Linking Strategic Choice with Macro-Organizational Dynamics: Strategy and Social Movement Articulation* Presented at the: ASA/CBSM Workshop, Hofstra University, 2007 To appear in: Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change (vol. 28 / 2008) Dennis J. Downey Sociology Program California State University, Channel Islands [email protected] Deana A. Rohlinger Department of Sociology Florida State University [email protected] Abstract: The renascent focus on strategy in social movement research has made important contributions to our understanding of organizational dynamics but has not been systematically applied to relational dynamics within movements as a whole. We begin to bridge that gap by presenting a framework for mapping the relative strategic positions of multiple collective actors along two dimensions of strategic orientation: the depth of challenge promoted and the breadth of appeal cultivated . This framework integrates a wider range of collective actors into analyses, and identifies distinct movement roles and contributions associated with different strategic positions. More importantly, the framework facilitates analysis of the overall distribution of actors across a movement and the nature and extent of linkages among them – what we refer to as strategic articulation. Drawing on a breadth of secondary research, we identify characteristics of movement distributions that facilitate stronger articulation and draw out their implications for intra-movement relational dynamics – such as the balance between cooperation and competition, and the extent to which flanks are integrated or isolated. * The authors would like to thank Jim Jasper, Valerie Jenness, Patrick Coy, and the three anonymous RSMCC reviewers for helpful comments on this manuscript. Strategic Articulation: 1 In recent years, social movement research has seen a renewed interest in strategy as an explanatory variable (Ganz 2000; McCammon 2003; Jasper 2004, 2006). The focus on strategy generally, and strategic choices specifically, has advanced our understanding of a range of movement phenomena including movement emergence (Snow, Rochford, Worden, and Benford 1986; Benford and Snow 2000); the creation, maintenance, and deployment of collective identity (Snow and Anderson 1987; Clemens 1993; Bernstein 1997; J. Gamson 1997); and organizational success and failure (Ganz 2000). In short, the focus on strategic choice has helped to bridge the gap between structure and agency in social movement research, giving us a more nuanced understanding of the ways that collective actors can bring about social change (Goodwin and Jasper 1999; Jasper 2004, 2006). Research on strategy and social movements, however, generally limits its focus to single actors and their interactions with opponents, giving little systematic attention to intra-movement dynamics. Concurrently, macro-organizational research has given substantial attention to the structures and dynamics of movement populations (Minkoff 2002), but relatively little attention to strategic interactions among those populations. This article provides a link between research on strategic decision-making at the organizational level and movement dynamics shaped by macro-organizational structures. Our arguments proceed in four sections. We begin with a discussion of the research on strategy, explaining how actors' routine decision-making is guided by general preferences embodied in strategic orientations. Next, we introduce two dimensions of strategic orientation that allow us to distinguish among actors in a parsimonious manner: the depth of political challenge and the breadth of political appeal. This framework illustrates fundamental strategic “tradeoffs” (Jasper 2006) that collective actors confront. We then show how the framework enables us to “map” the relative strategic locations of actors within a movement, and illustrates how tradeoffs between Strategic Articulation: 2 the two dimensions define a strategic "frontier" where political mobilization and engagement confronts the political opportunities and constraints in a movement's environment. We argue that the benefit of conceptualizing political engagement along a frontier is that it highlights the range of distinct roles and contributions that actors may make to a movement – roles associated with different types of movement actors. As such, the framework facilitates the analytical inclusion of a wider range of movement actors than are normally considered – from radical to moderate flanks – and to consider relationships between them. Most importantly, moving from the organizational to macro-organizational level, the framework allows us to map the strategic distribution of actors in a movement and to consider its effect on the dynamics and form of strategic interaction among them – what we refer to as strategic articulation. We specify several propositions regarding the characteristics of movement distributions and their effect on intra- movement relational dynamics – such as whether competition or cooperation predominates, whether flanks are integrated or isolated, and how these dynamics affect movement trajectories. We conclude by discussing the benefits and limitations of our framework. STRATEGY AND MACRO-ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS Strategy may be broadly defined as the connections that collective actors make between their goals and the actions that they take to achieve those goals. As Ganz (2000:1010) explains, "Strategy is the conceptual link we make between the places, the times and ways we mobilize and deploy our resources, and the goals we hope to achieve." Or, as Jasper (1997:44) defines, strategies are "the choices made by individuals and organizations in their interactions with other players, especially opponents." One benefit of making strategy central to social movement research is that it reestablishes a balance between structure and agency in explanations of movement processes and outcomes (Goodwin and Jasper 1999; Jasper 1997, 2004, 2006). It does Strategic Articulation: 3 so in part by highlighting the importance of decision-making processes while recognizing that these choices are constrained by other actors and a larger political environment (Aminzade, Goldstone and Perry 2001; Ganz et al. 2004; Morris and Staggenborg 2004). While the systematic focus on strategy represents an advance in the study of social movements, there are several emphases in current conceptualizations of strategy that limit its explanatory power. Specifically, strategic choice is generally conceptualized in terms of mutually independent and instrumental decisions, and strategy is largely confined to actor- opponent interactions. The emphasis on mutually independent decisions implies that strategy consists of a series of discrete choices regarding mobilization and engagement – including tactics, targets, organizational models, sources of support, audiences to appeal to and recruit from, and so on. The problem with that emphasis is that it downplays the interdependence of those decisions. To offer a simple example, the choice to utilize highly confrontational tactics has implications for choices about organization models, who to appeal to, and who to secure resources from, among others. As such, discrete strategic choices must be seen as components of broader decision-making processes. Research on strategic choice also emphasizes instrumental logic and minimizes non- instrumental influences. Strategic decision-making, however, generally involves a logic that is not narrowly derived from a means-ends calculus (Jasper 2006). For example, collective identities embody a range of expectations (both internal and external) about what kind of actions will be taken by collective actors. Research on a variety of subjects – including early twentieth century club women (Clemens 1993), the National Organization for Women (Barakso 2004), gay pride organizations in San Francisco (Armstrong 2002), and the United Farm Workers (Ganz 2000) – all document the link between identity (collective and individual) and choices about Strategic Articulation: 4 strategic action. Likewise, the impact of emotions in motivating participation (Goodwin, Jasper, and Polletta 2001) contributes to a decision-making process that is not reducible to instrumental logic. Stated differently, without understanding the symbolic investments in identity and the passion associated with participation in collective action, many decisions are difficult to explain. We argue that emphasizing the interdependent and non-instrumental characteristics of strategy suggests that a collective actor has a general logic regarding how social change occurs and the means through which it should be pursued. We refer to these general logics or templates as “strategic orientation.”1 There are at least three advantages to focusing on actors' strategic orientations rather than discrete strategic decisions. First, strategic orientation embodies preferences for goal attainment and, as such, provides a template for decision-making. Stated differently, strategic orientation incorporates an actor’s general theory of social change, suggesting an ideology, an organizational identity, and a preferred repertoire of tactics. Second, strategic orientation underscores the recursive nature of decision-making processes, which helps us to understand why different actors seek to exploit or cultivate distinct political opportunities (a point that we address further below). Finally, the focus on strategic orientation begins to address another limitation in the current research on strategy: the focus on actor-opponent interactions. Generally, the research on strategy conceptualizes strategic decisions as a calculus made by single actors vis-à-vis opponents and the constellation of political opportunities and constraints that they confront (Gamson 1990; Meyer 2004). The inherent interactive emphasis of strategy takes us productively beyond a framework in which actors confront an objective (and static) political opportunity structure. However, the implicit emphasis on actor-opponent interactions and the tendency of research to focus on single actors fails to capture important intramovement dynamics such as the potential synergies among allied organizations operating Strategic Articulation: 5 within a movement. Collective actors generally do not confront environments as isolated actors, but instead are enmeshed in networks of allies extending across a field and over phases. Thus, considering the response of allies is a crucial part of strategic decision-making, and those considerations are facilitated by the stability and predictability provided by strategic orientations. Strategic orientations, then, not only establish frameworks for actors' routine decision-making, but create external expectations about actors' decisions that help allies and opponents alike to more accurately assess potential bases of cooperation and conflict as well as to predict responses to their own strategic actions. Because the concept of strategic orientation is inherently relational it provides a conceptual foundation for understanding, and empirically examining, intramovement dynamics. Orientations represent strategic "positions" staked by actors within a movement vis-à-vis other actors. “Strategic positions,” then, refers to the location of a collective actor within a broader movement. The focus on strategic positioning extends current research on the microfoundations of social movements to a macro-organizational level (Jasper 2004, 2006).2 That extension is necessary because while research on strategy has largely neglected macro-organizational dynamics, research on macro-organizational dynamics largely has ignored the strategic interactions among actors (except see Lofland 1993; Downey 2006a; Rohlinger 2006). Macro- organizational research generally focuses on organizational or field level characteristics and their implications for movement development and effectiveness (Minkoff 2002; Minkoff and McCarthy 2005). For instance, Gerlach and Hine (1977) found that the success of the Black Power and Pentecostal movements was attributable in part to several structural characteristics: decentralization, segmentation, and reticulation. More recently, Andrews and Edwards (2005) found that local environmental organizations are structurally different from national groups and Strategic Articulation: 6 that these differences have implications for the course and content of social movements, and Minkoff (1993, 1997, 1999) has documented the importance of population density to movement outcomes. Research has also found that organizational diversity facilitates movement development and success (Armstrong 2002; Olzak and Ryo 2004). While research has documented the importance of macro-organizational properties, little has been done to develop links between the macro level of analysis and the insights of strategic decision-making processes (for exceptions, see Lofland 1993; Downey 2006a). Here, we develop those links. We begin with a presentation of a bidimensional framework for considering relative strategic orientations among collective actors. We then outline the implications of strategic positioning for those actors and explicate how it affects intramovement dynamics as well as the political potential of social movements. DIMENSIONS OF STRATEGIC ORIENTATION Translating strategic orientations into strategic positions requires a framework for mapping the terrain within which collective actors operate. Lofland (1993:275-276) recommended a mapping approach for its utility in identifying movement structures. In this case, by locating actors along strategic dimensions, we can identify distinct strategic positions that they occupy – both individually and collectively.3 Our framework is based on two dimensions: the depth of challenge promoted by an actor, and the breadth of appeal cultivated by that actor. We argue that actors' choices regarding the tradeoffs between these dimensions 1) embody fundamental aspects of their strategic orientation, 2) position actors vis-à-vis allies and opponents, and 3) have important implications for the nature of interactions between them. Previous research on strategic differences tends to recognize a single strategic dimension based largely on goals and/or tactics. That dimension generally runs from radical to moderate, Strategic Articulation: 7 highlighting distinctions between social movement organizations that are more or less radical and contentious (Haines 1988; Gamson 1990). While that single dimension encompasses important distinctions, it obscures the tradeoffs inherent in any orientation and neglects the variability of political opportunities. As Jasper (2006) argues, tradeoffs (or dilemmas) are essential to understanding all strategic decision-making because actors must choose between "two or more options, each with a long list of risks, costs, and potential benefits" (2006:1).4 The focus on tradeoffs highlights the fact that external constraints narrow the range of choices available to collective actors and that decisions have consequences for subsequent developments. Jasper’s emphasis on tradeoffs informs our own analysis; essentially, we argue that strategic orientation establishes a template for choices about many other discrete strategic tradeoffs. In addition to obscuring tradeoffs, a unidimensional framework neglects the variability of political opportunities. Specifically, it suggests that political opportunities are unidimensional – i.e. that opportunities and constraints conceptually represent a line that moves backward and forward to permit or block such actions. As such, a unidimensional framework implies that actors further along that dimension represent those that can bring about the greatest social change and that less dramatic, contentious, or openly oppositional strategies hold limited potential for social change. Maximizing opposition, however, is not always the most effective strategy because opponents can limit the chances of success (Gamson 1990) and/or spur countermobilization and backlash (Meyer and Staggenborg 1996). We argue that a bidimensional model – one that focuses on a collective actor’s depth of challenge and breadth of appeal - makes explicit the fundamental tradeoffs entailed in strategic positioning. As we explain below, this expands the notion of political opportunities from a singular limit to a "frontier" with many potential points of engagement. This, in turn, widens our perspective in terms of the terrain Strategic Articulation: 8 across which political mobilization occurs and conceptually expands the range of productive contributions that actors can make to a movement. We should note that while a bidimensional framework is an improvement over a unidimensional framework, strategy is clearly a multi-dimensional phenomenon. There are multiple potential dimensions along which one might map strategic positions. Representing strategic orientations in two dimensions is a conceptual simplification taken to establish a foundation for discussing relative strategic positions. Having said that, the two dimensions we identify are not arbitrary. Both the depth of challenge and the breath of appeal have important implications for an actor’s web of relationships within a movement, and are particularly productive in reducing the many aspects of strategy to an efficient spatial representation. Indeed, research on strategies supports the idea that different strategic components vary together (e.g. Lofland 1993; Andrews and Edwards 2005; Downey 2006a). As such, this bidimensional model represents a parsimonious framework for mapping strategic orientations, even if other dimensions might illuminate somewhat different relationships. Depth of Challenge The depth of challenge represents the extent to which a collective actor seeks incremental or fundamental social change. This distinction is often made via the contrast between reform and revolution, or moderation and radicalism, or along a continuum between consensus and conflict orientations (Lofland 1989, 1993). To the extent that an actor is oriented toward the latter end of the spectrum, its goals are in basic conflict with those of the existing social order and seek to change part or all of that order. As such, they advocate social changes that are relatively dramatic, and generally do so through contentious means.5 Here, we assume that more challenging goals will generally be associated with more contentious tactics and that an actor's Strategic Articulation: 9 position along this dimension is determined by the general level of challenge inherent in their choice of both goals and tactics. At the extreme are revolutionary actors, such as the Weatherman, which use violence to challenge existing power relations and institutions with the hope of dramatically transforming social and political life ( Sprinzak 1990; Klatch 1999). More likely, however, collective actors will position themselves somewhere between the conflict-consensus (radical-moderate) poles. Groups falling toward the middle of the continuum might employ institutional tactics but draw on discourse that challenges status quo. For example, the National Organization for Women (NOW) largely employs institutional tactics to achieve incremental political change (Barasko 2004) but uses discourse that challenges societal assumptions about women. This is clear in the group’s treatment of the abortion issue. Broadly, NOW argues that women have a right to make decisions about their bodies and that this right is constitutionally protected. Although “rights” discourse resonates with broader publics (Condit 1990; Snow and Benford 1992), NOW uses the rights framework to challenge status quo. In the early 1990s, for instance, NOW rejected parental consent and notification laws by arguing that abortion rights apply to minors and, as such, minor women had the right to obtain an abortion without the knowledge of a parent or guardian (Rohlinger 2002, 2006). To the extent that an actor orients itself toward the consensus end of the dimension, it will highlight the consonance between the goals of the movement and societal values, largely by emphasizing dominant values that support social change (Klandermans 1988; Snow and Benford 1988; Snow and Benford 1992). Such an orientation is strengthened in its resonance because it builds on existing values and institutional discourse (McAdam 1996; Ferree 2003). These organizations have been given less attention in the social movement literature, and are sometimes