Why do people mobilize at some points in time and not others? In seeking to answer this question in the study of contentious politics, this paper tests the following hypothesis based on the theory of Doug McAdam, Sidney Tarrow, and Charles Tilly: if individuals perceive changing social and political conditions as a threat, and perceive the opportunity to advocate for themselves successfully, they will be more likely to mobilize through the channels available to them.

This project tests this hypothesis using evidence from the Yellow Vest Movement in France, ultimately determining that the hypothesis is supported in this case. The “gilet jaunes”, or yellow vests, mobilized in response to changing social and political processes that had long threatened the well-being of peripheral populations in France. Protestor’s perception of the opportunity for successful self-advocacy was influenced by a strong cultural tradition of successful revolt and protest, and by aspects of the French political structure suggesting reasonable probability for success. Exclusion of peripheral populations from the French political structure and the response of Macron’s government to the movement painted horizontal self-organization, decentralized collective action, and violent acts as feasible, acceptable, or even necessary channels for “gilet jaune” self-advocacy.

These results further our understanding of the question why do people mobilize at some points in time and not others. However, truly determining this hypothesis’ ability to answer this question requires further testing against other cases of mobilization, such as civil war and electoral revolutions, from various locations and from different points in time.

Emily would like to thank her faculty sponsor Dr. Ellen Carnaghan for their support of this project.