Page 117 - Contemporary Political Sociology Globalization Politics and Power

Social Movements 103

Eastern Europe in 1989, for example, the relaxation of state control in
the wake of Gorbachev ’ s reforms provided the conditions for mobiliza-
tion, but it only became a real possibility because already existing dissi-

dent groups had defined regimes as illegitimate and were ready to act
against the authorities. It is the dynamic interaction between political
opportunities, mobilizing structures, and framing processes which pro-
duces the emergence of a social movement.
McAdam et al. (1996) further suggest that the form of mobilization,
as well as its timing, is affected by perceptions of political opportunities.
To take the example of the Eastern European revolutions again, Elena
Zdravomyslova argues that in 1988, following relaxation of state control,
the Democratic Union was formed in Leningrad/St Petersburg; it exploited
the more tolerant policy on public gatherings by staging disruptive dem-
onstrations. In contrast, following a law granting popular elections passed
in the same year, the Leningrad People ’ s Front was formed to mount an
electoral campaign (McAdam, 1996 : 10). The divergent form of these
movements was the result of perceived political opportunities available
during their mobilization, according to McAdam and his associates.
Further, they argue that, as a movement develops, it may create its own
political opportunities, again illustrating the dynamic interaction between
different aspects of a movement ’ s activities across time. A good example
of mobilization creating political opportunities is that of the civil rights
movement; as a result of electoral access to Southern political structures,

and a consequent rise in the number of elected black officials, the political
opportunities available to the movement as such, as well as to its benefi -
ciaries, were significantly altered (McAdam, 1996 : 36).

In fact, McAdam et al. (1996) suggest that a movement is increasingly
the author of its own fate: organizations claiming to represent the move-
ment consciously shape shared understandings of it in contestation with
other collective actors claiming to represent it, with the state, and also
with counter - movements. However, the degree of control over defi nitions
and opportunities that McAdam and his associates suppose in this respect
is somewhat exaggerated. As Tarrow notes, social movement leaders do
not have complete control over how the collective frames of action they
propose will be received, nor over how far their supporters will be pre-
pared to follow their lead. In his words, “ framing is less like a completed
symphony than like improvisational jazz: composers provide the initial
‘ head ’ for a jam session, but the improvisations depend on a group of
players over whom they have little control ” (Tarrow, 1992 : 191).
McAdam et al. ’ s mistaken view of the possibilities of controlling
framing processes is actually indicative of a wider problem concerning the