Diani the Concept of Social Movement

The concept of social movement

Mario Diani

Abstract

Recent deveiopments in social movement research have evidenced agreater underlying consen.sus in the field than one might have assumed.Efforts have been made to bridge different perspectives and mergethem into a new synthesis. Yet, comparative discussion of the conceptof 'scKial movement' has been largely neglected so far. Tliis articlereviews and contrasts systematieally the definitions of 'social movement'formulated by some of the most influential authors in the field. Asubstantial convergence may be detected between otherwise verydifferent approaches on three points at least. Sociai movements aredefined as networks of informal interactions between a plurality ofindividuals, groups and/or organizations, engaged in political or culturalconflicts, on the basis of shared collective identities. It is argued that theconcept is sharp enough a) to differentiate social movements fromrelated concepts such as interest groups, political panies, protest eventsand coalitions; b) to identify a specific area of investigation andtheorising for soeial movement research.

Introduction

Social movement studies have grown impressively in recent years(Rucht, 1990). At the same time, efforts to merge originallydistant approaches into a more comprehensive one have beenmade (e.g. Cohen, 1985; Klandermans et al,, 1988; Scott, 1990;Eyerman and Jamison, 1990). Ouite surprisingly, these attemptshave largely passed over any discussion of the concept of 'socialmovement'. While several scholars have provided analyticaldefinitions of it, we still lack, to my knowledge, a systematiccomparison of these conceptualisations. This article aims to fill this

The Socioloskal Renf..' 1992 0038-0261 92/4001-00 J.VOC'l

Mario Diani

gap, discussing the concept of social movement as it has beenformulated by some influential contributors to the field since the1960s.

Focusing on the conceptual level seems important to me, for anumber of reasons. I share the view that, while concepts cannot beidentified with theories, they are nevertheless the cornerstone ofany theorising (see e.g. Sartori, 1984). Therefore, any effort tosynthesise different approaches risks to be flawed, if little or noattention is paid to concept definition. This holds even more truefor .social movements studies. There, even an implicit, 'empirical'agreement about the use of the term is largely missing. In fact,social and political phenomena as heterogeneous as revolutions,religious sects, political organisations, single-issue campaigns areall, on occasion, defined as social movements (see e.g. McAdam etal,, 1988:695). This terminological ambiguity entails, however, aloss of specificity ;md theoretical clarity. This is reflected in thatmany valuable analyses of social movements pay hardly anyattention to the concept itself. They rather move immediately tomore substantive questions, such as the factors which account formobilization processes (e.g. Klandermans et al,. 1988) or thedifference between old and new movements (e.g. Dalton andKuechler. 1990). This is perfectly legitimate, of course. Yet, onemay sometimes feel that the same topics might be as successfullytreated without mentioning 'social movements' at all, adoptingrather concepts such as 'collective action', 'social change', 'socialconflict' and the like." The question therefore rises, what does'social movements' specifically refer to.

The absence of discussion concerning the concept of socialmovement has been usually attributed to the heterogeneity andincompatibility of the different approaches, which would makeany synthesis impossible (e.g. Morris and Herring, 1987:139). Incontrast to this view, I argue that a common thread exists betweenthe analyses of social tnovements, produced within otherwise verydiverse intellectual traditions. My goal here is to highlight thislinkage and to identify the elements, that are common to thedifferent 'schools'. These elements connote social movements as aspecific social dynamic which is logically related to, yet distinctfrom, the ones mentioned above. It consists in a process whereby.several different actors, be they individuals, informal groups and/or organisations, come to elaborate, through either joint actionand/or communication, a shared definition of themselves as beingpart of the same side in a social conflict. By doing so, they provide

The concept of,'iocial movement

meaning to otherwise unconnected protest events or symbolicantagonistic practices, and make explicit the emergence of specificconflicts and issues (see e.g. Melucci, 1989; Eyerman and Jamison,1990). This dynamic is reflected in the definition of socialmovements as consisting in networks of informal interactionbetween a plurality of individuals, groups and/or organisations,engaged in a political and/or cultural conflict, on the basis of ashared collective identity.

The argument develops as follows. In the following section,some recent definitions proposed by leading figures in the field arcintroduced. Then, four sub-components of the concept areidentified and discussed. In the next section, a more empiricalissue is addressed. The capacity of the concept to differentiatesocial movements from related phenomena (such as parties andinterest groups, coalitions, protest events) is assessed. Finally, it isshown how Ihe proposed definition reflects recent developments inthe field, and how it can contribute to identify a specific area ofinvestigation for social movement research.

An overview

This discussion focuses on the views elaborated by Ralph Turnerand Lewis Killian. John McCarthy and Mayer Ziild. Charles Tilly,Alain Touraine and Alberto Melucci. This group of scholars maybe considered as representative of the four main trends withinsocial movement analysis since the 1960s. These trends consistrespectively of the most recent expansions of the 'CollectiveBehaviour' perspective (Turner and Kiilian); the several approacheswhich have been subsumed, though with various qualifications,under the label of 'Resource Mobilisation Theory' (RMT) (Zaidand McCarthy); the 'Political process' perspective (Tilly); and the"New Social Movements' (NSMs) approach (Touraine. Melucci).*Whereas the first three have been particularly influential in theUSA, the fourth has been mainly associated with Europeanscholars, to the extent that some (Klandermans and Tarrow, 1988)have even talked of an 'American' and a 'European' approach tothe study of social movements. As there are a number of excellent,recent reviews of the literature, a thorough examination of thedifferent 'schools' may be omitted in the present paper (see Morrisand Herring, 1987; McAdam et al., 1988; Klandermans andTarrow, 1988; Tarrow, 1988; Scott, 1990; Neidhardt and Rucht,

Mario Diani

1990). However, some hints will be provided when discussing thesingle authors.

Turner and Killian (1987. but originally 1957) define socialmovements as a peculiar kind of collective behaviour, which iscontrasted to 'organizational' and 'institutional' behaviour (1987;4).In spite of these traits, however, collective behaviour cannot beconsigned to lack of organisation or to irrational behaviour. Onthe contrary, as the theory of emergent norm suggests, collectivebehaviour represents merely a looser organisational principle (seeal.so Neidhardt and Rucht. 1990). Turner and Killian define asocial movement as 'a collectivity acting with some continuity topromote or resist a change in the society or organisation of which itis part. As a collectivity a movement is a group with indefinite andshifting membership and with leadership whose position isdetermined more by informal response of adherents than byformal procedures for legitimising authority.' (1987:223). Socialmovements 'are not necessarily or typically coterminous withmovement organisations, [even though these] carry out much ofthe movement work and frequently attempt to control and speakfor movements.' (Turner. 1981:5).

RMT differs from Turner and Killian's and related collectivebehaviour approaches in that greater attention is paid to the roleof organisational factors within social movements. Indeed, Zaldand McCanhy define social movements in a way which is not farfrom Turner and Killian's, i.e. as 'a set of opinions and beliefswhich represents preferences for changing some elements of thesocial structure and/or reward distribution of a society. Acountermovcment is a set of opinions and beliefs in a populationopposed to a sociai movement.' (McCarthy and Zald. 1977:1217-18). Yet, their greatest concern lies clearly with the conditionsunder which such beliefs are transformed into concrete action.I-rom this perspective, both leaders with previous politicalexperiences and strong, often professional, organisations areneeded (McCanhy and Zald, 1973; 1977). Emphasis is also put onthe conditions which fadlitate the constitution of social movementorganisations (SMOs), as well as on the dynamics of co-operation/competition between them (sec also Zald and McCarthy, 1980).The existence of interactions within social movements is reflected inthe notion of 'sodal movement sectors' (McCarthy and Zald, 1977).According to this view, social tnovements organisations are notisolated actors; rather, they tend to interact with other organisa-tions, even when they are not able to develop any sort of regular


co-ordination; moreover, social movement constituencies oftenoverlap in a significant way. A recent formulation of thisperspective states that social movement sectors are 'social move-ment activity largely oriented towards change that is achieved inthe differentiated political arena . . . the configuration of socialmovements, the structure of antagonistic, competing and/or co-operating movements which in turn is part of a larger structure ofaction.' (Garner and Zald, 1985:120).

Instead of focusing on organisational resources, Tilly (1978)relates the emergence of social movements to a broader 'politicalprocess', where excluded interests try to get access to theestablished polity. Tilly analyses this process from an historicalperspective, periodising phases of intense contention withincontemporary history and mapping shifts in the 'repertoires' ofcollective action. In contrast to McCarthy and Zald, his emphasisis on the overall dynamics which determine social unrest and itschiiracteristics, rather than on social movements as specificorganised actors. This theoretical perspective is reflected in thedefinition of social movements as a 'sustained series of interactionsbetween power holders and persons successfully claiming to speakon behalf of a constituency lacking formal representation, in thecourse of which those persons make publicly visible demands forchanges in the distribution or exercise of power, and back thosedemands with public demonstrations of support' (Tilly, 1984:306).Social movements are an organised, sustained, self-consciouschallenge which implies shared identity among participants (Tilly,1984:.303).

Both RMT and the 'political process' approach analyse the'how' rather than the 'why' (Melucci. 1989) of social movements.In other words, they focus on the conditions which facilitate orconstrain the occurrence of conflicts, taking the existence ofpotential grievances for granted. In contrast, the NSM approachtries to relate social movements to large-scale structural andcultural changes. The most explicit advocate of this is AlainTouraine (1977, 1981, 1985). Touraine identifies sodal movementswith tbe dominant conflict in a given society: 'The socialmovement is the organised collective behaviour of a class actorstruggling against his class adversary for the social control ofhistoricity in a concrete community' (1981:77). Historicity consistsof tbe 'overall system of meaning wbich sets dominant rules in agiven society.' (1981:81). In industrial sodety. the core conflictopposed work to labour, in the 'programmed society', technocrats

5

Mario Diani

to their adversaries. All the other conflicts which occur within agiven society (e.g. conflicts for redistribution of resources) orduring the transition from one sodety to another (e.g. the nationalconflicts) are subordinated to the core conflict, the only one whereit is possible to talk of social movements. For other conflicts labelssuch as submovements. communitarian movements, nationalmovements would be more appropriate (Touraine, 1985).

As Touraine's analysis is both highl)' complex and well-known, Iwill fix-us on only two aspects which may be helpful in understandinghis definition of social movements, even where one does notaccept his broader theoretical framework. The first concems theidea of a social movement as the 'combination of a principle ofidentity, a principle of opposition and a principle of totality'(1981:81), where sodal actors identify themselves, their sodalopponents and the stakes in a conflict. Such a combination orprocess of 'identity formation' may. in fact, be detected in anyaspect of social behaviour, but social movements are distinct in sofar as the issue at stake refers, as we have seen, to the historicity,rather than to the 'institutional decisions or organisational norms'in a sodety (1981: 81). The .second a.spect concerns the highdifferentiation of beliefs and orientations within .social movements.Touraine's methodology of the 'sociological intervention' is mcanito provide a better reconstruction of these orientations as well asto help movement actors to achieve a better understanding of theirown actions (Touraine. 1981:139ff; Touraine et aL, 1983a;Touraine f( a/., 1983b).

Alberto Melucci is not as interested as Touraine in singling outthe new core conflict of contempt)rary post-industrial society, eventhough he agrees that these conflicts are more present today in thecultural and symlxilic sphere. Rather, Melucci proposes a definitionof social movements as a 'specific class of collective phenomenawhich contains three dimensions . . . [it] is a form of collectiveaction which involves solidarity . . . [it] is engaged in conflict, andthus in opposition to an adversary who lays claims on the samegoods or valties . . . [itj breaks the limits of compatibility of thesystem that it can tolerate without altering its structure' (1989:29).

According to Melucci, social movements arc not coterminouswith 'visible' political conflicts. In fact, public action is only onepart of the experience of social movements. Even when they arenot engaged in campaigns and mobilisations, social movementsmay still be active in the sphere of cultural production. Somestrongly culture-oriented movements may mobilise only occasionally


in tbe politiciil arena. Their activities largely develop in 'movementareas', i.e. 'networks of groups and individuals sharing a conflictualculture and a collective identity' (1985).'. . . multiplicity of groupsthat are dispersed, fragmented and submerged in everyday life,and which act as cultural laboratories' (1989:60).

A proposal for synthesis

The definitions introduced above emphasise at least four aspects ofsocial movement dynamics: a) networks of informal interaction; b)sbared beliefs and solidarity; c) collective action on conflictualissues; d) action which displays largely outside the institutionalsphere and the routine procedures of social life.

Networks of informal interactionThe presence of informal interactions involving individuals,groups and organisations is widely acknowledged. Even Touraine,who as we have .seen adopts a very peculiar definition, stresses theview of social movements as collective actors where organisations,individuals and groups all play a role (e.g. 1981:150). Even wherethe emphasis is put on a 'set of opinions and beliefs', as in the caseof McCarthy and Zald, the transformation of these ideas intoaction requires the interaction between specific SMOs, constituents,adherents and bystander publics (McCarthy and Zald, 1977:1223).Interaction is further stressed in notions such as 'social movementsector' (SMS) or 'micro mobilisation context', recently adopted byMcCarthy and Zald in their reassessment of the field (McAdam etal,, 1988). Defined as 'any small group setting in which processesof collective attribution arc combined with rudimentary forms ofotganisation to produce mobilisation for collective action' (ibid-em: 709), this concept greatly modifies the basically hierarchicalconception of relationships between constituents and SMOs,proposed by the RM theorists in their earlier formulations,forming a perspective more consistent with such notions asMelucci's 'social movement area'.

The characteristics of these networks may range from the veryloose and dispersed links described by Gerlach and Hine (1970) intheir seminal book, to the tightly clustered networks whichfacilitate adhesion to terrorist organisations (della Porta, 1988).Such networks promote the circulation of essential resources for

Mario Diani

action (information, expertise, material resources) as well as ofbroader systems of meaning. Thus, networks contribute both tocreating the preconditions for mobilisation (which is what RMThas mostly emphasised) and to providing the proper setting for theelaboration of specific world-views and life-styles (as described byMelucci).

In spite of tbeir different emphasis, these definitions agree inrecognising the plurality of actors involved in social movementsand the informality of the tics which link them to each other. Asynthetic definition of this aspect of the concept of socialmovements therefore may run as follows;

'A .social movement is a network of informal interactionsbetween a plurality of individuals, groups and/or organisations'.

Shared beliefs and solidarityTo be considered a social movement, an interacting collectivityrequires a shared set of beliefs and a .sense of belongingness.Respective authors refer to 'a set of opinions and beliefs' (McCarthyand Zald); 'solidarity' (Melucd); 'identity' (Touraine. Melucci,Tilly). Turner and Killian emphasise the continuity of socialmovements, which relies upon 'group identity' and 'ideologies'.Identity and ideology are defined here in the broad sense of theterm, which makes them very close to sets of beliefs (Turner andKillian, 1987:249ff and chapter 14 respectively). Collective identity'and solidarity can be considered synonymous in this context, in sofar as it is bard to conceive of the former without the latter, i.e. ofa sense of bclongingness without sympathetic feelings, associatedwith the perception of a common fate to .share (Melucci, 1984a).The case is different for the definition propo.sed by McCarthy andZald. Their notion of social movements as 'sets of opinions andbeliefs' does not necessarily imply the presence of shared feelingsof belongingness. However, their more recent work, and inpanicular the emphasis on the role of 'micro-mobilization contexts'and 'frame alignment processes' testify to their growing concernfor the interactive processes of symbolic mediation which supportindividuals' commitment."

Collective identity is both a matter of self- and externaldefinition. Actors must define themselves as part of a broadermovement and, at the same time, be perceived as such, by thosewithin the same movement, and by opponents and/or external

8


observers.' In this sense, collective identity plays an essential rolein defining the boundaries of a social movement. Only thoseactors, sharing the same beliefs and sense of belongingness, can beconsidered to be part of a social movement. However, 'collectiveidentity' does not imply homogeneity of ideas and orientationswithin social movement networks. A wide spectrum of differentconceptions may be present, and factional conflicts may arise atany time. Therefore, the construction and preservation of amovement's identity implies a continuous process of 'realignment'(Snow et al., 1986) and 'negotiation' (Melucci, 1989) betweenmovement actors.

The presence of shared beliefs and solidarities allows bothactors and observers to assign a common meaning to specificcollective events which otherwise could not be identified as pan ofa common process (see also Oliver. 1989). It is through this'fratning process' that the presence of a distinct social actorbecomes evident, as well as that of related issues. Indeed, socialmovements condition and help constitute new orientations onexisting issues and also the rise of new public issues, in so far asthey contribute to 'the existence of a vocabulary and an openingof ideas and actions which in the past was either unknown orunthinkable' (Gusfield, 1981:325). The process of identity forma-tion cannot be separated from the process of symbolic redefinitionof what is both real and possible. Moreover, such collectiveidentity may persist even when public activities, demonstrationsand the like arc not taking place, thus providing for somecontinuity to tbe movement over time (Melucd. 1989; Turner andKillian, 1987).

Taking these qualifications into account, we can define thesecond component of the concept of social movement as follows:

'The boundaries of a social movement network arc defined bythe specific collective identity shared by the actors involved inthe interaction'.

Collective action on conflictual issuesSome of the views reviewed here put a specific emphasis onconflict as a core component of the concept of social movement(Touraine, Melucci, Tilly). Others emphasise that sodal move-ments define themselves with respect to processes of social change

Mario Diani

(Turner and Killian, McCarthy and Zald). Even the.se latterhowever, acknowledge that as promoters or opponents of sociaichange sociai mo\ements become involved in conflictual relationswith other actors (institutions, countermovements, etc.). If thereis at least broad agreement concerning the fact that conflict is adistinctive feature of a social movement, the notion of conflict isunderstood in very different ways by different scholars. Tourainedaims that 'sodal movements' applies only to conflicts abouthistoricity, while others use the term in a looser and more inclusiveway. Melucci considers typical of social movements only thoseactions which challenge the mechanism of systemic domination,while American scholars tend to subsume under that heading anyprotest event, including those referring to negotiable issues.Finally, some authors consider as social movements networks ofcollective action which are exclusively or primarily orientedtowards cultural and personal change (Melucci and Turner andKilhan), while others focus on actors in the political .sphere (TillvMcCanhy and Zaid).

On a closer look, however, many of these inconsistencies proveto be more apparent than real. We have already seen that, whenanalysing other types of conflicts than those concerning historicityI'ourainc attaches different qualifications (e.g. nationalist com-munitarian, cultural) to the label 'movement'. Along similar lines.Melucd differentiates between social movements, which operateat the systemic level, and other types of collective action. Hespeaks for instance of 'conflictual action', meaning a kind ofbehaviour which implies colleetive identity and the presence of aconflict, yet which does not break the limits of compatibility of thesystem (Melucd, 1984b). In other words, both Touraine andMelucci use the term 'social movement' to identify a specificcategory of phenomena within a broader category of 'n'lovements'whereas other scholars use the term to mean movements of mykind.

Another presumed source of inconsistency consists in conceptionswhich focus on political movements and those emphasising thatsocial movements are also, and often mainly involved in culturalconflicts. Several authors (among them Gusfield, 1981; Melucd1989) maintain that the true bulk of social movement experiencehas to be found in the cultural sphere: what is challenged is notonly the uneven distribution of power and/or economic goods, butsocially shared meanings as well, that is the ways of defining andinterpreting reality. Social movements tend to focus more and

10

The concept of .social movement

more on self-transformation. Conflicts arise in areas previouslyconsidered typical of the private sphere, involving problems ofself-definition and cballcngcs to tbe dominant life-styles, forexample. Tbe difference with those who insist on the political sideof movements like McCarthy and Zald and Tilly is undeniable. Yet,this is a difference in emphasis rather than one concerningincompatible notions of what a social movement is. Indeed, theexistence of cultural movements has never been denied either byResource Mobilization theorists (Zald and .-^sh. 1966 speak ofmovements of 'personal change') nor by proponents of the'political process' perspective (Tilly, 1984 mentions 'religiousmovements').

Tlie opponunity to include both cultural and ptjiiticai movementswithin the broader category of social movements bring us to thethird component of tbe concept:

'Social movement actors arc engaged in political and/or culturalconflicts, meant to promote or oppose social change either at thesvstemic or non-svstemic level'.

Action which primarily occurs outside the institutional sphere andthe routine procedures of social lifeUntil the early 1970s debates on social movements were dominatedby structural functionalists like Smelscr (1962) who put a greatemphasis on the non-institutionalised nature of their behaviour.Today, social movement scholars are more cautious on this point.The aspects of 'collective effervescence' and 'nascent state' whichhad been empbasised by some (e.g. Alberoni. 1984 but originally1965) as a distinctive feature of social movements are now moreclosely associated with the phase of their emergence. From verydifferent perspectives, it has been demonstrated that .socialmovements continue even when collective effervescence is over,and that this is not immcdiatley followed by institutionalLsation (sece.g. Melucci, 1984a and 1989; 'Tarrow, 1989). Tliere is actually amore complex pattern of interaction between non-institutionalaspects and institutional ones, wbcrein social movements mayeither be an agent of change at the level of symbolic codes (asMelucd emphasises) or create new opportunities for interestintermediation (e.g. Nedelinann, 1984). Moreover, movementsmay also develop without going through a phase of 'collectiveeffervescence'. In other words, collective identities may arise, that

Mario Diani

are strong enough to foster sustained collective action, yet that donot imply a 'nascent state' (Diani, 1990b).

If the relationship between non-institutional behaviour andsocial movements is not strong enough to identify the former as afundamental component of the latter, the same holds true for theidea that social movements may be distinguished from otherpolitical actors because of their adoption of 'unusual' pattems ofpolitical behaviour. Several scholars maintain that the fundamentaldistinction between movements and other social political actors isto be found in tbe contrast between conventional styles of politicalparticipation (such as voting or lobbying political representatives)and public protest. However, while the recourse to public protestis undoubtedly a qualifying element of political movements, itplays only a marginal role in movements oriented to personal andcultural change. If one accepts, as I do, that even the latter may besubsumed under the concept of sociai movements, then there is noreason to introduce this specification in the definition of theconcept.''

Another widely shared assumption, at least in the moreconventional version of the idea of social movements as 'unusual'phenomena, is that organisations involved in social movements arebasically loosely structured. While informality and looseness areessential properties of the system of interaction, the same is notnecessarily true for the single units of the system. Even thoughmany loosely structured organisations arc actually part, possiblythe dominant one, of social movement networks, they are by nomeans their only component. Indeed, the spectrum of SMOs is sowide and differentiated as to prevent any clear restriction of itsboundaries: a key role in social movements may be played by suchheterogeneous organisations as churches (e.g. in the black civilrights movement in America: McAdam, 1982); local branches oftrade unions (e.g. in the peace movement in Britain: Byrne. 1988);neighbourhood solidarity organisations (e.g. in the British urbanmovements: Lowe. 1986). Moreover, the choice between a grass-roots organisation or a bureaucratic lobby appears more and morefrequently dependent upon tactical calculations by social movementactors (Zald. 1988:35-6), Even collective behaviour theoristsagree that a proper understanding of social movements requiresprinciples from both collective and organisational behaviour(Turner and Killian, 1987:230).

This discussion suggests that features such as the extra-institutional nature of .social movements, the prevalence of violent

12

7'/ic concept of social movement

or disruptive political protest and the loose structure of socialmovement organisations cannot really be taken as fundamentalcharacteristics of a social movement. These may however beextremely useful in differentiating between types of movements,or between different phases in the life of a specific movement.Thus, the following synthetic definition of the concept of socialmovement can be put forward:

'A social movement is a network of informal interactionsbetween a plurality of individuals, groups and/or organizations,engaged in a political or cultural conflict, on the basis of a sharedcollective identity'.

Social movemenLs, organisations, political events

The different traditions of social movement analysis I havediscussed so far show some degree of compatibility. 'To be fair, tbis'immanent' consensus is sometimes only implicit in an author'sformulation. In this reconstruction I have tried to emphasise theelements of continuity between different positions, rather thanthose of divergence - which are, by the way, the best known. Thequestion is whether the effon to mediate between several distinctapproacbes is not detrimental to theoretical clarity. In this sectionI will discuss this point. I try in particular to show in what sensethis particular definition of social movements helps to differentiatethem from a) political and social organisations like parties, interestgroups or religious sects; b) other infonnal networks of collectiveaction such as political mobilisation campaigns and politicalcoalitions.^

.Social movements vs. political or religious organisationsAs we already noted in the previous section, sociai movements,political parties and interest groups are often compared under theassumption that they all embody different styles of politicalorganisation (e.g. Wilson. 1973). At times, they are identified withreligious sects and cults (e.g. Robbins, 1988). However, if ourdefinition is correct, the difference between social movements andother political actors does not consist primarily of differences inorganisational characteristics or patterns of behaviour, but on thefact that social movements are not organisations, not even of a

13

Mario Diani

peculiar kind (Tilly, 1988 and Oliver, 1989). They are networks ofinteraction between different actors which may either ineludeformal organisations or not, depending on shiftitig circumstances.As a consequence, a single organisation, whatever its dominanttraits, is not a social movement. Of course it may be part of one,but the two are not identical, as the latter refiects a different, morestructured organisational principle. Indeed, many influential scholarsin the field keep using 'social movement' to mean both networks ofinteraction and specific organisations: citizens' rights groups likeCommon Cause, environmental organisations like the Sierra Club,or even religious sects like Nichiren Shoshu (McAdam et al..1988:695). Yet, this overlap is a source of analytical confusion, inso far as it fosters the application to social movement analysis ofconcepts borrowed from organisational theory, that only partially fitthe l(K)ser structure of social movements.'"' Talking of CommonCause or the Sierra Club or Nichiren Shoshu as 'social movements'leads one to formulate concepts like 'professional social move-ment' (McCarthy and Zaid, 1973) or 'single-organisation move-ments' (Turner and Killian, 1987:369-7U) to emphasise differencesbetween these cases and the nature of social movements asinformal networks (which as we have seen they all agree upon).But qualifying Common Cause as a 'professional social movement'does not add very much to the understanding of it, that cannot beprovided by concepts like 'public interest group' (see amongothers Etzioni, 1985). Similarly, a religious organisation likeNichiren Shoshu or Hare Krishna may be conveniently analysed asa 'sect'. This concept takes into account the greater organisationalrigidity and the more hierarchical stnicture that these organisationsdisplay by comparison with social movement networks (seeRobbins, 1988:1.50-55). In contrast, what both 'public interestgroup' and 'sect' do not really capture is the interaction processesthrough which actors with different identities and orientationscome to elaborate a shared system of beliefs and a sense ofbelongingness, which exceeds by far the boundaries of any singlegroup or organisation, while maintaining at the same time theirspecificity and distinctive traits.

If we accept that social mo\ements are analytically differentfrom SMOs we have also to redefine our notion of what is part andwhat is not part of a movement. Indeed, any organisation whichfulfils the requirements I have pointed out (interactions with otheractors, conflict and collective identity) may be considered part of agiven movement. This may also hold for bureaucratic interest

14

'The concept of .social tnovetnent

groups, and even political parties. The inclusion of political partieswithin social movements will surely raise many eyebrows andrequires some qualification. By saying that political parties may bepart of social movements I do not mean to suggest that 'socialmovements' is a broader theoretical category of which severaltypes of organizations (interest groups, community groups, politicalparties and so forth) represent as many sub-types. Tar from it.Rather, 1 suggest that the features of the processes I havedescribed as a social movement do not exclude that under eertainand specific conditions some political party may feel it.seif as partof a movement and be recognised as such both by other actors inthe movement and by the general public. This is likely to be theexception rather than the rule, and to be largely restricted toparties originated by social movements, such as the Green Parties(Kitschelt, 1989; Rudig and Lowe, forthcoming).

One could reasonably object that no matter how strong theiridentification with a movement, political parties actually performspecific functions at the level of interest representation and in thissense are different from social movements. That differences existat the functional level is beyond t|uestion. Yet, the mainpeculiarity of social movements does not consist in their speeificway of performing the function of interest representation. Ofcourse, their networks of interaction favour the formulation ofdemands, the promotion of mobilisation campaigns and theelaboration and diffusion of beliefs and collective identities. Thesefactors all, in turn, contribute to redefine the cultural and politicalsetting in which the action of interest representation takes place.However, when we focus on the function of interest representationin strict terms, we do not look at the way 'the movement' performsthis function. We actually look at the way different specific SMOsperform these functions. Whether they decide or not to includeparticipation into elections within their repertoire of action isdependent upon several factors including external opportunities,tactical and/or ideological considerations and their links to otheractors in the movement. 'Ilie mere fact that they decide to do so,however, will not automatically exclude them from the movement.Rather, they will be part of two different systems of action (theparty system and the social movement system), where they willplay different roles. The way such roles are actually shaped willconstitute a crucial area of investigation (Kitschelt, 1989).

15

Mario Diani

Social movements, protest events, coalitionsIf social movements do not coincide with SMOs, they do notcoincide with other types of informal interaction either. In otherwords, they differ from both loosely structured protest events andpolitical eoalitions. Under what eonditions may a protest againstthe construction of a motorway run by informal citizens' aetiongroups, a 'wild-eat' strike for higher wages in a firm or ademonstration for better nursing facilities in a neighbourhood beconsidered part of a social movement'.' And when are they justsimple isolated 'protest events'? Some have suggested looking atthe scope, dimension and length of campaigns (see e.g. Marwelland Oliver, 1984; Turner and Killian, 1987) in making thisdistinction. In broad terms, this is eonsistent with the notion ofcollective identity, as long and sustained campaigns will be morelikely to create new specific identities among participants thansudden and brief protest outbursts or riots. However, there is alsoempirical evidence which casts doubt on the strength of thisrelation. Actually, the emergence of collective identity appears tobe dependent on a plurality of factors.''

Even initiatives, which are apparently very specific, may thus beconsidered part of a social movement, provided they are interpretedin the light of a wider system of beliefs. This is possible if theydevelop in a context which is not only conducive to collective-action in general terms, but where a realignment of frames (Snowet al.. 1986) can occur. As we have seen in the previous section,the essential condition is that the sense of belongingness exceedsthe length of the public activities and eampaigns. Collectiveidentity may thus either become a preeondition for the creation ofnew and different identities (and eonsequently, of new anddifferent social movements); or provide a persistent, thoughlatent, basis for a new upsuige of mobilisation campaigns underthe same heading. Social movements often persist even when theyare not active on the public stage, and are rather going through a'latency' phase. 'Iliose countercultural movements which alternate.sudden explosions of protest with long periods of latency may beanalysed in this light, for example. In their case, collective identityprovides the link between occasional outbursts which would beotherwise unexplainable (Melucci, 1984a, 1989).

A further argument for the discriminating capacity of the notionof eolleetive identity comes from other examples of informalnetworks of eolleetive action, such as coalitions (for an introduction

16


and a definition: Hinekley, 1981:4-6). Tlie,se reveal some similaritywith social movements, in so far as they imply the existence of aconflict and of a eolleetive activity. However, the interaetion andco-ordination between different actors occurs mostly on aninstrumental level, as actors try to maximise their outcomes byestablishing alliances to other actors. In contrast to what happensin social movements, interaetion in coalitions does not foster theemergence of collective identities, nor does it imply necessarilyany sort of continuity beyond the limits of the specific conHictualsituation, let alone a global redefinition of the issues at stake.'"

Conclusions

In this article I have tried to show that different approaehes to thefield share, in their definitions of 'social movement', the emphasison some speeific dynamics. In particular, three basic componentsof social movements have been identified: networks of relationsbetween a plurality of actors; collective identity: eonflictual issues.In contrast, it has been denied that anti-institutional styles ofpolitical participation or anti-systemic attitudes may constitute adistinctive trait of the concept of .social movements.

I would arge that this definition of social movements mayconstitute the bulk of a programme of research and theorising thatadopt 'social movements' as an analytieal, rather than a merelyevocative, concept. It may also eontribute to the integration ofdifferent theoretical perspectives. During the 1970s, the resurgenceof scholarly interest for social movements had focused either onthe struetural determinants of new conflicts (mostly in Europe) oron mobilisation processes (mostly in the USA). Emphasising theinterplay between networks, identity and conflicts challenges someconventional wisdom inherited from these traditions. On the onehand, it ehallenges the idea that the study of social movementsmay be equated to the study of new soeial conflicts. While there isan obvious strong correlation between movements and eonflicts,the concept proposed here accepts that, in principle, conflicts canarise even in the absence of soeial movements. How single,isolated eonfiicts may become a movement is a eentral matter forinvestigation. To this purpose, attention must necessarily be paid

' to social networks and processes of meaning construction." Onthe other hand, stressing the importance of social networksprevents one from confusing the analysis of 'social movements'

17

Mario Diani

with the analysis of 'social movement organisations' or "mobilisationprocesses". This also bears substantial implications in terms ofresearch strategy. Only the study of the properties of interorgan-isational and interpersonal networks is, in this perspective, directlyrelevant to the analysis of social movements. In contrast, forexample, the study of individuals' commitment to a specificmovement organisation, albeit of obvious substantial interest, isnot specific of social movement studies. Rather, it is more directlyconnected to the broader analysis of individuals' incentives tocollective action and political participation.'-

I do not pretend that the view proposed here is absolutelyoriginal. I would rather argue that it reflects - and partiallyexpands on - recent efforts towards theoretical integration in theHeld. To start with, many have recently argued for greaterattention to be paid to the intermediate structures of collectiveaction, i.e. the networks that link individuals, groups and SMOsactive in the same, or related, conflicts (McAdam et al.,, 1988:Tarrow, 1988). This, in order to provide a proper link between'macro' explanations, focusing on structural changes and factors,and 'micro' explanati(>ns, focusing on individual attitudes andbehaviours. So far. research in this area has almost exclusivelyanalysed the role of personal links in facilitating mobilisation (e.g.Klandermans ci a!., 1988). A more systematic investigation of theproperties of these networks is needed, however, in order to assesstheir impact on a larger set of processes. These processes includehow resources are put together and made available for action; theimpact of the alliance and influence structure of social movementson their capacity to exert pressure on public authorities; the role ofmicro-mobilisation contexts, and in particular of the complexinterpersonal bonds, which constitute the latent structure of socialmovements, in the elaboration of interpretative frames; and soforth (McAdam eial., 1988).

Recent research has also assigned special relevance to the roleof collective identity. Scholars like Touraine (1981) and Melucci(1989) have revealed that this is not a datum, but a key problemfor the study of collective action. As we already noticed in ourprevious discussion, the sense of belongingness to a movementmust never be taken for granted. In contrast, collective identity isalways the precarious and temporary outcome of a 'bargaining'process between actors who embody quite different and hetero-geneous beliefs. How do actors, who are broadly interested insimilar issues, yet from different perspectives, come to think of

18

The concept of social movemetit

themselves as part of a broader movement, while preserving theirpeculiarity'.' And how do they manage to maintain their collectiveidentity, and eventually to adapt it to ehanges in the confliet,instead of splitting the movement in several factions and sects?Finally, how do movement identities react to shifts in dominantcultures in their environment? These and related questionsbecome, if we take up this perspective, a central area ofinvestigation.''

The erowth of eultural conflicts has also been at the core ofrecent theorising. The inclusion of both socio-political and culturalmovements within this definition differentiates it from others- likeTilly - who conceive of the existence of shared beliefs andsolidarity mainly as a precondition to the iiccurrence of publicaction and political protest. In contrast, other theorists (e.g.Gusfleld, 1981: Touraine, 1981; Melucci, 1989) suggest that theprocesses of meaning eonstruetion may also be regarded as thetrue essence of many conflicts in contemporary society. Of course,symbolic antagonism may often develop in parallel to politicalprotest. Yet, the relationship between the two aspects is notnecessarily in the sense of the former being a precondition of thelatter. It may rather take different forms, which must become anobject of careful investigation (for a recent example: Lumley, 1990).

Finally, the definition also changes the idea that social move-ments are necessarily anti-systemic actors. This leaves more roomfor the analysis of how social movements change over time, inaspects as different as the number and quality of actors involved inprotest events; the cultural interpretations of the conflict; theissues at stake; the repertoires of action and the degrees ofradicalisation (e.g. Tilly, 1978, 1984, 1988; Tarrow, 1989). Whatappears as a challenge to the system in the mounting phase ofprotest may be viewed as a reformist attempt in a longer historicalperspective; periods when social conflict is globally intense mayencourage social movements to adopt radical, disruptive strategieswith a greater frequency than phases when conflicts are not sostrong and public concern tends to address other, non eonflictualissues. For the.se reasons it seems advisable to select a very limitednumber of variables to define the notion of social movement, andto leave more specifie connotations to the analysis of specificconflicts, cycles of protest or phases of deep underlying culturalstrife.

Boccotii University Received 10 September 1990; Milan Finally accepted 4 June 1991

19

Mario Diani

Acknowledgements

This article has greatly benefited from comments from Jack Brand,Donatella de!la Porta, Ron Eyerman and two anonymous referees.A preliminary version has been discussed during Ihe AnnualMeeting of the Political Studies Association (University of Durham.April 1990). Joanna McPake. John Davis and Ron Eyerman havegraciously helped with the language. Financial support from theEuropean consortium for Political Research and the ConsiglioNazionale delle Ricerche is also gratefully acknowledged.

Notes

1 Ii is not by ch;incc thui one of the most popular debates Jimonc sociiil movenienisthtilars in recent ye;irs concerns the rok- ai soci;il networks in f;icilitalinj;individuals' mobilibatidn (e.g. Klanderniuris i-t al.. \WH): an importantcoiiiribucion. but to a coniroversy originated by Mancur Olwin s scminiil workin a different ihcorelieal (ralional ehoice Iheor)) and empirical (pariieipalion intrade unions and inierest groups) conicxi.

2 Many other scholars apart from lourainc and MeJiicci (mostly, but notexclusively. European) have played iin important role in ihc dehaie on new'soeial movements. Among them are Habermas. Offo, Castells (see for somediscussions Cohen. I9,SS; Mis?tal. I9SX; Scoit. 1990). They are not taken intoaccount here beciiuse they focus almost exclusively on macrosocial dynamicsand do not pay attention to the spccilicity of the concept. In the lipht ul whattollows, the remark might somewhat apply to Touraine as well. Yet. heintroduces a scries of more specific definitions which ure important to thedevelopment of the discussion here.

3 Pi72orno fiy^S) has been among ihe first to use this notion in order to challengeOi.son's ttcil known hypothesis about the irrationality of collective action.

4 Snow and associates (Snow ci al.. i9S(.; Snow and Benford. 1988) use theconcept of 'fnimi; alignment' (from Goffni;in's notion oi frames) to identifythose changes in individuals' sets of beliefs wliieh iiecount for their decisions tojoin colleetive action- Cven though originally elaborated in the eontext of theanalysis of individual mobilisation, the same notion may be usefully referred tothe process whereby a hroadcr collective identity is created.

5 See among others Touraine. 1977: Turner. 19S1: Melucei. 1989. Hie degree ofinelusiveness or exciusivencs.s of such identifications is on the other handsubjected to shifting conditions (Zald and Ash, 196).

f> Neidhardt nnd Rucht fIvyO) minntain for example ihat social mok-ements aredefined among other features l>y the use of public protest activities, yet proceedto diffcrcntiiitt! l)etween socio-political and socio-cultural movements, the lanerrelying not on public protest but on expressive action, seekmg , . to attainsocial change indireetly through the afijiregated and long term effects ofindividual (K-haviour.'

7 I do not discuss on the other hand collective phenomena such as fashions.

20


soli(i:irity campaigns in favour of external constitucncicb (e.g. collective effortsto help stuning African countries or the like), and crowd behuviciur (c.g-fwtball hooliganism). This is partially due t.> limitations in space, panially tothe fact that their differences to social movements have been iong sinceemphasised (sec among others Alberoni. 1984 and Melucci. 39S9). Moreover,these differences are probably more obvious than those that 1 am going toconsider in this paper. Sutticc to say here, that differences between thesephenomena and social movements consi5;t basically in the jbsence'pre.wnce ofconflict; for fashions and crowd behaviours, they also lie to a certain extent mthe absence of eolleetive identity

S As I'amcla Oliver puts it: , . . all too otteii we speak of movemcm strategy,tactics, leadership, membership, recruitment, division of labour, success andfailure - terms uhich strictly apply only to coherent decision making entities(i,e.. organisations or groups), not tn erowds. collectivities, or whole soaalmovements,-(1989:4).

9 Several protests were for instance promoted by nature protection associations inItaly during the 19f)()s and the 1970s. In iibsolute terms, they were probablymore frequent than the protests against nuclear power which developed in avery restricted period in the late !97(>s. Yet. the latter developed a specificcollective identity and were perceived as a movement, while this was not > withthe former, who have come to identify themselves as u part ol theenvironmental movement only in the 19()s, Ttie explanation may lie in thepersistence, until the late 197(te. of attitudes of mistrust towards collectiveaction within natuie protection ass

Mario Dian

References

Albctoni, F,. (I!)S4). Movemeni mil ImllmUon. New York. Columbia UnivcrsiuPrc5A. " -

Bnylc. H C . (1980). The Backyar.l Rcv,,lMi,m. lj,,,km,,miing Ihc ,V,-.i- OlucmMovcmeni, Philadelphia. Icmple Univcrsily Press

Byrne. P.. (I98S). The Campaig,, fo, Nuclear Dh^rmume^,, I^ndon Cr,K)mMelin.

C'Dhen. J.L.. (1985). Strategy and idetitily: New iheoretieal paradi.ums andcontentporary social movements". Sudal Hai-areh, vol. 52. pp. 6(i3-71ft

Dalton. R. and Kueehlcr. M. (eds). U'>'*l). Owlletigms Ihe Polliicil Order- AV,v,'itmat arul FoUlieul MovemeiiK m Wmer,, Denumicles. Camt.ndci: I'olitvPress,

della Pona. D.. (IOfW). RMniitment processes in clandestine political orpaniiationsItalian left wing terrorism, in Klandermans el at 19SS

O.an,. M.. (1990a). The network strueture of the Itahai. ecology movement'.Stieial .'ieience Inforitiallon. vol.29. pp. 5-.^l.

Diani. M.. (lWlb). "Ilie Italian ecology movement: From radie,ilism to moderilion'm Rudig. W. (cd.). Ctee,, l;,lllie, I, IWO. Edinburgh. Edinburuh UniversityPress,

nder. K.. (1985). -n,e -now s


Klandermans. B.. Knesi. H. and larrow. S. (eds). (19H8). From Strt>cntrc loAction. Comparing Social Movemenl Research Acrosi Cultures. Greenwich. J AlPress,

Kriesi. H., (19K8). 'Ttie interdependence of structure and action: Some reflectionson the state of the art", in Klandermans, B. ci al.. 19S8.

lA)we. S.. (1986). Vrban Social Movemenn. The Ciiy after Castctk. London.Macmillan.

Lumley. R.. (1990). States of Emergency. Cultitrei of Revolt in Italy from 196S toJ97ii. i-ondon. Verso,

MeAdam. D,. McCarthy. J.D. and ZaId. M.N,. (1988). '.Social movements', mSmelser. N.J. (ed.). Handbook of Sociology. Beverly MillVLondon. Sage,

McAdam. D,. (1982). Political Process ami the Development of Black irLuirgency.19.^0-1970. Chicago. University of Chicago Press,

McCarthy. J.D. arid Zaid. MN.. (1977). 'Resource mobiliziition and socialmovements: A partial theory'. American Joumnl of Sociology. vol,K2. pp. 1212-41,

McCatihy. J,D. and /jld. M,N,. (1973). The Trend of Social Movements inAmerica: Profeisionalization and Resource Mobilization. Murristown. GeneralLearning Press,

Marwell. G, and Oliver. P.. (1984). 'Collective action theory and social movementsresearch', in L. Kriesberg (ed.). Hescurch m Social Movements. Conflict andChange, vol.7. Greenwich Conn.. JAI Press.

Melucci. A. (ed,). (19S4a). Altri codia Aree di movimento nella metropoli.Bologna. II Miiiino.

McUicci. A,. ()98-1b). 'Movimenti in un montlo di segni'. in Melucei. A,. 1984;).Melucci. A,. (198f'). "Tlie symbolic cliallenge of contemporary movements', Social

Research, vol.52, pp. 789- 81().Melucci. A,. (1989). S'omads ofthe Present. London, Hutehinson Radius.MisTital. H.. (19SS). 'Social movements of the core and ihc periphery'. Australian

and ,V('i>' /.ealand Journat of Sociolof;y. vol.24, pp. 65-82.Morris. A and Herring. C . (19K7). -nieory and research in social movements: A

critical review". Annual Review of Political Science, vol.2, pp, i:i7-y.S.Nedelinaiin. B.. (!98-l). 'New political movements and changes in prtKesses of

mterniediation". Sociat Sciernc Information, vol.23. pp. ll)2';-48,Neidhardt. F. and Rucht. D,. (1990). 'llie analysis of swial movements: 'Ilie state

of the art and some perspectives for further resc:iieh\ in Rucht. D.. l'/X)a.Oliver. P.. (1989), 'Bringing the crowd back in: The nonorganizational elements of

social movements', in Kriesberg. L. (ed.). Research m Sodal tMoiements.

Pizzor

social movements , in Kriesberg. L. (ed.). Research m Sodal tMoeme.Conflict and Chant^e. vol.11. Greenwich. Conn,. JAI Press,

izzorno. A.. (1978). 'Political exchange and collective identity in industrialconflict", in Crouch. C. and Pi/.zorno. A. (eds). The Resurgence of Class Conflictin Western Europe .unce I96fi, London. Macmillan.

Regalia. L. Regini. M. and Reyneri. E.. (1978). 'Uibor eonflicts and industrialrelations in Italy', in Crouch. C. and Pizzorno, A. (eds). The Resurgence ojClassConflict in We.Uern Europe since 196.S. London. Macmillan,

Robbins. T.. (198S). Cults, Converts and Charisma: the Sociolosy of New ReligiousMovements, London. Sage.

Rucht. D. (ed.), (I9*)a). Re.Kcurch in Social Movements: The State of the Art.Frankfurt, Campus/Boulder Co. Westview Press,

R h D (19911b) Th i d i t i f ew movements inFrankfurt, Campus/Boulder Co. W e s t i e Pres

Rucht. D. (19911b). "The strategies and action repertoires ofDalton, R, and Kueehler. 1990.

23

Mario Diani

Rudig, W. and Lowe. P.. (forthcoming). The Green Wave: A Comparative Analysisof Ecological Parties, Cambridge, Polity Press.

Sartori. G,. (1984). 'Guidelines for concept analysi.s'. in Sartori. 0 . (ed). SocialScience Concepts. A Systematic Analysis, Beverly Hills/London. Sage.

Scott, A.. (1990). Ideology and the New Social Movements, London. UnwinHyman.

Smeker. NJ.. (1962). Theory of Colleciive Behavior, New York, The Free Press,Snow, D.A. and Benford. R.D.. (1988), "Ideology, frame resonance, and

participant mobilization*, in Klandermans ct al.. 1988.Snow, D.A., Burke Rochford, E., Worden, S.K. and Bcford. R.D., (1986).

"Frame alignment processes, micromobilization. and movement participation'.American Sociological Revietv. vol.51, pp. 464-81.

Tarrow, S., (1983). 'Struggling to reform: S(KiaI movements and policy changeduring cycles of protest'. Western Societies Paper l\Jo.I5. Ithaca. NY. CornellUniversity.

Tarrow, S., (1988). National politics and eoliectivc action. Recent theory :indresearch in Western Europe and the USA'. Annual Review of Sociology. vol. 14.pp. 421-40,

Tarrow. S.. (1989), Democracy and DLwrdcr. Protest and Politics in Italy J965~197^, Oxford, Oxford University Prc-A.

Tilly. C;., (1978). Erom Mobilization to Revolution. Reading. A\ddison-Wes!cy.Tilly, C. (1984). 'Social movements and national politics", in Bright. C. and

flarding. S. (eds). State-Making and Social Movements: Essays in History andTheory. Ann Arbor. University of Michigan Press.

Tilly. C , (1988), "Social movements, old and new', in Misztal, B. (cd.). Research in.Social Movements. Conflict and Change, vol.10. Greenwich, Conn., JA! Press,

Touraine, A., (1977). The Self Production of Society, Chicago. University ofChicago Press.

Touraine. A., (1981). The Voice and the Eye. An Analysis of Social Movements.Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Touruine. A., (1985), 'An introduction to the study of social movements'. SocialResearch, vol,52. pp. 749-88,

Touraine, A., Hegedus. Z.. Dubct, F. and Wieviorka, M.. (198.1a). Anti-nuclearProtest. The Opposition to Nuclear Power in Erance. Cambridge, CambridgeUniversity Press.

Touraine. A., Dubet. F.. Wieviorka. M. andStrzcIccki. J.. (\9S:ib). Solidarity. TheAnaly.m of a .Social Movement: Poland 1980-1981. Cambridge. CambridgeUniversity Press.

Turner. R,. (lQSl). 'Collective Behaviour and Resource Mobilization as approachesto social movements: Issues and continuities', in Kriesberg. L. (cd.). Research inSocial Movements, Conflicts and Change, vol.4. Greenwich. Conn.. JAI Press.

Turner. R. and Killian. L.. (19S7). Collective Behaviour. Englewood Cliffs. NJ.Prentiec Hall.

Wilson, J.O.. (1973). Political Organizations, New York. Basic Books.ZaId. M.N., (1988). "The trajectory of the sodal movements in America', in

Misztal. B. (ed.). Research in Social Movements, Conflict and Change, vol.10.Greenwich. Conn., JA! Press.

ZaId. M.N, and Ash. R.. (1966). "Social tnovcment organizations: Growth, decayand change". Social Eorces. vol.44, pp, 327-41.

24


ZaId. M.N, and McCarthy. J.D. (eds). (1987), Social Movements in OrganizationalSociety: Resource Mobilization. Conflict and Institutionalizatkm. New Brunswick.Transaction Books.

ZaId. M.N. and McCarthy. J.D, (1980). 'Social movement industries: Competitionand cooperation among movement organizations', in Kriesberg, L. (cd.).Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change, vol.3. Greenwich, Conn.,JAI Press.

25

Documents

Diani the Concept of Social Movement