Radical Flank Research Articles

An ecosystem of tactics: Bridging the radical and moderate flanks in a pipeline resistance movement

This paper explores the role of “bridge activists” in the Mountain Valley Pipeline resistance movement who acted to build mutual respect, solidarity and collective identity in a movement characterized by diverse tactics. Bridge activists operate in both moderate and radical flanks of a movement, bridging disparate movement factions. We argue these bridge activists enabled the development of an “ecosystem of tactics” within the movement. Contrary to a “diversity of tactics” approach, an ecosystem of tactics approach is grounded in mutual respect and the solidarity of a common goal (in this case, stopping the Mountain Valley Pipeline). Our findings suggest intentional bridge activism may empower current and future movements through encouraging participation, mediating conflict, developing collective identity and generating solidarity.

“Intentionality” in radical flank effects: reflections on Al-Nusra Front’s discourse of moderation between 2012–2017

ABSTRACT In this paper, I examine the theory of Radical Flank Effects (RFEs) reflecting on the case of al-Nusra Front and specifically its oscillation between ‘moderation’ and ‘radicalism’ in the period between its official establishment in early 2012 and the formation of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) in January 2017. The main contribution in this paper originates from revisiting Haines’ premise that RFEs happen ‘unintendedly’. Reflecting on the discourse and behaviour of al-Nusra, I propose that RFEs can be managed purposefully by collective actors in ways that serve their strategic goals. In this sense, claims to moderation may serve as a strategic tool in the hands of collective actors, including militant Islamist organizations. In this regard, the research reveals that al-Nusra’s oscillation between moderation and radicalism was by and large purposeful, or at least carefully managed by the organization’s ideologues and strategists.

The radical flank: Curse or blessing of a social movement?

Social movements often comprise a variety of actors employing differing levels of radicality. This study examines how collective action enables social change by studying the influence of the presence of a radical flank on public support for moderate and radical activists. We report two experimental studies investigating the reactions towards the protests of a movement in the United Kingdom opposing a university’s reduction in sustainable catering options (N = 485) and an anti-fracking movement in the US (N = 455). In both experiments, participants read a fake newspaper article about a: (1) completely nonviolent, (2) completely violent, or (3) mixed violent/nonviolent movement including a radical flank. The tested models reveal that identification with the activists drives effects on public support (i.e., intentions to participate and donate). Specifically, the presence of a radical flank caused an increase in public support for the moderates (Study 1) or a decrease in support for the radicals (Study 2). Study 2 additionally found that the magnitude of the effects is moderated by the participants’ sympathy for the movement’s cause. Observers who were sympathetic towards the advocated changes reacted more strongly towards the chosen tactics. Implications for theory, practice and future research are discussed.

Breaching, Bridging, and Bonding: Interweaving Pathways of Social‐Symbolic Work in a Flanked Healthcare Movement

AbstractThis article explores how heterogeneous and distributed forms of social‐symbolic work combine over time to yield synergistic relationships that precipitate institutional change. We study a collective effort by patient activists to change the technological and regulatory standards of Type 1 diabetes care. We offer contributions to radical flank theory by conceptualizing radical and moderate flanks as dynamic and overlapping pathways of action rather than fixed actor positions, and we show how a medial ‘bonding’ pathway can provide important social glue to connect the radical and moderate flanks. While in our case the material and discursive ‘hacking’ work in the breaching pathway disrupted institutions, triggered technology innovation, and created momentum for change, material and relational ‘bridging’ embedded these efforts into existing institutional structures and longer‐term innovation trajectories. Values and amplification work in the bonding pathway served to keep the two other pathways aligned over time. By addressing how a complex social problem – patient‐centric innovation – may be affected through heterogeneous social‐symbolic work that leads to institutional accommodation, our study holds considerable policy and societal relevance.

The Radical Flank Revisited: How Regulatory Discretion Shapes the Effectiveness of Social Activism on Business Outcomes

Although scholarship has highlighted how stakeholders can influence business outcomes, few studies have examined how simultaneous, different tactics interact to impact firms. Critical to understanding this interaction is the radical flank effect, which asserts that the moderate and radical elements of social activist tactics can interact to either enhance or diminish a movement’s ability to accomplish its goals. However, research is unclear about when and whether the radical flank effect enhances or diminishes activist influence, nor has it empirically analyzed factors that influence the direction of the effect. To address these limitations, we explore one such factor—regulatory agency discretion, or regulators’ flexibility to interpret and implement public policies. Drawing on management and political sociology studies, we argue that discretion affects the salience of regulatory accountability to the public and thereby alters the radical flank effect on business outcomes in regulated markets. We analyze stakeholder opposition to U.S. hydroelectric power facilities from 1987 to 2019. The results show that high discretion enhances the radical flank effect and detrimentally affects business outcomes, whereas low discretion reverses the radical flank effect and favorably affects business outcomes. Funding: This work was supported by the Kauffman Foundation Doctoral Dissertation Fellowship and the Harvard Business School Division of Research. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.22.16104 .

The Radical Flank Revisited: How Regulatory Discretion Shapes the Effectiveness of Social Activism on Business Outcomes

Although scholarship has highlighted how stakeholders can influence business outcomes, few studies have examined how simultaneous, different tactics interact to impact firms. Critical to understanding this interaction is the radical flank effect, which asserts that the moderate and radical elements of social activist tactics can interact to either enhance or diminish a movement’s ability to accomplish its goals. However, research is unclear about when and whether the radical flank effect enhances or diminishes activist influence, nor has it empirically analyzed factors that influence the direction of the effect. To address these limitations, we explore one such factor—regulatory agency discretion, or regulators’ flexibility to interpret and implement public policies. Drawing on management and political sociology studies, we argue that discretion affects the salience of regulatory accountability to the public and thereby alters the radical flank effect on business outcomes in regulated markets. We analyze stakeholder opposition to U.S. hydroelectric power facilities from 1987 to 2019. The results show that high discretion enhances the radical flank effect and detrimentally affects business outcomes, whereas low discretion reverses the radical flank effect and favorably affects business outcomes. Funding: This work was supported by the Kauffman Foundation Doctoral Dissertation Fellowship and the Harvard Business School Division of Research. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2022.16104 .

When Do Radical Flanks Use Violence? Conditions for Violent Protest in Radical Left-Libertarian Activism in Sweden, 1997–2016

ABSTRACT Descriptions of social movement factionalism are often based on the dichotomous conception of lawful moderates and violent radicals. In this article, we nuance this distinction by illustrating the complexity of radical flanks through an empirically grounded analysis of protest tactics, in which we ask under what conditions radical flanks are likely to use violent protest tactics. Exploring dominant explanations of political violence, the article shows the necessity of understanding the use of violent protest tactics as part of cognitive and relational processes. The use of violent tactics varies greatly across frames and protest issues, pointing to how different logics of protest are tied to different frames. Also, the use of violence is affected by the presence or absence of moderate allies; the likelihood of violence clearly decreases when radicals and moderates form coalitions when organising protests. The analysis is based on a protest event data set covering over 3,900 nonviolent and violent events by the Radical Left-Libertarian Movement in Sweden, 1997–2016. Notably, the results hold over this entire twenty-year period, suggesting that they are robust and provide a better explanation than historically contingent causes.

Animal Advocacy and the “Good Cop‐Bad Cop” Radical Flanking of Laboratory Research

This research explores the concurrent effects of radical and reformist approaches to animal advocacy on how animal welfare is institutionalized in laboratory research. The long‐term outcomes of militant animal rights activism are not adequately explained by the two current radical flank effect models: a positive effect where militancy helps moderates, and a negative effect where militancy compromises the movement as a whole. Interviews and participant observation were used to identify a third model—good cop‐bad cop radical flanking—that more accurately captures how a longstanding radical fringe of activism affects the institutionalization of animal advocates' demands. Contrary to existing models that describe immediate radical flank effects, a good cop‐bad cop model helps explain the long‐term effects of militancy and reformism on institutional practices, where activists' seemingly opposing efforts are, in fact, mutually reinforcing.

Radical Flank Revisited: Regulatory Accountability and the Effectiveness of Environmental Activism

Although scholarship has highlighted how stakeholders activists influence business outcomes, few studies have examined how simultaneous, different tactics interact to impact firms. Critical to understanding this interaction is the radical flank effect, which asserts that the moderate and radical elements of social movement tactics can interact to either enhance or diminish a movement’s ability to accomplish its goals. However, research is unclear about when and whether the radical flank effect enhances or diminishes movement influence and says little about factors that may influence the direction of the effect. To address these limitations, we explore one such factor—the degree to which the regulatory agencies that oversee businesses in regulated markets are accountable for their decision making. Drawing on management and political sociology studies, we argue that shifting the degree to which regulators are accountable to the public can alter the radical flank effect on business outcomes in regulated markets. We analyze stakeholder activist opposition to U.S. hydroelectric power facilities from 1987–2019. The results show that high accountability to the public enhances the radical flank effect, thereby enhancing stakeholders’ activists’ influence, whereas low accountability reverses the radical flank effect, thereby diminishing stakeholders’ activists’ impact on business outcomes. Post-hoc analyses illustrate that firm engagement with regulators who are accountable to the public can mitigate social activists’ ability to impede business licensing in the presence of the positive radical flank.

Radical flanks of social movements can increase support for moderate factions.

Social movements are critical agents of social change, but are rarely monolithic. Instead, movements are often made up of distinct factions with unique agendas and tactics, and there is little scientific consensus on when these factions may complement-or impede-one another's influence. One central debate concerns whether radical flanks within a movement increase support for more moderate factions within the same movement by making the moderate faction seem more reasonable-or reduce support for moderate factions by making the entire movement seem unreasonable. Results of two online experiments conducted with diverse samples (N=2,772), including a study of the animal rights movement and a preregistered study of the climate movement, show that the presence of a radical flank increases support for a moderate faction within the same movement. Further, it is the use of radical tactics, such as property destruction or violence, rather than a radical agenda, that drives this effect. Results indicate the effect owes to a contrast effect: Use of radical tactics by one flank led the more moderate faction to appear less radical, even though all characteristics of the moderate faction were held constant. This perception led participants to identify more with and, in turn, express greater support for the more moderate faction. These results suggest that activist groups that employ unpopular tactics can increase support for other groups within the same movement, pointing to a hidden way in which movement factions are complementary, despite pursuing divergent approaches to social change.

Apostles of Change: Latino Radical Politics, Church Occupations, and the Fight to Save the Barrio

Apostles of Change: Latino Radical Politics, Church Occupations, and the Fight to Save the Barrio

Dynamics of radical flank effect in a never-ending conflict

This study elucidates the long-term implications of applying multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) on the radicalization of movements in conflicts between business and communities. We focus on the overlooked radical flank effect (RFE) to analyse the longitudinal archival and extensive fieldwork of a historical conflict between the forestry sector and Indigenous Mapuche communities in Chile. By 2013, the two largest firms had obtained Forestry Stewardship Council certification, although soon after violent attacks against these corporations have persistently increased. We explain this counterintuitive phenomenon by identifying three mechanisms of conflict dynamics in relation to the RFE: these include expectations; frustrations; repression that help explain why a negative RFE emerged unable to marginalize the radical flank, and instead managed to radicalize more moderates. We conclude that MSIs operating in contexts of historical conflict can contribute to exacerbating conflict. As such we call for a re-politicization of Political CSR and discuss the implications for MSIs that operate in such contexts.

Does Collective Always Mean Cohesive? Collective Institutional Entrepreneurship and Radical Flanks

Despite an expanding literature on collective institutional entrepreneurship, we know little about the mechanics and internal dynamics between different and potentially divergent entrepreneurial paths, the responses from actors outside the collective, and the effects that divergent entrepreneurial paths have on the outcome of the institutional change project. In this paper, we set out to explore how diverse paths in collective institutional entrepreneurship can contribute to institutional change. Informed by literature on collective institutional entrepreneurship and radical flank effects and relying on qualitative processual data on a collective attempt to change the standards in Type-1 diabetes healthcare, we show how multiple and diverse entrepreneurial paths interweave in the pursuit of a common institutional change project. We contribute to literature on collective institutional entrepreneurship by detailing the mechanisms that yield synergetic and dynamic relationships between entrepreneurial actors (creating urgency, creating the network and creating the cohesion) and by detailing how different types of institutional work undertaken by the different groups contribute to institutional change over time. We also contribute to literature on radical flank effects by demonstrating how emotional cohesion functions as a social glue that connects discrepant entrepreneurial paths in a common institutional change project.

A critique of climate change mitigation policy

Global institutions and national governments have failed to provide effective policy guidance or leadership on tackling climate change. The extraction and combustion of fossil fuels continues apace, resulting in continual rising of greenhouse gas emissions, which pose a threat to all life on earth. However, the global climate regime continues to underestimate the need for immediate, radical and powerful action. Dominant framings of the problem continue to emphasise behaviour change rather than system change, and fail to challenge the power of fossil-fuel capital. This failure makes it difficult to be optimistic about the future but there may be hope in a new kind of politics based on non-violent direct action and mass civil disobedience. This form of action is directed at delegitimising fossil fuels and stopping their extraction, and acting as a ‘radical flank’ in positively influencing political decision-making towards a democratically agreed just transition.

‘If a fight starts, watch the crowd’: The effect of violence on popular support for social movements

Social movements often face tactic diversification. In otherwise nonviolent movements, some groups or radical flanks may resort to violent actions such as street rioting. This article analyzes the impact that these violent episodes can have on popular support for the movement as a whole. To estimate the causal effect of violence, it exploits an unexpected riot outbreak that occurred during the fieldwork of a face-to-face survey in Barcelona in May 2016, led by a squat group linked to the anti-austerity movement known as the 15-M or indignados that emerged during the financial crisis. By comparing respondents interviewed before and after the riots, it finds that the street violence episode reduced support for the 15-M movement by 12 percentage points on average. However, the magnitude of the effect is highly conditional on the respondents’ predispositions towards the movement. Core supporters, that are expected to share the frame of the movement in justifying violent actions, are the least affected by the violent outbreak. On the other extreme, weak supporters, opposers, and non-aligned citizens reduce their support to a larger extent. Results are robust to different specifications and a wide range of robustness checks. These findings have potentially important implications for movements concerned with broadening their support base.

Advocating a UN Convention on the Rights of Older Persons in the United Kingdom: The Case for a Radical Flank

Advocating a UN Convention on the Rights of Older Persons in the United Kingdom: The Case for a Radical Flank

How Human Boundaries Become State Borders: Radical Flanks and Territorial Control in the Modern Era

How Human Boundaries Become State Borders: Radical Flanks and Territorial Control in the Modern Era

Deepening the Explanation of Radical Flank Effects: Tracing Contingent Outcomes of Destructive Capacity

Radical flank effect (RFE) research has too often ignored the conditions under which particular RFEs occur and failed to acknowledge that RFEs might change over time, producing different, yet interrelated, outcomes across societal arenas. In order to fill these gaps, this article argues for expanding the framework to be used in analysis of RFEs by incorporating insights from recent social movement theory, and thus adding temporal and arena dimensions. This enables a deeper explanation of the conditions under which specific RFEs occur—and change—in more complex empirical settings where several actors interact in distinct arenas over time. The analytical approach is employed in the case study of the international Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) campaign and its engagement with corporate and state adversaries throughout a fifteen-year period in the UK. The analysis does two things: first, it identifies the pathways along which the overall campaign attained its destructive capacity, which was key to the SHAC campaign’s short-term successes, and secondly, it explicates the variables and factors in distinct arenas that explain why the initial positive outcome was reversed. Thus, the analysis reveals the contingency of RFEs by comparing their short and long-term outcomes, and it explains why and how the outcomes changed. Broadly, the aim is to produce a deeper explanation of RFEs, while also suggesting ways to expand this strand of research by, for example, examining the radical flank dilemma that results from the contingent outcomes of RFEs.

Bill McKibben’s Influence on U.S. Climate Change Discourse: Shifting Field-Level Debates Through Radical Flank Effects

This article examines the influence of radical flank actors in shifting field-level debates by increasing the legitimacy of preexisting but peripheral issues. Using network text analysis, we apply this conceptual model to the climate change debate in the United States and the efforts of Bill McKibben and 350.org to pressure major universities to “divest” their fossil fuel assets. What we find is that, as these new actors and issue entered the debate, liberal policy ideas (such as a carbon tax), which had previously been marginalized in the U.S. debate, gained increased attention and legitimacy while the divestment effort itself gained limited traction. This result expands theory on indirect pathways to institutional change through a discursive radical flank mechanism, and suggests that the actual influence of Bill McKibben on the U.S. climate debate goes beyond the precise number of schools that divest to include a shift in the social and political discourse.

Bill McKibben's Effect on the US Climate Change Debate: Shifting the Institutional Environment Through Radical Flank Effects

This paper examines the influence of radical flank actors in shifting field-level debates by increasing the legitimacy of pre-existing but peripheral issues. Using network text analysis, we apply this conceptual model to the climate change debate in the U.S. and the efforts of Bill McKibben and 350.org to pressure major universities to “divest” their fossil fuel assets. What we find is that, as these new actors and issue entered the debate, liberal policy ideas (such as a carbon tax), which had previously been marginalized in the U.S. debate, gained increased attention and legitimacy while the divestment effort itself gained limited traction. This result expands theory on indirect pathways to institutional change through a discursive radical flank mechanism, and suggests that the actual influence of Bill McKibben on the U.S. climate debate goes beyond the precise number of schools that divest to include a shift in the social and political discourse.