Beyond Resource Mobilization Theory: Dynamic Paradigm of Chengara Struggle
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
© 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