Social Movements

Introduction to Social Movements

Social movements are a powerful form of collective action through which groups of individuals express dissent, demand change, and seek to influence existing power relations. They arise when large numbers of people develop a shared consciousness about systemic injustice, inequality, or unfulfilled aspirations. Social movements are inherently political, in that they aim to change the distribution of power, resources, or cultural norms. Unlike isolated or spontaneous outbursts like riots or revolts, social movements are characterised by sustained efforts and strategic action over a period of time. Their emergence is often linked to structural tensions within society—such as class disparities, caste-based exclusion, gender oppression, or environmental degradation.

Historically, social movements have played a central role in shaping societies. In India, the anti-colonial freedom struggle itself was a wide-ranging social movement involving peasants, workers, students, women, and political leaders like Gandhi, Ambedkar, and Nehru. Globally, movements like the American Civil Rights Movement, the French Revolution, or the Arab Spring exemplify the transformative power of collective action. The study of social movements allows sociologists to explore how societies evolve, how individuals resist oppression, and how new forms of collective identity and political participation are forged.

Characteristics of Social Movements

Social movements possess distinct characteristics that differentiate them from other forms of collective behaviour. One of the most fundamental features is collective action. Movements are inherently group-based phenomena. Individual grievances alone do not constitute a movement; what matters is the formation of a shared sense of injustice and common goals among people. This collective consciousness is crucial to mobilising people around a cause. Another defining characteristic is that movements are sustained over time. While protests or demonstrations may be temporary, movements are typically long-term efforts that involve planning, campaigns, alliances, and often cycles of mobilisation and decline.

Movements are also oriented toward change—either to bring about new rights and reforms, resist ongoing change, or preserve and revive past traditions. This change could be social (e.g., challenging caste hierarchies), political (e.g., demanding state accountability), economic (e.g., opposing neoliberal reforms), or cultural (e.g., promoting indigenous identities). Social movements also operate both within and outside institutional frameworks. For example, a movement may engage with legal systems while also organising mass rallies or sit-ins. Leadership and organisation are crucial; charismatic leaders (like Gandhi or Medha Patkar) often serve as rallying points, but decentralised leadership models (like those in feminist or LGBTQ+ movements) also exist.

Finally, social movements have an ideological core—a belief system or worldview that legitimises their actions and defines their goals. For example, the Narmada Bachao Andolan was not just about displacement but also about challenging development paradigms that ignore ecological and human costs. Thus, movements are not just protests but sites of meaning-making, resistance, and identity formation.

Types of Social Movements

Sociologists have classified social movements based on the nature of change they seek, the extent of transformation they demand, and the methods they use. One common typology divides them into four main categories.

Reform movements aim for gradual and systematic changes within the existing social and political order. They do not seek to overthrow systems but rather to improve them. For instance, the Indian environmental movement seeks better regulation and sustainable development rather than rejecting industrialisation altogether. Similarly, the movement for Right to Information (RTI) was a reformist initiative that enhanced transparency in government functioning through legal routes.
Revolutionary movements seek radical transformation and often target the fundamental structures of state or society. These movements may advocate violent means or armed struggle, although not always. A prime example is the Naxalite movement, which began in 1967 in Naxalbari, West Bengal, and called for the overthrow of the Indian state in favour of a communist regime. Revolutionary movements are driven by ideologies like Marxism or Maoism and often mobilise marginalised groups, such as landless labourers or tribal communities.
Resistance or reactionary movements arise in response to perceived threats to cultural or social values. These movements often aim to preserve traditional hierarchies or reverse progressive changes. For example, the opposition to women’s entry into the Sabarimala temple in Kerala can be seen as a resistance movement rooted in cultural traditionalism. Similarly, far-right nationalist movements that oppose immigration or minority rights often fall under this category.
Utopian or expressive movements focus more on lifestyle changes, spiritual awakening, or alternative communities rather than direct political intervention. Movements like the Bhoodan Movement led by Vinoba Bhave, which encouraged landowners to voluntarily donate land to the landless, reflect a moral and spiritual dimension rather than political struggle. Though often small in scale, such movements can inspire broader changes in values and norms. This typology highlights that not all social movements are progressive. Some reinforce inequality or seek to maintain the status quo. Understanding their nature helps us critically assess their impacts on society.

Theories of Social Movements

Understanding why social movements emerge and how they sustain themselves has been a central concern for sociologists. Multiple theories have evolved to explain the causes, dynamics, and outcomes of social movements, each emphasizing different factors like emotion, resources, structure, and identity.

a) Relative Deprivation Theory

This theory suggests that social movements arise when individuals or groups feel that they are being unjustly deprived of something they believe they deserve—such as resources, rights, dignity, or recognition. Importantly, it is not objective poverty but perceived inequality that triggers unrest. For instance, the Dalit movement in India did not emerge solely from material deprivation, but from the realisation that caste-based discrimination violated human dignity and constitutional values. Similarly, the anti-Mandal agitation in the 1990s was a result of perceived deprivation among upper-caste youth regarding job reservations. However, this theory has been critiqued for being overly psychological and not explaining why only some groups mobilise despite widespread deprivation.

b) Resource Mobilisation Theory

This theory shifts the focus from grievances to organisational ability. It argues that movements succeed not because of how deprived people feel but because of how well they can mobilise and manage resources—funding, media support, skilled leaders, and organisational networks. For instance, the success of the India Against Corruption movement in 2011 (led by Anna Hazare) was due in part to its ability to attract media coverage, urban middle-class support, and digital outreach. This theory helps explain why some movements with fewer grievances succeed while others with deeper discontent fail.

c) Political Process Theory

This theory adds a structural dimension, suggesting that movements emerge when political opportunities are favourable. These may include divisions within the ruling class, state concessions, electoral openings, or increased media access. For example, the rise of the Dalit Panthers in Maharashtra in the 1970s was enabled by political instability and the availability of a democratic space for cultural assertion. Similarly, tribal movements like the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha gained momentum when regional aspirations found partial support among political parties seeking vote banks. Political process theory bridges agency and structure, emphasising that grievances alone do not lead to mobilisation unless the political climate is receptive.

d) New Social Movement Theory

In the post-industrial era, many movements—such as environmentalism, feminism, and LGBTQ+ rights—have moved beyond economic redistribution to focus on identity, lifestyle, culture, and symbolic politics. These movements are typically less hierarchical, more media-savvy, and use new forms of protest (like social media campaigns). The LGBTQ+ movement in India, for instance, has blended legal activism (like challenging Section 377) with cultural assertion through pride parades, lms, and online discourse. New social movement theory emphasises that identity is central—not just class—and movements are as much about meaning-making as they are about material outcomes.

Social Movements and the State

The relationship between social movements and the state is complex, often oscillating between confrontation, negotiation, and co-optation. On one hand, the state is often the primary target of social movements. Movements demand that the state recognise their grievances and enact reforms—be it legal protection, economic rights, or social recognition. On the other hand, the state may perceive movements as threats to order, unity, or development and respond with repression, surveillance, or delegitimisation.

In India, the Chipko Movement (1973) forced the state to revise forest policies after public protests in Uttarakhand where villagers hugged trees to prevent deforestation. In contrast, the Narmada Bachao Andolan, despite decades of resistance, faced repeated state crackdowns and was marginalised by the “development” narrative. The anti-CAA protests of 2019–2020 are another example where the state responded with both force and disinformation campaigns.

At times, the state co-opts movements by incorporating leaders into the political process, offering partial reforms, or diverting attention through bureaucratic hurdles. While this may lead to some gains, it can also weaken the radical edge of movements. Therefore, social movements often have to balance engagement and resistance, deciding whether to work within the system or challenge it from outside.

Social Movements and Social Change

The primary goal of social movements is to bring about or resist social change. This change can be tangible—such as new laws, policies, or institutions—or intangible, like shifts in values, language, and cultural attitudes. Even when movements do not achieve their immediate goals, they often transform the way people think, speak, and act. For instance, the women’s movement in India has made sexual harassment, domestic violence, and reproductive rights mainstream topics in law, media, and education.

Movements contribute to democratisation by holding power accountable and giving voice to the marginalised. The Right to Information movement, which began as a local initiative in Rajasthan, led to national legislation in 2005 that fundamentally altered how citizens engage with governance. Similarly, the Bharatiya Kisan Union (BKU) and other farmer organisations have reshaped agricultural policy debates through sustained protests and dialogues.

Social movements also foster new identities. They enable people to move from being isolated victims to conscious actors. For example, the Dalit movement gave a name, history, and pride to oppressed castes who were earlier socially excluded. Through songs, literature, public events, and legal activism, movements redene who people are and what they can aspire to. In this way, movements are not only political events but cultural revolutions.

Major Social Movements in India

Challenges Faced by Social Movements

Despite their transformative potential, social movements face numerous and multifaceted challenges that threaten their momentum, legitimacy, and sustainability. One of the foremost challenges is state repression. Governments—especially when authoritarian or corporatist in nature—often respond to movements with tactics like police violence, mass arrests, internet shutdowns, surveillance, and the invocation of sedition or anti-terror laws. For example, the anti-CAA protests in India saw widespread detentions and internet bans, particularly in regions like Assam and Uttar Pradesh. Similarly, tribal rights activists and anti-mining protestors have frequently been charged under laws like the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), despite peaceful mobilisation.
Another challenge is internal fragmentation within movements. Movements are not homogenous; they often include people of different ideologies, classes, castes, genders, and political affiliations. This diversity, while enriching, can also lead to conicts. For instance, the mainstream feminist movement in India has been critiqued by Dalit and Adivasi women for failing to address their specic concerns, giving rise to intersectional feminism as a corrective framework. Similarly, peasant movements have at times failed to acknowledge gender roles in agriculture or the unique challenges of tenant farmers and landless labourers.

Media representation is another obstacle. While traditional media can amplify a movement’s message, it can also distort or delegitimise it. Movements are often labelled as “anti-national,” “urban naxals,” or “foreign-funded,” especially when they challenge dominant ideologies or powerful interests. The portrayal of the Shaheen Bagh protestors as either heroic or anti-national across different media platforms is a clear example of how the same movement can be framed in vastly different ways, impacting public support.
Co-optation is yet another challenge, particularly in democratic contexts. Sometimes the state or corporate sector may absorb movement leaders into advisory positions, dilute demands through symbolic gestures, or introduce partial reforms that pacify momentum without altering core structures. For example, the Right to Education Act was celebrated as a victory for educational activists, but its poor implementation has led to criticism that the movement was defanged once its legal demand was met.
Lastly, the rise of digital surveillance and algorithmic suppression—such as shadow-banning, platform censorship, and online trolling—has added new layers of difficulty for modern movements. While digital platforms have opened new spaces for activism, they are also subject to manipulation and control, making sustained mobilisation challenging.

Conclusion

Social movements are indispensable to the functioning and evolution of any vibrant democracy. They represent the collective aspirations, frustrations, and imaginations of ordinary people seeking justice, recognition, and dignity. While they may not always succeed in achieving their immediate objectives, their broader contributions to consciousness-raising, rights discourse, and institutional reform are profound and enduring. In India, from anti-caste struggles to environmental activism, and from peasant protests to feminist mobilisations, social movements have consistently challenged state apathy, market excesses, and societal prejudice.
Their strength lies not only in numbers but in their ability to build solidarity across difference, articulate alternative visions, and pressure institutions to respond to the needs of the marginalised. However, movements must remain vigilant against co-optation, fragmentation, and repression. They must also continue evolving to address contemporary issues—be it climate change, digital surveillance, or global inequality.
In essence, social movements are not just about opposition—they are about proposing new ways of living, governing, and relating to one another. They are living testimonies to the belief that another world is possible, and that history is not only made by rulers and policies, but by the collective will of people rising in hope and resistance.

References

1. Shah, Ghanshyam (2002). Social Movements in India: A Review of Literature. Sage Publications.
2. Tarrow, Sidney (1998). Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics. Cambridge University Press.
3. Oommen, T.K. (1990). Protest and Change: Studies in Social Movements. Sage Publications.
4. Omvedt, Gail (1993). Reinventing Revolution: New Social Movements and the Socialist Tradition in India. M.E. Sharpe.