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

End impunity! Reducing conflict-related sexual violence to a problem of law

By Anette Bringedal Houge & Kjersti Lohne, Department of Criminology and Sociology of Law, University of Oslo
(Image from Global Summit to End Sexual Violence in Conflict, 2014, hosted by UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office)

In our recent article, End impunity! Reducing conflict-related sexual violence to a problem of law, we question the taken-for-granted center-stage position of international criminal justice in international policy responses to conflict-related sexual violence. We address how central policy and advocacy actors explain such violence and its consequences for targeted individuals in order to promote and strengthen the fight against impunity. With the help of apt analytical tools provided by framing theory, we show how the UN Security Council and Human Rights Watch construct a simplistic understanding of conflict-related sexual violence in order to get their message and call for action across to wider audiences and constituencies – including a clear and short caus…

How to Tell When to Send Your Paper into a Journal

By Susan Sterett and Paul Collins

A group of faculty and graduate students in the Five College Seminar in Legal Studies in Western Massachusetts talked on a beautiful Friday afternoon about submitting a manuscript to a journal, something that feels so scary to some people they won’t do it. Other people send things in readily, and have tricks to manage any difficulties. If you don’t send it in, you won’t get it in the conversations you want to be part of. The academic conversation will be the worse for it. Still, how do you know? Especially because we are often the harshest judges of our work. Here are some alternatives the group came up with:
When an advisor, or colleague, or coauthor says it’s time;When you have gathered feedback on your work at a conference or working group and revised;When you’ve checked that it fits with the structure and format of articles in the journal you want to send it to, and it engages issues the journal engages;When you can’t stand to look at it any…

Early view comes to LSR

You can now access articles as soon as they are ready for publication rather than wait until the whole issue is out. We also invite you to sign up for content alerts on the Wiley site, so you learn as soon as an article is available.