The most successful social movements deploy a variety of actions strategically to ensure success.[1] Movements that use one tactic over and over again are like a broken clock that correctly tells time twice a day—they can sometimes work, but they’re not very efficient, and they can easily lead to burnout.[2] This sort of idealization of particular tactics also creates rigidity and tension between activists who have different preferences for different tactics, preventing us from developing the creative and resilient movements that are necessary for coping with changing political environments.
It’s important to realize that no available research has shown that any one action is a surefire bet for social movement success, but many studies have shown that a limited tactical repertoire, an inability to adapt, and infighting makes movements unsuccessful. Overall, remember that tactics are tools—nothing more, nothing less—whose effectiveness varies according to your goals, political environment, and issue area.
The most effective activists have a large number of actions in their tool belts. The false dichotomy between “working within the system” and “working outside of the system” is a myth that lacks substance and hinders our ability to enact change. The most effective movements use both mainstream tactics—such as voting, lobbying, and drafting legislation—and nonviolent mobilization tactics—such as protests, boycotts, civil disobedience, strikes, sit-ins, and rallies.[3]
Cress and Snow’s 2000 study highlights the power of using a diversity of tactics. The authors compared 15 homeless organizations across 8 U.S. cities to examine the effectiveness of different tactics and strategies. They included four measures of success: gaining positions on local boards and task forces, gaining material and financial resources for organizations, securing additional rights for homeless people, and securing facilities and restorative programs for homeless people.
They compared each organization’s success against five highly effective conditions: organizational viability (meaning that the organization had been established for more than a year, met regularly, and hosted regular protest events), sympathetic political allies, support for the organization from the city, clear messaging that identified the problem the organization was working to address, and clear messaging that identified the solution to the problem. (Cress and Snow also tested the effect of disruptive and illegal tactics, but that turned out to be the most risky of the conditions and backfired in supportive cities and for movements without political allies.)
The authors found that the number of conditions organizations possessed correlated with the number of successful outcomes. Organizations that exhibited zero conditions—they had weak organizations, no allies, and vague messaging—achieved minimal results. None of the organizations that met only one or two conditions had more than one positive outcome. In contrast, of the organizations that met three or more conditions—their organizations were stronger, they hosted regular protests, they secured allies, and/or they had strong messages—all had at least one positive outcome, with half achieving all four measured positive outcomes.
Hope this helps.
