This article is ostensibly a sociological examination of the role of a social movement in channelling and constituting a social problem during the conservativism of the 1980's in the United States. It looks primarily at the interaction between the Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD), US politics at the state and federal levels, business interests, the media and various paradigms of the thought about the problem of alcohol - contrasting the medical, social welfare model against the individualised morality, personal responsibility approach. It does, however, also provide some insights into the communication strategies and directions of a highly successful social movement. MADD is arguably responsible for literally hundreds of changes to both state and federal law throughout the United States over the course of a very short time period. It has also achieved widespread name-recognition with the general public and remains a powerful political lobby group. This summary will limit itself to a discussion of the factors that contributed to its success in communicating its message in an effort to maintain a specific focus.

The communication strategies of social movements are inevitably structured in accordance with their fields of interest. The campaign against alcohol and the communications appropriate for it must be considered in the historical context of alcohol and drinking problems. The author has pointed out that identification of drinking-driving as a major social problem was more or less non-existent prior to the arrival of MADD on the scene in early 1981. A social constructionist analytical framework draws attention to the process through which interest groups and social movements take ownership of a "problem" and acquire the power to define and publicise it. The viability of claims made by social movements about the existence of problems is dependent on the interaction of two factors: the first is the credibility the claims-makers; the second is the historical context in which such claims are proffered.

The credibility of MADD, especially at its outset, was impeccable. The parents of children who have been killed in drunk-driving accidents are exceptionally strong symbols. There are few groups of victims who can inspire as much sympathy and adherence as the grieving mother. And this is one of the central foundations of MADD's success. The organisation was started in August of 1980 in Sacramento, California by a woman named Candy Lightner whose daughter had been killed by a hit-and-run drunk driver with multiple DUI (driving under the influence) convictions some 4 months prior. During the criminal proceedings Lightner was appalled by the apparent leniency and lack of concern demonstrated by the justice system towards drunk drivers and the rights of the victim. The campaign began with her tireless lobbying in the initial months and a strong push to make drunk driving a political issue where it had previously not been. The first move was an effort to get a state task-force set up to consider the problem. One of the key features of the success at this early stage was that, while it did not seem like an important political issue at the time, there was also unlikely to be any opposition to the idea either, thereby making it politically expedient to support. After a process of grant seeking and securing some funds, the nascent organisation began to develop several brochures and publications that would communicate their message to the larger public. MADD soon begun to employ a direct-mail solicitation firm using a mailing list that was directed at Christian respondents, securing an attentive audience early on.

MADD's strategy was to represent itself as the "Voice of the Victim", supporting victims at the local level through courtroom monitoring and support services to the bereaved families. Simultaneously, the national chapter became increasingly media savvy, and Lightner quickly found herself giving teary and emotionally charged press conferences before media organisations that also rushed to a cause that was without opposition. It was simply impossible for any group to legitimately oppose MADD's message. Lightner was the moral entrepreneur that was essential to making the campaign work, an important distinction from other groups such as the Centre for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) who targeted the alcohol industry's massive advertising campaigns and who focused on overall social welfare rather than the personification of the victim and advocating retribution for drunk drivers. Part of MADD's success was also its language, whereas CSPI used the language of policy and targeted corporations, MADD cast drunk drivers as "violent killers" as presented images of tragedy that TV networks thrive on. This choice of targets was also more palatable to the media because it was one of personal responsibility that rather than structural problems of alcohol that allowed them to both support MADD and not jeopardise revenues from alcohol producers, who also came to support Lightner's efforts.



This process of addressing the individual and promoting the victim could not have happened however without the historical context of the Reagan era, and a moral ideology that ran parallel to MADD's message. Reinarman points out that social movement theory suggests that "the existence of compelling troubles or substantial human suffering may be necessary but not sufficient conditions for the emergence of a successful movement for public action." Even the most adept moral-entrepreneurship is still dependent on critical contextual settings. Several of which the author believes were at present during MADD's ascendancy, and which were reflected in various other aspects of the administration's policies such as the campaign against drugs and its also explicitly individualised focus (Nancy Reagan and "Just say no").



There are several conclusions that can be drawn from MADD's story about social movement communications. The first is obviously the strength of movements that can provide emotional appeals, and can provide concrete targets for action, e.g. the individualised victim/offender dichotomy compared to overall social welfare. It is also important to note that this movement found widespread support amongst other interests because it provided a no-lose opportunity (for politicians) or diverted attention away from another groups role in the problem (for the alcohol industry). It is also important to point out how MADD was able to construct this problem, and the necessity of the context in facilitating its overall success.

Note: This article is not available online. Please see the journal from which it comes for access to the full article.

Theory and Society, Vol. 17, No. 1 (January 1988), pp. 91-120