![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This paper explains how institutionalisation can go hand in hand with the use of more disruptive tactics by social actors. Inspired by a feminist conceptualisation of the social movement institutionalisation process, we adopt a fluid definition of the state-society division and attend to show how institutional actors and groups negotiate their relationships at different scales of protest. To illustrate our argument, we take a closer look at the student movement in France. Based on the analysis of higher education policies between 2005 and 2016, and 16 semi-structured interviews conducted with key actors, we identify a process of partial institutionalisation whereby student organisations are regulated by different material conditions depending on the scale of protest. These material conditions, translated trough institutional arrangements, shape the ways in which student organisations build identity boundaries among them, thereby leading to the use of different tactics of protest.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Data transparency
The ethics certificate delivered by University of Montreal Committee for this research do not allow the publication of interviews in their entirety. So, we could not make these qualitative data available for the public.
Notes
1 “Non-disruptive tactics represent institutionalized and formal means of registering collective grievances, such as through lawsuits, lobbying, or petitioning. (…) disruptive tactics refer to protest tactics that significantly interrupt the routine operations in some public setting or of some target (…) disruptive tactics are also sometimes considered symbolic displays of protestor claims through demonstrations, marches, boycotts, and building blockades” (Wang & Piazza, Citation2016). We consider tactics to be disruptive not only because it is part of a repertoire of actions recognized as being disruptive (as mentioned in the citation), but also because it tends to be followed by repressive reactions by police forces.
2 In this paper, we used the term “student movement” instead of “student movements”, to designate the social forces (sometimes massively) involved in struggles linked with the higher-education sector. Though we recognize, of course, the plurality of collective actors in this movement and the possible conflicts among them, they constitute together the countervailing camp with which the state and university institutions negotiate.
3 We define this term later, but we use it to describe how local (university) associations do not have the same treatment—legal and formal—as national associations.
4 We are not considering here other social conflicts during which the student movement was very active, such as the conflict around the pension system.
5 Many studies present the eventful and detailed history of the student movement in France (see for example Legois et al., Citation2007).
6 These associations could participate in elections at a local level, but they would not obtain national representative status, and thus no state funding. As we show in this paper, these associations were very active in the organisation of local protest mobilisation.
7 While this structure constitutes the main source of funding for student associations, most groups also rely on individual contributions.
8 This transformation occurs at a time where students abstain massively from voting in student elections (Stuppia & Haute, Citation2021).
9 Corporatist in the sense that these associations favor an organisational model that follows that of corporations, as well as having a membership that mirrors specific programs, such as law or medicine. For more information, see Dufour et al. (Citation2021).
10 The 1989 elections were the first student elections after the Jospin Law, in which the FAGE participated. In 2006, UNEF boycotted the elections. In 2012, the elections were cancelled.
11 This “apolitical” label was also a strategy for these groups to differentiate themselves from the partisan character of UNEF and UNI.
12 We do not claim that strategies create collective identity, neither the reverse. As explained in the theoretical section, the collective identity process is a complex phenomenon, continuously moving and evolving. Nevertheless, the French partial regulation of student movement representation left opened the possibility for associations to create decentralized local networks that do not follow the politics of national representative associations.
13 Referred to in French as coordinations nationales.
14 According to legislation dating back to the Middle Ages, the university franchise implies that the police are not allowed to enter the university unless the president gives them permission. In a way, as long as student mobilisations take place in the university, they are protected, or at least less likely to be repressed. Until recently, it was indeed difficult for a university president to give permission to evacuate his university, for questions of image and public opinion. At the same time, attendance is counted in the undergraduate assessment, so in order not to penalise anyone, it is necessary to completely block university activities on campus.
15 See Code de l’éducation, article L-712-2, modified in 2010.