources, structures and environment, social oppression is not sufficient in generating social movements. I will focus on various spatial factors, including the concentration of resources and individuals, sense of place, distance from other actors and the state, and examine how without the right political opportunities and organisation, the generation of social movements is unlikely.

The distance between individuals is one important factor in generating social movements. Though social movements are often large, this is in a nominal sense, and most consist of interlocking networks of small groups and actors. Distance between these actors however, be it physical, social, political or intellectual, can undermine and weaken these networks, severing connections and creating a lack of trust which can lead to uncertainties. If individuals and groups are unaware that their views are shared, they are unlikely to mobilise and generate social movements. Bringing actors together however, can reduce these risks by increasing regular interaction and accumulating and mobilising resources. In Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, for example, young males professed finding strength in belonging to a group that shared their ideas, enabling them to affirm their beliefs (Barker, 2000). Gould (1995) also demonstrated that strong ties in working class Parisian neighbourhoods provided the social solidarity which permitted residents to risk their lives to protect the Commune. It is through face to face groups and institutions that collective action is thus most often activated and sustained (Tarrow 1994) and therefore social oppression is often insufficient in generating social movements when those oppressed are separated. If social oppression is prevalent yet the distance between individuals - physical or otherwise - is great, then generating social movements is likely to be difficult.

Increasing the proximity of individuals can also lead to localisation and efforts to reinforce the importance of space and place (Leitner et al 2008). This can be seen to be a "repertoire of contention'. Repertoires of contention are the various tools and actions used by movements to provide a means of collective identification. In addition to places, repertoires include pieces of clothing, (Klu Klux Klan), symbols (Nazism) and masks (Hacktivism). In Argentina for example, the Plaza de Mayo in Buenos Aires provided a visible and politically significant space for campaigning mothers to utilise and associate with. Bringing individuals together can therefore create a strong sense of place which is used for further grounds of unification. Some, however, argue that this repertoire and the power of place is not pronounced and actors' interests are not fixed in relation to spatial configurations (Featherstone 2003). Instead, political identities are created through the engagement with geographies of power relations and the "global' nature that defines contemporary social, political and economic networks. In some instances, this is certainly true. In India, for example, high incidences of spatial concentration in slums do not appear to be sufficient in generating social movements. Thus perhaps it is a lack of access to power relations and global networks which prevent significant forms of collective action in these circumstances. However, in those instances where access to power relations is possible, the use of space and place as a repertoire to generate and fuel social movements remains an important factor. Several social movements demonstrate this - for example Occupy Wall Street, Naturism and the Tibetan independence movement. Thus, having repertoires to identify with and mobilise around, whilst also accessing power relations, is one way of achieving solidarity amongst large numbers of people. Though having something to identify and associate with is not essential in generating social movements, for those who are socially oppressed, being able to utilise certain "repertoires of contention' may significantly aid in their mobilisation towards collective action.

Distance from the state is another factor which helps generate social movements and can occur in several ways& geographically, institutionally, culturally, and in terms of class (Davis 1999). In contrast to distance between actors, it is the extent of individuals' distance from the state that explains the likelihood of joining social movements and by extension, their generation and growth. This is because distance and degrees of isolation can be used to cultivate solidarity and activism. Indeed, due to lack of support, estrangement and isolation, great distance from the formal institutions of governance is associated with the generation of social movement radicalism (Davis 1999). Distance from the state, for instance, is one reason why social movements are pervasive in Latin America. In Brazil, for example, communities in various parts of the country are often controlled and oppressed by landlords. This has helped create Brazil`s Landless labour movement (MST), whose main targets are rural landlords rather than the state. In this instance, distance from the state has helped create a social movement which seeks greater proximity and increased access to the state and the support it offers. Thus, whilst social oppression from rural landlords remained an inherent factor in generating the social movement, collective action might not have arisen if state support had originally addressed issues of land access.

The role of the state and the political opportunities it offers indeed plays a fundamental role in the generation of movements and is referred to as the political opportunity structure (POS). Besides being a potential agent of social oppression itself, state power has a large influence on political opportunities and is seen to particularly determine the size and strength of social movements (Tarrow 1994). As Leitner et al 2008 point out, it is inevitable that social movements will interact with the state, and as a result, the strategies available to them will be shaped by state constructed configurations and the different conditions of possibility. Here, structural obstacles and the histories of interaction between social movements and the state are important. For example, if social movements have had a beneficial record of state interaction then contemporary movements are more likely to mobilise due to confidence and pre-existing political structural foundations. However, if historically movements have been oppressed and disbanded, then individuals and actors are unlikely to be motivated to pursue collective action. As a result, the degree and history of political opportunities has a significant influence on the success in generating social movements. Movements faced with a high degree of political opportunity see the prospective risk of participating in the movement fall, consequently providing strong incentives for participation in collective mobilisation (Tarrow 1994) and a high chance of success. Due to the importance of political structures, variations in political opportunities, rather than degrees of social oppression, arguably explain the cycles of expansion, contraction and disbandment of social movements. Holsten, for example, focuses on citizenship as a relation of state and society, revealing that the entanglements of the two motivate social movements to emerge and subside (Holsten 2008). It could thus be said that it is political opportunity that translates the potential of social movements into mobilisation rather than social oppression. Those who are mildly oppressed with sparse resources but greater political opportunities are more likely to succeed in developing into social movements, whilst those greatly oppressed with dense resources but lesser political opportunities may not.

Another problem in generating social movements is effectively coordinating, sustaining and giving meaning to collective action, as without adequate organisation, social oppression is typically not sufficient in generating social movements. There is no single model for social movement organisation and effective co-ordination can take many forms, be it managing associations, organising public marches or demonstrations, mobilising resources or establishing social and communicatory networks. This is known as resource mobilisation theory (RMT), without which, collective action often remains "primitive' (Hobsbawm 1959 cited Tarrow 1994). Bringing actors and resources together at a given place and time, directing their energies against an identifiable set of targets and sustaining their claims afterwards is difficult. However, efficient, effective organisation that creates a heterogeneous, interdependent environment, can help social movements successfully generate collective action (Marwell and Oliver 1993). Contemporarily, the explosion of social media has proven an invaluable tool in generating social movements through facilitating engagement and changing the way people are able to organise (Lopes 2014). Organisation and RMT is also a necessary factor in generating social movements as it helps transcend social and cultural differences that have the potential to divide those who seek slightly different goals. Social movements that consist of individuals and groups with diverse spatial identities, interests and imaginaries, will face difficulties when mobilising these diverging actors if appropriate networks and mechanisms are not in place. Organising appropriate solutions to address these disparities can therefore mitigate and prevent such issues from threatening the livelihood or generation of the movement by bringing actors together and organising their demands under one collective goal. It is evident that by successfully mobilising resources, providing a common goal and effectively coordinating collective action, organisation is a necessary factor that can help generate social movements.

Social oppression is a broad term and includes many forms, from extreme political suppression and dictatorship, to gender, ethnicity and disability rights. As a result, all social movements arguably originate from one form of social oppression or another, be it extreme or non-extreme. However, over time, scholars have identified additional factors such as education, urbanisation, networking, and political rights as other key variables which help to construct, develop and ensure the success of social movements. It would be foolish to claim that some movements were generated simply by one factor, as all are important, interacting and playing unique roles in generating and developing collective action. It would also be foolish to extend generalisations from one social movement to another as each develop in unique circumstances and specific contexts. However, it can be said that those social movements who benefit and exploit the widest range of factors available to them will be the ones who are most likely to be successful. Whilst social oppression may initiate upset and unrest, it is ultimately insufficient in generating social movements and only through a combination of factors will social movements appear.

References

Barker, G., 2000. Gender equitable boys in a gender inequitable world: reflections from qualitative research and programme development in Rio de Janeiro. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 15(3), pp.263-282.

Davis, DE. 1999 The power of distance: re-theorizing social movements in Latin America. Theory and Society 28(4): 585-638.

Featherstone, D., 2003. Spatialities of transnational resistance to globalization: the maps of grievance of the Inter &Continental Caravan. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 28(4), pp.404-421.

Gould, R.V., 1995. Insurgent identities: Class, community, and protest in Paris from 1848 to the Commune. University of Chicago Press.

Holston, J., 2008. Insurgent citizenship: Disjunctions of democracy and modernity in Brazil. Princeton University Press.

Leitner, H., Sheppard, E. and Sziarto, K.M. 2008 The spatialities of contentious politics. Trans IBG 33 (2): 157-172.

Marwell, G. and Oliver, P., 1993. The critical mass in collective action. Cambridge University Press.

Tarrow, S. and Tollefson, J. 1994 Power in movement: Social movements, collective action and politics. Cambridge University Press.