Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Most social movement scholars attribute activists’ choices of strategies and tactics to rational decisions based on personal preferences, past experiences, or opponents’ abilities to sanction. But these explanations cannot account for instances when activists knowingly choose strategies and tactics that do not seem to offer the likeliest chance of success. What can account for these seemingly irrational choices—why would activists purposefully avoid likely successful strategies and tactics? I address this question through a comparative study of the animal rights movements in France and the United States, based on interviews and participant observation with activists in both countries. Activists in the U.S. exhibit more tactical pragmatism than French activists, who engage in “tactical stubbornness”—sometimes refusing tactics and strategies that have proven successful for others. I argue that these choices are not irrational, and surprisingly are not based on cultural or structural constraints external to the movement. Instead, they are indicative of the constraints placed on activists by the cultural structures within the animal rights movement itself. This meso-level analysis adds a new level to studies of tactical choices, and also provides a comparative perspective to an empirical case of cultural structures and agency.