The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare Volume 38 Issue 2 June - Special Issue on Peace, Conflict Article 7 and War 2011 Students for Peace: Contextual and Framing Motivations of Antiwar Activism Eric Swank Morehead State University Breanne Fahs Arizona State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jssw Part of the Peace and Conflict Studies Commons, and the Social Work Commons Recommended Citation Swank, Eric and Fahs, Breanne (2011) "Students for Peace: Contextual and Framing Motivations of Antiwar Activism," The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare: Vol. 38 : Iss. 2 , Article 7. Available at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jssw/vol38/iss2/7 This Article is brought to you by the Western Michigan University School of Social Work. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Students for Peace: Contextual and Framing Motivations of Antiwar Activism Emec SWANIC Department of Sociology, Social Work and Criminology Morehead State University BREANNE FAHS Women and Gender Studies Program Arizona State University This article traces the development of peace activism among un- dergraduate social work students. In doing so, it explores how social statuses, political contexts, and collective action frames affect the likelihood of joining the movement against the Afghani- stan war (2001 to current). After analyzing data from a multi- campus sample of Bachelors in Social Work (BSW) students (n = 159), results show that peace activism was predicted by level of education as well as perceptions of proper foreign policy, the relative efficacy of social movement tactics, and identification with specific activist ideals. Finally, being situated in activist net- works fostered greater peace activism while the ascribed statuses of race, class, and gender were poor predictors of peace activism. Key words: peace activism, students, antiwar,BSW, social move- ment, collective action In the last twenty years, the United States has initiated three major wars: twice in Iraq, and once in Afghanistan. In each war, most Americans initially supported the war policies, but a noticeable segment of the U.S. population also mobilized Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, June 2011, Volume XXXVIII, Number 2 111 112 Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare into new incarnations of U.S. peace movements (Meyer & Corrigall-Brown, 2005). While demonstrations against the Afghan and Iraq wars were large, little analysis exists about who joined these recent peace movements (Bogdan Vasi, 2006; Duncan & Stewart, 1995; Verhulst & Walgrave, 2007). To date, no studies have explored the extent to which employed social workers or social work students have contributed to the recent protests against the U.S. invasions of Middle Eastern countries. In its most abstract terms, the social work profession has a commitment to achieving global and local peace through po- litical and non-political means. The social work literature con- tains many essays on why and how social workers can work for peace making and human rights at international, national and local levels (e.g., Adams, 1991; Lundy & van Wormer, 2007; Moshe, 2001). The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) code of ethics reads: "Social Workers promote social justice and social change with and on the behalf of clients." Some of the ways to achieve social justice is through "direct practice, community organizing, social and political activism." Moreover, the NASW Peace and Social Justice Committee has urged social workers to work for an absence of war as well as reducing the size of the federal military budget, greater cooperation with the United Nations, total nuclear disarma- ment, stopping the poverty draft and a general de-escalation of violence. While professional organizations have urged social workers to engage in peace activism, there is an absence of empirical studies on how often or why social workers join social move- ments against an ongoing war. When addressing political ac- tivism in general, many impressionistic essays suggest that the social work profession has become too "micro orientated" and has neglected its activist mission (Abramowitz, 1998; Davis, Cummings & MacMaster, 2007; Specht & Courtney, 1993). Coates (2003) warned that "many social workers consider the area of policy and actions to change policy to be the concerns of others-administrators, academics, government-but not themselves" (p. 138). Likewise, when discussing social work's role in international relations and peacemaking, James Midgley wrote (2001): "It cannot be claimed that social activism has Contextual and FramingMotivations of Antiwar Activism 113 been popular in social work or that it has inspired many social workers" (p. 10). College students have often been a central force in peace movements in the past (Van Dyke, 2003) but there is little knowledge of how social work students might fit into these dynamics. On the other hand, there is some research on the reformist tendencies of social work students. The empirical lit- erature suggests that only a small percentage of social work students see social reform as a primary role for social workers. While one study contends that a "desire to create social change" is a major motive for students choosing social work (Hanson & McCullagh, 1995), other studies suggests that social work students are not enamored with political activism and prefer a career in micro practice (Aviram & Katan, 1991; Butler, 1990). To address peace activism among social work students, this paper asks two related questions: (1) What proportion of undergraduate social work students have protested against the U.S. war in Afghanistan?; and (2) What are the factors that differentiate the students who have and have not joined this recent peace mobilization in the United States? With a focus on factors that may inspire and hinder activ- ism, this work integrates insights from many academic disci- plines. The much cited "resource" model of political science guides our theoretical conceptualizations (Brady, Verba, & Scholzman, 1995), as do the sociological theories of "mobiliza- tion structures" (McAdam & Paulsen, 1993; Passy, 2001) and "collective action frames" (Gamson, 1992; Klandermans, 1997; Snow & Benford, 1992). This work also taps the nascent lit- erature on peace activism among social work faculty (Davis et al., 2007; Van Soest, Johnston, & Sullivan, 1987) and political participation among social work students (Aviram & Katan, 1991; Butler, 1990; Rocha, 2000; Weiss, 2003) and employed social workers (Dudziak & Coates, 2004; Ezell, 1993; Hamilton & Fauri, 2001; Parker & Sherraden, 1992; Reeser, 1992; Ritter, 2008; Wolk, 1981). Literature Review Variable selection in this study is partially guided by the "resource-model" of political participation (Brady et al., 1995). 114 Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare Offering a succinct answer as to why people refrain from poli- tics, the resource-model asserts: "because they can't, because they don't want to, or because nobody asked" (p. 271). "They can't" suggests a dearth of necessary resources to be politi- cal. While crucial resources may come in many forms, these authors emphasize the importance of financial situations, free time, and civic skills in civic engagement. "They don't want to" deals with a lack of psychological engagement in politics. This indifference to politics is sometimes seen as political igno- rance, but the resource model assumes that this is a reaction to a lower sense of political efficacy and greater levels of individ- ualism. "Nobody asked" implies that people are isolated from the recruitment networks that move citizens into action. They Can't: Class, Race, and Gender Cleavages According to "resource-model" scholars (Brady et al., 1995), socioeconomic standing (SES) is a powerful variable that drives political participation for members of every social group in society (e.g., SES works across race, gender, and occu- pational boundaries). In the simplest of terms, a person's class location grants or impedes access to opportunities and finan- cial resources that make political activism easier. Consequently, people in higher socio-economic levels amass and retain the structural elicitors of activism (be it more money, wider educa- tional opportunities, or greater amounts of free time). Numerous studies argue that affluence predicts politi- cal activism in samples of the general pubic (Barkan, Cohn, & Whitaker, 1995; Brady et al., 1995; Leighley & Vedlitz, 1999; Oliver, 1984; Tate, 1991; Wallace & Jenkins, 1995) and colle- giate undergraduates (Paulsen, 1994). When moving to social workers, the impact of income on activism is a bit less clear. A few studies argue that social workers are more political when they have higher incomes and more financial assets (Parker & Sherraden, 1992; Wolk, 1981). However, other studies find no such relationship (Andrews, 1998; Ezell, 1993; Hamilton & Fauri, 2001; Ritter, 2008). The resource model also asserts that greater educational attainment leads to greater political engagement (Finkel & Muller, 1998; Hillygus, 2005; Kingston & Finkel, 1987; Leighley & Vedlitz, 1999, Lim, 2008; Stake & Hoffman, 2001; Verhulst Contextual and FramingMotivations of Antiwar Activism 115 & Walgrave, 2007; Wallace & Jenkins, 1995). Studies among social workers often highlight the effects of education. Higher levels of educational attainment seem to inspire greater levels of activism among practicing social workers (Andrews, 1998; Chui & Gray, 2004; Ezell, 1993;