Thinking about the climate change movement

Social movement theories provide exciting means with which one can understand the near-ubiquitous feature of contemporary society known as the social movement. A scan through random social media profiles will quickly reveal the popularity of either self-identifying as an “activist”, “advocate”, or “warrior”, or the sharing of content embroiled in a social movement. But if social movements are indeed a common feature of contemporary society, why are they? What role do they play today that is similar or different to historical realities? How does a social movement arise and proliferate? And of course, what is a social movement?

We begin answering these questions with Sidney Tarrow’s definition of social movements as: “collective challenges, based on common purposes and social solidarities in sustained interaction with elites, opponents and authorities” (Tarrow, 2011). While definitions abound, we’ll stick with this one since it’s sufficiently broad and includes what I believe to be an essential characteristic, “sustained interaction”. Entrenched social institutions are at their very core, stable since they must withstand fleeting or punctuated challenges. Only when these challenges are sustained can they overcome the inertial forces. For example, the British movement for the abolition of slavery, what Tilly (2015) believes to be the first social movement, challenged the legality of slavery as an institution. This challenge can be traced even to the 1720s, yet it wasn’t until 1833 that the Emancipation Act was passed. During this time, sustained challenges came from networks of amateur and professional individuals and groups who were committed to the abolishment of slavery. Beginning first with the Quakers, the movement spread to include a variety of others. Challenges were aimed at the Parliament, the political authorities who could help achieve the movement’s goal by signing appropriate legislation. Up until 1792 support for the movement grew, until the political landscape changed with the French Revolution and the ensuing outbreak of war. However, in 1804, political realities changed and presented new opportunities for the movement. The movement mobilized and motivated action through the use of galvanizing and emotive symbols, especially visual images portraying the horrific realities of slavery. This movement seemed to form the identities of the activists involved. It told them who they were and what they stood for. These operating factors which were central to the British movement for the abolition of slavery provide insight on the universal components inherent to all social movements. Through Tilly’s historical inquiry into the British movement for the abolition of slavery along with the United States women’s suffrage movement and others, we can identify “the defining form of social movements – their collective nature, common purposes, and shared base in social solidarities with roots in the social structure in which they occur…” (Tilly, 2015).

While Tilly provides a general definition and explanation of social movements by discussing the historical development of social movements in the West, Rodgers (2018) lays out an overview of the dominant theories that contribute to the examination of social movements. Rodgers looks at 4 different perspectives in particular:

1. Collective Behaviour Theories

2. Mainstream Social Movement Theories

3. Cultural Perspectives

4. Critical Perspectives

The theories he discusses “provide descriptive and analytical tools that help us understand the role movements play in shaping societies in both democratic and authoritarian contexts” (Rodgers, 2018).

In the group of Collective Behaviour Theories, personal emotions are key. Negative emotions resulting from social problems are what can “push individuals over the edge and out onto the streets” (Rodgers, 2018). For Kornhauser, that negative emotion is isolation. As people leave their farm and village communities and move to the city, they feel an overwhelming sense of isolation since they are surrounded by crowds of people but know none of them. For Gurr, though, the key negative emotion is a sense of injustice stemming from being deprived of something that one feels they deserve. Others believe that when societies undergo structural strain it causes people psychological discomfort, leading them to act in deviant ways. Implying that social movements are nothing but mobs exerting their will through “unconventional politics” (Rodgers, 2018). Yet, as I stated above, the activist is now mainstream. Someone engaged within the democratic process, not outside of it.

The Cultural Perspectives maintain the importance of emotions since movements are fundamentally about passion. Meaning becomes the central focus of this perspective since, in line with a social constructivist perspective, social groups like social movements generate, interpret, and share meaning. Thus, meanings change and social movements since the mid-twentieth century, according to some, are concerned with such non-material things. According to Inglehart, after World War II “postmaterialist values” like “ideology, ethnicity, lifestyle, and so on” are at the heart of new movements (Rodgers, 2018). These values inform and motivate movements by infusing them into their collective action frames, a concept also central to mainstream social movement theories.

Proponents of mainstream social movement theories argue that no matter how much negative emotion or enduring passion a person or group has, they’ll never achieve any effective action without the right political climate and by effectively managing and mobilizing their resources. There are 3 main factors universal to the fabric of social movements and their operation. First, are the mobilizing structures. These are the resources internal to the group like the people, networks, money, etc. Second, are the political opportunities; the resources and conditions external to the movement. Since no social movement is an island, it depends on the political and cultural state in which it resides. Third, are the collective action frames mentioned before. These provide the ideological fabric. They represent an essential and complicated component which I’ll explore in more detail now.

Benford and Snow (2000), look specifically at the idea of collective action framing, explaining how potential action is turned into actual action through the use of collective action frames. Framing is a process that creates meaning. The complexity of this process and the frames it can produce are too much to consider in detail here. Instead, I’ll use Benford and Snow (2000) to briefly examine some of the framing aspects of the climate change movement.

Many movements, while not explicitly movements for or against science, rely heavily on scientific information and authority figures to add legitimacy to their collective action framing. This is true for the modern global climate movement, including the #FridaysForFuture movement enshrined in social movement organizations (SMO) like Global Climate Strike, which rely entirely on climate science to inform the diagnostic and prognostic aspects of the collective action frames. Organizations like Global Climate Strike use climate science to “diagnose” the problem; the planet is warming and it will bring about major catastrophic weather patterns this century. Climate models project how much sea level will rise, where severe droughts will occur, and where we can expect the most severe seasonal flooding. This science helps generate an injustice frame, by diagnosing who is causing the problem and who the victims will be. The movement even engages in boundary or adversarial framing, by depicting a battle between the fossil fuel industry and tomorrow’s future - embodied in today’s youth. Climate science is also relied upon for the prognosis; what needs to be done to solve the problem. Carbon emissions need to reach net zero.

Continually we hear that the science is settled and that 97% of scientists provide an overwhelming consensus that the climate is warming at an alarming rate. Yet frustrations mount when the settled scientific facts cannot convert the hearts and minds of politicians to legislate and regulate greenhouse gas emissions. This is where science is asked to be communicated in a way that offers credibility to the frame by reaching a certain level of resonance. This resonance depends first on the frame’s consistency, or “the congruency between an SMO's beliefs, claims, and actions” (Benford & Snow, 2000). This inconsistency can manifest itself in 2 ways that are contentious points especially for the global climate movement. First, there might be apparent contradictions among their beliefs and claims. The climate science that these organizations use is not really “settled”. There is strong consensus amongst scientists about some aspects of climate change (ex: the climate is warming, CO2 traps infrared heat in the atmosphere) and less consensus over others (ex: future predictions of how much the planet will warm and the expected weather patterns). Regardless of what consensus may exist between scientists, once that science is communicated out of the research paper, into a social action frame, and then distributed further to other groups, claims may conflict and harm perceived credibility. Second, there can be “perceived contradictions among framing and tactical actions” (Benford & Snow, 2000). A common image used to subvert the global climate movement’s credibility shows protestors floating in kayaks around a deep-sea drilling rig in the port of Vancouver before it’s departure. They protest against the fossil fuel industry, yet the kayaks they float in are made from petroleum products. A perceived contradiction that threatens to undermine the movement.

Many expect that a scientific fact’s “trueness” will proportionally influence the fact’s “acceptedness”, and even its “motivational ability”. This is the classic model of science communication; the facts by themselves will convert and motivate. Thus, the empirical credibility offered by climate science to the global climate movement should increase resonance. However, “the important point is not that the claimed connection has to be generally believable, but that it must be believable to some segment of prospective or actual adherents” (Benford & Snow, 2000). In fact, “empirical credibility is in the eyes of the beholder” (Benford & Snow, 2000).

Finally, the global climate movement’s resonance is also influenced by the perceived credibility of the frame articulators. The movement’s number one frame articulator at the moment is of course Greta Thunberg. Greta is a young white woman from a prosperous western nation without scientific credentials. All of these things likely contribute to her perceived credibility. Her image as a young woman with autism are likely the identities that earn credibility amongst some people. However, this image also dissolves her credibility to others. Furthermore, her status as a non-scientist calls into question her credibility to speak on matters of climate science. Yet, she carefully navigates this by continually acknowledging this fact, being careful to not overstate her scientific claims, and to call upon the authority and credibility of the International Panel on Climate Change.

A proficient understanding of collective action framing can help navigate the complex influences on social movements. Social movements and SMOs that deal with scientific themes and content can benefit in particular from some of its central components like diagnostic framing, prognostic framing, resonance, and many others not discussed here.

References

Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing Processes and Social Movements : An Overview and Assessment Robert D . Benford ; David A . Snow. Annual Review of Sociology, 26(2000), 611–639. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/223459

Rodgers, K. (2018). Approaches to the study of protest, activism and social movements. In Protest, Activism and Social Movements, (pp. 21–39). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tarrow, S. G. (2011). Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics.

Tilly, C. (2015). Social Movements, History of: General. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences: Second Edition (Second Edi, Vol. 21). Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.62070-6