Qualitative Sociology

, Volume 41, Issue 1, pp 111–133 | Cite as

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

Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Protest Radical flank effects Social movement outcomes Radical flank dilemma Factionalism Radical animal rights movement 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Qualitative Sociology’s Editor-in-Chief David Smilde and the three anonymous reviewers who provided thoughtful comments and suggestions that helped improve the original manuscript.

References

  1. Baron, David P., and Daniel Diermeier. 2007. Strategic activism and non-market strategy. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 16 (3): 599–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beach, Derek, and Rasmus B. Pedersen. 2013. Process-tracing methods: Foundations and guidelines. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Best, Steven, and Anthony J. Nocella. 2004. Terrorists or freedom fighters? Reflections on the liberation of animals. New York: Lantern Books.Google Scholar
  4. Bosi, Lorenzo. 2006. The dynamics of social movement development: Northern Ireland’s civil rights movement in the 1960s. Mobilization: An International Quarterly 11 (1): 81–100.Google Scholar
  5. Cabric, Marko. 2015. Corporate security management: Challenges, risks, and strategies. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
  6. della Porta, Donatella, and Mario Diani. 2006. Social movements: An introduction. 2nd ed. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  7. della Porta, Donatella, and Herbert Reiter. 2016. The policing of transnational protest: A conclusion. In The policing of transnational protest, ed. Donatella della Porta, Abby Peterson, and Herbert Reiter, 2nd ed., 175–189. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  8. della Porta, Donatella, and Dieter Rucht. 1995. Left-libertarian movements in context: A comparison of Italy and West Germany, 1965-1990. In The politics of social protest: Comparative perspectives on states and social movements, ed. Bert Klandermans and Craig Jenkins, 229–272. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  9. Diermeier, Daniel, and Jan A. Van Mieghem. 2005. Stochastic model of consumer boycotts. Working paper series: Center for operations and supply chain management. Kellogg School of Management. Evanston: Northwestern University.Google Scholar
  10. Donovan, John, and Richard Timothy Coupe. 2013. Animal rights extremism: Victimization, investigation and detection of a campaign of criminal intimidation. European Journal of Criminology 10 (1): 113–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Downey, Dennis J., and Deana A. Rohlinger. 2008. Linking strategic choice with macroorganizational dynamics: Strategy and social movement articulation. Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change 28: 3–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Duyvendak, Jan Willem, and James M. Jasper. 2015. Breaking down the state: Protestors engaged. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Earl, Jennifer, and R. Kelly Garrett. 2017. The new information frontier: Toward a more nuanced view of social movement communication. Social Movement Studies 16 (4): 479–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ellefsen, Rune. 2016a. Judicial opportunities and the death of SHAC: Legal repression along a cycle of contention. Social Movement Studies 15 (5): 441–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ellefsen, Rune. 2016b. Relational dynamics of protest and protest policing: Strategic interaction and the coevolution of targeting strategies. Policing and Society.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2016.1262366.
  16. Europol. 2010. Animal rights extremism: Quarterly bulletin. October–December 2010. https://www.europol.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publications/redacted_animal_rights_extremism_quarterly_bulletin_-_knowledge_product_edoc712257.pdf. Accessed 22 Jan 2016
  17. Fligstein, Neil, and Doug McAdam. 2012. A theory of fields. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Glasser, Carol Lynn. 2011. Moderates and radicals under repression: The U.S. animal rights movement, 1990–2010. Doctoral thesis, Department of Sociology University of California, Irvine, CA (USA)Google Scholar
  19. Guither, Harold D. 1998. Animal rights: History and scope of a new radical social movement. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Gupta, Devashree. 2002. Radical flank effects: The effect of radical-moderate splits in regional nationalist movements. Working paper, presented at the Conference of Europeanists, Chicago, IL, March 14–16.Google Scholar
  21. Gupta, Devashree. 2007. Selective engagement and its consequences for social movement organizations: Lessons from British policy in Northern Ireland. Comparative Politics 39 (3): 331–351.Google Scholar
  22. Gupta, Devashree. 2013. The strategic logic of the radical flank effect: Theorizing power in divided social movements. Paper presented to the annual meeting of Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, March 30 – April 3.Google Scholar
  23. Haines, Herbert H. 1984. Black radicalization and the funding of civil rights: 1957–1970. Social Problems 32 (1): 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Haines, Herbert H. 2013. Radical flank effects. In The Wiley-Blackwell encyclopedia of social and political movements, eds. David A. Snow, Donatella della Porta, Bert Klandermans, and Doug McAdam. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  25. Hedström, Peter, and Richard Svedberg. 1996. Social mechanisms. Acta Sociologica 39 (3): 281–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Home Office. 2001. Animal rights extremists: Consultation document. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  27. Huband, Mark. 2003. Activists pose big threat, bosses warns. Financial Times, 30 May. http://www.markhuband.com/author/markhub/page/5/ Accessed 2 Jan 2018
  28. Jasper, James M. 1997. The art of moral protest: Culture, biography and creativity in social movements. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jasper, James M. 2004. A strategic approach to collective action: Looking for agency in social movement choices. Mobilization 9 (1): 1–16.Google Scholar
  30. Jasper, James M. 2006. Getting your way: Strategic dilemmas in the real world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jasper, James M. 2012. Introduction: From political opportunity structures to strategic action. In Contention in context, ed. Jeff Goodwin and James M. Jasper, 1–36. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Jasper, James M., and Jan Willem Duyvendak. 2015. Players and arenas: The interactive dynamics of protest. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Jasper, James M., and Jane Poulsen. 1993. Fighting back: Vulnerabilities, blunders, and countermobilization by the targets in three animal rights campaigns. Sociological Forum 8 (4): 639–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jonas, Kevin. 2004. Bricks and bullhorns. In Terrorists or freedom fighters? ed. Steve Best and Anthony J. Nocella, 263–271. New York: Lantern Books.Google Scholar
  35. Lapadat, Judith C. 2010. Thematic analysis. In Encyclopedia of case study research, ed. Albert J. Mills, Gabrielle Durepos, and Elden Wiebe, 925–927. Los Angeles: SAGE.Google Scholar
  36. Liddick, Donald R. 2006. Eco-terrorism: Radical environmental and animal liberation movements. Westport. Praeger.Google Scholar
  37. Lovitz, Dara. 2010. Muzzling a movement: The effects of anti-terrorism law, money, and politics on animal activism. New York: Lantern Books.Google Scholar
  38. Mann, Keith. 2007. From dusk till dawn: An insider’s view of the growth of the animal liberation movement. London: Puppy pincher Press.Google Scholar
  39. McAdam, Doug. 1983. Tactical innovation and the pace of insurgency. American Sociological Review 48 (6): 735–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McAdam, Doug, and Sidney Tarrow. 2011. Introduction: Dynamics of contention ten years on. Mobilization 16 (1): 1–10.Google Scholar
  41. McAdam, Doug, Sidney Tarrow, and Charles Tilly. 2001. Dynamics of contention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McCammon, Holly, Erin M. Bergner, and Sandra C. Arch. 2015. “Are you one of those women?” Within-movement conflict, radical flank effects, and social movement political outcomes. Mobilization 20 (2): 157–178.Google Scholar
  43. Metcalfe, David. 2008. The protest game: Animal rights protests and the life sciences industry. Negotiation Journal 24 (2): 125–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mills, Gordon. 2012. Assessing the challenge of policing animal rights extremism in the UK and the changing impact on community safety and human rights in the period 2004–2010. Doctoral thesis, London Metropolitan University, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities.Google Scholar
  45. Mills, Gordon. 2016. “Injunctivitis”: A blurring of the policing of protest or a vision of the way ahead? International Journal of Police Science & Management 17 (2): 128–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Monaghan, Rachel. 2013. Not quite terrorism: Animal rights extremism in the United Kingdom. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 36 (11): 933–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Moore, Kelly and Benjamin Shepard. 2013. Direct action. The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social and Political Movements.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470674871.wbespm431.
  48. Moreton, Cole. 2001. Animal rights: The campaigners: “Before we target anywhere, we research it thoroughly.” Independent on Sunday p.19. 21 January.Google Scholar
  49. Munro, Lyle. 2005. Confronting cruelty: Moral orthodoxy and the challenge of the animal rights movement. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishing.Google Scholar
  50. Peachey, Paul. 2014. Animal rights group ends 15-year campaign against experiments at Huntingdon. The Independent, 23 August. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/animal-rights-group-ends-15-year-campaign-against-experiments-at-huntingdon-9687843.html. Accessed 16 August 2017.
  51. Piven, Frances Fox. 2006. Challenging authority: How ordinary people change America. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  52. Potter, Will. 2011. Green is the new red: An insiderʼs account of a social movement under siege. San Francisco: City Lights Publishers.Google Scholar
  53. Robnett, Belinda, Carol L. Glasser, and Rebecca Trammell. 2015. Waves of contention: Relations among radical, moderate, and conservative movement organizations. In Research in social movements, conflicts and change, ed. Patrick G. Coy, vol. 38, 69–101. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rucht, Dieter. 2004. Movement allies, adversaries, and third parties. In The Blackwell companion to social movements, ed. David A. Snow, Sarah A. Soule, and Hanspeter Kriesi, 197–216. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  55. Scarce, Rik. 2006. Eco-warriors: Understanding the radical environmental movement. 2nd ed. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
  56. SHAC. 2014. Introduction to SHAC. http://shac.net/SHAC/shac_intro.html. Accessed 16 May 2014.
  57. Singer, Peter. 1985. Ethics and the new animal liberation movement. In Defense of animals, ed. Peter Singer, 1–10. New York: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  58. Tarrow, Sidney G. 2011. Power in movement. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Taylor, Bron, ed. 1995. Ecological resistance movements: The global emergence of radical and popular environmentalism. New York: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  60. Tilly, Charles. 2005. Popular contention in Great Britain, 1758–1834. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  61. Tilly, Charles, and Sidney Tarrow. 2007. Contentious politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Upton, Andrew. 2011. Contingent communication in a hybrid multi-media world: Analysing the campaigning strategies of SHAC. New Media & Society 13 (1): 96–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Upton, Andrew. 2012. “Go on, get out there, and make it happen”: Reflections on the first ten years of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC). Parliamentary Affairs 65 (1): 238–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Waldron, Theodore Leonard. 2010. Activist attack strategies. Doctoral thesis, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA.Google Scholar
  65. Zald, Mayer N., and Roberta Ash. 1966. Social movement organizations: Growth, decay and change. Social Forces 44 (3): 327–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Zald, Mayer N., and John D. McCarthy. 1979. Social movement industries: Competition and cooperation among movement organizations. CRSO working paper no. 201. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Center for Research on Social OrganizationsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Criminology and Sociology of LawOslo UniversityOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations