1998

This article examines the role of storytelling and the use of narrative framing in the social movements. This analysis aims to contribute to a better understanding of how recruitment takes place prior to the formal development of an organisation, how social movement organisations cope with strategic setbacks, and how movements impact and are circumscribed by mainstream politics. The author also provides several important criticisms of the narrative technique and suggests that it may confuse issues more than resolve them. The theoretical discussion is linked and explained using several case studies and textual analyses.

Polleta suggests that the narrative is just one of the many forms of social movement talk, and she begins by attempting to discover the nature and role of narrative. It is important to understand if narrative is always motivating of collective action, and if it is more likely to be used in periods of political instability rather than relative calm. She also feels that it is important to approach the examination with a critical eye, and suggests that storytelling is governed by social rules that may in fact make it likely to contribute to the reproduction of dominant understandings.

The author believes that narrative plays an important role in social movement talk for several important reasons. These are best analysed by looking at the role of narrative in the development of collective action frames, the: "persuasive devices used by movement leaders to recruit participants, maintain solidarity, drum up support and, in some instances, demobilise opposition." Frames are important for fostering a sense that the status quo is wrong and that movement actors are able to change the situation by battling "them." Frames are also crucial for fostering a sense of urgency and severity. Frames and narratives are not synonymous, however, and are differentiated based on the dependence of narratives on emplotment, point of view, and a limited corpus of plot lines.

Plot is crucial for narratives, it is the, "logic that makes meaningful the events that precede the … conclusion," and is the linkage between the moral and the time/place context of the events. This is different from the scientific or logical mode of cognition that attempts to mediate between truth claims on the basis of empirical evidence. The author suggests that we are especially likely to turn to narrative when we are trying to explain an unfamiliar phenomenon - though this presents some problems. The existence of multiple points of view in narratives also contributes to collective identities as participants and audiences come to feel that even if they do not know the outcome of the story, the narrator (often the organisation leader) does. This sense of unknowing can often be deliberately created and is important because it necessitates interpretive participation which can assign powers of chance or fate to tales of events that may strengthen collective resolve. Stories are also different from frames because they are limited by the number of familiar plotlines provided by the surrounding culture - every frame has an opposite side, every storyline does not.

Narratives affect movement development in several ways. The first is their role in fledgling movements, whose emergence is often described as a process whereby protest "wells up", "explodes" or "bursts" forth from a previously unaware and unprepared grassroots populace. This suggests spontaneity, which is not always the truth, but may have strategic value. Polletta refers to the events surrounding the emergence of the "sit-in" movement during the civil rights campaigns of the 1960s. Often it has been reported that the first sit-in at a lunch counter in North Carolina was the result of a spontaneous decision on the part of the students, who themselves described the decision as impulsive and, "like a fever." In reality, they had been preparing for several weeks, and had been in consultation with adult supporters about tactics and approaches. Those telling the stories "were as likely to deny conscious intent as to assent to it," and the author suggests that this was indeed a tactic likely to garner support for what could then be seen as grassroots protest.

Narratives are also important in attempting to describe the origins of a social movement. When does protest begin? When does one become an "activist"? These questions are unanswerable in an objective manner, and the author likens it to the question of when did man make the transition from animal. There is no logical answer. Narratives allow for this to be explained in personal ways that shed better light on the dialogue and activities that precede the establishment of formal movement organisations. Social movement organisations obviously do not begin with the drafting of a charter or official registration. Narratives help the initial participants to make better sense and communicate about events that are occurring that may seem strange and disruptive, such as wildcat strikes and marches.

When organisations and movements encounter setbacks, it is often narrative that is used to explain defeat in ways that might put a more positive perspective on the tide of events. The author examines the collapse of the United States Knights of Labor after the 1886 Haymaker riot and notes that they were without a "fortifying myth" that would enable them to persevere. This is contrasted to the strong sense of destiny in the Polish Solidarity movement that was afforded to them as a result of their strong attachments to Catholicism. Religious traditions are powerful additives to narrative development and can help to explain loss and defeat.

The final element of analysis is consideration of how narratives impact upon mainstream politics. In situations where successes have been achieved and movement activists gain representation in formal authoritative structures they will often have to face criticism of co-optation and will produce movement stories that will simultaneously defend their position while continuing to pressure for more changes. The author suggests however, that these narratives are constrained by social rules governing storytelling. The example provided stems from an analysis of discussion of Martin Luther King, Jr. in the United States House and Senate. African-American leaders were naturally more likely than Caucasian leaders to bring up King in speeches, but "how black Congressmen represent their relationship to the movement - how they define King's "legacy" and their role in furthering it - is crucial to their credibility" with both constituents and colleagues. Furthermore, what the author found was that the majority (65%) of references to King were directly tied to commemorative events surrounding his legacy and were rarely if ever brought up with regards to debate on substantive policy issues such as poverty or continuing discrimination. The author argues that this form of narrative is circumscribed by the institutional rules regarding storytelling in such a setting. Polleta notes that: "Paradoxically, then, the conventions surrounding narratives of past insurgency strengthen institutional politics in two ways. Memorialising dissent enables politicians to legitimate themselves as heirs of an activist past. And if the ideological work of commemoration is restricted to special occasions - occasions on which anyone can be honored …"

This is one of several criticisms that the author has of the narrative format. The other criticism is that narrative format may undermine organisational efforts to draw in members and supporters because even if uncorrupted by social rules, storytelling stands in opposition to the perception of activists as "experts" who should be more likely to present their position in the form of well-evidenced arguments. There is also the danger that stories portray unitary pictures of groups and experiences, and that protagonists may stand in (inappropriately) for larger groups or identities.

Qualitative Sociology [2], Vol. 21, No.4, 1998.