Pamela E. Oliver
Professor of Sociology

Collections: Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings

  • Clemens, E. S. (1996). Organizational Form as Frame: Collective Identity and Political Strategy in the American Labor Movement, 1880-1920. CP: 205-226. Org. form and content/strategy were linked.
  • Della Porta, D. (1996). Social Movements and the State: Thoughts on the Policing of Protest. CP: 62-92. Changes in the policing of protest, detailed case information on Italy and Germany. Her main point is the need for an interactive model, as the state changes in response to movements as much as movements change in response to the state.
  • Gamson, W. A. and D. S. Meyer (1996). Framing Political Opportunity. CP: 273-290. The perception of political opportunity is framed.
  • Klandermans, B. and S. Goslinga (1996). Media Discourse, Movement Publicity, and the Generation of Collective Action Frames: Theoretical and Empirical Exercises in Meaning Construction. CP: 312-337. Detailed theoretically-grounded case of a class of media frames (or political icons, using Szasz’s term)
  • Kriesi, H. (1996). The Organizational Structure of New Social Movements in a Political Context. CP: 152-184. Theory & typologizing on state-movement interactions.
  • McAdam, D. (1996). Conceptual Origins, Current Problems, Future Directions. CP: 23-40. Standard review of 3 major processes: political opportunities, mobilizing structures, framing processes. Discursive essay, sketches factors relevant to movements and summarizes relevance to comparative studies.
  • McAdam, D. (1996). The Framing Function of Movement Tactics: Strategic Dramaturgy in the American Civil Rights Movement. CP: 338-355. A summary of the civil rights movement as strategic dramaturgy. The key is that tactics are frames and there are frames about tactics, that a key were battles over the interpretation of tactics as legal or illegal, moral or immoral.
  • McAdam, D., J. D. McCarthy, et al. (1996). Introduction: Opportunities, Mobilizing Structure, and Framing Processes — Toward a Synthetic, Comaprative Perspective on Social Movements. CP: 1-20.
  • McCarthy, J. D. (1996). Constraints and Opportunities in Adopting, Adapting, and Inventing. CP: 141-151. A discursive essay stressing the diversity of forms of mobilizing structures, using a 2×2 typology which contrasts informal and formal structures, and movement and nonmomvement structures.
  • McCarthy, J. D., J. Smith, et al. (1996). Accessing Public, Media, Electoral, and Governmental Agendas. CP Concerned with specifying the social structural contexts that condition movement framing efforts, and condition the repertoires of tactics within these structures. Groups with more resources tend to use more “insider” tactics. The article links the agenda-setting literature with ideas of strategy and tactics.
  • Oberschall, A. (1996). Opportunities and Framing in the Eastern European Revolts of 1989. CP: 93-121. Framing processes determine the perception of political opportunities. Case histories of the anti-communist revolutions in Poland, Hungary, East Germany, and Czechoslovakia. Emphasizes crowds rather than organizations in the revolts.
  • Rucht, D. (1996). The Impact of National Contexts on Social Movement Structures: A Cross-Movement and Cross-National Comparison. CP: 183-204. How national contexts affect movement structures. Compares the women’s and environmental movements in France, West Germany, and the US. He argues that there are distinct national differences in political contexts, but that it is also clear that the structures change across time within countries, and argues that these changing structures are what should be meant by opportunities.
  • Tarrow, S. (1996). States and Opportunities: The Political Structuring of Social Movements. CP: 41-61. Develops a typology of state-building as a source of social movements, giving examples from the US, France, etc. Critiques the idea of the political opportunity structure as one thing.
  • Voss, K. (1996). The Collapse of a Social Movement: The Interplay of Mobilizing Structures, Framing, and Political Opportunities in the Knights of Labor. CP: 227-258. Argues the Knights lost not because they were weak but because organized employers were strong.
  • Zald, M. N. (1996). Culture, Ideology, and Strategic Framing. CP: 261-274. Six different issues relevant to culture, ideology, and framing, developed from a useful summary of existing literature.
  • Zdravomyslova, E. (1996). Opportunities and Framing in the Transition to Democracy: The Case of Russia. CP: 122-137. Describes the phases of the Leningrad revolt, stressing shifts in police responses over time, and the changing frames and tactics of the movement as it grew in strength. Police initially repress.