Study smarter with Fiveable
Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.
Social movements don't succeed by accident—they succeed by deploying the right strategies at the right moments. When you're tested on this material, you're being asked to understand how movements create change, why certain tactics work in specific contexts, and what distinguishes insider strategies (working within existing systems) from outsider strategies (applying pressure from outside). The exam expects you to analyze movements not just as historical events, but as deliberate strategic choices shaped by resources, political opportunities, and organizational capacity.
Think of movement strategies as existing on a spectrum from institutional to disruptive, from individual to collective, and from symbolic to material. Each strategy carries tradeoffs: lobbying requires access but risks co-optation; civil disobedience generates attention but invites backlash. Don't just memorize a list of tactics—know what conditions make each strategy effective and how movements combine multiple approaches to build power.
These strategies focus on developing organizational capacity and mobilizing people—the foundation of any successful movement. Resource mobilization theory emphasizes that movements need more than grievances; they need infrastructure, networks, and committed participants.
Compare: Grassroots organizing vs. coalition building—both build collective power, but grassroots work develops depth within communities while coalitions create breadth across groups. FRQs often ask which approach suits different movement phases or resource contexts.
These strategies work by disrupting normal operations and forcing responses from targets. Political process theory highlights how movements exploit political opportunities—moments when elites are divided or systems are vulnerable to pressure.
Compare: Civil disobedience vs. direct action—both disrupt, but civil disobedience emphasizes moral witness and accepting consequences, while direct action prioritizes immediate material impact. Know how the civil rights movement strategically combined both.
Insider strategies engage directly with power holders through established channels. These approaches require political access and often work best when movements have already built outside pressure.
Compare: Lobbying vs. litigation—lobbying works through legislative relationships while litigation uses courts to compel change. Litigation can bypass hostile legislatures but depends on favorable judicial interpretation. Consider how marriage equality advocates used both strategically.
These strategies target economic interests and public opinion as pressure points. Framing theory emphasizes how movements must win the battle over how issues are understood and discussed.
Compare: Boycotts vs. media campaigns—boycotts apply direct economic pressure while media campaigns target public opinion. The Montgomery Bus Boycott combined both, using economic leverage and media coverage to transform a local action into a national movement moment.
| Concept | Best Examples |
|---|---|
| Building organizational capacity | Grassroots organizing, coalition building, education campaigns |
| Disruptive outsider tactics | Protests, civil disobedience, direct action |
| Institutional insider strategies | Lobbying, litigation |
| Economic leverage | Boycotts, divestment campaigns |
| Narrative and framing | Media campaigns, education campaigns |
| Resource-intensive approaches | Litigation, lobbying, sustained boycotts |
| Low-barrier entry points | Social media campaigns, protests, consumer boycotts |
| Moral witness strategies | Civil disobedience, direct action |
Which two strategies both build collective power but differ in whether they prioritize depth within communities or breadth across groups? What conditions might favor each approach?
Compare civil disobedience and direct action: what distinguishes them philosophically, and how might a movement strategically deploy both?
If a movement faces a hostile legislature but sympathetic courts, which combination of strategies would you recommend and why?
How does the concept of radical flank effects explain why movements might benefit from having both moderate and militant wings?
An FRQ asks you to analyze how the civil rights movement combined insider and outsider strategies. Which three tactics from this guide would you select as examples, and how did they reinforce each other?