Organization and Radical Protest: An Antithesis?

Abstract

It is the contention of this article that Robert Michels’ Iron Law of Oligarchy is overdeterministic. Rather than depicting a conservative and nonrepresentative oligarchy as inevitable, this article asks: What factors affect whether there are changes in the policy and strategy stances of protest leaders over time, and whether such changes are in the direction of increased conservatism? Borrowing from the theoretical premises of the resource mobilization perspective on protest movements, this article isolates three key factors: (1) the outcome of past protest strategies for various subgroups within the protest organization; (2) shifts in the attitudes of existing organizational members; and (3) the attempts to mobilize a significantly more heterogeneous constituency. It is argued that in response to these factors, protest leaders may move in the direction of increased radicalism, as well as increased conservatism. Further, it is argued that increased conservatism in and of itself does not signal any change in the degree to which leaders represent their constituents. In the second section of the article, this theoretical argument is explored by drawing upon evidence from the agrarian protest movement of the late nineteenth century.

The Iron Law ofWhatAgain? Conceptualizing Oligarchy Across Organizational Forms

“…A second approach to the concept of oligarchy has been to focus on Michels's supposed claim that organization also inevitably leads to conservatism through a process of goal displacement (Voss and Sherman 2000;Rucht 1999;Barnes 1987;Fox and Arquitt 1981;Swerdlow 1973;Merton 1957;Sills 1957;Gusfield 1955;Selznick 1949Selznick , 1943Kopald 1924). While it is of course interesting to ask under what conditions organizations that start out with radical goals become more conservative over time-and clearly this process is often related to oligarchizationasking why an organization changes its goals is not the same thing as asking how many are ruling it.…”

“…Focusing on the third step in Michels's argument and arguing from a pluralist perspective, these critics accepted that bureaucracy happens and that in a bureaucracy power rises, but they questioned whether power must necessarily corrupt and posited various structural ways in which a leadership might be held accountable to the majority it is meant to represent (Edelstein 1967;Lipset et al 1956;Gouldner 1954;Schumpeter 1950). Others concerned with accountability focused on the process of goal displacement, the tendency of entrenched leaderships to abandon the membership's original goals in favor of those that ensure organizational maintenance (Barnes 1987;Merton 1957;Sills 1957;Gusfield 1955;Selznick 1949). Several of these studies suggested that the iron law was perhaps better understood as an ''aluminum tendency.''…”

Oligarchy, Iron Law of

“…Taking a pluralist perspective, these critics accepted that bureaucracy happens and that in a bureaucracy, power rises, but they rejected the assertion that power must necessarily corrupt and posited various ways in which a powerful minority might be held accountable to the majority it is meant to represent (Edelstein, 1967;Gouldner, 1965;Lipset et al, 1956;Schumpeter, 1950). Others concerned with accountability have focused on the process of goal displacement, i.e., the tendency of entrenched leaderships to abandon the membership's original goals in favor of those that ensure organizational survival and growth (Barnes, 1987;Gusfield, 1955;Merton, 1957;Selznick, 1949;Sills, 1957).…”

The Impact of Movements: Bureaucratic Insurgency, Canadianization and the CSAA*

“…Some have argued that the model is over-deterministic. Barnes ( 1987), for example, maintains that both Weber and Michels were too forceful in stating categorically that all organizations naturally go through the same process of increased conservatism, centralization and bureaucratization. She counters with examples whereby an organization, well on its way to becoming thoroughly controlled by a small group of elites, suddenly shifted direction, and organizational control was regained by the general membership.…”