Organizer and Chair: Vincent G. Boudreau, City College of New York
Discussants: Robert H. Taylor, University of London; Douglas McAdam,
University of Arizona
The analysis of Southeast Asian protest has seldom utilized the social movements literature, although this latter field has recently produced several important theoretic advances. While earlier works treated protest as social deviance, recent efforts are more political, and investigate the relationships between the movement's resources, political and social environment, and repertoire of collective action. Nevertheless, since most movement theorists refine their models using American or European cases, they miss theory-building opportunities offered by the richly textured research accomplished in, for example, Southeast Asia area studies.
This panel presents a dialogue between the influential social movements literature and several important Southeast Asian social movements. Through an analysis of Burmese, Philippine and Thai social movements, the authors consider how the political process and opportunity structure models of social movements might help explain mobilization, praxis and movement success or failure in Southeast Asia. In addition, by critically examining the fit between existing social movements theory and Southeast Asian cases, the authors consider how lessons derived from Southeast Asian protest might help refine and extend the scope of existing social movement theory.
Two scholars will discuss these papers. A Southeast Asianist will provide a critical reading of the papers from an area-studies perspective. Second, a social movements theorist will comment on the accuracy of these Southeast Asian applications of social movements theory, and their usefulness in the more general theoretical effort. Hence, the panel represents a dialogue between the area studies perspective and the more general social science literature on social movements.
State Structure and Collective Action in the Philippines
Vincent G. Boudreau, City College of New York
Philippine protest has most frequently been analyzed through the individual histories of movement organizations; this paper advances a contending interpretation, which seeks to understand Philippine social movements in terms of evolving state structures and collective action repertoires. In focusing on Philippine protest from the late 1940s to the present, the paper argues that the character and outcome of individual episodes of protest and resistance depend on the interaction of two more broadly historical factors. First, changes in the Philippine state, from a weak and provincially-based institution in the immediate post-war period to a far more aggressive, centralized and extractive agency in the late 1960s, altered the structure of opportunities and constraints which social movements faced. Second, following Tarrow's concept of modular movements (1994) the paper argues that transnational influences introduced forms of praxis into the Philippine setting which altered the character of movement politics. Neither factor alone explains the evolution of Philippine collective action. In combination, however, the state-mediated shifts in the terrain of struggle, and more globally-defined ideas of how claim-making might proceed, helps shed light on the unfolding character of Philippine social movements.
The Mobilization Process in the "Four Eights" Democratic Movement in
Burma
Kyaw Yin Hlaing, Cornell University
As Burma's very first nation-wide social movement, the "Four Eights" (Shiq-Lay-Lone in Burmese) democratic movement which took place in mid-1988 is a watershed in modern Burmese history. It brought an end to the discredited-yet-seemingly-entrenched Burmese Way to Socialism and despite the continued military rule, shook political and economic structures of Burmese society. While there are a plethora of journalistic accounts, these important events have not been subjected to scholarly analysis. This paper seeks to bridge this gap by focusing attention on how Burmese people were mobilized into the "Four Eights" movement in 1988. In so doing, I will analyze how opposition groups and foreign media, especially the British Broadcasting Corporation aad Voice of America, served as mobilization resources which drew both political and apolitical Burmese living in both center and periphery into the movement. This paper will argue that the particular nature of the British Broadcasting Corporation and Voice of America (both nation-wide services based outside of Burma) provided the movement with an organizational resource which lay beyond the control of the state and transcended the fragmentary nature of Burmese society.
Lightning Strikes Twice: Thailand's Two Democracy Movements, 1973 and 1991-92
Jim Logerfo, Columbia University
There have been two mass movements for democracy in Thailand in the last twenty years, first in 1973, and again in 1991-92. The outcome of both movements was the same-the establishment of democratic rule. However, they differed in important ways, including the length of time between the establishment of authoritarian rule and the emergence of public protest for democracy rule, movement leadership, geographic scope and duration. Although scholars often analyze mass movements for democracy through the literature of transitions to democracy, this paper examines the Thai democracy movements using the lens of the social movements literature. While this literature provides significant insights into the emergence and spread of the Thai movements, accounting for some of the differences between the movements of 1973 and 1992 requires attention to factors exogenous to the social movements theories. Of particular importance are the role of economic development in changing class structure, and therefore the balance of class power, and the part played by civil society in providing crucial resources to social movements. Nearly twenty years of rapid economic development separating the two democracy movements expanded the size of the working and middle classes, and laid the material base for a denser civil society. The liberalization of the political climate in the 1980s, along with the availability of international funding, further facilitated the expansion of Thai civil society in the 1980s. The altered class structure and growth of civil society help to explain the differences in leadership and geographic scope of the two movements.