324 Rhys H. Williams
women’s movement of the large numbers of young women who were first active in
the civil rights movement is an excellent example. A technological offshoot of this
development is that of activists who specialize in a particular technique needed by
SMOs, such as direct mail solicitation or polling, and who sell their services to a variety
of organizations or causes. All in all, professional activism, supported by a variety of
issues and constituencies and oriented toward a national political scene, has become a
major force in U.S. politics in the past thirty years.
This supply-side approach, usually referred to as the “resource mobilization” per-
spective by sociologists (McCarthy and Zald 1977), recognizes the advantages that for-
mal organization brings to social movements attempting to change society. Formal
organization facilitates strategy development, eases communication networks, coordi-
nates fundraising and recruitment, facilitates faster decision making through chains-
of-command, and aids in public recognition. Organizations ensure a consistent flow of
the resources necessary to pursue public agendas, and when they work well, distribute
those resources efficiently even as they regenerate them.
The development of PSMOs has advantages for elected officials as well. They bring
predictability to single-issue politics by focusing and channeling ideological claims,
giving officials a clear opposition leader to engage, and being available for the type of
compromise negotiation that is the mark of pluralist party politics. While many pro-
fessional activists cannot “deliver votes” the way traditional party leaders could, they
nonetheless provide a unified, coherent symbol. Prominent activists act as opinion
leaders, or cues, for people who cannot stay up with the intricacies of policy debate
and development. And elected officials can use appearances or meetings with recog-
nized leaders of SMOs to send powerful media messages about a politician’s sympathies
or commitments. Certainly the media are adept at recognizing and interpreting these
gestures. Visible, national, professional activists can be important symbolically, what-
ever the policy reality. In short, PSMOs are useful not only to challengers of the status
quo but to the status quo itself.
Of course, it is a form of cooptation when officials use PSMOs in this way. While rep-
resentatives of a movement are invited “into the game,” the game itself is one of insider
politics where officialdom has more resources and expertise. This highlights another
important difference between established political institutions, such as bureaucracies
or parties, and social movements. SMOs do not have the presumption of legitimacy
that goes with established government. Their stock in trade is calling issues to pub-
lic attention, generally in moral terms (Williams and Demerath 1991; Williams 1995).
Going into the backrooms of deal-making and compromise cuts them off from their
most potent symbolic weapons as well as from their most impassioned constituencies
(who are not, after all, established political actors).
Moreover, the organizations themselves have to be maintained. The more nationally
oriented, technologically sophisticated, and staff-heavy they are, the more support they
need to keep themselves running. And, as in any labor market, the more talented the
professionals hired, the more they cost in salaries and other sunk costs. An increasing
proportion of the resources raised must thus be channeled into the organization itself.
To complicate matters, a social movement is likely to be composed of several SMOs
with similar goals and overlapping constituencies. Think of groups such as the Sierra
Club, the Audubon Society, the World Wildlife Fund, and the National Federation for
Wildlife. All are environmentalist SMOs, but with slightly different issues and foci.