Beyond the democratic state: anti-authoritarian interventions in democratic theory

III. Social Movements and Radical Democracy
If radical democracy occurs outside of the state, then not surprisingly, we ought to look to 
non-state actors for examples of, and experiments in, democratic praxis. In particular, we should 
look toward social movements. But, what is a social movement? McAdam (1982, 25), a key 

---

12 
social movement theorist and developer of the influential “political process model,” defines 
social movements as “organized efforts, on the part of excluded groups, to promote or resist 
changes in the structure of society that involve recourse to noninstitutional forms of political 
participation.” 
While I think this definition is mostly right, I see two problems with it. First, I am not 
convinced that social movements, by definition, must involve actions by “excluded groups.”
Given that McAdam’s focus was on the development of the black insurgency and the civil rights 
movements, it makes sense that he would see social movements being a political practice of 
excluded groups; surely, African-Americans meet this criterion. However, what of the Ku Klux 
Klan (KKK) during their heyday? They clearly meet every other element of McAdam’s 
definition of a social movement, and yet I hesitate to call them an excluded group. I am not 
convinced that simply because they act on behalf of the dominant racial group in America that 
they ought not be considered a social movement. Or, considering a more contemporary and 
mainstream example, is the Tea Party (at least in its early days) a social movement? Again, the 
Tea Party clearly seems to be an “organized effort…to promote or resist changes in the structure 
of society that involve[s] recourse to noninstitutional forms of political participation.” However, 
many Tea Party actors do not seem to be from “excluded groups” insofar as they are both 
economically well-off and white. Now, many of them (whether rightly or wrongly) surely 
feel
excluded from the political system, as I would imagine many members of the KKK did, as well.
Herein lays the basic set of problems. It is not clear whether being “excluded” is an objective or 
subjective condition. It is also not clear whether being “excluded” is a function of particular 
attributes like one’s race, class, or gender, or whether it is (also) a function of one’s political, 
moral or religious beliefs 
vis-à-vis 
the dominant belief system. As such, I think about social 

---

13 
movements as involving excluded or marginalized groups, but that it is possible to be (or at least 
feel) marginalized on the basis of one’s ideas. 
On to the second issue with McAdam’s definition. I think he is right that social 
movements, by definition, utilize “noninstitutional forms of political participation.” This is what 
distinguishes social movements from interest groups, voters or lobbyists. The problem is just 
that this definition leaves vague 
why
social movements utilize these political tactics. The reason, 
as I understand it, is because, even in relatively open and responsive contexts, the political 
system is often dominated by powerful actors. Those without connections to powerful actors, 
therefore, need to find other ways of generating political power. As I discuss in more detail in 
Chapter III, social movements develop political power by disrupting institutional processes 
through forms of collective action, such as protests, blockades, boycotts and strikes. Putting this 
all together, then, I define social movements as
 
organized
efforts, often on the part of 
marginalized 
peoples (or people with marginalized ideas), to leverage