Why do targets of social movement activities respond to movements in the ways they do? Many factors play a role in shaping targets’ responses to social movement activities. This article focuses on one particular factor: targets’ perceptions of social movement claims. The article argues that a target’s understanding of a social movement’s claims helps shape its response, which, in turn, shapes the evolution of the social movement. Two cases of social mobilization, one in response to water privatization in Bolivia and the other in response to rising corn prices in Mexico, serve as a lens through which to explore these issues. In each case, differences in how public authorities understood the movements’ claims help explain why they reacted in starkly different ways to the emerging movements. Where officials appreciated the symbolic value of the good at stake, they acted quickly to curtail resistance. Where officials failed to grasp those meanings, they dismissed the potential for widespread mobilization and inadvertently accelerated movement growth.
AlmeidaP. (2014). Mobilizing democracy: Globalization and citizen protest. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
2.
AmentaE.CarenN.FetnerT.YoungM. P. (2002). Challengers and states. Research in Political Sociology, 10, 47-83.
3.
AndersonB. (1991). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. New York, NY: Verso.
4.
BakkerK. J. (2003). An uncooperative commodity: Privatizing water in England and Wales. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
5.
BisharaD. (2015). The politics of ignoring: Protest dynamics in late Mubarak Egypt. Perspectives on Politics, 13, 958-975.
6.
BoudreauV. (2004). Resisting dictatorship: Repression and protest in Southeast Asia. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
7.
CalderónF. (2007). Palabras del Presidente de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, Felipe Calderón Hinojosa, durante la Firma del Acuerdo para Estabilizar el Precio de la Tortilla [Speech of the President of the United States of Mexico, Felipe Calderón Hinojosa, during the Signing of the Accord to Stabilize the Price of the Tortilla]. Mexico City, Mexico.
8.
CollierR. B.CollierD. (1991). Shaping the political arena. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
9.
Crespo FloresC. (2003). Water privatisation policies and conflicts in Bolivia: The water war in Cochabamba (1999–2000). Oxford, UK: Oxford Brookes University.
10.
CunninghamD. (2004). There’s something happening here: The new left, the Klan, and FBI counterintelligence. Berkeley: University of California Press.
11.
De BakkerF. G. A.den HondF.KingB.WeberK. (2013). Social movements, civil society, and corporations: Taking stock and looking ahead. Organization Studies, 34, 573–593.
12.
DavenportC. (2007). State repression and political order. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 1-23.
13.
DavenportC.MuellerC.JohnstonH. (2005). Repression and mobilization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
14.
FearonJ. D.LaitinD. (1996). Explaining interethnic cooperation. The American Political Science Review, 90, 715-735.
15.
FourcadeM. (2011). Cents and sensibility: Economic valuation and the nature of “nature.”American Journal of Sociology, 116, 1721-1777.
16.
GarcíaA.GarcíaF.QuintónL. (2003). La “Guerra del Agua” [The “Water War”]. La Paz, Bolivia: Fundación PEIB.
17.
GarayC. (2016). Social policy expansion in Latin America. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
18.
GoldstoneJ.TillyC. (2001). Threat (and opportunity). In Silence and voice in the study of contentious politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
19.
GoldstoneJ.CharlesT. (2001). Threat (and opportunity): Popular action and state response in the dynamics of contentious action. In AminzadeR. R.GoldstoneJ. A.McAdamD.PerryE. J.SewellW. H.TarrowS.TillyC. (Eds.), Silence and voice in the study of contentious politics (pp. 179-94). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
20.
GoodwinJ.JasperJ. (2012). Contention in context. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
21.
JasperJ. (1997). The art of moral protest. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
22.
JasperJ.DuyvendakJ. M. (2015). Players and arenas: The interactive dimensions of protest. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.
23.
JasperJ.KingB. (2016). Constraints and the dance of interaction. Unpublished manuscript.
24.
JasperJ.KingB. (Forthcoming). Constraints and the dance of interaction. In JasperJ.KingB. (Eds.), Protesters and their targets. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
KingB. G. (2008). A political mediation model of corporate response to social movement activism. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53, 395-421.
27.
KingB. G. (2011). The tactical disruptiveness of social movements: Sources of market and mediated disruption in corporate boycotts. Social Problems, 58, 491-517.
28.
KriesiH. (1995). New social movements in Western Europe: A comparative analysis. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
29.
Maldonado RojasG. (2004). H2O: La Guerra del Agua [H2O: The Water War]. La Paz, Bolivia: Fondo Editorial de los Diputados.
30.
McAdamD. (1983). Tactical innovation and the pace of insurgency. American Sociological Review, 48, 735-754.
31.
McAdamD.TarrowS. G.TillyC. (2001). Dynamics of contention. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
32.
McDonnellM.KingB. G.SouleS. A. (2015). A dynamic process model of private politics: Activist targeting and corporate receptivity to social challenges. American Sociological Review, 80, 654-678.
33.
RomanJ. A. (2007). Atender El Llamado Al Diálogo, Orden Calderón. La Jornada.
34.
RabinowP.SullivanW. M. (1987). Interpretive social science: A second look. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
35.
RuchtD. (2004). Movement allies, adversaries, and third parties. In SnowD. A.SouleS. A.KriesiH. (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to social movements (pp. 197-216). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
36.
Schwartz-SheaP.YanowD. (2013). Interpretive research design: Concepts and processes. New York, NY: Routledge.
37.
SewellW. H. (2005). Logics of history: Social theory and social transformation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
38.
SilvaE. (2009). Challenging neoliberalism in Latin America. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
39.
SimmonsE. S. (2014). Grievances do matter in mobilization. Theory and Society, 43, 513-536.
40.
SimmonsE. S. (2016). Meaningful resistance: Market reforms and the roots of social protest in Latin America. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
41.
SimmonsE. S. (2016a). Market reforms and water wars. World Politics, 68(1), 37-73. doi:10.1017/S0043887115000337
42.
SimmonsE. S. (2016b). Corn, markets, and mobilization in Mexico. Comparative Politics48(3), 413-431.
43.
SimmonsE. S.SmithN. R. (2017). “Colity.”PS: Political Science & Politics, 50(1), 126-130. doi: 10.1017/S1049096516002286
44.
SimmonsE. S.SmithN. R. (Forthcoming). The case for comparative ethnography. Comparative Politics.
45.
SnowD. A.SouleS. (2010). A primer on social movements. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
46.
SkrentnyJ.D. (2006). Policy-elite perceptions and social movement success: Understanding variation in group inclusion in affirmative action. American Journal of Sociology, 111, 1762-1815.
47.
SouleS. A. (2009). Contention and corporate social responsibility. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press,
48.
SouleS. A.KingB. (2015). Markets, business, and social movements. In de la PortaD.DianiM. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of social movements (pp. 696-709). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
49.
WedeenL. (2009). Ethnography as interpretive enterprise. In SchatzE. (Ed.), Political ethnography: What immersion contributes to the study of power (pp. 75-94). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
50.
WedeenL. (2002). Conceptualizing culture: Possibilities for political science. The American Political Science Review, 96, 713-728.
51.
ZelizerV. A. (2011). Economic lives: How culture shapes the economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
