Abstract
In this chapter I consider how social movements and protest are conceptualized within a relational-sociological approach. Relational sociology affords particular attention to processes of social interaction, the ties that interaction generates and which act back upon it, and the networks which form as ties concatenate and impact upon one another. However, this chapter focuses upon networks in particular, discussing their crucial role in social movement mobilization. The chapter begins with a general discussion of the relational approach, followed by a brief introduction to networks and social network analysis (SNA). The discussion then turns to networks and social movements more specifically, considering both how networks shape and facilitate collective action but also how they themselves are formed. In this latter connection the chapter also briefly considers the impact upon the process of network formation of the need which some movements have to remain covert. Special attention is also afforded to the role of networks in recruitment to collective action.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
A firm or organization may be regarded as an actor in its own right (a corporate actor) when it involves decision-making processes, resources, and/or a legal status which is irreducible to any given individual human actor or to a simple aggregate of human actors.
- 2.
To say that two actors are tied or related, as I use those terms, is to say that they have an ongoing history of interaction (or active avoidance) and that how they interact in the present is shaped both by their history of interaction and their anticipation of future interaction (or the lack of it).
- 3.
Two-mode networks involve two types of nodes which can only enjoy direct ties with nodes of a different type to their self: e.g. we might have a network of actors and events, recording relations of participation between given actors and given events. A single-mode network, by contrast, involves nodes of one type only and relations between those nodes.
- 4.
All network graphs used in this chapter were drawn, and all network measures derived, using the Ucinet software package (Borgatti et al. 2002).
- 5.
As defined here some activists could have fallen into more than one camp. Some “Trotskyists”, for example, also belonged to new social movement (NSM) groups, and some NSM activists also belonged to charitable pressure groups. To make the categories mutually exclusive it was decided that members of Trotskyist groups would be categorized as “Trotskyists” whatever other groups they belonged to (a decision which accords with the strong tendency for Trotskyism to be the master frame through which they who subscribe to it appropriate other issues and concerns); non-Trotskyists who participated in direct action protests were categorized as “NSM activists,” such that mainstream actors were defined by their decision not to engage in extra-parliamentary activities. Again this categorization resonates with qualitative observations—that the identity and modus operandi of NSM activism tends to prevail amongst those who combine this type of activism with more mainstream forms of involvement.
- 6.
This is not entirely true. In network theory the location of nodes in two-dimensional Euclidean/Cartesian space has no meaning and is not interpreted. In practice, however, nodes are often positioned using algorithms and techniques (e.g. multidimensional scaling) which locate nodes close to others which have a similar profile of connections (although locations can and may be altered, for esthetic reasons, by analysts).
- 7.
Freedom Summer was a project, in 1964, which involved bringing affluent college students from elite universities in the north of the USA down to the south to help the efforts of civil rights groups there: e.g. by helping with voter registration and political education. Three volunteers were killed by the Ku Klux Klan within the first few days of the project and most participants experienced considerable hostility and often violence.
- 8.
I do not have space to engage in technicalities here. Suffice it to say that “prominence” entails being both central in a network and linked to others who are also central.
- 9.
Briefly stated, the argument for a high degree of centralization is that it keeps path lengths short in a network (since most nodes are linked through a central hub), therefore reduces the number of transactions, which in turn reduces vulnerability because each transaction exposes the network to risk. The argument for a low degree of centralization, by contrast, is that hubs are very vulnerable since they could be betrayed by any of the many alters with whom they are connected, and that this makes the network vulnerable since the hubs are so central to the network.
References
Biggs, M. 2006. Who joined the sit ins and why? Mobilisation 11(3): 241–256.
Blumer, H. 1969. Collective behaviour. In Principles of sociology, ed. A. McClung-Lee, 166–222. New York: Barnes and Noble.
Borgatti, S.P., M.G. Everett, and L.C. Freeman. 2002. Ucinet for Windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.
Bott, E. 1957. Family and social network. London: Tavistock.
Coleman, J. 1988. Free riders and zealots: The role of social networks. Sociological Theory 6(1): 52–57.
Coleman, J. 1990. Foundations of social theory. Cambridge: Harvard, Belknap.
Crossley, N. 2010a. Networks, interactions and complexity. Symbolic Interaction 33(3): 341–63.
Crossley, N. 2010b. The social world of the network: qualitative aspects of network analysis. Sociologica 2010 (1). www.sociologica.mulino.it/doi/10.2383/32049. Accessed 4 Nov 2015.
Crossley, N. 2011. Towards relational sociology. London: Routledge.
Crossley, N., and Y. Ibrahim. 2012. Critical Mass, Social Networks and Collective Action: the Case of Student Political Worlds. Sociology 46(4): 596–612.
Crossley, N., and Y. Ibrahim. forthcoming. Network Formation in Student Political Worlds. In Student Politics and Protest, ed. Brooks, R., London: Routledge.
Crossley, N., G. Edwards, E. Harries, and R. Stevenson. 2011. Covert Social Movement Networks and the Secrecy-Efficiency Trade Off: The case of the UK suffragettes (1906–1914). Working Paper, Department of Sociology and Mitchell Centre for Social Network Analysis, Manchester: University of Manchester.
Diani, M. 1990. The network structure of the Italian ecology movement. Social Science Information 29(1): 5–31.
Diani, M. 1992. Analysing movement networks. In Studying collective action, ed. M. Diani, and R. Eyerman, 107–135. London: Sage.
Diani, M. 1995. Green networks. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Diani, M., and D. McAdam. 2003. Social movements and networks. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Edwards, G., and N. Crossley. 2009. Measures and meanings: Exploring the ego-net of Helen Kirkpatrick Watts, Militant Suffragette. Methodological Innovations On-Line 3(2).
Elias, N. 1978. What is sociology?. London: Hutchinson.
Emirbayer, M. 1997. Manifesto for a relational sociology. American Journal of Sociology 103(2): 281–317.
Emirbayer, M., and J. Goodwin. 1994. Network analysis, culture and the problem of agency. American Journal of Sociology 99(6): 1411–1454.
Enders, W., and X. Su. 2007. Rational terrorists and optimal network structure. The Journal of Conflict Resolution 51(1): 33–57.
Erikson, B. 1981. Secret societies and social structure. Social Forces 60(1): 188–210.
Fantasia, R. 1988. Cultures of solidarity. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Feld, S. 1981. The focused organisation of social ties. American Journal of Sociology 86(5): 1015–1035.
Feld, S. 1982. Social structural determinants of similarity among associates. American Sociological Review 47(6): 797–801.
Fernandez, R., and D. McAdam. 1988. Social networks and social movements. Sociological Forum 3(3): 357–382.
Garrett, R.K. 2006. Protest in an information society: A review of literature on social movements and new ICTs. Information, Communication and Society 9(2): 202–224.
Gillan, K., J. Pickerall, and F. Webster. 2008. Anti-war activism: New media and protest in the information age. London: Palgrave.
Gould, R. 1991. Multiple networks and mobilisation in the Paris Commune, 1871. American Sociological Review 56(6): 716–729.
Gould, R. 1993a. Collective action and network structure. American Sociological Review 58(2): 182–196.
Gould, R. 1993b. Trade cohesion, class unity and urban insurrection. American Journal of Sociology 98(4): 721–754.
Gould, R. 1995. Insurgent identities. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Jenkins, C. 1983. Resource mobilisation theory and the study of social movements. Annual Review of Sociology 9(1): 527–553.
Kitts, J. 2000. Mobilizing in black boxes. Mobilization 5(2): 241–258.
Lindelauf, R., P. Borm, and H. Hamers. 2009. The influence of secrecy on the communication structure of covert networks. Social Networks 31(2): 126–137.
Marwell, G., P. Oliver, and R. Prahl. 1988. Social networks and collective action: A theory of critical mass III. American Journal of Sociology 94(3): 502–534.
McAdam, D. 1982. Political process and the development of black insurgency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McAdam, D. 1983. Tactical innovation and the pace of insurgency. American Sociological Review 48(6): 735–754.
McAdam, D. 1986. Recruitment to high risk activism: The case of freedom summer. American Journal of Sociology 92(1): 64–90.
McAdam, D., and R. Paulsen. 1993. Specifying the relationship between ties and activism. American Journal of Sociology 99(3): 640–667.
McAdam, D., S. Tarrow, and C. Tilly. 2001. Dynamics of contention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Melucci, A. 1989. Nomads of the present. London: Radius.
Milroy, L. 1987. Language and social networks. Oxford: Blackwell.
Morris, A. 1984. The origin of the civil rights movement. New York: Free Press.
Mische, A. 2003. Cross-talk in movements. In Social movements and networks, ed. M. Diani, and D. McAdam, 258–280. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Morselli, C. 2009. Inside criminal networks. New York: Springer.
Morselli, C., C. Giguère, and K. Petit. 2007. The efficiency/security trade-off in criminal networks. Social Networks 29(1): 143–153.
Oliver, P., and G. Marwell. 1993. The critical mass in collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Opp, K.-D., and C. Gern. 1993. Dissident groups, personal networks and spontaneous cooperation: The East German revolution of 1989. American Sociological Review 58(5): 659–680.
Passy, F. 2001. Socialisation, connection and the structure/agency gap. Mobilization 6(2): 173–192.
Piven, F., and R. Cloward. 1992. Normalising collective protest. In Frontiers in social movement theory, ed. A. Morris, and C.McClurg Mueller, 301–325. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Ray, K., M. Savage, G. Tampubolon, A. Warde, M. Longhurst, and M. Tomlinson. 2003. The exclusiveness of the political field. Social Movement Studies 2(1): 37–60.
Rosenthal, N., M. Fingrutd, M. Ethier, R. Karant, and D. McDonald. 1985. Social movements and network analysis. American Journal of Sociology 90(5): 1022–1054.
Sageman, M. 2004. Understanding terror networks. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Sageman, M. 2008. Leaderless jihad. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Saunders, C. 2005. The configuration of the Global Justice Movement in Britain. Paper presented at ‘Genealogies of the Global Justice Movement’, Paris 30 Sept–1 March 2005.
Saunders, C. 2007. Comparing environmental movement networks in periods of latency and visibility. Graduate Journal of Social Science 4(1): 109–139.
Saunders, C. 2008. Using social network analysis to explore social movements: A relational approach. Social Movement Studies 6(3): 227–243.
Schelling, T. 1981. The strategy of conflict. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Scott, J. 2000. Social network analysis: A handbook. London: Sage.
Simmel, G. 1955. Conflict and the web of group affiliations. New York: Free Press.
Snow, D., L. Zurcher, and S. Ekland-Olson. 1980. Social networks and social movements: A microstructural approach to differential recruitment. American Sociological Review 45(5): 787–801.
Snow, D., L. Zurcher, and S. Ekland-Olson. 1983. Further thoughts on social networks and movement recruitment. Sociology 17(1): 112–120.
Snow, D., E. Rochford, S. Worden, and R. Benford. 1986. Frame alignment processes, micromobilisation and movement participation. American Sociological Review 51(4): 464–481.
Taylor, V. 1989. Social movement continuity: The women’s movement in abeyance. American Sociological Review 54(5): 761–775.
Tilly, C. 1978. Mobilisation to revolution. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Tilly, C. 2006. Identities, boundaries and social ties. New York: Paradigm.
Wasserman, S., and K. Faust. 1994. Social network analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
White, H. 1965/2008. Notes on the constituents of social structure. Sociologica 1. www.sociologica.mulino.it/doi/10.2383/26576. Accessed 4 Nov 2015.
Zuckerman, A. (ed.). 2005. The social logic of politics: Personal networks as contexts for political behaviour. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Crossley, N. (2016). Networks, Interaction, and Conflict: A Relational Sociology of Social Movements and Protest. In: Roose, J., Dietz, H. (eds) Social Theory and Social Movements. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-13381-8_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-13381-8_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden
Print ISBN: 978-3-658-13380-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-658-13381-8
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)