I would also try to introduce some classification based on the form rather than the content of the movement. One way of doing it is to distinguish between two dimensions: origins of the movement (from below aka 'grassroots' and from above aka 'astroturf') and its relationship to the existing power structure and dominant socio-political institutions (challenging vs. supportive). This would give you a 4-fold classification based on formal dimensions
Grassroots -challenge Grassroots - supportive Astroturf - challenge Astroturf - supportive
which can provide a useful framework for discussing all the social movements that you included in your syllabus. People tend to love 2x2 tables, they are very useful conceptual mapping devices (provided you treat them as approximations and heuristic devices rather than rigid categories.) The added value is that this can help you avoid a perception of ideological bias while discussing political issues - accusations of bias are a favored tactic of right wing ideologues and can sabotage your instruction.
These are my 2 cents.
Wojtek
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Alan Rudy <alan.rudy at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear All:
> I sought suggestions for how to think about, what to use as sources, my
> pending Social Movements Since the 60s class...
> After tearing my hair out, continuing to despise myself for leaving out
> feminism and labor (there are other classes on these movements
> specifically), and sure I am never going to recover from chopping out all
> the other domestic, foreign and international movements - how, oh how,
> could I cut the anti-apartheid movement?! - I cut, I have settled on a
> trajectory within which I think I can construct a fairly coherent narrative.
> The key, which should have been obvious far earlier than it was, proved to
> be telling the story backwards... starting with Occupy Wall Streets and the
> Arab Spring and then moving into the Tea Party, Neocons and Neoliberalism.
> The introductory week will be chronological and the rest reverse
> chronology (kinda/mostly). This first half of the course will then serve
> as a more contemporary sounding board and frame of reference for the more
> historical materials to follow. The second level of the outlines variously
> represent questions to wonder about, points to make, etc, but are not
> intended to be comprehensive statements of the focus or keys for the week.
> Any and all thoughts, criticisms, must-have-them-reads and celebrations
> would be GREATLY appreciated.
> Alan
>
>
> WEEK TOPIC
>
> 1. *INTRODUCTION*
> 1. Progressivism, Old Left, New Left, NSM and the New Right
> 2. *OWS*
> 1. Facts, events and internal arguments
> 3. *OWS*
> 1. New Social Networkings?
> 4. *Arab Spring*
> 1. New Social Networkings?
> 5. *Tea Party*
> 1. Half-astroturfist/Half-populist?
> 6. *Moral Majority, etc.*
> 1. Conservative anti-modern romanticism
> 7. *Neoliberalism*
> 1. Domestic (deregulate, anti-tax)
> 8. *Neoliberalism*
> 1. International (marketize, privatize)
> 9. *Environmentalism*
> 1. Domestic/Global resource struggles
> 10. *Environmental Justice*
> 1. Domestic hybridity
> 11. *Political Ecology Movements*
> 1. International hybridity
> 12. *Gay RIghts/Queering*
> 1. From Identity Politics to the Politics of Post-identity
> 13. *Anti-war Struggles*
> 1. Pacificism, Self-interest, Anti-imperialism
> 14. *Black Power*
> 1. Self-defense and self-determination
> 15. *Civil Rights*
> 1. Integrationist radicalization/splintering
>
>
>
> *********************************************************
> Alan P. Rudy
> Assistant Professor
> Sociology, Anthropology and Social Work
> Central Michigan University
> 124 Anspach Hall
> Mt Pleasant, MI 48858
> 517-881-6319
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>