Social Movements Theories

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

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mss

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4120774?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/4120774?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mss

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black



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.







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-







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








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-








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,








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.








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








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







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.








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








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-








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








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-








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-








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-








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








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







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








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-







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.








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.







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.








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.







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.

Documents

Social Movements Theories