ABSTRACT
It has been demonstrated elsewhere in the book (see, for example, page 000) that religious movements have reacted to the advance of secularization by engaging in the political process to an extent not seen in recent history. Chapters 4 and 5 argued that organizations within movements use different degrees of rhetoric to draw supporters to their cause, and that the type of rhetoric influences the location of the movement in relation to opportunities for political access. The organizations that use less-radical language and imagery in their campaigns are granted greater access to the political process. Organizations that continue to use language that reflects the severity of the crisis they perceive are expelled from the political arena. This chapter will argue that the location of a movement influences the type of organizational structure a group is able to develop and that where limitations on organizational structure threaten to decrease the strength of ties between members, organizations compensate with stronger ideological frames. The significance of this argument is evident only if structure is recognized as an informative variable in the prediction of organizational action. For this reason, this chapter will begin with a discussion of two divergent disciplines that arrive at two seemingly different conclusions about the relationship between structure and action. A review of behavior theory in the field of social behavior in the first section will reveal that hierarchal structures have traditionally been identified as increasing the likelihood of violence, because the strength of ties between members (and, by extension, the weakness of ties between members and the surrounding community) decrease the moral dissonance an individual might otherwise feel when engaging in violent behavior. A subsequent examination of the treatment of structure in social-movement theory will show that hierarchal structures in social movements have traditionally resulted in greater movement success and, consequentially, increased access to the political arena. The resulting paradox presented by these two arguments (how can hierarchy simultaneously increase an organization’s access and thereby decrease their likelihood to use violence and decrease their ties with other members of society thereby increasing their likelihood to use violence?) will be explored in light of the four case studies. The final section of the chapter will argue that the increased secularization of politics simultaneously causes those within the arena to look
with suspicion on more radical organizations, and those within radical organizations to look with contempt on those still in the arena. State suspicion (and prosecution) of radicalism has limited the ability of organizations to establish hierarchal structures. However, rather than limiting the violence that organizations undertake, the inability to form hierarchal structures has instead influenced the establishment of alternative measures to strengthen ties between members and their cause. Precisely what these alternative measures are will be explored in Chapter 7.
