10-point summary
1. The Necessity of Militancy over Conformity The 1969 Stonewall uprising succeeded where previous riots failed because it occurred within a broader context of radicalism (Civil Rights, anti-war) and rejected the "respectable" assimilationist tactics of earlier groups like the Mattachine Society,. The event demonstrated that while "respectability" politics often fail to produce change, a rebellious, militant spirit is a necessary step to shift a movement from defense to offense,.
2. Institutionalizing the Riot Spontaneous uprisings are insufficient on their own; to achieve lasting change, the energy of a riot must be "institutionalized" into enduring organizations. Successful movements operate like a "ratchet," where militant groups push progress forward and moderate organizations secure and consolidate those gains. Without organizational groundwork, movements suffer from an "organizational gap" and cannot sustain their victories.
3. The Tyranny of Structurelessness Feminist organizer Jo Freeman argued that there is no such thing as a truly "structureless" group; informality often masks hidden power hierarchies and allows elites to dominate without accountability. For a movement to escalate beyond simple consciousness-raising, it must adopt explicit, formal structures for decision-making to ensure democratic participation and effectiveness,.
4. Gamson’s "Combat Readiness" Sociologist William Gamson’s study of 53 social movements found that "combat readiness"—characterized by centralization and formal organization—highly correlated with success,. Groups with written charters, formal member lists, and three or more layers of organization were far more likely to achieve their goals than informal, loose associations,.
5. The Dilemma of Size and Centralization There is a tension between the benefits of large, centralized groups (resource pooling, unified strategic action) and small, decentralized ones (security, high trust, participation),. While centralized groups are better at "combat" and avoiding internal factionalism, they risk co-optation; conversely, decentralized groups are resilient but struggle to coordinate complex tasks,.
6. The Efficacy of "Unruly" Tactics Contradicting the view that violence is merely a sign of desperation or weakness, Gamson’s research indicates that groups willing to use violence and "unruly" tactics had higher success rates,. Violence in successful movements is rarely the primary tactic but serves as the "spice" to the "meat and potatoes" of strikes, bargaining, and propaganda, often signaling confidence rather than frailty.
7. The Failure to Stabilize (The IWW Lesson) The Industrial Workers of the World (Wobblies) were a powerful militant force but failed to "institutionalize" their victories because they resisted signing contracts, hiring paid staff, or building stable local infrastructure,. While excellent at propaganda and sparking strikes, their lack of stability made them vulnerable to state repression, which eventually decimated their numbers,.
8. Diverse Decision-Making Models Different tasks require different structures: consensus is excellent for building solidarity in small groups, while rank-based hierarchy is often necessary for military or medical emergencies requiring rapid decisions,. Successful resistance organizations, like the Special Operations Executive (SOE) in WWII, often utilized strict professional hierarchies and compartmentalized cells to ensure security and operational efficiency,.
9. The Role of Underground Networks Underground groups are essential for specific functions such as providing asylum, gathering intelligence, and conducting direct action or sabotage,. However, effective movements usually maintain a "firewall" between underground illegal activities and aboveground public organizing to protect the broader movement from repression.
10. Full Spectrum Resistance A strong movement functions like an ecosystem, requiring diverse, overlapping organizations—from large, moderate mass movements to small, militant underground cells,. ACT UP serves as a prime example of a group that balanced these tensions, combining democratic internal processes with militant direct action and savvy media campaigns to force government action on the AIDS crisis,.