Political ideology can corrupt the mind, and science.
- E. O. Wilson (Biologist)
Hug a Tree You Tree Hugger - A planksip® Möbius Worth Repeating
The Green movement appears to be bipartisan, breaking into the main political conversation. The crisis is existential. The need for action is immediate. Corruption is the contagion with the antidote being Ethologistic in Nature.
Like numerous social and political movements, the green movement has been fortified and strengthened by the forces that contest it.
Today, the green movement is again outlined and galvanized by its command of issues such as global warming and climate change, Keystone pipeline, nuclear proliferation, wetlands preservation, the hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” fisheries depletion, species extinction, and other severe environmental concerns.
What differentiates the green movement today from the earlier conservation movement is its stress on research and science. Communicating in spiritual tones and using religious metaphors, early ecologists like Muir and Thoreau admired nature for its tremendous impact on man’s emotions and our souls.
Now, though, we are far more prone to call upon scientific data and empirical research to bolster arguments in favor of wilderness preservation or versus polluting industries. Policymakers cite the work of polar researchers and use computerized climate models to combat global warming, and medical investigators rely on public health statistics to contend against mercury pollution. Whether these arguments thrive or collapse, however, is contingent on the idea, the desire, and the commitment the people who make up the green movement demonstrate.
The Green Movement has been the most noteworthy challenge the Islamic Republic of Iran has encountered ever since the 1979 Revolution. Despite an initial flourishing, the Green Movement gradually declined and was unable to achieve its goals, albeit only those that were not in line with reality. The movement eventually tied itself within the framework of the existing order.
To comprehend and appreciate the movement, one needs to closely consider the factors that affected the regression and subsequent evolution of the movement. Social movement failure remains a seriously understudied topic, and the literature on movement emergence is much more refined than the literature on movement decline. The same holds true about the Green Movement of Iran. The social movement theory can be employed to assess the role of political opportunities, mobilizing structures, framing, and repertoires of collective action in the “failure” and subsequent evolution of the movement.
In short, the loss of political opportunity played a decisive role in the decline of the movement and severely impacted the movement’s mobilizing structures while indirectly upsetting its framing and repertoire of collective action. The unfitting and abstruse framing of the movement by its leaders, along with a lack of strategy to tackle the prevailing challenges, the general haphazardness, and the incapability to adopt effectual collective actions destabilized the movement and led to its initial decline.
But it is evident that if we consider Iran’s pro-democracy “green movement” not as a revolution but as a civil rights movement –as the leaders of the movement did – then a “win” must, in fact, be measured over time. If a win means that many Iranians are no longer resigned to the undemocratic aspects of a political system that had regressed, rather than progressed, in the last three decades before the revolution, then it holds true. The movement was successful in affording its citizens the rights promised to them under Iran’s own Constitution.