© Kamla-Raj 2012 J Sociology Soc Anth, 3(1): 29-35 (2012) Beyond Resource Mobilization Theory: Dynamic Paradigm of Chengara Struggle

M. Manosmita, C. Aruna and K. Libina

Department of Sociology, Pondicherry University, Puducherry 605 014, India

KEYWORDS New Social Movement. Land Alienation. Social Inequality. Dalits. Agricultural Labour

ABSTRACT This paper focuses on Chengara struggle, from the perspective of contemporary movements and compares the features of old social movements and resource mobilization theory. This work is mainly framed through review of related literature as well as analyzing the data collected from 100 participants involved in the movement through an in-depth interview. The paper attempts to examine the application of Resource Mobilization Theory by describing the linkage between the theory and Chengara struggle. The present paper reveals the theoretical background under social phenomena of movements for liberation. It explores the ideological transformation of old social movements to new social movements, depicting certain similarities and differences between both temporal movements. While the old movements focused on ideological discourse of revolution, the new social movement is more issue oriented. The paper attempts to give a theoretical base to analysis, where the resource mobilization theory justifies the context of the struggle.

INTRODUCTION of social movements. The review traces the emergence and recent controversies generated With the changes in the agrarian structure by this new perspective. A multifactor model of the advent of the market economy and with the social movement formation is advanced, empha- growth of the liberal education; people are more sizing resources, organization, and political op- conscious about their rights and obligations. portunities in addition to traditional discontent This becomes the base for the new social move- behavior. Resource mobilization theory may be ments, which is concerned with the whole soci- traced from early programmatic statements ety not a particular caste or class. This paper (McCarthy and Zald 1973, 1977; Oberschall focuses on two aspects – the changing repre- 1973) through subsequent critiques and refor- sentation of social movements from the tradi- mulations (Marx and Wood 1975; Piven and tionally class bounded conception of the old or Cloward 1977; Perrow 1979; Fireman and classical to the generally non-class new move- Gamson 1979; Jenkins 1983; Klandermans ments or contemporary movements, and is il- 1983) to a number of empirical studies which lustrated through the Chengara movement, a have sought to test and modify the theory (Walsh new social movement in Kerala. The paper also 1978; Gamson 1992; McAdam 1982; Morris focuses upon land alienation, as the base fac- 1984; Rochford 1985; Cable et al. 1988). tor for crisis in the Chengara movement (rooted Recently the study of social movements has in resource mobilization), which is classified as moved beyond the limitations of traditional, a new social movement since land is a mobiliz- social-psychological perspectives on collective ing resource for the minority group of the re- behavior that viewed social movements as gen- search setting. erally irrational phenomena. In contrast, recent Resource mobilization (RM) theory is now works have taken a more dynamic approach to the dominant theoretical framework for analyz- the study of social movements, examining ing social movements and collective action among other issues the strategic problems of within the discipline of sociology (McCarthy and having to appeal to various constituencies Zald 1977). Resource mobilization theory has (Lipsky 1968) and the tactics used by state offi- recently presented an alternative interpretation cials and business interests to control insurgent Address for correspondence: efforts (Jenkins and Perrow 1977). Dr. C. Aruna Movements are also seen as structured and Assistant Professor patterned, so that they can be analyzed in terms Department of Sociology of organizational dynamics just like other forms Pondicherry University Puducherry 605 014, India of institutionalized action (Oberschall 1973; Telephone: +91-413-2654496 McCarthy and Zald 1973, 1977; Tilly 1978). In E-mail: [email protected] sharp contrast to the earlier collective behavior 30 M. MANOSMITA, C. ARUNA AND K. LIBINA tradition (Turner and Killian 1972; Smelser ment in India and also examine the relevant 1962), resource mobilization theory views so- theoretical perspectives as well as the changes cial movements as normal, rational, institution- occurring over a period of time. ally rooted political challenges by aggrieved The new social movement is understood to groups. The border between conventional poli- have some degree of correspondence with the tics and social movements thus becomes blurred, image of society, hence the Chengara land but does not disappear altogether. struggle corresponds to this category. Subaltern In contrast to traditional socio psychological approach seeks to restore a balance by highlight- interpretations, resource mobilization theory ing the role of the politics as against the elite emphasizes the importance of structural factors, politics played in Indian history. Parallel to the such as the availability of resources to a collec- domain of elite politics there always existed tivity and the position of individuals in social throughout the colonial period another domain networks, and stresses the rationality of partici- of Indian politics in which the principal actors pation in social movements (Oberschall 1973; were not the dominant groups of the indigenous Gamson 1975; Marx and Wood 1975; McCarthy society but the subaltern classes and groups con- and Zald 1977; Snow et al. 1980; Gamson stituting the masses of the laboring population 1992). Participation in a social movement is seen and the intermediate strata in the town and coun- not as the consequence of predisposing psycho- try. logical traits or states, but as a result of rational Ruggiero and Montagna (2008) argues that decision processes whereby people weigh the the idea of social movement offers a spectrum costs and benefits of participation. through which we can view material conflict in The resource mobilization theory equates an industrial society and equally well, view opin- social movement behavior with political behav- ion persuasion or disposition in a late modern ior (Halebsky 1976). The general model posits society. Bayley and Bryant (1997) divide coer- the existence of a polity structure composed of cive public protests into legal and illegal pro- groups that have regular, routine, and low-cost test. Each category is further subdivided into access to societal resources. Excluded groups violent and non violent protest some others di- are denied this ready access and strive for in- vided into grass roots and macro movements, clusion to the polity to gain such privileges. social movements are also classified on the ba- Hence, the model depicts a dynamic and inter- sis of issues around which participants get mo- active struggle between the out-polity groups bilized. Some of them are known as the; forest, who seek inclusion and the in-polity groups who civil rights anti- untouchability, linguistic, na- resist such incursions. To facilitate their struggle tionalist and such other movements. Some oth- the excluded groups organize themselves. This ers classify movements on the basis of the par- makes them better prepared to challenge the ticipant and issues together. Ray and Katzenstein polity groups. Organizations act as repositories (2005) examine how India’s political contest has for the accumulation and concentration of com- reshaped the panorama of Indian social move- munity resources as well as provide a forum for ments. the development of leadership potential and the articulation of group goals (Waterman 1981). METHODOLOGY Social movement is built upon the conscious effort and normative commitment to change the The Chengara land grab explains a land existing social scenario and active participation question spanned in colonial and post colonial on the part of the followers or members. The era. Here, the movement is started by the Dalits Chengara movement in Kerala, India is recent against the government and civil society for example for the emancipation of the downtrod- getting permanent ownership on agricultural den, which aspires for acquiring the permanent land and livelihood. In Desai’s words, the civil ownership on the disputed agricultural land. The and democratic rights of the people are not pro- movement is understood from a subaltern per- tected by the constitution as a result of which spective, which is a potentially useful analyti- they engage in movements such as Chengara cal paradigm for studying tribal and ethnic struggle. movements in India. This is important to un- Dalits, major participants of the movement derstand the nature of the particular social move- occupy the lowest position in the caste and class BEYOND RESOURCE MOBILIZATION THEORY 31 hierarchy. These subaltern groups have been try- These are the people left out in land reforms of ing to make their own history through the re- Kerala, once lauded as a grand success. They sistance against the upper class elites and state demand land and labour to live. machinery. In this backdrop the present paper When the struggle started, there settled more aims to understand Chengara struggle through than 5,000 dalit, adivasis, and OBC families. the Resource Mobilization Theory and exam- The lease held by Harrisons Malayalam Estate ine the changing representation in social move- for the 6,000 hectares in Chengara expired in ments. 1996. The agitators say that the government The research design for the present paper is promised to hand over the land to the landless exploratory cum descriptive. The descriptive Dalits, Adivasis and OBCs by acquiring the land character of the study is derived from the inter- illegally possessed by the plantation owners and pretative methods, which is important of quali- pass it on to the land less; but did not do so. tative tradition. The field area, Chengara is a They are demanding a minimum of one acre of small village situated in Pathanamthitta district cultivable land anywhere in Kerala. in Kerala. Out of 3000 families who have settled The entire discourse about land alienation in Harrison Malayalam estate, participants from was centred on the 1975 Act; the Adivasi – Dalit 100 families were interviewed in depth for the Samaram Samithi agitation, which begun in study. Around 70 percent of the participants of August 2001, ushered in a new phase of the land the movement belong to scheduled castes, 20 issue in the state. By 2003, land struggles in percent of them are Dalit Christians, and a small Kerala attained a new order of practices as the number are Muslims and other caste members. subaltern insurgents were then trying to break This work is mainly framed through review of and destroy the then existing structure of power related literature as well as analyzing the data relation. The Sadhujana Vimochana Samyuktha collected from 100 participants of the movement. Vedhi had started agitations focussing on the landlessness and related issues such as no place DISCUSSION for burial or cremation, which the leaders al- leged had been a regular feature every year and The socio economic profile of the sample which neither the media nor the officials shows that majority (76 percent) are Hindus, recognised in the name of salvaging the vaunted followed by 18 percent of Christians and 6 per- Kerala model of development. Land alienation cent Muslims. One half of the respondents are was recognised as the crucial causative factor married and the participants of the movement behind there backwardness and the state was are from the outskirts of Kerala and most of them blamed for hoarding most of their land espe- belong to the socially, economically and educa- cially tribal land. With the support of the state, tionally backward class. large private players (companies) kept huge amounts of land in their custody without the History of the Chengara Struggle authorization to do so. The movement also wit- nessed unprecedented solidarity between one Chengara is a small village situated in Patha- section of the dalits and tribes. namthitta district in Kerala. Around 70% of the The movement for land acquisition in Chen- population here are Christians and 25% of them gara was started on 4th August, 2007, under the are Hindus and the remaining are Muslims. The leadership of Laha Gopalan, in southern plan- village frequents the media due to a land strug- tation belt of Athumpumkulam,(specify the ex- gle, popularly known as “Chengara Samaram” act area). They occupy around 500 acres of land. (Chengara struggle), which is led by Laha Gopa- Around 170 permanent workers, who were tap- lan,under the banner of Sadhujana vimochana ping in the plantation for more than 30 years samyuktha vedhi (the United Front of the Poor lost their jobs. Among these workers 117, be- for Liberation). The hilly terrains at the south- longs to the Scheduled castes. The Harrison ern plantation belt of the Pathanamthitta dis- Malayalam company along with the trade unions trict in Kerala reverberates with a major land have created a blockade which has culminated struggle of an unprecedented nature involving in the deliberate cutting off of food and other more than 3,000 families of the deprived sec- essential supplies to the protesters for more than tions of the society- dalits, adivasis and OBC’s. 10 months. On August 14th 2008, the trade 32 M. MANOSMITA, C. ARUNA AND K. LIBINA unions lifted the blockade for a period of ten if left unsolved, would become a cause for em- days and issued an ultimatum to the 5000 fami- barrassment for the Left Democratic Front lies to leave the plantation site in these days (LDF) government in Kerala. In the settlement which fuelled the hostile situation. package it was announced by Chief Minister V.S. Hostility made the life harder, in the sense Achuthanandan, the government promised 50 that it was too difficult to reach their pavements, cents each to 832 participant dalit families, one they have to take through the forest, and they acre each for 27 tribal families (as it was prom- are women who have to climb up and down hills ised to the Scheduled Tribes in other parts of to get water for their cooking, etc. Very few chil- the State) and 25 cents each to the landless oth- dren in the Plantation were getting education; ers. In all, land and housing assistance were others had to stop their studies due to the finan- offered to 1,432 participant families whose ap- cial problems as well as the blockade imposed plications were in the official records. The gov- on them by trade union members. The trade ernment was also to provide housing assistance union members had imposed hostile while they to the landless as well as to those families that had lost their daily job, which they have done had only less than five cents of land. for last 20 years. At a joint press conference following the The police have arrested some people on the announcement of the package in the presence estate, when they were trying to sell the rubber of Opposition Leader Oommen Chandy (who tapped from the plantation. Harrisons Malaya- played a key role in formulating the settlement), lam Plantation claims it owns the rubber trees the Chief Minister said it was difficult to find on the plantation. It approached the High Court the necessary land in Kerala even to implement to clear the space of encroachers. The company the package that was being offered and there had got the order from the High Court telling was no way the government could fulfill the the government to peacefully evict the families SVSV’s demand for more. in the next three months. Any violence from the Gopalan, one of the leader said that his or- state will result in a huge bloodshed. ganization was accepting the “leftover” offer The civil society (in sociological discourses, under protest, convinced that this was the best which provided by the plethora of social move- that Dalits could expect from both the ruling ments and the role of the nongovernmental or- and Opposition coalitions. He, however, said the ganizations in socio-economic development) of agitators would leave Chengara only after the Kerala reacted to it, when the hostile has been land promised by the government was actually imposed on them by the trade union of perma- allotted to them. Some other leaders also claimed nent workers in the plantation (it includes CITU, that the package was a sell-out and that it kept INTUC and BMS) when they demand to ensure a large number of families that were part of the the immediate lifting of the blockade and suffi- struggle outside the list of beneficiaries. cient supply of food, medicines and adequate “Dalits in Kerala are going to lose a lot be- health care to the protest camps. Along with cause of the Chengara package. We are all dis- these the government provided medical facili- appointed. There is a clear scaling down of the ties like medical camp and availability of the extent of land that the Scheduled Castes and ambulance for 24 hours near to the entrance, the Scheduled Tribes can claim from now on. the different NGOs had conducted medical Dalits were demanding one acre; the package camps for them. says they are eligible for 50 cents. Not long ago Adivasis were promised up to five acres, but the Chengara Movement Culmination government now says they will get only one acre.” (Frontline 2009). Chengara is yet another Though Chengara struggle ran for 795 days indication of the restlessness that is building up on the demand for five acres (one acre is 0.4 in the lower strata of Kerala society, which is hectare) of cultivable land for every participant sought to be articulated pointedly under a caste family, the struggle ended abruptly on October (rather than class) identity, and disturbingly, at 6, with clear signs of divisions in the leader- times, with extremist overtones. ship and the ranks of the agitators who played The movement is having the character of an active role in the struggle. But it was clear cultural pluralism, which deals with the changes from the beginning that the Chengara agitation, in the life style and the reconstruction of the BEYOND RESOURCE MOBILIZATION THEORY 33 social structure. They believe that, acquiring social movements. The attributes compared (re- agricultural land will make them perfect to live fer Table I) are drawn from Chris Rhodes’s work in this neo liberal economy. Dalits insurgencies (Buechler 1995; Cohen 1985; Gamson 1988, have to be understood in the backdrop of the 1992; Inglehart 1981; Martell 1994; Melucci attempts of the post colonial India to revitalise 1994; Mertig 2001; Offe 1994; Sutton 2000). landlordism and to promote parasitic landlord- ism. After the land reforms the overwhelming Table 1: Comparison of old and new social movements majority of tribal communities and dalits in Components Old social New social Kerala continue to be entirely landless. Most of movements movements the tribal people were through the past few cen- Ideology Political focus Cultural focus turies drafted into agrarian society as bonded Society In early capitalist In advance capitalist workers and otherwise. Chengara, struggle for societies societies land acquisition raises the draw backs of the land Period Pre- 1960’s move- Post 1960’s move- reforms or the mainstream society’s (civil ments ments Participants Class-based Cross class partici- society’s) attitude towards the backwardness of pants certain groups of people. In Kerala, 85% of land- Issue raised Class-based issues Non-class/ cross class less people are Dalits, Adivasis and OBCs. The issues state land reform itself made them land owners Goals Materialist goals Post materialist goals Organization Centralized: Formal Decentralized: and at the same time landless. The unorganized and hierarchical Informal and grass sections of the society are organized on the ba- roots sis of Ambedkars ideas and Ayyankali. Chengara Medium of Institutional action; Direct action; Stuggle as such had some political influence but change collective action; collective and political involve- individual action; there is no core political agenda. ment individual life style Chengara struggle as a New Social Movement The Chengara struggle is a social movement which can be interpreted as a new social move- Chengara struggle which can also be con- ment as it fulfills the claim of the New Social sidered as a new social movement is different Movement theory and are significantly differ- from previous ones in terms of their social sup- ent from previous social movements of the in- port bases, goals, structures and styles. Earlier dustrial economy. The primary difference is in movements were rooted in the class conflicts of their goals, as the new movements focuses not capitalist societies. Whereas the new ones are on issues of materialistic qualities such as eco- said to derive from value cleavages that iden- nomic wellbeing, but on issues related to hu- tify only communities of likeminded people. The man rights. The Chengara struggle comes un- goals of these movements are said to be collec- der post 1960s movements in advance capital- tive goods rather than the more narrow self in- ist society. In terms of organization it is seen terests of older social movements. Their inter- that the Chengara struggle is decentralized in nal structures are also allegedly more decentral- terms of informal and grass root level partici- ized, open and democratic than older and more pation. Most of the agitators in this movement hierarchically organized labor unions. Chengara actively participated in the political activities movement of Kerala which is a new social move- of different political parties and some are also ment/ contemporary movements are fused on members of trade unions. Moreover, cultural goals of autonomy, identity, self realization and focus comes when it is related to the identity of qualitative life chances, rather than divisible the downtrodden. material benefits and resources. It is somewhat difficult to define what the Chengara Movement and Resource differences between New Social Movement and Mobilization Theory Old Social Movement. Extensive effort has been made by writers in defining the differences par- The Chengara struggle of Kerala is a new ticularly among the new social movement theo- social movement that inspired a new wave of rists, who believes that contemporary social liberation for the downtrodden through its mo- movements are fundamentally different from old bilization process. Resource Mobilization theory 34 M. MANOSMITA, C. ARUNA AND K. LIBINA concerns more with the process of mobilization among minority groups which drew some of of the movement rather than focussing on the their movement’s strength from reassertion of causes. In the present paper the resource mobi- identity place but also on how the movement is lization theory is aptly significant. The assump- organized. It was called resource mobilization tion of the theory fulfils the criteria of the theory because the theory purported to show that Chengara struggle giving the movement a theo- the success of a movement depended on the re- retical approach. Studies have been done with sources available to be used. These resources relation to the theoretical approaches to social arose from inducting individuals to participate movements but resource mobilization theory and contribute to the cost. Resources mobiliza- forms a new alternative to the existing theories tion is focused on a functional model assuming (Jenkins 1983). rational actors and misses psychological factors Turner and Killian’s (1957) formulation of such as frustration and alienation. the collective behavior tradition was oriented Social movements are traditionally seen as to short-term, spontaneous actions and was not extension of more elementary forms of collec- well-suited to studying ongoing, organized, po- tive behavior and as encompassing both move- litical forms of protest. Kornhauser’s (1959) ments for personal change and institutional analysis of a mass society in which only the most change like legal reforms and changes in po- marginal, socially isolated people would become litical power. Resource mobilization theorists involved in collective behavior seemed to fly in have, in contrast, seen social movement as an the face of mobilization patterns in 1960s move- extension of institutionalized actions and have ments. Smelser’s (1962) assumptions that col- restricted their focus to movements of institu- lective behavior involved a short-circuiting of tional change that attempt to alter “elements of institutional channels by irrational actors un- social structure and the reward distribution in a der the sway of generalized beliefs were an es- society (McCarthy and Zald 1977). Similarly pecially inappropriate way to analyze much in the Chengara struggle importance has been (though not all) of the protest behavior of the given to the institutional change whereas land 1960s. And Gurr’s (1970) synthesis of relative as a source of mobilization played an important deprivation approaches ultimately rested on psy- role in initiating the movement. chological models of frustration-aggression The new social movement is seen as illustra- which also distorted more than they revealed tive of a different style of political involvement about many forms of activism. Against this theo- characterized by decentralization and much retical backdrop, the resource mobilization wider public participation than is common in theory framework offered an appealing alterna- traditional forms of interest group activities. tive for many sociologists. In contrast to tradi- They are also said to be more likely to resort to tional socio psychological interpretations, re- unconventional political tactics pursuit of their source mobilization theory emphasizes the im- goal and to advocate a new world view. portance of structural factors, such as the avail- ability of resources to a collectivity and the po- CONCLUSION sition of individuals in social networks, and stresses the rationality of participation in social The struggle at Chengara is more than a movements (Oberschall 1973; Gamson 1975; struggle for land; it is a political struggle for Marx and Wood 1975; McCarthy and Zald 1976; identity and citizenship, and marks a new phase Snow et al. 1986; Gamson 1992). in the history of democratic struggle in Kerala. The present study on Chengara struggle deals It is a voluntary struggle entirely initiated by with the downtrodden, often involved in strug- the landless people who belong to dalit com- gles to establish rights. These include rights to munity who have suffered a lot as landless and livelihood, rights to land, and for the human marginalized for several decades. It may seem rights. To the extent that many demands of the strange that it in fact takes up a struggle that social movements are based on struggle to es- has been left unfinished by the traditional Left tablish rights, it may be said that they are part in Kerala as the land reforms have not done of the attempts to create or recreate a civil soci- anything for the landless dalits as they were ety. It also drew the focus back to issues of iden- given only the residential land for pursuing ag- tity and culture. The movement also centered riculture. There are no changes in the case of BEYOND RESOURCE MOBILIZATION THEORY 35 landless dalit people. Meanwhile they started Kornhauser W 1959. The Politics of Mass Society. Glencoe, movement against the state and its representa- IL: Free Press. Klandermans B 1983. Participation in a Social Movement, A tives, the struggle assumes special significance Mobilization Campaign Studied. (Dutch) Amsterdam: at a time when more and more peasants, adivasis VU. and dalits are being robbed of their land and Lipsky M 1968. Protest as a political resource. American their traditional, life giving habitat and driven Political Science Review 62: 1144–1158. Martell A 1944. Ecology and Society: An Introduction. to starvation and suicide. Cambridge: Polity Press. The present paper emphasizes that the Marx GT, Wood JL 1975. Strands of theory and research in Chengara movement has taken place in the collective behaviour. Annual Review of Sociology, 1: modern neo liberal society with the characteris- 363-428. tics of new social movement. This paradoxical McAdam D 1982. Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930–1970. University of Chicago movement requires the attention of several dis- Press, Chicago. ciplines, voluntary and philanthropic associa- McCarthy JD, Zald MN 1973. Resource mobilization: An tion, social workers for the in depth understand- analysis of conflicting theoretical variations. The ing of the problem. Sociological Quarterly, 29: 97-110. McCarthy JD, Zald MN 1977. Resource mobilization and social movement: A partial theory. American Journal of REFERENCES Sociology, 82: 1212-1241. Melucci A 1994. A strange kind of newness: What’s ‘New’ in Bayley S, Bryant R 1997. Third World Political Ecology: new social movements?” In: E Laraña, H Johnston, JR London: Routledge. Gusfield (Eds.): New Social Movments: From Ideology Buechler SM 1995. New social movement theories. To Identity. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, pp. Sociological Quarterly, 36(3): 441-464. 101-130. Cable S, Edward JW, Rex HW 1988. Differential paths to Mertig AG, Riley ED 2001. Environmentalism, new social political activism: Comparison of four mobilization movements, and the new class: A cross-national processes after the three mile island accident. Social investigation, Rural Sociology, 66, 113-136. Force, 66: 951-969. Morris A 1984. The Origin of the Civil Rights Movements. Cohen JL 1985. Strategy and identity: New theoretical New York: Free Press. paradigms and contemporary social movements, Social Oberschall A 1973. Social Conflict and Social Movements. Research, 52: 663-716. USA: Prentice Hall Publisher. Fireman B, Gamson W 1979. The creation of political Offe C 1985. New social movements: Changing boundaries solidarity in social movement organizations. The of the political. Social Research, 52: 817-68. Sociological Quarterly, 3: 373-387. Perrow 1979. Insurgency of the powerless: Farm worker Frontline 2009. A 795-day agitation by landless families, movements. American Sociological Review, 42: 249- mostly Dalit, is called off after the State government 268. announces a settlement package, Volume 26 - Issue 22: Piven FF, Cloward R 1977. Poor People’s Movements. New Oct. 24-Nov. 06. York: Vintage Books. Gamson WA 1975. The Strategy of Social Protest. Wadsworth, Ray R, Katzestien MF 2005. Social Movements in India: Belmont, CA. Poverty, Power and Politics. New Delhi: Oxford Gamson WA 1988. Political discourse and collective action. University Press. In: B Klandermans, H Kriesi, S Tarrows (Eds.): Rochford EB Jr 1985. Hare Krishna in America. New International Social Movement Research, Volume 1, Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. From Structure to Action: Comparing Social Movement Research Across Cultures. Greenwich: JAI Press. pp. Ruggiero V, Montagna N 2008. Social Movements: A Reader. 219-244. London: Routledge Press. Gamson WA 1992. The Social Psychology of Collective Action. Snow DA, Rochford EB, Worden SK, Benford R 1986. Frame In: AD Morris, Mueller C McClurg (Eds.): Frontiers in alignment process, micro-mobilization, and movement Social Movement Theory. New Haven: Yale University participation. American Sociological Review, 51: 464- Press, pp. 53-76. 481. Gurr T 1970. Why Men Rebel. USA: Princeton University Smelser N 1962. Theory of Collective Behaviour. New York: Press. Free Press. Halebsky S 1976. Mass Society and Political Conflict. Sutton PW 2000. Explaining Environmentalism: In Search Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. of a New Social Movement. Burlington: Ashgate. Inglehart R 1981. Post-materialism in an environment of Tilly C 1978. From Mobilization to Revolution. MA: Addison- insecurity. The American Political Science Review, Wesley, Reading. 75(4): 880-990. Turner RN, Killian L 1972. Collective Behaviour. 2nd Edition. Jenkins JC 1983. Resource mobilization theory and the study Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. of social movements. Annual Review of Sociology, 9: Walsh EJ 1978. Mobilization theory vis-a-vis a mobilization 527-553. process: The case of the united farm worker’s movement. Jenkins JC, Perrow C 1977. Insurgency of the powerless: Farm In: Walsh Edward (Ed): Research in Social Movement, workers insurgency, 1946-1972. American Sociological Conflict and Change. Greenwich CT: JAI Press, pp. 155- Review, 42: 249-26. (Republished in Ben Aguire and 177. Russell Curtis (Eds.) Collective Behavior and Social Waterman AS 1981. Individualism and interdependence. Movements, Wadsworth, 1992.) American Psychologist, 36: 762-773.