This paper completes an investigation into why there was no major social movement around the foreclosure crisis. The basis of this research was a community study that involved surveys of foreclosed people, community members, and activists, as well as participant observation of anti-foreclosure organizations. Initially I found that lack of membership in or contact with civic organizations on the part of those going through foreclosure was at the heart of the failure to form a movement. The present study adds to this finding by focusing on the groups attempting to organize around foreclosure. I argue that the absence of progressive organizations with organic social roots in the communities affected by foreclosure, lack of resources to make foreclosure a public issue, and failure to develop an ideology that could effectively frame this issue played additional parts in explaining this missing movement.
California Attorney General (2010) Report of the office of the Attorney General on the activities of ACORN in California. California Department of Justice: Office of the Attorney General.
6.
FreyWH (2012) Population Growth in Metro America since 1980. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
7.
GarsonB (2013) Down the Up Escalator: How the 99 Percent Live in the Great Recession. New York, NY: Doubleday.
8.
GitlinT (1993) The Sixties: Years of Hope; Days of Rage. New York, NY: Bantam.
9.
GoffmanE (1974) Frame Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10.
KazinM (2011) American Dreamers: How the Left Changed a Nation. New York, NY: Alfred A Knopf.
LopezMH (2010) The Latino Vote in the 2010 Elections. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
13.
McAdamD (1988) Freedom Summer. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14.
McAdamDFriedmanD(1992) Collective Identity and Activism. In: MorrisADMuellerCM (eds) Frontiers in Social Movement Theory. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
15.
McCarthyJDZaldMN (1973) The Trend of Social Movements in America: Professionalization and Resource Mobilization. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
16.
McCarthyJDZaldMN (1977) Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. American Journal of Sociology82(6): 1212–41.
17.
McCormackK (2014) Credit and credibility: Homeownership and identity management in the midst of the foreclosure crisis. Sociological Quarterly55(2): 261–281.
MaeckleberghM (2012) Mobilizing to stay put: Housing struggles in New York City. International Journal of Urban & Regional Research36(4): 655–673.
20.
National Commission on Civic Renewal (1998) A Nation of Spectators: How Civic Disengagement Weakens America and What We Can Do About It. College Park, MD: University of Maryland Press.
21.
OberschallA (1973) Social Conflict and Social Movements. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
22.
PiqueroNGertzMBrattonJ (2011) Public attitudes toward blameworthiness and control of the mortgage foreclosure crisis. Sociology of Crime, Law and Deviance16: 47–63.
23.
PutnamRD (2000) Bowling Alone. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
24.
RegerJStaggenborgS (2006) Patterns of mobilization in local movement organizations. Sociological Perspectives49(3): 297–323.
25.
RobinsonJG (2013) The white working class and the foreclosure crisis. Sociological Perspectives56(1): 131–159.
26.
RobinsonJG (2014) Political cynicism and the foreclosure crisis. Social Justice40(3): 99–118.
27.
RossLMSquiresGD (2011) The personal costs of subprime lending and the foreclosure crisis. Social Science Quarterly92(1): 140–163.
28.
SchlesingerA (1944) Biography of a nation of joiners. American Historical Review50(1): 1–25.
29.
SkocpolT (2003) Diminished Democracy. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.
30.
SkocpolT (2004) Voice and inequality: The transformation of American civic democracy. Perspectives on Politics2(1): 1–18.
31.
SnowDABenfordRD (1988) Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. In: BertKHanspeterKTarrowS (eds) From Structure to Action. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 197–217.
32.
SnowDARochfordEBWordenS. (1986) Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review51(4): 464–481.
33.
TarrowS (1998) Power in Movement. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
