The KMP (peasant movement of the philippines) movement generation, activity, and continuity in philippine society 1

KMP: Movement Generation, Activity, and Continuity in Philippine Society
1

INTRODUCTION

Social movements are complex enduring collectivities that involve varying of
degrees collective action and mobilization, organization, and continuity, and a world
outlook that defines the range of their goals. Movements operate in different
environments. They are continually influenced by social events and processes
external to them. Movements, in turn, work to influence the same events and
processes relevant to their existence and operations. In essence, the emergence or
generation, activity, and continuity of enduring social collectivities constitute
movement dynamics. I derive this perspective from three theorists and authors whose
general and specific definitions of social movements are pertinent to my study.
McAdam (1997: xviii) defines a social movement as “a collectivity acting
with some degree of organization and continuity outside of institutional channels for
the purpose of promoting or resisting change in the group, society, or world order of
which it is a part”. More specifically, Tarrow (1998: 4) refer to social movements as
“those sequences of contentious politics that are based on underlying social networks
and resonant collective action frames, and which develop the capacity to maintain
sustained challenges against powerful opponents”. And in contrasting social
movements with other social actors, Scott (1990: 6) states that “they are distinguished
from other collective actors, such as political parties and pressure groups, in that they
have mass mobilization, or the threat of mobilization, as their prime source of social
sanction, and hence of power. They are further distinguished from other collectivities,
such as voluntary associations or clubs, in being chiefly concerned to defend or
change society”.
The persistence of social movements in the 21
st
century is instructive in that
they continue to play a significant role in society, specifically as oppositional forces.

KMP: Movement Generation, Activity, and Continuity in Philippine Society
2

Most social movement theories and approaches, however, have “analyzed social
movement organizations from a reform perspective, emphasizing movement
participants' demands to be recognized by, and incorporated into, the dominant
culture” (Fitzgerald and Rodgers, 2000: 573-574). This tendency or practice creates a
gap in comprehending the totality of social movements because radical organizations
are evaluated or studied primarily in terms of their impact to other moderate or
conservative organizations and their impact on public policy (ibid.). But radical
organizations, like the KMP, do not primarily aim to influence public policy or other
organizations. The breakdown perspective or the collective behavior theory, resource
mobilization theory, political process model, and new social movement approach,
nonetheless, offer useful guiding concepts to the study of social movements. Their
application, however, should not be mechanical to put into effect a contextualized
examination of radical social movements especially those in the Third World.
1

From another related angle, it is very tempting to dismiss the role of ideology
in analyzing present day movements. “Ideology”, as Buechler (2000: 200) puts it,
“has become an orphan in social movement theory”. Yet some of the most active
movements in the Third World today are intensely ideological (Jimenez, 2002: 56),
even in advanced capitalist countries. Moreover, “the social movement theory of the
‘end of ideology’ is premature, and it limits our ability to conceptualize the larger
role of ideas in activism” (op. cit.). Ideology likewise defines the orientations of
social movement organizations, which in turn explain to a significant degree the
nature and extent of their engagements with the state and other social forces.
In social movement studies, peasant movements and politics have received
wide attention while “literature on peasant politics is dominated by a rich and

1
See Chapter I, A (1-4) for an elaborate discussion of social movement theories and Chapter I, A (5)
and B for their applicability in the study of KMP.
KMP: Movement Generation, Activity, and Continuity in Philippine Society
3

eloquent discussion of violent peasant rebellion and revolution” (Fox, 1990).
However, after the proliferation of classic peasant revolt literature in the late 1960s
and the 1970s, organized rural struggles again threaten to become hidden histories
in the 1990s (Starn, 1992: 91-92). The situation could be attributed to at least two
reasons. First, scholars have turned their attention towards the everyday forms of
peasant resistance (Fox, 1990: 3).
2
Second, more scholars have also shifted their
focus on ‘new social movements’ emphasizing urban politics and investigating
organizations such as human rights, environmental, gender, and ethnic/racial
movements (see also Edelman, 1999: 17).
Moreover, Starn (1992: 91) critically claimed that “peasant mobilization has
received little attention in the literature on new social movements due to the greater
visibility of urban politics” (citing the studies of Touraine 1981, 1988a; Laclau and
Mouffe 1985; Gilroy 1987).
3
More deeply, “it is easy” according to him “to ignore or
dismiss peasant organizing as outdated class politics”. And as the “everyday forms of
resistance” (Scott, 1985) paradigm dominates the field of peasant or rural studies
(Fletcher, 2001), the tendency to loose sight of the frequency and force of open
peasant movements or collective radical action (Starn, 1992: 92) exists.
4

A. Background of the Study

2
Among others, I note two exceptions to this assumption. First, Lichbach (1994: 383-418) examined
three different forms of peasant struggles – everyday forms of peasant resistance, unorganized rural
movements, and organized peasant rebellions using the concept of “selective incentives” to
demonstrate how peasants solve Olson’s paradox of collective action. Second and a very recent one,
Korovkin (2000: 1-19) examined the relationship between hidden resistance and the rise of political
organization in the analysis of land struggles in the Ecuadorean Andes. The article emphasized on the
structural context and cultural underpinning of both covert and overt peasant actions.
3
See Chapter I, A (4) for an elaborate discussion of the new social movement approach.
4
I personally possess this bias in looking at Scott’s works. In fairness to him, however, his “moral
economy” perspective is “not concerned with the broader question of peasant revolution” (Scott, 1976:
194 also cited in Hawes, 1990: 264). And on his “weapons of the weak” approach to the study of
resistance, he later asserted that a “politics of daily resistance… persists whether or not there are mass
movements or rebellions and without which mass movement and rebellions cannot be understood”
(Scott, 1993: 94 also cited in Gono, 1995: 13).
KMP: Movement Generation, Activity, and Continuity in Philippine Society
4

The Philippines offers an interesting landscape for the study of social
movements, specifically those with more radical orientations. A brief look at the
country’s characteristics and historical conditions pertinent to the thriving of social
movements describes the milieu of the whole study.
First, foreign powers (Spain, U.S., Japan, and U.S. again) took turns in
colonizing and controlling the country. Centuries of colonization and decades of neo-
colonization left an indelible mark in the country’s social, political, economic,
cultural, and military system. An equally interesting part in this peculiar political
history, however, lies in the process how Filipinos responded to these aggressions. In

all historical accounts, various movements emerged and launched numerous armed
and unarmed oppositions in which peasants and other rural sectors played a major
role. This second condition points to the long and militant Filipino tradition of
peasant and nationalist uprisings and revolution against foreign and domestic powers.
Another condition conducive to protest and agrarian “unrest” is embedded in
the country’s agrarian landscape. Land ownership and control in the Philippines is
concentrated in the hands of a few and agrarian reform laws and policies have been
inefficient and ineffective in addressing rural inequalities and violence (see also Fox,
1990: 6). Peasant politics in the Philippines thrives and revolves around the issue of
effecting a thorough agrarian reform and rural development program.
Fourth, Philippine society has undergone significant political changes in the
last four decades. It has “experienced a pattern of populist and clientelist party
competition, dictatorship, and return to civilian rule” (Fox, 1990: 6). This was
followed by a regime that aimed to project a “strong state” image and perceived to
have enhanced the country’s “competitiveness” while still being captured by the
oligarchy (Rivera, 1996) and the ephemeral reign of another ‘populist’ president.
KMP: Movement Generation, Activity, and Continuity in Philippine Society
5

State changes point to another condition in Philippine society that structure the
opportunities open to social movements in advancing their interests and goals.
Peasant movements in particular have responded variably to state changes and
agrarian policies of different governments.
Fifth, organized protest has been an outstanding feature of Philippine politics
for the past several decades and social movements have figured prominently in
protest activities. Specifically, two political revolutions backed up by large-scale
street demonstrations and organized protests ousted the Marcos dictatorship in
February 1986 and the Estrada regime in January 2001. Boudreau (2001: 19-20)
captures the complex configuration of protest organizations in Philippine society.
“The most obvious distinction between movement (organizations and)

networks are ideological shadings from left to right, but the history of
Philippine protest has largely been a history of Marxist, social democratic,
socialist, communist, or liberal organizations”…
Philippine protest organizations are confoundingly involuted. Most
groups contain (1) one or more leading political organizations, representing
one vision of different shades of the same idea; (2) NGOs, unions,
education centers, research groups, and other institutions staffed by
movement organizers or analysts; (3) sectoral mass organizations; and,
often, (4) underground or armed components…”

The convergence of the aforesaid historical conditions significantly
influenced the orientation and political practices of Philippine social movements in
the last four decades. Today, critical segments of the Philippine leftist movement still
embark on nationalist and anti-colonial programmes and ideologies. Compared to
other Southeast Asian countries (e.g., Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand) and many
parts of the world, the leftist movements in this country have not been (completely)
vanquished by the state and forces that are reactionary to leftist ideals. Organized
protests and struggles predominantly emanate from these organizations. In social
movement nomenclature, this ensemble of movement organizations could clinically
be referred to as a “social movement industry” (see also Boudreau, 2001: 19).
KMP: Movement Generation, Activity, and Continuity in Philippine Society
6

B. Problematique and Objectives of the Study
This study is about KMP (Peasant Movement of the Philippines), a radical
peasant movement. The study revolves basically around two arguments. Very similar
with the claim of Fitzgerald and Rodgers (2001), I argue that KMP, as radical social
movement, should be primarily studied or investigated based on processes and
structures internal to itself – ideology and consciousness building, organization,
mobilization, and assessment of outc omes. By focusing on these aspects, radical

organizations could be understood in their own terms and best differentiated with
other movement organizations.
5

Second, social movements are a structural, historical and dialectical
phenomenon and process. Movements are structural in the sense that they are not
separate from and are continually influenced by their environment. They are likewise
historical on two counts. First, movements do not “suddenly” appear. As Isaacman
(1993: 254) puts it, “(rural) social movements are not just momentary aberrations, but
are often part of a long oppositional history which over time took many shapes and
forms, part of a larger engagement in the political world”. Another dimension that
explains the historical nature of protest is that it is not “radically discontinuous from
other aspects or periods in participants’ lives” (Boudreau, 2001: 165). And they are
dialectical because they exist and interact with other forces in society and in the
process of engagement they transform or reproduce society and vice versa.
In this respect, I employ a contextualized approach to the study of KMP and
take into account the movement’s politics at the different levels level of engagement,
the broader social processes and conditions, and the processes and structures internal

5
Fitzgerald and Rodgers (2001: 573) proposes an alternative approach by utilizing what they call as
“ideal type characteristics for the internal structure, ideology, tactics, methods of communication, and
measures of success that differentiate radical organizations from their moderate, reformist
counterparts.”
KMP: Movement Generation, Activity, and Continuity in Philippine Society
7

to the movement. The examination of these three aspects bridges the twin argument
of a grounded and qualified study of a radical social movement organization. This
approach, nonetheless, embarks on the basic concepts offered by social movement

theories like the resource mobilization theory, the political process model, the
breakdown theory, and the new social movement approach, e.g., organization,
resources, political opportunity structure, ideology, identity, mobilization space and
structures, and assessment of movement outcomes and consequences.
If organized protest has been a defining character of Philippine politics, how
do peasant social movements advance their agenda of social reform and
transformation in Philippine society? At what levels and with what means do they
carry out opposition? How do broader social conditions and processes affect
movement orientation, options, and tactics? How do internal processes and
structures shape the character and dynamics of movements themselves?
Anchored on the aforesaid problematique, the study aims to conceptualize
movement dynamics by examining the interplay of social processes and conditions
(external factors) and movement processes and structures (internal factors) at the
different levels of engagement. The central objective has three corollaries. First, I
investigate the conditions of movement emergence and development in Philippine
rural society to explain the structural causes of agrarian protest. Second, I analyze
specific processes and structures internal (but not exclusive) to radical movements to
underscore how organizations operate in their environments. Third, I probe on the
different levels where KMP launches its oppositional politics to demonstrate the
scope and range of protest that movements carry out in Philippine society.
Embedded in the problematique and objectives of the study are empirical
research questions that need to be addressed. They are as follows:
KMP: Movement Generation, Activity, and Continuity in Philippine Society
8

1. What critical social conditions and how have their convergence
facilitated the emergence and development of peasant organizations
and movements in Philippine society? What are the basic concerns of
peasant organizations and movements and to what social forces,
structures, or processes do they address their demands?

2. How have past and present organizations interacted or dealt with the
state and dominant social forces in Philippine society? How does the
changing and unchanging character of Philippine state and agrarian
society influence the range of militancy of activities and political
options open to peasant organizations?

3. What specific and general conditions contributed to the establishment
of the KMP? What are the political, organizational, and ideological
characteristics of the movement? Given its national democratic
orientation, how does the movement measure the appropriateness or
even the validity of this standpoint vis-à-vis the present state of
Philippine society?

4. At what levels does KMP challenge the state and other dominant
forces in Philippine society? How and why does the movement elevate
local peasant struggles to the national level and the national struggles
to the international level?

5. In what arenas of struggle does the movement advance the interests of
its constituent peasant organizations? As a radical peasant movement,
to what extent does it adhere to extra-parliamentary politics? How
does the movement measure the correctness of this particular political
standpoint and strategy vis-à-vis the advancement of peasant interests?

6. With what specific movement means or processes does KMP initiate
and sustain its oppositional activities? How do organizational,
advocacy and educational, and mobilization work interact? In what
terms does the movement assess its achievements in these lines of
work?

7. In mobilizing its member organizations and other sections of society,
to what processes and structure does the movement rely upon? How
do political opportunities affect the mobilization of resources, the
building and utilization of networks, consciousness-building activities,
and the organization of collective action?

8. To what external and internal factors can the movement’s continuity
be attributed and how can they be correlated? Can a hierarchy between
the two factors be established in its fifteen years of existence?

9. In a span of fifteen years, how have the tactics or actions of the
movement changed or varied? What are the changes and innovations
in the KMP’s repertoire of protest actions? To what factors or
KMP: Movement Generation, Activity, and Continuity in Philippine Society
9

conditions can these be attributed? Are they relative to space, issue,
opportunity, or organizational readiness or capacity?

10. Given its emphasis on long-term societal goals and secondarily on
short-term objectives, how does KMP gauge the achievement of
movement goals and aims? Specifically, what indicators are used to
assess movement successes/gains and failures?

11. How can the correlation between movement processes and structures
be explained at the different levels of political engagement? To what
extent are these processes and structures dependent on the levels of
engagement?

C. Significance and Contribution of the Study
The perceived contributions of the research to the existing body of knowledge
can be categorized under the following topics – social movements, peasant politics,
and Philippine political dynamics. By problematizing a radical peasant movement,
this research dovetails several important works, concepts, and theories in social
movement studies. First, the twin argument of calling for a grounded and qualified
approach to the study of KMP is basically an extension of Buechler’s (2000: xiii)
structurational approach to collective action and Fitzgerald and Rodgers’ (2000: 573-
574) “theoretical model of radical social movement organizations”.
6

Second, the consideration of broader social processes and structures are
indicative of the recognition of the role that political opportunities play in movement
dynamics. An investigation, however, of the dynamics of oppositional movements in
the Philippines would reveal that these movements thrive in mixed opportunities.
Third, the focus on ideology and consciousness-building acknowledges the
important role of “insurgent consciousness” (Smith, 1991) or “cognitive liberation”
(McAdam, 1982) in movement activity as emphasized by the political process model.
The study asserts that it is not the end of ideology after all. Fourth, the analysis on
organization derives from the major concerns of both the resource mobilization

6
See Chapter I, A for an elaborate discussion of these approaches.
KMP: Movement Generation, Activity, and Continuity in Philippine Society
10

theory and the political process model. An added dimension to this, however, is the
blending of the political and cultural aspects in the explaining investigating
organization as a movement process (Buechler, 2000: 204). Fifth, the considerable
emphasis on mobilization is inspired by the resource mobilization theory and the

creation of “mobilization space” by Apter and Saich (1994).
Sixth, the importance given to assessment of outcomes as a critical movement
process contributes to the argument that determining the success of radical
organizations is not the same with organizations of different orientation. Both
internal and external factors should be considered (Fitgerald and Rodgers, 2000: 586-
588). Lastly, the emphasis on the class and anti-colonial character of the KMP is
informed by the argument that many contemporary social movements in the Third
World are actually “people’s movements” and their struggles are a manifestation of
the “democratic assertion of people’s rights”; and this is instructive in that “the
pursuit of freedom is not over” (Mohanty, Mukherji, and Tornquist, 1998: 9-10).
From the aforesaid theoretical extensions and applications emerge the two
empirical contributions of my study. The first relates to political scaling. It critically
considers the process of linking local, national, and international issues and struggles
to one another, the impact of which impinges not only on movement processes
(ideology, organization, mobilization, and assessment of outcomes) but on how
movements take advantage of “open” opportunities and how they innovate on
situations of “closed” opportunities.
The second contribution relates to the structure of political opportunities. It
could be seen that in the political history of oppositional movements in the
Philippines, movement generation, activity, and continuity are directly dependent on
the openness of the structure. Movements could very well become active in a
KMP: Movement Generation, Activity, and Continuity in Philippine Society
11

“closed” structure (Kurzman, 19996). More so, the Philippine political structure
could be perceived to have been predominantly both an “open” and “closed” system.
In this respect, movements thrive in mixe d opportunities.
On the other hand, this study clearly calls for a renewed attention on peasant
politics – an effort among many to “elevate the peasantry from the footnote to the
page” (Shanin, 1971: 261). The Elsonian argument of the “disappearing peasantry”

(Elson, 1997) does not in many significant ways mean the end of peasant politics.
Rural or peasant movements, for instance, could emerge “involving people who may
derive a majority of their income from the urban economy, but who want to protect
the rur al base which still serves as their social security and cultural anchor” (Baker,
2001: 26). More specifically, it is a renewed effort of studying rural political
mobilization and organized peasant struggles at the dawn of the 21
st
century.
Finally, in Philippine literature on social movements and peasant politics, no
one has concentrated on the KMP as a case of academic study. Hence, this proves to
be the maiden effort to academically problematize one of the largest and well-
organized peasant movements in the Philippines and Southeast Asia. Moreover, the
problematization of Philippine peasant politics in the 21
st
century contributes to a
better understanding of the country’s political dynamics where rural forces or
peasant-based organizations continue to constitute a major component of Philippine
protest.
D. Structure of the Study
Chapter I discusses the theoretical foundations. It begins with an analysis of
social movement theories – the breakdown perspective or the collective behavior
theory, resource mobilization theory, political process model, and the new social
movement approach – and underpins the terms of their application in the study of
KMP: Movement Generation, Activity, and Continuity in Philippine Society
12

KMP’s politics. From such analysis follows the presentation of the theoretical
framework where I discuss the three components of a contextualized approach to the
study of social movements. In section three, I explain the methodological
implications of the framework while the last section deals with the limitations of the

study, its scope, and the problems encountered in research.
Chapter II presents a situationer for the Philippine agrarian landscape and
considers the character of the Philippine state. The first section basically highlights
the facilitating context and conditions of rural protest, e.g., landlessness, other
exploitative and oppressive agrarian relations, the current trend of land use
conversion, and the nature of Philippine agrarian laws and policies. The second
section presents a theory of the Filipino state and discusses prominent scholarly
works. The cha pter concludes by emphasizing the structural basis of Philippine
protest.
Chapter III provides a history of Philippine peasant movements. It begins
with a theoretical consideration of peasant politics and movements to provide a
perspective in understanding the historical emergence and development of peasant
movements. It discusses in detail the long and militant tradition of peasant struggles
throughout Philippine history. I also emphasize the patterns and changes in actions,
orientations, organization, mobilization, and other movement processes to
demonstrate their development through time.
Chapter IV introduces the main subject of the study. I discuss the emergence
and development of KMP and its facilitating context. This is followed by an
examination of the movement’s political standpoint, organizational structure and
dynamics, agenda, and strategies and programme of action to illustrate its radical and
peculiar character as a social movement.
KMP: Movement Generation, Activity, and Continuity in Philippine Society
13

Chapters V, VI, and VII deal with the empirical chapters and illustrate
movement dynamics at the different levels of engagement. Chapter V considers the
local dimension of KMP’s politics. It begins with a brief history of peasant struggles
and movements in the Southern Tagalog region and the province of Batangas and
discusses the struggle of a hacienda-wide organization to demonstrate local
movement dynamics. Chapter VI accounts for the engagement of KMP at the

national level and focuses on the activities of the national office.
In Chapter VII, I take into account the two remaining aspects of KMP’s
oppositional peasant politics. The first section discusses the extension of the domestic
(local and national) opposition of the movement. It demonstrates how the movement
launches opposition at the international level. The second section delves into the
intricacies that go with KMP’s oppositional politics. It essentially elaborates on the
practical and theoretical issues oppositional about oppositional movements.
Chapter VIII concludes the study by reviewing the basic arguments of the
study. It underscores the major findings by answering the analytical problems posed.
It then conceptualizes movement dynamics at the different levels of engagement and
reality. The chapter ends by discussing the implications of the study to future
research.
KMP: Movement Generation, Activity, and Continuity in Philippine Society
14

CHAPTER I
Theoretical Foundations
In the last five decades, the emergence and persistence of social movements
have been subject to many interpretations and theorizing. Their existence relates to
society and state in general and to specific movement structures and processes in
particular. Theorists evolved various explanations and interpretations of social
movements through time dealing with their emergence, activity, success and failure,
and life course, nonetheless characterized by agreements and disagreements in their
methods and focus. Among these, the study is particularly interested in the four major
theories and approaches to the study of social movements – the breakdown or
collective behavior theory, resource mobilization, political process model, and the
new social movement approach.
The emergence and persistence of social movements are diverse social
phenomena that necessitate a composite approach for comprehension and theorizing.
What makes social movements more interesting even is that their actions or political

practices cannot be sufficiently explained through one approach or theory alone.
Instead, “what is needed are several theories specifically tailored to particular
categories of action” (Gamson, 1982: 24). To this end, I present in the first section an
examination of various social movement theories and concepts and underpin their
universality and specificity, relative to the investigation of the political practices of
KMP. Section B explains the analytical construct used in the study and elaborates on
its four critical components, namely, levels of engagement, social political processes
and conditions, movement processes and structures, and arenas of engagement.
Section C clarifies the methodological implications of this analytical construct while
Section D deals with limitations of the study.
KMP: Movement Generation, Activity, and Continuity in Philippine Society
15

A. Social Movement Theories
1. “Breakdown” or “Collective Behavior” Theory
The classical explanation as to why collective action occurs, hence,
movement emergence, lies in the argument that society has undergone some
structural or system dysfunction. This ‘negative’ social process refers to both specific
and general breakdowns in society’s normal functions triggering conflict and people
to mobilize, e.g., deprivation of liberty, goods and services, heterosexual
relationships, autonomy, and security (Useem, 1985 cf Sykes 1958), crime waves
(ibid, cf Gurr, 1976), profound dislocations (ibid. cf Piven and Cloward, 1977),
disintegration of structures of solidarity (Useem, 1985), demographic changes
(Goldstone, 1991), competition (Bélanger and Pinard, 1991), social disorientedness
(Tarrow, 1998 cf Kornhauser, 1959) or deep and widespread discontent. Social
movements are hence a function of society’s undoings. Otherwise known as the
“breakdown” theory or “collective behavior theory”, this perspective dominated
social movement studies from the 1950s through the 1960s until the early 1970s
(Tarrow, 1998; Cohen and Arato, 1992; Useem, 1985 cf Kornhauser, 1959, Smelser,
1962 and Davies, 1962).

Useem (1985) pointed two complementary facets of the breakdown model
that emphasize different sets of controlling structures that keep people from
mobilizing for conflict. First, a breakdown causes disorganization that ruptures
inherent social regulatory mechanisms. Urbanization and migration, for instance,
dislocate segments of population creating a mass of isolated, anomic individuals
readily “available” for mobilization (cf Kornhauser, 1959 and Smelser, 1962).
Moreover, disorganization increases “discontent” within a population – individuals
develop irrational beliefs about how they can satisfy the resulting unfulfillable desires
KMP: Movement Generation, Activity, and Continuity in Philippine Society
16

and resort to collective action (cf Smelser, 1962 and Davies, 1962, 1969). Second, the
“more economically-oriented facet of breakdown emphasizes society’s ability in
normal times to meet people’s needs”. Due to society’s dysfunction, e.g., recession,
economic stability of the individual is threatened and without employment,
“discontent results, followed by protest” (cf Piven and Cloward, 1977).
Jenkins and Perrow (1977), moreover, summarize the classical model as
follows: (1) Discontent, traced to structural dislocations, accounts for collective
attempts to bring about change. (2) The resources required to mount collective action
and carry it through are broadly distributed – shared by all sizeable social groupings.
(3) The political system is a permeable structure (cf Gamson, 1968b) and that it can
respond to all organized groups with grievances. (4) If insurgents succeed, it is due to
efforts on the part of the social base and if they do not, presumably they lacked
competent leaders, were unwilling to compromise, or behaved irrationally, e.g., using
violence or breaking laws.
In a more detailed manner, Cohen and Arato (1992: 495) itemized the shared
assumptions of collective behavior theorists – Kornhauser (1959) for mass-society
theory and Smelser (1962) for the structural-functionalist model. First, there are two
distinct kinds of action: institutional-conventional and noninstitutional-collective.
Second, noninstitutional-collective action is action that is not guided by existing

social norms but is formed to meet undefined or unstructured situations. Third, these
situations are understood in terms of a breakdown, due to structural changes, either in
the organs of social control or in the adequacy of normative integration. Fourth, the
resulting strains, discontent, frustration, and aggression lead individuals to participate
in collective behavior. Fifth, noninstitutional-collective behavior follows a “life
cycle,“ open to causal analysis, that moves from spontaneous crowd action to the
KMP: Movement Generation, Activity, and Continuity in Philippine Society
17

formation of publics and social movements. Sixth, the emergence and growth of
movements within this cycle occur through crude processes of communication:
contagion, rumor, circular reaction, diffusion, and etcetera.
On the one hand, it is very true that much empirical evidence points to the fact
that collectivities or movements have hitherto acted on grievances caused by some
social strains. Grievance is always an important component of protest and collective
action. On the other hand, social maladies or society’s malfunctions are not the only
factors that can trigger protest and collective action. As it is said, a breakdown or
grievance resulting from such is a necessary component of movement emergence and
activity but it is not a sufficient explanation as to why and how groups organize and
mobilize. For instance, grievances can always be present but do not necessarily
generate social movements unless they are located in a larger dynamic of ideological
contestation (Buechler, 2002: 203). Breakdown-deprivation theories, nonetheless,
rightly identify changes in consciousness such as rising discontent and grievances as
key factors in social movement emergence (Smith, 1991).
Another basic underpinning of directly correlating protest to social
dysfunction is to treat the former as a similar social or human aberration. Society
with all its divisions does not act in consensus always. Defiance, protest, or
mobilizations cannot be crudely interpreted as a social deviance (Boudreau, 2001) or
pathological, irrational, and anomic. Interestingly, dominant social forces to discredit
movements challenging their authorities and status have time and again used this line

of reasoning.
2. Resource Mobilization Theory
After dominating the field of social movement studies, the breakdown theory
was challenged by a new strand of theorizing in the West in the late 1960s and early
KMP: Movement Generation, Activity, and Continuity in Philippine Society
18

1970s. In the U.S., social scientists focused on the process of organizing collective
action rather than on movement emergence. This theory put primacy on the resources
available to movement organizations and the ability to mobilize them as the measure
of success or failure, hence, resource mobilization theory (RMT). Social movements
are rational actors that calculate the cost and benefit of alternatives available and
necessary for collective action (McCarthy and Zald, 1976). The emergence and
proliferation of movements are basically attributed to an improvement in the status of
organized groups thereby minimizing the cost or risk of mobilization, which in turn
augments the probability of success (Jenkins, 1983).
The primary task then of social movements is to access and utilize external
resources (ibid.). By forging alliances and partnerships with government or its
institutions or political parties, i.e. liberal democratic elements, the movement is able
to access greater resources and protect itself from state repression. The openness of
the political space provides the movement resources for collective action (Goño,
1995). The strength or weakness and success, hence, of movements are heavily
measured in terms of breaking through state institutions.
In a quite utilitarian mode, the RMT clinically considers leaders as
“entrepreneurs”.
7
They are like collective action sales agents who professionally take
advantage of every opportunity to access and utilize available resources and mobilize
people in the “social movement industry” (McCarthy and Zald, 1973). Resources that
pertain to people, money, and allies (Pasuk, 2002) include movement members upon

whom leaders provide a range of incentives for action and unity, namely, material
(e.g., money), solidary (e.g., identity, belongingness) and purposive (e.g.,

7
This perspective could be traced from establishing a parallelism between “social movements and
social movement organizations on the one hand, and firms and industries on the other. The analogy
suggests special attention to issues of resource attainment, product diversification, and the like”
(Marwell and Oliver, 1984: 2).
KMP: Movement Generation, Activity, and Continuity in Philippine Society
19

fulfillment). Organizations, old or new, are therefore crucial to generate and realize
movement participation (McAdam, 1982).
In sum, Cohen and Arato (1992: 498) enumerates the common assumptions of
the variants of the RMT – Olson for the strictly individualist, utilitarian logic of pure
rational actor;
8
McCarthy and Zald for the “organizational-entrepreneurial approach”;
and Tilly, Oberchall, Gamson, Klandermans, and Tarrow for the “political process
model”. First, social movements must be understood in terms of a conflict theory of
collective action. Second, there is no fundamental difference between institutional
and noninstitutional collective action. Third, both entail conflicts of interest built into
institutionalized power relations. Fourth, collective action involves the rational
pursuit of interests by groups. Fifth, goals and grievances are permanent products of
power relations and cannot account for the formation of movements. Sixth,
movements form because of changes in resources, organization, and opportunities for
collective action. Seventh, success involves the recognition of the group as a political
actor or increased material benefits. Eighth, mobilization involves large -scale, special
purpose, bureaucratic, formal organizations.
Interestingly, some of the “weaknesses” of the RMT could be discerned by

looking at how proponents critique the breakdown model of collective action. First,
resource mobilization theorists assert that grievances are a constant and possess no
“predictive power” (Useem, 1985).
9
It therefore provides scant attention to the
importance of mobilizing beliefs, values, and other meanings (Noonan, 1995).
Changed consciousness is largely ignored based on the claim that discontent is

8
Marwell and Oliver (1984: 3) claims that Mancur Olson’s work, The Logic of Collective Action
(1965) was the building block of the RMT. Olson’s (1965: 2) argument that “rational, self-interested
invididuals will not act to achieve their common or group interests” triggered the problematizat ion of
mobilization.
9
Useem refers to the likes of Jenkins and Perrow (1977), Oberschall (1978b: 298), McCarthy and Zald
(1977: 1214-15), and Snyder and Tilly (1972).
KMP: Movement Generation, Activity, and Continuity in Philippine Society
20

ubiquitous, and therefore, unproblematic (Smith 1991). However, resource
mobilization theorists or innovators have added new variables in their analysis that
deal with the importance of social psychological factors to mobilization, e.g., frame
alignment processes (Snow, et. al. 1986), master frames (Noonan, 1995), and the
dialectic of discourse (Ellingson, 1995).
Second, Useem (1985) highlights their perception that overemphasizes the
importance of organized groups as the medium for collective action and undermines
the possibility of such action unfolding among less- or dis-organized groups. “They
emphasize protest by integrated, skilled, intelligent, organized sectors of a group, and
oppose the image of rebellion as the work of the canaille”.
3. Political Process Model

Also in the U.S., another social movement model emerged and aimed to
improve on the resource mobilization theory.
10
With less emphasis on resources, this
theory elaborated on the importance of opportunities available or the political process
that is conducive or not conducive to movement organizations, hence, called the
political process model or political opportunity theory.
11

McAdam (1997: 34) states that Eisinger (1973: 11) used the term “structure
of political opportunities” three years after political scientist Michael Lipsky (1950:
14) wrote about the vulnerability or receptiveness of the broader political system to
demands of particular groups. A major finding of Eisinger in his study of riot
behavior in 43 American cities points to the fact that “incidence of protest . . . is

10
According to Tarrow (1998: 16), the theory was a central background framework for social
movement scholars by the early 1980s. Sociologists, however, often criticized it.
11
The theoretical groundwork of this model was laid down by Charles Tilly (1975, 1978). His
contributions included the emphasis on the shifting structure of political opportunities, the
organizational capacity to mobilize, the role of beliefs and interests, the distinction between
challengers and members, understanding elite responses as typically repressive in nature, the indirect
effects of broad social change for social movement emergence, and the need to synthesize causal and
purposive explanations. But it was McAdam who systematically articulated the theory in 1982 in his
work on black insurgency (Smith, 1991; 58; Tarrow, 1998: 18).
KMP: Movement Generation, Activity, and Continuity in Philippine Society
21

related to the nature of the city’s political opportunity structure”. He defined

“political opportunity structure” as “the degree to which groups are likely to be able
to gain access to power and to manipulate the political system” (1973: 25).
A variant of the RMT, the political process model focuses on the structure of
political opportunities, organizational strength, and insurgent consciousness to
explain the emergence and life course of social movements. Political opportunity or
its relative availability refers to any event or broad social process that affects the
political system and occasions a shift in political opportunities, e.g. wars,
industrialization, international political realignments, prolonged unemployment, and
widespread demographic changes (Smith 1991).
Tarrow (1988) summarizes the main variables in models in political
opportunity – 1) degree of openness in the polity, 2) stability or instability of political
alignments, 3) presence or absence of allies and support groups, 4) divisions within
the elite or its tolerance for protest, and 5) the policymaking capacity of the
government (see also Noonan, 1995). These factors reveal how and why “strategies,
structures, and outcomes of similar movements in different places” vary.
Political opportunity is increased when there is general political instability, an
enhanced political position, and when there is ideological openness. The three forms
of increased political opportunity results into a relative increase in power which in
turn increases the probability of insurgent actions in the form of social movements
(McAdam, 1982: 41-43).
12
This process, however, should not be perceived in a
mechanical way so as to assume a direct causality. Political opportunity or the
political process, however, may not always be conducive in order to precipitate the
emergence or success of a movement. Opportunities have both “objective and

12
For a case in point as to how political process can affect the outcomes of two farm workers
movement from 1946 to 1972 in California and Texas, see Jenkins and Perrow, 1977.
KMP: Movement Generation, Activity, and Continuity in Philippine Society

22

subjective” definitions and a “closed” opportunity may hasten a revolution instead
(see Kurzman, 1996).
Moreover, the utility of political opportunities is not uniform when we
consider the particularities existing at different levels of social reality and
engagement. In Boudreau’s words, “political opportunities are relative and acquire
meaning only in relation to a movement’s social base and collective strategy.
Conditions that encourage middle-class demonstrations in favor of electoral reforms,
for instance, may not encourage farmers to occupy hacienda lands” (2001: 48). Nor
an assumed expanded political space may attract all existing radical peasant
organizations to re-channel their actions to institutional and formal-legal channels.
Organizational strength, the second component, considers five key resources
that enable insurgent groups to exploit said opportunities. First, strong integration and
increasing solidarity rather than breakdown among individual and organization
members are the facilitating forces for movement generation. Second, there are
trained leaders and existing organizations serve as their training ground. Third, an
efficient communication network enhances information dissemination and exchange.
Fourth, motivation based on solidary incentives is effective. Fifth, “enterprise tools”
are in the disposition of the organization for basic operations, e.g., meeting places,
telephones, typewriters, computers, and other facilities (McAdam, 1982: 44-46).
McAdam (1983) further stressed the importance the “level of indigenous organization
within the aggrieved population” as one of the two structural factors in the emergence
of widespread insurgency; the other one refers to the “alignment of groups within the
larger political environment”.
On one hand, expanded political opportunity and organizational strength are
necessary conditions for the generation of social movements. They constitute a kind
KMP: Movement Generation, Activity, and Continuity in Philippine Society
23

of “structural conductivity” for social movement emergence. On the other hand, they
are insufficient to generate insurgent action. To transform political opportunity and
organizational strength into action necessitates a social-psychological factor, which is
“cognitive liberation” or “insurgent consciousness”. It refers to a “collective state of
understanding which recognizes that social change is both imperative and viable”
(McAdam, 1982: 48-51). Smith (1991: 62) elaborated on the aspects of insurgent
consciousness – 1) recognition that the felt grief is actually structurally or
intentionally caused, 2) that the cause is identifiable, 3) that the grief is underserved
and unjust, 4) that unless organized action is taken the grief will continue, and 5) that
if organized action is taken there is a reasonable change that the grief will end.
In sum, the availability of encouraging political opportunities, organizational
capacity, and an insurgent consciousness all contribute to movement emergence and
activity. Any of these factors alone does not constitute sufficiently the base to
produce and sustain a social movement as “expanding political opportunities may go
unexploited because of organizational weakness, while indigenous organizations may
fail to capitalize on their strengths because of escapist or defeatist attitudes among
members and activists with a passionate insurgent consciousness may be crushed by
hostile political environments” (Smith, 1991: 64). But once insurgent consciousness
is born, it becomes an independent variable that affects organizational strength and
can further open political opportunity (ibid. 65).
From a vantage point, the political process model or the theory of political
opportunity is a considerable improvement of the breakdown perspective and the
resource mobilization theory on two critical grounds. First, while it recognizes the
critical role of deprivations and grievances in generating movements it does not
perceive protest in terms of social deviance or that grievances automatically and
KMP: Movement Generation, Activity, and Continuity in Philippine Society
24

directly cause movements to develop. Second, it deals with grievances rather than
treat them as insignificant and considers the role of broader political processes and

structures in the emergence and continuity of movements.
Noonan (1995), however, raises the applicability issue of the political
opportunity structure to Third World states that do not fit neatly into its existing
frameworks. She argues that political opportunity models do not explain why women
are actively protesting at a time their male counterparts were silenced. The models do
not have a concept of cultural opportunity structure and are not culturally sensitive in
understanding protest. They tend to neglect cultural opportunities and are gender
blind. She then proposed a synthesis between “rational” and “psychological” models
and uses “collective action frames” as the bridge.
4. New Social Movement Approach
Also in the 1970s, another perspective evolved in Western Europe, a little
later though than in the U.S. (Pasuk 2002). This approach concerns the non-classness
or the newness of social movements that emerged in the 1960s – peace,
environmental, gender, and human rights movements. The study of these new social
movements emphasizes “identity” politics (Cohen 1985), hence called the “new
social movement approach” (NSM) or the “identity-centered” paradigm, and became
a vogue in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
13

Not particularly interested on social strains, resources, strategy, organization,
and opportunities, the NSM approach is basically concerned in the struggle over
meanings or the social construction of meanings (Buechler 2000: 204 cf Eyerman and
Jamison, 1991; Morris and Mueller, 1992; Larana et al., 1994; and Johnston and
Klandermas, 1995), on cultural aspects rather than on political aspects, on micro-

13
For a brief account of the origins of NSMs, see the article of Buechler (1995) entitled “New Social-
Movement Theories”.
KMP: Movement Generation, Activity, and Continuity in Philippine Society
25

level or the every day life politics, on new processes or actors (Touraine, 2002: 94),
specifically on the rank-and-file section of movements. Buechler (2000) considers
Castells, Touraine, Habermas, and Melucci as the four major theorists of this
paradigm (cf Buechler 1995: 441-464).
14

A very important characteristic of the perspective under consideration is its
principle of autonomy from the state. Unlike the breakdown theory or the resource
mobilization paradigm, it believes that political participation only marginalizes
movements and undermine their historical (Touraine, 2002) and symbolic (Laclau
and Mouffe, 1985) character and function. On this note, Edelman (1999: 18) makes a
correlation between the “NSMs’ identity politics and its post-modern scholarship
with some of the more dehumanizing aspects of contemporary neoliberal economics”
on two grounds. First, its politics and postmodern thinking “have helped reproduce
the fragmentation of the popular classes sought by the state and the market” (cf Vilas
1993: 42). Second, “the pursuit of identity politics as an end in itself may contribute
not to the alliance-building that might temper the most oppressive aspects of the
market (and ultimately weaken the identities themselves), but to perpetuating the
divisive processes that gave rise to those identities in the first place” (cf Harvey,
1993: 64 and Castells, 1997).
One needs, however, to grapple with the context from which it was
formulated. Written in the context of a post-industrial or information society, the
struggle of and between social forces are no longer anchored on economic or political
terms but rather on issues of social norms and identity where people or individuals
are no longer workers but consumers who are manipulated by the technologies of
media and markets. As Habermas puts it, new contradictions in society do not

14
For a more succinct account and comparison on Touraine, Laclau and Mouffe, and Castells, see

Escobar, 1992, pp. 34-42.