Social movementsSocial movements require a fairly complex and multidimensional paradigm to adequately explain the multiplicity of factors that contribute to their development and sustenance. Like both McAdam and Costain, I believe that the political process model is a much more appropriate theory for social movements than the classical model (with its emphasis on psychology) or the resource mobilization model (with its ultra-capitalist approach to all socio-economic issues). political interactions). Indeed, unlike classical theories and those on resource mobilization, the political process model incorporates a number of different factors, making it significantly more realistic and versatile. Both McAdam and Costain analyze a range of empirical evidence to judge the credibility of the political process model as a global paradigm for social movements. While I accept the political process model as the most accurate theoretical description of social movements, I disagree with Costain's reformulation of “political process.” Indeed, I believe Costain succumbs to a subtle regression towards elitist theory. In Social Movements as Interest Groups, Costain begins by stating that “traditional measures of interest group influence often fail to capture the impact that social movements have on legislation” (p. 285). ). From this opening it can be assumed that she intends to reveal the actual impact of social movements on legislation through a non-traditional measurement method. In this context, Costain seeks a theory that captures the influential dynamics of social movement success. His answer is political process theory, which “suggests that the presence of leadership and resources (particularly those central stages of social movements). beliefs towards a movement and become more supportive, I do not believe this is a necessary component to developing a successful movement. Indeed, with the help of the press and media, a large grassroots movement can certainly work its way from the people (bottom) to the government (top), rather than starting with the government before becoming a major influence in society American. Contemporary social movements are much more dynamic and less predictable than Costain's argument suggests. While I disagree with Costain, I don't think my skepticism actually harms political process theory (as McAdam told me). Indeed, political process theory remains the most plausible explanation for the complex and dynamic nature of American social movements.