Upload
jaime-omar-salinas
View
226
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/27/2019 Social Movements Theories
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/social-movements-theories 1/25
New Social Movement TheoriesAuthor(s): Steven M. BuechlerReviewed work(s):Source: The Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 3 (Summer, 1995), pp. 441-464Published by: Wiley on behalf of the Midwest Sociological Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4120774 .Accessed: 17/01/2013 08:56
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
Wiley and Midwest Sociological Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to The Sociological Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 08:56:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/27/2019 Social Movements Theories
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/social-movements-theories 2/25
NEW SOCIALMOVEMENTTHEORIES
Steven M. Buechler*MankatoState University
Thisarticle ffersanoverviewndassessmentf theutility f newsocialmovementheo-ries oranalyzingontemporaryorms fcollective ction.Thearticle eginswitha briefoverview f theorigins f newsocialmovementheory nda descriptionf someof the
generalenets f thisapproach. ext,I considerhecontributionsf fourmajorheorists
(Castells,Touraine, abermas,ndMelucci)o thisparadigm. he heartof thearticle
provides critical iscussion f thecentral ebateshathaveemergedwithin hispara-digm.I thenpropose typologicalistinctionetween political"nd "cultural"ersionsof newsocialmovementheory. n heconclusion,assessnewsocialmovementheorysa wholeand ituateheparadigmithreferenceoother aradigmsorthestudy f socialmovements.
Overthe last twentyyears,resourcemobilization heoryhas becomethe dominantpara-
digm for studyingcollective actionin the UnitedStates. With its characteristic remisesof
rationalactorsengaged n instrumental ction hroughormalorganizationo secureresources
and fostermobilization,his paradigmhas demonstratedonsiderableheoreticalandempiri-cal merit forunderstandingocialmovements McCarthy ndZald 1977;Tilly 1978). More
recently,however,some have
questionedhe
utilityof this
perspectiveor
understandingt
least some kindsof movementsandconstituencies,while othershave lodged important riti-
cismsagainst hisapproachBuechler1993). Thesedevelopments avecreatedanintellectual
space for complementary r alternativeperspectives or analyzingsocial movements. One
such alternatives social constructionism, hichbringsa symbolicinteractionistpproacho
the study of collective action by emphasizing he role of framingactivities and cultural
processes in social activism(Snow and Benford1992; Gamson 1992; Hunt,Benford,and
Snow 1994). This articleexaminesanotheralternative o the resourcemobilizationperspec-tive that has come to be known as new social movement heory. In whatfollows, I describe
this perspective, ummarize he work of some of its majortheorists,discuss the centralde-
bates associatedwith it, offera distinctionbetweenpoliticaland culturalversionsof the the-
ory, andprovidean assessmentof this paradigmor understandingollective action.
New social movement heory s rootedin continentalEuropeanraditionsof social theoryand politicalphilosophy(Cohen 1985;Klandermans 991; Klandermansnd Tarrow1988;
Larana, ohnston,and Gusfield1994). Thisapproach merged n large partas a responseto
the inadequacies f classicalMarxism or analyzingcollective action. For new social move-
menttheorists, wotypesof reductionism revented lassicalMarxism romadequately rasp-
ing contemporary orms of collective action. First, Marxism's economic reductionism
presumed hatall politically significant ocial actionwill derivefrom the fundamental co-
*Directall correspondenceo StevenM. Buechler,Departmentf Sociology,MankatoStateUniversity,Mankato,MN 56002-8400.
The SociologicalQuarterly,Volume36, Number3, pages441-464.
Copyright ? 1995 by The Midwest Sociological Society.
All rights of reproduction in any form requested.
ISSN: 0038-0253.
This content downloaded on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 08:56:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/27/2019 Social Movements Theories
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/social-movements-theories 3/25
442 THESOCIOLOGICALUARTERLYol. 36/No. 3/1995
nomic logic of capitalistproduction nd that all othersocial logics are secondaryat best in
shapingsuch action. Second,Marxism'sclass reductionism resumed hat the most signifi-
cant social actorswill be definedby classrelationshipsooted n theprocessof production ndthat all othersocial identities are secondaryat best in constituting ollective actors(Canel
1992). Thesepremises ed Marxists o privilegeproletarianevolution ooted n the sphereof
productionand to marginalizeanyotherformof socialprotest. New social movement heo-
rists,by contrast,have looked to other ogics of actionbasedin politics,ideology,andculture
as theroot of muchcollectiveaction,andtheyhave lookedto othersourcesof identitysuchas
ethnicity, genderand sexualityas the definersof collective identity. The term"new social
movements"husrefers o a diversearray f collectiveactions hathavepresumably isplacedthe old social movementof proletarianevolutionassociatedwith classicalMarxism.Even
thoughnew social movementtheoryis a critical reactionto classical Marxism,some new
social movement heoristsseek to updateand revise conventionalMarxistassumptionswhileothers seek to displaceand transcendhem.
Despitethe now commonusageof the term"newsocialmovement heory," t is a misno-
merif it implieswidespread greement monga rangeof theoristson a numberof coreprem-ises. It would be more accurateto speak of "new social movementtheories,"with the
implicationhat herearemanyvariations n a very generalapproacho something allednew
social movements.As a firstapproximationo thisgeneralapproach, owever, he followingthemes may be identified. First,most strandsof new social movement heoryunderscore
symbolicaction in civil society or the cultural phereas a majorarena or collectiveaction
alongsideinstrumental ction in the stateor political sphere(Cohen 1985; Melucci 1989).
Second,new socialmovement heorists tress heimportance f processes hatpromoteauton-
omy and self-determination nstead of strategies for maximizinginfluence and power
(Habermas1984-1987;Rucht1988). Third,somenew social movement heoristsemphasizethe role of postmaterialistaluesin muchcontemporaryollectiveaction,as opposedto con-
flicts over material esources Inglehart1990; Dalton,Kuechler,andBurklin1990). Fourth,new social movement heorists endto problematizehe oftenfragileprocessof constructingcollective identitiesandidentifyinggroup nterests, nsteadof assuming hatconflictgroupsand their interestsare structurally etermined Hunt,Benford,and Snow 1994; Johnston,
Larana,and Gusfield1994; Klandermans 994; Melucci 1989; Stoecker1995). Fifth,new
social movement heoryalso stresses he sociallyconstructed atureof grievancesandideol-
ogy, rather hanassuming hattheycan be deduced roma group'sstructuralocation(John-
ston, Larana,and Gusfield1994;Klandermans 992). Finally,new social movementtheory
recognizesa varietyof submerged,atent,andtemporary etworks hatoftenundergirdollec-
tive action,rather hanassuming hatcentralizedorganizationalorms are prerequisitesor
successfulmobilizationMelucci1989;Gusfield1994;Mueller1994). Manyof these themes
signifya divergence romboth classicalMarxism ndresourcemobilizationheoryas well as
some pointsof convergencewith social constructionism.But once again,variousnew social
movementtheoristsgive differentemphases o thesethemes andhavediverserelationswith
alternativeraditions,herebywarranting language hatspeaksof new social movement he-
ories (in the plural).
Beyond these themes is anotherdefiningcharacteristic f new social movementtheories
thatwarrantspecialemphasis.Indifferingways,allversionsof new socialmovement heory
operatewith some modelof a societaltotality hatprovides he contextfor the emergenceof
collectiveaction. Different heoristsoperatewithdifferentmodels(referring ariously o pos-
This content downloaded on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 08:56:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/27/2019 Social Movements Theories
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/social-movements-theories 4/25
New Social MovementTheories 443
tindustrialociety,an informationociety,advanced apitalism, tc.), butthe attempt o theo-
rize a historically pecificsocial formation s the structural ackdroporcontemporaryorms
of collective actionis perhaps he most distinctive eatureof new social movement heories.Havingoffered a firstapproximationo this paradigm,t will be helpfulto considerseveral
scholarswho exemplifythe rangeof thinkingamongnew social movement heorists.
SOME MAJORTHEORISTS
This overview of majornew social movement heoristswill serveseveralpurposes. First,it
will illustrateherangeof orientationshatmaybe found n this area,as well as the distortion
that is introducedwhentheseverydifferentperspectivesare referredo as a single paradigm.
Second, it will providea foundation or a moredetailed examinationof the majordebates
associatedwithnew social movement heories n the next section. Third, twill
suggestthe
need for someorganizingypologythat summarizes ut doesnot oversimplify hediversityof
social movement heories. Fourtheoristsbest exemplifythe rangeof new social movement
theoriesin the context of their own intellectual raditions:Manuel Castells (Spain), Alain
Touraine France),AlbertoMelucci(Italy),andJurgenHabermasGermany).
Castells'sfocus is the impactof capitalistdynamicson the transformationf urbanspaceand the role of urbansocial movements n this process. He arguesthat urban ssues have
becomecentralbecauseof the growing mportance f collectiveconsumption nd the neces-
sity of the stateto intervene o promote he productionof nonprofitable ut vitally needed
public goods. It is in this contextthatCastellssees the rise of urbansocial movements n a
dialecticalcontestwith the stateand other
politicalforces
seekingto
reorganizeurban ocial
life. He thus approaches he city as a social product hat is a resultof conflictingsocial
interestsand values. On theone hand,sociallydominantnterests eek to defineurban pacein keepingwith the goals of capitalistcommodificationnd bureaucratic omination; n the
otherhand,grassrootsmobilizations ndurban ocial movementsseek to defendpopular n-
terests,establishpoliticalautonomy,andmaintain ultural dentity. Whilearguing hatclass
relationships refundamental, astellsrecognizes hat heyexistalongsideother dentitiesand
sourcesof change,including he stateas well as group dentitiesbasedon gender,ethnicity,
nationality,andcitizenship. ForCastells,urbanprotestmovements ypicallydeveloparound
threemajor hemes. First,some demands ocus on the forms of collectiveconsumptionpro-videdby thestate, herebychallenginghecapitalistogic of exchangevaluewith anemphasis
on the provisionof use valuesin community ontexts. Second,otherdemands ocus on the
importance f culturaldentityandits links to territoriality,herebyresistingthe standardiza-
tion andhomogenization ssociatedwith bureaucraticormsof organization y establishing
anddefendinggenuineformsof community.Finally,still otherdemandsexpressthepoliticalmobilization f citizensseekingmoredecentralizedorms of governmenthatemphasize elf-
management nd autonomous ecisionmaking.ForCastells, hegoalsof collectiveconsump-
tion, communityculture,andpoliticalself-managementmay be foundin a wide varietyof
cross-culturalettingsthatwarrant he conceptof urbansocial movements.
Castells'sanalysisof urbansocial movementsexemplifiesseveralnew social movement
themeswhile also bringinga distinctive raming o these themes. The emphasison cultural
identity, herecognitionof nonclass-based onstituencies,he themeof autonomous elf-man-
agement,and the imageof resistance o a systemiclogic of commodification ndbureaucra-
tizationall serveto illustratedominant trains n new social movement heories. At the same
time, Castellsremainscloser to some of the concernsof conventionalMarxism hanmany
This content downloaded on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 08:56:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/27/2019 Social Movements Theories
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/social-movements-theories 5/25
444 THESOCIOLOGICALUARTERLYol. 36/No. 3/1995
othernew social movement heorists,andhe does so by offeringa "both/and"ather hanan
"either/or" tance toward some familiarsocial movementdichotomies. Thus, rather han
counterpoising old"class-basedmovementswith "new"nonclassbasedmovements,Castellsrecognizesthe roles of both class-basedand nonclass-based onstituencies n urban social
movements. Rather hancontrasting political" nd"cultural"rientations, e recognizes hat
urbansocial movementscontain a dialecticalmixtureof both orientations hat finds expres-sion in civil societyand the state. Rather handichotomizingbetween "instrumental"trate-
gies and "expressive"dentities,Castellsacknowledges he mutual nterplaybetween these
themes in manyurbansocial movements.Becauseof this more catholic and inclusiveap-
proach,Castells's version of new social movement heory s more attentive o the role of the
state than some other versions of the theorythatappear o eschew instrumental ctionalto-
gether. As a result,he is more likely to recognizethe role of politicaldynamics,such as
changingpolitical opportunitytructures,hansome other scholarsof new social movementtheory. Finally,Castells'sapproachuggests hecompatibility f a certain tyleof neo-Marx-
ist analysiswith at least some versionsof new social movement heory.
Alain Touraineargues hatwith thepassingof metasocialguarantees f socialorder,more
and moreof societycomes to be seen as theproductof reflectivesocial action. Thegrowing
capacityof socialactors o constructboth a systemof knowledgeand the technical ools that
allow them to intervene n their own functioning-a capacityTourainecalls historicity-makespossiblethe increasingself-production f society, which becomes the defininghall-
markof postindustrialr programmed ociety. The controlof historicity s the objectof an
ongoing strugglebetween classes definedby relationsof domination. Such classes takethe
form of social movementsas theyenter nto this struggle. Inpostindustrialociety,themajorsocial classes consist of consumers/clientsn the role of the popularclass and managers/technocratsn the role of thedominant lass. Theprincipalieldof conflict ortheseclassesis
culture,and the centralcontest nvolveswho will controlsociety's growingcapacity or self-
management.As the state becomesthe repositoryof society's ever increasingcapacityto
controlhistoricity, here is reasonto believe that the centralconflict in postindustrialocietywill come to centeraround his institution.In a recentformulation,Touraine 1992) locates
new socialmovementsbetween wo logics:thatof a systemseekingto maximizeproduction,
money, power, and information,and that of subjects seeking to defend and expandtheir
individuality.
Touraine'sworkanticipates everalof themajordebatesassociatedwith new social move-
menttheory. Onedebateconsiders helikelyconstituencyor suchmovements. n anempiri-cal study of the workers' movementin France,Touraine and his associates (Touraine,
Wieviorka,andDubet 1987)reiteratehis distinctiveclaimthatthere s one centralconflict n
every type of society. In industrialociety,this conflictcenteredaroundmaterialproductionandthe workers'movementposedthe obviouschallenge. With the comingof postindustrial
society,Touraine ndhis associatesstill expectoneprincipal dversarialmovement,although
theyremainuncertain boutwhethernew socialmovementswill fill this role. Ina 1988work,
Tourainesuggestsboth thatthere is no single class or groupthatrepresentsa futuresocial
orderandthatdifferentoppositionalocial movementsare unitedsimplyby theiroppositional
attitude.Touraine'snability o define heconstituencyorcollectiveaction,despitehis insis-
tence that each societaltypehas a singlecentralconflict,underscoreshedifficulties hatnew
social movement heoristshave in identifying he constituencyor such movements. In Tou-
raine'scase, this uncertaintymaybe related o a second debateanticipated y his workcon-
This content downloaded on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 08:56:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/27/2019 Social Movements Theories
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/social-movements-theories 6/25
New Social MovementTheories 445
cerningthe seemingly apoliticalnatureof these movements. He sees contemporaryocial
movementsas evidenceof a displacement f protest romthe economicto the cultural ealm,
accompanied y the privatization f socialproblems.Thetypicalresult is an anxious searchfor identityand an individualism hatmayexclude collective action(1985). In anothercon-
text, Touraine 1985) suggeststhat movementsbased on difference,specificity,or identity
maytoo easily dismissthe analysisof social relationsandthe denunciation f power,andin
still anotherworkhe (1988) suggeststhatappeals o identityarepurelydefensiveunlesstheyarelinkedwith a counteroffensivehat is directlypoliticalandthatappeals o self-determina-
tion. As we shall see, this uncertainty ver thepoliticalstatusof new social movements s a
definingthemewithin this paradigm.
JurgenHabermas1984-1987) proposes he most elaborate heoryof modemsocial struc-
tureby distinguishing etweena politico-economicystem governedby generalizedmediaof
powerandmoneyanda lifeworld tillgovernedbynormative onsensus. Whereas hesystemfollows aninstrumentalogic thatdetachesmedia ikemoneyandpowerfromany responsibil-
ity or accountability,he lifeworldfollows a communicative ationality equiring hatnorms
be justifiable hroughdiscussionand debate. The problemfor Habermass that in modem
society, system imperativesandlogic intrudeon the lifeworldin the form of colonization,
resultingn themediaof moneyandpowercomingto regulatenotonlyeconomicandpoliticaltransactionsbut also those concerning dentityformation,normativeregulation,and other
forms of symbolicreproductionraditionally ssociatedwith the lifeworld. Habermas ug-
geststhattherelationship f clients to the welfarestate s a model case for this colonizationof
the lifeworld, n that the welfare statemonetarizes nd bureaucratizesifeworldrelationships
as it controls he extentandkind of spendingon welfarepolicyto fit theimperatives f moneyandpower. Moregenerally,Habermas rgues hatthe processof colonizationalterseach of
the basicroles thatarisefromthe intersection f thepolitico-economic ystemandpublicand
private ifeworld:employee,consumer,client,andcitizen. In each case, these dynamics o-
catemore andmoredecision-making owerin the handsof expertsand administrativetruc-
tures,whichoperateaccording o the systemlogic of moneyandpowerandwhose decisions
are correspondingly emovedfrom contexts of justificationand accountabilitywithin the
lifeworld.
Giventhis conceptionof social structure,Habermasocatesnew social movementsat the
seamsbetweensystem
and ifeworld.This location eadshimto identify wo featuresof these
movementsthat have shapedfurtherdebateswithin new social movementtheory. First,
Habermas eemsto implythatnew social movementswill havea purelydefensivecharacter:
at best, they can defendthe lifeworldagainst he colonizingintrusionof the systemandsus-
tainthe roleof normative onsensusrooted n communicativeationalityhathas beenevolv-
ing withinthis sphere hroughoutheprocessof societalmodernization.But Habermas ffers
littleevidence hatnew socialmovements an contributeo anybroader ocialtransformation,
particularlyoncerninghe dominance f systemoverlifeworldandthe dominanceof genera-lized mediaof exchange ike moneyandpowerin the systemworld. As we shall see, while
no one sees new social movementsas bringingaboutcompletesocietaltransformation,many
of its theoristsenvisiona more extensiveandprogressiverole for movementsthansimply
defendingthe lifeworld. A second Habermasianheme, which is more broadly accepted
amongnew socialmovement heorists, oncerns henatureof thegoalsor demandsassociated
withthese movements. ForHabermas, s formanyothers, he conflictsin which new social
movementsengageare less aboutmaterial eproductionndmoreaboutcultural eproduction,
This content downloaded on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 08:56:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/27/2019 Social Movements Theories
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/social-movements-theories 7/25
446 THESOCIOLOGICALUARTERLYol. 36/No. 3/1995
social integration,and socialization. The new movementsbringwith them a new politicsconcernedwithqualityof life, projectsof self-realization,ndgoalsof participationnd den-
tityformation.Manyof thesemovementsareunitedaroundhecritiqueof growthas a centralideologicalfoundation,with ecology andpeace movementsplayingcentralroles. Because
these are not traditional istributionaltruggles,Habermasmpliesthatthey cannotbe chan-
neledby politicalpartiesor allayedby material ompensation.The implications thatunder
some circumstances,he conflictsassociatedwith new social movementsmay contribute o
the larger legitimationcrisis that Habermas 1975; 1984-1987) associates with advanced
capitalism.
Alberto Melucciarguesthat the (post-)modemworldbringsnew forms of social control,
conformitypressures,andinformation rocessing o which new social movementsrespond.The movementsaretriggeredby new sites of conflict hat are interwovenwith everyday ife;
the conflict tself involvessymboliccodes,identityclaims,andpersonalorexpressiveclaims.
Melucci wouldthus concurwithTourainehatthepoliticalstatusof new social movements s
unclear,but he is less troubledby this fact than Touraine.While these conflictsare far re-
moved from the conventionalpoliticalsphere, hey are not withoutstructural ffects that are
central n Melucci's argument.In a society increasingly haped by information nd signs,socialmovementsplayanimportantole as messages hatexpressoppositionalendenciesand
modalities. Theveryfocus on personal, piritual, rexpressiveaspectsof modemlife typicalof new social movements s animplicitrepudiationf theinstrumentalationality f thedomi-
nant society. Perhaps he most important ystemic effect of new social movements s to
rendervisiblethe peculiarlymodern orm of powerthatresides behind he rationality f ad-
ministrativeprocedures;n this way, collective actionemphasizesthe socially constructednatureof the worldand thepossibilityof alternative rrangements.Melucci'spositiveviewof
these movementsand theirmessagesunderscores he importance f free spacesbetweenthe
level of politicalpowerandeveryday ife in which actorscan consolidate ollective identities
throughbothrepresentationndparticipation.
Melucci's work also helps to define some of the centralissues of new social movement
theory. One such issue concerns he role of identity n moderncollective action.Melucci's
startingpremise s thatin modern ociety,the paceof change,the pluralityof memberships,and the abundanceof messagesall combine to weaken traditionalpointsof referenceand
sourcesof identity,thereby creatinga homelessnessof personal dentity. This meansthat
people's propensity o become involved n collective actionis tied to theircapacity o define
an identityin the firstplace (Melucci 1988). It also means thatthe social construction f
collectiveidentity s both a majorprerequisitend a majoraccomplishmentf the new social
movements.' The fluidityof identity n the modernworld and in its social movements s
related o thefragilityof organizationn such movements.Melucci s insistent hatnew social
movementsbe seen as ongoingsocial constructionsather han as unitaryempiricalobjects,
givens or essences, or historicalpersonagesactingon a stage. In contrast o these concep-
tions, whateverunitymovementsmay achieve is a resultof ongoingefforts rather hanan
initial startingpoint for collective action. On another evel, Melucci steersattentionaway
from formalorganizationby stressing hat much collective action is nested in networksof
submergedgroupsthat occasionallycoalesce into self-referential ormsof organizationor
struggle-but often on a temporary asis. He thereby uggeststhatwe speak ess in termsof
movementsand morein termsof movementnetworksor movementareas o capture he tran-
sitorynatureof muchcontemporarymobilization.
This content downloaded on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 08:56:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/27/2019 Social Movements Theories
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/social-movements-theories 8/25
New Social MovementTheories 447
These sketcheshint atsome of the maincontours f new socialmovement heorywhile also
suggesting ts diversity. This diversityderivesin partfromthe differentnationalsettingsin
whichtheorists ike Castells,Touraine, abermas, ndMeluccihave operated,as well as theratherdifferenthistoriesof socialprotestwithineach nation. Thisdiversityalso derivesfromthe different heoretical raditions hat inform the work of these theorists:Castells extendsMarxistanalysesof collective consumption,Tourainebuilds on his pathbreakingwork on
postindustrial ociety, Habermasworks out of the German raditionof criticaltheory,and
Melucciintroduces omesemioticandpostmodernlements. As suggestedearlier, his diver-
sity warrantspeakingof "newsocial movement heories"rather han a unitary"new social
movement heory."Yet thereare importanthreadsof continuityacross these thinkers. De-
spitetheirdifferences,all concur hat their societies have moved into a distinctsocial forma-
tion thatmightbe designatedas postindustrial,dvancedcapitalismand that the structural
featuresof their societies have shaped he kindsof current ollective action as decisively asthe structuraleaturesof liberalcapitalism haped he dynamicsof proletarian rotest. While
these sketcheshave hintedatsome of the issuesthat define heparadigm f new social move-
menttheory,a moresystematicpresentation f these debates s now in order.
THEMAJORDEBATES
Manyof the issues raisedby new social movement heoriesmaybe framed n terms of four
majordebates hat ypifythisgeneralapproach.The firstconcerns hemeaningandvalidityof
designatingcertainmovementsas "new"andothers(by implication)as "old." The second
debate nvolves whethernew socialmovementsareprimarily rexclusivelya defensive,reac-
tive response o largersocial forces or whether hey can exhibit a proactiveandprogressivenatureas well. The thirddebateconcerns he distinctionbetweenpoliticaland culturalmove-
ments and whether he moreculturally rientednew social movementsareinherentlyapoliti-cal. The fourth nvolvesthe social base of the new social movementsand whether his base
can be definedin terms of social class. These debatesinvolve overlapping ssues and are
ultimately nterconnectedn variousways. The secondandthird debates areclosely related
becausethey hingeon the abilityto providemeaningfuldefinitionsof increasinglyproblem-atic terms ike"progressive"r"political."The firstand thefourthare also related n thatthe
definitionof new movements mpliesthe abilityto designatea social base otherthan the old
workingclass. Whileacknowledginghese connections,each debate s sufficientlycomplex
to warrant eparateanalytical reatment ere.
What'sNew about New Social Movements?
A centraldispute hathasattractedonsiderable ttention oncerns he extent to which new
social movementsreally represent omethingdemonstrably ew, with criticssuggestingthat
these movements are not as distinct as proponentsof the paradigm uggest. Thus, David
Plotke(1990) argues hat new socialmovementdiscourse ends to overstate heirnovelty,to
selectivelydepicttheirgoalsas cultural, ndto exaggerateheirseparationrom conventional
political ife. SidneyTarrow 1991)pointsout thatmanynew socialmovementsaren'treallyall thatnew, becausethey oftenhave grownout of preexistingorganizations nd have longhistories hatare obscuredby new social movementdiscourse. In Tarrow'sanalysis, he sup-
posed newness of these movementshas less to do with the structuraleaturesof advanced
capitalismand more to do with the fact thatthese movementswere studiedin theirearly
stagesof formationwithina particular ycle of protest n the late 1960s andearly1970s. The
This content downloaded on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 08:56:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/27/2019 Social Movements Theories
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/social-movements-theories 9/25
448 THESOCIOLOGICALUARTERLYol. 36/No. 3/1995
implication s that with the endingof this cycle of protestandthe political realignmentst
promoted, ocial movementactivityhas decreasedandreturned o more conventional orms;
theproponents f "newness"hus mistooka temporary ndcyclicalphasefor a new historicalstageof collectiveaction. The mostsweepingcritiqueof this sortis offeredby Karl-WemerBrand(1990), who suggeststhat"new social movements"are the latest manifestation f a
cyclical pattern hathas been evidentfor well over a century. In this argument,new social
movementsandtheirpredecessorsappearedn cyclical phases in response o culturalcrises
and critiquesof modernization.In the latestcycle, a mix of moral-idealistic nd aesthetic-
counterculturalritiquesof modernization,longwith a pessimisticcivilizationcritique,pro-vided the stimulae or new socialmovements.However,Brandargues hat similarperiodsof
culturecritiqueprompted imilarmovementsaround1840 and 1900 in Britain,Germany nd
the UnitedStates. In variousways, thesecriticssuggestthatnew social movementsarecon-
tinuouswithpastmovementsandaresimplythelatestmanifestationf a cycle ora longwaveof social protestmovements. These critics see all these movementsas romantic,cultural,
idealistic,andeven antimodernesponses o patterns f societalevolutionandmodernization,
rather hanbeingnew.
These criticalchallengeshave forcedproponents f new socialmovement heories o spec-
ify convincinglywherein he newnessmaybe found,and severalresponseshave been forth-
coming. For Russell J. Daltonand ManfredKuechler 1990), new social movementsmaydraw on a long-standinghumanistic raditionbut theirgenuinelynew aspectsincludetheir
postmaterialisticaluebase,theirsearch orpragmaticolutions, heirglobalawareness,and
theirresistance o spiritual olutions.ForClausOffe(1990),thenewnessof thesemovements
involvestheirpostideological,posthistorical atureas well as their ackof a positivealterna-
tive andspecifictarget n the formof a privilegedclass;becauseof these features, heydeny
accommodationo existing powerandresist standardormsof co-optation.ForKlausEder
(1993), new social movementsare inherentlymodernbecauseonly in modernitycan their
distinctivechallengeto the culturalorientation f society be formulated.In his view, new
social movementsprovidean alternative ulturalmodel and moral orderthat both defends
normative tandards gainst he strategic,utilitarian, nd instrumentaloal seekingand deci-
sion makingof elites andpointsin the directionof a more democraticormulation f collec-
tive needs and wants withinsociety. ForRussellJ. Dalton,ManfredKuechlerand Wilhelm
Burklin(1990), these movementsare new in theiradvocacyof a new social paradigmhat
challengesthe dominantgoal structure f Westernsocieties by advocatingpostmaterialist,
antigrowth,ibertarian, ndpopulistthemes. In addition, he politicalstyle of these move-
ments involves a consciousavoidanceor rejectionof institutionalized olitics anda careful
distance romestablishedpoliticalparties.Fortheseauthors,t is thecombination f ideologi-
cal bonds and politicalstyle thatdistinguishesnew social movements. JeanCohen(1983)
arguesthat new social movementscan be distinguished rom utopianand romanticmove-
mentsof thepastin termsof theirvisions or goals for social development.Whereasutopian
andromanticmovements ypicallysought hede-differentiationf society,economy,andstate
into a premodernutopiancommunity,new social movementspresupposeand defendthe
structural ifferentiationf modern ocietyandattempto build on it by expandinghe social
spaces in whichnonstrategic ctioncan occur.
As theseresponses ndicate,while there s no consensusamongnew socialmovement heo-
rists aboutwhatconstitutes he newnessof these movements, here areplentyof candidates
for thatcategory. Given the diversityof empirical,philosophical,andpoliticalframeworks
This content downloaded on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 08:56:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/27/2019 Social Movements Theories
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/social-movements-theories 10/25
New SocialMovementTheories 449
thatthese authorsbringto this debate,there is littleprospect hat it can be resolvedin anydefinitiveway. But suchdebatesareinstructive ven if unresolvable.One of the lessonshere
is that the termnew social movements nherently verstates he differencesandobscures hecommonalitiesbetweenpast andpresentmovements Johnston,Larana,and Gusfield1994;Melucci 1994). The termhada strategicvalue in trying o break romtheMarxist radition f
lookingto the "old" abormovementas theprimary gentof history,but theunintendedesultof shiftingthe focus to otherconstituencieshas been to imply thatthey somehow have no
historypriorto the cycle of protest n the 1960s. In pointof fact, there are no social move-
ments for which this claimcanbe plausiblydefended. Whether he movements nvolve stu-
dents,women,racial,ethnic,orsexualminorities, ndwhether heyinvolvepeace, ecology, or
justice themes,all have important istoricalpredecessorshatspanat least the twentiethcen-
turyandsometimesreachmuchfurther ack into thenineteenth entury.Hence,there s more
continuitybetweensupposedlyold andnew socialmovements han s typically mplied John-ston, Larana, ndGusfield1994;Johnston1994;Larana1994;Shin 1994;Taylor 1989). The
term also suggestsa falsedichotomybetweennew movementsand old forms of labororgani-zation that obscurescompellingevidence for the new social movementcharacterof manynineteenth-centuryabormovements Calhoun1993;Tucker1991). The dangerhere is that
the terminologywe adoptcanbecome a conceptual traitjackethatprecludescertain ines of
inquiry. Thus,while there aredistinctcombinations f genuinelynew elements n the socialmovementsemphasizedby this perspective, hesecan only be carefullyspecifiedby locatingthese movementsand theirpredecessorsn theirappropriateociohistorical ontextsand bylookingfor both similaritiesand differenceswoventhroughoutuch histories.
Are New Social MovementsReactive or Progressive?
A second set of debates in new social movementdiscourseconcernsboth the extent to
which thesemovementsarecharacterized s eitherdefensive orprogressiveand the extent to
whichthey areseen as carrying liberatory otential.Thedisagreement ver thenewness of
these movementscarriesover into this seconddebate,with few unambiguously onvincing
arguments n eitherside. One strandn thisdebatebeginswithHabermas1984-1987),who
hascharacterizedhe new social movementsas primarily efensivereactions o the colonizingintrusions f statesandmarkets nto the lifeworldof modern ociety. As vital as this role
maybe, Habermashas saidrelatively ittleaboutthe prospect hat new social movementscan or
will assumea largerand moreprogressiverole in societal transformation.Othertheorists
workingwithinthis traditionhave been somewhat more forthcoming.Thus, Dieter Rucht
(1988) argues hat,althoughmovementsarelikelyto emergeduringqualitative reakthroughsin societalmodernizationunderstoodn Habermasianerms of increasingdifferentiation e-
tween and within the systemandlifeworld), hey may be proactive,reactive,or ambivalent
with respectto these patterns.Ruchtimplies that modernizationn the lifeworldproducesconflicts arounddemocratization,elf-determination,nd individualization nd that the ex-
pressive, identity-orientedmovementsthis provokeshave a progressivecharacter.At the
same time, modernizationn the systemtendsto provokea moredefensivekind of protestagainst he side effects of technological,economic,or politicalchangesthat can have an an-
timodernistcast. This vision of new social movementsas progressivewith respect to
lifeworldrationalizationnd as defensive withrespect o systemintrusion s one logicalwayof addressinghis debate from a Habermasianerspective.
This content downloaded on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 08:56:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/27/2019 Social Movements Theories
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/social-movements-theories 11/25
450 THESOCIOLOGICALUARTERLYol. 36/No. 3/1995
Another esponse s offeredby JeanCohen 1982, 1983),who alsoexpressesdissatisfaction
withthesomewhatmarginal oleenvisionedby Habermas or social movements. In herview,
this is because movements interestHabermasnot in terms of their substantiveclaimsbutratheras carriersof universalistic ulturalpotentials. Thus, social movements are granted
significanceonly if they become vehicles of societal modernization nd culturalrationaliza-
tion. Cohenargues hatbothpastandpresentmovementshaveplayeda vitallyimportantole
in helping to institutionalize ivil society as a spherethat is both differentiated rom and
connected o thestate andthatgives social actors hespaceto translate ifeworldconcernsnto
systemicpriorities orchange. Thiscanbe grasped hroughneithersystemstheorynoraction
theorybut rather equiresanalysisof theprocessof institutionalizationy which movements
havecontributedo civil societyand the creationof new associational nddemocraticorms,
thereby building up the space that allows them to operatemore progressivelyas change
agents. In her view, social movementscan be more than defensive,antimodern eactionspreciselybecausethey have establisheda foothold n civil society in whichthey canpursue
largergoals of progressive ocialchange. Thesegoals includeboth the self-defense andthe
furtherdemocratizationf society,and Cohen mpliesthattheseare best seen as complemen-
taryrather hancontradictorymperatives f new social movements.
Analystsof new social movements rom a moretraditionallyMarxistperspectivehavenot
necessarilyarrivedat clearer answers or more internalagreementon these questions. For
example,JoachimHirsch(1988) arguesthat new social movementsmust be understoodas
partof the crisis of Fordism.Fordismwas itself a response o an earliercapitalistcrisisthat
introducedmassproduction ndconsumption, Keynesianandcorporatistwelfarestate,anda
broader"statification" f societythat extendedsurveillanceandcontrol hroughouthe soci-
ety. Thesedevelopmentspromotedhe commodificationndbureaucratizationf social life,andnew social movementsarea response o thesedevelopments.These movements herebyseek to overcome alienationand regulationby promoting ndividualemancipationandthe
recoveryof civil society througha radicallydemocraticormof politics. Despitethis seem-
ingly progressiveagenda,Hirschargues hat the organizationalorms andideologicalprem-ises of manynew socialmovements tillreflect he fundamental ontradictionsf theFordist
periodto whichthey are a response. As a result, heytranscend he conventionaldichotomybetweenleft andright,or progressiveandconservative.Hirschexpectsthese movements o
play complexandcontradictoryolesduring he transitionrom the Fordistmode of accumu-
lationto a new strategyof accumulationn advancedcapitalism: hey may simultaneously
embodygenuineopposition o the old orderandbecome unconsciousvehicles forestablishinga new order(Steinmetz 1994). Colin Mooers and Alan Sears(1992) are morepessimisticaboutthe prospects or new social movements. In theirview, the focus on civil society is
consistentwitha political agendaof lowering he horizonsandrangeof possibilities o what
canbe achievedwithinthe limitsof theexistingmarketand state. To the extentthatthe new
politics of social movementsdoes indeedacceptcapitalistsocial relationsand turnsawayfromconfrontinghe capitalist tate,this politicsis simplya new reformismn their view.
These debatesare difficult o resolve. Onedifficulty s the diversityof stancesadoptedby
new socialmovements,buta greaterobstacle s that the conceptualyardstickshatframe he
debatearebreakingdown. That s, notionsof progressiveor reactionary nd the traditional
dichotomybetween left andrightall presupposeto one degreeor another)a metaphysicsof
historyand a directionalityo socialchange hathas become untenablen latemodernity.Yet
a third trouble s in the abstract ramesin which these debatesareconducted. Movements
This content downloaded on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 08:56:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/27/2019 Social Movements Theories
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/social-movements-theories 12/25
New SocialMovementTheories 451
exist in specific sociohistoricalcircumstances uch that the same movement and the same
agendamay well be characterized s progressiveor reactionaryto the extentwe can define
these termsmeaningfully)dependingon the contextin which it is embedded. Perhapsforthese reasons,some theoristshave come to rely less on the goals or ideologies of a givenmovement hanon its potential or democratizations a yardstick orjudgingmovements.
Two ratherdifferentexamplesmaybe cited. In a discussion of how and when resistance
movements whichmayarise out of conservativempulsesandresponses o external hreats)become liberationmovements(which make radicaldemands for change), RichardFlacks
(1988) suggeststhatthe criticalstepin making histransitions the cultivationof democratic
consciousness. This consciousnessseeks to narrowthe gap between "everyday ife" and
"makinghistory," herebydrawing he largestpossiblenumberof people into the processof
historymaking. Reflectinga verydifferent heoretical radition,ErnestoLaclauand Chantal
Mouffe(1985) offertheirown versionof an argument bout the liberatorypotentialof newsocial movements hat also emphasizes he centrality f democraticdiscourse o such libera-
tion. If these disparate xamplesare at all typical,then the older debateover the progressiveor defensivenatureof thenew social movements s being graduallydisplacedby new discus-
sions focusingon the potentialof these movements or expanding he rangeof democratic
participation oth withinmovementsandwithinthe largersociety.
Are New Social MovementsPoliticalor Cultural?
A thirdset of debates(not unrelated o the first two) revolves around the questionof
whethernew social movementsare"political"n natureor are betterclassified n some otherway (e. g., as "cultural").Onedangern these discussions s that suchterminology ancreate
andperpetuate nfortunate ichotomies hat obscuremorethantheyreveal aboutmovements.
Thatis, all movementsrest on cultural oundations ndplay some representationalr sym-bolic function-hence all movementsare culturaln somebasicway (McAdam1994). Simi-
larly,all movements akeexplicitor implicitpoliticalstances,and it canbe argued hateven
those whichoptout of anyconventional ontestation or powerhave taken a politicalstance
of quietism-hence all movementsarepolitical n anequallybasicway. Theseconsiderations
should be takenas reminders hat such distinctions an be no more thansensitizingdevices
thathighlight eaturesof movements hatareinevitablymorecomplexthanany suchbinary
classificatory ystem. Nevertheless,he discussionsaboutthe
politicaldimensionof new so-
cial movements ap profoundquestionsabouttheirtransformativeotential. The operativedefinitionof political n most of these discussionsseems to involve two fundamental imen-
sions:politicalmovementsare at leastin partfocusedon influencingor alteringstatepower,andsuch movementsmusttherebyhave some explicit strategyaimedat transforming owerrelations.
Oneway of challenging hepoliticalnatureof new social movements s to arguethattheyareaboutsomething arger hanconventional olitics;Brandt 1986) therebycastsnew social
movementsas providinga metapoliticalhallenge o modernity hrougha new historical ype
of protest. He sees these movementsas carriers f a classicalcritiqueof moderncivilization
as well as the very projectof modernity.Eventhoughhe classifies them as metapolitical,he
identifies hemas havingdiscrete,politicaleffects in termsof consciousness-raising,olitical
socialization,and the politicizationof decisionmaking. The morestandard ritiqueof new
socialmovementss that heyareanapoliticalor at least aprepoliticalormof socialactivism.
Thesecritiques ypicallyuse the protestsof the 1960s as a positivebenchmark,when move-
This content downloaded on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 08:56:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/27/2019 Social Movements Theories
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/social-movements-theories 13/25
452 THESOCIOLOGICALUARTERLYol. 36/No. 3/1995
mentscombinedpoliticalandculturaldimensions n a desirablebalance hatstill attemptedo
transformpower relations. In the 1970s and 1980s, however, some of these movements
shifted to a predominantlyulturalorientationn which questionsof identityand "identitypolitics"becamepredominant.With this change,the notion of "thepersonalis political"became deformedn sucha waythatexcessiveattention o personal ife cameto substitute or
any sustained ormof politicalaction aimed at institutionalizedower,andlifestyle politics
therebyreplacedpreviousmovementpoliticsaimedat social transformation. s a result,such
movements and their participantsettisoned any concern with influencingor alteringstate
power, abandoneddiscussions of strategy,and withdrew nto culturalcocoons of personal
lifestyle issues as a replacementor a previouslypoliticalorientationBoggs 1986; Carroll
1992;Epstein1991). In the sharpestversionof this critique,L. A. Kauffman 1990) arguesthat such antipoliticsof identity eads to apolitical ntrospection, n emphasison politically
correct ifestyles,andthesubstitution f personalransformationorpoliticalactivity. Despitetheradicalveneerthatmaycover suchstances,Kauffman rgues hat heyactuallymirror nd
promote he values of the marketplace.
The mostinteresting ejoindero thesearguments an be derived rom thework of Alberto
Melucci(1989), whose stance s not thatthenew social movementsarepolitical(in anycon-
ventionalsense of the term)but rather hat it is just as well thatthey are not. If the new
movementsweremorepolitical n the conventional ense of thatterm, heywouldbe playing
by sets of rules that benefitexisting power-holders ndthey wouldin all likelihoodbe much
easier to co-opt throughthe normal channels of political representation nd negotiation.
Hence, theirapoliticalor antipolitical tance should be regardedas a strengthrather han a
weakness. However,to be apolitical n this sense does not meana retreat nto excessivelyindividualist rientations or Melucci. Althoughhe operateswitha culturalisteadingof new
socialmovements,he alsobelievesthatsuch culturalistmovements anpose majorchallengesto existingsocial relations. In part,this is becausethese relationshave come to be defined
more and more in the cultural anguageof symbolic representation. hus, if powerhas be-
come congealed,particularlyn media messages and administrativeationality, he most
profoundchallengeto suchpower may come fromculturalmovements hatchallengethese
messages and rationality.By renderingpowervisible and by repudiatinghe instrumental
rationalityof the dominant ociety,culturalmovementsmaybe moreeffective than conven-
tionallypoliticalmovementsat, in Melucci'sterms,breakinghelimitsof compatibility f the
system.
Like otherissues alreadydiscussed,this debate s about more thanone issue, andsome-
times it is not about he samething. Forexample, he sharpest riticsof theapolitical urn n
some new social movementsarewriting n thecontextof the UnitedStates,while Melucciand
new socialmovement heorygenerallyhasemerged roma Europeanontext. Hence,a pecu-
liarly Americanfactor-such as individualism s a dominantcultural heme-may be the
targetof these critics. The critics also tendto be affiliatedwith a New Left strainof demo-
cratic socialismthatprovides hemwith an implicitmodel of whichpoliticalstancesmove-
mentsoughtto take andformsthe benchmarkor theircritiquesof the movements hatfall
shortof this standard.Butthepositions n this debateultimately eflect he theoretical tances
of its participantss well as the way their stancesconceptualizehe dominant ocietyand itsrecentchanges. Those who criticize the apoliticalnatureof (some) new social movements
tend to see modern ocietyas predominantlyapitalist.Although heymayhave transcended
traditionalMarxistpositionson therole of"old socialmovements,"heyremainwedded o a
This content downloaded on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 08:56:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/27/2019 Social Movements Theories
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/social-movements-theories 14/25
New SocialMovementTheories 453
conceptionof capitalismas a systemicformof domination hatmustultimatelybe challengedin political terms. Those who defendthe apoliticalor cultural dimensionsof new social
movementsappearo subscribe o a differentheoryof modemsocietythat eans moreheavilyon postmodem,semiotic,or generallyculturalisthemes. Thus, each theoretical chool can
claim to have identified he more fundamental ind of (politicalor cultural)challengethat
new social movementsmightoffer to the dominant ociety,but these claimsreflect heirpriortheoreticalstances as much as any consistent set of observationsabout the movements
themselves.
What Is the ClassBaseof New Social Movements?
A fourth set of debates reflectsyet anotherbasic premiseimplicit in the notion of new
social movements. If old social movementspresupposeda solidly working-classbase andideology,thennew social movementsarepresumedo draw roma different ocialclass base.
However, there is no consensus on how this social class base should be defined or even
whether he conceptof class shouldremaincentral o the definitionof a movement'sbase.
Thus,one line of argument uggeststhatany attempto answer his question n class terms s
itself a residualeffect of an economisticreadingof socialmovements n whicha movement's
socialbase is automatically efinedby class structure.Partof what makesnew social move-
ments new is preciselythe fact that class becomes much less importantn determininghe
base, interestsor ideologyof the movement han n the oldereconomisticreading. It is only
byjettisoningsucheconomisticnotionsthatwe canappreciatehe extentto whichnew social
movementsare definedby
thedynamics
ofrace, ethnicity,culture,gender,
orage-socialdivisionsthatmaywell havetranscended lass in theirrelevance orshapingcollectiveaction.
While this logic is compellingas a meansof dispelling he lingering nfluenceof economistic
readingsof sociopoliticalactivism, t is not a sufficientway of dealingwith the questionof
class. While new social movementsmaynot be economicallydetermined n the straightfor-ward manner hatold social movementswerepresumedo be, theyneverthelesshave what a
Weberianwould call "economic elevance."Forexample, hegoalsandpoliciespursuedby a
movement mayhavea verydifferentmpacton diversesocial classes,just as differingclass
positionsare likely to shape people's definitionof a grievable ssue in the first instance. If
movements anno longerbe reduced o class,neithercantheybe understood part romclass,
as one amongseveral salientstructures nd identities n contemporaryorms of collective
action.
One strategy or side stepping he issue of class is thusto arguethatthe groupidentities
undergirding ollective actionhave shiftedfrom class to status, race, gender, ethnicity,or
nationality.Another heoretical trategy hatmarginalizeshe role of class is to arguethat
new social movementconstituenciesderivemore froman ideologicalidentificationwith cer-
tain issues thanmembershipn some homogeneous ocialbase. An exampleof this strategy
maybe found n Dalton,Kuechler,andBurklin 1990). They argue hatthe definingcharac-
teristicof new social movementss their advocation f a new socialparadigmhatchallenges
the dominant oal structure f Western ocieties.Intheiraccount,such movementsdrawon a
sociallydiffusebaseof popular upport ather hanany specificclass or ethnicbase. Theysee
this as a shift fromgroup-based oliticsrooted n instrumentalnterest o value-basedpolitics
rootedin ideological support or collectivegoods. The shift frominterest o ideology maythereforebe a reflectionof the fact thatin advanced apitalism,many deprivations ndforms
of dominationhaveacquireda relativelyclasslesscharacter ecausetheireffects touchmem-
This content downloaded on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 08:56:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/27/2019 Social Movements Theories
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/social-movements-theories 15/25
454 THESOCIOLOGICALUARTERLYol. 36/No. 3/1995
bers of manydifferentsocial groupsandclasses (Steinmetz1994). Hence, movementsre-
sponding o these effects will not have an exclusive class character utwill recruitacross a
varietyof social groups.
Despitethese two theoretical trategies hatshift attentionawayfromclass, the most com-
mon strategywithin the new social movement iteratures to argue hat these movementsdo
indeedhave a social class base thatcan be conceptualized s a middle-classbasein contrasto
theworking-class aseof old socialmovements. ErikWright's 1989; 1985)conceptof "con-
tradictory lass locations"providesonepromisinganalyticalool foraddressinghe complex-
ity of contemporarylass structure nd its implications or movementmobilization.While
Wrighthas not specificallyaddressed he issue of new social movements,Claus Offe (1985)has. He suggeststhatthe socialbase of new social movements s threefold: he new middle
class,elementsof the old middleclass,and"decommodified"roupsoutside he labormarket.
Thisunusualcombination f groupsderives rom he structuraleaturesof advanced apitalist
society, which includea broadeningof the negativeeffects of the systembeyond a single
class, a deepeningof the methodsand effects of social controlanddomination, nd the irre-
versibilityof problemsand crisis potentials n the society. These effects create a tripartite
constituency or new social movementswhose only common featuremay be their distance
fromthe old poles of capitaland abor. The new middleclass is a modem,class-aware roupwhose goals are moregeneralthanthose of traditional lass politics. The old middle-class
elements and the decommodified lementsmoreoften drawupon premodern, articularistic
ideologiesthatshapetheirrole in new social movements. As a result, hecomplex politicsof
new social movementswill dependon whichof thesethreefactionsbecomes dominant t any
given movement,as well as the alliancesthat suchgroupsmight pursuewith otherpoliticalactors. The possibilitiesrangefrom maintenance f the old, growth-orientedaradigmo a
new formof corporatismo a genuinelynew challengeto the prevailingsocial order. The
latter, n Offe's view, wouldrequirenew social movementsrooted n new middle-classele-
ments,which thenallywith the traditionaleft andproceed o establisha positiverelationwith
peripheral nddecommodified roups. Onlythisalliancecouldeffectivelychallengethe old
paradigmof growth-oriented oliticsandreplace t with a new paradigm ootedin distinc-
tively new social movementvalues andgoals.
A multifaceted esponse o thequestionof class and social movementsmaybe found n the
work of Klaus Eder(1993). His generalapproacho these questions s informedby the as-
sumptions hat class andcollective actionhavebeen decoupled n advancedcapitalism, hat
cultureplaysan increasinglymportantnterveningolebetweenclassstructure nd collective
action,that all collective actorsare socially constructed ather hanstructurally etermined,andthatPierreBourdieu'sconceptof a class habituss a usefulguideto the social construc-
tion of class actorsand collectiveaction. Based on these premises,Ederconstructshis argu-ment about the middle-classbase of new social movements. Because this class has an
intermediate ositionbetweenupperand lower socialclasses, it blendsbourgeois ndividual-
ism andplebeianparticularismn a class-specificdefense of individualizationnd themiddle-
class lifeworld. Sucha habituscangeneratenew social movements,but it can also generate
moral crusadesandpolitical pressuregroups. New social movements-as opposedto other
forms of collective action-are mostlikelyto derivefromthosenichesof contemporaryoci-
ety thatpreserveold communitarianraditionsandradicallydemocraticprojectswhile also
seekingnew social relations hat ranscendmoralism ndpower Eder1985). In a morerecent
essay, Eder(1993) proposesa theoryof middle-class adicalism hatsees new social move-
This content downloaded on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 08:56:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/27/2019 Social Movements Theories
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/social-movements-theories 16/25
New SocialMovementTheories 455
ments as a class-specificresponseto the middle-classrealitiesof upwardmobility,cultural
capital,and the lack of a cleargroup dentity. ForEder,new social movementsarenot class
movementsn the traditionalense,buttheymanifesta newtypeof classrelationshipn whichthemakingof the middleclassas a groupwith a distinct dentityandconsciousness s dialecti-
cally intertwinedwiththe mobilizationof new social movements.
A morefinely texturedversion of this arguments proposedby HanspeterKriesi's(1989)
studyof new social movementsn the Netherlands.Buildingon Wright's 1985) approacho
classes, Kriesi identifiesantagonismswithin the new middle class betweentechnocratswith
organizational ssets andspecialistswith professional dentities. He proceedsto distinguishbetweenoccupational egments,offeringa broad contrastbetween"socialand culturalspe-
cialists,"on the onehand,and "administrativendcommercial ersonnel," technical pecial-
ists,""craftspecialists,"and"protectiveervices,"on the other. It is the social andcultural
specialistswithprofessionaldentitiesbutwithoutorganizationalssetswho constitutea gen-
uinelynew class, which is formedoutof theunderlying ntagonism etweentechnocratswho
favoradministrativeationality ndspecialistswhoseek noninstrumentalses for theirknowl-
edge. The strugglesof new social movements, n turn,maybe seen as both expressingand
contributingo the formation f this new class. Kriesitherebysuggeststhatthe notionof a
generic oppositionalnew middleclass is both too broad and too narrow. It is too broad
becauseit is not the class as a whole butonly the youngergenerationof social and cultural
specialists hat end to support ew socialmovements.It is too narrowbecause hereareother
groupsbeyondthe middleclass who oftenprovidesupporto new socialmovementsas well.
Kriesi concludesthatif new social movements ndeedhave such deep structural oots in a
segmentof the new class, thentheycannotbe dismissedas temporary,onjunctural henom-ena butmust be seen as fundamentalmanifestations f advancedsocieties.
Offe's, Eder's,andKriesi'sanalysesalso hintat a subterraneanssue related o the broad
questionof the social base of new social movements. If it is generallyaccurate o see new
socialmovementsas rooted n sometypeof middle-classbase, thisraises the possibilitythat
thesemovementsmaynotbe unrelatedo the olderclasspoliticsas much as theymay operate
in opposition o traditionalworking-classnterests.Thispossibility s exemplifiedby the sup-
posed trade-offbetweenenvironmental rotectionandjob creationthat appearsto pit the
interestsof ecologically orientednew social movementsagainstthose of traditionalabor
union movements. While the framingof such demandsas mutuallyexclusive alternatives
maytell us moreaboutelite strategies f control hanabout hepositionsof movements hem-
selves, beyondall the divide-and-conquertrategies here arelikely to be significantanden-
duringconflictsbetweenthe class base of new and old social movements. If new social
movementsarereallydedicatedo apostmaterialistaradigm f limitsto growth,andif older
socialmovementsremain iedto growth-orientedoliciesin whichworkers hare n thebene-
fits of such growth,then we would expect to see significant issures betweenthese move-
ments. On the otherhand,some have argued hat rather hanseeing an inevitableconflict
betweenold workermovementsand new socialmovements, t is possibleto see the latteras
expressingotherneeds of workersabove and beyond their roles as laborers(Carrolland
Ratner1994).
Therelativelysmallamountof researchon this issue has typicallytakenthe formof argu-
ing thatthe success of new socialmovementswill ultimatelydependon theirabilityto form
alliancesandcoalitionswithtraditionalabormovements.Thus,BarbaraEpstein 1990) con-
cludes her overviewof contemporaryocial activismby arguing hatany successfulmove-
This content downloaded on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 08:56:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/27/2019 Social Movements Theories
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/social-movements-theories 17/25
456 THESOCIOLOGICALUARTERLYol. 36/No. 3/1995
ment will haveto recruit rom boththe middleandthe bottom hirdof modemsociety. In a
more detailedanalysis,CarlBoggs (1986) argues hatanysuccessful uture ocial transforma-
tion will dependuponbuildinga sustainedconnectionbetweenworking-class trugglesandnew social movements. This is necessary o overcome he Achillesheel of new social move-
ments-their lack of an effectivestrategy orconfrontingtatepower. Whilesuchpointsare
well-taken, hey side stepthe difficultquestionsof how extensivethe class conflictsbetween
differentsocial movementsreallyare andthe relatedquestionof how suchconflictsmaybe
contained ong enoughto foster the kinds of alliances and coalitions envisionedby these
theorists.
Thus,while there s no consensuson thequestionof class and new socialmovements, his
debateprovidesseveral mportantessons. First, hese movements epresent major ormof
social activism whose social base is sometimesbest defined n somethingotherthan class
terms,whether hatbe gender,ethnicity, ace,sexuality,or age. Moreover,new socialmove-ments requireus to rethinkhow all collective identities(includingclass identities)arenot
structurally uaranteed ut sociallyconstructedHunt,Benford,and Snow 1994;Meyerand
Whittier1994). As such, they do not come in neat, mutuallyexclusive, one-dimensional
packagesbut rathern dialecticallynterrelatedombinations f positionsand identities Col-lins 1990;Morris1992;Omi and Winant1986;Taylorand Whittier1992). We thereforeneed
to think n terms of how all these identitiesmaybe experienced imultaneously nd how that
experiencewill shapemovementparticipation.We also need to thinkin termsof how one
statusmayinfluence heperception f another, s when a middle-classpositionpromptspeo-
ple to see the world n termsof genderratherhanclass (exemplifiedby thehistoryof white,
middle-class eminism[Buechler1990]). A secondlesson is that some movementsmaybebest characterized ot in termsof a social base rooted n conventional tatusesbut rather n
terms of values and goals with which participants gree. Thus, alongsideidentity-basedmovementswheresuch statusesarecentral, hereare issue-basedmovementsn which identi-
ties aresecondaryo thequestionof congruence etween ndividual nd movementvalues and
goals. A third essonis that(despite hefirsttwo lessons)theredoes appearo be an elective
affinitybetweena middle-class ocationand new social movements. Manyhave noted the
problemsof clearlydefining he termmiddleclass, which too often serves as a residualcate-
goryforgroupsbetween hetraditional oles of capitalandlabor. To someextent,thisprob-lem can be addressedby more carefuland systematicresearch nto the constituencies or
variousnew socialmovements. But the moreimportant oint (followingEder's[1993] lead)is to recognize hattheconceptual onfusionover thetermmiddle class is notjust a theoreti-
cal shortcomingbutrathera mirrormageof the fluidityandfragilityof contemporarylass
structures-at least as they affectthose"in the middle."If social classes reallyare socially
constructed, nd if thisprocess s especially mportantn themakingof themiddleclass,then
ourinability o clearly dentify hemiddle-classbaseof new social movementsmay simplybe
an accuratereflectionof the fact that the construction roject s still underway n advanced
capitalism.
A TYPOLOGYOF NEW SOCIALMOVEMENTTHEORIES
Theprecedingprofilesof central heoristsandmajordebatesconveysome of the complexitiesin new social movement heory. At one extreme,we may speakin terms of a very generalorientation allednew social movement heory,based on the tenets identifiedn the introduc-
tion of this article. At the otherextreme,we may speak in terms of specific theoristsor
This content downloaded on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 08:56:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/27/2019 Social Movements Theories
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/social-movements-theories 18/25
New Social MovementTheories 457
positions n debates,producing multiplicityof new social movement heorieswithno more
thanfamilyresemblanceso one another.My goal here is to improveon these imagesof one
very generalapproach nda pluralityof particular ositionsby proposinga typology of newsocial movementtheories. Like all such typologies,this one is offered as an ideal-typical
sensitizingconstruct hatcannotcaptureall the complexitiesof the field and will inevitably
oversimplify ome of its dimensions.Nevertheless, uchsortingdevices would seem to be in
orderas heuristic ools for improvingourunderstandingf new social movement heories.
The most promising ypologicaldistinction n this field is betweenwhatI call "political"and "cultural" ersionsof new social movement heory.2 This is not a mutuallyexclusive
distinctionbut rathera matterof the emphasisplacedon thesedifferingdimensions. Never-
theless,thereappearso be a numberof relatedcharacteristicshatclusteraround hese differ-
ent emphases, producing wo ratherdistinct versions of new social movementtheory (see
Table 1.).
TABLE . POLITICALAND CULTURALVERSIONSOF NEW SOCIAL
MOVEMENTTHEORY
Issue PoliticalVersion CulturalVersion
General Orientation Pro-Marxist Post-Marxist
RepresentativeTheorist Manuel Castells Alberto Melucci
SocietalTotality Advancedapitalism Informationociety
Imageof Power Systemic, entralized Diffuse,decentralized
Levelof Analysis Macro-,mesolevel, tate- Meso-,microlevel, iviloriented society,everydayife
Movement ctivity Retains ole for instrumental Eschewsstrategic oncernsnaction oward trategic oals favorof symbolicexpressions
FirstDebate:Viewof New Recognizesheirrolewithout Regardsnewmovements sMovements rejecting oleof working-class havingdisplacedworking-
movements classmovements
SecondDebate:Movement Potentialorprogressive Sees new movements sOrientations orientationsf alliedwith defensiveorrejectscategory
working-classmovements of "progressive"ThirdDebate:Evaluationf Seespoliticalmovements s Seesculturalmovements sMovements mostradical, ultural mostradical,political
movements s apolitical movements s co-optable
FourthDebate:SocialBaseof Analyzedn class termsvia Analyzedn termsof nonclassMovements contradictoryocations,new constituenciesr issues and
class,or middleclass ideologies
The politicalversionof new social movement heoryis pro-Marxistn thatit drawsupon
the mostpromisingwork in neo-Marxist cholarship ndseeks to builduponthe strengthsofthis tradition.Like all new social movement heory,this versionhas a model of the societal
totalityin which new social movementsarise, but this version is likely to emphasizethe
(advanced) apitalistnatureof thattotalityoveranyotherdesignation.In so doing, it is likely
This content downloaded on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 08:56:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/27/2019 Social Movements Theories
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/social-movements-theories 19/25
458 THESOCIOLOGICALUARTERLYol.36/No. 3/1995
to offerstrongclaims about he connectionsbetweenmacrolevel tructuraleaturesof contem-
porarycapitalismand the emergenceof new socialmovements. Thepoliticalversion of new
socialmovement heory s moremacro-orientedn generaland morestate-orientedn particu-lar. Itretainsa concernwithstrategicquestionsand instrumental ctionas the ultimategoalsof socialmovementswhilerecognizing heimportance f identity ormation, rievancedefini-
tion, and interestarticulation s intermediateteps in the processof movementactivism. Of
the major heoristsreviewedabove, Castells s closest to this ideal-typicalpoliticalreading,
althoughsome of Touraine'sworkfits into this categoryas well.
In terms of the first debateover the newness of these movements, he politicalversionof
new social movement heoryrecognizesa rolefornew constituenciesn socialactivismbased
on race,gender,nationality,or othercharacteristics,ut it does notjettisonthe potential or
class-basedor worker-basedmovementsalongside hese othergroups. Intermsof the second
debateover movementorientations,he politicalversion sees the potential or proactiveand
progressivechangeif appropriatelliancesand coalitionsbetweenclass-basedandnonclass-
basedmovementscan be forged. In terms of the thirddebateover the challengesposed bynew socialmovements,hepoliticalversion s mostlikelyto be criticalof theapoliticalnature
of moreculturallyorientednew socialmovements,whichthisperspectivewould see as limit-
ing theirpotential orproducingmeaningful ocialchange. Intermsof the fourthdebateover
the socialbase of thesemovements, hisperspectives mostlikely to identify he socialbase
of new social movements n class termsthroughattempts o theorize he complexityof con-
temporary lass structure nd its contradictoryocationsas the backdrop or social activism.
The culturalversionof new social movementheory
ispost-Marxist
n thatit transcends
this traditionby proposinga moreradicalbreakbetweenpastandpresentsocietaltypes and
movement orms thanmaybe foundin thepoliticalversion. Accordingly,while the cultural
versionstill has a model of the societaltotality, t does not identifythis totalityin termsof
capitalismbutrather n culturalist r semiotic ermsas an informationocietywhoseadminis-
trativecodes conceal formsof domination.Itsclaimsabout he links betweensocial structure
andmovement ormemphasize he decentralized atureof bothpowerandresistance, o it is
not particularlymacro-orientedr state-centered ut focuses on everyday ife, civil society,and the creationof freespacesbetweenstate and civil society. The culturalversion eschews
strategicquestionsand instrumental ction as pitfallsto be avoided,while emphasizing ym-bolic explorationsandexpressionsof identity hatpreciselychallenge he instrumentalogicof systemic domination. Of the majortheoristsreviewedabove, Melucci is closest to this
ideal-typicalculturalreading,althoughsome of Habermas'swork fits into this categoryas
well.
In termsof the firstdebatereviewedabove,the culturalversionof new social movement
theorynotonly recognizesnew social constituencies ut alsoargues hatthe old worker-based
constituencies or social activismhave beentranscended longwith industrial apitalism.In
termsof the seconddebate, hecultural ersion endsto view activismas a defensivereaction
to systemicdominationhatcanpotentially hallengesystemic mperatives ut it eschewsthe
languageof "progressive"movementsas invokingan unwarranted etaphysics f history. In
terms of the thirddebate, his versionrejects he apolitical abel often attached o culturalist
movementsby arguing hatpoliticalmovementsarethe mosteasily co-optedand thatcultural
movements ightingon symbolic errain ando moreto expose contemporaryormsof powerthanthe moreconventionally oliticalmovements.Intermsof the fourthdebate, his version
is more likely to identifythe social base of new social movements n nonclassterms,by
This content downloaded on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 08:56:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/27/2019 Social Movements Theories
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/social-movements-theories 20/25
New SocialMovementTheories 459
referring itherto other statusesand identitiesor to values andideologiesthat definemove-
mentconstituencies, ather hanby class locations.
Theadvantage f thistypologicaldistinctionbetweenpoliticaland culturalversionsof newsocial movementtheoryis that it appears o organizea varietyof diverse dimensionsand
debatesinto two moreor less coherentpositionswith a fair degreeof internalconsistencyacrossvarious ssues. Thedisadvantages thatsome major heoristsdefy easy classification.
Thus,differingaspectsof the workof bothTouraineand Habermas an be locatedin both
schoolsof thought, mphasizinghat suchtypologicaldistinctions houldnotbecomeconcep-tualstraitjacketshatdenythe complexityof such theorists.Onthe otherhand, f used prop-
erly, such typologiesmay also aid in identifyingcontradictionsnd inconsistencies n these
and othertheorists,as well as identifying hifts in theirpositionsover time.
CONCLUSIONS
Havingexamined hediversityof new socialmovement heoriesby way of an overviewof the
major heoristsand debatesandofferedone meansof organizing his diversitythrough he
distinctionbetweenpoliticaland cultural ersionsof new socialmovement heories, t remains
to evaluatethe overallstatus of this paradigmas a generalapproach.The core claim of all
versionsof this approach oncerns he appearance f demonstrably ew social movements,
butthis claimis problematic.The centralconceptualquestion s whether he designatednew
movementsare similarenough o one another nddifferent noughfrom others o support he
distinction.As we haveseen,thesemovementsdifferfrom eachother n termsof their ssues
andconstituencies, o theclaimfornewnessoften comesdownto something ike postmateri-alistvalues, informalorganization, nd a certainculturalorientation.At this point,the cate-
gory can be challengedfrom the otherdirectionby suggestingthat many movementsnot
designatedas new socialmovementsnonetheless hare hese features.Thus,it is not difficult
to findearliermovementswhich wereat least non- (if not"post-")materialistic,hatshunned
formalorganization,rthatarticulated redominantlyulturalhemes. The claimfornewness
can alsobe challengedby pointingbothto thehistoricalpredecessors f new movements,and
to how the categoryof new social movementobscurescontinuitiesand exaggeratesdiffer-
ences between past and presentmovements. When all the criticismshave been lodged, a
handfulof movementsremain hatclosely approximatehe idealtype suggestedby the cate-
goryof new social
movements,but
theyare a
verysmall
proportionf the formsof collective
actionfoundin modernsociety.
Whileit is relativelyeasy to challenge he conceptof new socialmovements n this way, it
would be a mistaketo dismiss the categoryprematurely.The very same sensitivityto the
historyof social movements hat undermines ny sharpdistinctionbetweenpastandpresent
movementsalso supportshe ideathatsomethingnew is happeningn collectivemobilization
in the latetwentiethcentury. Inpart, this "somethingnew"has to do with the publicandat
least quasi-politicalexpression and explorationof supposedly private and subjective
problematics,uchas identity.Butwe need moresubtlewaysto capturehisshift. It is not so
muchthat one distinctive ypeof movementhasreplacedorbeen added o othersas it is that
manymore movementshave
begunto
explicitlythematize he kindsof issues identifiedby
new social movementdiscourse. Therehas thus been a shift in emphasisand orientationn
many(thoughnotall) socialmovements,alongwiththeappearancef a veryfew movements
closelycorrespondingo the ideal-typical ew socialmovement.Theseshiftsin emphasisand
orientation renotunrelatedo changes n the macrolevelorganization f contemporaryoci-
This content downloaded on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 08:56:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/27/2019 Social Movements Theories
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/social-movements-theories 21/25
460 THESOCIOLOGICALUARTERLYol.36/No. 3/1995
ety, suchas theblurring f the distinctionbetweenpublicandprivateand the greaterpenetra-tion of systemic imperativesnto lifeworldcontexts. While no singletheoreticalaccounthas
capturedhese shiftsprecisely,more workon these questions s warrantedwith an emphasison greater pecificityanda richercontextualizationf the character f new social movements
in modemsociety.
A final meansof assessingnew social movement heoryas a general approach nvolves
identifying ts characteristictrengthsand weaknessesrelative o othertheories. At the most
general evel (as numerous ommentators avenoted),new socialmovement heory s better
at explainingthe "why"than the "how" of social movement activism (Melucci 1985;Klandermans nd Tarrow1988). Putdifferently,new social movement heoryis a powerfultool forunderstandinghemacrolevel ocial structureshatshapecontemporaryctivism. By
offering historicallyspecificformulations f societal totalities and the forms of domination
they entail,new socialmovement heoryhas much to tell us about herootsof contemporarysocial activismandthe dynamicsof movementemergence. In the context of these general
premises, he particularmphaseson symbolicaction,self-determination,ostmaterialistal-
ues, collective identity,grievancearticulation,ndself-referentialrganizationeflect funda-
mentalfeaturesof contemporaryocial activismand the structureshey challenge.
When seen fromdifferentanglesthesestrengths lso appearas limitations.Thus,the veryhistoricalspecificitythatgives new social movementtheorymuch of its analyticalpowermeans thatthe theory(in all its variants)only appliesto a limitednumberof movements n
Westernsocieties with mobilizationbiases towardwhite,middle-classparticipants ursuing
politicallyor
culturallyprogressive gendas.Alongsidehis
empiricalimitations a theoreti-
cal one involvingthetypeof questionsnew social movementheoryhas addressedat leastto
date). By virtue of its focus on the "why"of movementemergence,new social movement
theoryhas saidrelatively ittle about he "how"of ongoingmovementprocesses. It also has
not been particularly elpfulin understandinghe "when"or "where"of intermittent ocial
movement ormation crossstructurallyimilarsocieties(Tarrow1994,p. 83). Like all theo-
reticalframeworks, ew social movement heory lluminates ome issues while leavingothers
in the dark.
These double-edged trengthsand limitationsmean that new social movement heorycan
make ts greatest ontributiono understandingollective actionwhen situatedalongsideother
theoreticalschools. In the most general erms,it may be that different heoriesspeakmost
effectively to different evels of analysis. Thus,new social movement heory speaksto the
macrolevelof structure ndcontext;resourcemobilizationheoryaddresses he mesolevelof
organization ndstrategy;and social constructionism ccounts or the microlevelof identityand grievances. Theoreticalprogresswithinand betweenthese paradigmss most likely to
occurby identifyingpointsof convergenceanddivergencebetween hese levels andframingcriticalquestionsacross these paradigms.This overviewof new social movementtheories
suggestssome linkages.The morepoliticalversionof new social movement heoryis more
macro-orientednd has distinctaffinitieswith some aspectsof resourcemoblization heory,while the more culturalversionof new social movement theory s moremicro-oriented nd
has equally strongaffinitieswithsocial constructionism.By exploring he links across evels
andparadigms, urtheoreticalunderstandingndempiricalanalysisof collective actionare
likelyto be enhanced.New social movementheorypromises o be a vitalpartof thisprocess.
This content downloaded on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 08:56:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/27/2019 Social Movements Theories
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/social-movements-theories 22/25
New Social MovementTheories 461
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I gratefully acknowledge the helpful comments and suggestions of four anonymous TSQ re-
viewers. An earlier version of this article was presented at the annual meeting of the Ameri-
can Sociological Association, Los Angeles, 1994.
NOTES
1. Ina somewhat imilarargument,AnthonyGiddens 1991) hasproposed he conceptof "lifepoli-tics"to capture he inevitablypoliticaldimensionsof self-actualizationnd identityformation n post-traditionalontexts.Incontrast o anemancipatoryoliticsthatchallengesexploitation roppression,ife
politicsflows fromthe reflexiveprojectof the self andemphasizes he interconnectednessf personalandglobal survival n latemodernity.
2. Inmy
earlierdiscussionofmajor
debates, he contrastbetweenpolitical
and culturalwas used to
referto a specificdebateabout hepoliticalorapoliticalnatureof new socialmovements. n thepresentcontextof a typologicaldistinction, his contrast s used to referto a broaderpatternof interrelated
differences hat includesall the debatesas well as otherfoundational ssumptionshatappear o cluster
aroundpoliticalor culturalapproacheso new social movements.
REFERENCES
Boggs, Carl. 1986. Social Movements nd Political Power.Philadelphia, A:TempleUniversityPress.
Brand,Karl-Werner.1990. "CyclicalAspectsof New Social Movements:Waves of CulturalCriticism
and MobilizationCyclesof New Middle-ClassRadicalism."Pp.24-42 in Challenging he Polit-
ical Order,editedby Daltonand Kuechler.
Brandt,Karl-Werner. 986. "NewSocialMovements s a MetapoliticalChallenge:The Social and Polit-
ical Impactof a New HistoricalTypeof Protest."ThesisEleven 15:60-68.
Buechler,Steven M. 1990. Women'sMovements n the UnitedStates: Woman uffrage,Equal RightsandBeyond.New Brunswick,NJ:RutgersUniversityPress.
. 1993. "BeyondResourceMobilization?EmergingTrends n Social MovementTheory."The
Sociological Quarterly 4:217-235.
Calhoun,Craig. 1993. "'New Social Movements'of the EarlyNineteenthCentury."Social Science
History17:385-427.
Canel,Eduardo.1992. "NewSocialMovementTheoryand ResourceMobilization:TheNeed for Inte-
gration."Pp. 22-51 in OrganizingDissent, editedby WilliamK. Carroll.Toronto:Garamond
Press.
Carroll,WilliamK. 1992. "Introduction:ocialMovements ndCounter-Hegemonyn a CanadianCon-
text."Pp. 1-19 in OrganizingDissent,editedby WilliamK. Carroll.Toronto:GaramondPress.
Carroll,WilliamK., and R. S. Ratner.1994."BetweenLeninismand RadicalPluralism:Reflectionson
Counter-HegemonyndtheNew Social Movements."CriticalSociology20:3-26.
Castells,Manuel. 1977. The UrbanQuestion.Cambridge,MA:MIT Press
. 1978. City,Class andPower.New York: St. Martin's.
. 1983. TheCityand the Grassroots.Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress.
Cohen,Jean. 1982. "BetweenCrisis Management nd Social Movements:The Place of Institutional
Reform."Telos 52:21-40.
. 1983. "Rethinking ocial Movements."BerkeleyJournalof Sociology28:97-113.
- . 1985. "'Strategyor Identity'?New TheoreticalParadigms nd Contemporary ocial Move-ments." Social Research52:663-716.
Collins,PatriciaHill. 1990. Black FeministThought.Cambridge,MA:UnwinHyman.
Dalton,RussellJ. and ManfredKuechler, ds. 1990. Challenging he Political Order:New Social and
Political Movements n WesternDemocracies.New York:OxfordUniversityPress.
This content downloaded on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 08:56:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/27/2019 Social Movements Theories
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/social-movements-theories 23/25
462 THESOCIOLOGICALQUARTERLY ol. 36/No. 3/1995
Dalton,RussellJ., ManfredKuechler,andWilhelmBurklin. 1990. "TheChallengeof the New Move-
ments."Pp. 3-20 in Challenging he Political Order,editedby Dalton andKuechler.
Eder,Klaus. 1985. "The'New Social Movements':MoralCrusades,PoliticalPressureGroups,or So-cial Movements?" ocial Research52:869-890.
- 1993. TheNew Politicsof Class: SocialMovements ndCulturalDynamics n AdvancedSocie-
ties. London:Sage.
Epstein,Barbara.1990. "Rethinking ocialMovementTheory."SocialistReview20:35-65.
1991. Political Protest and CulturalRevolution:NonviolentDirect Actionin the 1970s and
1980s. Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress.
Flacks,Richard.1988.MakingHistory:TheAmericanLeftand theAmericanMind. New York:Colum-
bia UniversityPress.
Gamson,WilliamA. 1992. "The Social Psychologyof Collective Action."Pp. 53-76 in FrontiersofSocial MovementTheory, ditedby MorrisandMueller.
Giddens,Anthony.1991. Modernity nd Self-Identity. tanford,CA: StanfordUniversityPress.Gusfield,JoesphA. 1994. "TheReflexivityof SocialMovements:CollectiveBehaviorand MassSociety
Theory Revisited."Pp. 58-78 in New Social Movements,edited by Larana,Johnston,and
Gusfield.
Habermas, urgen.1975. LegitimationCrisis. Boston:BeaconPress.
. 1984-1987.TheTheory f Communicative ction. 2 Volumes).Translated y ThomasMcCar-
thy. Boston: Beacon Press.
Hirsch,Joachim.1988. "TheCrisisof Fordism,Transformationsf the 'Keynesian'SecurityState,and
New Social Movements."Pp. 43-55 in Research n Social Movements,Conflictsand Change,Vol. 10, editedby LouisKriesberg.Greenwich,CT:JAIPress.
Hunt,ScottA., RobertD. Benfordand David A. Snow. 1994. "IdentityFields:FramingProcessesand
the SocialConstructionf Movement dentities." p. 185-208in New SocialMovements,ditedby Larana, ohnston,and Gusfield.
Inglehart,Ronald.1990."Values,IdeologyandCognitiveMobilizationn New SocialMovements." p.43-66 in Challenging he Political Order,editedby Daltonand Kuechler.
Johnston,Hank.1994. "New Social Movementsand Old RegionalNationalisms." p. 267-286 in New
Social Movements, ditedby EnriqueLarana, ohnston,and Gusfield.
Johnston,Hank,EnriqueLarana,and JosephGusfield.1994. "Identities,Grievancesand New Social
Movements."Pp.3-35 in New SocialMovements, ditedby Larana, ohnston,and Gusfield.
Kauffman,L. A. 1990. "The Anti-Politicsof Identity." ocialistReview20:67-80.
Klandermans,Bert. 1991. "New Social Movementsand Resource Mobilization:The Europeanand
AmericanApproachesRevisited."Pp. 17-44 in Researchon SocialMovements,dited by Rucht.
. 1992. "TheSocialConstruction f ProtestandMultiorganizationalields."Pp.77-103inFron-tiers of Social MovementTheory, ditedby Morrisand Mueller.
- 1994. "Transientdentities?Membership atternsn the DutchPeaceMovement."Pp. 168-184
in New Social Movements ditedby Larana, ohnston,and Gusfield.
Klandermans,Bert, HanspeterKriesi, and SidneyTarrow,eds. 1988. InternationalSocial Movement
Research,Vol. 1, From Structure o Action.New York:JAIPress.
Klandermans, ertandSidneyTarrow.1988. "Mobilizationnto Social Movements:SynthesizingEuro-
peanandAmericanApproaches." p. 1-38in International ocial MovementResearch,Vol. 1,
From Structureo Action,editedby Klandermans,Kriesi,and Tarrow.
Kriesi,Hanspeter.1989. "New Social Movementsand the New Class in the Netherlands." merican
Journalof Sociology94:1078-1116.
Laclau,Ernesto,and ChantalMouffe. 1985. Hegemony nd SocialistStrategy:Toward RadicalDemo-cratic Politics. London:Verso.
Larana,Enrique.1994. "ContinuityndUnity n New Formsof CollectiveAction:A Comparative nal-
ysis of StudentMovements." p.209-233in New SocialMovements,ditedby Larana, ohnston,and Gusfield.
This content downloaded on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 08:56:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/27/2019 Social Movements Theories
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/social-movements-theories 24/25
New SocialMovementTheories 463
Larana,Enrique,HankJohnston ndJosephGusfield, ds. 1994. New SocialMovements: romIdeologyto Identity.Philadelphia, A: TempleUniversityPress.
McAdam,Doug. 1994."Culture nd SocialMovements." p.36-57 inNew SocialMovements, ditedbyLarana,Johnstonand Gusfield.
McCarthy, ohnD. andMayerN. Zald.1977. "ResourceMobilization ndSocialMovements:A Partial
Theory. "Americanournalof Sociology82:1212-1241.
Melucci,Alberto.1980. "TheNew Social Movements:A TheoreticalApproach." ocial ScienceInfor-mation 19:199-226.
. 1981. "TenHypotheses or the Analysisof New Movements."Pp. 173-194 in ContemporaryItalianSociology,editedby Diana Pinto.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
. 1984. "An End to Social Movements?" ocial ScienceInformation 3:819-835.
. 1985."TheSymbolicChallengeof ContemporaryMovements." ocial Research52:789-815.
* 1988. "Getting nvolved: dentityand Mobilizationn Social Movements."Pp. 329-348 in In-
ternationalSocial MovementResearch,Vol. 1,FromStructureoAction,editedby Klandermans,
Kriesi,andTarrow.
- 1989. Nomadsof the Present:SocialMovements nd IndividualNeeds in Contemporaryoci-
ety, editedby JohnKeaneandPaul Mier.Philadelphia, A: TempleUniversityPress.
. 1994. "A StrangeKindof Newness:What's New' in New Social Movements."Pp. 101-130
in New Social Movements, ditedby Larana, ohnston,and Gusfield.
Meyer,David andNancyWhittier.1994. "SocialMovementSpillover."Social Problems41:277-298.
Mooers,ColinandAlanSears.1992. "The New Social Movements'andthe WitheringAway of State
Theory."Pp. 52-68 in OrganizingDissent, editedby WilliamK. Carroll.Toronto:Garamond
Press.
Morris,Aldon D. 1992. "PoliticalConsciousnessand CollectiveAction."Pp. 351-373 in FrontiersofSocial MovementTheory, ditedby MorrisandMueller.
Morris,AldonD., and CarolMcClurgMueller,eds. 1992. Frontiersof SocialMovementTheory.New
Haven,CT: Yale UniversityPress.
Mueller,CarolMcClurg.1994."ConflictNetworksand the Originsof Women'sLiberation." p. 234-
263 in New SocialMovements, ditedby Larana, ohnston, nd Gusfield.
Offe,Claus. 1985. "NewSocialMovements:Challenginghe Boundaries f Institutional olitics."Social
Research52:817-868.
. 1990. "Reflections n theInstitutional elf-transformationf MovementPolitics: A Tentative
StageModel."Pp.232-250 in Challenging he Political Order,editedby Daltonand Kuechler.
Omi, Michael andHowardWinant.1986.RacialFormation n the UnitedStates rom the 1960s to the
1980s. New York:Routledge.
Plotke,David. 1990."What'sSo New aboutNew Social Movements?" ocialistReview 20:81-102.
Rucht,Dieter. 1988. "Themes,Logicsand Arenasof SocialMovements:A StructuralApproach."Pp.
305-328 in International ocial MovementResearch,Vol. 1,From StructureoAction,editedby
Klandermans,Kriesi,and Tarrow.
, ed. 1991. Researchon SocialMovements:TheStateof theArtin WesternEuropeand the USA.
Boulder,CO: WestviewPress.
Shin,Gi-Wook.1994."The HistoricalMakingof Collective Action:The KoreanPeasantUprisingsof
1946."American ournalof Sociology99:1596-1624.
Snow,DavidA., andRobertD. Benford.1992. "MasterFramesandCyclesof Protest."Pp. 133-155in
Frontiers n SocialMovementTheory,
ditedby
MorrisandMueller.
Steinmetz,George.1994. "RegulationTheory,Post-Marxism,nd the New Social Movements."Com-
parativeStudies n SocietyandHistory36(1):176-212.
Stoecker,Randy.1995."Community,Movement,Organization:he Problemof IdentityConvergencen
Collective Action."TheSociological Quarterly 6:111-130.
This content downloaded on Thu, 17 Jan 2013 08:56:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/27/2019 Social Movements Theories
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/social-movements-theories 25/25
464 THESOCIOLOGICALQUARTERLY ol. 36/No. 3/1995
Tarrow,Sidney. 1991.Struggle,Politics,andReform:CollectiveAction,SocialMovements, nd Cycles
of Protest. WesternSocietiesProgram,Occasionalpaperno. 21, Center or International tudies.
Ithaca,NY: CornellUniversityPress.. 1994. Power in Movement:Social Movements,CollectiveAction,and Politics. Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
Taylor,Verta.1989. "SocialMovementContinuity:The Women'sMovement n Abeyance.American
SociologicalReview54:761-755.
Taylor,Verta andNancyWhittier.1992. "Collective dentity n Social MovementCommunities." p.104-129 in Frontiersof Social MovementTheory, ditedby Morrisand Mueller.
Tilly, Charles. 1978. FromMobilization o Revolution.Reading,MA:Addison-Wesley.
Touraine,Alain. 1977. TheSelf-Productionf Society.Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress.
. 1981. TheVoiceand theEye:AnAnalysisof Social Movements.New York:CambridgeUni-
versityPress.
. 1985. "AnIntroductiono the Studyof Social Movements." ocial Research52: 749-787.
. 1988. Returnof theActor:Social Theoryn Post-Industrial ociety.Minneapolis:University f
MinnesotaPress.
. 1992. "BeyondSocialMovements."Theory,Culture,andSociety9:125-145.
Touraine,Alain, Michel,Wieviorkaand FrancoisDubet. 1987. The Worker'sMovement.Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
Tucker,KennethH. 1991. "HowNew Are the New Social Movements?"Theory,Culture,and Society8:75-98.
Wright,Erik Olin. 1985. Classes. London:Verso.
. 1989. TheDebate on Classes. London:Verso.