Abstract
In order to expand their base in society, protest movements must establish credibility with potential recruits and allies. This dimension of protest strategies is explored through a case study drawn from participant observation in the draft resistance movement in Boston in 1968-69. The strategies of two different Resistance groups are compared: draft counseling, or the offering of expert knowledge to outsiders; and non-cooperation with the draft, a strategy based on risk-taking. These strategies involved different methods of gaining access to and credibility with outsiders; overall, they embodied contrasting styles of persuasion. The service aspect of draft counseling involved minimizing differences between movement members and outsiders, while non-cooperation was tied to a more polarizing approach to persuasion. Comparison of these two strategies and their implicit strains highlights a dilemma many protest movements have experienced: to gain legitimacy involved the risk of compromising the movement's political goals, but staying true to the group's differences with the existing culture may limit the movement's effectiveness.

This publication has 7 references indexed in Scilit: