pichardo, nelon a. - new social movements a critical review, 1997

7/30/2019 Pichardo, Nelon a. - New Social Movements a Critical Review, 1997

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/pichardo-nelon-a-new-social-movements-a-critical-review-1997 1/21

New Social Movements: A Critical Review

Author(s): Nelson A. PichardoSource: Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 23 (1997), pp. 411-430Published by: Annual Reviews

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2952558 .

Accessed: 26/08/2013 10:17

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 formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of

Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.54.67.91 on Mon, 26 Aug 2013 10:17:20 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2952558?origin=JSTOR-pdf

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





http://www.jstor.org/stable/2952558?origin=JSTOR-pdf

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



Annu.Rev.Sociol.1997. 23:411-30Copyright 1997 byAnnualReviewsnc. All rightseserved

NEW SOCIAL MOVEMENTS:A Critical eview

NelsonA.Pichardo

Departmentf Sociology,tateUniversityfNew York,Albany, ewYork12222;e-mail:[email protected]

KEY WORDS: identity,ulture,ostindustrial,ewmiddle lass

ABSTRACTDiscussions fNewSocial Movements ave ought oexplain he pparenthiftintheforms f contemporaryocial movementsnWestern ations y inkingit to theriseof a postmodernorld. However,hecentral ropositionsf theNSM paradigm avenotbeencriticallynalyzedn terms f tsconcepts r theevidence. hisreview rovides criticalnalysis f heNSM thesis, indinghatthe entralropositionsrenotdefensibles a theoryra paradigm.

INTRODUCTION

The"New"Social MovementNSM) paradigms a recentddition o social

theoryhat tresses oth hemacrohistoricalndmicrohistoricallements fsocial movements. n themacro evel, heNSM paradigmoncentratesntherelationshipetweenheriseofcontemporaryocialmovementsnd thelargerconomic tructure,ndontheroleof culturen suchmovements. nthemicro evel,theparadigms concerned ithhow ssuesofidentityndpersonal ehaviorre boundup in social movements. he NSM paradigmoffers historicallypecific isionof socialmovementss associatedwithnewforms fmiddle-classadicalism.tpresents distinctiveiewofsocial

movementsndofthe arger ociopoliticalnvironment,fhow ndividualsitinto, espondo, ndchange he ystem. owever, hetherhisnascent iewqualifiess a cogentnd mpiricallyroundedaradigmasnot een eriouslyexamined.This review rovides critiquef the entral ropositionsftheNSM paradigm,ssessinghe videnceupportingts laims.

411

0360-0572/97/0815-0411$08.00



412 PICHARDO

The NSM paradigmrgues or temporal,tructurallyinked nderstandingof socialmovements.ocial movementsreseen s being haped nd argelydeterminedy ocial tructure.n the ndustrialra, ollowingMarxistogic,social movementserebelieved obe centeredntheworkinglass. Workingclass movements ereseen as instrumentallyasedactions oncerned ithmattersf economic edistribution.egardlessf whetherocialmovementsof the ndustrialracanbe characterizedn such ategoricalerms,t was thestandard y which ontemporaryovements ere ompared.Contemporarymovementspost-1965)were,however,otwellexplained ysocial theoriesthat aw theworkinglass as the ite frevolutionaryrotestEyerman984,Olofsson 988). In Europe, hedefiningventswere hewide-scale tudentprotestshat ookplace n France nd Berlin n 1968 and n taly n 1969. IntheUnited tates, he iseof the tudentntiwarmovementfthemid-1960swas seen as marking similar adicaldeparturerom hepast. In Europe,whereMarxistheoriesf ocialmovementsominated, arxist heorists ereunable oprovide convincingxplanationorwhy tudentsad become hevanguardfprotestndwhymovementemandsenteredrounduality f iferatherhan edistributivessues Touraine 971). With hepredicted arxistrevolutionot nsight,he hift fprotestway rom heworkinglass, nd hechanginghape nd form fprotestncontemporaryimes,Marxistheoristssaw theneed oreformulateheirdeas. Whilenot ll Marxist ent nthe amedirectionsee Boggs 1986),someof them ostulatedheNSM paradigmsan alternativesee Cohen1985,Melucci1980,1985,Touraine 977,1981).In fact,muchoftheNSM discourse an be said to be a direct eaction otheperceivedeficienciesfMarxismEpstein 990,Laclau & Mouffe 985,Plotke 990).

NSM PARADIGM

AlthoughhereredifferingerspectivesnNSMs (seeBuechler 995for noverview), setofcore onceptsndbeliefs an be saidtocompriseheNSMparadigm. he central laims ftheNSM paradigmre,first,hatNSMs area productfthe hift o a postindustrialconomynd, econd, hatNSMs areuniqueand,as such,differentrom ocialmovementsf the ndustrialge.NSMs are said to be a product fthepostmaterialge (somerefero itasmatureapitalismrpostindustrialism)nd re een sfundamentallyifferentfromheworkinglass movementsf the ndustrialeriod Olofsson 988).NSM demandsrebelieved o havemoved wayfrom he nstrumentalssuesof ndustrialismothe ualityf ife ssues fpostmaterialismBuechier 995,Burklin 984, nglehart990,Parkin 968).NSMs are, nshort, ualitativelydifferentMelucci1981).








NEW OCIALMOVEMENTS 413

However, hen roadlyelated ocontemporaryovements,hese bserva-tions reessentiallylawed.Just s theMarxist heoriesended o marginalizeprotest hat id not tem rom heworkinglass,so too haveNSM theoristsmarginalizedocial movementshat o notoriginaterom he eft. Contem-porary ight-wing ovementsre notthe subject f their ocus. Thus, theNSM paradigmescribesat best)only portionfthe ocial movementni-verse.Buttheres no a priori eason or liminatingonservativendcountermovementsrom onsideration. nemightxcuse theomission fcounter-movementsecause heyrebelieved o be reactionso nsurgent ovements,largely eterminedy he oals, deology,actics,ndparticipantsina negativeway)of heseseeMottl 980,Pichardo 995,Zald& Useem1987). However,this s not he ase formovements, any fwhich ver he ast20 years eemto beunique eactionsof a conservativeharacter)o the lienatingffectsfpostindustrialociety. ome examples nclude heChristian ight ndmilitiamovements. owever,heNSM paradigmsbased solely n observationsfleft-wing ovementsndreflectshis deological ias undergirdingheNSMparadigm. et,movementsfboth he eft ndthe ight re inked o changesin social structure.nderstandingowother ocialgroups erceive nd reactto these hanges anonly roadenurknowledgef socialchange.

The NSM paradigmanonly laim oexplaineft-wing ovementsf themodernge.' AmonghemovementsypicallytudiedyNSM researchersrethe urbanocial truggles,he nvironmentalr cologymovements,omen'sandgay iberation,he eace movement,ndculturalevoltinked rimarilyostudentndyouthctivism"Boggs 1986:39-40). s thereny eason obelievethat he opulationsupportinghesemovements,hichre aidtobeaproductofa fundamentalhange nthe conomic tructure,hould e affected hilethosepopulationsupportinghemilitia, ight-to-life,iseuse,and Christianrightmovementshould ot esimilarlyffected?lthoughpossible ationalefor his istinctionouldbeconstructed,heNSMperspectiveffersone, nditsfailure o do somarks serious law n tsreasoning.2t s not hepurposeof this eview o extend heNSM thesis oright-wingovements,lthoughshallofferome entativeuggestionsn the onclusion.

Puttinghis side fornow,et'sreview heNSM paradigmntermsfwhatit claims.As is typical f newparadigmsn theprocess festablishinghem-selves, heir ropositionsrestronglytatedor perhaps verstated)ofirmly

tIn all fairness, ost ocialmovementheoriesre based on observationsf eft-wing ove-ments;hissa broad ailingf ocialmovementesearchngeneral.Nonetheless,ithhe urrentgrowthfright-wingonservative ovementsnthemodemra, t sperhaps specially ertinenttoNSM theoryo account or hem swell.

2Thisreferspecificallyowhyother ocialgroups especially onservativeroups) o notengage nactivism.








414 PICHARDO

distinguishhem rom ther heories. ubsequently,hese trongropositionsarereevaluated,ndweaker ropositionsay e substituted.trongtatementsmay ehard odefend. his s especiallyhe ase for heNSMparadigm.Manyof tsoriginal trongropositionsavebeenfoundwanting. herefore,focushere rimarilyntheweaker ersions.

AreContemporaryovements nique?The firstlaim ftheNSM paradigms that ontemporaryovementsrefun-damentallyifferentncharacterhanmovementsf he ast.Thesedifferencesare said toappearn the deologyndgoals, actics,tructure,ndparticipantsofcontemporaryovements.

IDEOLOGY AND GOALS The central actorharacteristicfNSMs is their is-tinctdeological utlook Dalton t al 1990). It s from his ifferencehat llothers low.The NSM paradigmtates hat ontemporaryocial movementsrepresent fundamentalreak romndustrialra movements. ather hanfocusingn economic edistributionas doworking-classovements),SMsemphasize uality f ife nd ife-styleoncerns.Thus,NSMs question hewealth-orientedaterialisticoalsof ndustrialocieties.They lso call intoquestion hestructuresfrepresentativeemocracieshat imit itizennputandparticipationngovernance,nstead dvocating irect emocracy,elf-helpgroups,ndcooperativetyles f social organization.The theme f theself-defensenddemocratization,aisedmplicitlyandsometimesxplicitly)bythemovements,. . [is] themost ignificantlementn the ontemporarystruggleor emocratization"Cohen1983:102).Taken ogether,hevalues fNSMs center nautonomynd dentityOffe 985).

In manyways, dentitylaimsarethe mostdistinctiveeaturef NSMs(Kauffman990), lthoughllpreviousmovementsan lsobe describedsex-pressingdentitylaims see e.g.Aronowitz992). The focus n identitysconsideredniquenmodern ovementsecause identityoliticslsoexpressthe eliefhatdentitytself-its laboration,xpression,r ffirmation-isndshouldbe a fundamentalocus fpoliticalwork. n thisway, hepolitics fidentityave ed to anunprecedentedoliticizationfpreviouslyonpoliticalterrains. ." (Kauffman990:67). This s expressedn thenotion hat thepersonals political."However,whetherhepolitics f dentityepresentsliberationrstagnationfmodernoliticss a point fcontention.he ibera-tion f oining he ersonalwith he oliticalmay epresentradical hallengeto thehegemonyf tate omination,ut tmay lsoresultn an"anti-politicsof dentity"-anpoliticalwithdrawalromolitics Kauffman990).

However,ittlempirical orkhas examinedhe mpact f dentitylaimson socialmovementarticipation,ith wonotablexceptions: landermans








NEWSOCIALMOVEMENTS 415

(1994)hasexamined,ntheDutch eacemovement,ow he aryingollectiveidentities,s representedy he ifferentrganizationalemberships,redictedthedefectionf participantsrom hemovement. A Pichardo, Sullivan-Catlin, GDeane unpublished anuscript)ave xaminedhe ole fpersonalidentitynrelationoparticipationnthe nvironmentalovement.heir ind-ingsshow significant,hough ot trong,ssociation etweenelf-reportedenvironmentaldentityndparticipationoth nconventionalocialmovementactivitiesevent articipation,rganizational embership,ovementontri-butions)nd neverydayehaviorsconservingnergyndwater, sing lter-native ransportation,ndpurchasingroducts adefromecycledmaterials).Clearly,more mpiricalwork n theconnectionetween dentity,t all itslevels, ndmovementarticipationeeds obe done.

Theother,upposedlynique,deological eaturefNSMs s ts elf-reflexivecharacter.hismeans hat articipantsreconstantlyuestioninghemeaningofwhat s beingdone Cohen1985,Gusfield 994,Melucci 1994). Thishasledtoconscious hoices f tructurend ction-choices aidtotypifySMs.The bestexampleof this s theconsciousness-raisingroups haracteristicof thefeminist ovementVanderGaag 1985; see also thevolume ditedbyKatzenstein Muller1987). The decision oorganizen a decentralizedfashion, o operate nder emocraticrinciples ith otatingeadership,sseenbysome as consistent ithMichel's ronLaw ofOligarchy, herebythegoals oforganizationsecomedisplacedKitschelt 990). The uniqueideological rientationnd self-reflexiveharacterargely ictatehekinds ftactics,tructures,ndparticipantsvidencedn NSMs.

TACTICS Thetactics fNSMsmirrorheirdeological rientation.he beliefin theunrepresentativeharacterfmodern emocraciess consistentith tsanti-institutionalactical rientation.SMspreferoremain utside fnormalpolitical hannels,mployingisruptiveacticsndmobilizingublic piniontogainpoliticaleverage. hey lsotend ousehighlyramaticndpreplannedforms fdemonstrationsepletewith ostumesndsymbolic epresentations(Tarrow 994).

This,however,oes notmean hatNSMs do not nvolvehemselvesnpoli-tics, or void ecomingnstitutionalizedhemselves. s noted yEder 1985),"NSMs manifest formf middle-classrotest hich scillates rommoralcrusade opolitical ressureroupo socialmovement"p. 881). SomeNSMshavebecomentegratednto he artyystemndgained egularccess oregu-latory,mplementation,nddecision-makingodies,while thers aveformedpolitical artieshat egularlyontestor lectoralepresentationBerry 993,Hager1993,Kitschelt 990,Gelb& Paley1982,Rochon1990,Rochon&Mazmanian 993,Tarrow 990).A number f Green artiesreprominentn








416 PICHARDO

Europe,with everal aving ocal manifestationsn theUnited tates Bahro1986,Burklin 982, 1985,Capra & Spretnak 984,Hershey 993,Kolinsky1989,Muller-Rommel985, 1990,Poguntke 993). However, o direct or-respondence ppearsbetween upportersf NSMs and thosewho vote forGreen artiesChandler Siaroff986,Muller-Rommel985). So, theNSMparadigm ecognizes hat here s no truly istinctiveactical tyle f NSMs;rather,ublic pinionndanti-institutionalolitics avebeenrecent ndmoreprominentdditionsothe epertoiref socialmovements.

STRUCTURE Theanti-institutionalosturefNSMs also extends o thewaythey rganize.NSMs attemptoreplicatentheirwn structureshe ype f

representativeovernmenthey esire.That s, they rganize hemselvesnafluidnonrigidtyle hat voids hedangers foligarchization.hey end orotateeadership,ote ommunallynall issues, ndto have mpermanentdhocorganizationsOffe 985). They lso espouse n anti-bureaucraticosture,arguing gainstwhat hey erceives thedehumanizingharacterf modernbureaucracy.

[NSMs] oppose hebureaucratizationfsocietyneconomics nd politics hat llegedlysuffocateshe ability f individualitizens o participaten the definitionf collectivegoods and dentities.nstead hey allfor culturallyibertarianransformationf socialinstitutionshat ivesmore eeway o individual hoiceand collective elf-organizationoutside heeconomic ommodityycleorbureaucraticolitical rganizationKitschelt1993:15).

Thus, hey allfor nd reate tructureshat remore esponsiveotheneedsof the ndividuals-open, ecentralized,onhierarchicalZimmerman987).Motivatedythe essons fthepast, hey opeto avoidbecoming oopted r

deradicalized.This s toclaim,not hat ll NSMs are so organized,ut hatthis ormforganizingsmore revalenthann past imes.The deal-typicalorganizationaltyle fNSMs should ot e seen sreflectinghe rganizationalstyles f very SM.Groupsuch s theNational rganizationfWomen,ndvarious nvironmentalroups mploymore raditionalentralized,ierarchicalforms forganizationPaley& Leif1982, haiko1993).

PARTICIPANTS There retwoviews n whotheparticipantsfNSMs are andwhy heyoin. Thefirstlacesthebase ofsupport ithinhe new"middleclass: a recentlymergedocial tratummployednthenonproductiveectorsofthe conomyCotgrove Duff 981,Lowe & Goyder 983,Rudig1988).Researchnthe ise f henewmiddle lasswithinostindustrialocietyeemsto establish he redibilityfthis ocialphenomenonBrint 994). But NSMtheoristso a stepbeyond, y arguinghat his tratumroduces he chiefparticipantsfNSMs because heyrenot ound othe orporaterofit otive









nordependentnthe orporate orld or heir ustenance.nstead,hey endtowork n areasthat re highly ependentpon state xpendituresuch asacademia, hearts, nd human ervice gencies, ndthey end obe highlyeducated Offe 985). Anotherxplanationosits hatNSMs are the esult fconflictver he ontrolfwork.

Inthis onflict,he rofessionalshose ontrols based n xpertisend kills redefendingthemselvesgainst he encroachmentsn theirwork utonomyy colleagueswho areprimarilynvolvedn the administrationfthe argeprivatend public mployersorwhom he ormer ork. endingo ose out nthis onflict,he kills nd ervice-orientedprofessionalsonstitute crucial tructuralotentialor henew social movements,llofwhich ttackn onewayor anotherheunrestrictedeign f technocracyKriesi t al

1995:xix).

However,heres recognitionhatwithinhis verall escriptiveategoriza-tion ifferencesxist.

Theotheriew f he articipantsfNSMs s that hey renot efinedy lassboundariesut remarked y commononcern ver ocial ssues. t s an de-ological, atherhan thnic, eligious,r class-basedommunity.n this ightArato& Cohen 1984)refer o theWestGerman reens s a "catch-all" arty.They redefinedycommon alues atherhan commontructuralocation.Offe1985)offersslightlyifferentiew fwho heNSM participantsre. Heargues hat heyredrawn rom hree ectors: henewmiddle lass, lementsof theoldmiddle lass (farmers,hopowners,ndartisan-producers),nd a"peripheral"opulationonsistingfpersons otheavily ngagedn the abormarketstudents,ousewives,nd retiredersons).A numberf studies fthe eacemovementnvarious ountriesavedemonstratednequally iversesetofparticipantsParkin 968; see also thevolume ditedbyKaltefleiter& Pfaltzgraff985). Diani & Lodi (1988) showthatwithinheMilan ecol-ogymovement,everal ifferenturrentsttractomewhat ifferentetsofparticipants.

However, eitheriew,n tsnarrowlyefinedense,s supportedythe v-idence.Studies fenvironmentalovementseveal hatNSM participantsredrawnrimarilyromwo opulations:he new"middle lass sone;the therisgeographicallyound ommunitieshat rebeing irectlyffectedy he eg-ative xternalitiesf ndustrialrowth.articipantsrethemoredeologicallycommitted iddle lass as well as communitieshat rotesthe iting f haz-ardouswaste ites,andfills,ndwastencinerators,r hemical nd/oradiationpoisoningfthe ocal environmentseeApter Sawa 1984,1970,Opp 1988,Szasz 1994,Walsh1981).Theold middle lasstypicallysalso nvolvednre-gional ssues Touraine981). nshort,he articipantsf nvironmentalove-mentso not raw ignificantlyromutsidehewhitemiddle lassunless hereis somemotivating,eographicallyased,grievance. orexample,minority








418 PICHARDO

communitiesaverarelyarticipatedn the nvironmentalovement,xceptinprotestver he lacementfunwanted aste acilitiesBullard 990).3Thelack of minorityarticipations equally rue f most therNSMs, including

the nimal ights,eminist,eace, ndgay nd esbianmovements.Whether iddle-classarticipantsngaged ignificantlynprotestnthe ast

is a critical uestion or heNSM paradigm. uch activityas been severelyunderestimated. avesof middle-class rotest ave occurredince he arly1800s nboth urope nd heUnited tates.These ncludehe bolition,rohi-bition, uffrage,ndprogressiveas wellas a number fnativist) ovements.Thus,whetherhemiddle lass s onlynewly nvolvednsocialmovementssindeed pen o question.

Are these roposed haracteristicsnique? f suchdifferencesxist, hentwouldmark significantreak rom hepast. Theproblems that oomanyexceptionsrecited.NSMs espouseopen,democratic,onhierarchicaltruc-tures, et hereremany SMorganizationshat renot o characterized.heydisdain nstitutionalolitics, etmanyNSMs areregularlyonsulted y gov-ernmentalodies, ndothers aveformedolitical arties. SMs tend o drawfrom henewmiddle lass,yetmany ommunity-basedobilizationsprimar-ily nvironmental)avedeveloped. urthermore,hemiddle lass s not new

siteof socialprotest. SMs tend oemploy ontraditionalactics ut lso usethose ommonlymployedy ocialmovementsfthe ast lobbying,ettingout hevote, ourt ases,etc).

Onecannot vade hefact hat he trikingeaturefthe ontemporary...ituationfthemovementss itsheterogeneity.heold patternsf collectivection ertainlyontinueoexist. nsomemovementsheymay venbestatisticallyreponderantCohen1985:665).

Notonly rethe ndividualharacteristicsfmovementsnquestion,o tooarethose fthenew ocialmovementsngeneral. 'Anieri tal (1990) arguethatheresnodifferenceetweentopianmovementsf he 800s ndpresent-daymovements.n a similar ein,Calhoun1991) sees no stark ifferencesbetweenmovementsfthe nineteenthnd twentiethenturies,rguinghatsocialmovementsf henineteenthenturyere ot ominatedy conomisticorganizations.

The notion f movementnewness" as also been criticizedn terms fwhetherontemporaryovementsepresentdistinctreak rommovementsof thepast. For Touraine1982),this adicaldepartures a functionf their

level ofreflexivityndthechangedocuses nd stakes fthe truggles. orEvers 1985),what s newaboutNSMs is that he"transformatoryotentialwithin ew ocialmovementssnot olitical,ut ocio-cultural"p. 49). Thatis, they imtoreappropriateociety romhe tate.However, host fother

3Thiskind fplacementas beenreferredo as environmentalacism, term roundedn thebelief hat ecisions boutocating azardous aste ites gnorehe nterestsfminorityroups.









authors ave tressedhe ontinuityfNSMs with reviousmovementsCohen1985,Crighton Mason1986,Eder 1985). PerhapsMelucci 1994) put henature nd mportancefthis ontroversyn thebest ightwhenhe said twas

futile. t snot question fdecidingwhetherhe mpiricalataobserved reequivalentndcomparable;nstead,he uestionswhetherheirmeaning ndtheplace they ccupynthe ystem f ocialrelationsan be consideredo bethe ame 1994:105).

Apart romwhether SMs representreaks rom reviousmovements,related uestions whether SMs arenew t all. Asnoted bove,NSMs oftencontain lements f theold andnew. Eder 1985) seesNSMs as embracingtwo ypes fphenomena: ulturalmovementshat opposepresentocial ife

... [and]politicalmovementsthat] hallengemoderntate omination"p. 5).Mouffe1984)sees thenoveltyfNSMs not nthenew ntagonismsutnthe"diffusionf ocial conflictnto therreas ndthepoliticizationfmore ndmore elations"p. 141).

However,omehavebeenespecially ritical f the laims o originalityfnewsocial movements. ather han rguing ontinuityr discontinuityithpreviousmovements,lotke1990) criticizeshempact fNSM theoryn thedirectionfsocial movements. e argues hat ccounts fa widespreadnew

social movementiscourse"rewrongncrucialways.Dubious laims boutthemovements,boutwhat hey re and should e,arepoliticallyignificantbecausethey re taken eriously othby analystsndbysomeparticipantswithin hemovements"p. 81). These"dubious laims" re anoutgrowthfthetheoreticalonflict ithMarxism,whichhas leftNSM theoristsunpre-paredto engage n thetheoreticalndpolitical ebate ntheUnited tates,where eoconservativenterpretationsecamedominantnthe ate 1970sand1980s" p. 82). Inotherwords,hedebate verwhat'snew s notustan aca-

demicpolemic; thasrealconsequencesormovementshatmay eave themvulnerableo counterattacks.

AreContemporaryovementsProductofthePostindustrialra?Related othe uestionf what's ew" sa secondssue-whether SMs areproductf he hiftoapostindustrialconomy. heresdisagreementver heexactnaturef his elationship.wo chools f houghtxist-one stressesn

objectivendthe ther, subjectivelasspositionseeEder1985).Theobjec-tive chool tressesocial tructuralactorshat ormednew" ocialclasses soppositional roups, hile he ubjectivechool fthoughttressesttitudinalchanges hat aveformedike-mindedroups.Withinhe bjectivechool, hefirstariation,hat callthe statentrusion"ypothesis,sapost-Marxistiewthatinks he iseofNSMs to the hanging equirementsfcapital ccumula-tion nthepostmodernge. With he dvent f a service/technicalconomy








420 PICHARDO

withtsemphasis n growthnd nformationanagement,apital ccumula-tionnecessitatesocialas wellas economic omination. ocial dominationinvolves ontrollingissentndknowledgeensuringonformity)ndthere-fore equiresn expansion f the tate's oercivemechanismsnto hecivicsphereHabermas 987,Melucci1984, assoon1984,Touraine 971).NSMsareconcerned ith he self-defensef society' gainsthe tate . andthemarketconomy. ." (Cohen1985:664).Habermas1981) refersothepro-cessby which he tate ndmarketconomyubstitutetrategicction or hesymbolicrocesses fcommunications "innerolonization."

Mouffe 1984) offers differentersion. She sees a similar rocess x-cept hat he inks t tothe ommodificationfsocial ife where ocialneedsdepend n themarketor atisfaction),ureaucratizationresultingromheinterventionf he tatento ll areas f ocialreproduction),ndcultural as-sificationresultingromhe ervasivenfluencef hemassmedia hat estroysormodifiesxistingollectivedentities). hesenewforms fsubordinationareresponsibleor he ise fNSMs,which epresentovel orms fresistance.

Theunique aturef onflictnmodernocietiess said obepartlyfunctionofthreeharacteristicsfdominationnddeprivation.irst, he mpact fthestatend conomynsocietys said ono onger e class pecificut dispersedintime, pace, nd kind o as to affectirtuallyverymemberf societyn abroadvarietyfways" Offe 985:844).Second, here as been deepeningof dominationnd socialcontrol, akingtseffects ore omprehensivendinescapable. hird,he oliticalndeconomicnstitutionsave ost he bilityto correct heirwndefectsirreversibility)equiringction romutside heofficialoliticalnstitutionso correcttsflawsOffe 985).

NSMs arebelievedobe a reactionothe tate's ttemptsocontrolhe ivicsphere.4orsome,whatsunique boutNSMs isthat heyemerge rimarilyoutsidehe ourgeoisublic phere.. as extra-institutionalhenomenaootedin civil ociety.. [that] oint oa recoveryfcivil ociety"Boggs1986:47).Thus,weseemovementshat reconcerned ith ulturaluestionsinvolvingmattersf sexual dentification,oledefinitions,ndcommunity). SMs arealso reactionso the xpansivegrowthriented) aturefpostindustrialism,which eeds oneglecthe ocial osts fgrowthomaintainrofitability.hisgrowthrientationas twoprincipalonsequences. irst,tproduces massconsumerulturemarked ymega-malls,tripmalls,massadvertising,ndplanned bsolescence.ManyNSMs reject his ormf culturalmanipulation.Second, herequirementsf a mass consumerulture avenegativenviron-mentalmanifestationshatre argelynwelcomendunwanted.hese ncludegarbage umps,ncinerators,ndtoxic ollutions wellas the xploitationf

4This hould ot e confused ith he acticalhoices fmovements,uch sthe nimal ightsmovement,hat ftenttemptomobilizehe tate oenternto he ivic phereoattainheir oals.









theenvironmentor herawmaterials f ndustrialroduction. hus,NSMsalso representuality f ife oncerns.Ultimately,he im of participantsnNSMs is "not o seize power n order o build newworld, ut oregain ower

over heir wn ives ydisengagingromhemarketationalityfproductivism"(Gorz 1982:75).

Sometheoristsaveused hewritingsfGramsci o lluminatehe rocessesof cultural ominationhat he tate mploys o maintain ower see Carroll1992for noverview). his"cultural arxism"s a critique f "Marx's on-ceptsof therelationsnd forces f productionor nadequate ttentiono theconscious xperiencef nstitutionsndcreative ractical easoning"Weiner1982:13). Thisemphasis n the ultural asis ofconflictn themodern ra s

imputedo be one ofthedefiningharacteristicsf NSMs (Cohen 1983,Eder1985,Feher& Heller1983,Gorz1982,Melucci1980,Scott1990). The de-ologicalhegemonyf the tate equires ounter-hegemonicctions y socialmovementso dismantle hedominantocial viewsthat einforcehe egiti-macy fthe apitalistystemCohen1983). Currentotions,uch s that thepersonal s political,"hat s, that verydayehavior as political amificationsand, by mplication,upportshehegemonyftheruling lasses,reflectheemphasis fNSMs on doing attle ot nly n an economic evelbut lso on a

culturalevel Mooers& Sears 1992). This"cultureonflict"smanifestednthe ife-stylemphasis fNSMs and sfoughtn symbolicnd dentityevels(Kauffman 990,Weiner 982).

The second choolofthoughtoncerningheorigins fNSMs placestheircause inthesubjective onsciousness f the ctors.There re two principalvariants. he firststhe value hift" ypothesishat entersround he argereconomic, olitical,nd socialcontextfWesternations.5hisview statesthat hepeopleofWestern ations avereached point f economic ndpo-

litical ecuritynthemodernge (where heir asic needsfor ustenancendsurvivalrerelativelyssured). his onfidenceed to a shiftnpublic pinion(culture) wayfromssuesrelatingo economic rpolitical ecurityo ssuesofpersonal rowthnd elf-actualization.heunderlyingechanisms basedon aMaslowian sychologicalchemewhere n ndividualsfirstndforemostconcerned ithssuesofsurvivalndsecurity;ncethese asic needs re sat-isfied,ne s able to moveupthe adder ohigher-orderoncernsFalik 1983,Inglehart 977, 1981). Thisschememplies hat he ocializationxperiences

ofvariousge cohorts,nd he onditionsf carcityresent uringheirorma-tiveyears, esultn a fixedmaterialisticrpostmaterialisticrientation.hus,NSMs representhe hift opostmaterialaluesthat tressssues of dentity,participation,ndquality f iferatherhan conomicmatters. ut thevalue

5This s referredo byPoguntke1993) as a structuralhange pproach. ee also Kitschelt(1988) andMarkovits Meyer 1985).








422 PICHARDO

changes renot he nly ttitudinalhanges hat esultnNSMs. For nglehart(1977),postmaterialalues ombine ith ncreasesnpoliticalfficacyndpo-litical istrustoresultn ncreased olitical ctivism. hisview aysnothing

about ctions f he tate xceptn somuch s itprovidesor he conomic ndpolitical ecurityf tspopulace.

The econd alue hange ariantoncerninghe riginsfNSMs s the cycleofprotests"rgument.tstates hatNSMs are imply ecentmanifestationsfa cyclical atternf ocialmovementssee Tarrow 983).Some ink he yclesto"anti-modernrromantic-ideologicaleactionsofunctionalrinciples,on-tradictions,nd lienatingffectsfmodernocieties"Brand 990:24; eealsoEder1982),othersorecurringavesof culturalriticismsinked o changes

inthe ulturallimateBrand 990)ortopolitical nd ocialevents. hesepe-riods re said to actas fertileroundor heproliferationf socialmovementssensitizinghepopulationo theproblems f modernocieties Brand 1990,Rudig1988).

However,he vidence upportinghese iews snot onclusive. he "stateintrusion" ypothesisuffers ecause of the difficultyn empiricallystab-lishing linkbetween he ctions fthe tate nd ncidence fNSMs. Suchconnectionsanonly edrawn y nference,yestablishinghemeaning nd

intentf ctions f he tate ndhypothesizingbout heironsequences.Thework f nterpretations nevitablyiskynd esstotalizing"Cohen1985:665).Specifically,hehypothesizedhangesnthe tate revague nddifficultoop-erationalize,nd themechanismywhich ctions f thestate re linked osocial movementssnot pecified.

The "value shift" ypothesis,n theother and, s based onempiricalb-servationsfchangesnpublic pinion ver he ast30years.Theevidence fa value shifteemscompelling. pinion tudiesn bothEuropeand North

Americahave chronicled change n the values of the public thatmovedfrom conomic onon-economiconcerns,s is suggestedy thehypothesis(Inglehart977,1981,1990,Kaase 1990). However,here re everal roblemswith his hesis.

First, hehypothesisocates hevaluechange na specific lass segment:the o-called new"middle lass Inglehart990).However,he new"middleclass sdefinednwidely ivergent ays hat ontributeo nconsistentesultsfrom ariousnvestigations.his s also true fthe ndicatorsmployedo

mark hedifferencesetween he new"middle lass andother ocialclasses.Several ormulationsf he new"middle lass EhrenreichEhrenreich977,Gouldner979,Kristol 972, add1978,1979)employedifferingefinitionsofthenewmiddle lassandproducednconsistentesults. rint1984) testedthe our ariationsy ookingt he resencef "antibusiness"nd egalitarian"sentimentmong hegroups s definedyeach ofthe boveresearchers. efound hat hefour roups efined s composinghe new"middle lass did









notpossessdissentingttitudes. e concluded hat the heorists ere implyincorrectn that hey].. exaggeratedhe evels fdissent ndeven he evelsof iberalism oundnthenew lass" p. 60). Brint's eview hows hatNSM

scholars ave failed o provide mpirical vidence hatwould llowthem oconcludewith onfidencehat uch new ndmilitantlass, inked o NSMs,has arisen n theUnited tates rEurope.

The secondproblem ith hevalue hift ypothesiss that he ausefor hevaluechange s imputedo be a functionfthe ncreasingecuritynd pros-perity fmodernWesternountries.hisconnections less amenableo directempirical erification.ther ossible xplanationsor herise n postmodernvaluescouldbe offeredncludinghegrowingureaucratizationfsociety, r

that hevalues arecyclical atherhan ootedntheability ftheeconomicstructureo provide or hematerial enefitfthepopulation.6

Third, elyingtrictlyn economic ffluences indicatingostmaterialismmaymissmore mportanteterminantsf ocialvalues.As stated yCotgrove& Duff 1981), "perhapsnglehartnd later esearchersave beenlookingat thewrongkindofvariables o explain upport orpostmaterialism.yconcentratingntheevel f ffluencef n ndividualsdeterminant,hey aveneglecteddeals thats,personal alues] s a possible ause" p. 98). Thepoint

is that heremay e adifferenceetween ublic ndprivate alues nd hat ne'spublic aluesmay emore entralopredictingupportor ostmaterialalues.

Fourth,hetwo elements f nglehart's odel, heargumentsoncerningscarcity nd socialization,ead to contradictoryxpectations.As stated yBoltken Jagodzinski1985),

Iftheresponsesothevalue ndex eflectnternalizedalueorientations,hey hould efairlytablenadulthood.f, n the ther and, espondentehaviorsaffectedo a largerextentyeconomic hanges, sually ostabilityan beexpected. ut he ame equence

of actions annot e both table ndunstablep. 444).

The"cycle fprotests"rgumenthat ies hangesn the ulturallimateowavesofmovementsiffersrom he value hift" ypothesisnthatt addsatimedimensiono the hiftn social mood nd makesno assertionsbout hestructuralource f ocialmovements.heres nosignificantody f iteraturetestinghehistoricalimensionf he rgument,lthoughuch hifts avebeennotedbyother uthorsHirschman 981,Huntington981,NamenwirthWeber 987, chlesinger986).Brand1990)has done comparativetudyfGermany,ngland,nd heUnitedtateshathows linkage etweenhases f

6A discussion f newsocial movementsnLatinAmerica, ySlater 1985) also indirectlyrefuteshe elief hat conomic rosperitynd he oncomitantalue hanges tbegets nderlieheriseofNSMs. LatinAmerican ations an hardly e describeds capableofsatisfyinghebasicneedsfor conomic ndphysicalecurityftheir eople.However, ithoutscertaininghetherthemodelprovided y NSMs is insomemannereingdiffused,he xistencefNSMs inLatinAmerica annot e usedas definitiveefutationfthevalue hange ypothesis.








424 PICHARDO

culturalriticismsnd hemanifestationfnewmiddle-classadicalismsocialmovements)rom 800-1990.Pichardo1993) presents similar rgumentorthe opulist/Progressiveramovementsn heUnited tates, hich emonstrate

strikingimilaritieso theriseof NSMs. The middle-classadicalism f thatperiods inked o he dvancingestrictionsncommunitypacebroughtboutby ndustrialism.utthese ata retoopreliminaryo be convincing.

However,ntermsfwhether SMs area product fthepostindustrialge,the ycles-of-protestrgumentmplicitlyespondsn thenegative. or fthevalues re ied othe ise fpostindustrialociety r inked o he ise f henewmiddle lass, henhey ouldnot ave eenpresentefore. rand's ormulationmaybe a way oreconcilehe woviews, ut hatwould equire heNSM thesis

tobe substantiallyltered.Yet nothertrainf ritiqueasts oubt nthe onnectionetween hearger

macro-historicalocietal hanges ssociated ith ostindustrialismndNSMs.Olofsson1988) argueshat he culturalevolutionaryctivities.. [ofNSMs]can be articulated ithvery ifferentolitico-ideologicalormations,ocialgroups, ndclasses" p. 31). Inotherwords, heresnonecessaryonnectionbetween ostindustrialismndtheprojectfNSMs.

Similarly,he cycles fprotest"rgumentas an alternativexplanation.7

Rather han eeing hem s a consequencefchanging alues ssociatedwithmodernization,hich nturn ictate actical ptions hat re nconcert ith hevalues, notheroint fview uggestshathangesnthe actical epertoirefmovementsre ndependentf he alues ndgoals xpressed y hemovement.Rather han inking hangesntactics o newvalues ndgoals, hey reto beseenmorentermsf nevolvingnteractionetween he gents frepressionandmovementctors here ew acticsre noutcome f he bilityf gentsfrepressiono ccommodateo he ldtactics,herebyenderinghemneffective

(Koopmans 983). Newtacticsre response otheneed ofind ewforms feffectiveactics.Anotherxplanationor hewavesofprotestrgues hatheyare he utcomef ompetitionetweenmovementrganizationsTarrow 989,1991). In thisview, hecompetitionor esourcesndmembershipetweenmovementrganizationseads to nnovation, ilitancy,hen ecline. Tarrow(1991) furtherrgues hat hosewho rgue or he newness" fcontemporarymovementsave implymistakennearly hase fmovementevelopmentora newhistoricaltage fcollective ction.

Finally,heNSM thesisimitshe henomenonoWesternations, et omeauthors ave ttemptedoextend he hesis ounderdevelopedountries.later(1985), n n nterestingurn ntheNSMthesis,elates atinAmericanontem-porarymovementso excessive entralizationfdecision-makingower, hestate'sncapacityodeliverdequateocial ervices,nd he rodingegitimacy

7This deawassuggested yBertKlandermans.









of the tate.8 ut themere resence fNSMs in non-Westernations rguesagainst oth ypotheses-oftate ntrusionbecauseNSMs are riggeredy hechange o a postindustrialconomy,change ot ccurringnLatinAmerican

nations) r of value change becausethevalue changes re a product f theeconomic nd physical ecurityfa country'sopulation, hich lso cannotbe saidto be characteristicfLatinAmerican ations).

Whatremainss ofquestionablealue as a paradigm r theory. he rela-tionship etweentructurendtheriseof contemporaryovementss at bestuncertain,ndmost fthe o-called nique haracteristicsndfeaturesrenotunique.What eems obeuniquestheirdeologicalidentity)rientation-theonehypothesizedharacteristichateems rulyo mark break rom hepast.

SUMMARY

So what avewe? Theressignificantoubtnterms fwhetherontemporarymovementsre pecificallyproductfpostindustrialociety. hemechanismscitedwithin heNSM literatureisagreeignificantly,ependingn thevaria-tion. nturn,achof hese ariationsassignificanteaknesses-inconclusiveempirical upport,uestionable perationalizationf variables,mbiguous r

abstract oncepts, nd feasible lternativexplanations. he same could besaid forwhetherontemporaryovementsepresentnythingnique.Exceptfor he ssue of dentity,he o-called nique haracteristicsfcontemporarymovementsre notunique tall. Atbest,tcan be arguedhat heyrerecentadditionso therepertoiref social movements. utchanges nrepertoireshavebeennoted yother uthorsmost otably illy1979)withoutmployingexplanationshat all fornew heories.

Theprincipalontributionsf heNSMperspectivere ts mphasesn den-

tity,ulture,nd he ole f he ivic phere-aspects f ocialmovementshathadbeen argelyverlooked. he failureo attendo dentityssueswas rootedinthebelief hat ocial movementarticipationas instrumentallyased. Infact, arkin1968) believes hathe xpressiveimensionfparticipationaybe a feature f social movementsominatedythemiddle lass. Theexpres-sivenature fparticipations inkedothe ulturalspects fmovementss thegoal ofexpressivection s guidedbya particular oral utlook oncerningthe ppropriateormativerder. hecivic phere, hereultureesides,which

hadtraditionallyeen een sbeing ominatedrdeterminedy he conomicsphere,s nowseen as a locusof socialprotest. his "liberation"f the ivicsphere asbroughtofocus herealizationhat he ivicspheres an areaofcontentionustas arethe conomicndpolitical pheres.

8SlatermployedMouffe'sommodificationariationfthe tate-intrusionypothesis,hichis not inked o the apacity fgovernmentsoprovide or hephysicalndeconomic ecurityfitspopulace.








426 PICHARDO

However, he needfor new theory f social movementso account orthesedifferencess uncertain. otthat ocial movementheoryinparticulartheresourcemobilizationheory) resented complete ccount fmovement

dynamicssee Canel 1992,Klandermans986,Klandermans Tarrow 986).But modificationf heoryhat ttendedo he why" fmovementsn dditiontothe how"would eem o be a better irectionoproceed.

CONCLUSION

TheinabilityftheNSM school o adequately efendtsmost entral ropo-sitions rgues gainstabeling rreferringo theNSM thesis s a paradigmr

theorybout ontemporaryovements. or an simply rguinghat heNSMthesis pplies nly o eft-wing ovementsfthe ontemporaryra salvage tsimage s a theory. ven imitinghe hesis o oppositional ovementswhichtraditionallyomefromheeft)s nsufficientsmany onservativeovementscan also be so characterized.he added nabilityo argue onvincinglyortypologyfcontemporaryovementsr a link o changesnsocioeconomicstructureseaves heNSM thesis ntenables a theory.

Does thatmean hat heres nothingehind his chool fthought?s it, s

Tarrow1991) believes,hat esearchers istooknearly haseofmovementdevelopmentor newhistoricaltage f collectivection, rdidsomethinggenuinely nique akeplace? Theprincipal uestions notwhetherontem-porarymovementsisplay nique haracteristics,or he actics ndstyles fmovementsreoftenfunctionf xpediencyatherhan rinciplend hus reguided y he tilitarianogicof chieving oals. t s more matterfwhethercontemporaryovementsrereactingo the hangingaturefdominationnthe ostindustrialorld. ut nother ay,re ontemporaryovementsnique

becauseof theunique haracterf dominationecessitatedythe mergenceofthepostindustrialra?Inmy pinion,ny escue f heNSM thesismust eginwith n nclusionf

contemporaryonservative ovementsothpresentlyndhistorically. ithsuch an inclusion heprocess fgovernmentntrusionnto hecivicspherewouldbe more learly ighlighteds conservative obilizationsre alsore-acting othe ctions fgovernmentso control he ivic phere. hereligiousvalues hat nderpinhedeologicaltructurefmanyonservative ovements

mustbe seen as an additional ourceof frictionhathas alwaysresidednandtraditionallyominatedhecivicsphere.With he eparationfchurchand state hat ookplacein the ighteenthentury,eligious roupsosttheirstate-sanctionedrivilegedosition ithinhe ivic phere.9 any onservative

9Thiswas because he oercivemechanismsf the tatewereno ongervailable oreligiousgroups osanction aywardelievers. hus, he ultural ehavioralodespreferredy religiousgroups ouldno onger eguaranteedo dominatehe ivic phere.








NEWSOCIAL MOVEMENTS 427

mobilizationsn theUnited tates f the ighteenthnd nineteenthenturiescan be understoods attemptsyreligiousroups ocoerce he tate oenforcebehavioral nd moral odes consistent ith heir eliefs.Thus, heevolvinghistoryf the ivicsphere ndthe ocial andpolitical onflictsnvolvinghecivicsphereneedto be detailed. n thisway,we canbetternderstandhenature f modern onflictndtherole ofthecivicspherengeneratingndmaintaininghat onflict.t s the bservationoncerninghe oleof the ivicsphere where ulturend dentityeside) nmodern onflicthats perhapsthemost rovocativend nformativespect f heNSM thesis nd he lementaroundwhich reformulationftheNSM thesis hould econstructed.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thanksto BertKlandermans, ichard achmann, ohn ogan, and SteveSeidman or ommentsnearlier rafts.

Visit heAnnualReviews ome age athttp://www.annurev.org.

Literature ited

ApterDE, Sawa N. 1984. Against he tate:Politics nd Social Protest n Japan.Cam-bridge,MA: Harvard niv. ress

AratoA, CohenJ. 1984. The GermanGreenParty: movementetween undamentalismand modernism.issent 1:327-32

AronowitzS. 992.ThePoliticsfIdentity.ewYork:Routiedge

BahroR. 1986.Building heGreenMovement.Philadelphia: ew Soc. Publ.

Berry M.1993.Citizen roups nd he hang-ingnature f nterestroup oliticsnAmer-ica.Ann. m.Acad.Polit. oc. Sci.528:30-41

BoggsC. 1986. ocial MovementsndPoliticalPowerPhiladelphia,A:TempleUniv. ress

Boltken , BrandK. 1990. Cyclicalaspectsof new social movements:waves of cul-turalcriticism nd mobilizationyclesofnewmiddle-class.n Challenginghe oliti-cal Order,d.RJDalton,DM Kuechier,p.23-42. New York:Oxford niv. ress

Boltken , Jagodzinski . 1985. nanenviron-ment f insecurity: ostmaterialismn theEuropeanCommunity,970-1980. Comp.Polit. tud. :453-84

Brint . 1984.New classandcumulativerendexplanationsf he iberal ttitudesfprofes-sionals.Am.J.Sociol. 90:30-71

Brint . 1994. nanAgeof xperts: heChang-ingRoleofProfessionalsnPoliticsndPub-licLife. rinceton,J:Princeton niv. ress

BullardRD. 1990. Dumping nDixie: Race,Class and Environmentaluality. oulder,CO: Westview

BurklinWP. 1984. Grune Politik.Opladen:Westdeutschererlag

BurklinWP. 1985. The GermanGreens: thepost ndustrialon-establishednd hepolit-ical system.nt.Polit. ci. Rev. (4)463-81

Calhoun . 1993.What'snew boutnew ocialmovements?he early19th enturyecon-sidered. oc. Sci. Hist.17:385-427

Canel E. 1992.New social movementheoryandresourcemobilization:heneedfornte-gration.n Organizing issent: Contempo-rary ocial MovementsnTheorynd Prac-tice,ed. WK Carroll, p. 22-51. Toronto:Garamond

CapraF, Spretnak. 1984.Green olitics. ewYork:EP Dutton

CarrollWK, ed. 1992. Organizing issent:Contemporaryocial Movementsn Theoryand Practice. oronto: aramond

ChandlerWM, Siaroff . 1986.PostindustrialpoliticsnGermany ndthe origins ftheGreens. omp. olit. 8:303-25

CohenJ. 1983.Rethinkingocialmovements.Berkeley.Sociol.28:97-114

Cohen J.1985. Strategyr dentity: ewthe-oretical aradigmsndcontemporaryocialmovements.oc.Res.52:663-716

Cotgrove , DuffA. 1981. Environmental-








428 PICHARDO

ism,values, nd social change. r.J.Sociol.32:92-110

Crighton, MasonDS. 1986. olidaritynd heGreens: he ise fnew ocialmovementsnEast and WestEurope.Res. in Soc. Move-ments:Conflictnd Change :155-75

DaltonRJ,KuechlerM, BurklinW. 1990.Thechallenge fnew ocialmovements.nChal-lenging he oliticalOrder,d. RJDalton,MKuechler, p. 3-20. NewYork:Oxford niv.Press

D'AnieriP, Ernst , KierE. 1990.Newsocialmovementsnhistorical erspective.omp.Polit. 2:445-58

Diani M, Lodi G. 1988.Three n one: cur-rentsntheMilan cologymovement.n n-ternationalocialMovementesearch,d.BKlandermans, Kriesi, Tarrow, :103-24.Greenwich,T: JAI

EderK. 1982.A new ocialmovement? elos52:5-20

EderK. 1985. The 'new' social movements:moral rusades, olitical ressure roups, rsocialmovements?ociol.Res.52:869-901

Ehrenreich , Ehrenreich . 1977.The prof-essional-manageriallass.RadicalAm. 1:7-31

EpsteinB. 1990. Rethinkingocial movementtheory.ocialistRev. 1:35-65

Evers . 1985. dentity:he iddenide f ocialmovementsnLatinAmerica.n NewSocialMovementsnd the tate n LatinAmerica,ed.D Slater, p.43-71.Amsterdam:EDLA

Eyerman . 1984. ocial movementsnd ocialtheory.ociology 8:71-82

FalikM. 1983. deology nd AbortionolicyPolitics.New York:Praeger

FeherF, HellerA. 1983.FromRedtoGreen.Telos59:35-44

GelbJ, PalleyML. 1982. Womennd PublicPolicies.Princeton: rincetonniv. ress

GorzA. 1982.Farewell o theWorkinglass.London:Pluto

Gouldner W. 1979.TheFuture f ntellectu-als andtheRiseof heNewClass.NewYork:Seabury

GusfieldJR. 1994. The reflexivityf socialmovements:ollective ehaviorndmass o-ciety heoryevisited.n New Social Move-ments: From deologyto Identity,d. ELarafna, Johnston,RGusfield, p. 58-78.Philadelphia:Templeniv. ress

HabermasJ. 1981. New social movements.Telos 9:33-37

Habermas .1987.TheTheory fCommunica-tiveAction. ol 2. Cambridge,ng.: Polity

HagerC. 1993.Citizenmovementsnd echno-logicalpolicymakingnGermany.nn.Am.Acad.Polit. oc. Sci. 528:42-55

HersheyMR. 1993. Citizens'groups ndpo-litical artiesntheUnited tates.Ann.Am.

Acad.Polit. oc. Sci. 528:142-56Hirschman O. 1981. Shiftingnvolvements.

Princeton,J:Princeton niv. ressHuntington. 1981.American olitics: The

Promise f Disharmony. ambridge,MA:Harvard niv. ress

InglehartR. 1977. The Silent Revolution:Changing alues nd Political tyles mongWestern ublics. Princeton, J: PrincetonUniv. ress

Inglehart . 1981. Post-materialismn an en-vironmentf nsecurity.m.Polit. ci. Rev.75:880-900

Inglehart . 1990.Values, deology,ndcogni-tivemobilizationn newsocial movements.In ChallenginghePoliticalOrder, d. RJDalton,M Kuechler, p. 23-42. NewYork:Oxford niv. ress

KaaseM. 1990. ocialmovementsndpoliticalinnovation.n ChallenginghePoliticalOr-der, d. RJDalton,M Kuechler, p. 84-101.NewYork:Oxford niv. ress

Kaltefleiter, PfaltzgraffL, eds. 1985. ThePeace Movementsn Europe nd theUnitedStates. ondon:CroomHelm

Katzenstein F, MullerCM, eds. 1987. TheWomen's ovementsf heUnited tates ndWesternurope. hiladelphia: empleUniv.Press

KauffmanA. 1990.Theanti-politicsf den-tity.ocialistRev. 0:69-80

Kitschelt . 1990.New socialmovementsnd"NewPolitics" artiesnWesternurope.nChallenginghe oliticalOrder,d.RJDal-ton,M Kuechler, p. 179-208.New York:Oxford niv. ress

Kitschelt . 1993. Social movements,oliti-cal parties,nd democraticheory.nn.Am.Acad.Polit. oc.Sci.528:13-29

Klandermans. 1986.Newsocialmovementsandresourcemobilization:he uropeanndtheAmericanpproach.nt.J. Mass Emer-gencies& Disasters :13-37

Klandermans . 1994. Transientdentities?Membership atternsn the Dutchpeacemovement.ee Larajia tal, pp.168-84

Klandermans , TarrowS. 1986. Mobi-lization nto social movements:ynthesiz-ing European nd Americanpproaches.nFrom tructureoAction:ComparingocialMovement esearch crossCultures,ol.1,Int. oc.MovementRes.,d.B Klandermans,HKriesi, Tarrow,p.1-38.Greenwich,T:JAI

Kolinsky. 1989.TheGreensnWest ermany,NewYork:Berg

KoopmansR. 1983. The dynamics fprotestwaves: WestGermany,965to 1989.Am.Sociol.Rev. 8:637-58

KriesiH, Koopmans , Dyvendak W,GuigniMG. 1995.New ocialMovementsnWestern








NEW SOCIAL MOVEMENTS 429

Europe. Minneapolis,MN: Univ. Minn.Press

Kristol . 1972. Aboutequality. ommentary54:41-47

LaclauE, Mouffe . 1985.Hegemonynd So-cialistStrategy: owards Radical Demo-cratic olitics. ondon:Verso

Ladd EC Jr. 978. The new ines are drawn:class and deology n America. art . PublicQpin.3:48-53

Ladd EC Jr.1979. Pursuing henew class:social theory nd survey ata. n The NewClass? ed.B Bruce-Briggs,p. 101-22.NewBrunswick, J:Transactionooks

Larafta , Johnston,Gusfield R, ds. 1994.New Social Movements: rom deology oIdentity.hiladelphia: empleUniv. ress

Lowe PD, GoyderJM. 1983. EnvironmentalGroupsnPolitics. ondon:Allen& Unwin

MelucciA. 1980.Thenew ocialmovements:theoreticalpproach. oc. Sci. nfo. 9:199-226

MelucciA. 1981. Ten hypothesesor he nal-ysisof social movements.n ContemporaryItalian Sociology, d. D Pinto, p. 173-94.New York:Cambridge niv. ress

MelucciA. 1984.An end osocialmovements?Soc. Sci. nfo. 3:819-35

Melucci A. 1985. The symbolic hallengeof contemporaryovements.ociol. Res.52:789-815

MelucciA. 1994.A strange ind f newness:what'snew n newsocialmovements.eeLarafa et al, pp. 101-30

MolotchH. 1970. Oil in Santa Barbara ndpower nAmerica. ociol. nquiry 0:131-44

Mooers C, SearsA. 1992.The "New SocialMovements"nd hewitheringway f tatetheory.n Organizing issent: Contempo-rary ocial MovementsnTheorynd Prac-tice,ed. WK Carroll, p. 52-68. Toronto:Garamond

Mottl L. 1980.Theanalysis fcountermove-ments. oc. Probl. 7:620-35

Mouffe . 1984.Towards theoreticalnterpre-tation f new ocial movements.n Rethink-ingMarx.New York: nt.Gen./IMMRC

Muller-Rommel. 1985. ocialmovementsndtheGreens: henew nternaloliticsnGer-many. ur J.Polit.Res. 13:53-67

Muller-Rommel. 1990.Newpoliticalmove-ments nd thedecline fparty rganization.In ChallenginghePoliticalOrder, d. RJDalton,M Kuechler, p.209-31. New York:Oxford niv. ress

NamenwirthJ,Weber P.1987.Dynamics fCulture. oston:Allen& Unwin

OffeC. 1985.New social movements: hal-lenging heboundaries f nstitutionaloli-tics. ociol.Res. 52:817-68

Olofsson G. 1988. After he working-classmovement? n essay on what's new' andwhat's social' inthenew ocialmovements.Acta31:15-34

Opp K. 1988. Grievancesnd participationnsocialmovements.m. ociol.Rev. 3:853-64

Parkin . 1968.MiddleClass Radicalism. ewYork:Praeger

PichardoNA. 1993. Social movementsndsocial structure: heonset f ndustrializa-tion nd the hanginghapeof ocialmove-mentsntheUnited tates.Am. Sociol.As-soc. Conf.

Pichardo A. 1995. The power lite nd elite-driven ountermovements:he associatedfarmersf California uring he 1930s.So-ciol.Forum 0:21-50

PichardoNA, Sullivan-Catlin, Deane G.1995. s the ersonal olitical:everydaye-havioral orrelatesf nvironmentaldentity.Am. Social Assoc. Conf.,Washington,C

Plotke . 1990.What's o new bout ew ocialmovements?ocialistRev. 0:81-102

Poguntke . 1993.Alternativeolitics. din-burgh: dinburgh niv. ress

RochonTR. 1990.The WestEuropean eacemovementnd he heoryfnew ocialmove-ments.n Challenginghe olitical rder,d.RJDalton,M Kuechler, p. 105-21. NewYork'Oxford niv. ress

RochonTR, MazmanianDA. 1993. Socialmovementsnd hepolicy rocess. nn.Am.Acad. Polit. oc. Sci.528:75-87

RudigW.1988.Peace and cologymovementsin Western urope.WesternuropePolit.11:26-39

SassoonJ.1984. deology,ymbolicction ndritualitynsocial movements:he ffectsnorganizationalorms.oc. Sci. nfo. 3:861-73

SchlesingerM Jr. 986.TheCycles fAmer-icanHistory.oston:Houghton ifflin

ScottA. 1990. Ideology nd theNewSocialMovements.ondon:UnwinHyman

ShaikoRG. 1993.Greenpeace .S.A.: some-thing ld, new,borrowed. nn.Am.Acad.Polit. oc. Sci. 528:88-100

SlaterD, ed. 1985.New Social Movementsand the tate nLatinAmerica. msterdam:CEDLA

Szasz A. 1994. Ecopopulism: ToxicWasteandtheMovementfornvironmentalustice.Minneapolis, N: Univ.Minn. ress

Tarrow . 1983.StrugglingoReform: ocialMovementsndPolicyChangeDuringCy-cles ofProtest.thaca,NY: CornellUniv.(Westernocieties ap.No. 15)

Tarrow . 1989. Democracv nd Disorder:ProtestndPoliticsn taly 965-1975.Ox-ford, ngland:Clarendon








430 PICHARDO

Tarrow . 1990.The Phantomf theOpera:political artiesnd ocialmovementsfthe1960s nd1970s n taly.n ChallenginghePoliticalOrder, d. RJ Dalton,M Kuech-ler, pp. 251-73. New York: OxfordUniv.Press

Tarrow. 1991.Struggle,olitics,ndReform:CollectiveAction, ocial Movements,ndCycles fProtest.thaca,NY: CornellUniv.(Westernocieties ap. No.21)

Tarrow. 1994.PowerinMovement.ewYork:Cambridge niv. ress

Tilly,C. 1979. Repertoiresf contentionnAmerica ndBritain, 750-1830. n TheDy-namics fSocialMovements,d. MN Zald,JMcCarthy,p. 126-55.Cambridge,MA:Winthrop

Touraine . 1971. TheMayMovement: evoltandReform. ew York:RandomHouse

Touraine . 1977.TheSelf-Productionf oci-ety. hicago: Univ.ChicagoPress

Touraine . 1981. TheVoice nd theEye: AnAnalysis fSocial Movements.ambridge,MA: Cambridge niv. ress

Touraine . 1982.Triumphrdownfall fcivilsociety? In Humanitiesn Review, d. DReiss, pp. 218-34. NewYork: CambridgeUniv. ress

Van derGaag M. 1985. Women rganizing.nThe Invisible ecade, ed. G Ashworth,Bonnerjea, p. 133-40.London:Gower

Walsh J.1981.Resourcemobilizationnd it-izen protestn communitiesroundThreeMile sland. oc. Probl. 9:1-21

Weiner . 1982. Collectivedentityormationand ocial movements.sychol. oc. Theory3:13-23

Zald MN, UseemB. 1987. Movementndcountermovementnteraction: obilization,tactics, and stateinvolvement.n SocialMovementsn n Organizationalociety,d.MN Zald,JDMcCarthy,p. 319-36. NewBrunswick,J:Transactionooks

Zimmerman K. 1987.The women'shealthmovement: critiquef medical nterpriseandthe ositionfwomen.nAnalyzingen-der, d. BB Hess,MM Ferree, p. 442-72.Newbury ark, A: Sage

pichardo, nelon a. - new social movements a critical review, 1997

Documents