Antiwar Politics and Paths of Activist Participation on the Left

Fabio Rojas
Associate Professor of Sociology
Indiana University
frojas@indiana.edu

Michael T. Heaney
Assistant Professor of Organizational Studies and Political Science
University of Michigan
mheaney@umich.edu

Paper Presented at the 70th Annual Midwest Political Science Association Conference,
April 12-15, 2012, Chicago, Illinois

Abstract: As social movements ebb and flow, they create opportunities for activists to switch
topics or participate in multiple movements. Many activists seize these opportunities to follow
paths of involvement in a sequence of social movements. Using a survey of 691 activists at the
2010 US Social Forum, we show that antiwar protest is the most popular entry point into
activism for progressive/left activists. We then use sequence analysis to demonstrate that
activists who have participated in the antiwar movement are more likely "spill over" into other
fields than are activists involved in other progressive/left movements. These results reveal how
the landscape of progressive/left activism is structured, in part, by the distinctive qualities of the
antiwar movement.

Keywords: Activism, social movements, antiwar movement, sequence analysis

Acknowledgements: Both authors contributed equally to this manuscript. For assistance

administering surveys at the 2010 US Social Forum, the authors thank Jack Masteller, Jacob
Smith, Jessica McClain, Mary Akchurin, Michael Sullivan, Min Joo Kim, Sahana Rajan, and
Todd Schifeling. For helpful comments, authors thank Robert Dishell, Craig Kaplan, Kelsey
Lee, Michelle Rubin, and Kendall Witmer. Earlier versions of this manuscript were presented at
symposia at Southern Illinois University, Purdue University, Carnegie Mellon University, and
Indiana University.
 I think that it was having come of age as a young adult in the context of the antiwar
movement [during the 1960s], that so infused my own sensibilities. It so shaped my
commitments, my outlook on the world, and my interest in what I wanted to do with my
life, that in that way, the work I do today is very much tied to what I did some 40 years
ago.

Leslie Cagan
National Coordinator, United for Peace and Justice

Leslie Cagan is a stalwart of the antiwar movement. Born in 1947, she was raised by an

activist family and attended "Ban the Bomb" rallies in the 1950s. As a college student at New

York University, she was the key organizer for her campus' sizeable delegation to the October

1967 March on the Pentagon. Cagan was a lead organizer of an anti-nuclear rally in Central Park

attended by hundreds of thousands of people and National Coordinator of the National Campaign

for Peace in the Middle East during the Persian Gulf War in 1990-1991. With the anticipation of

a new war in Iraq, Cagan became the National Coordinator of United for Peace and Justice in

2002, the nation's largest and broadest peace coalition during the presidency of George W. Bush,

a role that she filled until 2009 (Cagan 2008).

Despite Cagan's impeccable credentials as an antiwar activist, it would be a mistake to

think of her only as an antiwar activist. She has managed political campaigns and been active in

other social movements, such as the lesbian-gay rights movement and the campaign to normalize

U.S. relations with Cuba (Hedges 2003). Like many peace activists, Cagan steered her efforts

toward other causes during times of relative peace. Yet her antiwar stance informs these efforts:

"the undercurrent of it all is that . . . sense that without peace, and until there is peace, it'll be

virtually impossible to really bring full economic justice, social justice (Cagan 2008). Like

Cagan, many activists bring their experience with antiwar activism to their involvement in other

movements (Carroll and Ratner 1996).

 Activism changes people's lives. Previous scholarship demonstrates that the paths that

people take into and through activism affect how their lives are changed (Blee 2011; Fisher

2006; Fisher and McInerney 2012; Han 2009; McAdam 1989, 1999; Munson 2010; Viterna

2006). For example, how people are recruited into activism (Fisher 2006; Fisher and McInerney

2012) and the organizations that they join (Han 2009; Munson 2008) makes a difference for how

long they remain involved in activism and what types of activities they engage in. These studies,

however, fail to distinguish between movements in terms of how participation in one movement

may influence an individual's activist path differently than participation in another movement.

Given that activists live in a world of multiple, interacting social movements (Evans and Kay

2008; Isaac and Christiansen 2002; Isaac, McDonald, and Lukasik 2006; McAdam 1995; Meyer

and Staggenborg 1996; Meyer and Tarrow 1998; Meyer and Whittier 1994;Minkoff 1997; Voss

and Sherman 2000), the question arises as to whether or not the sequence through which activists

come into contact with movements matters for how they participate in activism.

The antiwar movement is a very common gateway into progressive/left activism. In this

article, we argue that activists who are initiated into activism through antiwar events have

different patterns of movement participation than those who are initiated into activism through

another movement. This article proceeds, first, by considering the extant scholarship on paths to

and through activism. These paths are shaped by the ebb and flow of particular movements. As

protest cycles play out, activists are presented with opportunities to adopt new issues or migrate

to other movements. Special attention is paid to the antiwar movement and how its mobilization

capacity is affected by the nature of its main policy issue, war. Second, we argue that antiwar

activists are likely to pursue paths that diverge from those of other progressive/left activists.

Third, we examine the methods and rationale for conducting a survey of 691 activists who

attended the 2010 US Social Forum, one of the largest assemblies of progressive/left activists in

the United States. Fourth, we explain sequence analysis as an approach to analyzing data on

activist paths. Fifth, we demonstrate the distinctiveness of antiwar activists paths by estimating

a series of regression models on the results of the sequence analysis. We find that antiwar activist

paths are more likely to "spill over" into other movements than are other progressive/left activist

paths. The article concludes by explaining the aggregate consequences that these paths have for

the broader environment of progressive/left activists.

Activist Paths and Movement Participation

Social movements have the potential to change the world by influencing public opinion

and state policies. They also have the potential to change the lives of people who participate in

them. By drawing people into social activism, movements, in turn, expose people to even further

opportunities for political participation (Meyer and Whittier 1994; Carrol and Ratner 1996; Osa

2003; Ansell 2003; Hadden and Tarrow 2007). Over time, individual activists may develop a

multitude of ties to different movements. We call an individuals sequential participation in one

or more movements an "activist path."

Activist paths matter for a number of reasons. Initial mobilization may be linked to long-

term behaviors, whether they are political (Demerath, Marwell, and Aiken 1971; Marwell,

Demerath, and Aiken 1987) or personal, such as having children (McAdam 1989, 1999). The

depth of participation in a movement may be correlated with political behavior later in life, such

as the strength of left-leaning attitudes and the extent of political participation (McAdam 1999:

121-2; Giugni 2007, 2008).

 Scholars draw attention to the complexity and contingency of activist biographies. Jasper

(1999: 210-28) recounts the story of Geoff Meredith, a man who was involved in environmental

protest movements. Meredith had an extensive history that touched on support for AIDS patients,

avant-garde art, and disabled rights, which depended on chance meetings with other activists.

Carroll and Ratner (1996) find that a significant proportion of Vancouver-area activists

participated in more than one type of movement organization (e.g., indigenous rights and labor

groups). Rojas and Heaney (2009) report that 79% of antiwar protesters in the 2000s had

participated in non-antiwar movements, suggesting a significant degree of "spillout" from

established movements into new movements (see also Hadden and Tarrow 2007)

Individuals characteristics may be linked with specific types of activist biographies.

Fisher and McInerney (2012) find that people who are recruited to participate in an organization

through their social ties are less likely to continue to participate in the organization than people

that did not have prior connections within the organization. Corrigall-Brown (2012: 53)

documents that religiosity, income, and political knowledge are significant factors that predict an

activists path. Furthermore, her research demonstrates that activists vary in their persistence,

with some activists maintaining heightened participation in multiple movements and others

participating on a more episodic basis.

Social contexts play a critical role in shaping activist paths. Viterna (2006) discusses the

lives of women in Salvadoran revolutionary groups and finds that factors such as living in an

urban environment predict mode of participation. She argues that people who enter activism

from different starting points have distinct experiences. Caren, Ghoshal, and Ribas (2011)

conclude that the generational cohort that an individual is a part of makes a difference for

whether and how s/he participates in activism. Munson (2010) analyzes the role that life-course

transitions have in determining activist biographies. His analysis of conservative Christian

college students suggests that graduation is an important life course point that creates

opportunities for activism. As academic demands decrease near the senior year, movement

organizations provide new forms of participation for college students that deepen their

involvement in activism.

Activists Paths in Multi-Movement Environments

Prior research on activist paths connects individual and contextual factors to different

types of paths. However, it is an open question as to whether all movements generate the same

activist paths. Do movements differ in movement among political causes over the life course of

participants?

The forces that shape activist paths reflect the available options for political participation.

Activist paths are made possible, in part, by the structures of multi-movement environments

(Meyer and Whittier 1994; McAdam 1995; Carrol and Ratner 1996). Even though an individual

may be initially recruited through an organization with a specific policy objective, activists may

embrace new causes and participate in a wide range of movements over the course of their lives.

They may form ties with activists who mobilize on behalf of other causes or join multiple

organizations. The result is that, over time, individuals develop complex paths that reflect the

different opportunities presented to and seized by them (Corriggall-Brown 2012).

The multi-movement environment is an ever-changing social field because individual

movements rise and fall, affecting the options available to activists. This fluctuation stimulates

an individual's oscillation between, or simultaneous participation within, multiple policy areas. A

movement is able to attract more recruits when its issues are viewed as more salient by the

public. There are numerous ways that an issue may gain prominence. An exogenous event, such

as a natural disaster, may make one policy issue highly visible (Baumgartner and Jones 1993;

Kingdon 1997). Political entrepreneurs may attract attention by having allies in the media discuss

their issues (Sobieraj 2011). Conversely, there are factors that may decrease the visibility of a

movement, leading to demobilization. A successful movement may demobilize once the state

institutes policies that were promoted by the movement (McAdam 1982). Electoral victories may

be correlated with demobilization, as partisans feel less inclined to protest once their party has

taken control of the legislative or executive branch (Heaney and Rojas 2011). For these varied

reasons, Tarrow (1994) notes that movements experience regular oscillation, or "protest cycles,"

over time.

Protest cycles factor into activist paths by encouraging individuals to migrate from one

issue domain to another. For example, the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act encouraged a

number of activists to move from the issue of voting rights to the issue of poverty, while others

adopted the issue of nationalism (see Rojas 2007; Joseph 2006). Voting rights was one of the

issues used to unify the various elements of the civil rights coalition. Once voting rights were

addressed, attention turned to a host of other issues, which contributed to the transformation of

the civil rights movement and led activists to migrate away from activities such as voter

registration and promoting poor people's rights.

The fluctuating nature of multi-movement environments means that activists are

presented with a changing menu of issues. As movements rise and fall, activists have incentives

to migrate to new movements or jointly participate in multiple movements. Activists who

participate in a receding movement do not always completely demobilize. Rather, they often

continue in some other capacity by joining other movements, a path that is called the "transfer"

trajectory by Corrigall-Brown (2012: 6-7). Multi-movement participation may allow the activist

to promote her/his original issues or to continue working for social change in a new context.

These options generate a variety of paths reflecting the complexity and diversity of the multi-

movement environment. Activist paths reflect the changing relationships between individuals

and movements, with some movements providing a platform for continued political participation

while other movements are in remission. Thus, the connections between activists and movements

represent one type of abeyance structure the organizations, and other social structures, that

"absorb the surplus of marginal groups" (Mizruchi 1983; Taylor 1989: 762).

Why Antiwar Activism Stands Out

We argue above that the particular path that an activist follows may depend on the way in

which s/he encounters the multi-movement environment. Involvement in one movement may

lead an individual down a different activist path than involvement in another movement. In this

section, we argue that the antiwar movement, specifically, engages individuals in activism in

ways that tend to depart from the typical movement. As a result, involvement in antiwar

activism has the potential to shape an activists path differently than is the case in many other

movements.

The antiwar movement stands out from the typical social movement in that its issue

portfolio consists of a mix of extremely urgent and very long-term issues. War is an extremely

urgent issue because whether or not people die today depends on the governments actions today.

For example, the largest internationally coordinated demonstration in history was held on

February 15, 2003, slightly more than a month before the U.S. invasion of Iraq (Walgrave and

Rucht 2010). Many of the demonstrators believed that it was necessary to act now to make a

difference. After the U.S. invasion had begun, demonstrations subsided. Part of this decline in

the United States, at least may have been due to a rally around the flag effect (Lee 1977).

But part of this decline was also likely due to the perception by some that, with war already

underway, political opportunities for the movement had evaporated and the prospect of making a

difference had passed (Meyer and Corrigall-Brown 2005).

The urgently felt need to oppose war now often draws activists away from other pursuits.

Tom Hayden, a former leader of Students for a Democratic Society who remained engaged in

activism from the 1960s through the 2010s, recounts that:

The story of my life is trying to do something about my country, my community,

and finding out there's another war. I can't quite tell you why I get so upset by it.

Except that I think that when you're in a fight, in a war, and the blood is flowing,

there's an urgency that, like it or not, is not the same as chronic problems like

poverty (Hayden 2008).

In fact, antiwar organizers rely on the fact that many of their supporters are likely to come from

allied movements focused on longer-term problems. When antiwar activists face the need for

sudden mobilizations, they structure their calls for action in ways that are easily conformable

with the goals of other movements (Reese et al. 2010; Vasi 2006, 2011). Hence, antiwar

mobilizations build their strength by welcoming hybrid organizations that bridge antiwar

activism with the concerns of other movements (Goss and Heaney 2010). As a result,

participation in antiwar activism becomes a way, not only to rally against war, but also to meet

people tied to an array of other causes on the progressive/left side of the political spectrum.

The antiwar movement is most successful in mobilizing largest number of supporters

when war is imminent. Yet, the agenda of antiwar protests exposes participants to a range of

longer-term concerns about militarism and other threats to peace, such as the extensive network

of U.S. military bases around the world (Yeo 2011) and the threat of nuclear war (Meyer 1990).

By offering a mix of urgent and long-term issues, the antiwar movement attracts a broad swath

of progressive/left activists to its ranks. In a study of protests in Washington, DC from 1961 to

1983, Bearman and Everett (1993) uncover that peace organizations and non-military

intervention groups are highly central in the network of progressive/left causes. Carroll and

Ratners (1996) survey of activists from Vancouver, British Columbia reveals that peace activists

have a greater degree of multi-movement involvement than those in any other movement

category.

Antiwar activism frequently creates a stepping stone to other movements. The

relationship between peace movements and womens movements is especially strong (Goss and

Heaney 2010; Kutz-Flamenbaum 2011; Meyer and Whittier 1994). This relationship has held

for almost a century, as Rupp (1997) argues that the effort to end the First World War resulted in

the earliest international women's movement. Peace activism, in some cases, even assists the

development of conservative activism. Kretschmers (2010) interviews with leaders of pro-life

women's groups reveal that some of these activists had spent years in the peace movement, an

experience that informed their approach to abortion politics (see also MacNair 2009).

The Antiwar Movement and Activist Paths

The prominence of the antiwar movement raises questions about how this movement is

associated with different activist paths. How does entering activism through the antiwar

movement influence a persons future involvement with other movements? This section

describes three possibilities: activists continue to focus primarily on antiwar politics; activists

stop participating in antiwar politics and adopt a new policy issue; or activists participate in both

antiwar and non-antiwar movements.

First, activists may choose to remain focused on antiwar issues in spite of the movement's

periodic peaks and valleys, a path called "persistence" by Corrigall-Brown (2012: 6). Activists

may have an unusually strong identification with antiwar causes due to personal preference or a

social attachment to the individuals or organizations that populate the movement. This outcome

reflects path dependence where the "gateway movement" strongly socializes individuals into a

specific policy domain (Munson 2008). The socialization is so strong that individuals may

maintain their commitment in spite of the obstacles, such as the declining size of protests and the

exit of organizations from that policy domain (Heaney and Rojas 2011).

Second, activists may have "spill out" or "transfer" paths that reflect crossing over from

one policy domain to another (e.g., Meyer and Whittier 1994; Corrigall-Brown 2012; Fisher and

McInerney 2012; Hadden and Tarrow 2007). Once a movement goes into abeyance, activists

may cease participation and adopt a new policy issue. In this scenario, activists who began in the

antiwar movement respond to the inter-war decline of the peace movement by migrating

completely to another issue, such as civil rights.

The third possibility is that antiwar activists continue participating in peace issues while

adding another issue, reflecting a hybridization of paths. In this scenario, activists still find ways

to participate during periods of abeyance. Even though peace movements may not attract much

attention in the media, there may still be many opportunities for participation, such as

fundraising for groups that remain active or pressing for lower-intensity issues, such as

disarmament. Sustained participation in the antiwar movement does not preclude participation in

other areas (Meyer 1990).

10

 "Combined" activist paths may thrive, in part, because the antiwar movement teaches

individuals about activism in general. Rather than permanently align individuals with a single

policy issue (war and conflict), the antiwar movement provides a "free space" where individuals

can cultivate a broader identity and a skill set that can be used versatilely (Couto 1993; Polletta

1999; Polletta and Jasper 2001). The antiwar movement might be particularly suited for this type

of cultivation because of its ubiquity and centrality in the social movement sector. It attracts

individuals with a diversity of experiences, policy interests, and repertoires. A newly recruited

activist may learn from the unusually expansive group of individuals who actively participate in

the antiwar movement and, then, follow a path that reflects a combination of multiple policy

issues. Once exposed to the antiwar movement, s/he may continue antiwar activism while

seeking out additional venues for political participation.

Hence, there are three hypotheses for how initial exposure to antiwar activism

corresponds to activist paths:

The Persistence Hypothesis: Activists that are initially recruited to antiwar activism

remain focused exclusively on antiwar activism.

The Transfer Hypothesis: Activists that are initially recruited to antiwar activism transfer

their involvement entirely to other movements.

The Hybridization Hypothesis: Activists that are initially recruited to antiwar activism

combine their involvement in the antiwar movement with involvement in other

movements.

Taken together, these hypotheses describe ways in which the antiwar movement could

potentially affect the overall domain of social movement activism. Likewise, initial activism that

began with a movement other than the antiwar movement may follow similar patterns. Activists

11

may remain outside the antiwar movement, transfer to the antiwar movement, or choose to

combine antiwar activism with other issues.

Research Method and Data

We test our hypotheses about the antiwar movement and activist paths with data from the

History of Activism Survey fielded at the 2010 US Social Forum. The US Social Forum was one

of the largest progressive/left activist conventions in the United States in the early 2000s. Started

in 2007 as an off-shoot of the World Social Forum (Smith, Juris, and the USSF Research

Collective 2008), the US Social Forum was initially convened as a place where activists could

shape a progressive/left political agenda (US Social Forum 2010). The topics of the convention

were determined by participants, who proposed and organized workshops on the general theme,

Another World is Possible; Another US is Necessary.1 The 2010 convention in Detroit,

Michigan attracted over 10,000 activists from the across the United States, was attended by

leading progressive/left activists, and was covered in both mainstream and alternative media

(Campbell 2009).

The US Social Forum held events addressing an extraordinary range of progressive/left

issues, such as sustainable growth, labor, lesbian/gay rights, urban politics, personal spirituality,

and peace. War and peace were among the prominent issues at the Forum, but were by no means

the dominant issues. We compared the role of antiwar issues with other issues at the US Social

1
According to the About statement on the US Social Forum web page, The US Social Forum (USSF) is
a movement building process. It is not aconference but it is a space to come up with the peoples solutions to the
economic and ecological crisis. The USSF is the next most important step in our struggle to build a powerful multi-
racial, multi-sectoral, inter-generational, diverse, inclusive, internationalist movement that transforms this country
and changes history. We must declare what we want our world to look like and we must start planning the path to
get there. The USSF provides spaces to learn from each others [sic.] experiences and struggles, share our analysis of
the problems our communities face, build relationships, and align with our international brothers and sisters to
strategize how to reclaim our world (US Social Forum 2010).

12

Forum by graphing an issue co-occurrence network. In the network presented in Figure 1, two

issues are connected if a panel session contained both topics, with larger nodes indicating a

larger number of panels on that topic and thicker lines indicating more co-occurrences between

issues. The network reveals that antiwar topics were somewhat less central at the Forum than

issues such as the environment, immigration, and racism.

[Figure 1 about here]

At the Forum, we fielded an anonymous ten-page, self-administered survey. We obtained

a sample of activists by having surveyors approach activists in the main lobby of Cobo Hall of

the Detroit Convention Center and at Wayne State University, which acted as the main satellite

location. Employing a variant of exit-poll survey techniques, surveyors were instructed to walk

in a line and ask every fifth person to complete a survey (Heaney and Rojas 2007; Walgraave

and Verhulst 2011). Face-to-face surveying reduces biases associated with oversampling highly

educated activists who are more likely to respond to self-administered mail surveys (Rdig

2010). We surveyed the main gathering areas at Cobo Hall and Wayne State University to obtain

691 surveys. It is important to note that, although our research question focuses on antiwar

politics, our sampling design in no way sought to identify or sample respondents based on

involvement in antiwar activism. We approached all potential respondents with an interest in

learning about their history of activism and aspired to sample all participants in the Forum

with equal probability.

The History of Activism survey is a ten-page instrument with questions addressing

political participation, party affiliation, and ideological leanings, as well as a standard battery of

13

questions on socio-demographic characteristics such as age, sex/gender, race/ethnicity, income,

and education. The key variables in our analysis are the first event that initially attracted the

respondent to activism "first activist event" and the respondent's participation in various

movements over time "activist path."

First-event data were obtained from a question that stated: "Have you ever participated in

a public gathering (such as a protest, demonstration, or political convention) intended to express

your views on an issue of public importance?" The follow-up question stated: " please

describe the FIRST ACTIVIST EVENT in which you participated and the approximate year in

which it took place." Respondents were then provided a space to describe the event and the year.

First-event data were then read and coded according to policy area (e.g., poverty, civil rights,

education). To test our hypotheses, we created variables to indicate whether the first event was

antiwar of any type (e.g., anti-Vietnam War, anti-nuclear weapons, anti-Iraq War) or other types

(e.g., immigration, women's rights).

We obtained data about the activist path of each respondent. Prior to the US Social

Forum meetings, we developed a list of 43 areas of activism based on a coding of the entire US

Social Forum program, which listed hundreds of workshops addressing a range of topics.

Appendix A includes the list of issues. Our list of policy areas includes anti-Iraq War activism,

labor rights, immigration rights, mass media reforms, environment/sustainability, and

lesbian/gay rights. The survey presented this list of topics and asked "Thinking only of the PAST

TWO calendar years since Barack Obama has been president (2009-2010), HOW ACTIVE

have you been in the following issues?" For each issue, respondents were asked to indicate

whether they were "Not Active," "Somewhat Active," "Moderately Active," or "Highly Active."

This list was presented twice more for respondents to rate their level of involvement during the

14

George W. Bush Administration (2001-2009) and in the era before the Bush administration

(2000 or earlier). Thus, for 43 policy areas, we have a sequence of self-reported activism levels.

Descriptive statistics from our sample are reported in Table 1.2 A plurality of

respondents in the sample (31.1%) were involved in the antiwar movement as their first activist

event, while 15.7% of respondents had their first experience with activism with one of the top-

five other issues in our study. Our respondents attended their first activist event between 1949

and 2010, with the largest cohorts of new activists beginning in the 1960s and the 2000s.

Although the average age of activists was about 37 years old, the bimodal nature of this

distribution means that the largest percentages of participants were in their 20s and their 60s.

Women made up more than half the survey respondents (54.5%). The majority of participants

in the Forum were white (64.8%), though sizeable minority populations were present (17.2%

Black, 11.6% Latino, and 9.3% Asian), according to the survey. On average, people journeyed

807 miles to attend the event. Three quarters (75.2%) of respondents reported membership in at

least one activist organization. Veterans of the armed forces made up only 3.5% of the sample.

More than two thirds of participants (67.8%) held college degrees at the time of the Forum. The

average income of respondents was approximately $25,000 per year. Slightly more than a third

of respondents (36.5%) considered activism to be core to their personal identity, while slightly

fewer than half of respondents (45.8%) self-described their political ideologies as radical.

[Table 1 about here]

2
DuringtheForum,aresearchteambasedattheUniversityofCaliforniaRiverside(UCR)collecteda
sampleofparticipantsusingasimilarsamplingmethodthatwedid.Althoughthesubstantiveobjectivesofthe
UCRteamdifferedconsiderablyfromours,wecollectedsimilardemographicmeasures,allowingforacomparison
oftheindependentsamples.Withregardtoage,gender,race/ethnicity,andlevelofeducation,thetwosamples
yieldedalmostidenticalresults(Allisonetal.2011).Theresultsofthiscomparisonsuggestthatourapproachto
samplingyieldsareasonablyrepresentativeselectionofparticipantsattheForum.

15

Sequence Analysis

The objective of sequence analysis is to determine why one sequence tends to occur

instead of another. The principal challenge in making this determination is that there are usually

a large number of possible sequences. For example, if there are four time periods and three

states, then there are 34=81 different possible sequences. A dichotomous variable for each

sequence may result in small (or null) counts for specific sequences. As a result, an estimate for a

multinomial logit model with 81 different outcome categories may not converge due to sparse

data for many sequences. An alternate approach is to simplify the list of sequences by grouping

sequences together. However, there is not a unique way to group sequences together. In response

to this problem, optimal matching is a technique that provides a reliable method for measuring

sequences and clustering them together (see Abbott and Hrycak 1990; Abbott and Tsay 2000).

The basic intuition behind optimal matching is that any two sequences can be

transformed into each other through a series of substitutions or insertions/deletions. Consider the

sequence of data "XYX." X can be substituted for Y to change XYX into XXX. The symbol X

can be omitted from a sequence or inserted into a sequence, thus contracting or expanding the

sequence. XYX can be contracted to just XX. The symbol Y can be inserted to create XYYX, for

example.

The optimal-matching algorithm assigns a cost for each substitution and

insertion/deletion and creates a dissimilarity measure for any two sequences by computing the

lowest-cost transformation of one sequence into another. In other words, two sequences that are

completely different (e.g., XXX and YYY) yield a high cost of transformation. Two identical

sequences (e.g., XXX and XXX) yield a zero transformation cost. This dissimilarity measure can

16

be easily converted into a similarity measure by reversing the scale: identical sequences have a

high comparison score and very different sequences have a low score. In this study, we

normalize the sequence similarity so that maximally similar sequences yield a score of 1 and

completely different sequences yield a score of 0.

The US Social Forum data on activist paths are complex. For each policy domain listed in

the survey, there are sixty-four possible sequences. A respondent can claim four levels of

participation in three time periods (43=64). With 43 policy domains, there are 43 x 64 = 2,752

possible paths. The multitude of possible paths suggests that simplification is needed, even

before the data are analyzed using optimal matching methods. Two considerations guide our

simplification. First, most activists do not participate in most policy areas. For example, only a

small percentage of activists report activity in fields such as Native American rights, where a

majority of activists reported that they were not active in any time period. Second, the

theoretical framework of our paper suggests that the antiwar movement is highly important and

should act as a point of reference.

Therefore, we simplify our data analysis by focusing on four possible states: participation

in the antiwar movement; participation in non-antiwar movements; participation in both the

antiwar movement and other movements; and no participation in any movement. Since most

respondents report a median participation score from 1 (no participation) to slightly more than 2

(some participation) in most policy areas, we consider a respondent to be mobilized if she/he

reports a 3 or 4 (moderately or highly active). We summarize each respondents history of

activism with a three-period sequence that has four possible states. Each state indicates whether

the respondent was more than moderately involved in antiwar issues, non-antiwar issues, or both.

17

The simplification of the activist history data yields eight possible sequences. Table 2 reports

how an activists self-reported mobilization history is coded into a sequence.

[Table 2 about here]

In testing hypotheses about activist paths, we require a measurement of similarity with

standard sequences. To test our hypotheses, one must be able to say that one activist path is

similar to a sequence representing a hypothetical activist with an "ideal" sequence indicating, for

example, mobilization in only the antiwar movement in three time periods (pre-Bush era, Bush

era, and Obama era).

We use the optimal-matching algorithm to obtain these similarity measurements. For

each respondent, we create the simplified activist-path data as described above. Then, we

compute the similarity measure for each activist path with respect to three "ideal" paths: an all-

antiwar path; an all-non-antiwar path; and a "combined" path, where the activist is participating

in both antiwar and non-antiwar activities. As noted above, we normalize and scale the similarity

measure so that a score of one indicates that the activist has a path that is identical to the

benchmark. A score of zero indicates maximal dissimilarity. In all analyses, we use standard

costs for substitution and deletion/insertion costs and only report results that are not dependent

on varying the costs. All reported results are robust to changes in the computation of similarity

measures.

[Figure 2 about here]

18

 A summary of the results of optimal matching are reported in Figure 2, which charts the

percentage of activists whose mobilization paths are similar to these ideal types. An exclusively

antiwar mobilization path is very rare in these data. There are no respondents who reported an

exclusive focus on antiwar issues, however broadly defined, in three different time periods. Over

90% of the respondents had a mobilization history that was completely dissimilar to the all-

antiwar path. In contrast, the combined antiwar/non-antiwar trajectory is the most common in

these data. Approximately 20% of respondents had participated in both types of issues in all

three time periods. Thus, antiwar activism draws a significant number of activists who cross over

into new areas while retaining their personal and organizational ties to the antiwar movement.

10% of the sample reported a mobilization path that exclusively focuses on non-antiwar issues.

The remainder of this article explores the factors associated with these paths and the

consequences for activism in general.

Analysis and Results

We asked respondents to describe the first public political gathering that they attended

and to remember the approximate year of the event. That question provides data about the

mobilization pathways of current social movement activists. For each respondent, we recorded

the complete verbal description and the year. Then, we coded the topic of the activist's first event

into 43 categories (e.g., health care, housing). Figure 1 sorts the data by decade and focuses on

the five most popular topics (antiwar/peace; civil rights; labor; immigration; women's rights).

[Figure 3 about here]

19

 According to Figure 3, antiwar movement is, by far, the most popular entry point for the

respondents. Not surprisingly, a majority of respondents who began activism in the 1960s first

attended antiwar war events. Antiwar protest was the entry point for 48% of respondents who

began activism in the 2000s. Antiwar activism remained the most popular entry point for

respondents who initially mobilized in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. This result is remarkable

considering that American wars were much more limited in scope between Vietnam and Iraq.

Still, peace continued to attract a plurality of activists. Antiwar activism fluctuates in relative

importance as wars come and go, but it remains a central policy domain for individuals who are

following an activist path.

It is important to remember that Figure 3 describes the activist's initial event. Activists

may focus on topics later in their lives that may rival the antiwar movement in popularity. Our

survey also asked the respondents to list the issue "to which you presently devote the most time

and effort." We coded the answers to this open-ended question into the same categories as those

used in Figure 3. Antiwar issues remained the most popular current issues for activists (9.6%).

Note that this percentage is smaller than the 31.08% of respondents that reported the antiwar

movement as their entry point. Close in popularity to the antiwar movement is environmentalism

(9.0%), immigration (7.0%), and education (6.2%). The popularity of these other movements as

the current outlets of activists involvement suggests that there is a significant degree of

movement over time from antiwar politics to other kinds of movements.

[Figure 4 about here]

20

 In order to assess the relationship between the first activist event and an individuals

activist path, we estimate three regression models in which the dependent variable is the

similarity of an activists actual path to a selected ideal path: All Antiwar, All Non-Antiwar, or

Combined. A Tobit estimator is employed because the dependent variables are continuous

variables that are bounded to the [0,1] interval. We include variables for whether or not a

respondents first event was antiwar and whether her/his first event was one of the top-five first

events of Social Forum participants (civil rights, labor, immigration, womens rights, and

education). Control variables include year of first activism, age, sex/gender, race/ethnicity,

distance traveled, whether or not the respondent is a member of an activist organization, veteran

status, education, and income.

To account for differential response rates, we asked each surveyor to record the estimated

sex/gender and race/ethnicity of every person who was invited to participate in the study, but

refused. Using non-response data, we create sample weights for each race/ethnicity and

sex/gender. These sample weights are used in all model estimates. Appendix B reports our

estimated response rates that were used in constructing sample weights.

In all model estimates, we accounted for missing data by using complete-case imputation.

Missing values for the independent variables were imputed using predicted values from a

regression model that uses the other independent variables as predictors (Little 1988). The

bounds of the imputation were constrained by the bounds of the variable in question, so that, for

example, a variable within a [0,1] interval would have all its imputed values contained within

[0,1]. Imputation prevents the selection biases that may be introduced into model estimates

through missing data. To account for biases introduced by survey non-response, we created

sample weights based on data collected on non-responders. Each surveyor was asked to estimate

21

the sex/gender and race/ethnicity group of people who refused to complete the survey. Using this

tally, we estimate response rates by sex/gender and race/ethnicity. These non-response rates are

used to create sample/weights for the final model estimates. Finally, to account for other

unobserved heterogeneity, we estimate our models using robust standard errors (Huber 1981).

The results of these analyses are reported in Table 3.

[Table 3 about here]

The results of Model (1) suggest support in the data for the persistence hypothesis.

Individuals whose first activist event is antiwar are significantly likely to have an activist path

that is similar to an all-antiwar path. Although only a small percentage of activists have paths

that are similar to an all-antiwar path (see Figure 2), persistence increases the likelihood that they

follow such a path. However, being initiated into activism through one of the top-five other

issues does not significantly affect the likelihood that an individual has a path similar to an all-

antiwar path. Coefficients on the control variables indicate that younger people are significantly

more likely than older people to have paths similar to an all-antiwar path, which accounts for the

limited time that they had to become involved in multiple issues. People that traveled greater

distance to attend the Forum were less likely to follow a path similar to an all-antiwar path.

Veterans of the armed forces present at the Forum were more likely than non-veterans to follow

an all-antiwar path. Finally, individuals who consider activism to be core to their identity are

less likely than others to limit themselves to an all-antiwar path.

The results of Model (2) strongly reject the transfer hypothesis. Individuals whose first

activist event is antiwar are significantly unlikely to have an activist path that is similar to an all-

22

non-antiwar path. Although similarity to the all-non-antiwar path is reasonably common in the

data (see Figure 2), the followers of these paths generally do not come from those whose first

experience from activism was an antiwar demonstration. Being initiated into activism through

one of the top-five other issues does not predict that an individual follows an all-non-antiwar

path. Analysis of the control variables reveals that women were significantly more likely than

men to follow an all-non-antiwar path.

The results of Model (3) suggest support in the data for the hybridization hypothesis.

Individuals whose first activist event is antiwar are significantly likely to have an activist path

that is similar to a combined path. This result shows that getting ones start in activism through

the antiwar movement is predictive of creating an activist path that hybridizes antiwar activism

with involvement in other movements. Commencing activism through one of the top-five other

issues does not affect the likelihood of following a combined path. The control variable for year

of first activism indicates that those respondents that had their first experience with activism in

the more distant path were more like to follow a combined path than more recent recruits,

reflecting the greater opportunities that they had to get involved than those whose first

experience with activism occurred more recently. Black respondents were significantly less

likely than non-Blacks to follow a combined path. Finally, respondents that considered activism

core to their identities and those that self-identified with radical political ideologies were

significantly more likely than those without such identities to follow a combined path.

We experimented with a variety of alternative model specifications designed to evaluate

the potential effects of initiation into activism from one of the other top-five issue areas (civil

rights, labor, immigration, womens rights, and education). Rather than combining these five

issues into one independent variable, as we report in Table 3, we estimated regressions that

23

included these issues as separate independent variables, and in combination with one another.

However, these alternative specifications did not alter the conclusion that initial involvement in

antiwar activism is the only issue in this set that is predictive of the paths pursued by Social

Forum participants.

Finally, we wanted to know whether the pattern that we observed in the antiwar

movement was distinctive to the antiwar movement, or if it was common in numerous other

social movements. To answer this question, we repeated the sequence analysis five more times,

once for each of the other top-five issue areas in the data (civil rights, labor, immigration,

womens rights, and education). For example, we set up the ideal sequences all-civil rights,

all-non-civil rights, and combined civil rights / non-civil rights, to see if combined paths are

predicted by having civil rights as an initial issue (and did the same for each other issue).

However, we did not find that initiation to activism through these other leading issues stimulated

the same kind of combined activism that we detected in the antiwar movement. We report the

results of this analysis for one issue civil rights in Table 4, which is analogous to analysis

reported in Table 3. As was the case for the antiwar movement, the estimates for Model 4 reveal

support for persistence hypothesis in these data: becoming involved as a civil rights activist

initially is predictive of maintaining this path. Model 5 provides no support for the transfer

hypothesis in the civil rights domain. In a critical difference from the antiwar movement, Model

6 shows no evidence that initial involvement in activism through civil rights stimulates activists

to pursue a combined activist path.

[Table 4 about here]

24

 Overall, Figure 1, Table 3, and Table 4 demonstrate a clear pattern. The antiwar

movement is the most common entry point to activism for Social Forum activists. Antiwar

recruits do not abandon the antiwar movement and migrate to new policy domains in larger

numbers. Rather, they tend to combine peace activism with other issues. However, this pattern is

not observed for participants in other movements. Even though the antiwar movement is

prominent within the field of progressive/left activism, there are no well-defined channels from

leading issues (such as education or immigration rights) into antiwar activism. Initiation into

activism through other major issue areas, such as civil rights, does not prompt the same

combined pattern observed in the antiwar movement. As noted earlier, many other issues are not

as episodic as wars. Education, immigration, women's rights, and economic justice are all

comparably constant issues, which suggests that the desire for activists to cross-over into other

domains is not particularly strong. The nature of these domains does not prompt activists to

cross-over into antiwar activism in a sustained way.

Discussion

Our study of activists participating in the 2010 US Social Forum introduces a significant

social fact: A plurality of leading, contemporary, progressive/left activists had their first

experience with activism in the antiwar movement. This finding does not only hold for activists

who had their first experience in the 1960s or the 2000s, which were peak periods of antiwar

activism. Rather, the pattern persists for people who got their start during relative low points for

the peace movement, such as the 1970s and 1990s.

People may come to have their first experience with activism in the antiwar movement

for a wide variety of reasons. The urgency of a pending war prompts many to take to the streets

25

for the first time. For others, serendipity may play a greater role: A peace demonstration may

simply be the first real opportunity that many people have to participate in activism. Thus, the

antiwar movements heavy strategic reliance on street demonstrations regardless of whether

this tactic is effective in achieving political influence among policymakers provides an

introduction to social activism for many.

Regardless of why antiwar activism is a first event for many people, it nonetheless often

is that first event. Antiwar activists then go on, over the course of their lives, to combine antiwar

with involvement in many other social causes. We show that the effect of participating in this

first event holds even after accounting for other demographic and political explanations for

involvement. The consequences of this pattern are profound. As activists carry the memory of

their first involvement with them, it has the potential to shape the way that they participate in

other issues through the tactics they implement, the arguments they offer, and the frames they

devise. Thus, while antiwar activism rarely prevents the onset of war (Marullo and Meyer 2004),

it has the chance to shape the practices of an entire field of social action by imprinting its

participants.

Our work builds on a tradition of scholarship that demonstrates the important

biographical consequences of mobilization (McAdam 1989; Jasper 1999; Fischer and McInerney

2012). Just as people who join social movements in general are more likely than others to vote

or have heightened political participation during their lives (Demerath, Marwell, and Aiken

1971; Marwell, Demerath, and Aiken 1987), so too does participation in one particular

movement have significance consequences for political involvement. For example, individuals

vary in the degree to which they personally identify with the label activist (Corrigall-Brown

2012: 105-22; Teske 1997). Whether or not individuals think of themselves as activists is

26

often something that they learn in the course of participation in movements, rather than prior to

their first activist experience (Gamson 1991; Gecas 2000). Thus, which movement individuals

participate with first may matter for whether or not they come to think of themselves as

activists. Similarly, the order of participation in movements may matter for the substantive

ideas that individuals develop about politics. As Munson (2008) documents, individuals often do

not bring fully-formed ideologies with them to their first experiences with activism. Rather, they

learn and develop ideologies through their contacts with movements (Blee 2002; Polletta 2002).

Our survey of Social Forum activists provides a broadly representative sample of

progressive/left activists who were mobilized in the United States at one particular point in time,

while at the same time including people who had their first experience with activism over many

decades, from the 1940s to the 2010s. We recognize that ability of activists to attend this

convention depended on factors such as the costs of attending and their resources to pay those

costs. To incorporate these factors into our analysis, we include variables such as distance

traveled and income, and note that the sample includes people from around the United States and

with varied levels of financial resources. By design, our analysis is confined to individuals with

at least a modest level of commitment to activism; enough of a commitment to attend a

conference addressing contemporary social issues. Thus, our conclusions are not reasonably

generalizable to individuals below this level of commitment. Although our data by no means

provide a perfect random sample of progressive/left activists in the United States, they do offer a

very broad, cross-sectional view of those who were engaged in the early part of the twenty-first

century.

Our analysis is limited to activists on the progressive/left side of the political spectrum.

Ideologically, US Social Forum participants are much more to the left than the typical American.

27

Few respondents reported membership in the Republican Party (1.04%) or a conservative

ideology (1.85%). Thus, it remains an empirical question as to what extent similar patterns may

or may not exist among conservative activists. Is there an analogous gateway movement on

the right side of the political spectrum? Perhaps through involvement with the Republican Party

or engagement with candidates for public office, such as Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) electoral

politics serves this function on the right (Smith 2007). Or, possibly, the nascent Tea Party offers

a new structure to systematically socialize conservative activists (Skocpol and Williamson 2012).

An alternative hypothesis is that conservative activism is more polycentric than progressive/left

activism such that there is no single movement that serves as a gateway to a large number of

activists. Instead, multiple movements recruit approximately equal numbers of activists.

Conclusion

Charles Tilly (1985) famously argued that war-making facilitated state-building because

wars allow states to expand their tax-collecting capacity, which resulted in an expansion of the

state itself. The US Social Forum data reveal that Tilly's observation can be further developed. In

modern America, wars increase social movement capacity because they touch many sectors of

society and are highly emotional events. They disproportionately attract people who are

interested in movement activism. Thus, antiwar politics are often the starting point for many

activist paths. The aggregate result is that other movements of the Left are populated with

activists who began as antiwar demonstrators. If the US Social Forum is an indicator of broader

trends among progressive/lefts, American wars have helped to define the Left. The lives of

activists are now intertwined with antiwar activism.

28

 We do not argue non-peace issues are not important elements of the American Left.

Rather, war-making has resulted in a fundamental re-articulation of the relationship between the

different progressive/left social movements that are found in American society. Early in the 20th

century, activism was often dominated by "Old Left" issues, such as labor. In the mid-20th

century, the New and Old Left developed a complex relationship, which at times was

competitive and at other times supportive (Gitlin 2003). One strand of civil rights movement

scholarship, for example, argues that the labor and civil rights movements were often in conflict

(Foner 1981; Quadagno 1992). Other scholars have claimed that the civil rights movement had a

rejuvenating effect on labor unions (Isaac and Christiansen 2002; Isaac, McDonald and Lukasik

2006). Taken together, this scholarship suggests that various social movements co-existed on the

same political stage.

Major American wars and the post-WWII defense build-up have brought antiwar

activism to the forefront of activism. Major wars and other national security issues, such as the

deployment of nuclear weapons in the 1980s, created a consistent point of contention, which

commanded substantial resources from activists. The persistent effort to combat war has resulted

in a situation where the peace movement is ubiquitous and highly connected to other movements.

The relationship is asymmetric. An antiwar movement sends its recruits to other movements, but

other movements do not reciprocate as often or as systematically.

The configuration of modern activism is not stable, though, and the centrality and

distinctiveness of antiwar activism may be the result of a highly contingent historical process. In

the event that there was an extended period in which the United States did not participate in a

major armed conflict, then it is possible that a form of activism could emerge that concentrates

29

more heavily on the distribution of wealth or challenging other forms of inequality, such as racial

stratification.

As American armed forces demobilized in Iraq and Afghanistan, activists returned in

larger numbers to movements addressing economic inequality and identity politics. The

successful emergence of the Occupy Wall Street movement in Fall 2011 may be one sign of a

shift within progressive/left activism (Stetler 2011). Another sign of a shift within movement

activists is the increased attention given by activists to sustainability, food production, and the

environment (e.g., Weber, Heinze, and De Soucey 2008). As these movements mature and take

center stage, they may have to integrate participants whose approach to activism was defined, to

some degree, by the fight against war. The question for these activists is how they will integrate

diverse tactics and political frames. A clear understanding of how their organizations and

networks relate to peace activism may help them to do so.

30

References
Allison, Juliann, Ian Breckenridge-Jackson, Katja M. Guenther, Ali Lairy, Elizabeth Schwarz,
Ellen Reese, Miryam E. Ruvalcaba, and Michael Walker. 2011. Is the Economic Crisis
a Crisis for Social Justice Activism? Policy Matters: A Quarterly Publication of the
University of California, Riverside 5: 1-12.

Abbott, Andrew, and Alexandra Hrycak. 1990. Measuring Resemblance in Sequence Data: An
Optimal Matching Analysis of Musicians' Careers. American Journal of Sociology 96:
14485.

Abbott, Andrew, and Angela Tsay. 2000. Sequence Analysis and Optimal Matching Methods in
Sociology. Sociological Methods and Research 29: 333.

Ansell, Christopher K. 2003. Community Embeddedness and Collaborative Governance in the

San Francisco Bay Area Environmental Movement. Pp. 123144 in Social movements
and Networks: Relational Approaches to Collective Action, edited by M. Diani and D.
McAdam. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Baumgartner, Frank R., and Bryan D. Jones. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American
Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bearman, Peter S., and Kevin D. Everett. 1993. The Structure of Social Protest, 1961-1983.
Social Networks 15: 171200.

Blee, Kathleen M. 2002. Inside Organized Racism: Women in the Hate Movement. Lost
Angeles: University of California Press.

Blee, Kathleen M. 2011. Trajectories of Ideologies and Action in US Organized Racism. Pp.
23955 in Identity and Participation in Culturally Diverse Societies: A Multidisciplinary
Perspective, edited by A. Azzi, X. Chryssochoou, B. Klandermans, and B. Simon.
Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell Publishing.

Cagan, Leslie. 2008. Interview with second author, June 30. Brooklyn, NY.

Campbell, Eric. 2009. Detroit Draws 2010 U.S. Social Forum. The Michigan Citizen.
Retrieved December 12, 2011 (http://michigancitizen.com/detroit-draws-us-social-forum-
p7246-1.htm).

Caren, Neal, Raj Andrew Ghoshal and Vanesa Ribas. 2011. A Social Movement Generation:
Trends in Protesting and Petition Signing, 1973-2006." American Sociological Review
76: 125-151.

Carroll, William K., and R.S. Ratner. 1996. Master Framing and Cross-Movement Networking
in Contemporary Social Movements. Sociological Quarterly 37: 60125.

31

Corrigall-Brown, Catherine. 2012. Patterns of Protest: Trajectories of Participation in Social

Movements. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Couto, Richard A. 1993. Narrative, Free Space, and Political Leadership in Social Movements.
Journal of Politics 55: 5779.

Demerath, Nicholas J., Gerald Marwell, and Michael T. Aiken. 1971. Dynamics of Idealism. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Evans, Rhonda, and Tamara Kay. 2008. How Environmentalists Greened Trade Policy:
Strategic Action and the Architecture of Field Overlap. American Sociological Review
73: 97091.

Fisher, Dana. 2006. Taking Cover beneath the Anti-Bush Umbrella: Cycles of Protest and
Movement-to-Movement Transmission in an Era of Repressive Politics. Research in
Political Sociology 15: 2756.

Fisher, Dana R., and Paul-Brian McInerney. 2012. The Limits of Networks in Social Movement
Retention: On Canvassers and Their Careers. Mobilization. (Forthcoming).

Foner, Philip S. 1981. Organized Labor and the Black Worker: 1619-1981. New York:
International Publishers.

Gamson, William A. 1991. Commitment and Agency in Social Movements. Sociological

Forum 6: 27-50.

Gecas, Viktor. 2000. Value Identities, Self Motives, and Social Movements. Pp. 93-109 in
Self, Identity, and Social Movements, edited by Sheldon Stryker, T. J. Owens, and Robert
W. White. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Gitlin, Todd. 2003. The Whole World is Watching: Mass Media in the Making and Unmaking of
the New Left. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Giugni, Marco G. 2007. Personal and Biographical Consequences of Activism. Pp. 489507
in The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social and Political Movements, edited by D. A. Snow,
D. Della Porta, B. Klandermans, and D. McAdam. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.

Giugni, Marco G. 2008. Political, Biographical, and Cultural Consequences of Social

Movements. Sociology Compass 2: 1582-1600.

Goss, Kristin A., and Michael T. Heaney. 2010. Organizing Women as Women: Hybridity and
Grassroots Collective Action in the 21st Century. Perspectives on Politics 8: 27-52.

Hadden, Jennifer, and Sidney Tarrow. 2007. Spillover or Spillout? The Global Justice
Movement in the United States After 9/11. Mobilization 12: 35976.

32

Han, Shin-Kap. 2009. The Other Ride of Paul Revere: The Brokerage Role in the Making of the
American Revolution. Mobilization 14: 14362.

Hayden, Tom. 2008. Interview with second author, August 24. Denver, CO.

Heaney, Michael T., and Fabio Rojas. 2007. Partisans, Nonpartisans, and the Antiwar
Movement in the United States. American Politics Research 35: 431464.

Heaney, Michael T., and Fabio Rojas. 2011. The Partisan Dynamics of Contention:
Demobilization of the Antiwar Movement in the United States, 2007-2009. Mobilization
16: 4564.

Hedges, Chris. 2003. PUBLIC LIVES: A Longtime Antiwar Activist, Escalating the Peace.
New York Times, February 4. Retrieved November 23, 2011
(http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/04/nyregion/public-lives-a-longtime-antiwar-activist-
escalating-the-peace.html).

Huber, Peter J. 1981. Robust Statistics. Hoboken, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

Isaac, Larry, and Lars Christiansen. 2002. How the Civil Rights Movement Revitalized Labor
Militancy. American Sociological Review 67: 72246.

Isaac, Larry, Steve McDonald, and Greg Lukasik. 2006. Takin It From the Streets: How The
Sixties Breathed Life into the Labor Movement. American Journal of Sociology 112:
4696.

Jasper, James. 1999. The Art of Moral Protest: Culture, Biography, and Creativity in Social
Movements. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Joseph, Peniel E. 2006. Waiting 'Til the Midnight Hour: A Narrative History of Black Power in
America. New York: Henry Holt.

Kingdon, John W. 1997. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Boston: Little & Brown.

Kretschmer, Kelsy. 2010. Children of NOW: Pathways and Consequences of Breakaway

Organizations from the National Organization for Women, 1966 2000. Ph.D. diss.,
Department of Sociology, University of California-Irvine.

Kutz-Flamenbaum, Rachel V. 2011. Recruiting or Retaining? Frame Reception in the Women's

Peace Movement. Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change 32: 191-218.

Lee, Jong R. 1977. Rallying around the Flag: Foreign Policy Events and Presidential
Popularity. Presidential Studies Quarterly 7: 252-6.

Little, Roderick J. A. 1988. Missing Data Adjustments in Large Surveys. Journal of Business
and Economic Statistics 6: 287-96.

33

MacNair, Rachel M. 2009. Achieving Peace in the Abortion War. Kansas City, MO: Feminism
& Nonviolence Studies Association.

Marullo, Sam, and David S. Meyer. 2004. Antiwar and Peace Movements. Pp. 641-65 in The
Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, edited by D. A. Snow, S. A. Soule, and H.
Kriesi. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Marwell, Gerald, Michael Aiken, and N. J. Demerath. 1987. The Persistence of Political
Attitudes Among 1960s Civil Rights Activists. Public Opinion Quarterly 51: 35975.

McAdam, Doug. 1982. Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930-1970.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

McAdam, Doug. 1989. The Biographical Consequences of Activism. American Sociological

Review 54: 74460.

McAdam, Doug. 1995. Initiator and Spin-off Movements: Diffusion Processes in Protest
Cycles. Pp. 217-39 in Repertoires and Cycles of Collective Action, edited by M.
Traugott. Durham: Duke University Press.

McAdam, Doug. 1999. The Biographical Impact of Activism. Pp. 11746 in How Social
Movements Matter, edited by M. Giugni, D. McAdam, and C. Tilly. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.

Meyer, David S. 1990. A Winter of Discontent: The Nuclear Freeze and American Politics.
NewYork: Praeger.

Meyer, David S., and Catherine Corrigall-Brown. 2005. Coalitions and Political Context: U.S.
Movements Against Wars in Iraq. Mobilization 10: 327344.

Meyer, David S., and Suzanne Staggenborg. 1996 Movements, Countermovements, and the
Structure of Political Opportunity. American Journal of Sociology 101: 162860.

Meyer, David S., and Sidney Tarrow. 1998. The Social Movement Society: Contentious Politics
for a New Century. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Meyer, David S., and Nancy Whittier. 1994. Social Movement Spillover. Social Problems 41:
27798.

Minkoff, Debra. 1997. The Sequencing of Social Movements. American Sociological Review
62: 77999.

Mizruchi, Ephraim H. 1983. Regulating Society. New York: Free Press.

34

Munson, Ziad W. 2008. The Making of Pro-Life Activists: How Social Movement Mobilization
Works. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Munson, Ziad W. 2010. Mobilizing on Campus: Conservative Movements and Today's College
Students. Sociological Forum 25: 76986.

Osa, Marjane. 2003. Networks in Opposition: Linking Organizations through Activism in the
Polish Peoples Republic. Pp. 77104 in Social Movements and Networks, edited by M.
Diani and D. McAdam. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Polletta, Francesca. 1999. Free Spaces in Collective Action. Theory and Society 28: 138.

Polletta, Francesca. 2002. Freedom is an Endless Meeting: Democracy in American Social

Movements. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Polletta, Francesca, and James Jasper. 2001. Collective Identity in Social Movements. Annual
Review of Sociology 27: 283305.

Quadagno, Jill. 1992. Social Movements and State Transformation: Labor Unions and Racial
Conflict in the War on Poverty. American Sociological Review 57: 61634.

Reese, Ellen, Christine Petit, and David S. Meyer. 2010. Sudden Mobilization: Movement
Crossovers, Threats, and the Surprising Rise of the U.S. Antiwar Movement. Pp. 26691
in Strategic Alliances: Coalition Building and Social Movements, edited by N. Van Dyke
and H. J. McCammon. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Rojas, Fabio. 2007. From Black Power to Black Studies: How a Radical Social Movement
Became an Academic Discipline. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Rojas, Fabio, and Michael T. Heaney. 2009. Hybrid Politics: Social Movement Mobilization
in a Multi-Movement Environment. Paper Presented at the 104th Annual Meeting of the
American Sociological Association, San Francisco, California, August 7-11.

Rdig, Wolfgang. 2010. "Assessing nonresponse bias in activist surveys." Quantity and Quality
44:173180.

Rupp, Leila. 1997. Worlds of Women: The Making of an International Women's Movement.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Skocpol, Theda, and Vanessa Williamson. 2012. The Tea Party and the Remaking of
Republican Conservatism. New York: Oxford University Press.

Smith, Jackie, Jeffrey S. Juris, and the USSF Research Collective. 2008. We Are the Ones We
Have Been Waiting For: The U.S. Social Forum in Context. Mobilization 13: 373-394.

35

Smith, Mark a. 2007. The Right Talk: How Conservatives Transformed the Great society into
the Economic Society. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Sobieraj, Sarah. 2011. Soundbitten: The Perils of Media-Centered Political Activism. New
York: New York University Press.

Stelter, Brian. 2011. Camps Are Cleared, but '99 Percent' Still Occupies the Lexicon. New
York Times, December 1: A1.

Tarrow, Sidney. 1994. Power in Movement: Collective Action, Social Movements and Politics.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Taylor, Verta. 1989. Social Movement Continuity: The Women's Movement in Abeyance.
American Sociological Review 54: 76174.

Teske, Nathan. 1997. Political Activists in America: The Identity Construction Model of
Political Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tilly, Charles. 1985. War Making and State Making as Organized Crime. Pp. 16987 in
Bringing the State Back In, edited by P. Evans, D. Rueschemeyer, and T. Skocpol.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

US Social Forum. 2010. About the US Social Forum. Retrieved December 20, 2011
(http://www.ussf2010.org/about).

Vasi, Ion Bogdan. 2006. The New Anti-war Protests and Miscible Mobilizations. Social
Movement Studies 5: 13753.

Vasi, Ion Bogdan. 2011. Brokerage, Miscibility, and the Spread of Contention. Mobilization
16: 1124.

Viterna, Jocelyn. 2006. Pulled, Pushed and Persuaded: Explaining Womens Mobilization into
the Salvadoran Guerrilla Army. American Journal of Sociology 112: 1-45.

Voss, Kim, and Rachel Sherman. 2000. Breaking the Iron Law of Oligarchy: Tactical
Innovation and the Revitalization of the American Labor Movement. American Journal
of Sociology, 106: 30349.

Walgrave, Stefaan, and Dieter Rucht. 2010. Introduction. Pp. xiiixxvi in The World Says No
to War: Demonstrations against the War on Iraq, edited by S. Walgrave and D. Rucht.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Walgrave, Stefaan, and Joris Verhulst. 2011. Selection and Response Bias in Protest Surveys.
Mobilization 16: 20322.

36

Weber, Klaus, Kathryn Heinze, and Michaela DeSoucey. 2008. Forage for Thought: Mobilizing
Codes in the Movement for Grass-fed Meat and Dairy Products. Administrative Science
Quarterly 53: 52967.

Yeo, Andrew. 2011. Activists, Alliances, and Anti-U.S. Base Protests. New York: Cambridge
University Press.

37

 Tables and Figures

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics

Standard
Variable Mean Deviation Min Max % Imputed N
First Activist Event was Antiwar=1 0.311 0.463 0 1 5.50% 653
First Activist Event was Top-Five 0.158 0.158 0 1 5.50% 653
Other Issue=1
Year of First Activism 1993.109 14.987 1949 2010 15.48% 584
Age in Years 36.752 16.385 13 86 4.78% 658
Sex/gender is Female = 1 0.545 0.483 0 1 8.10% 635
Race/ethnicity is White =1 0.648 0.469 0 1 6.08% 649
Race/ethnicity is Black = 1 0.172 0.371 0 1 6.22% 648
Race/ethnicity is Latino = 1 0.116 0.313 0 1 6.08% 649
Race/ethnicity is Asian = 1 0.093 0.284 0 1 6.22% 648
Thousands of Miles Traveled 0.807 0.820 0.001 5.107 7.96% 636
Is Organizational Member = 1 0.752 0.427 0 1 4.49% 660
Is Armed Forces Veteran = 1 0.035 0.181 0 1 4.05% 663
Is College Graduate = 1 0.678 0.463 0 1 3.76% 665
Income in Thousands of Dollars 24.806 18.819 0 > 82.500 7.09% 642
Activism is Core to Identity=1 0.365 0.482 0 1 5.93% 650
Political Ideology is Radical=1 0.458 0.499 0 1 13.75% 596

Similarity of Activists' Path to

All-Antiwar Activism 0.027 0.104 0 0.667 - 691
All-Non-antiwar Activism 0.315 0.333 0 1 - 691
Combined Antiwar/Non-antiwar 0.441 0.374 0 1 - 691

38

 Table 2. Sequence Analysis and Similarity Measures

Coding
Active in any antiwar issue = 1
Active in non-antiwar issues only (e.g., immigration) = 2
Active in antiwar and other issues = 3
Residual: Not active in any issue = 0

Examples

Time Period
Sequence Name Pre-Bush Era Bush Era Obama Era
All Antiwar 1 1 1
All Non-antiwar 2 2 2
Combined 3 3 3

Hypothetical Activists
A - Verbal Civil Rights Iraq War, Civil Rights Iraq War, Civil Rights
A - Numerical 2 3 3
B - Verbal Nuclear Weapons Iraq War Iraq War
B - Numerical 1 1 1

Sequence Distances Similarity to

All Antiwar All Non-antiwar Combined
A 0 0.333 0.667
B 1 0 0

Notes: Sequence distances computed using the optimal matching algorithm with standard costs for substitute and
deleting. Respondents were presented with a list of 43 broad issues and asked to describe how much they worked on
that issue from not active (1) to highly active (4). They were also allowed to add issues. On most issues in most time
periods, the mean score was between 1 and 2. For the sequence analysis, we consider a respondent to be active if
they self-reported a moderate or high participation (3 or 4).

39

Table 3. Tobit Regression Model of Similarity to Selected Activist Paths Antiwar Reference Point

(1) (2) (3)

Similarity to Similarity to Similarity to
All Antiwar All Non-antiwar Combined
Robust Robust Robust
Variable Beta Std. Err. Beta Std. Err. Beta Std. Err.

First Activist Event

Antiwar 0.297* 0.121 -0.198** 0.063 0.181** 0.059
Top-Five Other Issues -0.268 0.202 -0.005 0.074 0.048 0.081

Control Variables
Year of First Activism -0.010 0.007 0.005 0.003 -0.015*** 0.003
Age in Years -0.014* 0.006 0.002 0.003 0.001 0.003
Sex/gender is Female = 1 0.009 0.111 0.153** 0.054 -0.034 0.055
Race/ethnicity is White =1 0.118 0.164 -0.086 0.080 0.120 0.079
Race/ethnicity is Black = 1 0.006 0.229 0.178 0.092 -0.193* 0.093
Race/ethnicity is Latino = 1 -0.138 0.225 0.116 0.096 -0.014 0.093
Race/ethnicity is Asian = 1 -0.272 0.279 0.016 0.099 0.167 0.103
Thousands of Miles Traveled -0.179* 0.085 -0.043 0.039 0.031 0.036
Is Organizational Member = 1 -0.124 0.117 0.012 0.061 0.080* 0.062
Is Armed Forces Veteran = 1 0.590* 0.262 -0.120 0.164 0.141 0.163
Is College Graduate = 1 0.237 0.131 -0.013 0.061 0.098 0.060
Income in Thousands of Dollars 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Activism is Core to Identity=1 -0.316** 0.121 -0.052 0.067 0.186*** 0.058
Political Ideology is Radical=1 0.139 0.117 -0.110 0.059 0.202*** 0.060
Constant 20.095 8.501 -10.718 6.920 29.824*** 6.833
0.714*** 0.044 0.596*** 0.029 0.601*** 0.030

N 691 691 691

F (df=16, 675) 4.140*** 3.980*** 11.720***
Left-Censored Observations 643 300 361
Uncensored Observations 48 328 306
Right-Censored Observations 0 63 24

Notes: * p0.05, ** p0.01, *** p0.001. All models adjusted with survey weights.

40

Table 4. Tobit Regression Model of Similarity to Selected Activist Paths Civil Rights Reference Point

(4) (5) (6)

Similarity to Similarity to Similarity to
All Civil Rights All Non-Civil Rights Combined
Robust Robust Robust
Std.
Variable Beta Err. Beta Std. Err. Beta Std. Err.

First Activist Event

Civil Rights 0.910* 0.405 -0.117 0.163 -0.039 0.156
Top-Five Other Issues 0.135 0.261 0.095 0.060 -0.054 0.062

Control Variables
Year of First Activism 0.027** 0.010 -0.001 0.003 -0.009** 0.004
Age in Years 0.005 0.008 0.002 0.003 0.001 0.003
Sex/gender is Female = 1 0.836*** 0.218 0.007 0.059 0.115 0.061
Race/ethnicity is White =1 -0.098 0.166 -0.043 0.095 0.036 0.098
Race/ethnicity is Black = 1 -0.328 0.307 -0.347** 0.113 0.323** 0.110
Race/ethnicity is Latino = 1 -0.179 0.271 -0.088 0.111 0.103 0.115
Race/ethnicity is Asian = 1 -0.568 0.413 0.086 0.108 0.041 0.125
Thousands of Miles Traveled -0.113 0.161 0.048 0.036 -0.084* 0.038
Is Organizational Member = 1 0.136 0.288 0.010 0.064 0.096 0.068
Is Armed Forces Veteran = 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Is College Graduate = 1 -0.299 0.189 -0.011 0.061 0.114 0.064
Income in Thousands of Dollars 0.000* 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Activism is Core to Identity=1 -0.338 0.252 -0.081 0.065 0.157* 0.066
Political Ideology is Radical=1 0.363 0.215 -0.002 0.062 0.120 0.065
Constant -57.383** 21.113 2.409 7.030 18.769* 7.353
0.913*** 0.231 0.648*** 0.032 0.669*** 0.033

N 691 691 691

F (df=16, 675) 8.160*** 2.160** 5.300***
Left-Censored Observations 676 228 369
Uncensored Observations 14 328 302
Right-Censored Observations 1 135 20

Notes: * p0.05, ** p0.01, *** p0.001. All models adjusted with survey weights.

41

Figure 1. The Issue Network of the 2010 US Social Forum

Notes: Two issues are connected if they were both part of the theme of a single panel. Source: Program of the 2010
US Social Forum.

42

Figure 2. US Social Forum Participants Similarity to Selected Activist Paths

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Percentof
50% AllAntiwar
Activists
40% AllNonantiwar
Combined
30%

20%

10%

0%
0 0.33 0.67 1.00
SimilaritytoPath

Notes: All Antiwar refers to a hypothetical activist who participates only in antiwar activities. All non-antiwar
refers to a hypothetical activist who participates only in non-antiwar issues. Combined denotes a hypothetical
activist who participates in antiwar and other activities. The vertical axis represents the percentage of activists whose
personal paths achieve a given degree of similarity to selected paths, such as the all antiwar activist sequence.

43

Figure 3. Top Five Events that Initially Attracted Activists, by Decade, 1961-2010

60%

50%

40%
Antiwar
Percentof
30% CivilRights
Activists
Labor

20% Immigration
Women'sRights

10%

0%
19611970 19711980 19811990 19912000 20012010
DecadeofFirstActivistEvent

Notes: History of Activism Survey fielded at the 2010 US Social Forum. N=691. Each respondent was asked about
the first activist event in which she/he participated and to estimate the year in which it took place. Responses were
coded into a series of categories drawn from examination of the data. Multiple coding schemes produced similar
results. This chart presents the five most popular issues, which accounts for 48.5% of all responses. Other popular
first-time events include education (3.2%), the environment (3.06%) and lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender rights
(2.9%). Due to small numbers, the chart does not include persons recruited to activism in the 1940s and 1950s
(N=16).

44

Figure 4. Most popular Popular Issues in 2010 for US Social Forum Participants.

12%

10%

8%

Percentof
6%
Activists

4%

2%

0%
Antiwar Environmentalism Immigration Education
IssueArea

Notes: Source - History of Activism Survey fielded at the 2010 US Social Forum. N=691. Each respondent asked to
write down the issue on which they currently (2010) spend the most time.

45

Appendix A: Measuring Activist Paths

This chart is taken from the 2010 History of Activism Survey fielded at the US Social Forum in
Detroit, Michigan. We developed a list of 43 domains of social activism based on the interests of
participants as reflected in the conventions published program of panels and workshops. These
workshops included those offered by the leadership as well as 1,004 panels submitted by
participants before the conference for inclusion in the program.

8. ThinkingonlyoftheyearsBEFOREGeorgeW.BushwasPresident(2000andearlier),HOWACTIVE
wereyouinthefollowingissues? (CHECKONEBOXPERROW)

IssueArea Not Active Somewhat Moderately Highly

Active Active Active
AgingIssues
AntiWar(outsideMiddleEast)
AntiWar(Iraq/Afghanistan/Iran)
ArabAmericanIssues
AsianAmericanIssues
Black/AfricanAmericanIssues
CivilLibertiesU.S.
CriminalJustice/PoliceBrutality
DisabilityRights
EconomicJusticeU.S.Economy
Education
Environment/Sustainability
GlobalEconomicJustice/Globalization
HealthCare
HIV/AIDS
Housing
HumanRightsnonU.S.
Immigration(nottoU.S.)
Immigration(toU.S.)
ImprovingnonU.S.PoliticalInstitutions
ImprovingU.S.PoliticalInstitutions
Israel/Palestine
Labor/Workers'RightsnonU.S.
Labor/Workers'RightsU.S.
LatinoIssues
LGBTRights
MassMediaReformU.S.
Native/IndigenousPeoplesnonU.S.
Native/IndigenousPeoplesU.S.
NuclearProliferation
OpposingtheU.S.RightWing
Racism
Religion/Spirituality
ReligiousFreedom

46

 ReproductiveFreedom/Education
Transportation
U.S.ForeignPolicyLatin/South
U.S.ForeignPolicyAfrica
U.S.ForeignPolicyCuba
U.S.ForeignPolicyHaiti
Women'sRights
YouthIssues

47

Appendix B: Accounting for Survey Non-Response

Each surveyor was asked to estimate the gender and race of every person who chose not
to participate in the study. Using these data, we computed the non-response rate of the US Social
Forum attendees by race and gender, which are listed below in Table B.1. These data were used
to construct sample weights used in model estimates.

Table B.1: Response Rates and Survey Weights by Race and Gender

Responded Declined Response Rate Weight

White Males 188 104 0.644 1.021
Black Males 44 32 0.579 1.136
Latino Males 37 20 0.649 1.013
Asian Males 21 12 0.636 1.033
Other Males 17 10 0.630 1.045
White Females 221 99 0.691 0.952
Black Females 64 43 0.598 1.100
Latino Females 32 15 0.681 0.966
Asian Females 36 14 0.720 0.913
Other Females 41 6 0.872 0.754
Overall 682 355 0.658 1.000

48