The chicano movement: dead or alive?  (Page 12/11)

This manuscript has been peer-reviewed, accepted, and endorsed by the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) as a significant contribution to the scholarship and practice of education administration. In addition to publication in the Connexions Content Commons, this module is published in the International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation , Volume 5, Number 1 (January – March 2010). Formatted and edited in Connexions by Julia Stanka, Texas A&M University.

The chicano movement: dead or alive?

José Ángel Gutiérrez

The continuous social upheaval caused by persons of Mexican ancestry in the United States of America, beginning in the 1960s, was a classic social movement called the Chicano Movement by its participants. The main geographic location for the various struggles was primarily the Southwest and select areas in the Midwest. The major participants were young people, women, and seasonal, agricultural workers. The major objectives were inclusion as first class citizens with improvement in their quality of life beginning with income, education, and voting rights. The stages of development of the Chicano Movement were oppositional consciousness (late 1950s); leadership renewal (early 1960s); rejection of unidirectional assimilation (mid-1960s); Chicano nationalism (late 1960s); and organizational and nation building (post-1960s and the 1970s). By the 1980s, Chicanos had competition from their offspring; new Mexican immigrants; other immigrants from the Caribbean, Central, and South America; and other non-American immigrants from Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.

Analysis of the political, historical evolution spanning four and a half decades of the Mexican community in the United States is the focus of this chapter. The major question is if the Chicano movement is dead or alive.

Social movements: the chicano movement ignored

Scholars have long debated an overarching definition of a social movement (SM) and sought theoretical underpinnings with which to frame the phenomenon. Over time, the intellectual pursuits for definition and theory have produced various contributions. Work in this regard, particularly seeking to understand social movements occurring in the United States, have centered mainly on labor unrest, women suffrage, black civil rights, environment, poverty and the lower class, and minority group struggles during the past century. See for example, the classic work of Frances Piven and Richard Cloward, Poor People’s Movements, New York: Vintage, 1979 that combines analyses for poor people of various races; however no such investigation included the Chicano Movement.

Generally speaking, various scholars have defined SM’s as collective ventures seeking change to the status quo. SM’s exhibit conditions of unrest that lead to coalescing forces into action and solidarity. SM’s rely on protest and disruption as primary tools for challenges to the status quo that create temporary public spaces. SM’s use culturally resonant, action-oriented symbols while engaged in sustained interaction and contentious politics with opponents. The SM’s are informal networks based on shared beliefs and solidarity, which mobilized around conflictual issues through frequent use of various forms of protest. For a collage of definitions of SM’s see such works as H. Blumer, “Collective behavior,” in A. McChung-Lee, ed., Principles of Sociology, New York: Barnes and Noble, 1969, p.99; R. Eyerman and A. Jamison, Social Movements: A Cognitive Approach, Cambridge: Polity, 1991, p.4; Sidney Tarrow, Power in Movement, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998, p.2; and, D. Della Porta and m. diani, Social Movements: An Introduction, Oxford: Blackwell, 1999, p.16.