Page 119 - Contemporary Political Sociology Globalization Politics and Power

Social Movements 105

from which social movements grow in momentum. However, if framing
processes are seen as fundamental to mobilization, as indeed McAdam et
al. themselves suggest in their proposed synthesis of approaches within
RMT, this suggests conclusions which are more radically constructionist
than theorists within the approach have acknowledged.
First, the implication of framing as fundamental to movement mobiliza-
tion is that individuals may never act in ways which Resource Mobilization
theorists would find rational. If individual decisions to join social move-

ments are made on the basis of the internal validity of the frames within
which they are situated as social actors, the link between actual political
opportunities and collective action is severed. As Gamson ( 1992 : 69 – 70)
puts it, “ A successful theory of framing must be based on an epistemology
that recognizes facts as social constructions and evidence as taking on
its meaning from the master frames in which it is embedded. ” The
success of a movement may be assessed on the basis of the actual political
opportunities available to it, regardless of how those involved in it see
them; but the action of those involved cannot be assessed as rational aside
from the terms in which they themselves construct it as such. In fact,
Gamson argues that adherents are more likely to act if they make an
over - optimistic assessment of the chances of a movement ’ s success; ironi-
cally, from a rational choice perspective, they are more likely to act
irrationally, without a realistic assessment of the opportunities available
to them.
Second, the framing approach suggests that, rather than objectively and

scientifically studying social movements as social phenomena “ out there ”
in the world, Resource Mobilization theorists are actually much more
implicated in that world than has hitherto been supposed on this approach.
The assumptions on which RMT is based are themselves cultural con-
structions. According to the RMT account, in order to participate in
collective action, one must see oneself as having an interest which can
only be realized in common with others, as capable of acting with them
to bring about change, and as gaining from that activity. In other words,
one must frame one ’ s identity as a rational calculator of the costs and
benefits of collective action. Insofar as it is the case that social actors do

frame their identities in this way, then it is not that Resource Mobilization
theorists provide a detached explanation of social movements; it is rather
that both share the same master frame. The implications of this are clear.
If, as Gamson has clearly pointed out, the framing approach is based on
an epistemology in which “ facts ” are internal to a particular frame, there

is no possible independent verification of the way in which RMT frames
social action. Resource Mobilization theorists cannot step outside the