formal hierarchies of national organizations. Yet, his scholarship supports the idea that
movements need both for successful outcomes in social movements. The work of Robnett, Doug
McAdam, and others suggests that national and local leadership working together ended
segregation in the South.
As Robnett has suggested, bridge leaders, those who mobilize followers in the
community and carry out the directives of formal leaders, are as important as formal leaders in
social movements. Environmental justice activists, however, are committed to the notion that
they are a more authentic movement of the people because of indigenous and grassroots
leadership at the local level and the absence of formal leaders in the movement. They strive for a
democratic movement that includes the voices of all of the organizations engaged in the
environmental justice struggle. Leaders of the EJ movement do not openly acknowledge their
status, which foments discord and discontent among movement followers. In the next section,
the results of a survey of environmental justice organizations illustrate the confusion around the
message, identity, and leadership of the movement.
Coalitions and Cooperation: The Future of Collective Action and the EJ Movement
In spring 2003, I conducted a mail survey of environmental justice organizations in the
United States. Some of the comments written on a few of the surveys illustrate the problem with
the framework offered by current environmental justice activists. A response to a question about
the origins of the organization from a Native American group is as follows:
Our organization was founded in 1971 to provide information to the public on the
environmental and health effects of mining in the southwest. It evolved into a research
and policy group to provide technical support to large indigenous communities. Hence,
we were doing “environmental justice” work before the term was coined. We continue to
do this same work today, and have been actively involved in EJ issues and policy since
19
Convention