Theoretical approaches in Pressure Groups and Social Movements (original) (raw)
Related papers
Towards a Theoretical Analysis of Pressure Politics
Polit Stud London, 2006
THE essential point about research in the field of group behaviour in Politics is that almost all contemporary study has a very restricted range. To a very great degree the study has been an Anglo-American one, and this very fact tends to restrict the theoretical orientation of the observer. We may begin by noting an important distinction in the world of pressure groups, that between 'interest' and 'attitude' groups. The fomwr may be describtd as being 'semi-permanent groups set up to protect certain sectional interests' (e.g. the British Medical Association. the Automobile Association or various trade union organizations). The 'attitude' group is a temporary association which desires to achieve some specifically delimited objective. (e.g. The Campaign for Nuckar Disannamcnt or the temperance organizations of the early part of this antury). What we must emphasize here is that the contemporary study has been almost exclusively on 'interest' groups, though as we shall explain later there are good reasons for this inherent in the politicalstructunofAn%o-Americansocitty.S.E. Finer's book AnonymousEmpire isanenample of an emphasis on 'interest' groups to the exclusion of other considerations. In it he catalogues the main components of the British 'group universe' as follows: the business lobby; the labour lobby; the co-opcrative movement; the professions; civic qroups; churches and educational organizations. Those bodits which might be dcscribed as 'attitude' groups are included under 'civic groups', a term singularly inappropriate to the description of the more militant wing of the C.N.D. What information we have on 'attitude' groups is largely the result of books appearing on the more controversial groups, e.g. Christopher Driver's, The Disarmers and Tom Driberg's work on Moral Rearmament. Such works are in general of an historical and descriptive nature and not intended to give any more than a generalized insight into the workings of similar groups . . . in a word, they are untheoretical.
2011
We, the people leaving in democratic societies, have come across information about pressure groups or interest groups and political interests coming together under the usually harmless terms of "in the help of every single citizen", but very often actually working in a manner more then detrimental to him. Interests are given birth daily and in the name of public welfare we were (and still are) convinced that in the name of the society's interest, the action of groups may lead to a better life standard. Unfortunately this is not always the case. And this topic and its reality inspired me in coming up with this paper. The motto states perfectly what a democracy stands for "In a democracy people do not obtain what they do not ask for". Along my essay I will try to prove it. My paper is meant to discuss freely and openly about the cohesion existing at the level of any society, generally speaking between policy takers and policy makers. It is up to each and every one of us to reach the conclusion on whether who is who between the two categories. The paper is organized starting from the general context in which groups work) and then continuing with its products and services (with the effects they obtain on behalf of their actions). After that it analyzes the market itself-the space where pressure groups' action take its course-as an universe becoming bigger by the second according to national legislations worldwide. It is commonly understood that societies are working together for a purpose, mainly through politicians and interest groups representing them. The paper intents on making an objective analysis of these societies based on their level of development. After catching a glimpse on how these groups are formed or how they work the paper explained the economic of the "business" by entailing the marketing plans groups use in their projects. A separate section was dedicated to the Romanian context with a special emphasis on the non-regulatory status with regards to pressure and interest groups, and generally speaking, to the lobby phenomena.
New Social Movements and Alternative Politics
Modern social movements often challenge the authorities on behalf of the people -major classes and masses -to alter the prevailing structure(s) and culture, or to arrest a decline, or restore something desirable but lost. They formulate their ideology and strategy of action in an interpretative package that offers an alternative -either evolutionary or revolutionary -to the dominant culture or structure or both. Social movements are thus a mode of collective action involving large numbers of individuals, groups or classes, operating as leaders and followers through organizations of varying degrees of spontaneity or structuration. Modernity has produced at least two overarching systemic institutions of foundational importance in polity and economy, namely, the national state and political economy of capitalism or socialism. The foremost modern classical theorist of the former was George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831), and of the latter was Karl Marx (1818-1883). Max Weber (1884-1920) may well be regarded as a neo-classical interpreter of both the state and capitalism, as he sought to interpret more comprehensively the polity and the economy as well as the society. Theories of social movements revolve around the overarching modern structural formations in the domains of the state, the
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13895-0\_98-1 Social movements have become a constitutive part of contemporary societies, especially so in democratic contexts where the institutional conditions allow for movements to be formed and express themselves freely. They involve conflictual relations with clearly identified opponents, are linked by dense informal networks, share a distinct collective identity, and engage primarily – but not exclusively – in protest activities. Explanations of movement mobilization have typically stressed a number of key factors, or combinations thereof: in particular, grievances, mobilizing structures, political opportunities, and framing processes. This chapter provides an overview of some key aspects relating to the study of social movements. Given the breath of this field, it can only be very selective in doing so. The chapter first addresses the question of the definition of social movements. Then it moves on to looking at the ways in which they have been studied. Finally, it briefly discusses what movements leave behind them, that is, the issue of their outcomes and consequences. The chapter concludes with a summary of the most salient aspects addressed and some directions for future research.