Power, the State, and Social Movements

Power: Core Concepts

  • Definition (Max Weber): Power = capacity to realize one’s will despite others’ resistance.
    • Ability to “do what you want, when you want,” even in opposition.
  • Relational & Dynamic:
    • Not intrinsic to persons/things; exists only in relationships.
    • Continually negotiated, challenged, defended; produces ongoing power contests.
  • Determinants beyond Personal Choice:
    • Material wealth, cultural & social recognition, institutional access.
    • These are structured by broader social arrangements.
  • Example – Money:
    • Holds power only because people agree on its value → illustrates social negotiation of power.

The State

  • Greatest concentration of power in modern Western societies.
    • Sole legal authority to tax, police, wage war, imprison, enact/ enforce laws, grant/withhold credentials.
  • Historical Emergence:
    • Product of Industrial Revolution & modernity.
    • Replaced feudal/aristocratic power bases (land, divine right) with capital, bureaucracy, & rational–legal authority.
  • Bureaucracy:
    • Impersonal rules over personal whim; makes power exercise predictable, extensive, entrenched.
  • Power to shape three broad processual arenas:
    1. Material (economy, resources).
    2. Cultural & social (status, recognition).
    3. Institutional (rule-making structures).

Material Processes of Power

  • Materialists: Control of economic/physical resources ⟹ primary basis for power.
  • Karl Marx:
    • Power = ownership/control of the means of production.
    • Classes: Bourgeoisie\text{Bourgeoisie} (owners) vs. Proletariat\text{Proletariat} (workers).
    • Superstructure (state, religion, family, education, law) maintains class dominance via false consciousness.
  • Critiques & Extensions:
    • Max Weber: Adds status & party/ institutional control to class.
    • C. Wright Mills: “Power elite” – interlocking corporate, military, political hierarchies (post-WWII USA).
    • John Porter (Canada): “Vertical Mosaic” – English/French charter groups dominate; non-charter (esp. racialized) groups remain in “entrance status.”
  • Canadian Political-Economy Tradition: Revisits Porter; shows ongoing racialized inequalities (color-coded mosaic).

Cultural & Social Processes of Power

  • Status (Weber): Social prestige can confer power even without wealth.
  • Antonio Gramsci – Hegemony:
    • Elites manufacture consent via culture (schools, religion, media).
    • Need counter-hegemonic ideas led by organic intellectuals.
  • Frankfurt School (Horkheimer & Adorno): “Culture industry” breeds mass passivity; skeptical about resistance potential.
  • Pierre Bourdieu:
    • Cultural capital: Knowledge, tastes, symbols (language, dress) → social navigation & distinction.
    • Social capital: Networks & obligations from group membership; quantity & quality of ties matter.
  • Robert Putnam / James Coleman:
    • Decline in voluntary associations (VAs) = loss of social capital → threatens democratic life (“Bowling Alone”).
    • Warns of bonding vs. bridging social capital: too much inward-looking bonding can foster insularity.
  • Seymour Martin Lipset (Canada–US comparison):
    • Higher Canadian union density linked to conservative/collectivist values & supportive institutions; debated by Canadian scholars.

Institutional Processes of Power

  • Institutions: Stable, path-dependent patterns ordering behavior (informal → formal; friends’ happy hour → the state).
    • Provide opportunities & impose constraints.
  • Theda Skocpol: Revolutions (China, France, Russia) triggered by state incapacity under international/economic crises; institutional legacies shape which groups exploit breakdowns.
  • Michael Mann: Democratic institutions can enable genocide via ethnic definitions of citizenship (case studies across 20th c.).
  • Canadian Work:
    • Daniel Béland: Pensions, welfare, nationalism shaped by institutional legacies.
    • Dominique Clément: Federal policy & funding fostered Canadian “rights revolution.”
    • Jensen & Saint-Martin: Post-WWII state crucial for defining citizenship inclusion/exclusion.

Transnationalism & Globalization

  • Globalization Thesis (Malcolm Waters): Geographic, economic, cultural constraints recede; processes transcend states.
    • Integrated markets, cultural homogenization, supranational institutions (EU, NAFTA, UN).
  • Implications:
    • New international flows of capital, labor exploitation (export-processing zones).
    • Spread of consumer culture erodes local cultural repertoires.
    • State sovereignty challenged by treaties/ organizations.
  • Critiques:
    • Peter Measner (Canada): States still control economies; most agreements bilateral.
    • Global travel/communication unequal; 9/11 securitization curbs mobility.
    • Cultural homogenization coexists with rising nationalism & radicalism (Benjamin Barber’s “Jihad vs. McWorld”).
    • Powerful states override international bodies (e.g., US & 2003 Iraq War vs. UN).
  • Transnationalism (vs. globalization): Processes involve more than one state, not necessarily the whole globe; states remain key implementers of norms (Sydney Tarrow).

Social Movements: Definition & Comparison

  • Social Movement: Cooperative, voluntary effort by relatively powerless actors to modify/ overthrow power relations.
    • Tactics: donate resources, recruit, disseminate ideology, strikes, sit-ins, boycotts, demonstrations, civil disobedience, violent action.
    • Targets: attitudes, everyday practices, public opinion, business/government policy.
  • Distinctions:
    • Social trend: mere behavioral shift; no organized intent.
    • Pressure group / Interest group: Organized to influence institutions; may or may not seek deep change.
    • Voluntary association (VA): Broad category; only some qualify as movements.
    • Political party: Seeks electoral power; a movement may transform into one (e.g., Green parties).

Theoretical Approaches to Social Movements

New Social Movement (NSM) Theory

  • Rooted in European scholarship (post-1960s cultural shifts).
  • Structural change → new identities & cultures → movements beyond class.
    • Focus on recognition over redistribution.
    • “Personal is political”: encroachment of state/market on daily life.
    • Emphasis on civil society arenas, participatory democracy, egalitarian internal structures.
  • Movements act as “cultural laboratories” testing new social interactions.

Framing Theory

  • Collective Action Frames (Goffman): belief/meaning packages legitimating action.
  • Three core framing tasks:
    1. Diagnostic: Identify problem & blame.
    2. Prognostic: Propose solutions & strategies.
    3. Motivational: Provide compelling reasons to act.
  • Frame alignment: Process aligning individual interpretations with movement frames; necessary for sustained participation.
  • Collective identity construction central (Janssen).

Political Process Approach

  • Polity = Opportunities + Constraints
    • Opportunities: Economic crises, legal rights (assembly), prior protest traditions, accidents.
    • Constraints: Repression, inexperience, poor communication.
    • No system purely open/closed; cycles of contention rise/fall with changing context.
  • Mobilizing structures:
    • Informal: Friendship networks preserve latent capacity.
    • Formal: NGOs, associations; internal dynamics affect strategy & survival.
  • Canadian Example: Indigenous protest spike 1989–19911989–1991 (Kanesatake/Oka crisis); continued mobilization (Mi'kmaq lobster 1999, Idle No More 2012).

Canadian Case Studies

Women’s Movement

  • National Action Committee on the Status of Women (NAC):
    • Early 1990s debate over Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ARTs).
    • Initial stance: technologies serve male-dominated technocratic science, not women.
    • Internal dissent (lesbians, infertile women) → shift to nuanced position: ARTs acceptable when reduce inequalities.
    • Example of balancing diversity vs. unity; factionalism can sap energy but keeps broad constituency.

Quebec Separatist / Nationalist Movement

  • 1918 Easter Riots: Anti-conscription protest escalates; up to ≈10\approx10 civilian deaths; fear of revolution shapes state response.
  • Mid-20th C. Modernization:
    • Asbestos strike 1949 (ethnic labor conflict) → politicization.
    • Communications expansion erodes isolationism; urbanization/new welfare expectations.
  • 1960s–70s Peak:
    • Protests vs. CN Rail board (1962), royal visit (1964), Trudeau parade (1968), St. Leonard language crisis (1968).
    • FLQ Crisis (Oct 1970): Kidnapping of diplomat & minister; Laporte killed; alienates majority.
  • Present: PQ & Bloc seen as bureaucratic; grassroots options sought amid distrust of parties.

Indigenous Movements

  • Kanesatake/Oka (1990): 78-day standoff over golf-course expansion on burial ground.
  • Mi'kmaq Lobster Dispute (1999).
  • Idle No More (2012): protests bill on waterways/environment; mixes traditional protest, flash mobs, social media.

Cycles of Contention & Future Prospects

  • Herbert Kitschelt’s Cycle Model (Canada):
    • Movement support rises when parties/interest groups fail.
    • Peaks then declines as resources fade & establishments co-opt issues; pattern is cyclical.
    • Long-term trend in wealthy democracies = steady increase in number/diversity of movements since the 1960s.
  • Current Canadian Climate:
    • Growing distrust of established institutions on nuclear, waste, environment, equality.
    • Potential for expanded movement activity if organizers exploit opportunities.

Social Movements in the Global/Transnational Arena

  • Debate over “new political reality.”
    • Leslie Sklair: Global NGOs (e.g., Greenpeace Int’l) emulate corporate structures; still “politics as usual.”
    • EU Case: Despite supranational polity, most protest remains domestically rooted.
  • Criteria for a Truly Global Movement:
    1. Global framing of grievances (e.g., environmental risks → planetary).^
    2. Worldwide membership/organization (enabled by Internet or durable coalitions).
    3. Global collective identity (shared cognitive & emotional linkage among activists).
  • Indigenous Transnationalism: Coordinated activism across Americas, Australia, NZ against colonial legacies.

Conclusion & Key Takeaways

  • Politics = Negotiation of Power across material, cultural, social, institutional arenas.
  • State remains pivotal despite globalization rhetoric; transnational forces complicate but don’t eclipse state power.
  • Social movements evolve with structural change:
    • Pre-industrial local protests → national class-based movements → post-1960s NSMs focused on culture/identity.
  • Success & Trajectories depend on political opportunities, resources, framing, and institutional context.
  • Contemporary Canada: Distrust in traditional parties opens space for movements; whether leaders capitalize remains to be seen.