Social Movement Gains and Losses: Dilemmas of Arena Creation

Social movements never entirely win or lose, nor do they suddenly appear or disappear. Just as their component parts recombine and continue in other forms, so movements have dozens of impacts of various kinds. To make sense of this complexity we propose examining the outcomes of political interactions for a variety of players (including individuals) across a range of arenas. Given the acknowledged tradeoffs and dilemmas of collective action, we would expect packages of outcomes to appear together sometimes; for example, gains in street mobilization may lead to losses in the form of a damaged reputation or police repression. The first step to explaining such patterns is to identify and name them. We examine one of these outcome patterns, the arena-ownership package, through the case of Seattle's historic $15 per hour wage law passed in 2014, the first ever in a major U.S. city. The players who crafted the bill included an avowed Socialist, the owner of Seattle's iconic Space Needle tower, many representatives of the city's labor movement, and the newly elected Democratic Mayor Ed Murray. These diverse players moved through a series of complex arenas to arrive at the legislative outcome. In this case, we find players who create new arenas, rather than only using already-existing arenas. This move is associated with a typical package of gains and losses: increased control for the player on the one hand, but corresponding losses and risks—the alienation of excluded players and increased perception of responsibility. The creating player is blamed for the arena's failures as well as credited with its successes.

社会运动从不彻底胜利或失败，也不会突然出现或消失。正如其组成部分会重组并以其他形式延续，社会运动也会产生数十种不同类型的影响。为理解这种复杂性，我们建议考察各类参与者（包括个人）在不同场域中政治互动的结果。考虑到集体行动中公认的权衡与困境，我们预计有时会出现一系列结果的组合；例如，街头动员的成果可能会导致声誉受损或警方镇压等形式的损失。解释此类模式的第一步是识别并命名它们。我们通过2014年西雅图通过的历史性每小时15美元工资法（这是美国主要城市中的首个此类法律），考察了其中一种结果模式——场域主导权组合（arena-ownership package）。起草该法案的参与者包括一位公开宣称的社会主义者、西雅图标志性建筑太空针塔的所有者、该市劳工运动的众多代表，以及新当选的民主党市长埃德·穆雷。这些不同的参与者通过一系列复杂的场域，最终达成了立法结果。在这个案例中，我们发现参与者会创建新的场域，而非仅使用已有的场域。这一举措伴随着一组典型的得失：一方面参与者获得了更大的控制权，但另一方面也面临相应的损失与风险——被排除在外的参与者产生疏离感，以及责任认知的增强。创建场域的参与者既会因场域的成功而受到赞誉，也会因场域的失败而受到指责。