Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Research on social movements and public policy has expanded tremendously in the last decade, yet little of this work considers the role of movement opponents in the political process, or how the movement-countermovement dynamic is influential in contests over policy. This study begins to fill this void by analyzing employer and union activism over Right-to-work laws in two heavily industrialized, Midwestern states in the late 1950s. I question how employer political efforts were successful in Indiana, but not in neighboring Ohio a year later. Consistent with the literature on social movements, actors that balance formal, professionalized organization with a more localized presence on the ground are in a better position to pursue multiple mechanisms of influence and to shape policy. Event Structure Analyses of the two Right-to-Work campaigns advance this discussion and reveal how social movement organizational characteristics matter to the extent that they enable opposing movements to counter each other’s actions in unfolding political processes. I conclude by discussing the implications of the findings for perspectives on social movements and politics, and for research dealing specifically with the U.S. labor movement.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Although the significance of countermovements is widely acknowledged in the social movement literature, the study of their emergence and interaction with both social movements and the state has received comparatively little academic attention. In recent years, a number of social movement scholars have highlighted this deficiency in the literature and called for a more extensive analysis of countermovements. The state is traditionally a central actor in influencing movement-countermovement dynamics; while the battles between movements and countermovements continue to directly involve the state, for instance as epitomized by legal battles brought before courts, the political competition between movements and countermovements is increasingly bypassing the centrality of the state. Nowhere is this more clearly exemplified today than by the contests being waged between movements and countermovements on the Internet. The use of the Internet by social movement and countermovement organizations highlights the interaction between opposing groups while frequently rendering the role of the state less important than in more traditionally fought movement-countermovement battles. This paper examines movement-countermovement dynamics and the role of the state using the political competition between the Native Hawaiian sovereignty movement and its organized opposition as a lens through which to view the interaction between rival parties. I question how the relationship between the sovereignty movement, its organized countermovement, and the federal government has shaped the development of the movement and its impact thus far. I begin by briefly reviewing the literature on movement-countermovement dynamics and the role of the state. Next, I document the rise of the sovereignty movement, discuss the emergence of its organized countermovement, and describe the relationship of the movement and countermovement to the federal government. In the sections that follow, I demonstrate that while an active competition between the sovereignty movement and countermovement is currently being waged on the Internet that the role of the federal government continues to remain paramount in shaping the direction and impact of the sovereignty movement.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Maintaining military effectiveness through forward deployment is one of the most significant aspects of U.S. strategy to address international security challenges. There are many U.S. military bases abroad, and key policy decisions include base establishment, reduction, and elimination. Determining troop levels and base functions are also important. Furthermore, there are policies on the environment, on military prostitution, and on legal treatment of U.S. soldiers who commit crimes in host states. Which actors create, maintain, and change these policies? When, why, and how do they do so?

International relations scholars say that state actors decide what is best for military effectiveness and determine base policies. Alternatively, powerful interest groups that benefit from the military presence may dictate base policies. These explanations, however, leave many empirical puzzles unanswered. One must take into account anti-base social movements’ efforts in changing base policies.

I explore some of the main mechanisms through which a movement can make a policy impact. However, there is no guarantee of policy change even if a movement develops many of the mechanisms. Therefore, I also examine factors that limit or block social movement impact on policy outcome. I study the anti-base social movement in Okinawa, Japan, during the 1990s, to demonstrate when, how, and how much impact a social movement has on base policies.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Over the past forty years, ?progressive? transnational social movements have emerged around such issues as human rights, the environment, and global justice. Simultaneously, there has been a huge increase in the number of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) active on these issues. In response, social scientists have begun theorizing about transnational mobilization and the growth of a ?global civil society,? with research revealing the dynamics of activism and its impacts in various policy arenas. Few scholars, however, have studied an equally important trend, the development of powerful transnational countermobilizations rooted in various ?conservative? ideologies and institutions. These countermobilizations have for example opposed the Kyoto Treaty, the Landmines Treaty, and the International Criminal Court--with considerable success on many issues. More fundamentally, in recent years conservative NGOs have challenged the legitimacy of civil society participation in international politics--even while actively participating themselves.My paper helps fill the empirical and theoretical gaps about transnational countermobilization by focusing on transnational activism concerning the control of Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW). Used in conflicts and violence worldwide, such weapons are responsible for over 500,000 deaths per year, according to United Nations estimates. For over a decade, hundreds of NGOs organized in a loose transnational network known as the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) have worked to promote a treaty controlling SALW trade. Opposing these efforts is a transnational network of gun-rights NGOs, spearheaded by America?s National Rifle Association (NRA). My paper analyzes the strategies of these contending global networks. In particular, the paper focuses on the ways in which the NRA and its global network have sought to influence states, delegitimate the United Nations process, and attack IANSA--all with the aim of stalling or defusing efforts to control small arms. More generally, the paper examines how the two networks clash with one another as they seek to influence international policymaking. For the transnational politics literature, which has focused on ?progressive? movements, such research opens a window onto extremely powerful but little-studied ?conservative? activism on the world stage. As such, it holds promise of providing a far more accurate picture of how civil society actors contend with one another and influence global public policy. In addition, the paper contributes to social movement theory. Thus far, scholars have analyzed the role of ?countermovements? only in domestic arenas. My paper extends the literature to the international level.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty (SHAC) activists use a diversity of tactics to draw attention to the unethical vivisection practices of Huntington Life Services (HLS) and affiliated business partners. SHAC home demonstration campaigns have been effective in damaging the economic interests of target companies through shaming of corporate executives and, because of their efficacy, been the subject of legal-juridical, crisis-like retaliation. Situated as a contribution to the emerging literature on countermovements, this paper examines how various policing agencies have deployed mechanisms of overt and clandestine surveillance to regulate activists involved at different levels of the animal liberation movement in Canada. Convergence of anti-terrorism policing policies and government identification of animal liberation activists as “political extremists” and “domestic terrorists” has provided the rationale for a complex network of domestic public and private policing agencies as well as intelligence agencies with international reach to become involved in monitoring groups, often across borders, to destroy the movement. Policing of SHAC in Canada has escalated to crisis levels despite the supposed constitutional protection of freedom of assembly that SHAC actions are based on.