Movements for social change line the pages of history. A movement is defined as a form of social mobilization that involves personnel with a particular set of ideas or aims.i The society harbouring the movement can be conceived of as a stratified bipartite: the dominant (which responds to the movement), and the subordinate (which encapsulates the movement).ii The main goal for any movement is to effect change through drawing from and attempting to influence public discourse: this is relatively fixed. Ambiguity in outcome arises from the mobilization process, determined by several different dimensions: its nature, its action frame, and its corresponding strategies. Beyond these controllable aspects of the mobilization process lie the response of the public and the dominant’s reaction to the movement’s framing of issues and actions. Though distinguishing characteristics between a movement classified as a ‘success’ and another as a ‘failure’ (which must be observed in the form of a continuum) are in truth subtle, and subject heavily to both the life stage of a movementiii and the nature and circumstance of the movement itself, it is first possible to identify a general consensus of variability before exploring the nuances through case studies. There are a handful of clear characteristics which dominate successful movements: an internal establishment of the desired societyiv (internal life should prefigure sought-after emancipatory changes to generate the solidarity needed for collective action eg. Chartists), the cultivation of “conscience” constituencies rather than “free riders”, and a clear antagonist or target. Movements must also see change occurring through the aggregation of individual behaviour from the grassroots, complemented by the establishment of a collective identity, of solidarity, and of a collective action frame. Then comes the distinctions identified through a general theoretical approach. The emphasis upon resource mobilization (RM) theory in sociology and political sciencev across the empirical measurementvi of a movement’s lifespan has long highlighted the necessity of a steady influx of resources into social movements to sustain its vitality. Analysis beyond the ‘cost and benefit’ realm of the RM paradigm, and into the deprivation and grievances of the movement would reveal the significance of micro-interaction between the individuals within the system. Gamson underlines how the interaction between individuals and their social support system within a movement is crucial for its sustainability. Pre-existing social relationships compound recruitment and support between actors, and similarly the formation of group loyalties through a process of collective conflict and struggle. In addition, Taylor and Whittier identifies three micro-mobilizationvii processes within this set that enhances political identity fundamental to a successful movement: cultural boundaries, shared consciousness and politicization of everyday life as an attempt to bridge individual differences. Such processes are critical in terms of overcoming personal differences between members, and in concentrating the efforts and movement of individual actors into a collectiveviii that is able to yield collective power. This ultimately separates many successful movements from their counterparts. The adoption of a more statistically-positive tactic is crucial.ix This could be explored through the split in tactics within the Civil Rights movement in the 1960sx. The advancement of minority rights, which split the struggle into integrationist (non-violent civil disobedience appealing to “white moderate”xi and median white voterxii) and nationalist (community control and building autonomous bases of power through black-led institutionsxiii) changed the direction of success. Findings by Wasowxiv suggest that though the “transformative egalitarian” coalitionxvwas fragile, in the absence of violent protests, it would likely have secured Humphrey (lead author of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) the presidential election of 1968 rather than Nixon. Wasow argues further that “in the absence of white antipathy to black uprisings, the “law and order” coalition would not have developed a durable campaigning and governing strategy for the next half century.” In this case, the use of violence by nationalist groups hindered the direction of the overall movement. Looking at social movements cross-nationally, Stephan and Chenoweth have also found that violent campaigns are successful 26% of the time, whereas nonviolent efforts succeed 53% of the time by maintaining legitimacy, attracting broad-based participation and co-opting potential opponents.xvi Violence does not appear to be a strategic tactic in compounding success. Yet distinguishing characteristics are not one-dimensional, and cannot be perceived as a simplistic list. Identified characteristics within successful movements do not guarantee future success, as each is different in nature and context, and unique in interaction between actors, systems and responding society. Specifically, an identified characteristic too, is not one-dimensional. Take violence, an obstacle to the success of the movement above. Truthfully it exists as a double-edged sword. State repression is predicted to focus media attention on the grievances of non-violent protestors, which would propel the movement; yet violence can equally express discontent and catalyse a response to the movement, eg. Peasants’ Revolt. Nor do all successful movements involve ‘contentious collective action’, labelled as the ‘basis of all social movements’ by Tarrowxvii: the push to eradicate polio did not involve protest marches, and the fight to pass the Clean Air Act in 1970 saw environmentalists working with economists. Fundamentals of controlled characteristics exhibit variation in variable movements. Furthermore, the nature of pre-modern and modern movements differ in terms of possible canals of communication, and efficiency in communication: growing prominence of media as a publicizing tool has seen an evolution within approach, underpinned by digital connection. An effective indicator and broadcaster of discontent without the aid of media would be violence and rioting. Thus violence as a tactic would be seen more prominently in pre modern movements. But its diminishing effectiveness as a tactic does not mean that it is now a distinguishing factor between success and failure-the period of focus would provide its significance. As all tactics and characteristics are at least binary in effect, and all movements outstanding from one another, the success of movements ought to be separated by time of strategic utilization, and strategic suitability within periodization. Individual movements must not be viewed as a uniform process, nor should their success. Rather, movements must be ‘periodized’ as Maher suggests. Mechanisms such as organizational resources, competition and political opportunities hold varying significance at varying stages of the movement, and the type of organizational resources vary across moments. xviii The significance of resource mobilization, for example, varies. As professionalization occurs later in the movementxix, Maher suggests that resources may be especially utile in the beginning, and its effects may became less significant over time eg. The Civil Rights Movement turned attention northwards after mid-1960s successes.xx Maher finds that as movements reach post mobilization, resources are no longer sufficient to mobilize. Rather, institutional allies and their access, increases drastically in value and impact (immediate opportunity compared to street protest). Innovative, contentious tactics would also be used early in the mobilization processxxi before using more institutionalized tactics.xxii The period of emergence between 1960 and 1968, typified by lunch counter sit-ins, Freedom Rides, and large marches on Selma and Washington, benefited heavily from established organizational infrastructure,xxiii and is a testament to the findings of the significance of grassroots organization and infrastructures for mobilization.xxiv Yet following the assassination of King and the success of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, Maher finds that NAACP membership was no longer significant: though it provided fundamental support early in the movement, its role evolved as other organisations rose to prominence. Emerging movements may therefore require more organizational and material resources, whilst late-period movements, capable of synthesizing resources self-sufficiently, may be more dependent upon human resources.xxvThus, as movements develop, its respective characteristics also change; it is simply insufficient to view movements as a constant, and therefore insufficient to view them with constant defining characteristics for general comparison. Rather, it would be necessary to focus on a more specific strata of movements, defined by period within history and period within movement. Hence its relative success also exists on a continuum; as the continuum shifts, the characteristics call for change once again. The above are only the controllable aspects of the movement, and though they already exhibit variation in identification, the other uncontrollable proportions introduce more variability. The consensus view in political science that the dominant determines mass opinion,xxvi and that the activists are assumed to have no direct control over the response sets the elites as capable of driving ‘public taste’xxvii eg. Johnson and Goldwater on civil rights and “law and order”. In this case, there is most certainly a realm of unpredictability and ‘helplessness’ to the success of the movements: Lee poses a theory that elites remain heavily influential, allowing only non-elite counter-publics in times of social and political contestation to influence mass opinionxxviii (“activated mass opinion”). Yet it is perhaps more hopeful than Lee suggests. Wasow’s coining of the term “agenda seeding” is most apt to describe the relationship between activists and elites: elites dominate communication but activists possess the ability to overcome “asymmetries through tactics like disruption that appeal to news”xxix as identified by Granger causality tests. Activists can entice the media to prioritize their concerns eg. Southern civil rights protest time and Selma as site for protestxxx, as well as encourage a narrative to be created within media eg. “staged” protest and injustice “dramatized”xxxi, Colvin and Parks as embodying figures. Particular protesters could also be recruited eg. The Children’s Crusade in Birmingham and rhetoric such as “Freedom Now!” and “Black Power” used. Yet even then, the media response is not systematically guaranteed to be in favour of the movement-civil disobedience can be covered as justifiable protest or criminalityxxxii. Similarly, the reaction of the elites can also be binary: the response could be with carrots (insurgency thesisxxxiii) eg. political elites responding to civil unrest through increased investments in social policy and other redistributive policiesxxxiv or with sticks eg. enhanced expenditures on policing and efforts at coercive control.xxxv Though a positive response should be welcomed, a negative, punitive response does not necessarily signal a determined shift away from success: if activists were to respond directly to violent repression, it can capture the attention of the public and elites, and may in fact draw sympathies. Even the success of a movement is ambiguous. Suppose a movement is determined successful. Compared to other movements though, which are equally deemed successful, it does not exist on an equal platform of success. Rather, it would exist on a relative spectrum of success. Thus, every movement to some degree could be labelled a success or failure, and its labelling is relative to another. The relative distinguishing of movements upon the spectrum could be partially indicated by its nature, which takes two forms: a conflict movement, or a consensus movement. Loflandxxxvi (1989) argues that consensus movements have little success in managing social change as they contain structural aspects that severely limit their capacity to influence. MADD for example, with a national opinion poll support rate of over 80% and broad institutional support, does not compare favourably in growth with that of successful conflict groups. Compared to the Southern Farmers’ Alliance, it stood at only 377 chapters and 25,000 members after five years, whereas the Alliance brought ¼ of eligible male farmers in South into organization.xxxvii MADD only represented 1/2000 of its targeted constituency. Even average groups among successful conflict organizations accomplish more than MADD eg. SDS (Students for a Democratic Society). The significance of the analysis lies in the fact that movements could be likened to navigating a labyrinth. Tactics can both inhibit and encourage success, and its applicational success can be dependent upon the stage of progress. Reaching the end of the labyrinth would signal success, yet its relative success is determined by the time of completion. The obstacles to the movement appear in the form of a labyrinth: though each labyrinth takes the same name, its composition is never identical. The characteristics which distinguish a successful movement from an unsuccessful one comes to life in the dynamic between each of these flexible, moving parts, and thrives in decision-making.