The radical flank effect refers to the positive or negative effects that radical activists for a cause have on more moderate activists for the same cause.[1]
According to Riley Dunlap, the idea of a radical flank effect "has a lot of credibility among social-movement scholars".[2]
History
In 1975, Jo Freeman introduced[3]:28 the term "radical flank" with reference to more revolutionary women's groups, "against which other feminist organizations and individuals could appear respectable."[4]:236
The term "radical flank effect" was coined by Herbert H. Haines.[5] In 1984, Haines found that moderate black organizations saw increased rather than decreased funding as the radical black movement emerged.[6] In his 1988 Black Radicals and the Civil Rights Mainstream, 1954-1970, Haines challenged the prevailing view that confrontational and militant black activists created a "white backlash" against the more moderate civil-rights movement.[7]:2 Rather, Haines argued, "the turmoil which the militants created was indispensable to black progress" and helped mainstream civil-rights groups.[7]:2
Haines measured positive outcomes based on increases in external income to moderate organizations and legislative victories. While nearly half of the income data was estimated or missing[8] due to the refusal of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and the Congress of Racial Equality to divulge their complete financial records, it was more extensive than the data used by Doug McAdam in his classic work on resource mobilization. Haines' data was thorough for the moderate organizations (such as the NAACP) which comprised the dependent variable for his research.[6]
Positive and negative effects
Positive
Radicals make moderates appear more reasonable by shifting the boundaries of discourse (see Overton window), such as when radical feminists in the 1960s-70s made reformist women's groups seem mild.[7]:4 ExxonMobil's radical stance rejecting climate change allowed BP to appear more moderate when it acknowledged in 1997 that human-caused climate change existed and posed a problem.[9]:65
Radicals may also create crises that authorities seek to resolve through concessions to moderates. An example was acceptance of labor unions as a means to stave off more radical demands by workers to exercise greater control of production systems.[7]:4 When Rainforest Action Network threatened Staples Inc. with protests exhorting it to sell more recycled paper, Staples responded by asking help from the more moderate Environmental Defense Fund.[9]:64
Armed radical flanks often protect more moderate nonviolent activists from repression, thereby allowing the nonviolent actions to continue.[10] In 1964, the Deacons for Defense and Justice militia were guardians of the pacifist CORE chapter in Louisiana, and later protected Martin Luther King Jr. and other demonstrators during the March Against Fear.[11][12]
Negative
Radicals may discredit a movement.[7]:3
Radicals might make it harder for moderates to collaborate with third parties.[7]:3
Predictors of positive flank effects
It's difficult to tell without hindsight whether the radical flank of a movement will have positive or negative effects.[2] However, following are some factors that have been proposed as making positive effects more likely:
Greater differentiation between moderates and radicals in the presence of a weak government.[2][13][14]:411 As Charles Dobson puts it: "To secure their place, the new moderates have to denounce the actions of their extremist counterparts as irresponsible, immoral, and counterproductive. The most astute will quietly encourage 'responsible extremism' at the same time."[15]
Existing momentum behind the cause. If change seems likely to happen anyway, then governments are more willing to accept moderate reforms in order to quell radicals.[2]
Radicalism during the peak of activism, before concessions are won.[16] After the movement begins to decline, radical factions may damage the image of moderate organizations.[16]
Low polarization. If there's high polarization with a strong opposing side, the opposing side can point to the radicals in order to hurt the moderates.[2]
Radical flank effect - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_flank_effect
#
According to Riley Dunlap, the idea of a radical flank effect "has a lot of credibility among social-movement scholars".[2]
History
In 1975, Jo Freeman introduced[3]:28 the term "radical flank" with reference to more revolutionary women's groups, "against which other feminist organizations and individuals could appear respectable."[4]:236
The term "radical flank effect" was coined by Herbert H. Haines.[5] In 1984, Haines found that moderate black organizations saw increased rather than decreased funding as the radical black movement emerged.[6] In his 1988 Black Radicals and the Civil Rights Mainstream, 1954-1970, Haines challenged the prevailing view that confrontational and militant black activists created a "white backlash" against the more moderate civil-rights movement.[7]:2 Rather, Haines argued, "the turmoil which the militants created was indispensable to black progress" and helped mainstream civil-rights groups.[7]:2
Haines measured positive outcomes based on increases in external income to moderate organizations and legislative victories. While nearly half of the income data was estimated or missing[8] due to the refusal of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and the Congress of Racial Equality to divulge their complete financial records, it was more extensive than the data used by Doug McAdam in his classic work on resource mobilization. Haines' data was thorough for the moderate organizations (such as the NAACP) which comprised the dependent variable for his research.[6]
Positive and negative effects
Positive
Radicals make moderates appear more reasonable by shifting the boundaries of discourse (see Overton window), such as when radical feminists in the 1960s-70s made reformist women's groups seem mild.[7]:4 ExxonMobil's radical stance rejecting climate change allowed BP to appear more moderate when it acknowledged in 1997 that human-caused climate change existed and posed a problem.[9]:65
Radicals may also create crises that authorities seek to resolve through concessions to moderates. An example was acceptance of labor unions as a means to stave off more radical demands by workers to exercise greater control of production systems.[7]:4 When Rainforest Action Network threatened Staples Inc. with protests exhorting it to sell more recycled paper, Staples responded by asking help from the more moderate Environmental Defense Fund.[9]:64
Armed radical flanks often protect more moderate nonviolent activists from repression, thereby allowing the nonviolent actions to continue.[10] In 1964, the Deacons for Defense and Justice militia were guardians of the pacifist CORE chapter in Louisiana, and later protected Martin Luther King Jr. and other demonstrators during the March Against Fear.[11][12]
Negative
Radicals may discredit a movement.[7]:3
Radicals might make it harder for moderates to collaborate with third parties.[7]:3
Predictors of positive flank effects
It's difficult to tell without hindsight whether the radical flank of a movement will have positive or negative effects.[2] However, following are some factors that have been proposed as making positive effects more likely:
Greater differentiation between moderates and radicals in the presence of a weak government.[2][13][14]:411 As Charles Dobson puts it: "To secure their place, the new moderates have to denounce the actions of their extremist counterparts as irresponsible, immoral, and counterproductive. The most astute will quietly encourage 'responsible extremism' at the same time."[15]
Existing momentum behind the cause. If change seems likely to happen anyway, then governments are more willing to accept moderate reforms in order to quell radicals.[2]
Radicalism during the peak of activism, before concessions are won.[16] After the movement begins to decline, radical factions may damage the image of moderate organizations.[16]
Low polarization. If there's high polarization with a strong opposing side, the opposing side can point to the radicals in order to hurt the moderates.[2]
Radical flank effect - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_flank_effect