The resources are used for actions

The actions of peoples’ movements are of two kinds: to force the adversary to adapt to the demands of the movement, and to realize by their own hands the desired aims in the civil society they represent. The trouble is to do that in spite of the disadvantage the social movements have by definition.

Confrontations

Confrontations aim at destroying the adversary’s chain of command and increase his costs. This is usually done with traditional means that change slowly over time: tax rebellions, bread seizures, and in more recent times strikes, occupations, boycotts, and mass meetings/demonstrations or other forms of showing mass and unity.

The mode of conflict have to be chosen so that the whole collective can be used to the utmost – which was, by the way, the reason behind Gandhi’s insistence on peaceful means; violence tends to shrink the numbers of participants, and thus also one’s resources. This is why a stable repertoire and a familiar terrain may be to prefer. But new, unexpected repertoires may be created out of the familiar terrain, and that tends to make more impact than the usual repertoire. New repertoires raise the level of uncertainty for the adversary, and thus also his costs.

The aim of confrontations is to force the opposite party to concessions. The aim of war is peace, as the military theorists say; peace on one’s own terms. But there is a particular dynamic in confrontations that cause them to develop in a way nobody has thought of beforehand. There is a whole theoretic tradition about this: conflict theory.

Usually conflict theory deals with only two parties, but in popular movement action there are many, which makes conflict theory tricky. There are, however, a few things in conflict theory that apply:

Firstly, the parties define the character of the conflict, no matter how stupid they may seem. This implies for example that what applies is the subjective perception of the parties about the conflicts’ costs and proceeds. The party that first thinks that the costs exceeds the proceeds is the first to sue for peace.

Secondly, there are objective limitations for what strategies that are possible to choose.
- The less resource potential and the weaker collective identity, the more narrow are the limitations. Moreover, the opportunities are limited by earlier articulations; it isn’t possible to change articulation overnight.
- The more the parties have to do with eachother in the everday life, the greater is their opportunity. For then, they are also dependent of eachother and may exert pressure on eachother.
- Qualitative themes entice to harder conflict than do quantitative ones, irreversible themes entice to harder conflict than do reversible ones.
- The culture in general, as well as the sub-cultures of the public one intend to speak with, decide which means are acceptable. Some cultures accept violence, for example, others don’t.

Thirdly, confrontations have a tendency to escalate and drag along new parties, themes and aims, meanwhile making the parties less apt to compromise about a reasonable peace. As time goes, the parties invest resources they want dividends from, the collective identity is strengthened, radical utopias and aims are formulated, the conflict organisations tend to be taken over by militants who see the conflict as an end in itself and a base for their own power, and the limits for the culturally accepted means are widened. There is however also possible that it becomes clearer what divides the parties; real adversaries appear and false conflicts disappear.

Escalation may have advantages as well as disadvantages. To the advantages belong of course the prospect of substantial advance. To the disadvantages belongs the distortion of the participants’ perception of the conflict, that may increase while the conflict escalates. Conflicts are always risky. So the images of the adversary that the participants make are not always accurate; they tend to be black-and-white. Which makes it difficult for the adversary to accept any concession.

There are however de-escalating techniques one can learn from M.K. Gandhi, that makes it easier for the adversary to concede.

Alternative society

Living as if the desired changes were already there may make the changes inevitable. In carrying through the reforms they struggle for within the civil society, the participants strengthen their own faculties – practical and spiritual. And in working out public bodies according to the norms of the civil society – according to reciprocity and social responsivity rather than hierarchy and market – the movements contribute to the strengthening of the civil society at the expense of state and business. And to be sure, this is the aim of peoples’ movements.

There is however a risk here. Alternative societies that don’t care about force its norms on the majority society – don’t care about being hegemonic – will probably end up as folkloristic museums, or business enterprises, or parts of the welfare bureaucracy. On the other hand, a movement that doesn’t care about building an alternative society within the majority society will end up as an unimportant, unoriginal and subaltern ”pressure group”.

A movement that does both may gain hegemony in the nation or in the world.