The Weaknesses Of The Collective Identity Theory

Out of the four models that explain social movements, the collective identity theory is the most competent for reasons like it being the only to consider the individual actors, the people in the movement, and the solidarity they create. Even though it is superior, the resource mobilization, political opportunity, and structural theorists have all attempted to degrade the collective identity theory. However, their proposed weaknesses of the collective identity theory are either inaccurate or really just reasons why the theory is elite.
To begin, the resource mobilization theory attempts to diminish the collective identity theory by claiming people are resources. Thus, they believe their theory is superior because they are the only theory to
them” in social movements. They say this outlook is harmful because it “promotes exclusivity.” In agreeance, the “we vs. them” mentality can be problematic to a social movement by creating polarization. However, this mentality cannot be avoided when explaining social movements because every legitimate movement has a challenger and defender. Some movements are successful by developing a strong identity through the “us vs. them” model. Others fail because this becomes too strong, but either way, there isn’t a valid movement without this mentality. Therefore, criticizing the collective identity theorist for considering this element of movements is silly because it is a major strength. The collective identity theory is the only theory that focuses on the “we vs. us” mentality. Furthermore, these theorists attempted to make the structural model seem elite by claiming the following in their conclusion, “Because of the difference in experiences, the idea of “us vs them” strengthens. An identity is created through the union and support people give to each other when experiencing the changes in the institutions.” For one, they directly claim the importance of the “us vs. them” mentality, discrediting their biggest argument against the collective identity theory. Secondly, they try to state their theory recognizes the significance of identity, which isn’t true. Though, changes in the institutions can strengthen identity, another element the collective identity recognizes but the structural model does