Sociology · Ch 13 — Social Movements
Reformist, Redemptive, Revolutionary
Reformist, Redemptive, Revolutionary
Understanding the Classification of Social Movements
Social movements are not all the same. They differ in what they want to change and how they go about it. Sociologists classify them into three broad types: redemptive (or transformatory), reformist, and revolutionary. Each type has a distinct goal and method.
Redemptive social movements aim to change the individual from within. They focus on transforming the personal consciousness, beliefs, and actions of their members. The change is inward and spiritual or moral, rather than outward and structural. A classic example is the movement led by Narayana Guru among the Ezhava community in Kerala. The goal was to change the social practices and self-perception of the community members themselves, not just the laws or institutions around them.
Reformist social movements seek to change existing social and political arrangements, but they do so gradually, through incremental steps. They work within the system — through legislation, policy change, public campaigns, and legal means — rather than trying to overthrow it. Two examples from India are the 1960s movement for the reorganisation of states on the basis of language, and the more recent Right to Information campaign. Both aimed at specific, achievable changes within the existing constitutional framework.
Revolutionary social movements attempt a radical, fundamental transformation of social relations. They often aim to capture state power and replace the entire political and economic order. The Bolshevik revolution in Russia, which overthrew the Tsar to establish a communist state, is a classic example. In India, the Naxalite movement, which seeks to remove oppressive landlords and state officials through armed struggle, is described as revolutionary.
Most real-world movements are not pure types. They contain a mix of redemptive, reformist, and revolutionary elements. Moreover, a movement's orientation can shift over time — it may start with revolutionary objectives and later become reformist, or it may begin as a phase of mass mobilisation and collective protest and then become more institutionalised. Social scientists call this shift a move towards 'social movement organisations'.
How a Movement is Perceived is a Matter of Interpretation
The same event can be classified very differently by different groups. What British colonial rulers called a 'mutiny' or 'rebellion' in 1857, Indian nationalists called 'the first war of Independence'. A mutiny is an act of defiance against a supposedly legitimate authority. A struggle for independence is a challenge to the very legitimacy of that authority. This shows that people attach different meanings to social movements based on their own position and perspective.
Distinguishing Old Social Movements from New Social Movements
The textbook draws a clear contrast between 'old' and 'new' social movements, especially in the context of the capitalist West and India.
Old social movements were primarily concerned with class-based issues. Working class movements in the capitalist West fought for better wages, living conditions, social security, free schooling, and health security from the state. Socialist movements aimed to establish new kinds of states and societies. The central goal of old social movements was the reorganisation of power relations. They functioned within the frame of political parties — the Indian National Congress led the Indian National Movement, and the Communist Party of China led the Chinese Revolution.
New social movements emerged in a different context. Some argue that in the affluent West with its welfare state, issues of class-based exploitation and inequality were no longer the central concerns. So new social movements shifted focus to quality-of-life issues, such as having a clean environment. They were not primarily about changing the distribution of power in society.
In India, political scientist Rajni Kothari attributes the surge of social movements in the 1970s to people's growing dissatisfaction with parliamentary democracy. He argues that state institutions have been captured by elites, making electoral representation by political parties ineffective for the poor. People left out by the formal political system join social movements or non-party political formations to put pressure on the state from outside.
Today, the broader term 'civil society' is used to refer to both old social movements (represented by political parties and trade unions) and new ones (non-governmental organisations, women's groups, environmental groups, tribal activists).