Two communities share nearly identical grievances about environmental pollution. One produces a sustained movement that wins regulatory changes; the other produces scattered protests that fade. Which theoretical framework best explains this difference?
ARelative deprivation theory — the second community must not feel as deprived
BResource mobilization theory — the successful movement likely had superior organizational capacity, funding, and leadership networks
CFraming theory — the successful movement chose a more emotionally resonant slogan
DPolitical opportunity theory — the second community must have had more democratic access to government
Resource mobilization theory argues that grievances are nearly ubiquitous; what distinguishes successful movements from failed ones is the capacity to organize resources — money, personnel, communication infrastructure, legal expertise. Similar grievances with unequal organizational capacity consistently produce unequal outcomes. Framing (C) and political opportunity (D) are both real factors, but the question specifies a community-level capacity difference, which maps most directly onto resource mobilization.
Question 2 True / False
A movement that fails to pass its target legislation has failed, since movements are defined by achieving their stated political goals.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: False
Movement success is multidimensional. Movements routinely reshape cultural norms, shift public discourse, build organizational infrastructure for future campaigns, win recognition for marginalized identities, and influence future policy agendas even without achieving immediate legislative goals. The U.S. Equal Rights Amendment never passed, but the women's movement it emerged from transformed law, culture, and opportunity structures over decades.
Question 3 Short Answer
What does 'framing' mean in the context of social movement theory, and why is it considered a distinct explanatory factor alongside resources and political opportunity?
Think about your answer, then reveal below.
Model answer: Framing is the process by which movements construct interpretive narratives that define grievances, attribute blame, and motivate collective action. It is distinct because the same objective conditions can produce different levels of mobilization depending on how they are interpreted — a problem must be framed as unjust, attributable to a remediable cause, and solvable through collective action before people will act.
Snow and Benford showed that movements do active cultural work to align their message with participants' values (frame alignment). This explains why movements with equivalent resources and political opportunities still differ in mobilization: a frame that resonates converts bystanders into participants. Framing is irreducible to resources (you can't buy resonance) or opportunity (an open political system does nothing if people don't recognize their situation as changeable).