Difference in the motivation between participants and non-participants in a social movement

This paper aims to reconsider the manner in which individuals who determine a collective goal are classified as participants and non-participants from the perspective of meaning construction. The resource mobilization theory and theories on the cultural conditions of the host society have focused on the methods of mobilization. In this paper, I used the interview survey method to examine both the participants and non-participants who support the collective goal. The empirical case study is a movement network supporting the rights of the Ainu and other indigenous populations. This network comprises a large number of non-Ainu people. First, some of the non-participants stated that if they continued to maintain their social positions, they would not be permitted to participate in the movement. In other words, the non-participants referred to the need to change the course of their lives if they participated in this movement. Second, the contents of the participants' meaning construction also revealed their mental conflict with regard to their participation as non-Ainu people. However, they attempted to overcome this dilemma through their double motives. Participants stated that their motivation to participate in the movement results from a combination of a resonance for a collective goal as well as a personal incentive to learn about the Ainu culture. Third, this study has shown that previous leaders of this movement have maintained the importance of considering their social stance. These leaders proposed the notion of self-denial (Jiko-Hitei). In contrast, this idea is presently considered as an ineffective tool for mobilization. However, this situation does not imply that the notion of self-denial has been discarded. The rationale behind this norm is currently construed in a different manner.