The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Contribution to dialogue on “The Systematic Study of Women’s Movements”

Contribution to dialogue on “The Systematic Study of Women’s Movements”
Contribution to dialogue on “The Systematic Study of Women’s Movements”
The comparison and change of social movement strength is of great interest not only to social movement scholars, but also to comparative sociologists and political scientists. Mazur et al. (2015) present a rigorous strategy to compare the strength of women’s movement mobilisation and institutionalisation across 13 Western democracies (Austria, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, USA) and over time (1970s to early 2000s). Their definition of women’s movements - ‘women act[ing] collectively to present public claims based on their gendered identities as women’ - has two dimensions: first, the discourse or claims of women and second, efforts of women to insert these claims in public life. The strength of women’s movements also has two dimensions: mobilisation or formal and informal structures of women’s activism and institutionalisation or the inclusion of women’s movement actors in government and quasi-government institutions. Women’s movement actors are distinguished from other women in government by their connections to formal or informal women’s organisations. The data revealed that mobilisation tended to be higher in the 1970s and that institutionalisation became stronger over time. Variations for both dimensions were found but no clear regional pattern for either mobilization or institutionalisation nor the relationship between both. Mazur et al. (2015) provide an impressive set of conceptual tools and data which is useful not just for scholars of women’s movements, but also for social movement scholars more generally. The question how mobilisation and institutionalisation are related is important for all social movements and it would be helpful to have a framework that allows to compare different movements with each other. The following comments are aimed at pushing this research agenda and to elaborate on some of the caveats that Mazur et al. (2015) have already identified.
2156-5503
695-701
Roth, Silke
cd4e63d8-bd84-45c1-b317-5850d2a362b6
Roth, Silke
cd4e63d8-bd84-45c1-b317-5850d2a362b6

Roth, Silke (2016) Contribution to dialogue on “The Systematic Study of Women’s Movements”. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 4 (4), 695-701. (doi:10.1080/21565503.2016.1212715).

Record type: Article

Abstract

The comparison and change of social movement strength is of great interest not only to social movement scholars, but also to comparative sociologists and political scientists. Mazur et al. (2015) present a rigorous strategy to compare the strength of women’s movement mobilisation and institutionalisation across 13 Western democracies (Austria, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, USA) and over time (1970s to early 2000s). Their definition of women’s movements - ‘women act[ing] collectively to present public claims based on their gendered identities as women’ - has two dimensions: first, the discourse or claims of women and second, efforts of women to insert these claims in public life. The strength of women’s movements also has two dimensions: mobilisation or formal and informal structures of women’s activism and institutionalisation or the inclusion of women’s movement actors in government and quasi-government institutions. Women’s movement actors are distinguished from other women in government by their connections to formal or informal women’s organisations. The data revealed that mobilisation tended to be higher in the 1970s and that institutionalisation became stronger over time. Variations for both dimensions were found but no clear regional pattern for either mobilization or institutionalisation nor the relationship between both. Mazur et al. (2015) provide an impressive set of conceptual tools and data which is useful not just for scholars of women’s movements, but also for social movement scholars more generally. The question how mobilisation and institutionalisation are related is important for all social movements and it would be helpful to have a framework that allows to compare different movements with each other. The following comments are aimed at pushing this research agenda and to elaborate on some of the caveats that Mazur et al. (2015) have already identified.

Text
Roth Response to PGI-Dialogue Mazur et al.docx - Accepted Manuscript
Download (0B)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 12 July 2016
e-pub ahead of print date: 9 August 2016
Published date: December 2016
Organisations: Sociology, Social Policy & Criminology

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 397993
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/397993
ISSN: 2156-5503
PURE UUID: 0fb7ff5e-56af-4e60-adc8-0dc52f333ef8
ORCID for Silke Roth: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-8760-0505

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 14 Jul 2016 08:36
Last modified: 18 Feb 2021 17:06

Export record

Altmetrics

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×