The Bábí Movement: A Resource Mobilization Perspective by Peter Smith and Moojan Momen published in In Iran: Studies in Bábí and Bahá'í History vol. 3, ed. Peter Smith (Los Angeles: Kalimat Press, 1986) pages 33-93 [page 33] It has become common to link the emergence and expansion of the Bábí movement to the wide-ranging social tensions and crises experienced by mid-nineteenth-century Iranians. We would not dissent from this view. We assert, however, that the nature of the linkage between the Bábís and the social tensions of the 1840s is as yet far from clear. Both the Bábí religion and the social structure of Iran in the 1840s remain under-researched, particularly in terms of the specific local situations and linkages which we believe are crucial to an understanding of the movement's development. As research proceeds, we believe that it is essential that the theoretical as well as the substantive issues of explanation be made explicit. Such theoretical issues are always implicit in any historical explanation of a general nature, as with such assertions as that Babism represented an expression of class discontent (Ivanov), or proto-nationalistic sentiment (Avery, Ivanov, Keddie), regional antagonisms (Avery), political rebellion (Bayat), or social crisis (Smith). [1] Only when the theoretical assumptions underlying such theories are made explicit can they be adequately appraised. [page 34 In the present essay, we examine the Bábí movement in terms of a sociological resource mobilization perspective. [2] In so doing, we are not seeking to provide a "total" theoretical framework. Acceptance of one particular explanatory historical theory may lessen the importance attached to other theories, but it does not necessarily invalidate them. What distinguishes the resource mobilization perspective from much of the other theoretical work on social and religious movements is that it is more concerned with means than with meaning. It assumes that participation in social movements is generally both normal and rational. It postulates that, given a commitment to expansion on the part of the movement's original membership, an effective system of organization, and a favorable social environment, the growth of any social movement is relatively unproblematic. The central (and more accessible) research questions from this perspective are concerned with the investigation of the practical means by which such organizations are constructed, rather than the putative reasons why human beings join them. Specifically, it is unnecessary to explain the recruitment of followers to a movement in terms of extraordinary motivations supposedly engendered by individual or social crises. Such crises may well enhance a movement's plausibility, but issues are defined, and may even be generated, by the movement's leadership. Recruitment need not be highly motivated. Meaningful social contact with the movement's partisans may of itself be sufficient to secure initial conversion. Thereafter, progressive resocialization assures the neophyte's continued commitment. This is not to discount the importance of motivation. [3] Thus at a minimal level, we would assert that the content of a movement's ideology must be at least accessible and plausible to its 1