Social Movements and the Institutionalization of Dissent in America

Abstract

This chapter explores how social movements have influenced institutional politics—with particular reference to dissent—in America. The chapter looks at the process of political institutionalization offered by the American political system to various claimants. It considers how American politics helped perpetrate inclusion and influence, and how historic movements have responded to those opportunities. It then describes four distinct social movements in America: feminism and women’s rights, civil rights and abolition of slavery, labor movement, and environmentalism. It argues that these movements are not self-contained and insular, but interconnected in the way they affect one another, American political institutions, and other social movement challenges. It also discusses five interrelated ways through which the process of institutionalization takes place: individuals, ideas, laws, new bureaucratic institutions, and formal recognition as nongovernmental organizations. The chapter concludes by reflecting on the ongoing development of social movements as a recurrent feature in American politics.

Globally Visible Environmental Protest: A Cross-national Analysis, 1970–2010

“…Model predictions suggest that protest rapidly increases with democracy until the far end of the scale, and then falls back slightly (not presented here; available upon request). This is aligned with arguments that, as social movements are incorporated into political decision making, or institutionalized, through structures like protective laws and regulatory agencies, the level of extra-institutional protest may decrease (for a review, see D. S. Meyer and Laschever 2015).…”

Cultural Dynamics and Sustainable Consumption: a Perception of Brazilian Students in Germany

“…As institutions (Meyer & Laschever, 2016), social movements also influence the behavior of people impacted by them, as happened with the environmental movement in the 1970s (Coglianese, 2001). Kim (2017) argues that research on material culture and artifacts does not give due importance to the role of these elements within social movements.…”

Overflowing Channels: How Democracy Didn’t Work as Planned (and Perhaps a Good Thing It Didn’t)

“…Scholars have traced movements’ bifurcation over time, between those who opt for more transgressive actions on behalf of more radical ideas and those who opt for more conventional actions on behalf of more modest reforms. These researchers have tried to understand the specific social conditions under which this bifurcation of institutionalization and radicalization occurs (Koopmans 1993; Meyer 1993; Meyer and Laschever 2016; Santoro and Fitzpatrick 2015). Long-term studies of movements have thus paid a lot of attention to their institutionalization.…”