1.2.1 Institutions

Resource mobilization theories of collective action have long highlighted the dominant role of formal, centralized organizational structures (Reference OlzakOlzak 1989). Ironically, however, leading proponents of RMT, when defining social movements, did not directly refer to organizations as a constitutive element but rather spoke generally of structural relations within such movements. A good example is Reference Rucht, Stekelenburg, Roggeband and KlandermansRucht’s (2013) description of structure as a pattern of more or less stable relationships within and between various elements of a larger entity.

Social movement organizations are formal groups that mobilize human and material resources and activate and coordinate strategic action within the broader social movement (Reference Smith, Davis, McAdam, Scott and ZaldSmith 2005). They vary in their degree of formalization, or the presence of formally defined roles, rules, and criteria of membership, and centralization, or the degree to which decision-making power is concentrated (Reference GamsonGamson 1990). Specifically, institutions, defined in a narrow way, are usually associated with characteristics such as formal membership criteria, a clear division of roles and internal functions, a mission statement, and legal status (Reference Rucht, Stekelenburg, Roggeband and KlandermansRucht 2013: 170). The relationship between institution leaders and members is formalized and can be expressed vertically or hierarchically, such that the lines of command are clear and the roles are well defined and handed down by the leadership (Reference Willems and JegersWillems & Jegers 2012).

The chief benefit of a centralized organizational structure is that it can broadly maintain the goals and momentum of the social movement even when the economic or political climate may not be favorable or hospitable to other organization types (Reference StaggenborgStaggenborg 1988, Reference Staggenborg2015). Furthermore, institutions are usually more accessible to outsiders, especially when they have newsletters, offices, spokespeople, and websites. This means they are better placed to fundraise, which ensures the continuation of the organization and increases awareness of its aims. Although many contemporary social movements eschew formal organizations, institutions are far from moribund. Several studies have shown that they remain a vital mode of organization within social movements of varying sorts (Reference EarlEarl 2010; Reference Polletta, Chen, Gardner, Motes, van Stekelenburg, Roggebrand and KlandermansPolletta et al. 2013; Reference Soule, van Stekelenburg, Roggeband and KlandermansSoule 2013; Reference VermeulenVermeulen 2006; Reference Walker, McCarthy and BaumgartnerWalker et al. 2011).

1.2.2 Networks

Informal, loosely connected groups exist side by side with institutions within a multi-organizational field (Reference DianiDiani 2013). Alberto Reference MelucciMelucci (1989: 71) describes movements as consisting of “submerged networks” that emerge from time to time for collective action, while Mario Reference DianiDiani (1992: 13) sees movements as “networks of informal interaction” among individuals and groups that engage in political or cultural conflict and share a collective identity. Networks have become the prime mode and structure of organization within social movements (Reference CastellsCastells 1996).

A number of scholars posit the idea of a shift from the dominance of formal organizations to more informal, sometimes temporary or issue-specific networks (Reference BaumanBauman 2000; Reference DaltonDalton 2008; Reference Roggeband, Duyvendak, Van Stekelenburg, Roggeband and KlandermansRoggeband & Duyvendak 2013; Reference SchudsonSchudson 2006; Reference Zukin, Keeter, Andolina, Jenkins and CarpiniZukin et al. 2006). The argument is that contemporary activists are likely to prefer diffuse and decentralized networks over formal organizations (Reference Duyvendak and HurenkampDuyvendak & Hurenkamp 2004; Reference TaylorTaylor 2000). They explicitly reject a hierarchal structure of governance, instead creating alternative structures that offer participants many access points. In such networks, so the theory goes, decisions are made spontaneously, in contrast to the top-down, elite-driven manner predominating in social movement institutions.

These so-called light communities are informal, open, and temporary, compared with traditional organizations, resulting in loose ties, short-term engagements, and low levels of identification (Reference Roggeband, Duyvendak, Van Stekelenburg, Roggeband and KlandermansRoggeband & Duyvendak 2013: 97). They are often characterized by interactions that are flexible in both form and content, with spontaneous exchanges of information, resources, and so on replacing formal divisions of labor and with ad hoc or short-term coordination by operational equals replacing an overarching hierarchy (Reference DianiDiani 2013; Reference Rucht, Stekelenburg, Roggeband and KlandermansRucht 2013). This pattern of autonomous structures frees the collective actors to a large extent from the cumbersome “coalition work” (Reference StaggenborgStaggenborg 1986: 387) that characterizes many other groups. However, sometimes these networks become internally differentiated, establishing committees, subgroups, task forces, and so on, which focus on specific functions, thereby forming extremely complex structures. In addition, while these nonhierarchical structures sometimes compete for scarce resources, they also may fall naturally into an implicit division of labor, reducing competition between them and allowing for more fruitful cooperation.

Networks provide the channels through which social movement frames, repertoires, and sometimes even triggers are diffused to a wider population of potential participants (Reference Andrews and BiggsAndrews & Biggs 2006; Reference Hedström, Sandell and SternHedström et al. 2000; Reference Krinsky and CrossleyKrinsky & Crossley 2014; Reference Oliver, Myers, Diani and McAdamOliver & Myers 2003). The decentralized networks often rely on grassroots outreach and volunteers, as opposed to the more formalized relationships in institutions. Indeed, they may attract more participants than institutions do, because the costs (financial, social, time) of engagement in these networks are much lower than in institutions, which may entail dues-paying, regular meetings, and other commitments (Reference Roggeband, Duyvendak, Van Stekelenburg, Roggeband and KlandermansRoggeband & Duyvendak 2013). Furthermore, decentralized networks may result in better deliberative practices, more innovative tactics, and political leaders who are more representative and accountable (Reference PollettaPolletta 2002). Some even argue that this type of mobilizing structure may be harder for governments to suppress and may be more successful at infiltrating the national consciousness and discourse.

1.2.3 Influencers

The last branch is the least well-known and understood. Influencers are individual actors who work outside formal institutions and hierarchical leadership structures (Reference PhillipsPhillips 2011), and sometimes even outside the loose networks described earlier. Some influencers create their own loose networks using online forums, blogs, and open databases (Reference Roggeband, Duyvendak, Van Stekelenburg, Roggeband and KlandermansRoggeband & Duyvendak  2013). While social movements have always had influencers – think of Harry Belafonte and the US civil rights movement – social media has amplified both the number and reach of influencers. For example, when international pop star Ariana Grande retweets an anti–animal-abuse tweet by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), she not only reaches a much larger audience (in December 2019 she had an estimated 68.4 million followers on Twitter versus PETA’s 1.1 million) but also a very different audience (e.g., younger, less political).

While influencers can be linked to movement organizations, be they formal or informal, their political significance does not derive from the organization. Rather, they act as independent individuals, or small groups of people (often spousal teams or a few friends), using their individual reputation and skills to advance the goals of the movement. The most important influencers are celebrities, such as actors, authors, journalists, singers, and sports personalities, whose personal audiences often reach far beyond that of the social movement. A second group of influencers are individuals and groups who work together to create groups, including businesses that promote the movement’s ideology and goals. Finally, a third group includes influencers in key state positions, from generals to judges, who do not represent social movement organizations, but do support the movement and its goals, in word and, often also, deed.

1.4.1 The State

The first political arena that social movements try to influence is the state. The state apparatus comprises various sets of actors, including governments, bureaucracies, and the judiciary at the supranational, national, and subnational levels (Reference Meyer, Reyes, Leicht and JenkinsMeyer & Reyes 2010). Social movements that gain access to the policymaking process can successfully influence policies through formal political institutions (Reference AndrewsAndrews 2001; Reference ZaldZald 2017). The state is also crucial for the access to resources it provides. These resources can manifest themselves in many ways, including concrete assets, such as financial support granted as part of the political process, and more figurative resources, such as legitimacy by way of favorable political conditions (Reference Cress and SnowCress & Snow 2000; Reference Edwards and MarulloEdwards & Marullo 1995; Reference Snow, Soule and KriesiSnow et al. 2004).

Political opportunity plays an integral role in resource mobilization, allowing social movements to bolster their impact and resources (including financial resources, benefits, and manpower) by leveraging political conditions to obtain support from the state or institutional actors (Reference Amenta, Carruthers and ZylanAmenta et al. 1992; Reference Cloward and PivenCloward & Piven 1977; Reference Goldstone and TillyGoldstone & Tilly 2001; Reference Lipset and MarksLipset & Marks 2000; Reference SkocpolSkocpol 1992). Thus, social movements must form coalitions with members of the political establishment (civil servants and other appointed or elected officeholders), winning support from within the establishment by adopting organizational forms that fit current political conditions, or even becoming part of the establishment itself (Reference Roggeband and KlandermansRoggeband & Klandermans 2017; Reference Snow, Soule and KriesiSnow et al. 2004; Reference Tilly and TillyTilly 1975).

Social movements can influence state bureaucracies through different mechanisms, ranging from open collaboration to open opposition. Given that opposition is inherently reactive, this path will mainly prevent things from happening. But social movements can also use threats of opposition to pressure the state into implementing certain policies (Reference QuadagnoQuadagno 1992). Collaboration can be both active and reactive, aimed at furthering or preventing policies. Theoretically, there are different levels of collaboration, depending on the level of openness and shared purpose between the movement and the state. For example, in the case of infiltration, or “capture,” social movements try to influence states covertly, for instance, by changing the institutional environment through the policies and regulations that affect organizations. In contrast, in the case of co-optation, it is often states that try to covertly influence the social movement.

Social movement institutions are most likely to collaborate with or be co-opted by the state for at least three reasons. First, their organizational rationale mirrors that of the state. Indeed, the defining characteristic of institutions is the subjugation of the individual to the impersonal rational rules and hierarchies of bureaucratic rule (Reference Weber, King, Adler, du Gay, Morgan and ReedWeber & King 2014: 487). Second, states often require a high level of organization to implement their policies. And third, the state is one of the few actors that can guarantee institutions the resources they need to sustain themselves. In sharp contrast, networks are more likely to work through pressure, that is, through (the threat of) opposition, mostly directed at forcing the state to (not) implement certain policies (Reference WapnerWapner 1995; Reference YatesYates 2015). Influencers, for their part, are uniquely suited to infiltrate, for example, as bureaucrats or educators. However, whether through infiltration or co-optation, influencers will often have only limited impact in the state arena, as they can only influence a small subsection of the larger project – apart from some very highly placed bureaucrats.

Success in the state arena can range in importance from the most insignificant, such as winning “a specific state policy decision with no long-term implications for the flow of benefits to the group,” to the highest realization of group goals, with actions that provide “continuing leverage over political processes” (Reference Giugni, McAdam and TillyGiugni et al. 1999: 31). In fact, there are many possible manifestations of “success,” even in terms of a social movement’s policy impact. For example, some scholars examine passed legislation (Reference BursteinBurstein 1979), while others measure public spending on a particular policy (Reference GiugniGiugni 2004). One useful measure by which to score the success of social movements with respect to the state is whether the state provides movement actors with open access, that is, openings in the political opportunity structure (Reference TarrowTarrow 1994).

As noted by Reference Meyer, Reyes, Leicht and JenkinsDavid Meyer and Daisy Reyes (2010: 221), “political opportunities affect the social movement’s potential to mobilize, advance particular claims, cultivate alliances, employ particular strategies and tactics, and influence mainstream institutional politics and policy.” Such political opportunities include (1) ties and collaboration with state actors; (2) access to the electoral and judicial processes; (3) socialization of citizens, most notably through the educational system; and (4) budgetary subsidies made in response to the movement’s professed needs. Increased political opportunities are thus both an outcome measure for social movement success, and an antecedent of it. Indeed, gaining access to the policy process is the most effective way for social movement organizations to have an impact on policy outcomes, because authorities are often more willing to offer inclusion in the process than they are to accept social movement demands for policy change (Reference Rochon and MazmanianRochon & Mazmanian 1993). However, specific characteristics of social movements shape their ability to achieve favorable policies, and to influence institutional priorities and resources (Reference HarrisonHarrison 2016: 536).

Characteristics of the state bodies with which social movements interact can also influence the relationship and, therefore, their impact on policy outcomes. The literature identifies three vital intraorganizational factors that shape how organizations implement social movement policies: (1) ideological commitment to movement policies – whether relevant staff exhibit a “pro- or anti-movement orientation” (Reference Zald, Morrill, Rao, Davis, McAdam, Scott and ZaldZald et al. 2005: 275); (2) organizational capacity to respond to movement demands; and (3) surveillance and sanctions that compel compliance. State bureaucracies are shaped not only by rational decisions about efficiency but also by norms, shared meanings, and pressure from movements and politicians (Reference DiMaggio and PowellDiMaggio & Powell 1983). Thus, to fully explain social movement policy outcomes further, the beliefs of state representatives – and how they apply them – are key variables.

There is evidence that social movement activities that respond to the electoral concerns of elected officials can have a particularly potent impact. Officeholders are most likely to pay attention to groups whose members vote and participate in politics. In accordance, social movement organizations are most likely to influence policy when “they change their activities in ways that attract legislators’ attention, and when the attention-getting activities in turn lead legislators to worry that if they do not respond to the organizations’ demands, their chances of reelection will suffer” (Reference Burstein and LintonBurstein & Linton 2002: 387; see also Reference Amenta and PoulsenAmenta & Poulsen 1996). Another effective tactic is to provide elected officials with information and resources (e.g., members, money, and media access) relevant to the officials’ reelection (Reference LohmannLohmann 1993).

In this book, we will analyze the role of the settler movement and its supporters within state organizations, and in particular in the administration of the occupied territories. In doing so, we will consider both the direct and indirect impact of the settler movement on the state bureaucracy. The former refers to the organizations’ impact on the final stage of legislative activity, when policy changes are, or are not, enacted into law. The latter refers to organizations’ success in getting issues on the political agenda, influencing how issues are framed, providing information, and affecting public opinion. We thereby distinguish between the overall long-term goal of the settler movement (i.e., the realization of Eretz Yisrael) and more concrete short- and medium-term goals (such as the building, expansion, legalization and protection of concrete settlements).

1.4.2 Civil Society

The state is not the sole antagonist or contested site for social movements. They also operate outside the formal political system, targeting other forms of authority (Reference BaronBaron 2003; Reference BartleyBartley 2007; Reference Weber, King, Adler, du Gay, Morgan and ReedWeber & King 2014). Thus, social movement scholars have begun to expand their domain of interest, turning from an exclusive concern with “public politics” to various forms of “private politics,” that is, means and modes of interorganizational conflict resolution in which public authorities have only a limited role (Reference De Bakker, Den Hond, King and WeberDe Bakker et al. 2013: 576; see also Reference Armstrong and BernsteinArmstrong & Bernstein 2008). Social movement research has increasingly broadened from state-oriented action to, more generally, conceptions of conflict or collaboration with different types of institutional and noninstitutional targets, including civil society associations (Reference AlexanderAlexander 2006; Reference Meyerson and ScullyMeyerson & Scully 1995).

The civil society arena is largely defined by what it is not. It is the amorphous space between state and society (Reference Kopecký and MuddeKopecký & Mudde 2003). Civil society thus includes a broad range of political actors and structures and should not be perceived as homogeneous or unitary. An active civil society is broadly considered a measure of democratic success (Reference Foley and EdwardsFoley & Edwards 1996; Reference PutnamPutnam 1993), although recent research has problematized this relationship. From Weimar Germany to twenty-first-century Egypt, (fragile) democracies have been challenged, and defeated, by highly active civil society groups (Reference BermanBerman 1997). Moreover, in some cases in postcommunist Eastern Europe, “civil society” has been detrimental to democracy, while “uncivil society” has been beneficial (Reference Kopecký and MuddeKopecký & Mudde 2003).

Social movements that focus on civil society strive to garner collective benefits outside the realm of state legislation or policy. Building ties with civil society groups, whether through memberships or partnerships, enables networking, cooperation, and collaboration to achieve mutually beneficial ends (Reference Caniglia, Brulle, Szasz, Dunlap and BrulleCaniglia et al. 2015; Reference PutnamPutnam 1995). As Anthony Reference Oberschall and DojcinovicOberschall (2012: 189) has argued, “when favorable changes in public policy and legislation occur, the social movement input is one component of a larger coalition of political groups, lobbies and supportive publics, all of which were crucial for success.”

For social movements, three specific non-state actors are of particular importance: political parties, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and the media (Reference Benford and SnowBenford & Snow 2000; Reference MelucciMelucci 1996). All three are imperative to furthering the cause of any social movement, albeit via different processes. Logically, social movements will try to influence civil society actors who share, at least in part, their ideology and interests; see, for example, the relationship of US civil rights organizations to black churches during the 1950s and 1960s (Reference MorrisMorris 1999). In fact, in some cases, social movements will not even have to influence these actors, which chose to advocate for their shared agenda anyway.

The bridge or conduit between the formal activity of the state and the informal political activity of social movement organizations is political parties. Although conceptualized in a variety of ways, the most concise definition comes from the late Italian political theorist Giovanni Reference SartoriSartori (1976: 63), who defined a political party as “any political group identified by an official label that presents elections, and is capable of placing through elections candidates for public office.” Some scholars exclude parties from the sphere of civil society, arguing that they are part of the state (Reference Carothers and BarndtCarothers & Barndt 1999). However, despite growing connections between them (Reference Katz and MairKatz & Mair 1995), political parties are, for the most part, distinguishable and formally independent from the state. For social movements, they are particularly important as policymakers. While the state implements policies, political parties actually introduce them, through their actions in executives and legislatures (Reference Burstein and LintonBurstein & Linton 2002).

Scholars who examine the interactions between social movement organizations and other political actors often employ a political opportunity structure (POS) framework to see how and to what degree different institutions influence and benefit from mutual cooperation. The framework examines the importance of the political context and the opportunities it offers social movements, including the configuration of power within the party system. For example, Reference Kriesi, Koopmans, Duyvendak and GiugniHanspeter Kriesi and his collaborators (1992) have suggested that the need for social movements to engage in mobilization is directly related to political tendencies on a linear, left–right spectrum. Practically, this means that if a left-leaning party dominates the government, social movements with similar views have less need for mobilization, as they foresee greater chances of reform in their favor. The flip side is that social movements whose views clash with those of the government have greater need to mobilize supporters. Thus, political parties act not only as a channel between noninstitutional action and governmental processes, they also magnify or minimize the need for internal mobilization, depending on the party’s current electoral fortunes.

Given that most political parties are, first and foremost, driven by the need to maximize their electoral support, the branch of social movements that should hold the largest influence over them is the institutions (Reference TarrowTarrow 1994). The greater the electoral power of social movement institutions, based on the number of voters they can mobilize, the greater their potential influence. Examples, in the US context, include the American Association for Retired People (AARP) and the National Rifle Association (NRA), who have a large and highly mobilized membership (as well as significant financial resources), making them formidable players within US politics. Networks have less power, because they represent constituencies outside the established political organizations, which have the most significant and direct ability to affect politics (Reference McCarthy and ZaldMcCarthy & Zald 1977). Similarly, most influencers have limited power, because their (increasingly online) followers are not easily mobilized in the real political world.

Influencers can have an impact through infiltration, and to a certain level, co-optation, but only if they achieve a particularly powerful position within a party (Reference WaddockWaddock 2017). Influencers require capital, information, labor, and skills. While holding some of these resources themselves, they often complement them by accessing their contacts (Reference Greve and SalaffGreve & Salaff 2003). In general, the relationship between influencers and political parties is symbiotic: political parties offer influencers complementary resources to produce and deliver their goods or services (Reference TeeceTeece 1987), and can provide influencers with increased visibility and legitimacy. In turn, influencers afford political parties access to people and organizations by fostering connections and leveraging new media platforms.

Nongovernmental organizations range from small, poorly funded local groups formed around specific issues like the local playground to global behemoths like Amnesty International and Greenpeace. Social movements mainly reach out to NGOs to increase their resources, including finances and personnel. Nongovernmental organizations and social movements, however, often occupy the same conceptual playing field, leading to tensions, politically and organizationally, in their interactions with each other and with third-party actors. Indeed, as Alejandro Reference BendañaBendaña (2006: 1) argues, social movements can end up “absorb[ing] and reorient[ing] NGOs,” or conversely, experiencing an “NGO-ization of movements and politics.” That is, interactions between the two can result in the assimilation of NGOs into social movements, or the effective professionalization of social movements to resemble NGOs, as manifested in their organizational frameworks and modes of action.

Inherently, social movements and NGOs have different bottom lines, and therefore work to achieve their goals via different means. NGOs are intrinsically dedicated to “policy advocacy [and] service delivery and monitoring” (Reference BendañaBendaña 2006: 7), and are characterized by a certain (though limited) accountability and transparency. Social movements are mass or popular movements that owe accountability only to their constituents. Yet although the fundamental construction of NGOs and social movements differ, they share the desired outcome of (not) changing social, political, and economic policies.

Despite the tension between social movements and NGOs, their shared interests mean that they can achieve the most when they act together, such “that none loses its autonomy and each contributes according to their particular strengths” (Reference BendañaBendaña 2006: 18). Social movements can attract mass constituency support, a feature that most NGOs frequently lack. For their part, NGOs can give social movements legitimacy in the eyes of the political elite and the “neutral” public, and can open channels to the government. Partnerships between NGOs and social movements can come to fruition either incrementally or as a “single process of elaborating common national and international projects” (Reference BendañaBendaña 2006: 18). The formation of such coalitions can help social movements expand beyond their core constituencies to include grassroots members, civil servants, and the political elite.

We can assume a natural tendency toward “like to like,” meaning that individuals and groups will gravitate toward structurally similar individuals and groups. For example, social movement institutions are likely to pursue collaborative efforts with more organized NGOs, whereas informal networks will tend to engage with less organized groups. Likewise, influencers will most frequently collaborate with other influencers. However, this tendency for organizationally analogous actors to seek one another out is ameliorated by the possibility of dual membership. In other words, given that the goal of movement organizations is resource mobilization, the “like to like” tendency is mitigated by a more primary urge to enlist maximum capital. When informal networks determine that they can bolster their group’s potential for success, it is commonplace for them to seek partnerships with structurally dissimilar groups.

The media are of primary interest due to its influence on public opinion and its power to help set the political agenda (Reference King, Schneer and WhiteKing et al. 2017; Reference McCombsMcCombs 2013; Reference SorokaSoroka 2003). The media – particularly television, the press, and online outlets – are also a malleable organizing tool, one that evolves in accordance with the changing (and sometimes conflicting) needs of activists. Studies have shown that the media can facilitate connective engagement and protest mobilization, enabling grassroots campaigns to build quickly and effectively (Reference HensbyHensby 2017). When a social movement challenges a cultural code, a change in the media arena both signals and spreads the change (Reference Gamson, Snow, Soule and KriesiGamson 2004). Additionally, mass media also play a key catalyzing role in public protest, as all players in the policy process accept their pervasive influence. As such, media coverage can greatly influence “the nature, development and ultimate success of social protest” (Reference CorbettCorbett 1998: 42).

The media are not a neutral actor, but part of the dominant power structure, and act as a “gatekeeper” of content (Reference CorbettCorbett 1998: 43). That is, traditional news outlets can pick and choose what content they wish to disseminate or suppress. As such, the media also control which social movement institutions they respond to. Social movement institutions, for their part, can develop structural relationships of collaboration and interdependency with media organizations, for example, by providing them with access, information, and talking heads. Social movement networks mainly try to influence the media by creating “newsworthy” events. Influencers, finally, can impact specific media by either working for them, as journalists, or by functioning as “experts” on issues related to the broader political agenda of the social movement.

Not only do media outlets play a crucial role in determining whether a particular social movement is newsworthy, they also have a huge hand in the narrative of certain movements (Reference Breuer, Landman and FarquharBreuer et al. 2015). By presenting an organization as sympathetic, aggressive, or victimized, the media can affect the resource and constituency mobilization of the group. In this respect, getting noticed by the media has traditionally been most important for small, resource-deprived groups, who have few other instruments of mobilization. In fact, the success of a social movement is often indicated by its “ascension to a permanently newsworthy status” (Reference RoschoRoscho 1975: 101).

Regardless of a social movement’s size or degree of formality, the media are an indispensable arbiter in a social movement’s interaction with the public. This gives media actors a huge amount of control over the framing of the public discourse. It is still unclear what this means in the age of social media. Developments in communication, and changes in how people connect with information sources, have created new opportunities for engaging and mobilizing mass audiences, both online and offline. Unlike traditional forms of collective action, social media do not rely so strongly on organizational resources. Rather, they transmit ideas and messages virally through networks such as Facebook and Twitter – what Reference Bennett and SegerbergBennett and Segerberg (2012, Reference Bennett, Segerberg, della Porta and Diani2015) refer to as “connective action” logic. Following this logic,

Mark Reference TremayneTremayne (2014), for example, has argued that the proliferation of social media content created for Occupy Wall Street was a key driver of the movement’s upward “scale shift” to a worldwide phenomenon.

On the other hand, studies have demonstrated that the media have the power to severely limit the information that audiences receive and can eliminate alternative solutions to political problems from public debate (Reference Happer and PhiloHapper & Philo 2013). Moreover, repeated exposure to media messages can have a reinforcing effect on public opinion. In experimental research, individuals who were more exposed to a specific media message were increasingly less open to new information, and less flexible in assimilating any new information that filtered through. This was evident even if the message was inaccurate (Reference Happer and PhiloHapper & Philo 2013). Therefore, the increased proliferation of messages by members of social movement networks across social media could have a significant effect on public opinion, building public support that can be translated into resource mobilization. This brings us to the third political area, the public.

1.4.3 Society

Social movements mainly meet society in the public arena, in a battle over public opinion, or public values, in what is amorphously termed “culture.” Culture can be conceived of as “the norms, values, traditions, artifacts, and expectations [that operate] within a community” (Reference Fine, Johnston and KlandermansFine 1995: 127). Cultural context is imperative in the formation and framing of social movements, which are, in fact, cultural movements. Not only do cultural cues define the figurative bounds of social movements, but they are also in constant interaction with the movement organizations – dynamically framing and reframing the boundaries as cultural pressures and themes shift (Reference Snow, Rochford Jr, Worden and BenfordSnow et al. 1986; Reference Snow, Benford, Morris and McClurg MuellerSnow & Benford 1992).

Despite conceptual and methodological dilemmas, which make this a particularly challenging area of inquiry, social science research has made significant advances in identifying and demonstrating specific cultural outcomes related to the success of social movements (Reference HartHart 1996). These include changes in public opinion, changes in cultural products and everyday practices (e.g., in language, music, fashion, visual culture, the academy, and literature), and the (re)emergence of (new) communities and/or identities (Reference d’Anjoud’Anjou 1996; Reference d’Anjou and Van Maled’Anjou & Van Male 1998; Reference Earl, Snow, della Porta, Klandersmans and McAdamEarl 2013; Reference Gamson and ModiglianiGamson & Modigliani 1989; Reference MelucciMelucci 1989; Reference RochonRochon 1998).

The public arena is where individuals and groups meet and exchange views concerning their interests, while at the same time deliberating, raising objections, and making suggestions concerning public issues (Reference HabermasHabermas 1989). Within this more general space of the public arena exists the space of public opinion, which denotes the collective expression of citizens’ views on issues of public concern, and which serves as a means of regulating the activities of formal, institutional bodies. Public opinion can be expressed informally or, as in the case of elections, formally (Reference Habermas, Lennox and LennoxHabermas & Lennox 1974). In general, the public sphere operates as the broker between society and the state, and is thus pivotal in relaying the desires and opinions of the masses to the political elite and state institutions.

Reference Turner and KillianRalph Turner and Lewis Killian (1987: 158) maintain that the public arena comprises a set of discursive groups, namely a group of people interested in an issue, “with a view to registering a collective opinion which is expected to affect the course of action of some decision-making group or individual.” Gamson suggests straightforwardly that the public arena can be conceived of as a forum in which public discourse is carried out (in Reference Snow, Soule and KriesiSnow et al. 2004). This discourse is carried out by individuals or collective actors in a myriad of different public galleries, including the mass media, parliaments, and social media. These actors take on a performative role in the public forum in order to foster resource mobilization by appealing to the masses to gain legitimacy.

The public arena is indispensable to social movements, because it is the most open space in which social movements operate: “It is the space where people come together as citizens and articulate their autonomous views to influence the political institutions of society” (Reference CastellsCastells 2008: 78). In addition to being crucial for solidifying constituents’ affective attachment to the social movement, organizations that know how to successfully co-opt public opinion can garner resources to maintain and perpetuate the movement, and push civil society and the state to further their cause (Reference Keane, Scammelli and SemetkoKeane 2018; Reference SchurmanSchurman 2004).

Accordingly, to the extent that social movements are conceived of as vehicles for social change, the effects these challengers have on belief systems and ideologies, as well as on “the practices and culture of mainstream institutions,” become a yardstick for social movement success (Reference Giugni, McAdam and TillyGiugni et al. 1999: 34). Moreover, the creation of (new) collective identities can serve as proxy gains within the public framework. In fact, Reference GamsonGamson’s (1975) well-known definition of movement success includes public acceptance or recognition, in the sense that the movement’s objectives become part of the public agenda, as a core component. Some of the biggest achievements of social movements lie in broadening the public discourse. Bringing public attention to the claims of the social movement can itself have an enormous effect, in particular if the movement does so by inventing new tactics (Reference ZimmermannZimmermann 2015).

At least within a democratic context, though to some extent even in authoritarian settings (Reference Geddes and ZallerGeddes & Zaller 1989; Reference Soroka and WlezienSoroka & Wlezian 2010), politics is largely a struggle over public opinion. Electoral competition means that officials seeking reelection – indeed, all candidates seeking office – must respond to the public, which may lead them to promote policies that accord with public opinion, even, in some cases, regardless of their own personal views (Reference Burstein and LintonBurstein & Linton 2002; Reference Parinandi and HittParinandi & Hitt 2018). Social movement mobilization can serve a key role in this process by providing decision makers with information on public preferences (Reference UbaUba 2009). Hence, political actors try to influence not just what people think about a certain issue, but also what issues they think about. In other words, social movements aim not only to make people see their point of view on a specific issue, but also to make people consider that issue to be of vital importance (Reference Benford and SnowBenford & Snow 2000).

Although much of the debate on movement outcomes has focused on the role of public opinion, the empirical evidence is still inconsistent (Reference Burstein and LintonBurstein & Linton 2002; Reference GiugniGiugni 2004; Reference Soule, Snow, Soule and KriesiSoule 2004). This may be in part due to differences in the measures used to assess the impact of social movements on public opinion. Importantly, the role of public opinion also varies across measures of organizational resources and activity (Reference Parinandi and HittParinandi & Hitt 2018; Reference UbaUba 2009). For example, while institutions have sometimes been included in analyses of a social movement’s impact on public opinion, much less attention has been paid to networks or influencers.

Social movement organizations can influence the public sphere, and by extension, public opinion, in different ways – both indirectly, through the state and civil society organizations (like schools and the media), and directly, through their own political campaigns. Their level of organization and resources means that institutions are likely to have more sustained influence on both issue salience and issue positions. In contrast, networks mainly have a short-term agenda-setting function, through well-mediatized actions. Influencers normally have only a limited impact on both aspects, barring some exceptional individuals and events. Examples are influencers who reach a broader audience in another capacity than social movement activist and use that position to change opinions about the movement’s cause. This includes celebrities who speak out for a cause, like US actress Angelina Jolie on human rights, Canadian actress Pamela Anderson on animal rights, or Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg on the environment.

The phenomenon of celebrities and cultural icons using their agency to advance a social cause or agenda has in fact become a fixture of the social movement landscape (Reference Wilson, Van Luijk and BoitWilson et al. 2015). Zeynep Reference TufekciTufekci (2013) has suggested that recent developments in media ecology add to the development and production of “attention” as an asset for social movements, with it becoming an invaluable resource for gaining traction, soliciting new membership, and presenting preferred frames. The result is that celebrities are increasingly useful as movement advocates. Equally, the movement serves the celebrity in a reciprocal relationship, keeping the spotlight on that individual. Reference Meyer and GamsonDavid Meyer and Joshua Gamson (1995: 181) have even suggested that it is far more anomalous to see a celebrity “without a cause” these days.

The specific areas in which celebrities’ contributions to social movements appear to be most significant are resource mobilization and collective identity. The resource that celebrities offer to social movements is visibility. This is primarily realized on the media stage, where the public is informed by news outlets and sources as to what is important: “Once an individual has been certified as newsworthy, he or she has been empowered, within limits, to make news” (Reference GitlinGitlin 1980: 146). Celebrity icons and personalities are intrinsically newsworthy, and therefore their association with a movement or cause imbues it with their status and media attention. In fact, while experts may have more knowledge about a particular cause, celebrities have exponentially more access to the public eye and therefore serve as an attractive and efficient pathway. Celebrity participation in a protest or rally on behalf of a given movement organization will also have a reinforcing effect for the constituency. This combination then catalyzes a positive loop for the movement’s resource mobilization; the presence of a celebrity attracts media and strengthens constituent support at events or rallies, which then furnish larger attendance and further justification of the event as “newsworthy.”

1.4.4 International Arena

There has been a significant increase in transnational activity among social movement organizations over the last 50 years (Reference TarrowDella Porta & Tarrow 2005). Transnational activism refers to an appeal to international support networks on behalf of actors who may be too weak to progress their own cause on the domestic arena, or who seek to leverage their movement with international pressure. Sidney Reference TarrowTarrow (2005) argues that with the rise of internationalism, transnational activist networks have provided domestic activists with added resources and legitimacy, especially if the international actors come from the political elite. The intersection of globalization and internationalization has resulted in a surge of transnational activists, who are conceived of as actors or groups that act both within multiple counties in order to catalyze resource mobilization – in particular by eliciting support from external, international allies.

Cultural, geopolitical, and social paradigm shifts have affected social movements’ institutional and cultural environments, such as the transformation of the media system, globalization of the economic system, and the presence of political authorities on the international level (Reference TarrowDella Porta & Tarrow 2005). These global forces encompass information exchange, global cultural and policy diffusion, and the interdependence of trade and production (Reference Almeida and Chase-DunnAlmeida & Chase-Dunn 2018). It is important to note that the relationship between transnational allies is generally mutually beneficial. In other words, activists tend to engage international actors or groups whose own ideologies or driving tenets align with their own, or who stand to benefit from a symbiotic alliance.

Building alliances with international actors can be a potent tool for social movements, because it multiplies opportunities for mobilizing support and resources. That is, the international arena provides new space for lobbying and alternative paths of access to political processes (Reference Passy, della Porta, Kreisi and RuchtPassy 1999; Reference Smith, della Porta, Kreisi and RuchtSmith 1999). Clifford Reference BobBob (2005) suggests that disadvantaged movements around the globe increasingly seek out the assistance of international organizations, both governmental bodies and NGOs, precisely because they feel they lack the resources and influence to successfully fight for change on their own. The European Union (EU), for example, provides a supranational forum where advocacy groups can present their grievances while also generating momentum through formal policy-making channels (Reference RuzzaRuzza 2004; Reference TarrowTarrow 2005; Reference ZippelZippel 2004).

Whereas groups lacking transnational contacts might find themselves either ignored or repressed by their own national governments, those whose struggles are recognized by international actors can gain political leverage in their domestic contexts. Reference Keck, Sikkink, Meyer and TarrowMargaret Keck and Kathryn Sikkink (1998) describe this strategy of using the international stage to influence the behaviors of national governments as a “boomerang effect.” Certification by international actors or institutions, whether transnational citizens’ groups or international agencies, has important effects on national political struggles, as it demonstrates the movement’s claims are viewed as legitimate by those outside the country in question. This can enhance activists’ sense of efficacy and can help local groups mobilize resources from the transnational activist community. International allies, in turn, can contribute significantly to the success of a social movement by creating pressure from above and below the national state. Thus, by participating in the international arena, social movements can “bypass their state and directly search out international allies to try to bring pressure on their states from the outside” (Reference Keck, Sikkink, Meyer and TarrowKeck & Sikkink 1998: 12).

What is novel about these international alliances is the ability of national social movements, including from relatively small countries, to persuade, pressure, and exert leverage over much more powerful organizations and governments. Alliances with international actors – including international NGOs, governmental organizations, social movements, and professional bodies and conferences – provide vital resources for domestic social movements, and help spread the movement’s ideas, practices, and frames from one country to another. In creating these networks with international actors, social movements try not only to influence policy outcomes but also the nature of the debate, building legitimacy, awareness, and a voice for the social movement from the outside (Reference Tarrow, McAdam, della Porta and TarrowTarrow & McAdam 2005). Social movements can also bolster their cause by challenging international institutions to intervene in problems or domestic conflict and mobilizing resources, including money, information, and activists for the movement’s project and activities.

The boundary-less nature of online media has made the transnational approach more efficient and feasible (Reference BennettBennett 2003). The Internet has broken the monopoly of communication once held by traditional elites, such as governments, churches, or political parties. Activist websites assembled by the independent media as well as movement-specific Facebook sites and free international messaging applications (such as Skype, WhatsApp, Twitter, and Telegram) perform a broker role for social movements by connecting organizations and individuals globally (Reference Della Porta, Andretta, Mosca and ReiterDella Porta et al. 2006; Reference HorstinkHorstink 2017; Reference JurisJuris 2005). These websites and digital messaging applications offer logistic information in multiple languages for coordinating local events as well as transnational campaigns (Reference Almeida and LichbachAlmeida & Lichbach 2003; Reference HowardHoward 2010).

Social media platforms, in particular, have served as outlets for social movements to propagate ideas, mobilize members for collective action, and coordinate activism. Online websites, for example, create opportunities for interaction and connection, often featuring numerous international and interorganizational hyperlinks (Reference Burris, Smith and StrahmBurris et al. 2000; Reference DanielsDaniels, 2009). As Francesca Reference PollettaPolletta (1999: 3) notes: “Free spaces supply the activist networks, skills, and solidarity that assist in launching a movement.” The Internet has also simplified the process for appealing to international support in circumstances where information would not be diffused by official channels (Reference Karolak and ÇakmakKarolak 2017). Furthermore, it enables individuals to become political broadcasters and voice their opinions on an equal footing with any other user, thereby allowing marginalized groups to become (more) vocal and reach international audiences (Reference Karolak and ÇakmakKarolak 2017). As such, social media have further democratized the various arenas in which social movements operate.

1.5.1 Internal Factors

It seems obvious that the tactics adopted by any organization, group, or movement will have an effect on the group’s ability to achieve its goals. Early work on the impact of social movements emphasized the advantages of radical action strategies (e.g., Reference GamsonGamson 1990; Reference Piven and ClowardPiven & Cloward 1993). Yet findings on the effectiveness of different tactical repertoires are mixed and inconclusive at best. Social movements do not exist within a vacuum. Their actions, be they moderate, radical, or extreme, are limited and influenced by other players in the sociopolitical system. That is, the application of violence is a dynamic result of differing opportunities and limitations that the contemporary political opportunity structure offers protesters and law-enforcement alike (Reference TarrowTarrow 2011). For example, with the normalization of protest in Western democracies, people have come to see peaceful protests (demonstrations, marches, rallies) as a legitimate way of expressing demands (Reference Norris, Walgrave and Van AelstNorris et al. 2005), whereas illegal and violent acts have become less accepted (Reference Della Porta and DianiDella Porta & Diani 1999; Reference TarrowTarrow 1994).

Decision makers within social movements must weigh the costs and benefits of moderate versus radical or extreme modes of action. Studies have found that in the United States, social movements which opted for more moderate, insider tactics were more successful in generating Congressional support (e.g., Reference GamsonGamson 1990; Reference Santoro and FitzpatrickSantoro & Fitzpatrick 2015; Reference Soule, McAdam, McCarthy and SuSoule et al. 1999). Radical, disruptive actions have the advantage that they can garner the attention of target authority figures and can serve to mobilize a sympathetic audience (Reference Bearman and EverettBearman & Everett 1993). But disruptive, radical modes can also undermine a movement’s cause by alienating the movement’s support base if it goes too far, particularly when it veers into the territory of violent acts (Reference Biggs and AndrewsBiggs & Andrews 2015; Reference Elsbach and SuttonElsbach & Sutton 1992; Reference Johnson, Dowd and RidgewayJohnson et al. 2006; Reference Kanter and TroupKanter & Troup 2018).

Social movement organizations that have a cause with broad appeal are more likely to use radical disruptive methods, but less likely to resort to extreme (violent) measures. In contrast, organizations with narrow appeal are more likely to opt for extreme means. This is because more-niche organizations inherently have a smaller support base, making them less dependent upon broader support but more dependent upon attention-grabbing tactics to arouse media attention (Reference Wang and PiazzaWang & Piazza 2016). When the target of the organization is the government, there is a success trade-off when employing violent tactics. Extreme actions are likely to lead to the marginalization of protestors, and it can alienate elected officials and potential sympathizers (Reference McAdam and SuMcAdam & Su 2002). Hence, social movements may choose nonviolent actions over violent ones to gain recognition as respectable players who should be listened to (Reference Tilly, Giugni, McAdam and TillyTilly 1999, Reference Tilly2008).

While there is considerable debate on the effectiveness of different types of actions, most scholars agree that social movements are more successful when they employ a variety of tactics, that is, when they draw from a broad tactical repertoire rather than a more narrow one (e.g., Reference Fishman and EversonFishman & Everson 2016; Reference McCammonMcCammon 2012; Reference Taylor, Van Dyke, Snow, Soule and KriesiTaylor & Van Dyke 2004; Reference Tilly and TillyTilly et al. 1975). For example, they point to the success of the women’s movement in the second half of the twentieth century, which incorporated both moderate and radical protests (Reference Gelb, Hart, Giugni, McAdam and TillyGelb & Hart 1999; Reference Rupp and TaylorRupp & Taylor 1987; Reference StaggenborgStaggenborg 1991). Several scholars have noted that cultural change is particularly likely to follow “moments of madness,” that is, a snowball effect where more and more organizations engage in various collective actions (Reference KoopmansKoopmans 1993; Reference Kriesi, Koopmans, Duyvendak and GiugniKriesi et al. 1992; Reference TarrowTarrow 1993).

Successful social movements also engage in novel or “hybrid” tactical actions to enhance their effectiveness and survival over time (Reference Dalton, Recchia and RohrschneiderDalton et al. 2003; Reference Katzenstein, Keohane and KrasnerKatzenstein et al. 1998; Reference McAdamMcAdam 1983; Reference Meyer, Tarrow, Meyer and TarrowMeyer & Tarrow 1998). Novel tactics can refer to a range of activities, including art, protest music, speak-outs, street performances, and theater. Although social movements are often reluctant to stray from familiar tactics, there is evidence that organizations willing to try novel tactics often enjoy more successful policy outcomes (Reference Snow, Soule and KriesiSnow et al. 2004; Reference Wang, Piazza and SouleWang et al. 2018). However, in practice, a movement’s pool of viable tactics can be constrained by the resources and opportunities available. That is, a group’s choice of particular actions will reflect a combination of external factors and internal conditions, including the political opportunity structure and the group’s internal preferences, organizational identity, and resources (Reference Carmin and BalserBalser & Carmin 2002; Reference JasperJasper 1997; Reference MeyerMeyer 2004; Tarrow 1998; Reference Zald, Useem, Zald and McCarthyZald & Useem 1987).

Another factor that underpins the success of social movements is their organizational size and infrastructure (Reference AndrewsAndrews 2004; Reference GanzGanz 2010). Larger organizations can be more sustainable, as their size bolsters the organization both internally, by affirming the commitment of the organization’s constituency, and externally, by empowering outsiders to join. Large protest activities have the aesthetic benefit of being attention grabbing. For example, Aldon Reference MorrisMorris (1993) cites the size of the civil rights movement as one of the key elements behind its success in influencing public opinion and political institutions. Not only do large membership and protest participation numbers attest to the legitimacy of the movement, in that they convey broad appeal, but numerical superiority has greater “disruptive potential” (Reference Snow, Soule and KriesiSnow et al. 2004: 281). The structure of an organization, whether formal or informal, also plays a role in determining the degree of success the organization can attain. In fact, structuralist theory holds that the structure of social movement organizations explains the greatest variation in the outcome of campaigns both within and across movements (Reference KrauseKrause 2011).

Some studies have found that organizational form can influence a movement’s ability to facilitate policy change (Jenkins & Klandermans 1995). Several scholars have identified typologies of organizational forms based on dimensions such as bureaucratization, centralization, formalization, and professionalization – all of which can inform the success potential of social movement organizations (Reference GamsonGamson 1975; Reference Mirowsky and RossMirowsky & Ross 1981; Reference StaggenborgStaggenborg 2015; Reference WrennWrenn, 2016). Bureaucratization or formalization are the common terms scholars employ to describe increasing control or rigidity in the management and upkeep of the organization’s administrative aspects and internal infrastructure. While some degree of administrative formalization may be useful, too much bureaucratization makes organizations “more oligarchical and rigid, less democratic and spontaneous,” and increases their reliance on ambiguous sources of authority (Reference CorbettCorbett 1998: 44–45). Although research suggests that less centralized, more informal networks are more likely to succeed (Reference BreinesBreines 1982; Reference Gerlach and HineGerlach & Hine 1970), there is also evidence that bureaucratization can contribute positively to movement sustainability (Reference Kielbowicz, Scherer and KriesbergKielbowicz & Scherer 1996). In particular, having a clear organizational infrastructure can help social movements maintain a presence in the mass media, and therefore, in the public eye – thus making them more relevant to policymakers. In short, movement success requires different organizational competencies and forms in order to mobilize support from state authorities, civil society, and the public.

1.5.2 External Factors

Among the external factors most relevant to the mobilization and success of social movements is political context (Reference JenkinsJenkins 1995). Social movements, like other aspects of society, are influenced and informed by existing power relations and political structures (Reference McAdamMcAdam 1982, Reference McAdam2017). The political opportunity approach to the study of social movements examines the openness of the political system – that is, limitations to formal political access, the level of stability afforded by political alliances, the availability of potential partnerships, and political conflicts among elites (Reference TarrowTarrow 1994). Studies show that the openness of the political system and governmental institutions’ tendency to inhibit challenger groups strongly inform which tactics social movement organizations select, and ultimately help shape their outcomes (Reference MeyerMeyer 2004; Tarrow 1998).

It should be emphasized that political opportunity structures may constrain as well as empower social movements. In some cases, the political context is such that social movement activities are met with public outcry, including condemnation and countermobilization, both within the state and internationally (Reference Alimi and Hirsch-HoeflerAlimi & Hirsch-Hoefler 2012). Likewise, a social movement can give rise to or strengthen opponents as well as allies. For example, the activities of the settler movement have produced opposing responses in three different arenas: Jewish Israeli (e.g., Peace Now, B’Tselem), Palestinian (inside both Israel and the West Bank), and international (notably the EU, UN, and the United States – both at the government and civil society level). It has also for at least the last decade, but arguably about two decades, come to increasingly divide Jewish communities outside Israel (primarily in the United States).

The final factor that contributes to social movement success is the framing narrative of the organization, or its “cultural resonance” (Reference Snow, Soule and KriesiSnow et al. 2004: 282). The tactics of social movement organizations are not exclusively a function of cost–benefit analysis, but also reflect and reinforce the group’s ideological/cultural identity (Reference DaltonDalton 1994; Reference Polletta and JohnstonPolletta 2016; Reference Snow and BenfordSnow & Benford 1988, Reference Snow, Benford, Morris and McClurg Mueller1992). Social movements construct and adapt their identity in order to appeal to their own constituencies, to the wider public, and to institutional operatives that can help them achieve their goals. As such, the specific framing that an organization chooses to identify can affect the success of both the specific organization and the broader movement. Group ideology can also serve as a frame of reference for either justifying or delegitimizing violent means of facilitating social change. As noted by Ted Reference GurrGurr (1970: 194), one of the main functions of political ideology is to provide “norms about the desirability of political violence.”

While the choice of frame is largely an internal factor, it is significantly influenced by the broader political context. In particular, a social movement will be more successful if it can design a narrative that resonates with the cultural ideology of the mainstream public (Reference Baumgarten, Ullrich, Roose and DietzBaumgarten & Ullrich 2016). This is what Reference Koopmans and StathamRuud Koopmans and Paul Statham (1999) have termed the “discursive opportunity structure,” sometimes also referred to as “cultural opportunity structure,” that is, “political-cultural or symbolic opportunities that determine what kind of ideas become visible for the public, resonate with public opinion and are held to be ‘legitimate’ by the audience” (Reference Kriesi, Snow, Soule and KriesiKriesi 2004: 72).

A large component of the junction between cultural resonance and social movement organization and mobilization is consciousness-raising. Consciousness-raising is akin to public support capital and is often a top priority of first-generation activists in any given movement (Reference McGehe, Kline and KnollenbergMcGehe et al. 2014: 143). Raising public awareness of a social movement can heighten its success by reinforcing individuals’ connection to and enlisting participation in the social movement (Reference EisensteinEisenstein, 2001). By increasing participation and membership the social movement increases its visibility and legitimacy, thereby bolstering perceptions of the organization and its chances of success. While consciousness-raising usually reinforces individual participation, it can also strengthen public support by eliciting sympathy for a cause, which, while not always culminating in active participation, can facilitate further awareness of the social movement (Reference McGehe, Kline and KnollenbergMcGehe, Kline & Knollenberg 2014).