“Instrumental” social action refers to social action that is oriented toward attaining defined goals. Defining social movement organizations (SMO) as “instrumental” organizations focuses our attention on the ways that organizations work to achieve particular goals. It is assumed that the more “instrumental” an organization, the more likely it is to develop a formal organizational structure that will be effective in bringing large numbers of people together to achieve the organization’s goals.

“Expressive” social action refers to social action that is oriented toward maintaining social solidarity among a group. Defining social movement organizations as “expressive” focuses our attention on the ways that organizations help members to develop and sustain positive identities by bringing people together and building supportive relationships among them. It is assumed that the more “expressive” an organization, the more likely it is to resist becoming a formal organization and the more likely to engage in unconventional and direct action forms of politics.

In fact, social movement organizations ought not be classified as either “instrumental” or “expressive” but as being both at the same time. All SMO’s have to provide some kind of social support to their members in order to keep members active and mobilized. On the other hand, if an SMO does not appear to be working effectively toward a social change goal, it will have difficulty retaining and attracting a sufficiently large membership.

How did ACT-UP organize to challenge “victim-blaming” attitudes toward people with AIDS and to forge a more positive identity for homosexuals and for people with AIDS?

Thinking about the direct action tactics that ACT UP used, would you say they were mainly expressive, mainly instrumental or both. Explain giving examples.

ACT-UP combined conventional interest group tactics with more radical direct action. What were the tensions within the group around these two approaches?

ACT-UP activists also disagreed about whether the group’s social change agenda should be broad or narrow. What was the nature of this disagreement?