Skip to main content

The Paradoxes of Building Social Movements Around Legal Rights

Erin Adam, JD/PhD Candidate in Political Science
University of Washington

Photo: LBJ Library
 Over the past decade, intersectional coalitions formed around struggles for LGBTQ and immigrant community rights at the local level in the United States. These coalitions contributed to new partnerships between cross-community social movement organizations and facilitated important rights campaign “wins” in limited contexts, like marriage equality and state aid for undocumented college students. However, coalition unity came at a cost. As the organizations that seemingly represent these disparate communities unified, this unification also reinforced hierarchical exclusions through the continued marginalization of issues that uproot conventional power dynamics the most, such as police violence, immigration detention, and trans-inclusive healthcare. In Intersectional Coalitions: The Paradoxes of Right- Based Movement Building in LGBTQ and Immigrant Communities,” I seek to explain this paradox and, in the process, demonstrate how intersectionality theory can enhance legal mobilization scholarship. How do we explain social movement alliances that are simultaneously inclusive and exclusive? In answering this question, I examine the extent to which rights-based movement coalitions formed to “win” rights and thwart rights “losses” represent and serve intersectional and more marginalized communities—groups in social justice movements that are understudied in contemporary law and social movements scholarship.

Through in-depth interviews conducted with organization leaders, advocates, activists, community workers, and politicians in Washington State and Arizona, two state contexts characterized by burgeoning mobilization within grassroots LGBTQ and immigrant rights communities, I argue that the construction of a common “civil rights past” identity within coalitions can help explain this paradox. The development of this collective identity expanded the LGBTQ and immigrant rights movements in both states and occasionally thwarted the power dynamics responsible for centering more mainstream constituencies within the two movements at the expense of intersectionally marginalized people. However, the episodic nature of rights-based campaigns simultaneously contained and undermined the formation of this collective identity, reinforcing movement divisions based on race, gender, and class.

Many legal mobilization and intersectionality scholars have echoed Stuart Scheingold’s argument that rights activism tends to fragment collective action and social movement efforts by reifying exclusionary political identities. These scholars argue that rights-based claiming individualizes mobilization efforts, hindering any collective action outside of judicial forums. Other scholars have challenged this point, and offered empirical studies showing that rights claiming and litigation can support collective political action through social movement coalitions. Intersectional Coalitions argues that rights can concurrently unify and fragment social movements, at once advancing solidarity around limited egalitarian aims and reinforcing the marginalization of intersectional groups and interests in ways that sustain hierarchy and power inequities. Consequently, I conclude by encouraging scholars to think about legal rights in terms of their paradoxical implications for collective, political action rather than in one-dimensional, static, either/or terms.

Popular posts from this blog

Comment: Making valid claims in social science research: A comment on Jenness and Calavita

By Tom Tyler, Yale Law School

I am writing to comment on several methodological issues raised by the article by Valerie Jenness and Kitty Calavita, entitled “It depends on the outcome”: Prisoners, grievances, and perceptions of justice”. I am pleased that the methodology blog for Law and Society Review has been created and provides a forum to discuss research design issues. I will address three aspects of the study: operationalization of the variables; statistical analysis; and inclusiveness of the literature review.

The Jenness/Calavita paper studies California prisons using data collected through interviews with prisoners. The paper says that it tests the perceptual procedural justice model, in particular there are frequent references to the Tyler model, in a prison setting. The study concludes that “prisoners privilege the actual outcome of disputes as their barometer of justice” showing “the dominance of substantive outcomes” (from the abstract)”.

I agree with Jenness and Cala…

The Roots of Life Without Parole Sentencing

By Christopher Seeds, New York University



Since the early 1970s, life imprisonment without the possibility of parole (LWOP)—an extreme prison sentence offering no reasonable possibility of release—has emerged as a routine legal sanction and penal practice in the United States. A century, even several decades ago, this would have been unexpected. Yet today, with more than 50,000 prisoners so sentenced and hundreds of laws authorizing it, LWOP is firmly entrenched in American penal policy, in judicial and prosecutorial decisionmaking, and in public discourse. Two general theses—one depicting LWOP as a replacement penalty for capital crimes; another linking LWOP with tough-on-crime sentencing policy of the mass incarceration era—have served as working explanations for this phenomenon. In the absence of in-depth studies, however, there has been little evidence with which to carefully evaluate these narratives.

My article, “Disaggregating LWOP: Life Without Parole, Capital Punishment, and …

Europeanization or National Specificity? Legal Approaches to Sexual Harassment in France, 2002–2012

By Abigail Saguy, UCLA

Sexual harassment represents a massive problem for working women worldwide. A recent social media campaign has brought increased awareness to this fact. In late 2017—after three-dozen women accused Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein of sexual harassment, assault, or rape—millions of women posted “Me Too” on Twitter, Snapchat, Facebook, and other social media platforms. Taking inspiration from African American activist Tarana Burke—who, in 2007, started an offline “Me Too” campaign to let sex abuse survivors know that they were not alone—actress Alyssa Milano launched this online Me Too campaign to shift the focus from Weinstein to victims. She hoped this would “give people a sense of the magnitude of the problem.”[1] While some posted simply, “Me Too,” others provided wrenching detail about abuse they had sometimes never before shared publicly. In France, a similar social media campaign flourished, under the hashtag “balance ton porc,” loosely translated as “sq…