Harlan Country, USA in relation to Rose and Thomas, Walker, and Zelditch

Harlan Country, USA is a movie set in Kentucky in 1973. It centers on the working-class coal miner men of Harlan who go on strike to fight for better working conditions and pay. Naturally, they come up against much opposition, and learn that their fight for rights will be much more complicated than they anticipated.

In Fred Rose’s article, Toward a Class-Cultural Theory of Social Movements: Reinterpreting New Social Movements, he says that it is distinct class cultures that characterize social movements. Working-class movements will be shaped by the elements of their social class, rather than a particular political stance or a set of beliefs. He says that working-class movements are generally a direct outgrowth of the struggles and oppression felt from other classes, and therefore work to eliminate those struggles and produce immediate change. Middle-class movements, Rose says, tend to pursue universal goals through education and experiences learned from middle-class values, focused more on personal skills and communication. The miners in the movie were men from a struggling working-class who were tired of the lack of good treatment and respect from those in charge. Not only were their working conditions dangerous to their health and protection, but they were paid poorly and would not be able to retire till they were so old that they were already near death. Due to these injustices, a handful of men came together to go on strike and began the process of convincing others to do so as well. Just as Rose said, their initial reasons for coming together and creating a social movement came from their similarities brought about by class, rather than politics or specific values.

In Thomas, Walker, and Zelditch’s article, Legitimacy and Collective Action, they studied the likelihood of people to follow rules vs. getting together as a collective group and break the rules in order to bring about change. They found that “when change is legitimate, mobilizing collective action to correct inequity becomes a routine aspect of ongoing activity; however, when the social organization is legitimated so that change would damage collective purpose, participants behaviorally support the order by not even suggesting change in the social organization – even though it generates what is collectively defined as inequity to their disadvantage.” Several workers in the movie were reluctant to join the strike and union because it went against the rules and the norms. However, the majority of men (and their wives) saw that it was a “legitimate” cause to fight for change for. To them, once a few men had initiated collective action, it was easy to join in together and break the rules in hopes of bringing about a beneficial, positive change.

Collective Action and Identity

Reflecting on last week's posting, I realized a connection between Ms. Norma McCorvey, or Jane Roe, and the use of identity as a form of motivation, talked about in Della Porta and Diani's 4th chapter in the textbook, Social Movements: an Introduction. Della Porta and Diani say that in in order for people to be moved to join a social movement, they need to feel as though they are a part of that movement. Individuals must somehow see themselves as part of a specific collection and feel as though they are tied to the other members. The book points out that this can be a difficult process sometimes, due to the fact that identity is highly a dynamic process. Throughout our life, many things about us change, including our beliefs, our values, our outlook on life, our relationships, and our careers, to name a few. Granted, some aspects of our identity remain static: our biological gender, our height, the family we were born into, etc. Yet with dynamic identities, social movements must work extra hard to learn ways to use changing beliefs and values to their advantage, to get others to join their movement.

Looking at Norma McCorvey's influence in the abortion debate is a perfect example of this. McCorvey was once in her life a believer in the right for women to choose if they will abort their baby or not. She was a public figure for the pro-choice movement and helped bring about their victory. Later in her life, however, she had a transformation that changed the way she felt about abortion. Her identity drastically changed and she soon began fighing for the "other side"; the pro-life movement. This movement greatly benefits from McCorvey's dynamic identity because she has a story that can be shared with others to motivate them, or meet them where they are. Many people who support pro-life movements have gone through abortions themselves and now live with the pain and guilt that can be understood by spokespersons such as McCorvey. The pro-life social movement can use McCorvey to connect with others in their group, and especially those outside the group, who can relate to her and be influenced by her convergence. If people who are on the fence with their beleifs in abortion hear McCorvey's personal story that cannot be argued with, they might possibly be swayed to join the pro-life group. McCorvey also has the ability to help clearly define the boundaries between the pro-choice movement and the pro-life movement. Della Porta and Diani say this is an improtant phase in the identity construction process. Women who have had abortions and who are hurting emotionally and/or physically may deeply connect and empathize with McCorvey's story, and feel as though they are one of her and be motivated to join her in the fight against abortion. If they feel as though they are not alone and do not have to be shamed by their past, they may be greatly moved to step out and share their story as well. For the pro-life social movement, Norma McCorvey's transformation was a huge sucess. The movement is now able to apeal to those who can identify with her, and can gain participation by those who feel they are apart of McCorvey's story. Della Porta and Diani were right when saying that collective identity leads to motivated action.

Linders Article Reflection

I found Linder's article, Victory and Beyond: A Historical Comparative Analysis of the Outcomes of the Abortion Movements in Sweden and the United States, to be very interesting in that it points out the differences that can occur in the results of the same type of social movements that happen in different countries. This article examined the outcomes of social movements in the US and in Sweden that legalized abortion, and how the aftermath has taken on a seperate story in each country. As we learned in class, the social movement in Sweden had its change come about from the top-down. A committee was formed that studied abortion and was able to convience the federal courts that abortion should be legalized. The news then spread to the people of Sweden, and counter movements had less time to fight back before the decision was made. In the United States, pro-choice movements had to force their change from the bottom-up. People had to work their way through lower courts until eventually Roe vs. Wade made its way to the federale courts. Because the process that the U.S. pro-choice-ers had to go through took slow, steady work to make its way up, counter movents had time to anticipate this change and fight back. Once the government legalized abortion, many states still made it extremely difficult for women to actually get abortions; largely due to the work of pro-life movements.

By looking at the process that legalized abortion has gone through in the U.S., I think it is a very strong example of how "bottom-up" change can be a lot more challenging and time consuming for the supporting movement. When the famous Roe vs. Wade case made its way through the courts many years ago, pro-choice supporters saw an immense victory before their eyes. But was it a complete victory? To many pro-choice people, they would answer with a definite "yes." Still, the legalization process had just begun, and the battles were still about to be fought. Looking at strict abortion laws across our nation today, we can see that the war is not over yet. Due to the slow process of bringing abortion rights to the federal court, pro-lifers have been working just as hard. If those from the pro-choice social movements in Sweden were to come to America and observe the differences in our government's attitiude towards abortion compared to theirs, they would most likely be astonished. Yet the source of where their change came from can not be ignored. Their top-down strategy made all the difference in their fight.

Today, Ms. Norma McCorvey, also once known as Jane Roe, is fighting to undo the changes she helped bring about 1973. Her life took a drastic turn in 1995 when she gave her life to the Lord and had a revival in her soul. Her view on abortion changed, and she committed her life to spreading the word of the pain that abortion brings about. Many people might say that the fight to make abortion in the U.S. illegal looks impossible. Yet that is what many people once said when pro-choice groups marched in protest to legalize abortion. Nothing is impossible, we should have well learned. Time, however, will be the key variable in the fight to take back the case of 1973. Just as Jane Roe had to work from the bottom-up to legalize abortion, she must work from the bottom-up to slowly change the minds and hearts of those who hold the power to undo what she once did.