Institutionalization or Autonomy?: Isomorphism Among Social Movement Organizations in Post-2019 Lebanon


Charlotte Gaudreau, McGill University

The dynamics of mass uprisings, their causes, and their consequences have captivated the social and political imagination, serving as a focal point for academic inquiry. Yet, the examination of movements tends to be concentrated on moments of heightened activity, with less attention paid to periods characterized by a dearth of mobilizations—a phase designated by Taylor as ‘abeyance’. Studying movement demise is essential to understanding that decline does not mean dissolution but instead can illustrate the transformation of social movement organization’s (SMO) strategies from one period to another. Drawing on the case of Lebanon, this research responds Roose’s (2017) call to integrate social movement studies with Neo-institutionalism by exploring why the majority of SMOs that emerged after the 2019 uprising transitioned into NGO-ization. In essence, the research aims to understand why, despite a multitude of organizational possibilities, the majority of activist organizations tend to adhere to a common script, irrespective of its impact on social movements’ outcomes. Between 2011 and 2019, Lebanon witnessed a surge in anti-sectarian social movements, marked by an expansion in territorial scope, social basis, and repertoire of actions. These culminated in October 2019 with an unprecedented state-wide upheaval. Notwithstanding their relative failure, these events constitute an incremental and mounting challenge against Lebanon’s establishment. However, the post-2019 landscape has been characterized by a confluence of crises: financial collapse, pervasive corruption, natural disasters, the COVID-19 pandemic, the Beirut port explosion, sectarian conflicts, and regional warfare. Despite the social impact of the 2019 revolutionary moment, a notable outcome has been the re-legitimization of the sectarian system, and with it, a growth in state power resulting in many setbacks for the civil society. Mass demobilization, significant emigration, and shrinking civic space have profoundly influenced activist networks and organizations. My research thus investigates the decision-making processes informing strategic choices post-mobilization demise, employing ongoing fieldwork and in-depth interviews with key actors in the Lebanese civil society. My findings indicate that in post-2019 Lebanon, the scarcity of resources compels new SMOs to seek financial support from international entities, reshaping the organizational landscape. However, this reliance on foreign funding necessitates building legitimacy and institutional recognition. In this context, activists face choices such as remaining informal, forming a cooperative, a not-for-profit enterprise, or becoming a registered association. The last option, although the most restrictive, subjects organizations to government scrutiny—a path followed by the vast majority of groups interviewed. In essence, this heightened dependence on international funding compromises organizational autonomy and hinders the capacity for impactful actions. Institutionalization commonly influences the activities undertaken by SMOs, prompting a shift towards more conventional or moderate forms of activism. The question then arises: why do activist groups opt for such a path? Through my fieldwork, I discovered that the crux of the matter lies not in the actors’ lack of rationality. Lebanese activists are highly conscious of the trade-offs associated with NGO-ization. This subject sparks animated debates, and the majority of organizations actively work to devise internal mechanisms for preserving their autonomy. While legal regulations contribute to understanding part of the issue, the isomorphism of SMOs is better explained through the internalization of cultural cognitive rules. Aligning with theories from the neo-institutionalist sociology of organizations, my interviews demonstrate that the professionalization of activism and the tendency towards imitation are crucial factors in explaining the relatively homogenous choices of organizational structures and strategies in Lebanon.  

This paper will be presented at the following session: