Social movements in the United States are carried by broad coalitions of organizations with different goals, methods, and constituencies. Factionalism and conflict are inevitable, and effective movements must find ways to manage rivalries and conflict. The history of the peace movement reveals conflicts among organizations operating with some shared purposes, sometimes precipitated by internal factors, and sometimes precipitated by external shocks. Groups compete for resources, including attention, but must find ways to cooperate on matters of policy. Effective organizers must focus on managing the consequences of conflict rather than ending conflicts, keeping in mind common purposes and tolerating a diversity of approaches.
BalserD. B. (1997). The impact of environmental factors on factionalism and schism in social movement organizations. Social Forces, 76(1), 199–228. https://doi.org/10.2307/2580323
2.
BenfordR. D. (1993). Frame disputes within the nuclear disarmament movement. Social Forces, 71(3), 677–701. https://doi.org/10.2307/2579890
3.
BleeK. M. (2012). Democracy in the making: How activist groups form. Oxford University Press.
4.
ByrneP. (1988). The campaign for nuclear disarmament. Croom Helm.
5.
DowneyG. L. (1986). Ideology and the clamshell identity: Organizational dilemmas in the anti-nuclear power movement. Social Problems, 33(5), 357–373. https://doi.org/10.2307/800656
6.
EdwardsB.MarulloS. (1995). Organizational mortality in a declining social movement: The demise of peace movement organizations in the end of the cold war era. American Sociological Review, 60(6), 908–927. https://doi.org/10.2307/2096432
7.
GamsonW. A. (1990). The strategy of social protest. Wadsworth Pub.
8.
GhazianiA. (2008). The dividends of dissent: How conflict and culture work in lesbian and gay marches on Washington. University of Chicago Press.
9.
GitlinT. (2013). The sixties: Years of hope, days of rage. Random House.
10.
HainesH. H. (1984). Black radicalization and the funding of civil rights: 1957–1970. Social Problems, 32(1), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.2307/800260
11.
HarveyK. (2014). Anti-nuclear coalitions: Pacifism, radical action, and a rising atomic threat. In HarveyK. (Ed.), American anti-nuclear activism, 1975–1990: The challenge of peace (pp. 12–41). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137432841_2
12.
HathawayW.MeyerD. S. (1993). Competition and cooperation in social movement coalitions: Lobbying for peace in the 1980s. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 38, 157–183.
13.
HeaneyM. T.RojasF. (2008). Coalition dissolution, mobilization, and network dynamics in the U.S. antiwar movement. In CoyP. G. (Ed.), Research in social movements, conflicts and change (Vol. 28, pp. 39–82). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163-786X(08)28002-X
14.
HermannT. (1992). Contemporary peace movements: Between the hammer of political realism and the anvil of pacifism. Western Political Quarterly, 45(4), 869–893. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591299204500405
15.
IntondiV. J. (2023). Saving the world from nuclear war: The June 12, 1982, disarmament rally and beyond. JHU Press.
16.
JonesA. W.Van DykeN. H.GatesL.CompanionM. (2001). Coalition form and mobilization effectiveness in local social movements. Sociological Spectrum, 21(2), 207–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/02732170121587
17.
KatzM. S. (1986). Ban the bomb: A history of SANE, the committee for a sane nuclear policy, 1957–1985 (Contributions in Political Science, No. 147). Greenwood Press.
18.
KretschmerK. (2014). Shifting boundaries and splintering movements: Abortion rights in the feminist and new right movements. Sociological Forum, 29(4), 893–915. https://doi.org/10.1111/socf.12125
19.
KretschmerK. (2017). Should we stay or should we go? Local and national factionalism in the national organization for women. Qualitative Sociology, 40(4), 403–423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-017-9365-8
20.
KretschmerK. (2019). Fighting for NOW: Diversity and discord in the National Organization for Women. University of Minnesota Press.
21.
MaguireD. (1992). When the streets begin to empty: The demobilization of the British peace movement after 1983. West European Politics, 15(4), 75–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402389208424933
22.
MarxG. T. (1979). External efforts to damage or facilitate social movements: Some patterns, explanations, outcomes, and complications. In TurnerR. H.SmelserN. J.KillianL. M. (Eds.), The dynamics of social movements (pp. 94–125). Winthrop.
23.
McCammonH. J.BergnerE. M.ArchS. C. (2015). “Are you one of those women?” Within-movement conflict, radical flank effects, and social movement political outcomes. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 20(2), 157–178. https://doi.org/10.17813/1086-671X-20-2-157
24.
MeyerD. (1990). A winter of discontent: The nuclear freeze and American politics. Bloomsbury Academic.
25.
MillerF. D. (1983). The end of SDS and the emergence and demise of Weatherman: Demise through success. In FreemanJ. (Ed.), Social movements of the sixties and seventies (pp. 279–297). Longman.
26.
RegerJ. (2004). Organizational “emotion work” through consciousness-raising: An analysis of a feminist organization. Qualitative Sociology, 27(2), 205–222. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:QUAS.0000020693.93609.6c
27.
RochfordE. B. (1989). Factionalism, group defection, and schism in the Hare Krishna Movement. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 28(2), 162–179. https://doi.org/10.2307/1387057
28.
RuchtD. (2004). Movement allies, adversaries, and third parties. In SnowD. A.SouleS. A.KriesiH. (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to social movements (pp. 197–216). Wiley.
29.
SimpsonB.WillerR.FeinbergM. (2022). Radical flanks of social movements can increase support for moderate factions. PNAS Nexus, 1(3), pgac110. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgac110
30.
StaggenborgS. (1986). Coalition work in the pro-choice movement: Organizational and environmental opportunities and obstacles. Social Problems, 33(5), 374–390. https://doi.org/10.2307/800657
31.
SwerdlowA. (1993). Women strike for peace: Traditional motherhood and radical politics in the 1960s. University of Chicago Press.
