Buechler - The New Social Movement Theories

8/12/2019 Buechler - The New Social Movement Theories

1/25


2/25

NEW SOCIALMOVEMENTTHEORIESSteven M. Buechler*MankatoState University

Thisarticle ffersanoverviewndassessmentf theutility f newsocialmovementheo-ries oranalyzingontemporaryorms f collective ction.Thearticle eginswitha briefoverview f theorigins f newsocialmovementheory nda descriptionf someof thegeneralenets f thisapproach. ext,I considerhecontributionsf fourmajorheorists(Castells,Touraine, abermas,ndMelucci)o thisparadigm. he heartof thearticleprovides 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 remisesofrationalactorsengaged n instrumental ction hroughormalorganizationo secureresourcesand fostermobilization,his paradigmhas demonstratedonsiderableheoreticalandempiri-cal merit forunderstandingocialmovements McCarthy ndZald 1977;Tilly 1978). More

recently,however,some have questioned he utilityof this perspective or understandingtleast some kindsof movementsandconstituencies,while othershavelodged important riti-cismsagainst hisapproachBuechler1993). Thesedevelopments avecreatedanintellectualspace for complementary r alternativeperspectives or analyzingsocial movements. Onesuch alternatives social constructionism, hichbringsa symbolicinteractionistpproachothe study of collective action by emphasizing he role of framingactivities and culturalprocesses in social activism(Snow and Benford1992; Gamson1992; Hunt,Benford,andSnow 1994). This articleexaminesanotheralternative o the resourcemobilizationperspec-tive that has come to be known as new social movement heory. In whatfollows, I describethis 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 responsetothe 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 reductionismpresumed 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.


3/25

442 THESOCIOLOGICALUARTERLYol. 36/No. 3/1995nomic logic of capitalistproduction nd that all othersocial logics are secondaryat best inshapingsuch 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(Canel1992). Thesepremises ed Marxists o privilegeproletarianevolution ooted n the sphereofproductionand to marginalizeany otherformof socialprotest. New social movement heo-rists,by contrast,have looked to other ogics of actionbasedin politics,ideology,andcultureas theroot of muchcollectiveaction,andtheyhave lookedto othersourcesof identitysuchasethnicity, genderand sexualityas the definersof collective identity. The term new socialmovements husrefers o a diversearray f collectiveactions hathavepresumably isplacedthe old social movementof proletarianevolutionassociatedwith classicalMarxism.Eventhoughnew social movementtheoryis a critical reactionto classical Marxism,some newsocial 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 theimplicationhat herearemanyvariations n a very generalapproacho something allednewsocial movements.As a firstapproximationo thisgeneralapproach, owever, he followingthemes may be identified. First,most strandsof new social movement heoryunderscoresymbolicaction in civil society or the cultural phereas a majorarena or collectiveactionalongsideinstrumental 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,newsocial 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 movementtheoryrecognizesa varietyof submerged,atent,andtemporary etworks hatoftenundergirdollec-tive action,rather hanassuming hat centralizedorganizationalorms are prerequisitesorsuccessfulmobilizationMelucci1989;Gusfield1994;Mueller1994). Manyof these themessignifya divergence romboth classicalMarxism ndresourcemobilizationheoryas well assome pointsof convergencewith social constructionism.But once again,variousnew socialmovementtheoristsgive differentemphases o thesethemes and havediverserelationswithalternativeraditions,herebywarranting language hatspeaksof new social movement he-ories (in the plural).

Beyond these themes is anotherdefiningcharacteristic f new social movementtheoriesthatwarrantspecialemphasis.Indifferingways,allversionsof new socialmovement heoryoperatewith some modelof a societaltotality hatprovides he contextfor the emergenceofcollectiveaction. Different heoristsoperatewithdifferentmodels(referring ariously o pos-


4/25

New Social MovementTheories 443tindustrialociety,an informationociety,advanced apitalism, tc.), butthe attempt o theo-rize a historically pecificsocial formation s the structural ackdroporcontemporaryormsof collective actionis perhaps he most distinctive eatureof new social movement heories.Havingoffered a firstapproximationo this paradigm,t will be helpfulto considerseveralscholarswho exemplifythe rangeof thinkingamongnew social movement heorists.

SOME MAJORTHEORISTSThis overview of majornew social movement heoristswill serveseveralpurposes. First,itwill illustrateherangeof orientationshatmaybe found n this area,as well as the distortionthat is introducedwhentheseverydifferentperspectivesare referredo as a single paradigm.Second, it will providea foundation or a moredetailed examinationof the majordebatesassociatedwithnew social movement heories n the next section. Third, t will suggesttheneed for someorganizingypologythat summarizes ut doesnot oversimplify hediversityofsocial movement heories. Fourtheoristsbest exemplifythe rangeof new social movementtheoriesin the context of their own intellectual raditions:Manuel Castells (Spain), AlainTouraine 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 havebecomecentralbecauseof the growing mportance f collectiveconsumption nd the neces-sity of the stateto intervene o promote he productionof nonprofitable ut vitally neededpublic goods. It is in this contextthatCastellssees the rise of urbansocial movements n adialecticalcontestwith the stateand otherpoliticalforcesseekingto reorganizeurban ociallife. He thus approaches he city as a social product hat is a resultof conflictingsocialinterestsand values. On theone hand,sociallydominantnterests eek to defineurban pacein keepingwith the goals of capitalistcommodificationnd bureaucratic omination; n theotherhand,grassrootsmobilizations ndurban ocial movementsseek to defendpopular n-terests,establishpoliticalautonomy,andmaintain ultural dentity. Whilearguing hatclassrelationships refundamental, astellsrecognizes hat heyexistalongsideother dentitiesandsourcesof change,including he stateas well as group dentitiesbasedon gender,ethnicity,nationality,andcitizenship. ForCastells,urbanprotestmovements ypicallydeveloparoundthreemajor hemes. First,somedemands ocus on the forms of collectiveconsumptionpro-videdby thestate, herebychallenginghecapitalistogic of exchangevaluewith anemphasison the provisionof use valuesin community ontexts. Second,otherdemands ocus on theimportance f culturaldentityandits links to territoriality,herebyresistingthe standardiza-tion andhomogenization ssociatedwith bureaucraticormsof organization y establishinganddefendinggenuineformsof community.Finally,still otherdemandsexpressthepoliticalmobilization f citizensseekingmoredecentralizedorms of governmenthatemphasize elf-management nd autonomous ecisionmaking.ForCastells, hegoalsof collectiveconsump-tion, communityculture,andpoliticalself-managementmay be foundin a wide varietyofcross-culturalettingsthatwarrant he conceptof urbansocial movements.Castells'sanalysisof urbansocial movementsexemplifiesseveralnew social movementthemeswhile also bringinga distinctive raming o these themes. The emphasison culturalidentity, 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 sametime, Castellsremainscloser to some of the concernsof conventionalMarxism hanmany


5/25

444 THESOCIOLOGICALUARTERLYol. 36/No. 3/1995othernew social movement heorists,andhe does so by offeringa both/and ather hananeither/or tance toward some familiarsocial movementdichotomies. Thus, rather hancounterpoising old class-basedmovementswith new nonclassbasedmovements,Castellsrecognizesthe roles of both class-basedand nonclass-based onstituencies n urban socialmovements. Rather hancontrasting political nd cultural rientations, e recognizes haturbansocial 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 thesethemes 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 thestate 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 aschangingpolitical 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,moreand moreof societycomes to be seen as theproductof reflectivesocial action. Thegrowingcapacityof socialactors o constructboth a systemof knowledgeand the technical ools thatallow 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 anongoing strugglebetween classes definedby relationsof domination. Such classes taketheform 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 ortheseclassesisculture,and the centralcontest nvolveswho will controlsociety's growingcapacity or self-management.As the state becomesthe repositoryof society's ever increasingcapacitytocontrolhistoricity, here is reasonto believe that the centralconflict in postindustrialocietywill come to centeraround his institution.In a recentformulation,Touraine 1992) locatesnew socialmovementsbetween wo logics:thatof a systemseekingto maximizeproduction,money, power, and information,and that of subjects seeking to defend and expandtheirindividuality.

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 nevery type of society. In industrialociety,this conflictcenteredaroundmaterialproductionandthe workers'movementposedthe obviouschallenge. With the comingof postindustrialsociety,Touraine ndhis associatesstill expectoneprincipal dversarialmovement,althoughtheyremainuncertain boutwhethernew socialmovementswill fill this role. Ina 1988work,Tourainesuggestsboth thatthere is no single class or groupthatrepresentsa futuresocialorderandthatdifferentoppositionalocial movementsare unitedsimplyby theiroppositionalattitude.Touraine'snability o define heconstituencyorcollectiveaction,despitehis insis-tence that each societaltypehas a singlecentralconflict,underscoreshedifficulties hatnewsocial movement heoristshavein identifying he constituencyor such movements. In Tou-raine'scase, this uncertaintymaybe related o a second debateanticipated y his workcon-


6/25

New Social MovementTheories 445cerningthe seemingly apoliticalnatureof these movements. He sees contemporaryocialmovementsas evidenceof a displacement f protest romthe economicto the cultural ealm,accompanied y the privatization f socialproblems.Thetypicalresult is an anxious searchfor identityand an individualism hatmay exclude collective action(1985). In anothercon-text, Touraine 1985) suggeststhat movementsbased on difference,specificity,or identitymay too easily dismissthe analysisof social relationsandthe denunciation f power,andinstill 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 adefiningthemewithin this paradigm.

JurgenHabermas1984-1987) proposes he most elaborate heoryof modemsocial struc-tureby distinguishing etweena politico-economicystem governedby generalizedmediaofpowerandmoneyanda lifeworld tillgovernedbynormative onsensus. Whereas hesystemfollows aninstrumentalogic thatdetachesmedia ikemoneyandpowerfromany responsibil-ity or accountability,he lifeworldfollows a communicative ationality equiring hatnormsbe justifiable hroughdiscussionand debate. The problemfor Habermass that in modemsociety, system imperativesand logic intrudeon the lifeworldin the form of colonization,resultingn themediaof moneyandpowercomingto regulatenotonlyeconomicandpoliticaltransactionsbut also those concerning dentityformation,normativeregulation,and otherforms of symbolicreproductionraditionally ssociatedwith the lifeworld. Habermas ug-geststhattherelationship f clients to the welfarestate s a model case for this colonizationofthe lifeworld, n that the welfare statemonetarizes nd bureaucratizesifeworldrelationshipsas it controls he extentandkind of spendingon welfarepolicyto fit theimperatives f moneyandpower. Moregenerally,Habermas rgues hatthe processof colonizationalterseach ofthe basicroles thatarisefromthe intersection f thepolitico-economic ystemandpublicandprivate 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 decisionsare correspondingly emovedfrom contexts of justificationand accountabilitywithin thelifeworld.

Giventhis conceptionof social structure,Habermasocatesnew social movementsat theseamsbetweensystemand ifeworld.This location eadshimto identify wo featuresof thesemovementsthat 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 fferslittleevidence hatnew socialmovements an contributeo anybroader ocialtransformation,particularlyoncerninghe dominance f systemoverlifeworldandthe dominanceof genera-lized mediaof exchange ike moneyandpowerin the systemworld. As we shall see, whileno one sees new social movementsas bringingaboutcompletesocietaltransformation,manyof its theoristsenvisiona more extensiveandprogressiverole for movementsthansimplydefendingthe lifeworld. A second Habermasianheme, which is more broadly acceptedamongnew socialmovement heorists, oncerns henatureof thegoalsor demandsassociatedwiththese movements. ForHabermas, s formanyothers, he conflictsin which new socialmovementsengageare less aboutmaterial eproductionndmoreaboutcultural eproduction,


7/25

446 THESOCIOLOGICALUARTERLYol. 36/No. 3/1995social 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. Becausethese are not traditional istributionaltruggles,Habermasmpliesthatthey cannotbe chan-neledby politicalpartiesor allayedby material ompensation.The implications thatundersome circumstances,he conflictsassociatedwith new social movementsmay contribute othe larger legitimationcrisis that Habermas 1975; 1984-1987) associates with advancedcapitalism.

Alberto Melucciarguesthat the (post-)modemworldbringsnew forms of social control,conformitypressures,and information 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 sunclear,but he is less troubledby this fact than Touraine.While these conflictsare far re-moved from the conventionalpoliticalsphere, hey are not withoutstructural ffects that arecentral n Melucci's argument.In a society increasingly haped by information nd signs,socialmovementsplayanimportantole as messages hatexpressoppositionalendenciesandmodalities. 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 torendervisiblethe peculiarlymodern orm of powerthatresides behind he rationality f ad-ministrativeprocedures;n this way, collective actionemphasizesthe socially constructednatureof the worldand thepossibilityof alternative rrangements.Melucci'spositiveviewofthese movementsand theirmessagesunderscores he importance f free spacesbetweenthelevel of politicalpowerandeveryday ife in which actorscan consolidate ollective identitiesthroughbothrepresentationndparticipation.

Melucci's work also helps to define some of the centralissues of new social movementtheory. One such issue concerns he role of identity n moderncollective action.Melucci'sstartingpremise s thatin modern ociety,the paceof change,the pluralityof memberships,and the abundanceof messagesall combine to weaken traditionalpointsof referenceandsourcesof identity,thereby creatinga homelessnessof personal dentity. This meansthatpeople's propensity o become involved n collective actionis tied to theircapacity o definean identityin the firstplace (Melucci 1988). It also means thatthe social construction fcollectiveidentity s both a majorprerequisitend a majoraccomplishmentf the new socialmovements.' The fluidityof identity n the modernworld and in its social movements srelated o thefragilityof organizationn such movements.Melucci s insistent hatnew socialmovementsbe 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 hananinitial startingpoint for collective action. On another evel, Melucci steersattentionawayfrom formalorganizationby stressing hat much collective action is nested in networksofsubmergedgroupsthat occasionallycoalesce into self-referential ormsof organizationorstruggle-but often on a temporary asis. He thereby uggeststhatwe speak ess in termsofmovementsand morein termsof movementnetworksor movementareas o capture he tran-sitorynatureof muchcontemporarymobilization.


8/25

New Social MovementTheories 447These sketcheshint atsome of the maincontours f new socialmovement heorywhile alsosuggesting ts diversity. This diversityderivesin partfromthe differentnationalsettingsin

whichtheorists ike Castells,Touraine, abermas, ndMeluccihaveoperated,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 onpostindustrial ociety, Habermasworks out of the German raditionof criticaltheory,andMelucciintroduces omesemioticandpostmodernlements. As suggestedearlier, his diver-sity warrantspeakingof newsocial movement heories rather han a unitary new socialmovement heory. Yet thereare importanthreadsof continuityacross these thinkers. De-spitetheirdifferences,all concur hat their societies havemoved into a distinctsocial forma-tion thatmightbe designatedas postindustrial,dvancedcapitalismand that the structuralfeaturesof their societies haveshaped he kindsof current ollective action as decisively asthe structuraleaturesof liberalcapitalism haped he dynamicsof proletarian rotest. Whilethese sketcheshave hintedatsome of the issuesthat define heparadigm f new social move-menttheory,a moresystematicpresentation f these debates s now in order.

THEMAJORDEBATESManyof the issues raisedby new social movement heoriesmaybe framed n terms of fourmajordebates hat ypifythisgeneralapproach.The firstconcerns hemeaningandvalidityofdesignatingcertainmovementsas new andothers(by implication)as old. The seconddebate 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 basecan be definedin terms of social class. These debatesinvolve overlapping ssues and areultimately nterconnectedn variousways. The secondandthird debates areclosely relatedbecausethey hingeon the abilityto providemeaningfuldefinitionsof increasinglyproblem-atic terms ike progressive r political. The firstand thefourthare also related n thatthedefinitionof new movements mpliesthe abilityto designatea social base otherthan the oldworkingclass. Whileacknowledginghese connections,each debate s sufficientlycomplexto warrant eparateanalytical reatment ere.

What'sNew about New Social Movements?A centraldispute hathasattractedonsiderable ttention oncerns he extent to which newsocial movementsreally represent omethingdemonstrably ew, with criticssuggestingthatthese movements are not as distinct as proponentsof the paradigm uggest. Thus, DavidPlotke(1990) argues hat new socialmovementdiscourse ends to overstate heirnovelty,toselectivelydepicttheirgoalsas cultural, ndto exaggerateheirseparationrom conventionalpolitical ife. SidneyTarrow 1991)pointsout thatmanynew socialmovementsaren'treallyall thatnew, becausethey oftenhavegrownout 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 theirearlystagesof formationwithina particular ycle of protest n the late 1960s andearly1970s. The


9/25

448 THESOCIOLOGICALUARTERLYol. 36/No. 3/1995implication s that with the endingof this cycle of protestandthe political realignmentstpromoted, 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 acyclical pattern hathas been evidentfor well over a century. In this argument,new socialmovementsandtheirpredecessorsappearedn cyclical phases in response o culturalcrisesand 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 similarperiodsofculturecritiqueprompted imilarmovementsaround1840and 1900 in Britain,Germany ndthe 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 severalresponseshavebeen forth-coming. For Russell J. Daltonand ManfredKuechler 1990), new social movementsmaydraw on a long-standinghumanistic raditionbut theirgenuinelynew aspectsincludetheirpostmaterialisticaluebase,theirsearch orpragmaticolutions, heirglobalawareness,andtheirresistance o spiritual olutions.ForClausOffe(1990),thenewnessof thesemovementsinvolvestheirpostideological,posthistorical atureas well as their ackof a positivealterna-tive andspecifictarget n the formof a privilegedclass;becauseof these features, heydenyaccommodationo existing powerandresist standardormsof co-optation.ForKlausEder(1993), new social movementsare inherentlymodernbecauseonly in modernitycan theirdistinctivechallengeto the culturalorientation f society be formulated.In his view, newsocial movementsprovidean alternative ulturalmodel and moral orderthat both defendsnormative 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 WilhelmBurklin(1990), these movementsare new in theiradvocacyof a new social paradigmhatchallengesthe dominantgoal structure f Westernsocieties by advocatingpostmaterialist,antigrowth,ibertarian, ndpopulistthemes. In addition, he politicalstyle of these move-ments involves a consciousavoidanceor rejectionof institutionalized olitics and a carefuldistance 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.Whereasutopianandromanticmovements ypicallysought hede-differentiationf society,economy,andstateinto a premodernutopiancommunity,new social movementspresupposeand defendthestructural ifferentiationf modern ocietyandattempto build on it by expandinghe socialspaces in whichnonstrategic ctioncan occur.

As theseresponses ndicate,while there s no consensusamongnew socialmovement heo-rists aboutwhatconstitutes he newnessof these movements, here areplentyof candidatesfor thatcategory. Given the diversityof empirical,philosophical,andpoliticalframeworks


10/25

New SocialMovementTheories 449thatthese authorsbringto this debate,there is littleprospect hat it can be resolvedin anydefinitiveway. But suchdebatesareinstructive ven if unresolvable.One of the lessonshereis 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 flookingto the old abormovementas theprimary gentof history,but theunintendedesultof shiftingthe focus to otherconstituencieshas been to imply thatthey somehow have nohistorypriorto 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, orjustice themes,all have important istoricalpredecessorshatspanat least the twentiethcen-turyandsometimesreachmuchfurther ack into thenineteenth entury.Hence,there s morecontinuitybetweensupposedlyold andnew socialmovements han s typically mplied John-ston, Larana, ndGusfield1994;Johnston1994;Larana1994;Shin 1994;Taylor 1989). Theterm also suggestsa falsedichotomybetweennew movementsand old forms of labororgani-zation that obscurescompellingevidence for the new social movementcharacterof manynineteenth-centuryabormovements Calhoun1993;Tucker1991). The dangerhere is thatthe terminologywe adoptcanbecome a conceptual traitjackethatprecludescertain ines ofinquiry. 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 towhich thesemovementsarecharacterized s eitherdefensive orprogressiveand the extent towhichthey areseen as carrying liberatory otential.Thedisagreement ver thenewness ofthese movementscarriesover into this seconddebate,with few unambiguously onvincingarguments n eitherside. One strandn thisdebatebeginswithHabermas1984-1987),whohascharacterizedhe new social movementsas primarily efensivereactions o the colonizingintrusions f statesandmarkets nto the lifeworldof modern ociety. As vital as this rolemaybe, Habermashas saidrelatively ittleaboutthe prospect hat new social movementscan orwill assumea largerand moreprogressiverole in societal transformation.Othertheoristsworkingwithinthis 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 ambivalentwith respectto these patterns.Ruchtimplies thatmodernizationn the lifeworldproducesconflicts arounddemocratization,elf-determination,nd individualization nd that the ex-

pressive, identity-orientedmovementsthis provokeshave a progressivecharacter.At thesame 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 tolifeworldrationalizationnd as defensive withrespect o systemintrusion s one logicalwayof addressinghis debate from a Habermasianerspective.


11/25

450 THESOCIOLOGICALUARTERLYol. 36/No. 3/1995Another esponse s offeredby JeanCohen 1982, 1983),who alsoexpressesdissatisfactionwiththesomewhatmarginal oleenvisionedby Habermas or social movements. In herview,

this is because movements interestHabermasnot in terms of their substantiveclaimsbutratheras carriersof universalistic ulturalpotentials. Thus, social movements are grantedsignificanceonly if they become vehicles of societal modernization nd culturalrationaliza-tion. Cohenargues hatbothpastandpresentmovementshaveplayeda vitallyimportantolein helping to institutionalize ivil society as a spherethat is both differentiated rom andconnected o thestate andthatgives social actors hespaceto translate ifeworldconcernsntosystemicpriorities orchange. Thiscanbe grasped hroughneithersystemstheorynoractiontheorybut rather equiresanalysisof theprocessof institutionalizationy which movementshavecontributedo civil societyand the creationof new associational nddemocraticorms,thereby building up the space that allows them to operatemore progressivelyas changeagents. In her view, social movementscan be more than defensive,antimodern eactionspreciselybecausethey have establisheda foothold n civil society in whichthey canpursuelargergoals of progressive ocialchange. Thesegoals includeboth the self-defense andthefurtherdemocratizationf society,and Cohen mpliesthattheseare best seen as complemen-taryrather hancontradictorymperatives f new social movements.

Analystsof new social movements rom a moretraditionallyMarxistperspectivehavenotnecessarilyarrivedat clearer answers or more internalagreementon these questions. Forexample,JoachimHirsch(1988) arguesthat new social movementsmust be understoodaspartof the crisis of Fordism.Fordismwas itself a response o an earliercapitalistcrisisthatintroducedmassproduction ndconsumption, Keynesianandcorporatistwelfarestate,andabroader 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 ndividualemancipationandtherecoveryof civil society througha radicallydemocraticormof politics. Despitethis seem-ingly progressiveagenda,Hirschargues hat the organizationalorms andideologicalprem-ises of manynew socialmovements tillreflect he fundamental ontradictionsf theFordistperiodto whichthey are a response. As a result, heytranscend he conventionaldichotomybetweenleft andright,or progressiveandconservative.Hirschexpectsthese movements oplay complexandcontradictoryolesduring he transitionrom the Fordistmode of accumu-lationto a new strategyof accumulationn advancedcapitalism: hey may simultaneouslyembodygenuineopposition 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 isconsistentwitha political agendaof lowering he horizonsandrangeof possibilities o whatcanbe achievedwithinthe limitsof theexistingmarketand state. To the extentthatthe newpolitics of social movementsdoes indeedacceptcapitalistsocial relationsand turnsawayfromconfrontinghe capitalist tate,this politicsis simplya new reformismn their view.

These debatesare difficult o resolve. Onedifficulty s the diversityof stancesadoptedbynew socialmovements,buta greaterobstacle s that the conceptualyardstickshatframe hedebatearebreakingdown. That s, notionsof progressiveor reactionary nd the traditionaldichotomybetween left andrightall presupposeto one degreeor another)a metaphysicsofhistoryand a directionalityo socialchange hathas become untenablen latemodernity.Yeta third trouble s in the abstract ramesin which these debatesareconducted. Movements


12/25

New SocialMovementTheories 451exist in specific sociohistoricalcircumstances uch that the same movement and the sameagendamay well be characterized s progressiveor reactionaryto the extentwe can definethese 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 ratherdifferentexamplesmay be cited. In a discussion of how and when resistancemovements whichmayarise out of conservativempulsesandresponses o external hreats)become liberationmovements(which make radicaldemands for change), RichardFlacks(1988) suggeststhatthe criticalstepin making histransitions the cultivationof democraticconsciousness. This consciousnessseeks to narrowthe gap between everyday ife andmakinghistory, herebydrawing he largestpossiblenumberof people into the processofhistorymaking. 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 democraticparticipation oth withinmovementsandwithinthe largersociety.Are New SocialMovementsPoliticalor Cultural?

A thirdset of debates(not unrelated o the first two) revolves around the questionofwhethernew social movementsare political n natureor are betterclassified n some otherway (e. g., as cultural ).Onedangern these discussions s that suchterminology ancreateandperpetuate 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 hateventhose whichoptout of any conventional ontestation orpowerhave taken a politicalstanceof quietism-hence all movementsarepolitical n anequallybasicway. Theseconsiderationsshould be takenas reminders hat such distinctions an be no more thansensitizingdevicesthathighlight eaturesof movements hatareinevitablymorecomplexthanany suchbinaryclassificatory ystem. Nevertheless, he discussionsaboutthepoliticaldimensionof 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 socialmovementsas providinga metapoliticalhallenge o modernity hrougha new historical ypeof protest. He sees these movementsas carriers f a classicalcritiqueof moderncivilizationas well as the very projectof modernity.Eventhoughhe classifies them as metapolitical,heidentifies hemas havingdiscrete,politicaleffects in termsof consciousness-raising,oliticalsocialization,and the politicizationof decisionmaking. The morestandard ritiqueof newsocialmovementss that heyareanapoliticalor at least aprepoliticalormof socialactivism.Thesecritiques ypicallyuse the protestsof the 1960s as a positivebenchmark,when move-


13/25

452 THESOCIOLOGICALUARTERLYol. 36/No. 3/1995mentscombinedpoliticalandculturaldimensions n a desirablebalance hatstill attemptedotransformpower relations. In the 1970s and 1980s, however, some of these movementsshifted to a predominantlyulturalorientationn which questionsof identityand identitypolitics becamepredominant.With this change,the notion of thepersonalis politicalbecame deformedn sucha waythatexcessiveattention o personal ife cameto substitute orany sustained ormof politicalaction aimed at institutionalizedower,andlifestyle politicstherebyreplacedpreviousmovementpoliticsaimedat social transformation. s a result,suchmovements and their participantsettisoned any concern with influencingor alteringstatepower, abandoneddiscussions of strategy,and withdrew nto culturalcocoons of personallifestyle issues as a replacementor a previouslypoliticalorientationBoggs 1986; Carroll1992; Epstein1991). In the sharpestversionof this critique,L. A. Kauffman 1990) arguesthat such antipoliticsof identity eads to apolitical ntrospection, n emphasison politicallycorrect ifestyles,andthesubstitution f personalransformationorpoliticalactivity. Despitetheradicalveneerthatmaycover suchstances,Kauffman rgues hat heyactuallymirror ndpromote he values of the marketplace.

The mostinteresting ejoindero thesearguments an be derived rom thework of AlbertoMelucci(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 newmovementsweremorepolitical n the conventional ense of thatterm, heywouldbe playingby sets of rules that benefitexisting power-holders ndthey wouldin all likelihoodbe mucheasier to co-opt throughthe normal channels of political representation nd negotiation.Hence, theirapoliticalor antipolitical tance should be regardedas a strengthrather han aweakness. However,to be apolitical n this sense does not meana retreat nto excessivelyindividualist rientations or Melucci. Althoughhe operateswitha culturalisteadingof newsocialmovements,he alsobelievesthatsuch culturalistmovements anpose majorchallengesto existingsocial relations. In part,this is becausethese relationshave come to be definedmore and more in the cultural anguageof symbolic representation. hus, if powerhas be-come congealed,particularlyn media messages and administrativeationality, he mostprofoundchallengeto suchpower may come fromculturalmovements hatchallengethesemessages and rationality.By renderingpowervisible and by repudiatinghe instrumentalrationalityof the dominant ociety,culturalmovementsmaybe moreeffective than conven-tionallypoliticalmovementsat, in Melucci'sterms,breakinghelimitsof compatibility f thesystem.Like otherissues alreadydiscussed,this debate s about more thanone issue, andsome-times it is not about he samething. Forexample, he sharpest riticsof theapolitical urn nsome new social movementsarewriting n thecontextof the UnitedStates,while Melucciandnew socialmovement heorygenerallyhasemerged roma Europeanontext. Hence,a pecu-liarly Americanfactor-such as individualism s a dominantcultural heme-may be thetargetof thesecritics. 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 hatfallshortof this standard.Butthepositions n this debateultimately eflect he theoretical tancesof its participantss well as the way their stancesconceptualizehe dominant ocietyand itsrecentchanges. Those who criticize the apoliticalnatureof (some) new social movementstend to see modern ocietyas predominantlyapitalist.Although heymayhave transcendedtraditionalMarxistpositionson therole of old socialmovements, heyremainwedded o a


14/25

New SocialMovementTheories 453conceptionof capitalismas a systemicformof domination hatmustultimatelybe challengedin political terms. Those who defendthe apoliticalor cultural dimensionsof new socialmovementsappearo subscribe o a differentheoryof modemsocietythat eans moreheavilyon postmodem,semiotic,or generallyculturalisthemes. Thus, each theoretical chool canclaim to have identified he more fundamental ind of (politicalor cultural)challengethatnew social movementsmightoffer to the dominant ociety,but these claimsreflect heirpriortheoreticalstances as much as any consistent set of observationsabout the movementsthemselves.

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 evenwhether he conceptof class shouldremaincentral o the definitionof a movement'sbase.Thus,one line of argument uggeststhatany attempto answer his question n class terms sitself a residualeffect of an economisticreadingof socialmovements n whicha movement'ssocialbase is automatically efinedby class structure.Partof what makesnew social move-ments new is preciselythe fact that class becomes much less importantn determininghebase, interestsor ideologyof the movement han n the oldereconomisticreading. It is onlybyjettisoningsucheconomisticnotionsthatwe canappreciatehe extentto whichnew socialmovementsare definedby the dynamicsof race, ethnicity,culture,gender,or age-socialdivisionsthatmaywell havetranscended lass in theirrelevance orshapingcollectiveaction.While this logic is compellingas a meansof dispelling he lingering nfluenceof economisticreadingsof sociopoliticalactivism, t is not a sufficientway of dealingwith the questionofclass. While new social movementsmaynot be economicallydetermined n the straightfor-ward manner hatold social movementswerepresumedo be, theyneverthelesshavewhat aWeberianwould call economic elevance. Forexample, hegoalsandpoliciespursuedby amovement may havea verydifferentmpacton diversesocial classes,just as differingclasspositionsare likely to shape people's definitionof a grievable ssue in the first instance. Ifmovements anno longerbe reduced o class,neithercantheybe understood part romclass,as one among several salientstructures nd identities n contemporaryorms of collectiveaction.

One strategy or side stepping he issue of class is thusto arguethatthe groupidentitiesundergirding ollective actionhave shiftedfrom class to status, race, gender, ethnicity,ornationality.Another heoretical trategy hatmarginalizeshe role of class is to arguethatnew social movementconstituenciesderivemore froman ideologicalidentificationwith cer-tain issues thanmembershipn somehomogeneous ocialbase. An exampleof this strategymaybe found n Dalton,Kuechler,andBurklin 1990). They argue hatthe definingcharac-teristicof new social movementss their advocation f a new socialparadigmhatchallengesthe dominant oal structure f Western ocieties.Intheiraccount,such movementsdrawon asociallydiffusebaseof popular upport ather hanany specificclass or ethnicbase. Theyseethis as a shift fromgroup-based oliticsrooted n instrumentalnterest o value-basedpoliticsrootedin ideological support or collectivegoods. The shift frominterest o ideology maythereforebe a reflectionof the fact thatin advanced apitalism,many deprivations ndformsof dominationhaveacquireda relativelyclasslesscharacter ecausetheireffects touchmem-


15/25

454 THESOCIOLOGICALUARTERLYol. 36/No. 3/1995bers of manydifferentsocial groupsand classes (Steinmetz1994). Hence, movementsre-sponding o these effects will not have an exclusive class character utwill recruitacross avarietyof social groups.

Despitethese two theoretical trategies hatshift attentionawayfromclass, the most com-mon strategywithin the new social movement iteratures to argue hat these movementsdoindeedhave a social class base thatcan be conceptualized s a middle-classbasein contrastotheworking-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.WhileWrighthas not specificallyaddressed he issue of new social movements,Claus Offe (1985)has. He suggeststhatthe socialbase of new social movements s threefold: he new middleclass,elementsof the old middleclass,and decommodified roupsoutside he labormarket.Thisunusualcombination f groupsderives rom he structuraleaturesof advanced apitalistsociety, which includea broadeningof the negativeeffects of the systembeyond a singleclass, a deepeningof the methodsand effects of social controlanddomination, nd the irre-versibilityof problemsand crisis potentials n the society. These effects create a tripartiteconstituency or new social movementswhose only common featuremay be their distancefromthe old poles of capitaland abor. The new middleclass is a modem,class-aware roupwhose goals are moregeneralthanthose of traditional lass politics. The old middle-classelements and the decommodified lementsmoreoften drawupon premodern, articularisticideologiesthatshapetheirrole in new social movements. As a result, hecomplex politicsofnew social movementswill dependon whichof thesethreefactionsbecomes dominant t anygiven movement,as well as the alliancesthat suchgroupsmight pursuewith otherpoliticalactors. The possibilitiesrangefrom maintenance f the old, growth-orientedaradigmo anew formof corporatismo a genuinelynew challengeto the prevailingsocial order. Thelatter, n Offe's view, wouldrequirenew social movementsrooted n new middle-classele-ments,which thenallywith the traditionaleft andproceed o establisha positiverelationwithperipheral nddecommodified roups. Onlythisalliancecouldeffectivelychallengethe oldparadigmof 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 thework of Klaus Eder(1993). His generalapproacho these questions s informedby the as-sumptions hat class andcollective actionhavebeen decoupled n advancedcapitalism, hatcultureplaysan increasinglymportantnterveningolebetweenclassstructure nd collectiveaction,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 thesepremises,Ederconstructshis argu-ment about the middle-classbase of new social movements. Because this class has anintermediate ositionbetweenupperand lower social classes, it blendsbourgeois ndividual-ism andplebeianparticularismn a class-specificdefense of individualizationnd themiddle-class lifeworld. Sucha habituscangeneratenew social movements,but it can also generatemoral crusadesandpolitical pressuregroups. New social movements-as opposedto otherforms of collective action-are mostlikelyto derivefromthosenichesof contemporaryoci-ety thatpreserveold communitarianraditionsandradicallydemocraticprojectswhile alsoseekingnew social relations hat ranscendmoralism ndpower Eder1985). In a morerecentessay, Eder(1993) proposesa theoryof middle-class adicalism hatsees new social move-


16/25

New SocialMovementTheories 455ments as a class-specificresponseto the middle-classrealitiesof upwardmobility,culturalcapital,and the lack of a cleargroup dentity. ForEder,new social movementsarenot classmovementsn 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) approachoclasses, Kriesi identifiesantagonismswithin the new middle class betweentechnocratswithorganizational 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 andculturalspecialistswithprofessionaldentitiesbutwithoutorganizationalssetswho constitutea gen-uinelynew class, which is formedoutof theunderlying ntagonism etweentechnocratswhofavoradministrativeationality ndspecialistswhoseek noninstrumentalses for theirknowl-edge. The strugglesof new social movements, n turn,may be seen as both expressingandcontributingo the formation f this new class. Kriesitherebysuggeststhatthe notionof ageneric oppositionalnew middleclass is both too broad and too narrow. It is too broadbecauseit is not the class as a whole butonly the youngergenerationof social and culturalspecialists hat end to support ew socialmovements.It is too narrowbecause hereareothergroupsbeyondthe middleclass who oftenprovidesupporto new socialmovementsas well.Kriesi concludesthatif new social movements ndeedhave such deep structural oots in asegmentof 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 broadquestionof the social base of new social movements. If it is generallyaccurate o see newsocialmovementsas rooted n sometypeof middle-classbase, thisraises the possibilitythatthesemovementsmaynotbe unrelatedo the olderclasspoliticsas much as theymay operatein opposition o traditionalworking-classnterests.Thispossibility s exemplifiedby the sup-posed trade-offbetweenenvironmental rotectionandjob creationthat appearsto pit theinterestsof ecologically orientednew social movementsagainstthose of traditionalaborunion movements. While the framingof such demandsas mutuallyexclusive alternativesmaytell 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 socialmovementsarereallydedicatedo apostmaterialistaradigm f limitsto growth,andif oldersocialmovementsremain 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 inevitableconflictbetweenold workermovementsand new socialmovements, t is possibleto see the latterasexpressingotherneeds of workersabove and beyond their roles as laborers(CarrollandRatner1994).

Therelativelysmallamountof researchon this issue has typicallytakenthe formof argu-ing thatthe success of new socialmovementswill ultimatelydependon theirabilityto formalliancesandcoalitionswithtraditionalabormovements.Thus,BarbaraEpstein 1990) con-cludes her overviewof contemporaryocial activismby arguing hatany successfulmove-


17/25

456 THESOCIOLOGICALUARTERLYol. 36/No. 3/1995ment will haveto recruit rom boththe middleandthe bottom hirdof modemsociety. In amore 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. Whilesuchpointsarewell-taken, hey side stepthe difficultquestionsof how extensivethe class conflictsbetweendifferentsocial movementsreallyare andthe relatedquestionof how suchconflictsmaybecontained ong enoughto foster the kinds of alliances and coalitions envisionedby thesetheorists.

Thus,while there s no consensuson thequestionof class and new socialmovements, hisdebateprovidesseveral mportantessons. First, hese movements epresent major ormofsocial activism whose social base is sometimesbest defined n somethingotherthan classterms,whether hatbe gender,ethnicity, ace,sexuality,or age. Moreover,new socialmove-ments requireus to rethinkhow all collective identities(includingclass identities)arenotstructurally uaranteed ut sociallyconstructedHunt,Benford,and Snow 1994;MeyerandWhittier1994). As such, they do not come in neat, mutuallyexclusive, one-dimensionalpackagesbut rathern dialecticallynterrelatedombinations f positionsand identities Col-lins 1990;Morris1992;Omi and Winant1986;Taylorand Whittier1992). We thereforeneedto think n terms of how all these identitiesmaybe experienced imultaneously nd how thatexperiencewill shapemovementparticipation.We also need to thinkin termsof how onestatusmay influence 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 movementsmay bebest characterized ot in termsof a social base rooted n conventional tatusesbut rathernterms 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 andgoals. A third esson is that(despite hefirsttwo lessons)theredoes appearo be an electiveaffinitybetweena middle-class ocationand new social movements. Manyhave noted theproblemsof 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 orvariousnew 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 contemporarylassstructures-at least as they affectthose in the middle. If social classes reallyare sociallyconstructed, nd if thisprocess s especially mportantn themakingof themiddleclass,thenourinability o clearly dentify hemiddle-classbaseof new social movementsmay simplybean accuratereflectionof the fact that the construction roject s still underway n advancedcapitalism.

A TYPOLOGYOF NEW SOCIALMOVEMENTTHEORIESTheprecedingprofilesof 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


18/25

New Social MovementTheories 457positions n debates,producing multiplicityof new social movement heorieswithno morethanfamilyresemblanceso one another.My goal here is to improveon these imagesof onevery generalapproach nda pluralityof particular ositionsby proposinga typologyof newsocial movementtheories. Like all such typologies,this one is offered as an ideal-typicalsensitizingconstruct hatcannotcaptureall the complexitiesof the field and will inevitablyoversimplify ome of its dimensions.Nevertheless, uchsortingdevices would seem to be inorderas heuristic ools for improvingourunderstandingf new social movement heories.The most promising ypologicaldistinction n this field is betweenwhatI call politicaland cultural ersionsof new social movement heory.2 This is not a mutuallyexclusivedistinctionbut rathera matterof the emphasisplacedon thesedifferingdimensions. Never-theless,thereappearso be a numberof relatedcharacteristicshatclusteraround hese differ-ent emphases, producing wo ratherdistinct versions of new social movementtheory (seeTable 1.).

TABLE . POLITICALAND CULTURALVERSIONSOF NEW SOCIALMOVEMENTTHEORY

Issue PoliticalVersion CulturalVersionGeneral Orientation Pro-Marxist Post-MarxistRepresentativeTheorist Manuel Castells Alberto MelucciSocietalTotality Advancedapitalism InformationocietyImageof Power Systemic, entralized Diffuse,decentralizedLevelof Analysis Macro-,mesolevel, tate- Meso-,microlevel, iviloriented society,everydayifeMovement ctivity Retains ole for instrumental Eschewsstrategic oncernsnaction oward trategic oals favorof symbolicexpressionsFirstDebate:Viewof New Recognizesheirrolewithout Regardsnewmovements sMovements rejecting oleof working-class havingdisplacedworking-movements classmovementsSecondDebate:Movement Potentialorprogressive Sees new movements sOrientations orientationsf alliedwith defensiveorrejectscategory

working-classmovements of progressiveThirdDebate:Evaluationf Seespoliticalmovements s Seesculturalmovements sMovements mostradical, ultural mostradical,politicalmovements s apolitical movements s co-optableFourthDebate:SocialBaseof Analyzedn class termsvia Analyzedn termsof nonclassMovements contradictoryocations,new constituenciesr issues andclass,or middleclass ideologies

The politicalversionof new social movement heoryis pro-Marxistn thatit drawsuponthe mostpromisingwork in neo-Marxist cholarship ndseeks to builduponthe strengthsofthis tradition.Like all new social movement heory,this versionhas a model of the societaltotalityin which new social movementsarise, but this version is likely to emphasizethe(advanced) apitalistnatureof thattotalityoveranyotherdesignation.In so doing,it is likely


19/25

458 THESOCIOLOGICALUARTERLYol.36/No. 3/1995to offerstrongclaims about he connectionsbetweenmacrolevel tructuraleaturesof contem-porarycapitalismand the emergenceof new socialmovements. Thepoliticalversion of newsocialmovement 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. Ofthe 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 politicalversionofnew social movement heoryrecognizesa rolefornew constituenciesn socialactivismbasedon race,gender,nationality,or othercharacteristics,ut it does notjettisonthe potential orclass-basedor worker-basedmovementsalongside hese othergroups. Intermsof the seconddebateover movementorientations,he politicalversion sees the potential or proactiveandprogressivechangeif appropriatelliancesand coalitionsbetweenclass-basedandnonclass-basedmovementscan be forged. In terms of the thirddebateover the challengesposed bynew socialmovements,hepoliticalversion s mostlikelyto be criticalof theapoliticalnatureof moreculturallyorientednew socialmovements,whichthisperspectivewould see as limit-ing theirpotential orproducingmeaningful ocialchange. Intermsof the fourthdebateoverthe socialbase of thesemovements, hisperspectives mostlikely to identify he socialbaseof 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 movement heoryis post-Marxistn thatit transcendsthis traditionby proposinga moreradicalbreakbetweenpastandpresentsocietaltypes andmovement orms thanmaybe foundin thepoliticalversion. Accordingly,while the culturalversionstill has a model of the societaltotality, t does not identifythis totalityin termsofcapitalismbutrather n culturalist r semiotic ermsas an informationocietywhoseadminis-trativecodes conceal formsof domination.Itsclaimsabout he links betweensocial structureandmovement ormemphasize he decentralized atureof bothpowerandresistance, o it isnot particularlymacro-orientedr state-centered ut focuses on everyday ife, civil society,and the creationof freespacesbetweenstate and civil society. The culturalversion eschewsstrategicquestionsand instrumental ction as pitfallsto be avoided,while emphasizing ym-bolic explorationsandexpressionsof identity hatpreciselychallenge he instrumentalogicof systemic domination. Of the majortheoristsreviewedabove, Melucci is closest to thisideal-typicalculturalreading,althoughsome of Habermas'swork fits into this categoryaswell.

In termsof the firstdebatereviewedabove,the culturalversionof new social movementtheorynotonly recognizesnew social constituencies ut alsoargues hatthe old worker-basedconstituencies or social activismhavebeentranscended longwith industrial apitalism.Intermsof the seconddebate, hecultural ersion endsto view activismas a defensivereactionto systemicdominationhatcanpotentially hallengesystemic mperatives ut it eschewsthelanguageof progressivemovementsas invokingan unwarranted etaphysics f history. Interms of the thirddebate, his versionrejects he apolitical abel often attached o culturalistmovementsby arguing hatpoliticalmovementsarethe mosteasily co-optedand thatculturalmovements ightingon symbolic errain ando moreto expose contemporaryormsof powerthanthe moreconventionally oliticalmovements.Intermsof the fourthdebate, his versionis more likely to identifythe social base of new social movements n nonclassterms,by


20/25

New SocialMovementTheories 459referring 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 dimensionsanddebatesinto two moreor less coherentpositionswith a fair degreeof internalconsistencyacrossvarious ssues. Thedisadvantages thatsome major heoristsdefy easy classification.Thus,differingaspectsof the workof bothTouraineand Habermas an be locatedin bothschoolsof thought, mphasizinghat suchtypologicaldistinctions houldnotbecomeconcep-tualstraitjacketshatdenythe complexityof such theorists.Onthe otherhand, f used prop-erly, such typologiesmay also aid in identifyingcontradictionsnd inconsistencies n theseand othertheorists,as well as identifying hifts in theirpositionsover time.

CONCLUSIONSHavingexamined hediversityof new socialmovement heoriesby way of an overviewof themajor heoristsand debatesand offeredone meansof organizing his diversitythrough hedistinctionbetweenpoliticaland cultural ersionsof new socialmovement heories, t remainsto evaluatethe overallstatus of this paradigmas a generalapproach.The core claim of allversionsof this approach oncerns he appearance f demonstrably ew social movements,butthis claim is problematic.The centralconceptualquestion s whether he designatednewmovementsare similarenough o one another nddifferent noughfrom others o support hedistinction.As we haveseen,thesemovementsdifferfrom eachother n termsof their ssuesandconstituencies, o theclaimfornewnessoften comesdownto something ike postmateri-alistvalues, informalorganization, nd a certainculturalorientation.At this point,the cate-gory can be challengedfrom the otherdirectionby suggestingthat many movementsnotdesignatedas new socialmovementsnonetheless hare hese features.Thus,it is not difficultto findearliermovementswhich wereat least non- (if not post- )materialistic,hatshunnedformalorganization,rthatarticulated redominantlyulturalhemes. The claimfornewnesscan alsobe challengedby pointingbothto thehistoricalpredecessors f new movements,andto how the categoryof new social movementobscurescontinuitiesand exaggeratesdiffer-ences between past and presentmovements. When all the criticismshave been lodged, ahandfulof movementsremain hatclosely approximatehe idealtype suggestedby the cate-goryof new socialmovements,buttheyare a verysmallproportion f the formsof collectiveactionfoundin modernsociety.Whileit is relativelyeasy to challenge he conceptof new socialmovements n this way, itwould be a mistaketo dismiss the categoryprematurely.The very same sensitivityto thehistoryof social movements hat undermines ny sharpdistinctionbetweenpastandpresentmovementsalso supportshe ideathatsomethingnew is happeningn collectivemobilizationin the latetwentiethcentury. Inpart, this somethingnew has to do with the publicandatleast quasi-politicalexpression and explorationof supposedly private and subjectiveproblematics,uchas identity.Butwe need moresubtlewaysto capturehisshift. It is not somuchthat one distinctive ypeof movementhasreplacedorbeen added o othersas it is thatmanymore movementshavebegunto explicitlythematize he kindsof issues identifiedbynew social movementdiscourse. Therehas thus been a shift in emphasisand orientationnmany(thoughnotall) socialmovements,alongwiththeappearancef a veryfew movementscloselycorrespondingo theideal-typical ew socialmovement.Theseshiftsin emphasisandorientation renotunrelatedo changes n the macrolevelorganization f contemporaryoci-


21/25

460 THESOCIOLOGICALUARTERLYol.36/No. 3/1995ety, suchas theblurring f the distinctionbetweenpublicandprivateand the greaterpenetra-tion of systemic imperativesnto lifeworldcontexts. While no singletheoreticalaccounthascapturedhese shiftsprecisely,more workon these questions s warrantedwith an emphasison greater pecificityanda richercontextualizationf the character f new social movementsin modemsociety.

A final meansof assessingnew social movement heoryas a general approach nvolvesidentifying ts characteristictrengthsand weaknessesrelative o othertheories. At the mostgeneral evel (as numerous ommentators avenoted),new socialmovement heory s betterat explainingthe why than the how of social movement activism (Melucci 1985;Klandermans nd Tarrow1988). Putdifferently,new social movement heoryis a powerfultool forunderstandinghemacrolevel ocial structureshatshapecontemporaryctivism. Byoffering historicallyspecificformulations f societal totalities and the forms of dominationthey entail,new socialmovement heoryhas much to tell us about herootsof contemporarysocial activismandthe dynamicsof movementemergence. In the context of these generalpremises, 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 nWesternsocieties with mobilizationbiases towardwhite,middle-classparticipants ursuing

politicallyorculturallyprogressive gendas.Alongside hisempiricalimitations a theoreti-cal one involvingthetypeof questionsnew social movementheoryhas addressedat leasttodate). By virtue of its focus on the why of movementemergence,new social movementtheoryhas saidrelatively ittle about he how of ongoingmovementprocesses. It also hasnot been particularly elpfulin understandinghe when or where of intermittent ocialmovement ormation crossstructurallyimilarsocieties(Tarrow1994,p. 83). Like all theo-reticalframeworks, ew social movement heory lluminates ome issues while leavingothersin the dark.

These double-edged trengthsand limitationsmean that new social movement heorycanmake ts greatest ontributiono understandingollective actionwhen situatedalongsideothertheoreticalschools. In the most general erms,it may be that different heoriesspeakmosteffectively to different evels of analysis. Thus,new social movement heory speaksto themacrolevelof structure ndcontext;resourcemobilizationheoryaddresses he mesoleveloforganization ndstrategy;and social constructionism ccounts or the microlevelof identityand grievances. Theoreticalprogresswithinand betweenthese paradigmss most likely tooccurby identifyingpointsof convergenceanddivergencebetween hese levels andframingcriticalquestionsacross these paradigms.This overviewof new social movementtheoriessuggestssome linkages.The morepoliticalversionof new social movement heoryis moremacro-orientednd has distinctaffinitieswith some aspectsof resourcemoblization heory,while the more culturalversionof new social movement theory s moremicro-oriented ndhas equally strongaffinitieswithsocial constructionism.By exploring he links across evelsand paradigms, urtheoreticalunderstandingndempiricalanalysisof collective actionarelikelyto be enhanced.New social movementheorypromises o be a vitalpartof thisprocess.


22/25

New Social MovementTheories 461ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

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.

NOTES1. 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. In my earlierdiscussionof majordebates, he contrastbetweenpoliticaland culturalwas used toreferto a specificdebateabout hepoliticalorapoliticalnatureof new socialmovements. n thepresentcontextof a typologicaldistinction, his contrast s used to referto a broaderpatternof interrelateddifferences hat includesall the debatesas well as otherfoundational ssumptionshatappear o clusteraroundpoliticalor culturalapproacheso new social movements.

REFERENCESBoggs, Carl. 1986. Social Movements nd Political Power.Philadelphia, A:TempleUniversityPress.Brand,Karl-Werner.1990. CyclicalAspectsof New Social Movements:Waves of CulturalCriticismand 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 ScienceHistory17:385-427.Canel,Eduardo.1992. NewSocialMovementTheoryand ResourceMobilization:TheNeed for Inte-gration. Pp. 22-51 in OrganizingDissent, editedby WilliamK. Carroll.Toronto:GaramondPress.

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:ReflectionsonCounter-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 InstitutionalReform. 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 andPolitical Movements n WesternDemocracies.New York:OxfordUniversityPress.


23/25

462 THESOCIOLOGICALQUARTERLY ol. 36/No. 3/1995Dalton,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 and1980s. 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 MassSocietyTheory Revisited. Pp. 58-78 in New Social Movements,edited by Larana,Johnston,andGusfield.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,andNew 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:FramingProcessesandthe SocialConstructionf Movement dentities. p. 185-208in New SocialMovements,ditedby Larana,Johnston,and Gusfield.

Inglehart,Ronald.1990. Values,IdeologyandCognitiveMobilizationn New SocialMovements. Pp.43-66 in Challenging he Political Order,editedby Daltonand Kuechler.Johnston,Hank.1994. New Social Movementsand Old RegionalNationalisms. p. 267-286 in NewSocial Movements, ditedby EnriqueLarana, ohnston,and Gusfield.Johnston,Hank,EnriqueLarana,and JosephGusfield.1994. Identities,Grievancesand New SocialMovements. 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 EuropeanandAmericanApproachesRevisited. 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. 168-184in New Social Movements ditedby Larana, ohnston,and Gusfield.Klandermans,Bert, HanspeterKriesi, and SidneyTarrow,eds. 1988. InternationalSocial MovementResearch,Vol. 1, From Structure o Action.New York:JAIPress.Klandermans, ertandSidneyTarrow.1988. Mobilizationnto Social Movements:SynthesizingEuro-peanand AmericanApproaches. 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. mericanJournalof 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.


24/25

New SocialMovementTheories 463Larana,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. 101-130in 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:GaramondPress.Morris,Aldon D. 1992. PoliticalConsciousnessand CollectiveAction. Pp. 351-373 in FrontiersofSocial MovementTheory, ditedby Morrisand Mueller.Morris,AldonD., and CarolMcClurgMueller,eds. 1992. Frontiersof SocialMovementTheory.NewHaven,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. SocialResearch52:817-868.

. 1990. Reflections n theInstitutional elf-transformationf MovementPolitics: A TentativeStageModel. Pp. 232-250 in Challenging he Political Order,editedby Daltonand Kuechler.

Omi,Michael andHowardWinant.1986.RacialFormation n the UnitedStates rom the 1960s to the1980s. 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 KoreanPeasantUprisingsof1946. American ournalof Sociology99:1596-1624.Snow,DavidA., andRobertD. Benford.1992. MasterFramesandCyclesof Protest. Pp. 133-155inFrontiers 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 IdentityConvergencenCollective Action. TheSociological Quarterly 6:111-130.


25/25

464 THESOCIOLOGICALQUARTERLY ol. 36/No. 3/1995Tarrow,Sidney. 1991.Struggle,Politics,andReform:CollectiveAction,SocialMovements, nd Cyclesof 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.AmericanSociologicalReview54:761-755.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. An Introductiono the Studyof Social Movements. ocial Research52: 749-787.. 1988. Returnof theActor:Social Theoryn Post-Industrial ociety.Minneapolis:University fMinnesotaPress.. 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

Buechler - The New Social Movement Theories