Disrupting the "Quotidian": Reconceptualizing the Relationship Between Breakdown and the Emergence of Collective Action

Abstract

This article provides theoretical refinement and empirical specification for the breakdown variant of strain theory. It reconceptualizes the relationship between social breakdown and movement emergence in a fashion that is consistent with strands of cultural theory, phenomenology, and symbolic interactionism, and that resonates with prospect theory and research on collective action in a diversity of settings. It argues that the key to the breakdown-movement relationship resides in the actual or threatened disruption of the "quotidian"—that is, the taken-for-granted routines and attitudes of everyday life. Four conditions are especially likely to disrupt the quotidian and heighten prospects of collective action: accidents that throw a community's routines into doubt and/or threaten its existence; actual or threatened intrusion into and/or violation of citizens' sense of privacy, safety, and control; alteration in subsistence routines because unfavorable ratios of resources to claimants or demand; and dramatic changes in structures of social control. The relationship between these conditions and movement emergence is elaborated by drawing on literature on the emergence of collective action in various contexts and on our field work on homeless mobilization in eight cities. We close by exploring the implications of our analysis for understanding more fully the generality of various conditions and processes commonly thought to apply to social movement emergence.

Protest participation and economic crisis: The conditioning role of political opportunities

“…Piven and Cloward (1977) combined political factors and the stress of structural changes wrought by the Great Depression in their explanation of social unrest. While some elements of strain and breakdown theories persisted in these works and those of Useem (1980), Goldstone (1986Goldstone ( , 1991aGoldstone ( , 1991b and Snow et al (1998), among others, a large number of scholars challenged grievance-related explanations as they did not seem particularly useful to make sense of the new social movements emerging since the 1960s-1970s. For example, Tilly et al (1975) emphasised group solidarity as the key factor explaining collective action.…”

“…While the emphasis tends to be placed on the social construction of grievances as critical for protest (Klandermans et al 2008), some prominent studies have noted how 'objective' grievances can also be relevant (Snow et al 1998;McVeigh 2009). Snow et al's 'disruption of the quotidian' framework emphasises the role of interference with normal routines in the tradition of Piven and Cloward (1977).…”

The stages of mass mobilization: separate phenomena and distinct causal mechanisms

“…Klandermans' work has broken down the process of mobilization into several sub-stages that stress SMOs' actions and the effectiveness of their appeals in fostering protest motivation (Klandermans, 2015;Klandermans & Oegema, 1987). This process can involve: strategic framing of issues (Snow et al, 1998(Snow et al, , 2007Snow & Benford, 1992); successfully targeting and informing potential participants about upcoming events; effectively conveying the goals of the specific protest action; and helping participants to overcome logistic barriers (e.g., transportation) and other cost-benefit calculations (Klandermans & Oegema, 1987).…”

Regulatory dynamism of environmental mobilization in urban China

“…Local media reports alerted many residents to the project for the first time. Snow et al (1998) argued that contentious mobilization is more likely when the "quotidian" of people's everyday routines is disrupted. Suddenly imposed grievances, such as the construction of LULUs, are more likely to trigger public opposition than cases where health damage from toxic pollution gradually accumulates over several decades without disrupting daily routines (Auyero & Swistun 2008).…”