scholarly journals Aaron Schutz and Marie G. Sandy, Collective Action for Social Change: An Introduction to Community Organizing.

2014 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 107-110
Author(s):  
Jorge Manuel Sousa
2022 ◽  
pp. 65-96
Author(s):  
Aaron Schutz

Universities teach students about social problems but provide few concrete tools for acting to promote social change. Teaching about challenges but not about possible solutions can be potentially disempowering and may reduce civic agency. This chapter discusses the development of a required class on community organizing and civil resistance that provides students with specific strategies for engaging in collective action. The author explores a range of tensions involved in teaching this class: making it experiential without forcing students to work on issues or take steps they might not agree with, providing multiple traditions of social action so they do not get the sense that there is one “right” way, working with students whose perspectives might differ from ones he sees as legitimate, and teaching a class that some outside the institution might see as beyond the purview of a university. Ultimately, he argues that it is incumbent upon universities to provide concrete skills for social action, because failing to do so restricts their capacity to become effective civic actors in our democracy.


2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 893-912 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hema Preya Selvanathan ◽  
Pirathat Techakesari ◽  
Linda R. Tropp ◽  
Fiona Kate Barlow

Advantaged group members have an important role to play in creating social change, and intergroup contact has tremendous implications in shaping intergroup relations. However, little research has examined how intergroup contact predicts advantaged group members’ inclinations toward collective action to support the interests of disadvantaged groups. The present research investigates how contact with Black Americans shapes White Americans’ willingness to engage in collective action for racial justice and support for the Black Lives Matter movement. Three studies of White Americans (total N = 821) consistently reveal that positive contact with Black Americans predicts greater support for collective action through a sequential process of fostering greater feelings of empathy for Black Americans and anger over injustice. These findings hold even when taking into account other relevant psychological factors (i.e., White guilt and identification, negative contact, group efficacy, and moral convictions). The present research contributes to our understanding of how advantaged group members come to engage in social change efforts.


2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 678-689 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tamar Saguy ◽  
Hanna Szekeres

Even though social change efforts are largely aimed at impacting upon public opinion, there is an overwhelming scarcity of research on the potential consequences of collective action. We aimed to fill this gap by capitalizing on the widespread 2017 Women’s March that developed across the US and worldwide in response to Donald Trump’s inauguration. We assessed changes in gender system justification of men and women over time—before and right after the Women’s March ( N = 344). We further considered participants’ level of gender identification and reported levels of exposure to the march as predictors of change. Results showed that gender system justification decreased over time, but only among low-identified men with relatively high exposure to the protests. For men highly identified with their gender, gender system justification actually increased with greater exposure to the protests. For women, we did not observe changes in gender system justification. Implications for collective action and for gender relations are discussed.


2012 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
pp. 451-466 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Dixon ◽  
Mark Levine ◽  
Steve Reicher ◽  
Kevin Durrheim

AbstractThis response clarifies, qualifies, and develops our critique of the limits of intergroup liking as a means of challenging intergroup inequality. It does not dispute that dominant groups may espouse negative attitudes towards subordinate groups. Nor does it dispute that prejudice reduction can be an effective way of tackling resulting forms of intergroup hostility. What it does dispute is the assumption that getting dominant group members and subordinate group members to like each other more is the best way of improving intergroup relations that are characterized by relatively stable, institutionally embedded, relations of inequality. In other words, the main target of our critique is the model of change that underlies prejudice reduction interventions and the mainstream concept of “prejudice” on which they are based.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document