Abstract
Are most Americans apathetic about politics? Or are they simply confused about how to direct their efforts at producing change? To what extent does activism contribute to civic life? Has the ideal of democracy lost its meaning for large segments of the population? Does the prevailing political culture obstruct productive debate and concerted action? Defying easy answers, these recurring questions are finding increasing resonance among academics, policymakers, and activists. It is commonplace for social scientists to lament the limitations of political culture in the United States: the conflation of news, commentary, and entertainment on television networks; the paucity of sophisticated debate on major policy matters; the polarization of policymaking according to the strategic exigencies of the two major political parties; the widespread reduction of political action to voting behavior; and the disproportionate role of corporations and special-interest groups in the electoral process.
Though addressed periodically since the ebb of protest activity in the early 1970s, these issues came into renewed prominence after the 2008 financial crisis. Arguably, the emergence of the Tea Party in 2009 and Occupy Wall Street in 2011 testified to growing dissatisfaction at the grassroots level with the political system. Notwithstanding profound differences in structure, objectives, and ideology, these mobilizations reflected renewed interest in civic engagement. Accordingly, it makes sense that a number of researchers would examine the origins, evolution, and outcomes of the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street. Nevertheless, it remains important for scholars to study activist groups that operate at the local level. In essence, local-level studies offer insight into the following issues: the social conditions under which activist groups emerge; internal debates on worldview, organization, and objectives; the strategic and tactical decisions that either facilitate or inhibit the expansion of activist groups into social movement organizations (SMOs); and the ramifications of small-scale collective action for civic engagement.
These issues are illuminated in Kathleen Blee’s contribution to the literature on movement emergence, Democracy in the Making: How Activist Groups Form. Based on ethnographic observation, interviews, document interpretation, and analysis of media coverage—undertaken in Pittsburgh between 2003 and 2007—the book examines more than 60 incipient activist groups from across the political spectrum. Causes represented range from animal rights, peace, ecology, feminism, same-sex marriage and LGBT rights, concern about economic inequality, opposition to racism, opposition to drugs, and concern about gun violence to conservative advocacy on a number of fronts. The common denominator among these heterogeneous entities is their status as fledgling groups in a medium-sized, post-industrial city with a legacy of union activity and a Democratic Party-oriented government.
Chapter One explores the complex relationship between activist groups and democracy: contrary to popular belief, activist groups do not necessarily foment democracy; but they do inspire the public not only to reflect on past injustices, but also to imagine social change in the future. Even small and ephemeral groups play an important role. Accordingly, Blee addresses the foundational question confronting the literature: Why should scholars analyze fledgling groups, in addition to established SMOs? Blee offers the following reasons for challenging the widespread tendency to examine only influential and enduring SMOs: (1) incipient groups reveal the precariousness of collective action; (2) in contrast to their predecessors, contemporary activist groups are forced to construct a sense of community among their members; (3) focusing exclusively on established groups unintentionally exaggerates the efficacy of activism, thereby limiting our knowledge of why some activist groups dissolve while others become SMOs; and (4) “fledgling groups present a unique opportunity to understand the relationship between possibility and action” (pp. 6–7). Blee goes against the grain of social movement research in arguing that it is difficult to work backwards from SMOs to reveal their conditions of possibility. The evolving narratives of activists cloud the picture: “activist groups forge patterns that define who they are, who they should recruit, what agendas to pursue, how they can find information, and in what frames to cast their issues” (p. 8). This thesis—namely, that incipient activist groups follow path-dependent trajectories stemming from forgotten choices—runs throughout the book.
Chapter Two theorizes the emergence of activist groups. Borrowing from four domains—organizational psychology (with its studies of workplace teams), cultural sociology (with its emphasis on the creation of meaning and the recounting of narratives within groups), path-dependency theories (used in the sociology of development to explain the policies of nation-states pursuing a higher standard of living), and theories of agency (used to isolate turning points in a sequence)—Blee advances two straightforward yet incisive propositions. First, “Activist groups operate in path trajectories with turning points” (p. 39). The accumulation of prior actions has the effect of limiting the future choices of activist groups; yet trajectories can be altered at specific turning points—exceptional moments when activist groups re-evaluate their capabilities, and hence adjust their mandates, strategies, and tactics. Second, “Small, even incidental actions can be important in the trajectories of activist groups, especially when they occur early” (p. 41). Contingency and particularity are built into the equation. Thus, researchers must consider the rippling effects of forgotten events.
Blee emphasizes three “tasks of self-definition—membership, political issues, and personal interactions” (p. 51). This is reflected in the structure of the book: Chapter Three examines how activist groups determine who does and does not belong in their ranks and how they settle on an organizational model; Chapter Four analyzes how activist groups agree upon an ideological orientation and a mandate; and Chapter Five explores how activist groups implement principles for interpersonal relations. Chapter Six derives a series of lessons from the experiences of incipient activist groups in Pittsburgh. First, “Comparing sequences of action and interpretation over time can show what was possible earlier and then lost. Comparing these sequences across groups can indicate what is possible in one group but not in a similar one” (p. 135). Second, “Activists don’t just exert agency or fail to do so. They act with purpose to greater or lesser degrees, and with more or less of a sense that their actions will matter” (p. 136). Third, “small events, even those that occur by happenstance, can profoundly affect trajectories” (ibid.). Fourth, in addition to “paying attention to the actors, institutions, and cultural milieu around activist groups,” scholars ought to “[follow] groups from their beginnings to understand the assumptions, trajectories, and ways of being that are established in the early days” (p. 137).
Fittingly, the book ends with a comment on democracy: even though “early cultural dynamics can undermine the democratizing potential of activism,” a cause for optimism can be found in the capacity of activists not only to “theorize about the social world,” but also to “escape paths of diminishing possibility through self-conscious efforts” (pp. 138–39). Consequently, Blee’s book represents a significant contribution not only to the literature on movement emergence, but also to the toolkit of activism. Eschewing value neutrality, Blee takes seriously the notion that researchers have an ethical duty to make suggestions about how activist groups might overcome their weaknesses and thereby contribute to the expansion of democracy.