Responding to Disaster: Two Logics of Demands and the Politics of Hybridity

Two similar disastrous fires struck concert venues in the USA (The Station, 2003) and Argentina (Republica Cromanon, 2004). We explore similarities and contrasts in public responses to these tragedies to better understand two patterns of collective action. One pattern ('insider') revolves around the deployment of forms of action and organization aimed at working within the constraints and opportunities already available or easily attainable within prevailing institutional arrangements. The other ('outsider') involves a reliance on forms of action and organization that seek to gain leverage by challenging prevailing institutions, often by way of protest, direct action, and the threat to disrupt existing arrangements. These 'insider' and 'outsider' patterns bear the imprint of accumulated repertoires of action and organization, are very often in tension, and involve trade-offs that participants in civil society organizations constantly weigh in considering alternative courses of action. Moreover, choices between the 'insider' and 'outsider' strategies are made vis-a-vis complex arrays of constraints and opportunities embodied in prevailing institutional arrangements. We also argue that pure 'insider' and 'outsider' patterns constitute theoretical constructs or ideal types, and that neither the 'insider' nor the 'outsider' modes of mobilization are inherently superior to one another in ensuring greater wellbeing or a stronger civil society. Moreover, in the actual terrain of collective action, such as in the two situations at hand, most often we find that actors deploy complex combinations of strategies, to constitute 'hybrid' modes of mobilization. To further illustrate this point, we briefly discuss populism as a form of mobilization that ultimately combines both 'insider' and 'outsider' strategies, and is in fact defined by a conflictive relationship between both sets of strategies.