to remedy the situation. For instance, during the civil rights movement, people were horrified and outraged at the violent means used by the police to subdue peaceful black protestors. Similarly, the anti-war protests at colleges like Kent State, Berkeley, and Santa Barbara, resulted in horribly violent encounters between the students and the police. Regardless of whether or not the public agreed with the students’ goals, there amassed widespread sympathy for the peaceful protestors that were consistently assaulted by the police. While war is traditionally a time of patriotism, mass protests coupled with media coverage of the horrors of the actual fighting, lead to a stigmatization of the Vietnam War and the resignation of President Johnson from the presidential race. I understand that the anti-war movement may be a difficult social movement to analyze due to its lack of organization. However, I believe that it represents an important exception to Costain’s emphasis on the role of the government at the beginning stages of social movements. While the government may often alter its convictions towards a movement, and become more supportive, I do not believe that this is a necessary component for the development of a successful movement. Indeed, with the help of the press and the media, a large grassroots movement can certainly work its way from the people (bottom) to the government (top), rather than beginning with the government before becoming an important influence in American society. Contemporary social movements are much more dynamic and less predictable than Costain’s argument implies. While I disagree with Costain, I do not believe that my skepticism actually harms the political process theory (as I was expressed by McAdam). Indeed, political process theory remains the most plausible explanation for the complex and dynamic nature of American social movements. ...
