This chapter initially summarizes the kinds of syntheses one can
construct from the theory, methodology and data discussed in the
previous chapters. This summary is briefly contrasted with the
findings one would expect given the work discussed in the Literature
Review. The illustrative nature of the approach to the cases employed
here is re-emphasized. Finally, a closing discussion of avenues
for further research of a more comprehensive nature is presented.
The local political contexts of the cases differ somewhat but contain important similarities. Both cases appear to occur in periods of generally increasing political stability. For example, the half century (plus) preceding the passage of the 19th Amendment was notably dominated by a single party. But upon closer examination, both periods also contained episodes of notable instability and permeability of political processes. It is difficult to argue that increasing political stability (as reflected in the indicators employed here) fosters anti-systemic activity. Rather, it makes more sense to suggest that periods of instability within a larger context of apparently increasing stability provides a context ripe for movement.
When one looks closely, distinct trends begin to emerge. The context of the suffrage movement was eventually marked by increasing factionalism. On a national scale, there were many "third parties". One of these, the Republicans, would capitalize on national political instability and establish itself as one of the two primary US political parties. The drama of Reconstruction continued this flux. The volatile electoral climate was mirrored by the new day-to-day workings of the political processes, which appeared increasing suspect. The eras of the Robber Barons and of Reform bore witness to new kinds of informal graft and other illicit political practices. At the same time, this instability provided the opportunity for the suffrage movement--and the contemporary movements that often re-enforced it--to do their work.
It was towards the end of this era that the nascent environmental movement that would blossom in the 1960s first began to grow. To a large extent, much of the turmoil of the nineteenth century spilled over into the next century. But then some kind of stability began to emerge. This stability reached a plateau in the decade-and-half following World War II (after suffering a setback during the 1930s).
By the 1960s, however, the stability of the 1950s began to wane. The "sixties" ushered in another era of political (and social) instability. Though perhaps not quite as contentious a time as the 1860s (though arguably on par with the decade preceding the suffragette victory), this decade formed the context in which environmentalism would move from the background to the fore. This movement was aided in many respects by the insurgency on other fronts that both preceded and cohabited with environmental activism.
As reflected through fluctuations in domestic and national production figures, the cases occurred in periods of long-term increasing industrial output. Both the Suffrage and Environmental cases were preceded in the short-term by significant increases in the rate of increasing output. Increasing industrial output (and possibly a notable increase in its rate of increase) may well foster anti-systemic activity. As various commentators discussed note, a direct link can readily be drawn between the processes of capitalist industrialization and the suffrage movement's development. For example, women found themselves more and more able to connect with one-another due to the restructuring of social relations. Similarly, both the traumas and the opportunities created by the continued, rapid industrialization of the United States during the twentieth century appear to have fostered environmental contention.
In a fashion similar to increasing industrialization, a growing percentage of the population inhabiting urban centers appeared to foster mobilization. The cases do not demonstrate this identically, however. The Suffrage case appears to have coalesced during a century with a relatively stable rate of growth. Environmentalism appears to have growth out of a decreasingly steep rate of growth. So while an increase in the percentage of a population residing within cities may well contribute to movement formation, it need not be by a factor of six (the century of the Suffrage case), but maybe by little more than a factor of two (Environmentalism). That said, the relationship between increasing urbanization and the movements, however, may present one of the clearest correlations discussed. For example, though activity within the formation of each movement certainly occurred in rural areas, movement ferment for both cases occurred predominantly within urban areas and/or at the behest of urbanites. This ferment increased as the percentage of the population residing in cities increased.
Literacy rates show similarly little variation between the cases. Uniformly increasing education (as reflected through literacy rates, demographic data, and narrative accounts) appears to have been a constant factor within the contexts of each of the cases involved. It is important to note the pervasively suppressive nature of much of the educational process (which may have somewhat inhibited the exploration of ideas important to the movements). At the same time, an even more fundamental result of increasingly accessible education appears to have had a liberating effect of many of the newly (and not so newly) educated. With the environmental case, this became starkly manifest within educational institutions, which began to educate people not only in a general set of intellectual skills (that they could divert to the eventual interests of their movement) but also directly in matters sympathetic to movement activities and/or goals.
The world-system also seems to have played into the creation of
the movements investigated. Wars -- in these cases World War One
and the Vietnam War -- each appear to benefited the final coalescence
of nascent forces into a more vibrant movement. Additionally,
global accumulation appears to have been a factor. This was more
apparent in the case of environmentalism but no-doubt contributed
to the general state of the expanding US economy during the genesis
of the Suffrage Movement, as well.
In sum, as one might expect, the illustrative data and analysis employed in this thesis does not produce definitive conclusions but points to some probable generalizations. The data does suggest that increasing industrialization, increasing levels of education, increasing urbanization and the workings of the world-system seem to have constituted facilitating contexts for the genesis of the anti-systemic activity in the cases investigated here. Politically, brief periods of instability (both in terms of electoral processes and less formal political--and social--practices) appear to have fostered contentious movements, especially as they reach fruition. And in both cases, contemporaneous movements appear to have played an important role.
These tentative conclusions principally vindicate the Brand's
(1990) views that particular social changes such as industrialization
and urbanization (which, in turn, foster periods of general social
criticism or Zivilisationskritik) contribute to the context
of mobilization. Similarly, Tarrow'
(1994) emphasis on education and literacy appears warranted. This
thesis does seems to support the conclusion reached by Kitschelt
(1986) and Kriesi, et al.
(1992) that a "weak state" (typified by flux and generalized
instability) in the present of contemporaneous movements tend
to foster mobilization. And, finally, this thesis supports Wallerstein's
(1974, and other places) understandings of the world-system's
influence over the course of social processes in localities within
the world-economy.
In general, three caveats apply to the conclusions discussed above.
These caveats also imply avenues for further investigation.
First, the data utilized in the present study is of a relatively
cursory (and certainly second-hand) nature. A more thorough set
of data would provide more definitive answers. Second, mobilizations
contexts are only one aspect of antisystemic activity. To approach
a more authoritative explanation of all aspects of mobilization,
the scope of investigation must be expanded to include not only
mobilization contexts but also relevant aspects of consciousness
(or "interest" [Tilly
1986: 8]) and organization. Finally, a study such as this thesis
can only produce arguably generalizable results when a large number
of cases are consulted.
The datum utilized in the present study is of a relatively cursory nature. This thesis is not an attempt to draw definitive conclusions regarding the contexts in which mobilization occurs. As the discussions in the first three chapters of this thesis state, this work proposes to: 1) derive a methodology for the investigation of mobilization contexts, 2) engage in an illustrative (not exhaustive) implementation of that methodology, and 3) suggest further appropriate avenues for research based on these first two elements. Hence the "Towards an Understanding" of this thesis' title (emphasis added).
The first caveat thus suggests a starting point for a more thorough, full-fledged investigation of mobilization contexts: less cursory datum. Ideally, one would be able to fully digest all the relevant area studies pertaining to each of the cases introduced. That is, to begin to draw definitive conclusions regarding the circumstances in which the genesis of movements occur, one would need to become as familiar with all existing treatments of each of the cases being evaluated as are the area specialists that devote themselves entirely to the investigation of any particular case. This is not an impossible task. Whatever one thinks of its methods and conclusions, Jack Goldstone's Revolution and Rebellion in the Early Modern World (Goldstone 1991) in one kind of example. Ideally, one would be able to not only rely on the work of area specialists in examining each case introduced. new information based on primary sources would also be beneficial. Such a thoroughness, however, is beyond the scope of a master of arts thesis. Hence the illustrative rather than authoritative nature of this thesis. And hence the first avenue for further investigation: more data (in fact, "all" data that area specialists have compiled and as much data beyond that as possible).
It warrants noting that this first directive for further research almost suggests that the investigator become an "area specialist" in each of the cases to be introduced into the comparative analysis. The goal of the area specialist is to contribute original knowledge to the understanding of the particular area of which she is a specialist. In contrast, the comparative analyst often seeks only to fully digest what the area specialists have compiled. Though the comparative analyst may uncover new primary data while in the process of doing this "digestion", her reliance is typically on secondary sources composed by area specialists.
The comparative analyst may have useful contributions to make to the area specialists. These contributions will typically be the result of the analysis involved in comparing various cases rather than the result of new data regarding a particular case. The scenario, however, should not be immutable.
Finally, of course, the inclusion of only two cases in this thesis
underlies the illustrative rather than definitive nature of the
work. The circumstances of the thesis prevented in the inclusion
of more cases. The obvious implication is to include as many cases
as possible--certainly more than two--when striving towards conclusions
that are more arguably generalizable.
Mobilizations contexts are only one aspect of antisystemic activity. To approach a more authoritative explanation of all aspects of mobilization, the scope of investigation must be expanded to include not only mobilization contexts but also relevant aspects of consciousness (or "interest" [Tilly 1986: 8]) and organization (or "organizational strength" [Smith 1991: 65]). As noted in Chapter One, this work attempts to work towards an answer to the question, "What configuration(s) of social structures foster(s) contentious activity?"
In contrast with the present study--a complete exploration of contention would not only investigate which conditions are "necessary" for mobilization but also what variables are "sufficient" to produce mobilization in those conditions. Tilly's (1986) triumvirate (opportunity, interest, and organization) is a notable effort towards delineating both the "necessary" and "sufficient" conditions of French contention during the past four hundred years. Studies such as McAdam's (1982) investigation of the US civil rights movement, and Costain's (1992) treatment of the 20th century US women's movement strive towards such holistic treatments of particular cases of mobilization, as well.
The present work is a contribution towards a more generalized
explanation of contention that--when combined with other investigations
focusing on the variables (allegedly comprised of interest and
organizational attributes) that turn "necessary" contexts
into "sufficient" conjunctions of factors producing
mobilization in a wide variety of incidences--will produce the
most complete understanding of social movements yet constructed.
Thus, a definitive study of mobilization would seek to answer
not only the questions, "What configuration(s) of social
structures foster(s) contentious activity?" Also of import
would be "Why do particular individuals participate in movements
while others do not?" and "What is it about the internal
structure of mobilization itself that produces anti-systemic activity?"
Link to Table of Contents.
Link to Nathan Wolfson's Home Page.