Page 106 - Contemporary Political Sociology Globalization Politics and Power

92 Social Movements

irrational response to social conditions. In theories deriving from the work
of Le Bon and popularized in functionalist accounts like that of Neil
Smelser, collective action was understood as outbursts of uncontrolled
behavior as a result of social dysfunctioning. This work was driven by
concern to prevent the rise of fascist and authoritarian movements, but
by the 1970s, sociologists were much more likely to be sympathetic to
the claims of new social movements, if not actively involved in them, and
could not subscribe to such a view (Offe, 1987 : 81; Scott, 1990 : 40 – 6).
The other popular theory against which RMT was developed was that of
relative deprivation; it was held that protest is the result of expectations
expanding more rapidly than real opportunities, so that groups who
experience themselves as marginalized and lacking in infl uence – students,
civil rights protestors, women – will turn to collective action to redress
their grievances. Resource Mobilization theorists have a very simple and
convincing rebuttal of any theory of social movements in which they are
seen as the result of social grievances: since there are always grievances
in a society, their mere existence cannot explain participation in collective
action (Zald and McCarthy, 1987 : 16 – 18). For Resource Mobilization
theorists, what needs to be explained is why individuals are purposefully
involved in collective action as a result of rational consideration of their
own interests: social action is not caused by structural conditions.
More recently, the premises of RMT in rational choice theory – itself
rooted in classical neo - economics – have been subjected to extensive
criticism; there has been an awakening of interest in less rational aspects
of individual motivation, and theorists sympathetic to the tradition have
attempted to develop a more sociologically satisfying account of participa-
tion in social movements. This has led to an interest among Resource
Mobilization theorists in subjectivity and culture. They have incorporated
ideas from the interactionist sociology of Erving Goffman into the
approach as a way of enriching its conception of individual decisions.
However, Resource Mobilization theorists have somewhat resisted the
implications of the “ cultural turn ” they have taken, simultaneously main-
taining the realist epistemology and rationalist premises on which the
tradition was founded. This has resulted in inconsistencies in the approach
which can only be addressed by recognizing those implications.
It is not only its methodological individualism that makes RMT a
liberal approach, but also the way in which it implicitly takes the state as
the arena of politics proper. For Resource Mobilization theorists, although
social movements may initially have a problematic relation to government
insofar as their members do not see themselves as properly represented
in dominant political parties and institutions, success for a social