Blackwell Reference Online

Extract

Scholars have increasingly turned their attention to the political or state-related consequences of social movements. Making sense of the state-related consequences raises specific and difficult conceptual and theoretical issues. Conceptually speaking, scholars have to address the meaning of “success” or “influence” for challengers. Theoretically, scholars need to address what, beyond some degree of mobilization and basically plausible claims-making, matters in explaining the state-related impacts of challengers. In comparison to mobilizing supporters, fashioning identities among them, or achieving recognition from targets, most macropolitical consequences of challengers are not as directly related to the efforts expended by challengers. In designating the consequences of social movements, Gamson's (1990 [1975]) two types of success have been influential. Gamson considers success in new advantages, his first type, as meaning whether a challenger's goals or claims were mainly realized. Yet Gamson's concept of new advantages places limits on the consideration of possible impacts of challenges. It may be possible, notably, for a challenger to fail to achieve its stated program – and thus be deemed a failure – but still to win substantial new advantages for its constituents. This is especially likely for challengers with far-reaching goals. There may also be unintended consequences ... log in or subscribe to read full text