Leadership and Membership in the Nuclear Freeze Movement: A Specification of Resource Mobilization Theory

Abstract

Participation in social movement activities is distinguished from occupancy of leadership positions in social movement organizations. Two alternative theoretical models derived from the resource mobilization literature, the progression and circulation models, are summarized and their implications regarding participation and leadership are specified. Hypotheses are enumerated for the explanatory factors of individual's self-interest and resources; attitudes, beliefs, and ideology; past organizational experience; background characteristics; and the nature of the association of the individual to the organization. Particular attention is paid to areas where the theoretical models indicate different relationships between the explanatory factors and the outcome variables of participation level and leadership status, and critical tests between the two models are specified. The hypotheses and critical tests are applied to data gathered from a survey of participants in the Cleveland nuclear freeze organization. Self-interest, resource and background characteristics are not found to be associated with either participation level or leadership status. Past experiences and beliefs are important in determining participation levels whereas leadership status is largely explained by the nature of organizationalindividual association. The results of the critical testing indicate the circulation model fits the data better than the progression model. The theoretical implications of these findings are discussed and some additional factors helpful in explaining the results are considered. Why do people spend time, effort, and resources on activities that do not typically hold much promise of individual return or tangible compensation? This question has plagued social movement theorists, who have developed several varieties of explanation ranging from material incentives to interpersonal rewards to pure altruism. This article reports a test of hypotheses deduced from two competing theories which explain individuals' varying levels of active involvement and leadership status in the nuclear weapons freeze movement-a movement yielding few, if any, immediate or tangible rewards to its participants.