Rethinking Recruitment to High-Risk/Cost Activism: The Case of Nicaragua Exchange

Abstract

We report the findings of our research on differing levels of movement involvement by focusing on participation in a high-risk/cost campaign mobilized by Nicaragua Exchange, a solidarity organization in the U.S.-Central America peace movement of the 1980s. Our data confirm the importance of relational ties in high-risk activism, yet raise questions about the relevance of biographical availability and the unique functions of organizational ties. We argue that McAdam's model is an important advance in our understanding of the factors that facilitate high-risk/cost activism, yet its micro-structural approach does not sufficiently account for human agency and individual abilities to negotiate and overcome barriers to activism.

Individual Protest Participation in the United States: Conventional and Unconventional Activism

“…There have been a number of scholars who have attempted to examine individual predictors of disparate forms of protest participation. One well‐known line of research focuses on the distinction between high‐risk or cost protest activity and low‐risk or cost protest activity (McAdam, ; Wiltfang and McAdam, ; Nepstad and Smith, ). This line of research essentially argues that there is reason to expect that the social context of unconventional and conventional protest activity will differ and that the factors that influence participation in each form of protest will also differ.…”

“…Biographical availability, or the freedom from personal constraints that increase the costs and risks associated with participating in protest, has been an important component of social movement research (McAdam, ; Wiltfang and McAdam, ; Nepstad and Smith, ; Beyerlein and Hipp, ; Gillham, ). The existing literature essentially argues that biographical factors that are associated with social constraints, such as age, employment status, marital status, and children, will have an effect on protest participation by altering the perceived costs and benefits of participation.…”

“…Research in this tradition often focused on the structural factors that facilitated social movement mobilization and influenced social movement outcomes (McArthy and Zald, ; Jenkins and Perrow, ; McAdam, ; Meyer and Steggenborn, ; Ganz, ; Meyer and Minkoff, ). When research from this perspective has addressed individual‐level participation, it has emphasized factors that facilitate participation, such as resources, social networks, and biographical availability (e.g., Snow, Zurcher, and Ekland‐Olson, ; McAdam, ; Gould, ; Brady, Verba, and Schlozman, ; Nepstad and Smith, ). Like research that focuses on concepts, such as trust, alienation, and attitudes, this line of research has often been characterized by a lack of consensus over the factors that are important for predicting participation.…”

“…While there have been some scholars (e.g., McAdam, ; Wiltfang and McAdam, ; Nepstad and Smith, ) who have recognized the distinction between different forms of protest participation, particularly between forms characterized by high costs and risks and those characterized by low costs and risks, these studies have often relied on case studies from which it can be difficult to generalize to the broader population. Additionally, other studies have looked specifically at the predictors of particular forms of protest, such as political consumerism, but have not systematically compared these forms of protest to other forms of participation (e.g., Gillham, ).…”

“…The predictors of participation used in this study are derived from the previous findings in the two approaches to protest participation described above. These previous studies have identified numerous factors that may be predictors of protest participation, including biographical availability (McAdam, ; Wiltfang and McAdam, ; Nepstad and Smith, ; Beyerlein and Hipp, ), structural availability (Snow, Zurcher, and Ekland‐Olson, ; McAdam, ; Gould, ), resources (Brady, Verba, and Schlozman, ), political trust (Muller, ; Worchel, Hester, and Kopala, ; Muller, Jukam, and Seligson, ; Muller and Opp, ; Finkel, Muller, and Opp, ; Herring, ; Finkel and Muller, ), and political engagement (Paulsen, ; Brady, Verba, and Schlozman, ).…”