Type of Specific Movement

Classifying the Type of a Specific Social Movement

The VCAA study design requires students to classify their chosen social movement as one of the four types: alternative, redemptive, reformative, or revolutionary. This classification must be justified with reference to the defining criteria of each type.

This note uses the Australian Marriage Equality Movement and the Australian Aboriginal Land Rights Movement for comparison.

KEY TAKEAWAY: Classifying a social movement by type is not merely a labelling exercise — it connects the movement’s scope and target to its tactics, opposition, and likely outcomes. Justification is essential; stating the classification without explanation is insufficient for VCAA.

Classifying the Marriage Equality Movement

Classification: Reformative

Justification:

Using Aberle’s typology, the marriage equality movement is best classified as reformative because:

1. Target is society (not individuals): The movement sought to change Australian law — specifically the Marriage Act 1961 — a social institution. It did not seek to change individuals’ personal choices or spiritual lives.

2. Partial change, not total transformation: The movement did not seek to overturn the entire legal, economic, or political system. It accepted the legitimacy of the Australian Parliament and legal system and worked within those institutions to achieve a specific reform. Leaders and supporters voted, lobbied politicians, engaged with the court system, and participated in the government’s postal survey.

3. Specific, bounded goal: The movement had a clear, single primary goal — legal recognition of same-sex marriage. Once this was achieved (December 2017), the primary purpose of the movement was fulfilled.

Not revolutionary because: The movement did not seek to replace the existing system. It worked through Parliament, respected electoral processes, and celebrated the democratic outcome of the postal survey. Revolutionary movements reject the legitimacy of the existing order; marriage equality movement affirmed it.

Not alternative because: Alternative movements target individual behaviour; marriage equality targeted the law.

Comparison: Aboriginal Land Rights Movement

The Aboriginal land rights movement is more complex to classify:

• Primarily reformative: The Native Title Act campaign, the Mabo litigation, and most mainstream land rights advocacy sought reform within the Australian legal system — recognition of native title within the existing constitutional order
• Some elements challenge revolutionary classification: More radical elements within the broader Indigenous rights movement question the legitimacy of the Australian colonial state itself and argue for sovereignty outside the settler legal framework — approaching revolutionary in orientation
• Not mutually exclusive: Large social movements often contain multiple tendencies; the overall movement may be reformative while some internal factions are revolutionary

EXAM TIP: When classifying your movement, anticipate counter-arguments. If you classify a movement as reformative, briefly acknowledge why it is not revolutionary or alternative. This shows you understand the typology in depth, not just as a labelling formula.

COMMON MISTAKE: Students often describe a movement as “reformative because it wants change.” This is not sufficient — all social movements want change. The key criterion is whether the change is partial (specific to one institution or law) or total (systemic replacement), and whether it targets individuals or society.