sop.2006.49.3.297

7/30/2019 sop.2006.49.3.297

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sop2006493297 1/29

Pacific Sociological Association

Patterns of Mobilization in Local Movement Organizations: Leadership and Strategy in FourNational Organization for Women ChaptersAuthor(s): Jo Reger, Suzanne StaggenborgSource: Sociological Perspectives, Vol. 49, No. 3 (Fall 2006), pp. 297-323Published by: University of California Press

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/sop.2006.49.3.297 .

Accessed: 28/08/2013 15:52

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of California Press and Pacific Sociological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access to Sociological Perspectives.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 64.76.142.170 on Wed, 28 Aug 2013 15:52:14 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucal

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/sop.2006.49.3.297?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/sop.2006.49.3.297?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucal

7/30/2019 sop.2006.49.3.297


Sociological Perspectives

, Vol. 49, Issue 3, pp. 297–323, ISSN 0731-1214, electronic ISSN 1533-8673.

© 2006 by Pacific Sociological Association. All rights reserved. Please direct all requests for permission to photo-copy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press’s Rights and Permissions website, at

http://www.ucpress.edu/journals/rights.htm.

PATTERNS OF MOBILIZATION IN LOCALMOVEMENT ORGANIZATIONS: LEADERSHIP

AND STRATEGY IN FOUR NATIONALORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN CHAPTERS

JO REGER*

Oakland University

SUZANNE STAGGENBORG

McGill University

ABSTRACT:

This article focuses on the organizational strategies of fourlocal chapters of the National Organization for Women (NOW) acrossthree decades. The goal is to explain differences in chapters’ abilities toremain active and to survive over time by examining their overall patternsof mobilization. The authors argue that the ability to maintain organiza-tional stability and collective action is influenced by internal organiza-tional characteristics and strategies, such as leadership, mobilizingtactics, and organizational structure, as well as by external factors. Two of the chapters, New York City and Chicago NOW, have remained relativelystable throughout their histories and continue to survive. The other two,in Cleveland, Ohio, and Bloomington, Indiana, experienced dramatic ups

and downs during their histories and ultimately declined. The authorsargue that leadership and organizational choices influence these patterns of chapter mobilization.

Social movement organizations (SMOs) go through periods characterized bydifferent levels of mobilization, ranging from “white-hot mobilization” (Lofland1979) to “abeyance” (Taylor 1989) or decline. The patterns of mobilization experi-enced by SMOs do not always correspond to larger cycles of contention, whichare influenced by political opportunities (Tarrow 1998). Some movement organi-

zations decline during an active protest cycle, while others survive beyond thedecline of the larger cycle of contention. We argue that the ability to maintainorganizational stability and collective action is influenced by internal organizationalcharacteristics and strategies as well as by external factors. How a movement

*Direct all correspondence to: Jo Reger, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Oakland University, Rochester,

MI 48309; e-mail:

[email protected]. The authors contributed equally to the research and writing of this article.





7/30/2019 sop.2006.49.3.297


298 SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES Volume 49, Number 3, 2006

responds to its environment is, in part, a function of the organizing strategiesadopted by SMOs (Ganz 2000; Minkoff 1999).

In this article, we focus on the organizational strategies of four local chapters of

the National Organization for Women (NOW) across three decades. Few studieshave looked at local NOW chapters (Gilmore 2003; Hyde 1995; Reger 2001, 2002a,2002b; Staggenborg 1989, 1991, 1998; Whittier 1995), which vary greatly in size,structure, and level of mobilization, despite their common membership in thelargest U.S. feminist organization. Research on local movement organizations isimportant because local activism is not only influenced by national developmentsand organizations but contributes to the maintenance and success of nationalmovements (cf. Andrews and Edwards 2005). NOW owes much of its vitality andinfluence to its grassroots activism (Barakso 2004), and it is important to under-stand the successes and limitations of local efforts to understand national out-

comes. Our goal in this article is to explain differences in chapters’ abilities toremain active and to survive over time by examining their overall patterns of mobilization. In doing so, we aim to contribute to broader efforts to understandthe continuing vitality of the women’s movement and the dynamics of feministorganizations (Ferree and Martin 1995).

Our analysis of the differing fates of local chapters demonstrates the impor-tance of political agency—the impact of leadership and strategy—in addition topolitical opportunity. Two of the chapters that we examine, New York City andChicago NOW, have remained relatively stable throughout their histories andcontinue to survive. The other two, in Cleveland, Ohio, and Bloomington, Indiana,

experienced dramatic ups and downs during their histories and ultimatelydeclined. We argue that leadership and organizational choices influence thesepatterns of chapter mobilization. We begin with a theoretical discussion of orga-nizational factors that affect SMO vitality and stability. After a discussion of ourdata and methods, we provide a brief description of the mobilization patterns of our four chapters in the context of national developments in NOW. We then discussthe ways in which leadership, organizational structures, and mobilizing tacticscreate variations in levels of activity and organizational continuity.

ORGANIZATIONAL FACTORS IN MOVEMENT MOBILIZATION

Large-scale political opportunities and other environmental factors are undeni-ably important influences on movement tactics, effectiveness, and longevity.Studies have shown how external factors such as political opportunity structuresand cultural contexts shape movement emergence, growth, and decline (McAdam1982; Tarrow 1998), and how movement organizations alter their structures inresponse to changes in the political environment (e.g., Hyde 1995; Staggenborg1991). Less attention has been paid to how factors internal to SMOs, includingleadership, organizational structure, and strategic choices, interact with externaldevelopments to affect mobilization.

Changes in leadership in social movements can alter organizational culture and

structures, rates of mobilization, and strategies and tactics (see Aminzade, Goldstone,and Perry 2001; Barker, Johnson, and Lavalette 2001; Ganz 2000; Morris and





7/30/2019 sop.2006.49.3.297


Patterns of Mobilization in Local Movement Organizations

299

Staggenborg 2004; Robnett 1997). In a study comparing American unions thatrevitalized in the 1990s with other unions, Voss and Sherman (2000) found thatpolitical crises brought new leaders with experience in other social movements

into the revitalized unions and that these leaders innovated new organizing pro-grams and tactics. In the American women’s movement, leaders with different

backgrounds, ideologies, and styles of leadership have created different organiza-tional structures and influenced the ability of organizations to achieve goals andrespond to external changes (Freeman 1975; Roth 2004; Scott 2005). Disney andGelb (2000) found that individual leaders were critical to the survival of U.S.women’s movement organizations, which responded to external changes in thepolitical environment with such organizational changes as diversification of fund-ing sources, expansion of feminist agendas, and constant renegotiation of struc-tures to enhance communication and adjust decision-making power among board,

staff, and members.Ganz (2000) points to the critical role of formal or informal “leadership teams” in

movement organizations. He argues that the most creative and innovative leaderswork in diverse teams in organizations that allow for interaction, debate, and delib-eration among participants. Connections among leaders that facilitate informationgathering help to create a wider repertoire of strategies, promote coordination

between national and local strategies, and encourage interorganizational coopera-tion and coalition work. Teams consisting of both “insiders” with links to constit-uencies and “outsiders” with normative or professional commitments, of leaderswith strong and weak ties to constituencies, and leaders with diverse repertoires of

collective action have the greatest “strategic capacity” (Ganz 2000:1015).Although leaders can influence organizational structures, some structures are better able than others to attract diverse leaders and provide forums for creativestrategic discussions (Ganz 2000:1041). Numerous studies have examined the effectsof different types of organizational structures and, in particular, the merits of for-malization and centralization (Gamson 1990; Piven and Cloward 1977). Studies of feminist organizations have been particularly important in identifying variousfeatures of organizational structures and strategies that affect survival and effec-tiveness (e.g., Baker 1982; Freeman 1972; Riger 1984; Staggenborg 1989). Aware of the problems in creating lasting and effective organizations, feminists since thelate 1960s and early 1970s have increasingly experimented with “hybrid” forms of

organization (Bordt 1997) that combine elements of formalization and collectiv-ism and provide mechanisms for democratic participation and accountability.Participatory organizations have struggled to create inclusive and democraticgroups that allow for learning from others as well as equality (Polletta 2002).

In addition to effective leadership and workable structures, the strategic andtactical choices of organizations are essential to cycles of activism. We define a

mobilizing tactic

as one chosen for its potential influence on recruitment and orga-nizational maintenance. Both external strategies and tactics, aimed at achievingmovement goals, and internal strategies and tactics, intended primarily to buildorganizations and attract participants, are important in generating collective

action and maintaining organizations (see Lofland 1979; McAdam 1982; Schmittand Martin 1999; Voss and Sherman 2000).





7/30/2019 sop.2006.49.3.297



In the following analysis, we examine the relationships among key organiza-tional factors and patterns of mobilization in the context of environmentalchanges. We argue that leaders play a critical role in shaping organizational struc-

tures, creating mobilizing tactics, and devising strategies of collective action.When leaders and other participants create an organizational structure that sup-ports leadership teams, they enhance their ability to attract and develop newleaders. Once leadership teams are in place, it is easier to retain long-term leaders

because they receive the support they need for long-term commitments. Leader-ship teams also provide for relationships of tutelage, which develop new leader-ship, and they produce better strategies, including mobilizing tactics that help toattract new participants. A continual supply of new participants helps to reinvig-orate leadership teams, which are then able to produce new strategies. We expectSMOs with structures that provide continuity of leadership and resources, while

including rank-and-file members in decision making, to maintain the most con-tinuous levels of activity—responding to political opportunities and nationalcampaigns with high levels of mobilization and remaining at least moderatelyactive during less favorable times.

DATA AND METHODS

The four NOW chapters that we compare are not a representative or purposivesample of NOW chapters. Each of us had previously studied two chapters, andwe decided it would be useful to compare the four cases. Comparison of cases in

the literature is an important means of advancing theory (see Vaughan 1992),although one of the difficulties in doing so is that the case studies are not alwayscomparable. To deal with differences in time periods of the studies, we updateddata on Chicago NOW with newsletters from the 1980s to the present and withrecent information from the organization’s website. Organizational newslettersand interviews with chapter participants are the primary data sources for all fourchapters. For the Chicago, Cleveland, and New York City chapters, additionaldocuments relating to chapter strategies, campaigns, and levels of mobilizationwere available in various archives.

1

These documents, dating from 1966 to 1995,contain information on national, regional, state, and chapter activities. Each collec-tion contains newsletters and documents from the national organization, personal

correspondence, minutes of meetings, bylaws of the chapter, and publicationsfrom feminist organizations. The documents provide information on the historyof the chapters, organizational activities, and events. For Bloomington NOW, suchdocuments have not been preserved, but accounts from the local newspaper andissues of two feminist newspapers (published from 1973 to 1981) were used tosupplement newsletters and interviews.

In-depth interviews were conducted with past and (at the time of the studies)current participants in all of the chapters, although the number of interviewsvaried, with three Chicago NOW activists, ten Bloomington NOW activists,twelve Cleveland NOW activists, and thirteen New York City NOW activists.

2

Respondents were identified and recruited through key chapter contacts, snow- ball procedures, and blind letters and phone calls using names from documents





7/30/2019 sop.2006.49.3.297



301

and newsletters. Informants were sought out to cover different periods of timein the chapters’ histories. For the Chicago and Bloomington chapters, all infor-mants were persons who were highly active at one time; some were chapter

presidents. For the Cleveland and New York chapters, informants had allplayed leadership roles in their respective chapters and were therefore able toreport on the use of strategy and state of organizational mobilization. For allfour chapters, interviews were open-ended and semistructured, with most last-ing approximately an hour and a half. Interview questions addressed the natureof the women’s participation in the chapter, leadership styles, organizationalchanges, strategies and tactics, and the activity level and general state of thechapter (including characterizations of membership).

For each chapter, we constructed histories and plotted out peaks and declinesin member mobilization. We estimated levels of mobilization by qualitatively

assessing the activities of each chapter over time using newsletter, newspaper,and leadership accounts of resources (e.g., budgets, active and paper member-ship) and activities (e.g., committee and program meetings, calls for volunteers,rallies and demonstrations, involvement in external campaigns, and overallevents scheduled). We also constructed a timeline for national NOW and assessedits mobilization levels based on available information on NOW membership,financial assets, and number of chapters, together with newsletter and otheraccounts of national actions. Drawing on the concepts of organizational abeyance(Taylor 1989) and white-hot mobilization (Lofland 1979), we constructed a scale of 0 to 5 to indicate levels of mobilization with 0 being no activity; 1, a state of abey-

ance (focus solely on organizational maintenance); 2, minimal mobilization (orga-nizational maintenance with very few externally focused activities); 3, moderatemobilization (organizational maintenance with a fair number of externallyfocused activities); 4, high mobilization (a steady mixture of organizational main-tenance and many externally focused activities); and 5, white-hot mobilization(extremely high levels of recruitment and externally focused activities).

Although a full consideration of patterns of activism in national NOW is beyond the scope of this article, we compare the major peaks and valleys of thenational organization with those of local chapters to show that local groups havedistinct patterns of activism. In addition, national mobilization levels providesome indication of the political opportunities and constraints faced by the U.S.

women’s movement generally, and we provide a brief history of mobilization pat-terns that highlights some of the external threats and opportunities that affectedfeminist mobilization nationwide. Although all of the chapters discussed hereresponded in some way to these developments, organizational factors influencedthe extent and nature of their responses. By comparing chapter and nationalmobilization levels, we were able to investigate the influence of the national orga-nization and its campaigns as well as periods in which chapters did not fit thenational pattern (see Table 1). We calculated the total mean for the mobilizationlevel for each chapter and the national organization to illustrate the organization’soverall level of activity. For each peak and decline, we examined chapter leader-

ship, organizational adaptations, mobilizing tactics, and involvement in nationalor movement-wide campaigns (see Table 2).





7/30/2019 sop.2006.49.3.297



PATTERNS OF MOBILIZATION

Table 1 shows significant differences in the patterns of mobilization by the four

chapters under consideration. Two of these chapters, Chicago and New York,exhibit relatively stable, though not identical, patterns of mobilization (with 3.75

TABLE 1

Annual Mobilization Levels* for National, Cleveland, New York City, Chicago,and Bloomington NOW

Year National Cleveland New York City Chicago Bloomington

1966 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A1967 3 N/A 1 N/A N/A1968 3 N/A 4 N/A N/A1969 3 N/A 4 3 N/A1970 4 1 5 4 N/A1971 3 3 5 4 N/A1972 5 4 5 4 41973 3 5 4 4 51974 2 4 4 4 4

1975 2 4 3 5 51976 4 4 3 5 31977 5 3 4 5 11978 5 2 4 5 11979 5 2 4 5 31980 5 2 4 5 31981 5 2 4 5 51982 3 3 4 5 41983 3 3 4 4 31984 2 3 4 4 31985 2 3 4 4 3

1986 2 3 3 4 31987 2 3 4 4 31988 2 4 5 4 31989 3 5 5 4 31990 3 5 4 3 21991 3 4 3 3 11992 3 3 3 3 21993 3 5 4 1 21994 3 2 3 1 11995 2 1 3 2 01996 3 0 2 3 N/A

1997 2 0 3 3 N/A1998 2 0 3 3 N/A1999 2 0 3 3 N/A2000 3 0 3 4 N/A

Total mean

3.06

2.68

3.68

3.75

2.92

* Mobilization Level Scale: 0, no activity; 1, state of abeyance; 2, minimal mobilization; 3, moderate mobilization; 4, high

mobilization; 5, white-hot mobilization.





7/30/2019 sop.2006.49.3.297



7/30/2019 sop.2006.49.3.297


304

T A B L E 2

( C o n t i n u e d )

C o m p a r i s o n b y T i m e P e r i o d o f M

o b i l i z a t i o n L e v e l s , L e a d e r s h i p , O r g a n i z a t i o n a l A d a p t a t i o n s , a n d M o b i l i z i n g T a c t i c s f o r C l e v e l a n d ,

N e w Y o r k C i t y , C h i c a g o , a n d B l o o m i n g t o n N O W C h a p t e r s

1 9 7 6 – 1 9 8 5

C l e v e l a n d

N e w Y o r k C i t y

C h i c a g o

B l o o m i n g t o n

O r g a n

i z a t i o n a l A d a p t a t i o n s :

M u l t i c h a p t e r ( 6 ) s y s t e m

e n a c t e d , e v e n t u a l l y

m e r g e s i n t o 2 , f a i l s

a s r e c r u i t m e n t

m e a s u r e

M o b i l i z i n g S t r a t e g i e s :

I n v o l v e m e n t w i t h

n a t i o n a l E R A c a m p a i g n ,

c o n t i n u e d p r o g r a m

n i g h t s , a b o r t i o n

v i g i l s

O r g a n


C - R

c o m m i t t e e p r o v e s e f f e c t i v e w a y

t o r e

c r u i t a n d m a i n t a i n m e m -

b e r s , W o m e n ’ s H e l p l i n e i n s t i t u -

t i o n a l i z e d , c o n t i n u e d w i t h

p a i d

s t a f f


C o n t i n u e s t o

u s e a n d d e v e l o p o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

s t r a t

e g i e s , d e v e l o p s a w a r d b a n -

q u e t

s , i n c r e a s e d t a b l i n g , E R A

t o p p r i o r i t y , n e w z a p a c t i o n s ;

d e v e

l o p s s t r a t e g i e s i n p e r i o d

o f l o w i n t e r e s t

O r g a n i z a t i o n a l A d a p t a t i o n s :

R

e o r -

g a n i z a t i o n a l o n g s k i l l l i n e s r a t h e r

t h a n i s s u e s f o r E R A c a m p a i g

n ,

l a t e r i s s u e s a n d o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

m a i n t e n a n c e c o m m i t t e e s ; c r e

a t i o n

o f P A C , n e w o f f i c e s , n e w m e

e t i n g

s t r u c t u r e w i t h a l t e r n a t i n g w o r k

s e s s i o n s a n d p r o g r a m s ( m u l t i p u r -

p o s e a d a p t a t i o n s )


C o n t i n u e t o


s t r a t e g i e s — w a l k a t h o n , a d b o o k ,

p r o g r a m m e e t i n g s , a n n u a l p a r t i e s ,

c e l e b r i t y a u c t i o n s , m e m b e r s h

i p

d r i v e s , p h o n e b a n k s , E R A m a j o r

f o c u s u n t i l 1 9 8 2

O r g a n i z a t i o n a l A d a p t

a t i o n s :

C h a p t e r d i s s o l v e s i n

1 9 7 6 ,

r e e s t a b l i s h e d w i t h f o

c u s o n

n a t i o n a l E R A i n e a r l y 1 9 8 0 s ,

C - R g r o u p s f o r m e d ( n o t

p e r m a n e n t )


I n c o n -

s i s t e n t u s e o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

s t r a t e g i e s , i n v o l v e m e n t i n

s t a t e a n d n a t i o n a l E R

A

c a m p a i g n

1 9 8 6 – 1 9 9 5

M o b i l i z a t i o n :

R e a c h e s

w h i t e - h o t l e v e l i n 1 9 9 0

a n d

d e c r e a s e s t o m i n i m a l

b y 1

9 9 4

L e a d e

r s h i p :

M i d - 1 9 8 0 s —

d y n

a m i c l e a d e r e m e r g e s ,

s h o r t - t e r m l e a d e r

t e a m

s


F l u c t u a t e s f r o m

w h i t e - h o t i n 1 9 8 8 t o m o d e r a t e

m o b

i l i z a t i o n i n 1 9 9 2 – 1 9 9 4

L e a d e r s h i p :

L o n g - t e r m l e a d e r

i n v o

l v e m e n t , c o n t i n u e d w o r k

a s t e

a m s


C - R

c o m m i t t e e a n d p a i d s t a f f c o n t i n u e


D i p s f r o m h i g h t o

m o d e r a t e t o m i n i m a l i n 1 9 9 4


S o m e l o n g - t e r m l e

a d e r s

a n d w o r k i n t e a m s ; l o s s o f p a

i d

s t a f f i n 1 9 9 3


C

o n t i n -

u e s t o d e v e l o p i s s u e a n d c o m m i t t e e

s t r u c t u r e


M a i n t a i n e d a t

m o d e r a t e l e v e l s t h r o

u g h t h e

1 9 8 0 s , d e c l i n e s t o m i n i m a l

b y 1 9 9 4


D y n a m i c l e a d e r

u n a b l e t o r e v i t a l i z e c

h a p t e r ;

p o o r l e a d e r s h i p i n l a

t e 1 9 8 0 s ;

n o t e a m s

(

c

o n t i n u e d

)





7/30/2019 sop.2006.49.3.297


305

T A B L E 2

( C o n t i n u e d )

C o m p a r i s o n b y T i m e P e r i o d o f M

o b i l i z a t i o n L e v e l s , L e a d e r s h i p , O r g a n i z a t i o n a l A d a p t a t i o n s , a n d M o b i l i z i n g T a c t i c s f o r C l e v e l a n d ,

N e w Y o r k C i t y , C h i c a g o , a n d B l o o m i n g t o n N O W C h a p t e r s

1 9 8 6 – 1 9 9 5

C l e v e l a n d

N e w Y o r k C i t y

C h i c a g o

B l o o m i n g t o n

O r g a n


R e m a i n i n g 2 c h a p t e r s m e r g e


I n v o l v

e m e n t w i t h O p e r a t i o n

R e s c u e a n d n a t i o n a l

m a r c h

e s , c o n t i n u e d p r o -

g r a m n i g h t s , r e s t a r t s C - R ,

r e a d i n

g g r o u p , z a p a c t i o n s


C o n t i n u e s t o


s t r a t e g

i e s ; i n v o l v e m e n t i n a b o r t i o n

r i g h t s ,

O p e r a t i o n R e s c u e , a n d

n a t i o n a l m a r c h e s ; s e r i e s o f f e s t i v a l s

a n d a w

a r d s


C o n t i n u e s

t o u s e a n d d e v e l o p r e p e r t o i r e o

f

o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s , n e w

b e n e f i t r a f f l e

O r g a n i z a t i o n a l A d a p t

a t i o n s :

N o n e


C o f f e e -

h o u s e s , t a b l i n g ; i n c o n s i s t e n t

u s e o f s t r a t e g i e s

1 9 9 6 – 2 0 0 0


N o a c t i v i t y

L e a d e

r s h i p :

N o l e a d e r s

e m e

r g e

O r g a n


O r g

a n i z a t i o n a l m e a s u r e

o f s t e e r i n g c o m m i t t e e

s t r u

c t u r e f a i l s


N o n e , s o m e m e m b e r s

p a r t i c i p a t e i n M a r c h

o n V i o l e n c e a g a i n s t

W o m e n


D i p s t o m i n i m a l a n d

t h e n

m a i n t a i n s a m o d e r a t e l e v e l

t h r o u g h 2 0 0 0


L o n g - t e r m l e a d e r t e a m

i n v o

l v e m e n t


C - R

c o m m i t t e e a n d p a i d s t a f f

c o n t i n u e


C o n t i n u e t o


s t r a t

e g i e s , e n g a g e s i n n a t i o n a l

a n d l o c a l c a m p a i g n s


R i s e s f r o m m o d e r a t e

t o h i g h i n 2 0 0 0


V o l u n t e e r l e a d e r

t e a m s


C

o n t i n -

u e s t o d e v e l o p i s s u e a n d c o m m i t t e e

s t r u c t u r e


C o n t i n u e s

t o u s e a n d d e v e l o p o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

s t r a t e g i e s , n e w t r i b u t e d i n n e r s

O f f i c i a l l y d i s s o l v e s i n 1 9 9 6





7/30/2019 sop.2006.49.3.297



and 3.68 total means of mobilization, respectively), and both continue to exist. Thehistories of the other two chapters, Cleveland and Bloomington, are characterized

by pronounced peaks and declines in activity (with lower means of 2.68 and 2.92,

respectively). The Bloomington chapter is now defunct, and the Cleveland NOWchapter ceased meeting in 1996, but never officially dissolved.

3

Although mobili-zation patterns for each chapter were sometimes parallel to the mobilization pat-tern of national NOW, there were also sharp divergences at times.

National NOW was founded in 1966, and the membership grew from 300 in 1966to 5,800, with more than 200 chapters in 1972.

4

New York City NOW organized in1967, and, despite some early schisms (see Freeman 1975), the chapter achievedsteady growth for the first several years by using national campaigns, such as theStrike for Women’s Equality held in 1970, to mobilize large numbers of activists.Chicago NOW, founded in early 1969, was initially relatively small, consisting of a

core of about twenty activists, but the early years were active, and the chapter grewsteadily, gaining about 600 dues-paying members by 1974. Cleveland NOW

began in 1970 and flourished for five to six years, becoming the ninth largestNOW chapter in the country by 1974. In the early years the national organizationmounted lawsuits, brought charges against the Equal Employment OpportunitiesCommission (EEOC), and engaged in other actions focused on workplace dis-crimination. From 1966 until 1972, the national organization was often joined inthese actions by larger chapters such as Chicago, New York City, and Pittsburgh.

With passage of the Equal Rights Amendment by Congress in 1972, nationalNOW and its chapters became increasingly active in the ERA campaign. Bloomington

NOW was founded in 1972 and soon became involved in the campaign to passthe ERA. In the 1970s and early 1980s, activity in the chapter rose and fell inresponse to both developments in the ERA campaign and internal organizationaldynamics. Bloomington NOW was very active until 1973, when there was a brief lull in activity after the ERA was defeated for the first time in the Indiana legislature.The chapter regained momentum by 1974, however, and was again quite activeuntil late 1976, when it lost leaders and became inactive even while the state ERAcampaign was in high gear.

As NOW focused more and more on the ERA campaign in the late 1970s,national NOW and many of its chapters saw increasing activity and growingmembership, with national membership reaching 220,000 by 1983. After the ERA

drive failed in 1982, national membership began to drop. The rise of the anti-abortion campaign known as Operation Rescue, which carried out its first majoraction in 1987, brought another surge of activism, particularly in targeted states.NOW membership rebounded to approximately 270,000 in 1990. When the threatof Operation Rescue subsided after its final campaign in 1991, NOW’s focus

began to diffuse. In the 1990s, national NOW experienced a drop in membershipsand contributions, and began to propose more campaigns to increase membership(e.g., a 1997 Mega-Membership campaign) and less direct action. Despite a diffi-cult decade in the 1990s, NOW demonstrated its continuing ability to survivechanges in political opportunities (Barakso 2004), and, by 2000, the national

organization claimed to have 500,000 contributing members and 550 chaptersnationwide (www.now.org).





7/30/2019 sop.2006.49.3.297



307

Cleveland NOW became involved in campaigns for the ERA and abortionrights as well as community projects such as a rape crisis center in the 1970s.During this heyday, members started a multichapter system, which divided

them into suburban neighborhood-based groups. By 1976, there were six suburban chapters, and a coordinating council of presidents and board members wasformed to organize actions and facilitate chapter communications. The Clevelandand Cleveland East chapters remained the largest and most active, however, and

by 1978, the suburban chapters began to merge with the two large chapters. Thechapters continued to work on national campaigns, such as the ERA, but partici-pation diminished in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Mobilization increased againin response to anti-abortion activities, including the arrival of Operation Rescuein Cleveland in 1989. After this threat cemented cooperation between the twochapters, the Cleveland East and Cleveland chapters merged by 1990 to become

Greater Cleveland NOW. By August of 1990, the chapter was the largest in thestate and reported an increase of 100 new members joining primarily to work onreproductive rights. The merger created difficulties, however, such as the problemof agreeing on a meeting place in a large city with a downtown area some consid-ered to be unsafe. By 1994, the chapter was struggling, and by 1995, ClevelandNOW stopped meeting and planning activities.

Bloomington NOW also continued to experience instability and decline. Followingthe chapter’s decline in 1976, several students made short-lived attempts to reviveit in 1977 and again in 1978. In the fall of 1979, two members of Planned Parent-hood, who were able to draw on a well-established network of local women’s

organizations, successfully reactivated Bloomington NOW. Members were partic-ularly active in campaigns around abortion rights and the national ERA with its June 1982 deadline. After the demise of the ERA in 1982 and the loss of a keyleader, the chapter struggled to maintain itself. An energetic new president con-tinued to hold meetings and organize activities in the 1980s, though, and somechapter projects enjoyed success. By 1989, however, the chapter was in serioustrouble under new leadership and survived into the 1990s only because a coupleof individuals, including a former president, kept it alive, filling out the necessarypaperwork for the national organization. In 1992, Bloomington NOW did findanother new president who began to organize some meetings and activities, butthe chapter remained tiny. In 1996, after several years of inactivity, Bloomington

NOW officially dissolved.In contrast to the Cleveland and Bloomington chapters, NYC and Chicago

NOW were much more stable. Following the initial peak of mobilizing in theearly 1970s, membership and activities in New York City NOW leveled off for atime. Beginning in the late 1970s, the chapter experienced strong growth and wasable to increase its paid staff and institute a variety of tactics, such as informa-tional tables and a Women’s Helpline. NYC NOW continued to focus on nationalissues such as the ERA, presidential political campaigns, and abortion rights, and

by 1987 the chapter claimed to have 3,000 members. Participation in events such asthe defense of New York City abortion clinics against Operation Rescue in 1988 and

the NOW-sponsored March for Women’s Equality, Women’s Lives in Washingtonin 1989 helped the chapter grow. The costs of organizing in New York City were





7/30/2019 sop.2006.49.3.297



high, however, and the chapter had to move its office three times in the 1980s andearly 1990s to find cheaper rents. In the 1990s, the chapter maintained its presencein the community while struggling with financial difficulties and declining mem-

ber involvement. In 1993, after a flurry of pro-choice organizing resulting from the

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services

decision, membership rose to 4,000 (

NOW News

1993). As of 1996, the chapter had a core of 20 to 40 activists and has remainedactive to date.

By the late 1970s, Chicago NOW was heavily involved in the ERA campaign,which attracted many supporters. By 1980, there were about 1,000 members (

ActNOW

1980), and by the mid-1980s, there were about 3,000 dues-paying membersalong with an active core of about 50, enabling the chapter to support a full-timestaff of 5. After the defeat of the ERA in 1982, the chapter continued to be quiteactive for another decade. Through fund-raising efforts, Chicago NOW was able

to maintain an office and paid staff, and, through work sessions and committees,the chapter provided ways for activists to become involved and rise to leadershippositions. This formula worked well for a number of years, particularly duringthe years of the ERA campaign and into the late 1980s and early 1990s, whenNOW worked on issues such as sexual assault and abortion rights. Like NYCNOW, however, Chicago NOW suffered from the high cost of office space in thecity and by 1993 faced a severe financial crisis and had to lay off its staff. After afew rough years, the chapter rebounded and continued to maintain a steady levelof activity among volunteer activists from the mid-1990s to the present.

INFLUENCES ON PATTERNS OF MOBILIZATION

The patterns of mobilization described above show that the New York andChicago chapters fared best over time. Because these chapters are located in the larg-est cities and have the largest numbers of paper members, we might explain theirsuccess in terms of resources and population differences. Certainly, there are moreresources available in a large city like Chicago than in a small one like Bloomington.But Cleveland is also a large city, and at the same time that there are moreresources available in large cities, it is more costly to mobilize participants,owing to distance and office expenses. And, while paper members bring in moreresources in the form of membership dues, at times of peak mobilization all of

the chapters had activist cores of approximately equal size. Therefore size of thechapter (and the surrounding city and resources) is not a good indication of itsability to sustain activism.

5

Moreover, all of the chapters suffered through peri-ods of financial instability. We suggest that SMOs of any size can stabilize them-selves by creating organizational mechanisms for mobilizing participants,developing leaders, and attending to ongoing internal needs as well as recog-nizing external opportunities.

As Tables 1 and 2 show, during the early years of rapid growth in the contem-porary women’s movement, all four of the chapters under consideration herereached high levels of mobilization. Later, when political conditions became more

uneven for the women’s movement, Chicago and NYC NOW continued to main-tain high or moderate levels of mobilization for many years, while Cleveland and





7/30/2019 sop.2006.49.3.297



309

Bloomington NOW experienced more extreme dips in mobilization. In the follow-ing sections, we show how leadership, organizational structure, and strategies areconnected to these ups and downs of chapter mobilization.

Leadership

Within our four NOW chapters, the selection and maintenance of leaders wasimportant to continuity and effective collective action. Leaders influenced theirchapters by pushing structural changes, shaping organizational culture, devisingcollective action campaigns, and attracting members. These influences sometimeshelped to create peak periods of activity and sometimes aided chapter mainte-nance during slow periods or through specific crises. We argue that, while strongleaders bolster organizations over short periods of time, particularly when politi-

cal conditions are conducive, it is the continuity of leadership and the develop-ment of leadership teams that facilitate continued mobilization. While Clevelandand Bloomington suffered from frequent leadership turnover, Chicago and NYCenjoyed leaders with long-standing chapter involvement who were crucial in pro-viding an organizational “buffer” against tough political times. Both successfulchapters had organizational structures that allowed for relationships of tutelage(see Polletta 2002), so that new leaders were continually produced, aiding long-term organizational maintenance. Chicago and NYC developed leadership teamsto avoid burnout, create continuity of leadership, and draw in new activistsdespite diminished political opportunities.

Leadership Qualities

Activists in our chapters often described strong leaders as “dynamic” or “char-ismatic.” In contrast to the Weberian meaning of charisma

as a relationship between leader and followers, activists typically used the term to refer to variouspersonal qualities of the leader that made her effective in attracting members andmounting campaigns.

6 Beyond the descriptions of personality, however, wereexplanations of what these leaders actually did for the chapter, which is what wetake to be important leadership qualities. As our informants describe them,“dynamic” leaders had the ability to inspire commitment, articulate an attractive

feminist and organizational identity, and devise strategies and tactics.One important characteristic of strong leaders was that they found ways for

individuals to fit into the chapter and made the organization attractive torecruits. For example, the Bloomington NOW leader in the early 1980s who wasoften called “charismatic” was described as someone who “had a very goodknack for seeing how people could feel good about being in the organizationand getting them to plug into those roles” and who ran meetings in such a wayas to make them fun and exciting so that “people wanted to come back” (interviewwith Bloomington NOW activist, September 16, 1992). A former NYC NOWleader described how the sense of fitting into the chapter became a part of its

collective identity, explaining that “[the members] are expected to makeimportant decisions around here on things that matter. . . . [NYC NOW] fills a void.





7/30/2019 sop.2006.49.3.297



I have no place else [like this] in my life” (interview with NYC NOW activist, July 22, 1995).

Another characteristic of strong leaders is that they energetically push their

ideas about organizational changes and strategies. In the early 1970s, ChicagoNOW benefited from forceful leaders who believed that the chapter could becomeinfluential if it paid attention to organizational maintenance: training leaders,recruiting members, raising money, and engaging in public relations. A key leaderinfluenced the chapter to formalize its structure and select issue priorities. Shewas influential in developing major campaigns such as an employment discrimina-tion challenge to Sears that was adopted nationally after originating in Chicago. Shehelped to create a culture within the chapter such that effective action, leadershiptraining, and the careful targeting of resources were highly valued, and the chaptersaw itself as a force for change in the local community. The chapter maintained

this approach as it came to prioritize the ERA campaign in the 1970s, organizingits committees around skills needed for the campaign. As the ERA battle ended in1982, Chicago NOW added other issue priorities, notably abortion rights, and easilyadapted its committee structure to the new priorities.

In NYC NOW, a dynamic leader similarly shaped organizational infrastructureand culture. Originally a member of a women’s liberation group, she joined NOWafter working in an abortion rights coalition with NYC NOW members. Sherecalled how she realized “that [this women’s group with] its structurelessnesswas not going to be able to do anything to save legalized abortion, and I couldsee in my contacts with NOW that they were going to. They had an organization

and with structure” (interview with NYC NOW activist, March 3, 1996). Becauseof the strength of her convictions and her dynamic presence, her views onwomen’s culture and critique of radical and cultural feminism became importantinfluences on the chapter, which were echoed by other members. The result of this was an ideology that saw the chapter as a workplace and the primary task of members to sustain the organization. Her framing of feminism remained evidentin the views of a president who served twenty years later. This presidentreported that she had frequent conversations with the ex-leader and “was learn-ing from her the history” of the organization and some of its internal dynamics,such as controversy over lesbian involvement in the 1970s (interview with NYCNOW activist, March 1, 1996).

In Cleveland NOW, two dynamic leaders emerged during chapter peaks in1972 to 1976 and 1988 to 1991 (see Table 1). During the 1970s, a new member

began lobbying the chapter and state NOW leaders to break the growing chapterinto multiple groups situated around the city. Her request was initially met withresistance, but through persistence and force of personality, she eventually per-suaded the chapter to divide into a suburban chapter system. A decade later,another chapter leader emerged who held strong views on the need for the chap-ter to focus on grassroots issues. During her leadership, the chapter flourishedand was vocal on a variety of issues in the city.

However, even an articulate and motivating leader may fail in mobilizing a

group when the organization faces difficult external conditions. This may be theresult of a hostile political climate in which there is little opportunity to make gains.





7/30/2019 sop.2006.49.3.297


Patterns of Mobilization in Local Movement Organizations 311

With the defeat of the ERA in 1982, national NOW and two of our four chaptersexperienced some decline in mobilization levels, and all had to adjust to thedefeat of a campaign that had mobilized many supporters. After the dynamic

leader who had led Bloomington NOW through the ERA battle was forced toresign because of a terminal illness, a new leader, perhaps equally dynamic, wassoon found. Despite her efforts, the new leader was unable to revitalize the NOWchapter in the 1980s, although she did manage to keep it alive—an accomplishmentin that period. Whereas NYC and Chicago had leadership teams that enabledthem to avoid burnout, the Bloomington leader often did all of the work herself inplanning meetings and events.

Although forceful leaders were present at various times in all four of our chapters,their influences were not always positive or sufficient. In Cleveland, the drasticrestructuring into multiple chapters produced struggling suburban chapters that

eventually dissolved. In Bloomington, the dynamic leader who maintained thechapter in the 1980s encouraged a newcomer to take over the presidency in 1989.7

Although an energetic person, the new president turned out to be an unstablepersonality who ended up driving people away from the chapter by her erraticactions. The former leader explained the error in judgment:

You know, we were so impressed to see a body show up, somebody express-ing interest. . . . We just should have been a little more cautious I think abouthanding over the reins, but it was just that nobody else had the time to do it.And I remember saying [to her,] “Well, you look like presidential material tome.” She had free time—that was the main qualification! And she was very

energetic, she was willing to do stuff. (Interview with former BloomingtonNOW president, August 7, 1992)

In New York and Chicago, leadership was more effective, we argue, because itwas more consistent and because chapter structures helped to develop new lead-ers within leadership teams. The experiences of these chapters show that thecombination of long-term leaders and interactions among leaders, rather than onlyindividuals’ leadership qualities, is critical to the maintenance and vitality of movement organizations.

Leadership Continuity

In NYC NOW, one leader became involved in the 1970s and stayed active in thechapter for three decades. In addition to serving on a variety of committees andspearheading programs, she also remained a resource for new presidents and partof an “ex-presidents” club that informally advised current leaders and directedchapter actions. In addition, several of the women who served in leadership posi-tions in NYC NOW (e.g., president, director, committee heads) maintained theirinvolvement in the chapter for long periods of time. For example, one leader fromthe early 1990s was still active eight years later, long after her term as presidentwas over.

In Chicago NOW, there were also leaders who stayed involved in the organiza-

tion for a number of years, in some cases a decade or more. One longtime leaderserved as chapter president in 1969 and 1970 and again from 1978 to 1980, and





7/30/2019 sop.2006.49.3.297



was employed as executive director of the chapter in 1981 and 1982 ( Act NOW 1982). The chapter benefited from having both paid staff and volunteer leadersfor many years. Early in its history, leaders were important in steering the orga-

nization to develop a stable structure, define issue priorities, raise money, andengage in public relations. Leaders in Chicago NOW were explicitly concernedwith developing new leaders, and one of the criteria used in selecting action cam-paigns was whether the campaign offered opportunities for leadership development.A number of Chicago NOW leaders began their involvement in action campaigns,learning skills from seasoned activists, and later became board members orofficers. Although the chapter was not immune to problems created by externalconditions such as the financial crisis that resulted in a layoff of staff and adecline in activity of the early 1990s, its cultivation of leaders has aided organi-zational maintenance. After the loss of staff, volunteer leaders helped the organiza-

tion to recover from its crisis.In Cleveland, the NOW chapter consistently had leaders who served their two-

year terms of office and then quit the chapter. Many of the former leadersreported feeling burned out and exhausted from their tenure and did not want toremain active in the chapter. Few, if any, of the women involved in the chapter’searly years were involved in the 1990s. When the chapter did have a long-termleader who served in a variety of positions, it was unable to adjust when sheresigned. The timing of her resignation and the chapter’s decline suggests that herleadership and social networks were factors in the group’s survival. When shestepped down from leading the group, the chapter became unclear of its goals

and purpose.In Bloomington, a college town with high population turnover, NOW sufferedfrom continual losses of leaders. Dynamic leaders were often involved duringpeak periods, but then frequently left after a few years, often because they movedout of town, as in the case of student leaders who regularly graduated anddeparted. Owing in part to this discontinuity, there was no regular system of tute-lage, as in Chicago and New York, and it was often difficult to find replacementleaders. As a result, the chapter experienced many periods of decline throughoutits history.

Leadership TeamsLong-term leaders, like dynamic leaders, are not enough to sustain mobiliza-

tion for many years. It is important that these leaders interact with one another inleadership teams, so that they have access to one another’s experience and so thatindividual leaders do not lack support. In the Chicago and New York City chapters,long-term and new leaders were part of such teams, created through structures of multiple committees and offices and regular meetings where ideas wereexchanged and work carried out. Leadership teams prevent burnout, create a con-tinuing supply of leaders, and produce strategies that have input from a numberof activists rather than only one leader. This type of leadership structure can pre-

vent abrupt decisions that might ultimately be disastrous, such as the Clevelandchapter’s decision to divide into suburban chapters.





7/30/2019 sop.2006.49.3.297



In New York, the unofficial “advisory board” of ex-presidents provided sup-port and advice for new leaders. For example, one president from the 1990sreported having contact with these advisers on a regular basis during her time in

office. Instead of perceiving this continuing attention by ex-presidents as invasive,she viewed their presence as a part of what made her presidency successful. Severalformer NYC NOW leaders referred to the advisory board and its positive effect ontheir presidencies.

In Chicago, the staff and volunteer leaders formed an effective leadership teamfor many years. Longtime staff members assisted new presidents, and formerpresidents often remained active in the chapter, sometimes taking staff jobs. Asthe chapter’s structure developed, there were multiple leadership positions,including membership on the board of directors, committee chairs, offices, andstaff positions. NOW presidents typically served in a variety of positions before

being elected president. Regular activities, such as weekly volunteer work ses-sions, fund-raising events, electoral work, and action campaigns, allowed newmembers to interact with, and learn from, seasoned activists. For example, theincoming president in 1985 wrote:

I have been involved in Chicago NOW for several years, and I have served pre-viously as vice president, treasurer, and chair of the health and safety commit-tee. As a result, I know firsthand that our chapter stays strong and active

because we are able to rely and build on the experience of seasoned leadershipwhile encouraging and incorporating the ideas and energy of new activists.( Act NOW 1985)

Another Chicago NOW activist notes the system of tutelage developed in thechapter:

Chicago NOW is where I learned to be a leader. I have been a member of theChicago NOW Board of Directors for the past three years—first as vice-chair,then chair of the Health and Safety Committee. That is one of the proudestaccomplishments of my life. But getting to the point where I was ready to be aBoard member took effort. . . . It was at the Tuesday volunteer sessions that Iencountered the people—staff and volunteers—who taught me how politicsoperate in Chicago, Springfield, and Washington. . . . Chicago NOW has pro-vided me with inspirational role models—people who were superb teachers

and leaders. ( Act NOW 1989)In Cleveland, efforts to develop leadership teams met with varying levels of

success. Under the multiple-suburban-chapter system, leaders created a councilto keep tabs on the system. As the smaller chapters began to fail, however, thiscouncil ceased to meet. Later, when the Cleveland and Cleveland East chaptersmerged, a copresident system was enacted to represent members from each sideof the city. This system worked for several years and provided a stable leadershipstructure throughout the tumultuous pro-choice organizing and abortion clinicdefenses of the late 1980s and early 1990s. However, these leaders tended to leavethe chapter or avoid positions of authority after their terms were over. One

coleader during this period of high mobilization reported leaving the chapter because of her family life, the distance of the meeting location from her home, and





7/30/2019 sop.2006.49.3.297



the feeling that she did not have as much in common with the younger cohort of members who had joined (interview with Cleveland NOW activist, August 12, 1996).The departure of such leaders left a team structure with little continuity over time.

In Bloomington, leadership tended to be more informal and often reliant ondynamic personalities. No team system was ever developed for training new lead-ers and systematically incorporating new activists, as was done in Chicago andNew York. High population turnover in Bloomington no doubt made it very difficultto create and sustain any such structure. However, there were longtime feministresidents of the community who joined NOW at various points and who mighthave contributed to the chapter’s leadership had a team structure been in place.The dynamic leader who took over the chapter presidency in the early 1980s didremain involved for about ten years, but she was exhausted as a result of doing somuch work almost single-handedly. One advantage of a leadership team is that it

lessens the burden on any one person, a problem that may discourage leaders fromcontinued involvement. For example, a Bloomington NOW activist who washeavily involved in the 1970s said that she considered involvement at later points,

but was afraid the commitment would prove overwhelming because “I know thattheir need is so great” (interview with Bloomington NOW activist, January 2, 1993).

In sum, dynamic leaders often bring in new members and create a sense of excitement around organizing. In both Cleveland and Bloomington, such leadersled the chapters during the peak periods shown in Table 1. Interestingly, however,neither Bloomington nor Cleveland could sustain high levels of activity evenduring the most intense years of the ERA campaign (mid-1970s to 1982), when

external political conditions were favorable for mobilization. They lacked thecontinuity of leadership achieved through leadership teams that produced themore-sustained patterns of mobilization that we see for Chicago and New York.Organizational structures are critical to the creation of this type of internal stabil-ity even during periods of intense activism when supporters are motivated bythreats or opportunities.

Organizational Adaptations

SMOs adapt their organizational structures to meet goals, adjust to environ-mental changes, and mobilize participants. Our chapters adapted their structures

in three main ways. First, chapters sometimes adopted temporary measures,rather than lasting structural adaptations, which channeled energies during peakperiods. For example, in Bloomington NOW, consciousness-raising (C-R) groupswere added at various times, and they helped to cement commitments to NOWand develop collective identity as well as to recruit new members. But because thechapter lacked more formal structures that might have enabled C-R groups to sur-vive, the tactic could not be maintained after the boom periods of the early 1970s,1975 to 1976, and the early 1980s. Without this “welcoming” structure, newcomerswere not effectively integrated, and there was no avenue for retaining membersand developing new leaders. Although the C-R groups did encourage participa-

tion in the chapter, they did not serve as a means of conflict resolution, and thechapter was unable to sustain them through periods of instability and turmoil.





7/30/2019 sop.2006.49.3.297



Second, chapters often adapted their structures to increase recruitment, but didnot at the same time create mechanisms for solving organizational maintenanceproblems and conflicts. Adaptations done solely to bring in more members often

succeeded only in the short term. For example, in the Cleveland chapter, membersadapted the organization’s structure during a peak mobilization time to capitalizeon community interest in feminism. While the multiple-chapter system func-tioned for several years, it fragmented the chapter and prevented the formation of a more unified Cleveland feminist identity. In the end, the fragmented organiza-tional structure, as well as an overreliance on coalition work and a decrease inmember participation as abortion rights organizing slowed, led to the decline of the chapter in the mid-1990s.

A third and final type of adaptation consisted of multipurpose efforts to improvefunctioning in the chapter as well as to maximize recruitment. These changes

were adjustments to organizational structure that aided in conflict resolution,established mechanisms of accountability, and clarified the division of labor.Sometimes this type of adaptation was unintentional. For example, in New YorkCity, the chapter added a decentralized C-R committee to the centralized chapterstructure in 1972. Done in a period of high movement mobilization, the additionof the committee was an attempt to increase participant recruitment. However,the C-R committee quickly established itself as an integral force in the chapter,tending to its emotional infrastructure. By providing women with an emotionallyand individually empowering space within an instrumentally and rationallyfocused chapter, the committee served as a source of conflict resolution and man-

aged some of the ideological diversity in the chapter. By serving more than recruit-ment needs, the organizational adaptation strengthened the chapter and promotedits survival.

In Chicago NOW, changes began to be made in the early 1970s to aid organiza-tional maintenance and to enhance effectiveness by focusing resources on doablecampaigns. New rules regarding the formation of committees made committeesmore accountable to the rest of the chapter insofar as they had to conform to stan-dards such as size. A system of selecting issue priorities was established, requiringindividual members and committees to develop action plans with organizational

benefits to the chapter as a whole in mind, rather than simply taking actions thatsuited a few individuals. In the process of discussing these options, leaders

exchanged ideas and learned from the experiences of different team members. Asstaff members were hired and various offices and positions added, a clear divisionof labor was developed in the chapter, which was adjusted as needed to pursuenew strategies. These were enduring, formal changes in structure intended toincrease recruitment, develop leadership, assist fund-raising, and improve strategy.

In addition to serving multiple purposes, structural changes in Chicago andNYC were made gradually. In Chicago, for example, the switch to a division of labor along skill lines rather than issues during the height of the ERA campaignwas formalized after it was clear that the ERA was already absorbing all of thechapter’s energies. As the campaign wound down, other issues were added and

the committee structure was gradually revised, preventing a major decline inmobilization after the ERA campaign ended in 1982. Adjustments to the chapter’s





7/30/2019 sop.2006.49.3.297



structure were continually made, but they were introduced gradually after delib-eration by the leadership team. In Cleveland NOW, in contrast, a final change instructure was made abruptly, at a time of organizational crisis, without member

support. In the 1990s, the chapter tried to deal with its leadership problems bydevising a steering committee structure that would rotate leadership every twomonths. This attempt to reinvent the chapter’s leadership structure failed, as fewmembers showed up for the meetings and little interest was expressed in takingon the leadership needed for the steering committee to work, resulting in a sharpdecline in mobilization in 1994.

In sum, we find that effective organizational adaptations are gradual rather thandramatic and attend to multiple organizational concerns, including internal processas well as recruitment. The two chapters that did not institute meaningful or long-term adaptations, or adapted only for recruitment purposes, ended up failing.

Thus, we see lower mobilization levels overall and continual ups and downs in themobilization levels for Cleveland and Bloomington. The two chapters that adaptedtheir structures in response to internal maintenance needs as well as changes in thepolitical environment were more successful. Because Chicago and NYC NOW con-sciously sought long-term workable structures and not “quick fixes,” they have

been able to maintain steady levels of mobilization over longer periods of time.

Mobilizing Tactics

In addition to adapting their organizational structures, SMOs develop reper-

toires of tactics that mobilize participants and facilitate organizational survival.These include both internal mobilizing tactics and the use of external campaignsto bolster internal growth and maintenance. In this way, tactics can be a responseto both the external environment and internal organizational needs. We find thatchapters that build an organizational repertoire of mobilizing tactics, and useexternal events for internal purposes as well as social-change strategies, are morelikely to stabilize their organizations and maintain continuous activities.

Organizational Repertoire

Both NYC NOW and Chicago NOW were able to establish sizable repertoires of

ongoing mobilizing tactics over the years. NYC NOW’s repertoire included theuse of consciousness-raising, monthly program meetings for members, awards

banquets, and tabling. Chicago NOW used program meetings, an annual adbookand walkathon, tribute dinners and annual celebrity auctions, membership drivesand other fund-raising phone banks, and weekly work sessions. Both chaptersmaintained the use of long-standing tactics such as walkathons in Chicago andtabling in NYC and continually added new ones to their repertoires. These ongo-ing tactics stabilized the chapters in periods of low interest in feminism and intimes of backlash. For example, in 1985 NYC NOW started a membership renewalphone bank, working three Thursdays a month; consequently, in a period when

national NOW was experiencing minimal mobilization, the chapter was able tomaintain moderate to white-hot mobilization (see Tables 1 and 2).





7/30/2019 sop.2006.49.3.297



Cleveland NOW and Bloomington NOW also employed some mobilizing tac-tics, but they were not able to make them part of an ongoing routine. At differentperiods in Cleveland NOW’s history, members began consciousness-raising,

formed book clubs, and held annual picnics and parties. Bloomington NOW heldan annual Women’s Day festival from 1972 to 1976, and also used consciousness-raising groups, tabling, and coffeehouses at different times to mobilize support andmaintain commitments. However, none of these tactics became a consistent aspectof either chapter’s repertoire, in part because of the inconsistency of leadership.For example, the Bloomington NOW president who took office in 1989 continuedto organize coffeehouses, which had been highly successful earlier in the decade,

but attendance dropped off sharply as the new leader’s reputation for erratic behavior spread.

Consciousness-raising groups were used by all of the chapters at one time or

another. However, NYC NOW is the only chapter that institutionalized thismobilizing tactic in the form of a committee created in 1972 that has been a pres-ence in the chapter ever since. In Bloomington and Cleveland, C-R groups wereused during peak periods to capitalize on interest, but they were not consistentlymaintained. Chicago NOW adopted the C-R tactic in the 1970s, but other mobi-lizing tactics such as the annual walkathon became much more important forthe chapter.

Both Chicago and NYC NOW used the tactic of holding monthly programmeetings on issues of interest, sponsored by either the entire chapter or a specificcommittee. After adopting a policy of voting on a limited number of priority

action campaigns each year, Chicago NOW began to hold topical monthly pro-gram meetings, open to the public, so that the chapter was not perceived as toonarrow in its concerns, particularly during the long ERA campaign. This wasimportant public relations work that helped raise the profile of the chapter and

bring in contributions and members. In the NYC chapter, similarly, committeesand task forces have consistently held programs of interest to members and thepublic on such topics as divorce, money management, and sex workers in TimesSquare. In addition, the committees have sponsored a series of ongoing work-shops on issues such as women and money. These program meetings and work-shops provide a source of new members while also maintaining current members.In other words, by establishing regular participant gatherings, the chapter pro-

vides an interactional infrastructure that maintains mobilization while avoidingmeetings for strictly social reasons. In Bloomington, such meetings were alsoorganized in the 1980s by the chapter’s dynamic president. The difficulty there,however, was that the president, along with one or two members, did all of thework organizing the programs, and this sapped much of their energy. Chapterswith long-term leadership teams rather than individuals are better able to main-tain a program of mobilizing tactics.

NYC NOW also instituted a series of awards banquets meant to recognize areafeminists and serve as a form of fund-raising. The chapter began using awardsprograms as a mobilizing tactic in 1979 with the start of the Susan B. Anthony

Awards. By 1985, the awards program drew a crowd of 150 to 200, promptingleaders to add similar events. In 1979 the chapter instituted a yearly Women’s





7/30/2019 sop.2006.49.3.297



Freedom Festival, a variety of annual vigils, and the Best and Worst in the MediaAwards. While not all of these awards programs had the same rate of success,their presence in the chapter signified their mobilizing and fund-raising potential.

Chicago NOW also held tribute banquets to honor prominent feminists and insti-tuted an annual celebrity auction, at which items such as feminist memorabiliawere auctioned, as a major fund-raiser.

A final form of mobilizing tactic routinized by NYC NOW is tabling. In tabling,members set up information stands in public areas, handing out literature anddiscussing the issues with passersby. The chapter started tabling each May, andduring 1984 set the goal of having six tables out every week. Leaders called forparticipants by describing tabling as “an excellent and enjoyable form of publicoutreach” (NOW York Woman 1984). Chicago NOW used weekly work sessionsand phone banks in a similar manner. These sessions, at which members wrote

letters to legislators and made phone calls looking for new members and financialsupport, provided an easy way to get new members involved in the organizationand to reach out to the public.

Movement Campaigns

Political opportunity theorists have long recognized how external politicalevents shape organizational responses and rates of mobilization. Less attentionhas been paid to the ways in which SMO leaders respond strategically to events tomaximize organizational viability and maintenance. Throughout NOW’s history,

national NOW and its chapters have embraced a variety of campaigns andcountercampaigns. Issues such as the ERA, the challenge to abortion clinicsposed by Operation Rescue, and the Clarence Thomas–Anita Hill hearings havemobilized feminists. Such issues and events can stimulate recruitment and bringabout periods of peak mobilization, and they can also be used strategically byorganizations.

Some organizations routinely undertake campaigns with internal needs inmind, while others respond reactively to external events. Among the chaptersconsidered here, Cleveland and Bloomington experienced peaks of activity as aresult of external events, but they both failed to use campaigns deliberately andcontinuously to maintain themselves. Chicago NOW and NYC NOW were much

more effective in doing so, which helps to explain their far steadier and higherlevels of mobilization. We can see these differences in chapter responses to twoissues in particular, the ERA and abortion rights, which provided national NOWand these four chapters with unprecedented mobilizing opportunities.

Abortion rights proved a particularly strong mobilizing issue for the Clevelandchapter during a peak period from 1988 to 1993. When Operation Rescue targetedCleveland abortion clinics, leaders decided to become involved in defending theircommunity and working on national NOW marches. They began by focusing onthe national NOW campaigns, but eventually came to focus on the community asthe site of their activism. Because of the intense mobilization around Operation

Rescue, the chapter was able to merge the east and west sides and, for a time,solidify its membership. When leaders decided to turn their attention to local





7/30/2019 sop.2006.49.3.297



campaigns, they began to work in coalition. In fact, the formation of coalitions became one of the mobilizing tactics used by Cleveland NOW. While working incoalition helped the chapter meet its goals, the chapter was unable to stabilize its

membership once the immediate crisis passed. For example, the chapter made a con-centrated effort to work with community coalitions to combat Operation Rescueforces in Cleveland in 1988, but by 1994 when the crisis had passed, the chapterslipped into minimal mobilization (see Tables 1 and 2).

Bloomington NOW activists became very involved in both the ERA campaignand abortion rights during periods when visible state and national battles overthe issues were occurring. The ERA first became a priority for the chapter in 1972,leading to a spike in activity until 1973, when the amendment was defeated forthe first time by the Indiana legislature. After a brief decline in activity, the chapterpeaked again in the mid-1970s, and members became heavily involved in the

statewide ERA campaign through work with an ERA Coalition. As was the casewith Cleveland NOW, however, this coalition work did not help to build internalchapter structures, and in fact the chapter dissolved in late 1976—before the state-wide campaign succeeded in getting the Indiana legislature to pass the ERA in1977. After Bloomington NOW was reestablished, members became active in thenational ERA campaign in the push to pass the amendment before the 1982 deadline.In the case of abortion rights, chapter members similarly became active in responseto national events, but neither campaign was used to develop internal chapterstructures. Thus, Table 1 shows dips in mobilization levels for Bloomington NOWeven during periods of heightened national activity from the mid-1970s to 1982 on

the ERA and after 1989 on abortion rights.This contrasts sharply with the experience of Chicago NOW. One of the explicitcriteria used by the chapter in adopting issue priorities was the potential formembership development. In the 1970s, the ERA campaign gradually became themajor focus of the chapter’s activities, and a number of changes in NOW’s inter-nal structure occurred, particularly the creation of skills committees around taskssuch as public relations, speaking, membership, and fund-raising. The chapter alsoworked on abortion rights whenever the issue became hot nationally or locally,and similarly used the issue to attract members and build internal structure. Theresult was the long period of white-hot mobilization followed by years of highmobilization from the mid-1970s to the early 1980s shown in Table 1. As chapter

leaders recognized, skills used for one issue could easily be transferred to another.Two forces shaped NYC NOW’s involvement in external campaigns. The first is

the belief, fostered by the fact that the chapter has been adept at getting mediaexposure in New York City, that NYC NOW is a high-profile feminist organiza-tion and needs to take a leadership role in national events. Consequently, visibil-ity in campaigns such as the national ERA battle, opposition to the confirmationof Judge Bork to the Supreme Court, and abortion rights continued to bring mem-

bers into the chapter. For example, NYC NOW sent 165 buses to the pro-choiceMarch for Women’s Equality in 1989, a time when chapter mobilization reachedthe white-hot level (see Table 1). Second, leaders have purposely exploited the

external political climate, using national issues such as the reelection of PresidentReagan in 1984 as a means of fund-raising for the chapter.





7/30/2019 sop.2006.49.3.297



In sum, we see peaks of activity for all of our chapters around national campaignsand events, most notably campaigns involving the ERA and abortion, althoughthese peaks did not occur in all the chapters at the same times. In Cleveland and

Bloomington, the peaks were often followed by dramatic declines, sometimes beginning even before the end of campaigns, owing to internal organizationalfactors. In Chicago and New York, the declines are much less remarkable becausemobilizing tactics and campaigns were used strategically to build organiza-tional support.

CONCLUSION

The histories of our four NOW chapters show that organizational patterns of mobilization are only partly determined by external events and opportunities. To

be sure, all of our chapters were influenced by national events and countermove-ments, such as the defeat of the ERA and the rise of Operation Rescue, whichaffected constituent interest in feminism. But they were not all equally preparedto meet external challenges during “fast” periods when a lot was happening or tosurvive during “slow” periods when there were few external stimuli.

We argue that SMOs are most successful at stimulating activism and remain-ing alive when they can retain long-term leaders, train new ones, and developspaces in which leaders can interact and share ideas. Continuity of leadershiphelps to ensure that repertoires of mobilizing tactics and other experiences arepassed down. However, long-term leaders need to be part of leadership teams to

receive support and to engage in tutelage with newer activists. Ongoing, effec-tive leadership requires a structure for developing new leaders and makinggood strategic choices. The structure has to create interactions among leadersand allow new activists to take on responsibilities in new positions while learn-ing from seasoned activists. Structures such as those found in Chicago and NYCNOW allow leadership teams to devise strategies and nourish new leaders,thereby preventing burnout and ensuring that the organization is not dependenton one dynamic leader.

Organizations that develop internal structures capable of incorporating newmembers and developing leaders can remain stable, at least to a certain extent,despite external changes. Such a structure promotes regular interactions among

participants in ways that allow new members to learn from experienced ones, andleadership teams to exchange ideas. A structure that supports the continuous useof mobilizing tactics, such as NYC NOW’s C-R committee, helps to ensure organi-zational stability. Organizations need to adapt their structures to changing oppor-tunities and times, but gradual adaptations rather than sudden, radical changesare most conducive to organizational continuity.

Organizational patterns of mobilization do not correspond precisely to largercycles of contention because SMOs do not simply respond to their political envi-ronments. Activists make organizational and strategic decisions that allow themto survive or cause them to decline in different political contexts. Future research

needs to examine how internal processes influence larger movement dynamics,such as mobilization and recruitment, and the ways in which leadership teams,





7/30/2019 sop.2006.49.3.297



structural adaptations, and mobilizing strategies interact with environmentalchanges and events to sustain organizational cycles of activism.

Acknowledgments: The authors thank Abdi Kusow, David Meyer, RichardSerpe, and the anonymous reviewers for their comments and advice.

NOTES

1. The papers of Chicago NOW are located at the Special Collections Department of theUniversity of Illinois, Chicago. A near-complete set of newsletters for Chicago NOW islocated at the Special Collections Department of the Northwestern University library.The Cleveland and New York City collections of documents are housed in the chapteroffices. Some Cleveland documents are also housed in the archives of the Western

Reserve Historical Society in Cleveland, Ohio, and the Ohio Historical Society inColumbus. Additional New York City documents are in the Archives of Public Affairsand Policy, Department of Special Collections and Archives, University Libraries,Albany, State University of New York.

2. Fewer activists were interviewed for Chicago NOW because the research was originallydone as part of a much larger study (Staggenborg 1991) and because extensive docu-mentary data was available for the chapter.

3. In 1997, some Indiana University students attempted to revitalize the chapter, but it hasnot reappeared as an official chapter. The Cleveland chapter did show signs of activityin 2004 and 2005.

4. Organizations such as NOW often exaggerate their budgets and membership figures for

political reasons. We have compiled numbers of members and chapters and budget fig-ures for as many years as possible using NOW newsletters, newspaper accounts, andother sources, but cannot verify their accuracy. We do, however, believe that the figurescapture general trends in mobilization.

5. This assessment is shared by a national NOW report: “It has always been the case in ourorganization that size is rarely an indication of success. There are many highly successfulsmall chapters, and many large chapters with a relatively small activist base” (NOW 1992).

6. For this reason, we use the term “dynamic” rather than “charismatic” to refer to qualitiesof leaders.

7. An Indiana University graduate student had taken over from this leader in 1987 and

served competently until 1989, when she graduated and left town. According to anothermember interviewed, she “almost single-handedly” organized events during her two-year tenure, again pointing to the lack of leadership teams in the chapter (interviewwith Bloomington NOW activist, January 4, 1993).

REFERENCES

Act NOW . 1980. November 12(11). Special Collections Department, Deering Library,Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.

———. 1982. “A Gain and a Loss.” November 13(11). Special Collections Department,Deering Library, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.

———. 1985. “From the Incoming President.” October–November 16(5). Special Collec-tions Department, Deering Library, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.





7/30/2019 sop.2006.49.3.297



______. 1989. “Meet Elizabeth Hurd.” August–September 20(4). Special Collections Depart-ment, Deering Library, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.

Aminzade, Ronald R., Jack A. Goldstone, and Elizabeth Perry. 2001. “Leadership Dynamics

and the Dynamics of Contention.” Pp. 126–54 in Silence and Voice in Contentious Politics,edited by R. R. Aminzade, J. A. Goldstone, D. McAdam, E. J. Perry, W. H. Sewell, Jr.,S. Tarrow, and C. Tilly. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Andrews, Kenneth and Bob Edwards. 2005. “The Organizational Structure of Local Envi-ronmentalism.” Mobilization 10(2):213–34.

Baker, Andrea J. 1982. “The Problem of Authority in Radical Movement Groups: A CaseStudy of Lesbian-Feminist Organization.” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 18(3):323–41.

Barakso, Maryann. 2004. Governing NOW: Grassroots Activism in the National Organization for Women. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Barker, Colin, Alan Johnson, and Michael Lavalette, 2001. “Leadership Matters: An Intro-

duction.” Pp. 1–23 in Leadership in Social Movements, edited by C. Barker, A. Johnson,and M. Lavalette. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.Bordt, Rebecca L. 1997. The Structure of Women’s Nonprofit Organizations. Bloomington, IN:

Indiana University Press.Disney, Jennifer Leigh and Joyce Gelb. 2000. “Feminist Organizational ‘Success’: The State

of U.S. Women’s Movement Organizations in the 1990s.” Women and Politics 21(4):39–76.

Ferree, Myra Marx and Patricia Yancey Martin, eds. 1995. Feminist Organizations: Harvest of the New Women’s Movement. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Freeman, Jo. 1972. “The Tyranny of Structurelessness.” Pp. 285–99 in Radical Feminism,edited by A. Koedt, E. Levine, and A. Rapone. New York: Quadrangle Press.

———. 1975. The Politics of Women’s Liberation. New York: Longman.Gamson, William. 1990. Strategy of Social Protest, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Ganz, Marshall. 2000. “Resources and Resourcefulness: Strategic Capacity in the Union-

ization of California Agriculture: 1959–1966.” American Journal of Sociology 105(4):1003–62.

Gilmore, Stephanie. 2003. “The Dynamics of Second-Wave Feminist Activism in Memphis,1971–1982: Rethinking the Liberal/Radical Divide.” NWSA Journal 15(1):94–117.

Hyde, Cheryl. 1995. “Feminist Social Movement Organizations Survive the New Right.”Pp. 306–22 in Feminist Organizations: Harvest of the New Women’s Movement, edited byM. M. Ferree and P. Y. Martin. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Lofland, John. 1979. “White-Hot Mobilization: Strategies of a Millenarian Movement.” Pp.157–66 in The Dynamics of Social Movements: Resource Mobilization, Social Control, and

Tactics, edited by M. N. Zald and J. D. McCarthy. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.McAdam, Doug. 1982. Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930–1970.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Minkoff, Debra C. 1999. “Bending with the Wind: Strategic Change and Adaptation by

Women’s and Racial Minority Organizations.” American Journal of Sociology 104(6):1666–703.

Morris, Aldon D. and Suzanne Staggenborg. 2004. “Leadership in Social Movements.”Pp. 171–96 in The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, edited by D. Snow, S. Soule,and H. Kriesi. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

National Organization for Women (NOW). 1992. Survey of NOW Chapter Activity, pre-pared by the Chapter and State Development and Services Department.

NOW News. 1993. May–June. Files of New York City NOW chapter.





7/30/2019 sop.2006.49.3.297



———. 1984. “NOW York Woman–New York City’s Accomplishments—1983.” January.Files of the New York City NOW chapter.

Piven, Frances Fox and Richard A. Cloward. 1977. Poor People’s Movments: Why They Succeed,

How They Fail. New York: Vintage Books.Polletta, Francesca. 2002. Freedom Is an Endless Meeting: Democracy in American Social

Movements. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Reger, Jo. 2001. “Motherhood and the Construction of Feminist Identities: Variations in a

Women’s Movement Organization.” Sociological Inquiry 71:85–110.———. 2002a. “More Than One Feminism: Organizational Structure, Ideology, and the

Construction of Collective Identity.” Pp. 171–84 in Social Movements: Identity, Culture,and the State, edited by D. S. Meyer, N. Whittier, and B. Robnett. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

———. 2002b. “Organizational Dynamics and the Construction of Multiple FeministIdentities in the National Organization for Women.” Gender & Society 16(5):710–27.

Riger, Stephanie. 1984. “Vehicles for Empowerment: The Case of Feminist MovementOrganizations.” Pp. 99–117 in Studies in Empowerment: Steps toward Understandingand Action, edited by J. Rappaport, C. Swift, and R. Hess. New York: Haworth Press.

Robnett, Belinda. 1997. How Long? How Long? African American Women in the Struggle forCivil Rights. New York: Oxford University Press.

Roth, Benita. 2004. Separate Roads to Feminism: Black, Chicana, and White Feminist Movementsin America’s Second Wave. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Schmitt, Frederika E. and Patricia Yancey Martin. 1999. “Unobtrusive Mobilization by anInstitutionalized Rape Crisis Center.” Gender & Society 13(3):364–84.

Scott, Ellen K. 2005. “Beyond Tokenism: The Making of Racially Diverse Feminist Organi-zations.” Social Problems 52(2):232–54.

Staggenborg, Suzanne. 1989. “Stability and Innovation in the Women’s Movement: A Com-parison of Two Movement Organizations.” Social Problems 36(1):75–92.

———. 1991. The Pro-Choice Movement: Organization and Activism in the Abortion Conflict.New York: Oxford University Press.

———. 1998. “Social Movement Communities and Cycles of Protest: The Emergence andMaintenance of a Local Women’s Movement.” Social Problems 45(2):180–204.

Tarrow, Sidney. 1998. Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics, 2nd ed.New York: Cambridge University Press.

Taylor, Verta. 1989. “Sources of Continuity in Social Movements: The Women’s Movementin Abeyance.” American Sociological Review 54:761–75.

Vaughan, Diane. 1992. “Theory Elaboration: The Heuristics of Case Analysis.” Pp. 173–202in What Is a Case? edited by C. C. Ragin and H. S. Becker. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.Voss, Kim and Rachel Sherman. 2000. “Breaking the Iron Law of Oligarchy: Union Revital-

ization in the American Labor Movement.” American Journal of Sociology 106(2):303–49.Whittier, Nancy. 1995. Feminist Generations. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.





7/30/2019 sop.2006.49.3.297


sop.2006.49.3.297

Documents