- Email: [email protected]
Participants in the nuclear weapons freeze movement
Participants in the Nuclear Weapons Freeze Movement
C.E. TYGART* California State University
Explanations of why people participate in social movements are usually ad hoc combinations of ideology, social support, and ecological factors. This survey of Californians active in the nuclear freeze movement found that rather than structural isolation, as suggested by collective behavior tradition, the participants displayed links to Democratic Party organizations and the previous anti-Vietnam War movement. At least some social movements may become institutionalized to the degree that paradigms from areas such as political sociology of institutions are needed. Social movements may have evolved beyond their earlier collective behavior
origins. Scholarly advances in the field of social movements are difficult. Scholars are not sure as to which subfields or specializations social movements belong. For example, Killian concludes that usually social movements are considered a subfield of collective behavior.’ He suggests, however, that social movements could just as aptly be a part of political sociology. Frequently, a social movement is studied within the institution or specialty in which the social movement occurs. In a sense, the field of social movements is less than the sum of its parts. As with subfield placement, paradigms used in social movement research appear to be somewhat ad hoc. Two major paradigms are Smelser’s value-added paradigm and the Turner and Killian paradigm.2 Both view social movements as collective behavior, social movements representing the more structured aspects of collective behavior. Essentially, the two paradigms consist of three major elements: (1) ideology, (2) social support, and (3) ecological factors. The paradigms differ concerning these three elements in terms of specifics and emphasis. For example, Smelser’s ecological factors are much more ex*Direct all correspondence to: C.E. Tygart, Department of Sociology, California State University, Fullerton, CA 92634. The Social Science Journal, Volume 24, Number 4, pages 393-402. Copyright @ 1987 by JAI Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 00357634.
394
THE
SOCIAL
SCIENCE
JOURNAL
Vol. 24/No. 411987
plicitly identified than those of Turner and Killian. However, it is difficult to find scholarly continuity in the literature following these two earlier paradigms. Subsequent scholars frequently display convergences with the paradigm of Smelser as well as Turner and Killian. As was the case with the two earlier paradigms, the central concern remains the participants. The basic question is: Why do individuals participate in social movements? The counterpoint of the question is also basic: Why don’t individuals participate? Finally one may ask: Why do participants engage in social movements rather than some institutionalized process? The focus on participants might suggest a micro level of analysis; however, the basic question of why or why not individuals participate could stimulate a macro level of analysis as well as micro. Whether ideology or structure is of greater importance for social movement participation is one of the more enduring arguments in the literature. Bolton exemplifies a balanced view in the ideological-structural argument.3 He advances the social movement participation paradigm by interrelating (1) personality predisposition of those who become active in social movements and (2) social structural effects that encourage individuals with the personality predisipositions to participate. Snow, Zurcher, and Eckland-Olson examine the structural effects of social networks and social movement recruitment.4 Their basic questions include: (1) microstructural avenues of recruitment, (2) differential social movement participation availability, (3) structural characteristics that influence patterns of recruitment patterns, and (4) effects of recruitment patterns for spread and growth of social movements. They find that (1) structural proximity, (2) availability, and (3) effective interaction with movement members strongly influence recruitment. Snow et al. discuss the limitations of research that studies only attitudes of participants. However, their research essentially depicts only structural effects. In this sense, their work is as incomplete as exclusively attitudinal research. Snow et al. may have compounded the incompleteness of their analysis by suggesting that their respondents were the same in attitudinal predisposition. The potential participant has to be informed about and introduced into a particular movement. Thus, even if one accepts the popular contention that some individuals are predisposed social-psychologically, what determines which potential participants are most likely to come into contact with and be recruited into one movement rather than another, if any movement at all? Greater ideological predisposition might be a factor as to why some individuals come into contact with or are recruited into a movement. The ideological predisposition of individuals to engage in social movements varies. Ransford reported on the feelings of powerlessness on the part of black participants in the 1960s racial movements. Relative deprivation was advanced by researchers such as Aberle, Davies, Glock, and Gums As previously discussed, some scholars have blended the ideological and social structure factors. An important example is found in the analysis of vuniversity student social movement activism in the 1960s and early 1970s. Weinberg and Walker depicted student activism due to an absence of linkages to established institutions such as political parties.6 An empirical examination of the Weinberg and Walker model was undertaken by Tygart and Holt.7 Rather than the absence of linkages between established political parties and student anti-war activism, they found the opposite. Demonstrators in the
Participants in the Nuclear Weapons Freeze Movement
395
UCLA campus anti-war movement were more likely to have worked in Democratic Party precinct activities than the rest of the sample. Additionally, demonstrators were more optimistic in their appraisal of demonstrations having an effect on the Vietnam War situation than the rest of the sample. What about possible linkages among social movements? For example, are participants in one social movement involved in other social movements? Tygart investigated linkages among social movements for clerical sociopolitical activists.* Among clergy, the church has afforded a tradition of activism in the institutional changes and processes. In a sense, activism is a common milieu for clergy. However, not all clergy participate. Tygart found that for clergy involved in anti-Vietnam War social movement activism, civil rights war movement participation was the strongest correlate. This correlation remained after controlling for political and religious ideology. Paradigms such as Smelser as well as Turner and Killian suggest the importance of belief systems for social movement participation. These ideologies value the goals of a social movement. Also, ideologies specify the tactics that a social movement is to employ as well as defending the movement as a bona fide tactic per se. Given a favorable ideology toward social movements, wouldn’t this variable be sufficient for understanding social movement participation? As discussed earlier, theorists generally think that ideology by itself is an insufficient explanation of social movement participation. The analysis of social movement participation should at least consider facilitating social structures along with ideology. For the present study the social structures will include participation in institutionalized political processes and other social movements. Smelser’s paradigm discusses facilitating structures in which ecological variables are included. The social structural variables of the present research are consistent with Smelser’s paradigm. Being with other social movement participants could be conceived as an ecological variable as well as the more general social structural conceptualization. At the macro level of analysis, social scientists seem to expect a movement would have greater influence in the societal processes with greater structural linkages to established institutions. The present research investigates the effects of individuals’ involvement in institutionalized political processes for social movement participation. If there are any effects, is movement participation increased or decreased? Consistent with linkages between institutional processes and social movements, relationships among movements might enhance their societal effects. Likewise, an individual’s participation in one social movement could affect his or her participation in other movements. Linkages among movements could give form to an otherwise amorphous mass. Perhaps what was an ephemeral movement gains relevance for the societal processes. The present research points to two bivariate questions: (1) Does participation in institutionalized political processes affect nuclear weapon freeze movement participation? and (2) Does participation in other movements increase the probability for participation in the nuclear weapons freeze movement? Multivariate analysis asks two other questions. First, What are the multivariate effects of participation in the activities of established political parties for social movement participation after controlling for ideology and participation in other movements? Second, What are the multivariate effects of participation in other social movements for social movement participation after controlling for participation in established political activities and other movements?
396
THE SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL Vol. 24/No. 4/1987
The nuclear freeze movement offers an opportunity to investigate structural variables. This issue has appeared on state and local election referendums. Both the U.S. Congress and state legislatures have passed resolutions on the subject. The nuclear freeze movement is a variant of peace movements in general, thus affording an opportunity for studying prior movement participation. Twenty percent of the California population form the universe of the present study. The 1,200 respondents represent an equal number of males and females 18 years of age and older. The data were collected in January 1984. Randomly selected telephone numbers of Democratic political party registrants were utilized, consistent with standard polling procedures. However, the telephone area codes as well as the telephone number prefix were selected for the purpose of obtaining more respondents who are active in the political processes. The goal of the present research is analysis of social movements rather than an estimation of a universe on a public opinion issue. Democrats were chosen because Republicans are rarely active in this issue. As was expected from the select sampling procedures, these respondents differ in some aspects from the California adult population. The median educational attainment level for the respondents was three years of college, which is about two years higher than the California population. Respondents were about 30% more in professional, technical, and kindred occupations than would be expected. Conversely, these respondents were much less likely to be employed in blue-collar occupations. Eleven percent of the respondents reported some participation in the nuclear freeze movement. As previously reported, the degree of participation cannot be generalized to the entire California adult population. As an estimate, the respondents are probably at least four times more involved in this social movement than the general population of California. Social movement participation measurement is somewhat restricted. Institutionalized political processes is one explanatory variable. Because the dependent variable needs to be conceptually distinct, a rather narrow measurement of nuclear freeze movement participation is used. For example, “signing a petition” is not considered a nuclear freeze movement activity because this is a frequent process in California. Activities that were classified as a nuclear freeze movement activity included: (1) planning a demonstration, (2) demonstrating, (3) planning a public meeting or rally, (4) attending a meeting or rally, and (5) contributing money needed to carry out an activity such as a demonstration. About one-half of these respondents, or approximately 6% of the sample, had some connection with demonstrations, either planning or demonstrating, while almost 1% (N = 11) reported taking part in the planning of demonstrations. More than 1% (N = 17) had planned meetings or rallies, while 8% of the sample had attended these events. Of these respondents, 3% indicated that they had contributed money and 11% of the sample reported at least one activity. Contributing money appears to indicate the least degree of involvement for these respondents. If only one activity were indicated, in 96% of the cases the activity was contributing money. Perhaps this lesser commitment is possible because contributing money need not be a public event. Also, contributing money requires, in a sense, the least amount of time compared to other activities. Demonstrating, planning, or participating is the greatest exhibition of involvement. All such respondents had taken part in other social movement activities. Planning or atten-
Participants in the Nuclear Weapons Freeze Movement
397
dance of meetings and rallies indicates an intermediate level of involvement, and 44% of these respondents reported taking part in other activities-usually demonstrating. Thus, demonstrators usually had attended rallies or meetings while the reverse was mostly not the case. Measures of institutional political processes were: (1) contributing money to a specific candidate for public office, (2) belonging to a political party organization, (3) participating in a party organization, (4) working for a candidate in a primary election, and (5) party precinct work. Obviously this was all within the Democratic Party. Of the entire sample, 23% reported at least one activity; 17% reported two activities; 1 l%, three activities; 6%, four activities, and 3% had taken part in all of the activities. The percentage of these respondents for each activity were, respectively: (1) 14%, (2) 19%, (3) 16%, (4) 9%, and (5) 6%. That the modal activity was belonging to a political organization might warrant a brief explanation. Organizations that are affiliated with the Republican or Democratic Party are more numerous in California than in almost any other state. Probably in most states, Young Democrat or Young Republican clubs constitute the bulk of memberships in political party organizations. In addition to these two organizations, a multitude of other organizations abound in California. The California Democratic Club is the oldest and largest of these; other examples are the Black Democratic Caucus and the Hispanic Democrats. The items used were the same as those used for measuring participation in the dependent variable, the nuclear weapons freeze movement. Respondents showed greater participation in movements other than the nuclear freeze. This greater participation in other movements was the case for all identifiable categories of respondents except those under 25 years of age. Perhaps for the younger respondents the nuclear weapons freeze movement was the first significant social movement in their adult lives. Regarding movements other than nuclear weapons freeze movement, the respondents indicated that: (1) 32% took part in planning of demonstrations, (2) 11% had demonstrated, (3) 3% had planned meetings or rallies, (4) 9% had attended meetings or rallies, and (5) 16% had contributed money. Sixteen percent indicated at least one activity. Of those participating in other social movements, the anti-Vietnam War movement was listed most frequently-14% of the sample had participated. Of these, 12% had demonstrated against the Vietnam War. The civil rights movement was listed second by 6%. The movement for a constitutional amendment for women’s equal rights was third with 3% participation. Several other movements combined totalled an additional 3% participation from these respondents. Anti-Vietnam War movement participants were the most active of all social movement participants. Of the respondents, 42% had participated in at least one movement other than the anti-Vietnam War movement. Twenty-three percent were active in two social movements besides Vietnam. For those who were active in more than one social movement, 84% listed anti-Vietnam War movement as one of the movements. Ideology was measured in general terms as well as specific to the unclear issue. Ideology was measured in general terms as well as specific to the nuclear issue. Ideology was measured using items similar to those used by Walsh and Warland in their study of the nuclear accident at Three Mile Island.g As a general measure, respondents were asked to describe their usual stand on political issues on a seven-point continuum
398
THE SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL Vol. 24/No. 411987
ranging from very liberal to very conservative. Unlike the Walsh and Warland research, the Californians were given an alternative multidimensional category to describe their political views: “Or would you say that whether you are ‘liberal,’ ‘middle of the road,’ or ‘conservative’ is different depending on which issue?” As a specific measurement, these respondents were asked: “Concerning a nuclear weapons freeze, do you (1) strongly favor . . . (3) neutral.. . (5) strongly oppose.. . ?” In addition, respondents’ favorability toward the nuclear weapon freeze movement was asked: “Concerning such things as demonstrations and rallies in order to achieve a nuclear weapon freeze, do you: (1) strongly favor.. .(3) neutral.. .(5) strongly oppose.. . ?” Regarding the possible effectiveness of the nuclear freeze movement, these respondents were asked: “How effective do you think such things as demonstrations and rallies will be in bringing about a nuclear weapons freeze: (1) very effective.. . (5) very ineffective.. . ?” Concerning their self-classified general political orientation, the respondents tended to take a middle position. Twenty-nine percent selected the multidimensional alternative. Respondents were considerably more liberal than conservative in their self-classifications: 37% compared to 6%. Sixty-one percent endorsed a freeze on nuclear weapons. While this figure may seem high compared to national public opinion assessments, a nuclear weapons freeze had broad public support. Additionally, more of these respondents favored the freeze movement than were opposed (58% to 37%). The nuclear freeze was perceived as potentially effective by 5 1% of the sample while 34% thought it would be ineffective. Participation in political party processes is associated with the dependent variable, an index of participation in nuclear weapons freeze movement. When political party participation is combined into an overall index, the degree of association with participation in the nuclear weapon freeze movement is an r value of .5 1. The strongest association among the types of activities was precinct work with an r value of .48. In descending order of strength of association with the dependent variable, the figures were: participated in a political party organization (r = .42), worked for a candidate in a primary election (r = .33), belonged to a political party organization (r = .28), and contributed money to a specific candidate (r = .27). The magnitude of the measure of association of the index (.5 1) and the highest individual item (.48) was similar. This correspondence is primarily due to the fact that precinct workers were also likely to have participated in other activities such as participating in a political party organization. Thus, the index was only a small improvement in predicting the dependent variable when compared to the item that measured precinct work. Time sequence is important for correct analysis of these data. Are the data an indication that those who were active in the institutionalized political processes then became involved in the nuclear weapons freeze movement or vice versa? The timing of the nuclear freeze movement suggests that political party activities came first. The movement is recent and has spread rapidly. The movement was miniscule to nonexistent prior to the 1984 election. At a maximum, some movement participants might have been active in institutionalized political processes at the same time as their nuclear weapons freeze movement participation. Participation in other social movements was more strongly associated with the dependent variable than was the just discussed political party processes. This greater
Participants in the Nuclear Weapons Freeze Movement
399
strength of relationships is especially so for participation in the anti-Vietnam War movement. An index for all activities in all social movements other than the nuclear weapons freeze is correlated with dependent variable at an rvalue of .62. Demonstrating is the activity most strongly associated with the nuclear weapons freeze movement (r = 59). Weaker associations with the dependent variables were found: (1) planning meetings and rallies (r = .47), (2) attending meetings or rallies (r = .41), (3) planning a demonstration (r = .56), and (4) contributing money (r = .34). As was the case with party activities, the index of other social movement participation gains little in predicting the dependent variable from the highest activity association. The strengths of these respective associations were 59 and .56. Demonstrators tended to do the other activities, also. When the anti-Vietnam War movement participation is considered separately, the relationships with the dependent variable increase slightly from those considering all the social movements. An index of anti-Vietnam War participation and the dependent variable has an association of an r of .64. If those under 30 years of age are excluded from analysis, the relationship between the dependent variable and anti-Vietnam War participation is increased to .69. Current respondents under 30 years of age would have been under adult ages during the Vietnam War era. The data further indicate the importance of the Vietnam War era and the Vietnam War age generation. The influence of the war and the social movement appears to continue for new issues as they arise. Almost all scholars would probably describe the Vietnam War as the cutting issue of that time. Historians in the future may ascribe even greater significance to the Vietnam War issue than is imputed by contemporary analysis. The nuclear arms freeze movement is similar to the anti-Vietnam War movement. Both are peace issues that were introduced into the established political processes by way of social movements. Little would suggest at present, however, that the nuclear weapons freeze movement will become as dominant as the anti-Vietnam War issue became. For the present research, ideology serves primarily as a control variable in analyzing multivartiate effects. However, bivariate relationships of ideology and the dependent variable are noteworthy. As previously indicated, major paradigms for the study of social movements give importance to ideology. Also, researchers like Walsh and Warland find that individuals who are ideologically sympathetic participate more. Respondents’ self-classifications of their general political ideologies were moderately related to the dependent variable (r = 51). Of the participants in the nuclear freeze movement, 55% were liberals although they were just 37% of the sample. As previously discussed, the present respondents were given a multidimensional category of political ideology. Twenty-three percent of these participants were of the multidimensional selfclassification, while comprising 28% of the entire sample. Twenty-two percent were middle-of-the-road in political orientation; however, they comprised 29% of the entire sample. The remaining less than 1% respondents were conservative. Thus, participants may be characterized as moderate-to-liberal. The more specific ideological items were only weakly related to the dependent variable. There were (1) endorsement of a nuclear weapons freeze position (r = .34), (2) favorability toward the nuclear weapons freeze movement (r = .38), and (3) possible effectiveness of the nuclear freeze movement (r = .39). This decrease resulted from those respondents being more favorable on items more directly related to the nuclear weapons freeze movement. Such a disparity reduced the strength of the correlations. Thus, an
400
THE SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL Vol. 24/No. 4/1987
overall ideological index was related to the dependent variable with the same strength as the general self-placement item. A comparison of the present data with the research of Walsh and Warland concerning the degree to which individuals are ideologically sympathetic is especially appropriate. This topic illuminates the broader context of the degree of correspondence between attitudes and behavior. Walsh and Warland, in their research on Three Mile Island, estimated that a maximum of 12% of those who were ideologically sympathetic participated in the movement. They, along with other scholars, have labeled the ideological sympathetic nonparticipants as free riders. The present data are comparable to the Walsh and Warland data. Plausible estimates of the participating Californians who were ideoogically sympathetic range from 11% to 19%. The 11% is an estimate of the respondents who are ideologically congruent on all items. To illustrate, these respondents’ congruencies include being a political liberal and supportive of the nuclear issue/movement on the specific ideological items. The 19% estimate results from the percentage of those who favored a nuclear weapons freeze and who participated in the movement. Perhaps it is scientifically invalid, as well as inappropriately pejorative, for scholars to ascribe sympathetic but social movement nonparticipants as free riders. Should scholars realistically expect that a large percentage of sympathizers will participate in a social movement? A government would have great difficulty in not adopting an issue position that a large percentage of the public advocated. The resulting government’s acquiescence would diminish, if not abolish, the social movement. Even among social movements with relatively few sympathizers, a high percentage of participants is likely to alter the movement fundamentally. Such a movement probably would become institutionalized and lose most of its original social movement attributes. Multivariate analysis affords an estimation of the combined effects of all the independent variables for the dependent variables. Also afforded is the effect that each dependent variable has on the dependent variable per se. These effects are the direct and unique relationships resulting from the influence of each independent variable on the dependent variable. These analyses are especially relevant for social movements. As previously discussed, social movement research has important concerns for ideological and structural factors in understanding social movement participation. For example, are social structural or ideological factors more important? Smelser, for example, suggests that each is important or gives “value added” in explaining social movement participation. No widespread convention exists among researchers for operationalizing the concept of value added. The two previously noted multivariate statistical analyses seem especially consistent with the concept of “value added” and will be utilized in the present multivariate analysis, i.e., combined and independent effects that the independent variables have on the dependent variable. Table 1 shows the combined multivariate effects of (1) ideology, (2) participation in political party processes, and (3) participation in other social movements. With an R2 value of .58, these three variables explained 58% of the variance for the dependent variable. Recalling that the largest bivariate variance explained was 41%, this was the relationship of participation in other social movements and the dependent variable. Thus the explained variance was increased by 17%. In terms of combined multivariate effect, the present data give support to the “value added” concept of social movement participation.
Participants in the Nuclear
Weapons freeze
401
Movement
Table 7. Multivariate Effectsof the ExplanatoryVariables for the Dependent Variable of Participation in the Nuclear Weapons Freeze Movement.* Statistical Effects Explanatory
Variables
Removed
Ideology Democratic Party Participation Participation in Other Social Movements Notes: *Rz = S8.
P2
F Removed independently
F
.14 .22 .31
104 266 407
702 869 981
All values are statistically significant
at the ,001 level.
Additional support for the value-added concept is contained in the multivariate independent effect of each of the three explanatory variables for the dependent variable. The multivariate effects are displayed in the standardized beta coefficient (p*> of the table. As expected, all the multivariate effects are less than the bivariate relationships. However, multivariate relationships remain for each explanatory variable after controlling for the other two variables. The relative magnitude of the multivariate independent effects were consistent with the relative strength of the bivariate relationships. Multivariate independent effects continue to depict the pivotal importance of the anti-Vietnam War movement for subsequent social movements that was shown in bivariate analysis. The data suggest pragmatism. These respondents seem willing to use institutionalized political activities and social movement participation in an attempt to influence govemmental policies concerning nuclear weapons. As reported earlier, general political orientations might be considered at least as pragmatic as ideological. Even among these Democratic Party respondents with considerable amounts of political and social movement activism, the majority classified their political views as middle-of-the-road or issue-specific, i.e., multidimensional. The Vietnam War generation appear to use social movements as a tactic for influencing governmental policies. During the economic depression of the 193Os, President Roosevelt supposedly was listening to Democratic Party leaders suggest governmental programs. “These are great programs,” the president is reported to have said, “now, go out and pressure me to adopt them.” These data are reminiscent of that anecdote.
CONCLUSION This study retained much of the micro level of analysis characteristic of previous social movement analysis. However, an additional macro level of analysis was afforded by examining participants’ linkages to Democratic Party activities and participation in other movements. The linkages suggest that political party activities and social movement participation could be a more apt conclusion than political activities or social movements. The political activities or social movements expectation results from a collectivebehavior influence for much of social movement research. Social movements are a complex and heterogeneous phenomenon. The present research depicts that aspect of social movements most interactive with established institutions. The continued influence of collective-behavior influence might remain beneficial for the vast area of social movement unlike the present research.
402
THE SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL Vol. 24/No. 4/l 987
The present data, however, indicate structural linkages, rather than isolation, to existing institutions. The present generation, especially those influenced by the anti-Vietnam War movement, views social movement as a rather usual technique. Perhaps at least some social movement research profit by tempering its collective behavioral theoretical past. In a sense, some aspects of social movement may have become institutionalized. Future social -research might productively utilize paradigms and theories from such areas as political sociology and sociology of institutions.
REFERENCES 1. Lewis M. Killian, “Social Movements,” in Handbook of Modern Sociology edited by R. Faris (Chicago: Rand-McNally, 1964), pp. 426-468. 2. Neil Smelser, %oty of Collective Behavior (New York: Free Press, 1963); R. Turner and Lewis M. Killian, Collective Behavior (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1972). 3. C. Bolton, “Alienation and Action: A Study of Peace Group Members,” American Journul of Sociology 78: 537-561. 4. David A. Snow, Louis A. Zurcher, and S. Ekland-Olson.
5.
6. 7. 8.
9.
“Social Networks as Social Movements: A Microstmctural Approach to Differential Recruitment,” American Sociological Review 45: 787-801. H. Edward Ransford, “Isolation, Powerlessness and Violence: A Study of Attitudes and Participation in the Watts Riots,” American Journul of Sociology 73: 581-591; David F. Aberle, 7’he Peyote Religion Among the Navaho (Chicago: Aldine, 1966); J. Davies, when Men Revolt and Why (New York: Free Press, 197 1); Charles Y. Glock, “The Role of Deprivation in the Origin and Evolution of Religious Groups,” in Religion and Social Conflict edited by R. Lee and M. Marty (New York: Oxford University Press, 1964), pp. 24-36; Ted Gut-r, why Men Rebel (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1970). Edward J. Walsh and R. Warland, “Social Movement Involvement in the Wake of a Nuclear Accident,” American Sociological Review 48: 764-780. C.E. Tygart and N. Holt, “Examining the Weinberg and Walker Typology of Student Activists,” American Journul of SociorogY 77: 957-966. C.E. Tygart, “Social Movement Participation: Clergy and the Anti-Vietnam War Movement,” Sociothgical Analysis 14: 34-43. Walsh and Warland, “Social Movement Involvement in the Wake of a Nuclear Accident.”
C.E. TYGART* California State University
Explanations of why people participate in social movements are usually ad hoc combinations of ideology, social support, and ecological factors. This survey of Californians active in the nuclear freeze movement found that rather than structural isolation, as suggested by collective behavior tradition, the participants displayed links to Democratic Party organizations and the previous anti-Vietnam War movement. At least some social movements may become institutionalized to the degree that paradigms from areas such as political sociology of institutions are needed. Social movements may have evolved beyond their earlier collective behavior
origins. Scholarly advances in the field of social movements are difficult. Scholars are not sure as to which subfields or specializations social movements belong. For example, Killian concludes that usually social movements are considered a subfield of collective behavior.’ He suggests, however, that social movements could just as aptly be a part of political sociology. Frequently, a social movement is studied within the institution or specialty in which the social movement occurs. In a sense, the field of social movements is less than the sum of its parts. As with subfield placement, paradigms used in social movement research appear to be somewhat ad hoc. Two major paradigms are Smelser’s value-added paradigm and the Turner and Killian paradigm.2 Both view social movements as collective behavior, social movements representing the more structured aspects of collective behavior. Essentially, the two paradigms consist of three major elements: (1) ideology, (2) social support, and (3) ecological factors. The paradigms differ concerning these three elements in terms of specifics and emphasis. For example, Smelser’s ecological factors are much more ex*Direct all correspondence to: C.E. Tygart, Department of Sociology, California State University, Fullerton, CA 92634. The Social Science Journal, Volume 24, Number 4, pages 393-402. Copyright @ 1987 by JAI Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 00357634.
394
THE
SOCIAL
SCIENCE
JOURNAL
Vol. 24/No. 411987
plicitly identified than those of Turner and Killian. However, it is difficult to find scholarly continuity in the literature following these two earlier paradigms. Subsequent scholars frequently display convergences with the paradigm of Smelser as well as Turner and Killian. As was the case with the two earlier paradigms, the central concern remains the participants. The basic question is: Why do individuals participate in social movements? The counterpoint of the question is also basic: Why don’t individuals participate? Finally one may ask: Why do participants engage in social movements rather than some institutionalized process? The focus on participants might suggest a micro level of analysis; however, the basic question of why or why not individuals participate could stimulate a macro level of analysis as well as micro. Whether ideology or structure is of greater importance for social movement participation is one of the more enduring arguments in the literature. Bolton exemplifies a balanced view in the ideological-structural argument.3 He advances the social movement participation paradigm by interrelating (1) personality predisposition of those who become active in social movements and (2) social structural effects that encourage individuals with the personality predisipositions to participate. Snow, Zurcher, and Eckland-Olson examine the structural effects of social networks and social movement recruitment.4 Their basic questions include: (1) microstructural avenues of recruitment, (2) differential social movement participation availability, (3) structural characteristics that influence patterns of recruitment patterns, and (4) effects of recruitment patterns for spread and growth of social movements. They find that (1) structural proximity, (2) availability, and (3) effective interaction with movement members strongly influence recruitment. Snow et al. discuss the limitations of research that studies only attitudes of participants. However, their research essentially depicts only structural effects. In this sense, their work is as incomplete as exclusively attitudinal research. Snow et al. may have compounded the incompleteness of their analysis by suggesting that their respondents were the same in attitudinal predisposition. The potential participant has to be informed about and introduced into a particular movement. Thus, even if one accepts the popular contention that some individuals are predisposed social-psychologically, what determines which potential participants are most likely to come into contact with and be recruited into one movement rather than another, if any movement at all? Greater ideological predisposition might be a factor as to why some individuals come into contact with or are recruited into a movement. The ideological predisposition of individuals to engage in social movements varies. Ransford reported on the feelings of powerlessness on the part of black participants in the 1960s racial movements. Relative deprivation was advanced by researchers such as Aberle, Davies, Glock, and Gums As previously discussed, some scholars have blended the ideological and social structure factors. An important example is found in the analysis of vuniversity student social movement activism in the 1960s and early 1970s. Weinberg and Walker depicted student activism due to an absence of linkages to established institutions such as political parties.6 An empirical examination of the Weinberg and Walker model was undertaken by Tygart and Holt.7 Rather than the absence of linkages between established political parties and student anti-war activism, they found the opposite. Demonstrators in the
Participants in the Nuclear Weapons Freeze Movement
395
UCLA campus anti-war movement were more likely to have worked in Democratic Party precinct activities than the rest of the sample. Additionally, demonstrators were more optimistic in their appraisal of demonstrations having an effect on the Vietnam War situation than the rest of the sample. What about possible linkages among social movements? For example, are participants in one social movement involved in other social movements? Tygart investigated linkages among social movements for clerical sociopolitical activists.* Among clergy, the church has afforded a tradition of activism in the institutional changes and processes. In a sense, activism is a common milieu for clergy. However, not all clergy participate. Tygart found that for clergy involved in anti-Vietnam War social movement activism, civil rights war movement participation was the strongest correlate. This correlation remained after controlling for political and religious ideology. Paradigms such as Smelser as well as Turner and Killian suggest the importance of belief systems for social movement participation. These ideologies value the goals of a social movement. Also, ideologies specify the tactics that a social movement is to employ as well as defending the movement as a bona fide tactic per se. Given a favorable ideology toward social movements, wouldn’t this variable be sufficient for understanding social movement participation? As discussed earlier, theorists generally think that ideology by itself is an insufficient explanation of social movement participation. The analysis of social movement participation should at least consider facilitating social structures along with ideology. For the present study the social structures will include participation in institutionalized political processes and other social movements. Smelser’s paradigm discusses facilitating structures in which ecological variables are included. The social structural variables of the present research are consistent with Smelser’s paradigm. Being with other social movement participants could be conceived as an ecological variable as well as the more general social structural conceptualization. At the macro level of analysis, social scientists seem to expect a movement would have greater influence in the societal processes with greater structural linkages to established institutions. The present research investigates the effects of individuals’ involvement in institutionalized political processes for social movement participation. If there are any effects, is movement participation increased or decreased? Consistent with linkages between institutional processes and social movements, relationships among movements might enhance their societal effects. Likewise, an individual’s participation in one social movement could affect his or her participation in other movements. Linkages among movements could give form to an otherwise amorphous mass. Perhaps what was an ephemeral movement gains relevance for the societal processes. The present research points to two bivariate questions: (1) Does participation in institutionalized political processes affect nuclear weapon freeze movement participation? and (2) Does participation in other movements increase the probability for participation in the nuclear weapons freeze movement? Multivariate analysis asks two other questions. First, What are the multivariate effects of participation in the activities of established political parties for social movement participation after controlling for ideology and participation in other movements? Second, What are the multivariate effects of participation in other social movements for social movement participation after controlling for participation in established political activities and other movements?
396
THE SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL Vol. 24/No. 4/1987
The nuclear freeze movement offers an opportunity to investigate structural variables. This issue has appeared on state and local election referendums. Both the U.S. Congress and state legislatures have passed resolutions on the subject. The nuclear freeze movement is a variant of peace movements in general, thus affording an opportunity for studying prior movement participation. Twenty percent of the California population form the universe of the present study. The 1,200 respondents represent an equal number of males and females 18 years of age and older. The data were collected in January 1984. Randomly selected telephone numbers of Democratic political party registrants were utilized, consistent with standard polling procedures. However, the telephone area codes as well as the telephone number prefix were selected for the purpose of obtaining more respondents who are active in the political processes. The goal of the present research is analysis of social movements rather than an estimation of a universe on a public opinion issue. Democrats were chosen because Republicans are rarely active in this issue. As was expected from the select sampling procedures, these respondents differ in some aspects from the California adult population. The median educational attainment level for the respondents was three years of college, which is about two years higher than the California population. Respondents were about 30% more in professional, technical, and kindred occupations than would be expected. Conversely, these respondents were much less likely to be employed in blue-collar occupations. Eleven percent of the respondents reported some participation in the nuclear freeze movement. As previously reported, the degree of participation cannot be generalized to the entire California adult population. As an estimate, the respondents are probably at least four times more involved in this social movement than the general population of California. Social movement participation measurement is somewhat restricted. Institutionalized political processes is one explanatory variable. Because the dependent variable needs to be conceptually distinct, a rather narrow measurement of nuclear freeze movement participation is used. For example, “signing a petition” is not considered a nuclear freeze movement activity because this is a frequent process in California. Activities that were classified as a nuclear freeze movement activity included: (1) planning a demonstration, (2) demonstrating, (3) planning a public meeting or rally, (4) attending a meeting or rally, and (5) contributing money needed to carry out an activity such as a demonstration. About one-half of these respondents, or approximately 6% of the sample, had some connection with demonstrations, either planning or demonstrating, while almost 1% (N = 11) reported taking part in the planning of demonstrations. More than 1% (N = 17) had planned meetings or rallies, while 8% of the sample had attended these events. Of these respondents, 3% indicated that they had contributed money and 11% of the sample reported at least one activity. Contributing money appears to indicate the least degree of involvement for these respondents. If only one activity were indicated, in 96% of the cases the activity was contributing money. Perhaps this lesser commitment is possible because contributing money need not be a public event. Also, contributing money requires, in a sense, the least amount of time compared to other activities. Demonstrating, planning, or participating is the greatest exhibition of involvement. All such respondents had taken part in other social movement activities. Planning or atten-
Participants in the Nuclear Weapons Freeze Movement
397
dance of meetings and rallies indicates an intermediate level of involvement, and 44% of these respondents reported taking part in other activities-usually demonstrating. Thus, demonstrators usually had attended rallies or meetings while the reverse was mostly not the case. Measures of institutional political processes were: (1) contributing money to a specific candidate for public office, (2) belonging to a political party organization, (3) participating in a party organization, (4) working for a candidate in a primary election, and (5) party precinct work. Obviously this was all within the Democratic Party. Of the entire sample, 23% reported at least one activity; 17% reported two activities; 1 l%, three activities; 6%, four activities, and 3% had taken part in all of the activities. The percentage of these respondents for each activity were, respectively: (1) 14%, (2) 19%, (3) 16%, (4) 9%, and (5) 6%. That the modal activity was belonging to a political organization might warrant a brief explanation. Organizations that are affiliated with the Republican or Democratic Party are more numerous in California than in almost any other state. Probably in most states, Young Democrat or Young Republican clubs constitute the bulk of memberships in political party organizations. In addition to these two organizations, a multitude of other organizations abound in California. The California Democratic Club is the oldest and largest of these; other examples are the Black Democratic Caucus and the Hispanic Democrats. The items used were the same as those used for measuring participation in the dependent variable, the nuclear weapons freeze movement. Respondents showed greater participation in movements other than the nuclear freeze. This greater participation in other movements was the case for all identifiable categories of respondents except those under 25 years of age. Perhaps for the younger respondents the nuclear weapons freeze movement was the first significant social movement in their adult lives. Regarding movements other than nuclear weapons freeze movement, the respondents indicated that: (1) 32% took part in planning of demonstrations, (2) 11% had demonstrated, (3) 3% had planned meetings or rallies, (4) 9% had attended meetings or rallies, and (5) 16% had contributed money. Sixteen percent indicated at least one activity. Of those participating in other social movements, the anti-Vietnam War movement was listed most frequently-14% of the sample had participated. Of these, 12% had demonstrated against the Vietnam War. The civil rights movement was listed second by 6%. The movement for a constitutional amendment for women’s equal rights was third with 3% participation. Several other movements combined totalled an additional 3% participation from these respondents. Anti-Vietnam War movement participants were the most active of all social movement participants. Of the respondents, 42% had participated in at least one movement other than the anti-Vietnam War movement. Twenty-three percent were active in two social movements besides Vietnam. For those who were active in more than one social movement, 84% listed anti-Vietnam War movement as one of the movements. Ideology was measured in general terms as well as specific to the unclear issue. Ideology was measured in general terms as well as specific to the nuclear issue. Ideology was measured using items similar to those used by Walsh and Warland in their study of the nuclear accident at Three Mile Island.g As a general measure, respondents were asked to describe their usual stand on political issues on a seven-point continuum
398
THE SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL Vol. 24/No. 411987
ranging from very liberal to very conservative. Unlike the Walsh and Warland research, the Californians were given an alternative multidimensional category to describe their political views: “Or would you say that whether you are ‘liberal,’ ‘middle of the road,’ or ‘conservative’ is different depending on which issue?” As a specific measurement, these respondents were asked: “Concerning a nuclear weapons freeze, do you (1) strongly favor . . . (3) neutral.. . (5) strongly oppose.. . ?” In addition, respondents’ favorability toward the nuclear weapon freeze movement was asked: “Concerning such things as demonstrations and rallies in order to achieve a nuclear weapon freeze, do you: (1) strongly favor.. .(3) neutral.. .(5) strongly oppose.. . ?” Regarding the possible effectiveness of the nuclear freeze movement, these respondents were asked: “How effective do you think such things as demonstrations and rallies will be in bringing about a nuclear weapons freeze: (1) very effective.. . (5) very ineffective.. . ?” Concerning their self-classified general political orientation, the respondents tended to take a middle position. Twenty-nine percent selected the multidimensional alternative. Respondents were considerably more liberal than conservative in their self-classifications: 37% compared to 6%. Sixty-one percent endorsed a freeze on nuclear weapons. While this figure may seem high compared to national public opinion assessments, a nuclear weapons freeze had broad public support. Additionally, more of these respondents favored the freeze movement than were opposed (58% to 37%). The nuclear freeze was perceived as potentially effective by 5 1% of the sample while 34% thought it would be ineffective. Participation in political party processes is associated with the dependent variable, an index of participation in nuclear weapons freeze movement. When political party participation is combined into an overall index, the degree of association with participation in the nuclear weapon freeze movement is an r value of .5 1. The strongest association among the types of activities was precinct work with an r value of .48. In descending order of strength of association with the dependent variable, the figures were: participated in a political party organization (r = .42), worked for a candidate in a primary election (r = .33), belonged to a political party organization (r = .28), and contributed money to a specific candidate (r = .27). The magnitude of the measure of association of the index (.5 1) and the highest individual item (.48) was similar. This correspondence is primarily due to the fact that precinct workers were also likely to have participated in other activities such as participating in a political party organization. Thus, the index was only a small improvement in predicting the dependent variable when compared to the item that measured precinct work. Time sequence is important for correct analysis of these data. Are the data an indication that those who were active in the institutionalized political processes then became involved in the nuclear weapons freeze movement or vice versa? The timing of the nuclear freeze movement suggests that political party activities came first. The movement is recent and has spread rapidly. The movement was miniscule to nonexistent prior to the 1984 election. At a maximum, some movement participants might have been active in institutionalized political processes at the same time as their nuclear weapons freeze movement participation. Participation in other social movements was more strongly associated with the dependent variable than was the just discussed political party processes. This greater
Participants in the Nuclear Weapons Freeze Movement
399
strength of relationships is especially so for participation in the anti-Vietnam War movement. An index for all activities in all social movements other than the nuclear weapons freeze is correlated with dependent variable at an rvalue of .62. Demonstrating is the activity most strongly associated with the nuclear weapons freeze movement (r = 59). Weaker associations with the dependent variables were found: (1) planning meetings and rallies (r = .47), (2) attending meetings or rallies (r = .41), (3) planning a demonstration (r = .56), and (4) contributing money (r = .34). As was the case with party activities, the index of other social movement participation gains little in predicting the dependent variable from the highest activity association. The strengths of these respective associations were 59 and .56. Demonstrators tended to do the other activities, also. When the anti-Vietnam War movement participation is considered separately, the relationships with the dependent variable increase slightly from those considering all the social movements. An index of anti-Vietnam War participation and the dependent variable has an association of an r of .64. If those under 30 years of age are excluded from analysis, the relationship between the dependent variable and anti-Vietnam War participation is increased to .69. Current respondents under 30 years of age would have been under adult ages during the Vietnam War era. The data further indicate the importance of the Vietnam War era and the Vietnam War age generation. The influence of the war and the social movement appears to continue for new issues as they arise. Almost all scholars would probably describe the Vietnam War as the cutting issue of that time. Historians in the future may ascribe even greater significance to the Vietnam War issue than is imputed by contemporary analysis. The nuclear arms freeze movement is similar to the anti-Vietnam War movement. Both are peace issues that were introduced into the established political processes by way of social movements. Little would suggest at present, however, that the nuclear weapons freeze movement will become as dominant as the anti-Vietnam War issue became. For the present research, ideology serves primarily as a control variable in analyzing multivartiate effects. However, bivariate relationships of ideology and the dependent variable are noteworthy. As previously indicated, major paradigms for the study of social movements give importance to ideology. Also, researchers like Walsh and Warland find that individuals who are ideologically sympathetic participate more. Respondents’ self-classifications of their general political ideologies were moderately related to the dependent variable (r = 51). Of the participants in the nuclear freeze movement, 55% were liberals although they were just 37% of the sample. As previously discussed, the present respondents were given a multidimensional category of political ideology. Twenty-three percent of these participants were of the multidimensional selfclassification, while comprising 28% of the entire sample. Twenty-two percent were middle-of-the-road in political orientation; however, they comprised 29% of the entire sample. The remaining less than 1% respondents were conservative. Thus, participants may be characterized as moderate-to-liberal. The more specific ideological items were only weakly related to the dependent variable. There were (1) endorsement of a nuclear weapons freeze position (r = .34), (2) favorability toward the nuclear weapons freeze movement (r = .38), and (3) possible effectiveness of the nuclear freeze movement (r = .39). This decrease resulted from those respondents being more favorable on items more directly related to the nuclear weapons freeze movement. Such a disparity reduced the strength of the correlations. Thus, an
400
THE SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL Vol. 24/No. 4/1987
overall ideological index was related to the dependent variable with the same strength as the general self-placement item. A comparison of the present data with the research of Walsh and Warland concerning the degree to which individuals are ideologically sympathetic is especially appropriate. This topic illuminates the broader context of the degree of correspondence between attitudes and behavior. Walsh and Warland, in their research on Three Mile Island, estimated that a maximum of 12% of those who were ideologically sympathetic participated in the movement. They, along with other scholars, have labeled the ideological sympathetic nonparticipants as free riders. The present data are comparable to the Walsh and Warland data. Plausible estimates of the participating Californians who were ideoogically sympathetic range from 11% to 19%. The 11% is an estimate of the respondents who are ideologically congruent on all items. To illustrate, these respondents’ congruencies include being a political liberal and supportive of the nuclear issue/movement on the specific ideological items. The 19% estimate results from the percentage of those who favored a nuclear weapons freeze and who participated in the movement. Perhaps it is scientifically invalid, as well as inappropriately pejorative, for scholars to ascribe sympathetic but social movement nonparticipants as free riders. Should scholars realistically expect that a large percentage of sympathizers will participate in a social movement? A government would have great difficulty in not adopting an issue position that a large percentage of the public advocated. The resulting government’s acquiescence would diminish, if not abolish, the social movement. Even among social movements with relatively few sympathizers, a high percentage of participants is likely to alter the movement fundamentally. Such a movement probably would become institutionalized and lose most of its original social movement attributes. Multivariate analysis affords an estimation of the combined effects of all the independent variables for the dependent variables. Also afforded is the effect that each dependent variable has on the dependent variable per se. These effects are the direct and unique relationships resulting from the influence of each independent variable on the dependent variable. These analyses are especially relevant for social movements. As previously discussed, social movement research has important concerns for ideological and structural factors in understanding social movement participation. For example, are social structural or ideological factors more important? Smelser, for example, suggests that each is important or gives “value added” in explaining social movement participation. No widespread convention exists among researchers for operationalizing the concept of value added. The two previously noted multivariate statistical analyses seem especially consistent with the concept of “value added” and will be utilized in the present multivariate analysis, i.e., combined and independent effects that the independent variables have on the dependent variable. Table 1 shows the combined multivariate effects of (1) ideology, (2) participation in political party processes, and (3) participation in other social movements. With an R2 value of .58, these three variables explained 58% of the variance for the dependent variable. Recalling that the largest bivariate variance explained was 41%, this was the relationship of participation in other social movements and the dependent variable. Thus the explained variance was increased by 17%. In terms of combined multivariate effect, the present data give support to the “value added” concept of social movement participation.
Participants in the Nuclear
Weapons freeze
401
Movement
Table 7. Multivariate Effectsof the ExplanatoryVariables for the Dependent Variable of Participation in the Nuclear Weapons Freeze Movement.* Statistical Effects Explanatory
Variables
Removed
Ideology Democratic Party Participation Participation in Other Social Movements Notes: *Rz = S8.
P2
F Removed independently
F
.14 .22 .31
104 266 407
702 869 981
All values are statistically significant
at the ,001 level.
Additional support for the value-added concept is contained in the multivariate independent effect of each of the three explanatory variables for the dependent variable. The multivariate effects are displayed in the standardized beta coefficient (p*> of the table. As expected, all the multivariate effects are less than the bivariate relationships. However, multivariate relationships remain for each explanatory variable after controlling for the other two variables. The relative magnitude of the multivariate independent effects were consistent with the relative strength of the bivariate relationships. Multivariate independent effects continue to depict the pivotal importance of the anti-Vietnam War movement for subsequent social movements that was shown in bivariate analysis. The data suggest pragmatism. These respondents seem willing to use institutionalized political activities and social movement participation in an attempt to influence govemmental policies concerning nuclear weapons. As reported earlier, general political orientations might be considered at least as pragmatic as ideological. Even among these Democratic Party respondents with considerable amounts of political and social movement activism, the majority classified their political views as middle-of-the-road or issue-specific, i.e., multidimensional. The Vietnam War generation appear to use social movements as a tactic for influencing governmental policies. During the economic depression of the 193Os, President Roosevelt supposedly was listening to Democratic Party leaders suggest governmental programs. “These are great programs,” the president is reported to have said, “now, go out and pressure me to adopt them.” These data are reminiscent of that anecdote.
CONCLUSION This study retained much of the micro level of analysis characteristic of previous social movement analysis. However, an additional macro level of analysis was afforded by examining participants’ linkages to Democratic Party activities and participation in other movements. The linkages suggest that political party activities and social movement participation could be a more apt conclusion than political activities or social movements. The political activities or social movements expectation results from a collectivebehavior influence for much of social movement research. Social movements are a complex and heterogeneous phenomenon. The present research depicts that aspect of social movements most interactive with established institutions. The continued influence of collective-behavior influence might remain beneficial for the vast area of social movement unlike the present research.
402
THE SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL Vol. 24/No. 4/l 987
The present data, however, indicate structural linkages, rather than isolation, to existing institutions. The present generation, especially those influenced by the anti-Vietnam War movement, views social movement as a rather usual technique. Perhaps at least some social movement research profit by tempering its collective behavioral theoretical past. In a sense, some aspects of social movement may have become institutionalized. Future social -research might productively utilize paradigms and theories from such areas as political sociology and sociology of institutions.
REFERENCES 1. Lewis M. Killian, “Social Movements,” in Handbook of Modern Sociology edited by R. Faris (Chicago: Rand-McNally, 1964), pp. 426-468. 2. Neil Smelser, %oty of Collective Behavior (New York: Free Press, 1963); R. Turner and Lewis M. Killian, Collective Behavior (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1972). 3. C. Bolton, “Alienation and Action: A Study of Peace Group Members,” American Journul of Sociology 78: 537-561. 4. David A. Snow, Louis A. Zurcher, and S. Ekland-Olson.
5.
6. 7. 8.
9.
“Social Networks as Social Movements: A Microstmctural Approach to Differential Recruitment,” American Sociological Review 45: 787-801. H. Edward Ransford, “Isolation, Powerlessness and Violence: A Study of Attitudes and Participation in the Watts Riots,” American Journul of Sociology 73: 581-591; David F. Aberle, 7’he Peyote Religion Among the Navaho (Chicago: Aldine, 1966); J. Davies, when Men Revolt and Why (New York: Free Press, 197 1); Charles Y. Glock, “The Role of Deprivation in the Origin and Evolution of Religious Groups,” in Religion and Social Conflict edited by R. Lee and M. Marty (New York: Oxford University Press, 1964), pp. 24-36; Ted Gut-r, why Men Rebel (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1970). Edward J. Walsh and R. Warland, “Social Movement Involvement in the Wake of a Nuclear Accident,” American Sociological Review 48: 764-780. C.E. Tygart and N. Holt, “Examining the Weinberg and Walker Typology of Student Activists,” American Journul of SociorogY 77: 957-966. C.E. Tygart, “Social Movement Participation: Clergy and the Anti-Vietnam War Movement,” Sociothgical Analysis 14: 34-43. Walsh and Warland, “Social Movement Involvement in the Wake of a Nuclear Accident.”