Battling the Big Drift:

On (Dis) Connections of Leftist Social Movements

Sarah Valek

When I was sixteen I attended my first animal rights conference. The event

was held in the summer in upstate New York, and since I had just became involved

in the animal rights movement earlier that year, I was excited to network with other

activists. The conference was held at a farm animal sanctuary and lasted for a whole

weekend. There was camping, farm tours, plenty of good vegan food, dancing at

night, and participants got to listen to a list of renowned animal rights speakers give

talks on everything from the cruelties of the fur industry to the health benefits of a

vegetable-based diet. While this was an exciting event for an early animal rights

activist, it soon illuminated one of the most debilitating issues regarding progressive

social movements.

I brought my parents to this event, and even though they didnt understand

everything about veganism and animal rights, they were becoming increasingly more

sympathetic to the cause. Back in the day my parents were hippies back who were

always involved in an array of leftist movements. My mom was more of a mainstream

liberalshe worked for the county Democrat party and was always engaging in

battles with the conservatives at her work.

Even though my moms beliefs shaped the way I grew up, I cite my dad as

having the strongest influence over my ideologies. My dad is a socialist union

carpenter who spent his youth burning money in protest outside a bank, defending

communism (its not that bad), and escaping the draft. He tells me how, when

growing up, his friends parents actually forbid their children to hang out with him

because of his radical views. Even now, many of my friends parents find my dad to

be strange and misguided. I can remember how my view of him changed over time

from hes totally insane, to whoa my dad is actually right! From a very young age,

my dad told me that Disney was evil and how he thought the song Its A Small

World After All smacked of Nazism; that God didnt exist; there was no good in

being rich and that college was basically just a way for rich families to do something

with their kids; and that America was not the gloriously humanitarian country as it

appeared to be.

Most importantly, my dad encouraged me to become involved in politics. He

told me that anything ignoring politics was basically pointlesswe all need to pay

attention to whats going on in the world. From here, I started to learn about issues

such as workers rights, anarchist theory, globalization, civil rights, feminism, world

peace and so on. I started to peruse the store Revolution Books in Cleveland and

soon became very acquainted with all things Leftist.

Somewhere along my journey into the political Left I decided to become a

vegetarian. I didnt see this as a political actI merely did it because I couldnt

understand why I was eating meat and having animals killed in my name when there

was a multitude of other foods to choice from. It was a year later, when I became

vegan, that the politics suddenly emerged. As I learned more about the dierent

animal industries, I saw how they were not unlike the other globalization mega-giants

I had been learning about. What really is the dierence between Tyson and Nike

besides the goods they peddle? Both companies are multi-million dollar behemoths

who employ poor labor standards (sweatshops and in slaughterhouses both make use

of cheap, immigrant labor). I started to see veganism not just as compatible with the

Left, but as an essential step in fighting against globalization and injustice.

I had not met many vegans when I made the switch at age sixteen so I was

excited to meet other vegans at the animal rights conference. I was still involved with

other issues, but animal rights had become my primary concern. I figured this was ok

as long as I tie it into all the other movements. I saw everything connected, and

when I went to this conference I figured other people would, too. This is when I

noticed the Big Drift that would serve as a source of frustration for years to come.

There was a speaker talking about the voting processhow we need to pay attention

to score-sheets to see how a candidate has voted on animal issues so we can cast the

appropriate ballot. He stressed that just because a candidate is a Democrat doesnt

make him/her friendly to animals.

When the speaker was done, one of the co-founders of the sanctuary

underscored those remarks by saying, You would be surprised how many

Republicans vote for animal-friendly legislation. We need to make sure that we vote

for the animals rather than vote along party lines. Anyone who is animal-friendly

deserves our vote, no matter what. This manifesto was followed by a round of

applause as attendees expressed their collective agreement: Yes, well vote for

anyone! Luckily, one of the attendees raised his hand to retort. I remember his

name was Ahmed, and he quickly became a friend of my dad after making this

remark: I have to disagree. We should not just vote for anyone! We need to take

other things into consideration, like a candidates foreign policies towards human

rights and globalization. Does it really help us if we elect a candidate who will help an

animal, but not a fellow human being?

This is an example of what I mean by the Big Driftwithin a given social

movement, members are unable to make connections between their issues and that

of another movement. The rhetoric runs along the lines of my movement first! and

members fail to place their issue into the larger picture. Of course, movements will

band together at times, but this is a rare and beautiful occasion. From what I have

noticed, there is a lot of movement-bashing by fellow activists, although the

bashing comes in the form of stepping on toes. At the conference, two very

prominent voices in the animal rights movement (ARM) were telling activists to put

their cause ahead of any other. The animals are whats important, is a phrase I

would often hear activists shout out.

National organizations like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

(PETA) have been known to enrage everyone from civil rights activists to feminists

while pursuing their animal rights agenda. And even though the ARM shares many

characteristics with traditional Leftist social movements (those of which I will discuss

later on), it is dicult to find any mention of ARM within Leftist discourse, except,

of course, when bashing. Take, for example, leftist renegade Michael Moore, who

in his book Dude, Where's My Country? blatantly says, Animals don't have rights. He

then oers this advice to ARM activists: And lay o carrying on about the milk, no

matter how bad it is for you. You just look like a dumbass if you go on national TV,

like PETA does, to argue that beer is better for the body than milk. This shit just

makes me wanna go kick my dog (192-193).

Now how can a Leftist who would otherwise agree with Moores main points

(fighting for workers rights, rallying against the Iraq war) attempt to reconcile their

belief in the ARM? Just because Moore doesnt agree with PETAs actions (who

does?!) doesnt mean he has to ridicule the movement by saying he wants to kick his

dog. Surely, Moore is not the definitive voice for the Left, but he is one of the most

vocal. And being vocal about ARM, either in opposition or solidarity to, is something

extremely rare within Leftist discourse. This prompts the question: How and why

does a social movement become marginalized and/or dismissed by fellow activists?

Nothing is more frustrating than being active in dierent movements yet

seeing the Big Drift come between the dierent, though very connected, issues.

Working with my college animal rights group, we notice that not many people, even

those we consider to be fellow Leftists who should have an open mind to the

suering of others, fail to take us seriously. The ARM is dismissed as some petty,

upper-middle class concern that isnt worthy of a persons time. Another member of

my college group explains his hardships in appealing his case to fellow Leftists. Day

after day, he would tell of the ridicule he would endure for being involved in such a

silly issue. He could see if the critics were conservatives, since their ideals are

opposite to the cause, but these people were all liberals.

Even though activists can only focus on one issue at a time, doesnt mean we

have to totally ignore and/or dismiss another fellow progressive movement. If nothing

else, this failure to connect is only harming progressive movements. We disconnect

other issues because of time constraints, tunnel vision, lack of willingness to

challenge stereotypes, and that constant strive to push our agenda by any means

necessary. By ridiculing another movement, activists are separating themselves from

the radicals (Hey at least were not them, fighting some stupid cause!). In figuring

out how and why this Big Drift occurs, it is necessary to examine what exactly is a

social movement.

There is a whole field in sociology devoted to the study of collective behavior,

which includes the study and analysis of social movements. Social movements can be

defined as unconventional groups that have varying degrees of formal organization

and that attempt to produce or prevent radical or reformist type of change (Wood

3). They are an example of collective behavior, which itself is defined as behavior

that occurs when the usual social conventions are suspended and people collectively

establish new norms of behavior in response to an emerging situation (Andersen

605). So, a social movement is a microcosm of collective behavior in that it is a

patterned, dynamic group response to a societal condition.

Many sociologists emphasize the importance of a balance between

spontaneity and structure as an important characteristic. According to the anthology

Social Movements of the Sixties and Seventies, It is the tension between

spontaneity and structure that gives a social movement its peculiar flavor (Freeman

2). Spontaneity allows a group to be flexible in the development of new strategies.

The maintenance of routine elements of organization is what separates a social

movement from other forms of collective behavior, such as a riot or crowd.

Another element that shapes a social movement is the presence of a strong

group consciousness. An activist must have the sense that he/she is part of a group

with who he/she shares a particular concern. As many 60s activists would say, the

movement is a state of mind (Freeman 2). Individuals must share a strong sense of a

similar identity. And this is a concept that is easy to see in activists today that define

themselves through their cause, rather than anything else. This consciousness can

also be seen at work in The animals are whats important. Members are expected

to act in accordance with the movement, rather than through individual need. And in

turn, a movement must work to create consciousness. It must have a message that

members are more than willing to spread (Fight the Man!, Go Vegan!, Boycott

the Gap!). An elaborate ideology is embedded in these messages that often

specifies a problem, oers solutions, and attempts to justify a change from the status

quo (3).

Not all social movements are of the progressive Leftist variety. There are many

types of reactionary social movements which resist change and/or work to reinstate

an earlier social order, such as the Aryan Nation and the Right-to-Life movement

(Andersen 618-619). Of course, disconnections are going to exist between

progressive and reactionary movements, and this is understandable since theyre

fighting for opposite ideals. But, when a group of movements who seek relatively

similar ideals fail to connect, that is when it gets interesting. Im mostly concerned

with social change movements and how they interact with one another.

Movements can give the impression of having all members unified around a

single goal, but in reality, they are very diverse. A movement is a broad term for a

network of various groups that work toward a specific goal. Members establish

certain norms and often their own culture (or counterculture). The groups utilize a

variety of dierent tactics from reformism to radicalism. These dierences can lead

to tension with the various groups vying for dominance. Often the movement is

characterized by two or three of the most vocal groups, leaving the public perception

resting on a small percentage of the actual members.

There are four necessary elements needed for a movement to start: a

preexisting communication network, a preexisting grievance, a precipitating incident, and

the ability to mobilize (Andersen 620). Lets say theres a group of pissed-o people.

Now in order to form a movement, there needs to be a way for them to maintain

communication with one another. They must all have a perceived sense of injustice

and/or a strong desire for change. The next step is to have a triggering factor for

actionthe people need to have something (an event, for example) that pushed

them over the edge. Next they need the ability to mobilize. Mobilization is the way a

group secures people and resources for the movement. The most important aspect

for a group is the ability to collectively mobilize on the need for change. A movement

cannot move without a way to garner new support via members. Networks need to be

made between dierent groups from within, but should networks also be established

across movements? Should groups also seek out recruits from dierent movements?

One popular theory developed to answer questions about the emergence of

social movements is called the resource mobilization theory, and as its name implies,

it stresses the importance of group mobilization. Resource mobilization theory

focuses on how movements gain momentum by successfully garnering new resources

and/or making use of available resources. It also examines how they compete with

other movements, and the ways in which society often attempts to prevent all this

mobilization (Andersen 625). In the sociology textbook Sociology, Understanding a

Diverse Society, the authors stress the importance of interpersonal contacts as an

important resource group since they can provide a continuous supply of new

recruits, as well as money, knowledge, skills, and other kinds of assistance (625).

This theory also highlights the connections between dierent movements. The gay

and lesbian community, as an example, has used many of the strategies of the

violence against women movement in developing its own campaign to halt hate

crimes against gay men and lesbian women (625). Movements mobilize resources to

further their own cause, and since most are nonprofit, they are out for all the help

they can get. They need to involve more people to spread their message and to

recruit activists.

Most sociology books that Ive been reading have stressed the importance of

mobilization, but they have not researched the mobilization that may take place

between dierent movements. If communication networks and the availability of

resources are so crucial to the makings of a successful social movement, why is there

not much emphasis placed on the importance of pans-movement networking?

Admittedly, the research on this subject is there, but it isnt too easy to find. There is

a research paper examining social movements and network analysis through the

study of organizational aliations of 19th-century women reform leaders in New

York. The authors stress the power of networking. Since groups are advocating

alternative ideas that are not part of mainstream society, it is often hard to get heard

by the masses.

Because the ultimate success of an insurgent program is dependent on its mobilization of broad support, such organizations must find avenues to introduce their agendas into wider discourse. Because institutional routes are usually blocked, social movement groups find allies among other insurgent groups (Rosenthal et al 1023).

In other words, since society isnt listening, we need to connect to other

progressive groups in order to spread our message. The research goes on to

elaborate: Social movements are really multi-organizational fields, that is, networks of

organizations[they] usually appear within the context of, and depend on the

existence of, other social movements (1023). And the research concludes, In order

to survive, social movements must form ties with other movements and groups. Not

only are ties beneficial for membership and mobilization, they are necessary for

survival. Since people are the key resource of a movement, there needs to be cross-

fertilization. Network chains need to be formed by people working in dierent

organizations, and they need to be sustained. This way, these countercultural

alternative organizations can join together and share resources, which is really their

only means to success.

If mobilization and the ability to recruit new people is so important to a

movements success, then why is there a lack of cross-mobilization? Why, for

instance, does the ARM bash the civil rights movement instead of trying to

persuade them to be sympathetic? In the article Movements, Countermovements,

and the Structure of Political Opportunity, the authors say, Movement-

countermovement interaction is an ongoing feature of contemporary social

movements Yet the interplay of contending movements is understudied and

undertheorized (Meyer 1628). The article defines a countermovement as a

movement that makes contrary claims simultaneously to those of the original

movement (1631). But, ARM and the civil rights movement arent necessarily

making adverse claimsnone of them are countermovements. In fact, ARM is very

compatible with Leftist ideals that it doesnt make sense to exclude them.

The Left is often associated with socialism and secularism. Peter Singer, a

professor of philosophy from Princeton and an important ARM figure, describes the

Left as consisting of people who place minimizing suering above other moral

imperatives, such as tradition or rights (Wikipedia). Before the 1960s the Left was

mostly concerned with labor activism. From the 1960s onward, the Left broke into

the New Left, which adopted a broader definition of political activism and

maintained varying degrees of unity. The New Left started to exist as loose coalitions

of distinct social movements that included feminists, labor unions, greens, gay rights

activists, and civil rights groups. Today, the Left is also involved in anti-globalization

and anti-capitalist issues. The Left is often known as progressive, due to its desire

to identify itself on the side of social progress. Many dierent people are considered

Leftist, and the Left is known to fight within itself almost as much as it fights with

the Right. Does this make the Big Drift inevitable?

The ARM is a vast movement that often gets portrayed by the activities of a

few national groups, like the infamous PETA. There are actually two views that are

represented under the umbrella of the ARMthe animal welfare view and the

animal rights view. Animal welfarists contend that it is acceptable to use animals as

means to human ends as long as they are treated humanely (Francione 1). For

example, it would be morally permissive to consume factory-farmed eggs as long as

the chickens are allotted a decent amount of space. Many national ARM

organizations follow the welfarist philosophy, such as The Humane Society of the

United States (HSUS).

The animal rights view contends that animals should be free from

unnecessary cruelty, but also argues that there should be implemented a new set of

rights as the basis for ending institutionalized animal exploitation (Francione 1). In

the book Rain Without Thunder, Gary Francione, a professor of Law at Rutgers

University, says, To oversimplify the matter a bit, the welfarists seek the regulation

of animal exploitation; the rightists seek its abolition [italics his] (1). An example of

an animal rightist group is the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), a loosely based

collective that favors direct action.

The ARM emerged in the late 1970s and is a reported successor of the

antiwar and human rights crusades of the 1960s and 1970s (Guither 5). Methods used

by ARM include campaigns to influence legislation through letter-writing; seminars

and media events to influence members of Congress and public opinion; and

demonstrations to catch the attention of the public. ARM activists try to promote

veganism as a moral way of life since farm animals make up the largest population of

abused animals. Veganism is typically espoused as a way to fight against the cruelties

of factory farming, a way to achieve better health; and a way to protect the

environment by using less resources.

As I said before, I was first involved in ARM when I was sixteen. Because I

was learning about many dierent issues at the time, I saw connections between the

movements. I approached veganism with a political philosophyI saw it as a way to

fight against globalization and big business (yet another way to fight that elusive

Man!). I was surprised that I didnt hear many connections to politics by ARM

activistseverything was solely focused around the three tenets of ethics, health,

and environment.

The ARM is made up of both national and grassroots groups. National

groups, like HSUS and Farm Sanctuary pursue a rather conservative agenda whereas

some grassroots collectives will include ARM issues alongside other movements, like

Food Not Bombs. Other grassroots groups may try to pursue similar agendas to the

national oneswriting letters to Congress, protests, potlucksbut on a much more

personal scale. The national groups become very bloated, and like PETA, they often

hog the spotlight. While PETA is usually not thought of as being conservative, they

fail to connect ARM to any other movements. Many national groups are afraid to be

political as they may oend some people who otherwise could be potential recruits.

After all, they want to mobilize. But, by not being political these groups are at the risk

of pigeonholing the movement as an autonomous self-contained entity that has

nothing to do with other, more prominent issues. People start to see ARM as a waste

of time.

Many Leftists are viewing the ARM as just that. Take, for instance, Tim

Wise, an author of books about race and privilege, who wrote an article called

Animal Whites for Counter Punch that critiqued the strategies of the ARM.

Wises article nicely illuminates the shortcomings of ARM, while showing how a

potential recruit can be turned o. Wise repeatedly points out that he supports the

basic argument of ARM, but he says the way ARM activists act has overshadowed

the righteousness of that agenda on face value. I wish it werent so, but it is (1). He

cites activists as having smug attitudes since they blatantly say they would rather

work for animals than people. Wise says, The misanthropy that seems to inform and

motivate such comments, and literally hundreds more I could mention, guarantees

that the otherwise valid principles upon which animal rights positions are often

grounded will remain unexamined, and unrecognized in policy (1). Why is the ARM

turning away potential recruits?

Wises article is based on the campaigns of PETAwitness again how a

national organizations tactics have overshadowed and led to the dismissal of the

whole movement. PETA angered many people with their Holocaust On Your Plate

campaign that was soon followed by Are Animals the New Slaves? These

campaigns, which were called insensitive by many, compared the treatment of

animals to Jewish people and African Americans. Many civil rights leaders boycotted

the campaign since they saw it indecent to compare African Americans to animals.

For a writer of race and class issues, Wise got upset, too. His frustration with the

tactics of PETA then leads into a further dismissal of the ARM. This is interesting

because he unleashes the stereotypes of the ARM. Wise says,That PETA cant understand what it means for a black person to be compared to an animal,

given a history of having been thought of in exactly those terms, isnt the least bit shocking. After all, the movement is perhaps the whitest of all progressive or radical movements on the planet, for reasons owing to the privilege one must possess in order to focus on animal rights as opposed to, say, surviving oneself from institutional oppression.

Perhaps if PETA activists had ever demonstrated a commitment to fighting racism and the ongoing cruelty that humans face every day, they would find more sympathy from those who, for reasons that are understandable given their own lives, view animal rights activism as the equivalent of fiddling while Rome burns, rather than as a struggle for greater compassion for all (1).

From pulling out the stereotypes of ARM as a white movement, Wise makes

a great pointif PETA, and other ARM groups, would only stop bashing other

issues, they would gain more recruits since people would see ARM as the issue it

really is, one focused on compassion. The national ARM organizations are either

apolitical or insensitive to other issues, and since they are the ones grabbing the

spotlight, its no wonder the Left sees the ARM as petty. It seems that ARM has all

the things necessary for the making of a good movement except the ability to

mobilize the right people.

Many ARM activists are taking notice of this problem and are working to

make friends with other Leftist movements. Gary Francione, in an article he wrote

for the website animal-law.org, speaks of the Big Drift: In my Animal Rights Commentary last week, I discussed how well-meaning people on the

left sometimes unfairly dismiss moral issues concerning animals or the environment by pointing to the problems of people. These progressives claim that their concern for human problems somehow excuses them form the obligation to examine morally their own meat eating, which rests on a foundation of injustice toward nonhumans and degradation of the environment It is precisely this segmentation and pigeonholing of morality that has frustrated eorts by the left to propose something remotely resembling a unified social agenda. You know, the way that the right has done (1).

Francione remarks that both ARM activists and Leftists are guilty of seeing

life in a single issue way, where people are likely to say My issue is animals.

Period. This type of thinking is very destructive to having a unified, successful

movement. As the NY Womens Reform report stated earlier, social movements

must form ties with other movements and groups. Francione hits the point home by

saying, As long as those who advocate for animal rights fail to understand the

connection between animal exploitation and other forms of social injustice, they will

continue to treat animal rights as a single issue matter, and will continue to alienate

the progressives who are natural allies (1). PETA should stop pissing o feminists

by using sexual imagery, and try to recruit them by showcasing the ARM as another

movement striving for equality, peace, and a better world.

When I first started doing research for this essay, I thought the main cause of

the Big Drift, or what Francione calls segmentation, was failure of fellow Leftists

to open their minds to another cause. I thought that they just didnt want to face the

ARM because it is an issue where you actually have to do something. You cant just say

youre against something abstractif youre in the ARM you eventually have to

change your diet, or risk being labeled a hypocrite. I thought many Leftists just

werent up for the challenge. This still could be true, but it is not the most important

factor.

Well, what does the ARM have in common with the Left? ARM activists

reject speciesism, which is the discrimination of someone based on their species

rather than capabilities. Speciesism is similar to racism and sexism in that it allows for

a dominant group to freely oppress a minority group based on a single characteristic.

ARM activists believe that animals should have one indelible rightthe right to be

free from unnecessary harm. Factory farming is seen as an unnecessary evilnot only

does it infringe on animals rights, it also is an extension of mega-conglomerate

corporate globalization. Eating a vegan diet uses less resources and is a rejection of

the exploitation of third world countries in order to obtain these resources. Eating

vegan may also fight hunger by using less resources and freeing up farmland that

would otherwise be used to grow feed for cattle. Corporate slaughterhouses are also

places of massive injustice. Often illegal labor is employed and workers get paid the

bare minimum wage with no compensation for injuries. The job also has a near 100%

turnover rate due to such unsafe conditions.

Instead of isolating one another, both (all) movements need to recognize their

similarities. While the bloated national organizations have yet failed to see this point,

there are many grassroots groups that are doing just that. The group Feminists for

Animal Rights argues for radical, sexual, and economic quality. Food Not Bombs is a

group of loosely based collectives that takes vegan food that otherwise would be

thrown away (often via dumpster), cooks with it, and serves it for free back to the

public. Their stated goal is to fight against hunger, among many things. Tompkins

County Swarm is touted as the voice for the countys progressive movements. At this

website, many organizations are able to connect and learn more about one another.

AK Press is an anarchist-run radical bookstore that sells books on everything from

feminism, anarchist theory, anti-fascism, labor, queer theory, prisons, and animal

rights/vegetarianism. The wide collection of ideas is very inspiring to methis is

what Ive been longing for since I was sixteen! In the article The American Left

Should Support Animal Rights: A Manifesto, the authors oer hope: More and more, individuals are abandoning the bloated national organizations and

establishing small grassroots groups all across America. These groups are political, and their politics are generally those of the left. They have come to understand that the movement must return to its radical roots and recruit people who must work for a living into its ranks. They have come to understand that a revolution such as the one we contemplate cannot be imposed from the top down, but must come from the bottom up (1).

If we want to strive ahead and make actual social change, we need to stop

bashing our fellow activist-recruits and focus on our similarities. We need to ban

together as a collective unitsure, we have some dierences, but they dont

overshadow the fact that we want a world based on equality, justice, rights, and peace.

We need to make connections rather than fall victim to the Big Drift.

Bibliography

Andersen, Margaret L., and Howard F. Taylor. Collective Behavior and Social

Movements, Social Change in Global Perspective. Sociology: Understanding a

Diverse Society. Belmont: Wadsworth/ Thomson Learning, 2004. 605- 653.

Coe, Sue, Gary L. Francione, and Anna E. Charlton. The American Left Should Support

Animal Rights: A Manifesto. Animals Agenda Jan.-Feb. 1993: 28. Animal

Rights Law Project. Ed. Gary L. Francione and Anna E. Charlton. Rutgers

University School of Law. 11 Nov. 2005 .

Finsen, Lawrence, and Susan Finsen. The Animal Rights Movements in America: From

Compassion to Respect. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1994.

Francione, Gary L. Sexism and Animal Rights. Commentary, 21 Mar. 1996. Animal

Rights Commentary. Animal Rights Law Project. Ed. Gary L. Francione and Anna

E. Charlton. Rutgers University School of Law. 11 Nov. 2005 .

Francione, Gary L. Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement.

Temple University, 1996.

Freeman, Jo, ed. Social Movements of the Sixties and Seventies. New York: Longman,

1983.

Guither, Harold D. Animal Rights: History and Scope of a Radical Social Movement. N.p.:

Southern Illinois University Press, 1998.

Jamison, Wesley V., and William M. Lunch. Rights of Animals, Perceptions of Science,

and Political Activism: Profile of American Animal Rights Activists. Science,

Technology, & Human Values 17.4 (Fall 1992): 438-458. JSTOR. JSTOR. 29 Oct.

2005 .

Meyer, David S., and Suzanne Staggenborg. Movements, Countermovements, and the

Structure of Political Opportunity. The American Journal of Sociology 101.6

(May 1996): 1628- 1660. JSTOR. JSTOR. 30 Oct. 2005 .

Moore, Michael. Dude, Wheres My Country? New York: Warner Books, 2003.

Rosenthal, Naomi, et al. Social Movements and Network Analysis: A Case Study of

Nineteenth-Century Womens Reform in New York State. The American Journal

of Sociology 90.5 (Mar. 1985): 1022- 1054. JSTOR. JSTOR. 30 Oct. 2005 .

Tarrow, Sidney. Struggle, Politics, and Reform: Collective Action, Social Movements,

and Cycles of Protest. Unpublished essay, Jan. 1990. Western Societies Program

Occasional Paper No. 21. Cornell University Center for International Studies.

Wikipedia. 15 Dec. 2005. .

Wise, Tim. PETA and the Politics of Putting Things in Perspective: Animal Whites.

CounterPunch (Aug. 2005). 11 Nov. 2005 .

Wood, James L., and Maurice Jackson. Social Movements: Development, Participation,

and Dynamics. Belmont: Wadsworth, 1982.