Archive for the ‘social movements’ Category
I got the following announcement from Arizona State about a conference on humanities and movements, diffusion, and culture – “Transforming Contagion.” Interesting stuff for those interested in cultural studies, history, and American studies. Here’s the link and a clip from the announcement:
Call for Papers
Symposium: “Transforming Contagion”
Location: Arizona State University’s West campus (Phoenix, AZ)
Date: Friday, October 23, 2015
We invite proposals for an exciting and provocative symposium on the topic of Transforming Contagion. This transdisciplinary and transhistorical symposium aims to explore contagion in its broadest sense by including perspectives about the spread, transmission, and modalities of contagion, and how contagion has been variously defined, imagined, and subjected to regulation and/or exploitation. By “contagion,” we do not necessarily mean only that which occurs in the body or within the framework of embodiment, but also contagions rooted in the literary, psychological, moral, educational, or political. We thus invite papers from any historical period or methodological approach that consider the complicated topic of contagion. Further, we invite papers that postulate how contagion itself might be transformed, deployed as a model for propagating revolutionary ideas, feelings, and beliefs, or utilized as a lens through which we can understand and critique our social and material world. We particularly invite papers that are radical, creative, feminist, boundary-smashing, intersectional, politically relevant, and wildly interdisciplinary.
Check it out.
Hi everyone! Thanks to Katherine for inviting me back to blog a bit on Do-It-Yourself Democracy, Democratizing Inequalities, and other projects on my plate. I promise I won’t bring up federal agency mascots this time.
A little bit about me:
My #sociologicaldesk is currently covered in okra and tomato seedlings but my couch has books on it. My research interests lie at the intersection of movements, business, and democracy in American political development– otherwise known as “how did we get here?” For the purposes of orgtheory folks, I’m interested in politics and culture in organizations, especially the folks left holding the bag when organizational ideals meet everyday realities.
In Do-It-Yourself Democracy, I study the growing field of public engagement consultants. This book and my edited volume with Edward Walker and Michael McQuarrie focus on the causes and consequences of the dramatic expansion of participation in organizations during a time of increasing inequality. My new project focuses on civic engagement initiatives in higher education. Side interests include the use of art in organizations and movements. Sometimes these interests all come together.
As someone who studies the “new public participation,” I’d be remiss if I didn’t ask readers at the start what intrigues you about the forms participation takes today, whether in electoral campaigning, workplaces, health care, houses of worship, or community groups? What memorable experiences have you had in engagement facilitated from the top down, whether inside or outside of higher education, online or off? “Join the discussion!” and “Have your say!” below. Or, as Hillary said a campaign ago, “Let the conversation begin!“
Mobilizing Ideas has a month long discussion about dig data and movement research. From Part I:
- Benjamin Lind
- Laura Nelson
- Austin-Choy Fitzpatrick
- Zachary C. Steinert Threlkeld
- Alex “The Roller” Hanna
- Thomas Elliot
This is not an April Fool’s joke.
Call for Papers: Social Movements and the Economy
Northwestern University, Kellogg School of Management
Date: October 23-25, 2015
We invite submissions for a workshop on the intersection of social movements and the economy, to be held at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management from Friday October 23 to Sunday October 25, 2015.
In recent years, we have seen the rise of a vibrant literature engaging with questions of how social movements challenge firms, support the rise of new industries, and engender field change in a variety of domains of economic activity. A growing amount of attention has also been devoted to the ways that actors with vested interests in particular types of economic activity may resist, co-opt, imitate, or partner with activist groups challenging their practices. On the whole, there is now substantial evidence of a variety of ways that social movements effectively influence the economy.
And yet there has been less recent attention paid to the inverse relationship: classic questions related to how economic forces – and the broader dynamics of capitalism – shape social movements. This is all the more remarkable given the major economic shifts that have taken place in the U.S. and abroad over the past decade, including economic crises, disruptions associated with financialization and changing corporate supply chains, the struggles of organized labor, and transformations linked to new technologies. These changes have major implications for both the theory and practice of social movement funding, claims-making, strategic decision-making, and the very targeting of states, firms, and other institutions for change.
This workshop seeks to bring together these two questions in order to engage in a thorough reconsideration of both the economic sources and the economic outcomes of social movements, with careful attention to how states intermediate each of these processes.
The keynote speaker will be John McCarthy, Distinguished Professor of Sociology at Pennsylvania State University.
The workshop is planned to start with a dinner in the evening on Friday 10/23, to conclude with morning sessions on Sunday 10/25. Invited guests will be provided with domestic travel and accommodation support.
Submissions (PDF or DOC) should include:
– A cover sheet with title, name and affiliation, and email addresses for all authors
– An abstract of 200-300 words that describes the motivation, research questions, methods, and connection to the workshop theme
– Include the attachment in an email with the subject “Social Movements and the Economy”
Please send abstracts to email@example.com and firstname.lastname@example.org by May 15, 2015. Notification of acceptance will occur on or around June 15.
Contact Brayden King (email@example.com) or Edward Walker (firstname.lastname@example.org) for more information.
I’ve been overwhelmed by snow, children, work, Mario Kart, exercise, and a whole bunch of other stuff. I’ll post new stuff in about a week or so. But, for now, I wanted to tell you about my upcoming talk at the University of Central Arkansas. The Arkansas Center for Research in Economics is hosting a series of events relating to Black History month. This Thursday evening, I will give a talk on the topic of what modern activism can learn from the civil rights movement. Click here for details. Later this week, we’ll have another guest post by Raj Ghoshal and an announcement of two talks about Party in the Street. And, as usual, if you want the “mic” while I am on blogcation, send us a guest post.
My friend and co-author Michael Heaney has a post about our work at Popular Resistance, a web site dedicated to contemporary activism. A key quote:
So what would genuine independence from a political party look like for a social movement? My view is that independence means choosing allies regardless of their partisan affiliation. An independent movement should have allies that are Democrats, Republicans, members of other political parties, and nonpartisans. Independence means educating activists that parties are neither the enemy nor the savior; rather, they are one more political structure that can be used for good or ill. An independent movement should embrace working with allies on one issue if there is agreement on one issue, even if there is disagreement on a multitude of other issues. Independent movements should advance the best arguments supporting their cause, regardless of whether these arguments are typically classified as conservative, liberal, socialist, or using some other label. They should socialize their supporters to learn about and care about their cause above achieving electoral victories. Elections are a potential means of achieving social and political change, but they are neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for doing so.
I concur. There needs to be a discussion within modern movements about learning to work cross-party and often independently from parties. Read the whole piece.
At the Washington Post’s Monkey Cage blog, Andrew Gelman wrote a very gracious review of Party in the Street, but he had one criticism:
The only place it seemed weak–and this weakness occurs in many treatments of politics, including much of my own work–is in its glancing treatment of money in politics. It is perhaps no surprise that the Tea Party found ample funding from some rich people, given that one of its central goals is to keep down taxes on the rich. Raising funds for an antiwar or anti-corporate movement proved to be more of a challenge (in the words of Heaney and Rojas, “the antiwar movement had few financial resources and ran on a shoestring budget”). Meanwhile, the Democratic Party has needed to keep an eye on wealthy individuals and corporations (not just labor unions) to keep itself going. These financial imperatives formed much of the background to the individual choices that are detailed in this book.
Here are a few comments on money and social movement politics. First, unlike electoral politics, money is a bit harder to track in social movements because so many groups are informal and do not register as 501(c) groups. So there is no paper trail for us to work with, although a few groups have IRS forms you can examine. Second, compared to other types of political action, protest is relatively cheap. In my personal judgment, one only needs about one or two million dollars per year to run a nation wide movement of this sort. This is about what a single prominent lobbying group or political consulting firm might charge to a prominent client. It is also an amount that a single “angel” could donate if they really wanted to.
This leads me to believe that money is only a partial explanation for the movement’s decline. It is true that donors stopped giving to the antiwar movement, but that’s not the ultimate explanation. Protesting Obama certainly would turn off some well heeled donors, but the fact that there was not an angel, or a swell of grass roots fund raising for a relatively modest sum, indicates to me that the drop in support was wide spread and not just a function of a few party elites.