Social movement theory holds that disrupting social and political processes is among the most effective tools social movement organizations (SMOs) use to motivate recognition for themselves and their constituents. Yet, recent research suggests that the political reception of disruption is not racially neutral. Black SMOs face a dilemma in that, although disruption is a powerful tool for change, the public often perceives nonviolent Black disruptive protest as violent. We investigate this bind by analyzing how nondisruptive protest, nonviolent disruption, or violence helps or hinders both Black and non-Black SMOs to gain state “acceptance” as legitimate spokes-organizations for their issues. We combine data on newspaper-reported protest events with data covering 41,545 SMO Congressional testimonies from 1462 SMOs from 35 movement families. In panel regressions, we find that Congress is generally more accepting of nondisruptive protest but that nondisruptive protest is only roughly one-tenth as effective for Black SMOs compared with non-Black SMOs. Furthermore, whereas non-Black SMOs are significantly more likely to testify after using nonviolent disruption, Black SMOs using nonviolent disruption are significantly less likely to testify before Congress. Regardless of race, violence was associated with fewer congressional testimonies. Collectively, these findings suggest that Black SMOs face a tactical bind: Black SMOs can use nondisruptive tactics that are resource-intensive and slow, or they can use nonviolent disruption that gets media attention but hinders congressional acceptance. These findings contribute to a growing literature on how racial inequality and prejudice impact the outcomes of social movements.

中文翻译：

---

破坏的种族限制：种族和策略如何影响社会运动组织在国会作证，1960-1995


社会运动理论认为，扰乱社会和政治进程是社会运动组织（SMO）用来激发对自身及其选民的认可的最有效工具之一。然而，最近的研究表明，政治上对颠覆的接受并不具有种族中立性。黑人 SMO 面临着一个困境，因为尽管破坏是变革的有力工具，但公众常常将非暴力的黑人破坏性抗议视为暴力。我们通过分析非破坏性抗议、非暴力破坏或暴力如何帮助或阻碍黑人和非黑人 SMO 获得国家“接受”作为其问题的合法代言组织来调查这一束缚。我们将报纸报道的抗议事件的数据与来自 35 个运动家庭的 1462 名 SMO 的 41,545 份 SMO 国会证词数据结合起来。在面板回归中，我们发现国会通常更接受非破坏性抗议，但与非黑人 SMO 相比，非破坏性抗议对黑人 SMO 的有效性仅为大约十分之一。此外，虽然非黑人 SMO 在使用非暴力破坏后作证的可能性明显更大，但使用非暴力破坏的黑人 SMO 在国会作证的可能性却大大降低。无论种族如何，暴力都与较少的国会证词有关。总的来说，这些发现表明黑人 SMO 面临战术困境：黑人 SMO 可以使用资源密集型且缓慢的非破坏性策略，或者他们可以使用非暴力破坏来引起媒体关注但阻碍国会接受。这些发现有助于越来越多关于种族不平等和偏见如何影响社会运动结果的文献。