Resource Mobilization Theory and Relative Deprivation Theory in the Context of Social Movements
Social movements have always been important instruments of change in human societies. They arise when groups of people come together to challenge injustice, demand rights, or push for political, cultural, or economic reforms. Understanding why social movements emerge and how they succeed has been a central question in sociology and political science. Two major theories often discussed in this regard are Relative Deprivation Theory and Resource Mobilization Theory. Each provides a different lens to analyze the causes and dynamics of collective action.
Relative Deprivation Theory
Relative Deprivation Theory (RDT) argues that social movements arise when people feel deprived in comparison to others or to their own expectations. It is not absolute poverty or lack of resources that fuels movements, but the perceived gap between what people believe they deserve and what they actually get. In other words, dissatisfaction grows when expectations rise but opportunities or rewards fail to match them.
For instance, if a community witnesses improvement in living standards elsewhere but finds itself excluded from that progress, it may feel relatively deprived. This sense of injustice becomes a psychological motivation for protest. The theory thus emphasizes emotions, grievances, and discontent as the driving forces behind collective action.
A classic example is the Civil Rights Movement in the United States. African Americans experienced improvements during the post–World War II era, but continued racial discrimination and exclusion from equal opportunities made them acutely aware of the gap between constitutional promises and lived reality. This relative deprivation triggered mass mobilization.
In the Indian context, Dalit movements and farmers’ protests can also be seen through this lens. When marginalized groups see others benefiting from development while they remain excluded, the resulting frustration creates the energy for mobilization.
However, Relative Deprivation Theory faces criticisms. Not every case of deprivation leads to movements; many groups remain silent despite deep inequalities. Also, deprivation is common in most societies, but social movements occur only at certain times. Thus, while the theory explains the why of discontent, it fails to explain the how—the organizational processes and strategies through which movements actually succeed.
Resource Mobilization Theory
Resource Mobilization Theory (RMT), developed in the 1970s, took a different approach. It argued that grievances are constant in any society, but what determines whether a movement takes shape is the ability to mobilize resources. Here, resources do not only mean money but also networks, leadership, organization, legitimacy, media access, and political opportunities.
According to this perspective, social movements are not spontaneous outbursts of anger but rational, organized efforts by groups that strategically use available resources. RMT treats movements almost like political organizations, where leaders plan, negotiate, and build coalitions to achieve goals.
For example, the women’s rights movement did not succeed merely because women were deprived, but because they built strong organizations, raised funds, published writings, gained allies in political parties, and used media platforms. Similarly, the Indian Independence Movement relied on structured organizations like the Indian National Congress, capable leaders such as Gandhi and Nehru, and resources like printing presses, volunteer networks, and funds from Indian industrialists.
