Notes on Mobilization Theories, Framing, and Campus Protests (Lecture Transcript)
Protests, Mobilization, and Theoretical Frameworks (Lecture Transcript Summary)
Purpose of the discussion
Explore what readings and film (Activize, Hirsch, McAdam, Jasper & Paulson) reveal about why people participate in movements, and how participation is activated or delayed.
Emphasize that sociology looks for relationships (associations) rather than simple causal laws; not strictly a causal science but a social-process explanation.
Major recurring questions
What factors make people move from interest to action in high-cost activism?
How do networks, biographical constraints, framing, and group dynamics interact to mobilize or demobilize participation?
To what extent does framing, moral shocks, and activist identity shape mobilization, beyond individual cost-benefit calculations?
Structural and Biographical Availability
Structural availability
Defined as the presence of social and organizational ties that connect individuals to potential activists networks.
Interpersonal ties and organizational ties are core pulls into participation.
The probability of participation (P) is a function of structural factors that expose people to opportunities to participate:
P( ext{participation}) \,\propto\, \text{Structural Availability}
Structural availability lowers the cost of getting involved; it helps convert motivation into action.
Examples: friendship networks, student organizations, religious communities (e.g., the Black church in civil rights history).
Biographical availability
Personal constraints (time, family, work) shape whether one can participate, sometimes more than recruitment does.
Biographical availability often overrides structural access when people are too constrained by time or responsibilities.
Higher biographical availability increases likelihood of higher-cost activism in spite of other factors.
The literature suggests biographical availability is a major moderator of participation beyond mere recruitment or political interest.
Interaction of availability factors
If structural ties exist and intersect with biographical flexibility, participation becomes more likely.
Activation is not simply a function of motivation; it depends on opportunities and the intersection of personal circumstances with network opportunities.
Theoretical implications for modeling participation
A simple rational-choice story (cost-benefit) is insufficient; group and structural factors are essential.
A compact way to think about participation probability:
P( ext{participation}) = f(\text{Structural Availability}, \text{Biographical Availability}, \text{Recruitment}, \text{Group Processes}, \text{Framing}, \text{Norms})
Structural and biographical factors operate as primary gateways into higher-cost activism; recruitment and framing shape the likelihood and willingness to continue.
Recruitment, Networks, and Low-Cost Activism
Recruitment dynamics
Contact with a recruiting agent can initiate participation, but long-term involvement depends on other factors (biographical availability, group processes).
Jasper & Paulson emphasize that people can become activated without a direct recruiter and without prior activist identity.
The role of networks
Networks (interpersonal ties and organizational presence) pull people into action; they are especially important for low-cost or low-threshold activism.
Once involved, individuals may see themselves as part of a movement, increasing future participation.
Low-cost activism as a gateway
Low-cost actions (signing petitions, attending teach-ins, small demonstrations) often precede higher-cost acts.
These initial steps can reduce perceived barriers and cultivate a sense of collective identity and efficacy.
Structural vs biographical constraints in action
Structural availability provides access; biographical availability provides capacity to act. Both must align for participation to occur, particularly in mass mobilization.
The role of social media
Social media changes the reach and speed of recruitment and framing; it can facilitate low-cost mobilization and signal collective action to a broader audience.
Framing, Morality, and Master Frames
Framing and its two strands (Jasper & Paulson vs Hirsch et al.)
Jasper & Paulson focus on framing as a driver of activation via diagnostic framing and master frames that resonate with people’s concerns; they highlight moral shocks as catalysts (e.g., animal testing imagery).
Hirsch emphasizes group processes, consciousness-raising, and the social-psychological dynamics within groups that transform individual concerns into collective action.
The two approaches are complementary: framing helps recruit and mobilize, while group processes sustain participation and drive collective action.
Diagnostic framing and master frames
Diagnostic framing: naming the problem and its causes clearly to mobilize concern.
Master frames: widely recognizable templates that link specific grievances to broad moral or political narratives (e.g., divestment as a tool against apartheid; animal rights as a fight against cruelty).
Moral shocks and symbols
Moral shocks are shocking symbols or events designed to capture attention and provoke a moral response (e.g., images of animals in experiments, sit-ins, blockades).
Condensing symbols and visuals (e.g., cat electrodes) are used to anchor perceptions and mobilize broad publics.
Framing context and global reach
Framing is sensitive to local group dynamics but also interacts with national and global contexts (e.g., campus divisions, divestment movement, international issues like South Africa or Gaza).
The effectiveness of framing depends on cultural reception and norms within the target audience.
How framing interacts with activation
Framing can activate individuals even without an activist identity, by linking personal concerns to a collective narrative.
However, lasting participation requires more than framing; it requires biographical and structural access, as well as group processes that sustain engagement.
Activist Identity and Collective Action
Activist identity as a developmental outcome
Some participants come to see themselves as activists; this identity can be transformative, encouraging continued involvement and new forms of participation.
Others may engage in activism without adopting an explicit activist identity (they see themselves as doing what needs to be done, not as “activists.”).
Rational actor vs activist identity
McAdam’s framework is still rooted in rational-actor logic but expands to consider social factors that overcome free-rider problems and mobilize through group identity.
Even when individuals begin with a personal interest, participation becomes a collective identity with norms and expectations that encourage ongoing sacrifice for the group.
The active role of the group in defining norms
Group processes (consensus decision-making, collective risk assessment) influence timing and shape who participates and how far they commit.
Polarization and collective empowerment can sustain activism by creating a sense that the group’s fate is tied to individual sacrifice.
The Meyers et al. reference and activist identity debates
Some interview data show that people may not see themselves as activists even when they contribute significantly to labor or campaigns.
The field moves between identifying activation through rational calculations and acknowledging identity formation as a social process.
The “free rider” problem revisited
Even when costs are high, group solidarity and perceived efficacy can override individual concerns, especially when people feel they cannot let the group down.
Group Processes, Solidarity, and Polarization
Group dynamics as catalysts
Instances where students join encampments show that group bonding, shared purpose, and collective decision-making can intensify commitment.
The sense of being part of a “collective fate” motivates sacrifice for the cause.
Polarization and mobilization
Repression or strong institutional pushback can backfire by increasing solidarity and mobilization on campuses.
Polarization matters for persistence and for deciding when to disband or consolidate efforts.
Consensus and decision-making
Collective decision-making can be powerful but may reduce individuals’ autonomy to participate in ways they prefer; it's a balancing act between inclusivity and coordinated action.
The evolution of a movement’s decision-making structure (e.g., from teach-ins to encampments to disbanding by vote) is a critical feature of mobilization trajectories.
Political legitimacy and framing feedback loops
Legitimacy is constructed and contested; authorities’ framing (e.g., depicting protests as irrational or dangerous) shapes group responses.
Movements push back by reframing protest as legitimate tactics; the frame and counter-frame dynamics shape participation choices.
Case Studies and Real-World Examples Discussed
Columbia encampment and campus protests (mid-1980s onward)
Student encampments at Hamilton Hall, with extended duration (e.g., three weeks) and high stakes (visibility, potential expulsion, or arrest for international students).
Participation was shaped by personal risk (visa status, potential arrest), group processes, and normative shifts within campus culture.
The discussion included accounts of fear, normative acceptance evolving, and the impact of university threats on participation decisions.
Divestment movement and campus activism (late 1980s–1990s era and later echoes)
The divestment push linked to South Africa and other global issues; mobilization built on consciousness-raising and collective identity.
The protest wave spread across multiple campuses; the framing and mobilization tactics influenced participation across schools.
The “underground abortion railroad” and cross-border activism
Networks that help people seek abortion access where legal or safe options are limited (
Jane, a historical example of an advocacy network helping people access abortion services under repression).
Modern analogs include cross-border support networks and legal protections against aiding, abetting, or facilitating access across state lines or borders.
Emphasizes how repression encourages the formation of networks that function as infrastructure for resistance.
Animal rights protests and moral shocks
The use of shocking imagery (e.g., animals in experiments) to trigger moral outrage and mobilize supporters.
Highlights the cognitive and cultural work organizers do to translate disgust into sustained action.
International vs domestic issues and tipping points
Debates about why students mobilize around domestic issues (education, campus policy) vs international concerns (South Africa, Palestine, Gaza).
The discussion suggests that proximity and personal risk influence mobilization, but moral shocks and framing can mobilize distant audiences too.
Personal stories and risk assessment (biographical constraints)
Personal anecdotes illustrate how immigration status, family concerns, and financial resources constrain participation.
Example: international students facing potential deportation or penalties, or families pressuring students to stay in class or stay out of protests.
The underground abortion network example reinforces how personal risk shapes mobilization, yet also demonstrates the emergence of resilient networks under repression.
Real-World Relevance and Ethical Implications
Balancing individual risk and collective obligation
The discussions emphasize the tension between personal safety and collective goals, and how group dynamics can reframe this balance.
Ethical questions arise about whether and how to participate when personal costs are high (legal risk, incarceration, deportation).
Norms, legitimacy, and political opportunity
Legitimacy of protest is socially constructed and contested; authorities’ responses (repression, surveillance) shape future participation.
The institutional environment determines what forms of activism are feasible or deemed legitimate.
The power of networks as infrastructure
In repressive contexts, informal networks (underground networks) become crucial for sustaining resistance.
Such networks can bridge borders and connect disparate communities, creating resilience and new forms of political mobilization.
The tension between framing and reality
Framing can mobilize new participants, but it must connect with real opportunities and group processes to convert interest into sustained action.
The danger of over-reliance on master frames without supportive organizational structures is highlighted.
Takeaways and Open Questions
Key takeaways
Participation in high-cost activism is shaped by a combination of structural availability, biographical availability, recruitment, group processes, and framing.
People can become activists without an explicit activist identity, but sustained involvement often involves identity development and collective belonging.
Group dynamics, polarization, and collective decision-making are central to how movements persist or disband.
Moral shocks and master frames are powerful but require culturally resonant framing and supportive infrastructure to be effective.
Open questions for further study
How do contemporary social media platforms reshape structural and biographical availability? Do they create new low-cost pathways that translate into high-cost activism?
To what extent do international issues mobilize domestic actors, and how do local norms influence the perceived legitimacy of such protests?
How do repression and surveillance shape the emergence of offline resistance networks (e.g., Jane, abortion networks) and what does this mean for future mobilization patterns?
Connections to foundational principles
The readings collectively push beyond a strict rational-choice framework toward a sociological understanding of movement participation as a product of networks, identities, and collective processes.
They illustrate a shift from individualist explanations toward emphasizing social context, group dynamics, and cultural framing in understanding how protests emerge and persist.
Key Terms and Concepts (Glossary)
Structural Availability: The presence of networks and organizational ties that enable participation.
Biographical Availability: Individual life circumstances that permit or constrain participation (time, resources).
Recruitment: The process by which individuals are drawn into activism via organizers or networks.
Low-Cost Activism: Actions with minimal risk or cost that can mobilize broader participation.
Master Frames: Broad, widely resonant frames that organize movement coalitions and legitimize actions.
Diagnostic Framing: Precisely identifying problems and causes to mobilize concern.
Moral Shocks: Shocking imagery or events designed to provoke moral outrage and mobilize action.
Activist Identity: Self-concept as an activist; can be adopted over time or may be resisted by some participants.
Group Processes: Collective dynamics (consciousness-raising, consensus decision-making) that sustain movements.
Polarization: The intensification of group differences that can reinforce commitment to a cause.
Activation Pathways: The sequence from awareness to involvement, often via networks and framing.
Underground/Cross-Border Networks: Informal/facilitated networks that operate under repression to support activists.
Sanctions and Legitimacy: Political and institutional pressures that frame protests as legitimate or illegitimate tactics.
Notation of key quantitative references in the discussion
Number examples mentioned: 100 lawyers connected by a single organizer; 200-250 students involved in the divestment protest at one campus; encampment durations around 3 weeks.
These figures illustrate the scale and risk environment in which mobilization occurs.
Equations used to conceptually represent participation
Activation probability model:
P( ext{participation}) = figl( ext{Structural Availability}, ext{Biographical Availability}, ext{Recruitment}, ext{Group Processes}, ext{Framing}, ext{Norms}igr)
This captures the multi-factor nature of mobilization beyond simple cost-benefit calculations.