Exploring Social Movements: Concepts and Contexts

Every major shift in society – from the abolition of sati in colonial India to the global climate strikes of the 21st century – has been driven by people coming together with a shared purpose. These are not random outbursts of discontent. They are social movements: organized, sustained, and deeply rooted in the realities of their time. Understanding what social movements actually are, and how scholars have tried to define them, is the first step to making sense of how societies change – or resist change.

What is a social movement? 🔗

At its most basic, a social movement is a collective effort by a group of people to bring about – or prevent – social, political, or economic change. According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, a social movement is a loosely organized but sustained campaign in support of a social goal, typically either the implementation or prevention of change in society’s structure or values. What sets a movement apart from a one-off protest or a spontaneous crowd is its continuity, organization, and shared sense of purpose.

Social movements are not defined by rules and formal procedures in the way that institutions are. Instead, they result from people coming together around a common outlook – a shared sense that something in society needs to change, or must be protected from change. This collective orientation is what gives movements their energy and direction.

A concept with a history 🔗

The term “social movement” itself has a specific origin. According to sociological record, the phrase was formally introduced in 1848 by German sociologist Lorenz von Stein in his work on socialist and communist movements following the French Revolution. At that time, the concept referred specifically to the political stirrings of the industrial working class – workers seeking a new social order that would end economic exploitation and allow for fuller human development. The labor movement and the socialist movement of the late 19th century were the prototypical examples that shaped early scholarly thinking on the subject.

Over time, the concept expanded. What once referred narrowly to working-class struggle came to encompass a far wider range of collective efforts – peasant rebellions, independence movements, feminist campaigns, civil rights struggles, environmental protests, and more. As Encyclopedia.com notes, the narrow identification of “social movement” with labor alone became untenable once peasant movements, fascist mobilizations, and colonial independence struggles entered the picture. The concept had to grow to fit the reality.

What scholars say: key definitions 🔗

Because social movements take so many forms, sociologists have proposed a range of definitions – each highlighting different dimensions of the same phenomenon. Looking at these definitions together reveals what the concept truly involves.

Anthony Giddens 🔗

Anthony Giddens, one of the most widely read sociologists of the 20th century, defined a social movement as a collective attempt to further a common interest or secure a common goal through collective action outside the sphere of established institutions. This definition is important because it highlights two things: the role of shared interest and the fact that movements operate outside the normal channels of institutional power – outside political parties, courts, and bureaucracies.

Charles Tilly 🔗

Charles Tilly, one of the most influential figures in social movement research, offered a more structural definition. According to his work, social movements are characterized by three elements: a sustained campaign making collective claims on authorities, a repertoire of contention (such as public meetings, demonstrations, and petitions), and public displays of what he called WUNC – worthiness, unity, numbers, and commitment. For Tilly, movements are a primary vehicle through which ordinary people participate in public politics.

Sidney Tarrow 🔗

Sidney Tarrow defined social movements as sustained collective challenges to elites, authorities, or cultural codes by people with common purposes and solidarity. He specifically drew a line between movements and political parties or advocacy groups, emphasizing that what makes a movement distinctive is this sustained, challenging quality – not just a one-time petition, but an ongoing confrontation with power.

Mario Diani 🔗

Mario Diani, in a landmark 1992 article published in the Sociological Review, synthesized several scholarly perspectives and concluded that nearly all definitions share three criteria: social movements are networks of informal interactions between individuals, groups, and organizations; they are engaged in political or cultural conflicts; and they are united by a shared collective identity. This three-part framework remains one of the most widely cited in the field.

Herbert Blumer 🔗

Herbert Blumer approached social movements from the perspective of collective behavior. In his view, a social movement signifies either a collective effort to transform some given area of established social relations, or a large unguided change involving large numbers of participants. Blumer also drew a distinction between active social movements – those seeking to change society – and expressive ones, which focus on transforming their own members’ beliefs and behaviors.

Francesca Polletta 🔗

From a more policy-oriented lens, sociologist Francesca Polletta of UC Irvine has described a social movement as an organized effort to change laws, policies, or practices by people who do not have the power to effect change through conventional channels. This definition emphasizes the political marginality of movement participants – movements arise precisely because formal power is not accessible to everyone.

What the definitions share 🔗

Despite their differences, these definitions converge on several common threads. Collective action is always at the center – social movements are not individual endeavors. There is always a shared goal, whether that goal is reform, revolution, resistance, or recognition. And crucially, social movements operate with some degree of continuity over time; they are not one-off events but sustained efforts. As OpenStax’s Introduction to Sociology puts it, social movements are purposeful, organized groups striving toward a common social goal.

All definitions also reflect an understanding that social movements are fundamentally linked to social change. They do not emerge within stable social orders that everyone accepts. They emerge precisely when people believe – or fear – that things can and must be different.

How historical and social context shapes the concept 🔗

One of the most important insights from the study of social movements is that context matters enormously. The way a movement forms, what it demands, and how it is understood all depend on the society in which it arises. This is why the concept of a social movement looks different in different parts of the world and at different points in history.

The European context 🔗

In 19th-century Europe, social movements were closely tied to industrialization and urbanization. Urbanization brought people of similar goals and grievances into close proximity, making it easier to organize. The labor movement and socialist movement grew directly out of the conditions of industrial capitalism – poor wages, dangerous conditions, and few legal protections. In this context, social movements were defined largely through a class-based lens, shaped by Marxist thought and the material conditions of workers and peasants.

As sociological scholarship notes, figures like E.P. Thompson challenged the earlier view that working-class protests were simply disorder or mob behavior. Thompson showed that crowds and protesters operated within a moral economy – they had a shared understanding of right and wrong that legitimized their collective action. This reframing changed how scholars understood social movements: not as irrational outbursts, but as meaningful, morally grounded responses to injustice.

The Indian context 🔗

In India, the history and concept of social movements are shaped by an entirely different set of conditions – colonialism, caste, religious pluralism, and post-independence nation-building. As Indian sociologists M.S.A. Rao and T.K. Oommen have argued, social movements in India emerge when existing institutions fail to address the needs and aspirations of certain sections of society, particularly those facing exclusion based on caste, class, gender, or ethnicity.

The roots of India’s social movement tradition go back to the 19th century. Reformers like Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Jyotiba Phule, and Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar initiated struggles against social evils such as sati, child marriage, and caste discrimination – well before the formal independence movement took shape. These were not merely political campaigns; they were efforts to redefine what Indian society should look like at its core.

The Indian freedom struggle itself – spanning the Non-Cooperation Movement, Civil Disobedience, and Quit India campaigns under Gandhi – is widely regarded as one of the largest social movements in world history, mobilizing millions across lines of religion, caste, and region. After independence, the focus shifted. New movements addressed land reform, Dalit rights, tribal autonomy, women’s empowerment, and environmental sustainability – each shaped by the specific contradictions of post-colonial Indian democracy.

Scholar Ghanshyam Shah, in his authoritative review of social movement literature in India, points out that even the meaning of the term “social movement” as used by participants varies across time and region. The concept is not fixed – it carries different weight in peasant insurgencies of the colonial era versus urban feminist campaigns of the post-liberalization period. This variability is not a weakness in the concept; it reflects the richness and complexity of India’s social fabric.

Why definitions differ across regions and time periods 🔗

The variation in how scholars define and understand social movements is not just an academic debate. It reflects real differences in what movements look like on the ground. In Western academic contexts, social movement theory has been shaped by the experience of industrialized democracies, where movements primarily target state policy and operate within relatively open political systems. In postcolonial societies like India, movements often address questions of basic dignity, survival, and identity – and frequently operate against both state power and entrenched social hierarchies like caste.

New Social Movement theory, which emerged in Europe from the 1960s onward, captures another shift: away from purely class-based and economic concerns toward questions of identity, culture, and lifestyle. Feminist movements, environmental campaigns, LGBTQ+ rights movements – these are not primarily about wages or property. They are about recognition, belonging, and the terms on which people are included in society. In India, this theoretical shift resonates with movements like the Chipko movement, the Narmada Bachao Andolan, and Dalit cultural assertion, all of which combine social, economic, and identity-based demands in ways that older definitions struggle to fully capture.

This is why no single definition of a social movement can be universal. The concept must be flexible enough to travel across historical periods, political systems, and cultural contexts – while still retaining a core meaning rooted in collective action, shared purpose, and the struggle for change.

What do you think? Given how differently social movements look across India’s history – from Gandhi’s mass mobilizations to the Chipko movement to contemporary digital campaigns – do you think a single definition can ever fully capture what a social movement is? And how much does the social and economic context of a society shape not just the form a movement takes, but the very way we define and understand it?

References

1. https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-movement
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_movement
3. https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/sociology-and-social-reform/sociology-general-terms-and-concepts/social-movements
4. https://commonslibrary.org/what-is-a-social-movement-social-movement-definitions/
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Tilly
6. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1992.tb02943.x
7. https://politicsforindia.com/introduction-to-social-movements/
8. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK268722/
9. https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/21-2-social-movements
10. https://pwonlyias.com/ncert-notes/social-movements-in-india/
11. https://vajiramandravi.com/current-affairs/social-movements-in-india/
12. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/social-sciences-and-humanities/social-movement-theory-new-social-movement-theory