Social Movements: Changing Paradigms and Forms of Politics Author(s): Marc Edelman Source: Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol.

30 (2001), pp. 285-317 Published by: Annual Reviews Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3069218 Accessed: 20/05/2010 14:14
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annrevs. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org

Annu. Rev. Anthropol.2001. 30:285-317 Copyright() 2001 by AnnualReviews. All rightsreserved

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: ChangingParadigms and Formsof Politics

MarcEdelman
HunterCollege and the GraduateCenter,City Universityof New York, New York, New York 10021; e-mail: medelman@shiva.hunter.cuny.edu

civil society,globalization resistance, Key Words collectiveaction,protest, * Abstract Theoriesof collectiveactionhave undergone numberof paradigm a to and shifts,from"massbehavior" "resource mobilization," "political process," "new socialmovements." Debateshavecentered the applicability theseframeworks on of in diversesettings,on the periodization collectiveaction,on the divisiveor unifying of of impactof identitypolitics, and on the appropriateness political engagementby researchers. Transnational activistnetworksare developingnew protestrepertoires thatchallengeanthropologists otherscholarsto rethink and conventional approaches to social movements.

INTRODUCTION
The worldwide political effervescence of "the long 1960s" (Isserman& Kazin to 2000) contributed a paradigmcrisis in social scientificthinkingaboutcollective action. This prolongeddecade of extraordinary upheavalin New York,Chicago, Berkeley,Paris,Rome, Berlin,Tokyo,Mexico City,Prague,Beijing, andelsewhere was the most intenseperiodof grassrootsmobilizationsince the 1930s. Civil rights and antiwarmovements,youth and studentrebellions,mobilizationsin defense of regional autonomy and the environmentand for the rights of women, gays and lesbians, the elderly,the disabled,and a host of otheremergentgroups,identities, andcauses convergedwith an unprecedented wave of anticolonialandantiimperial insurgenciesin poorerregionsof the globe. Social scientistsof variousorientations concernedwith geopolitics and revolutionhad ready-madecategories ("national for liberation,""subversion") analyzingevents in the "ThirdWorld."But the turmoil in the developedNorthhighlightedthe inadequacy existing social scientific of frameworksand gave rise to new and rich debates. Even thoughanthropologists were well represented participants this tide of as in unrestandtheir 1960s sensibilitiescontributed new conceptualizations "interto of stitialpolitics"andof power,gender,colonialism,andthe state(Vincent1990), they remainedto a largeextenton the periphery social scientifictheorizingaboutcolof lective action.Onenotableexceptionwas theVietnam-era studiestradition agrarian 0084-6570/01/1021-0285$14.00 285

286

EDELMAN (Roseberry1995) pioneeredby Wolf (1969), a work thatwas an outgrowthof the teach-inmovement.In part,anthropologists' marginalinvolvementin discussions of collective action reflected an academic division of labor that assigned them peasants, the urban (especially Third World) poor, ethnic minorities, and millenarianor syncreticreligious sects and allocatedothertypes of mobilization(and national-levelphenomena)to sociologists, political scientists, or historians.Also fasby important the mid-1980s, in the UnitedStatesat least, was anthropologists' as cinationwith "everyday" opposed to organizedresistanceand with microlevel researchon social analyses of power a la Foucault(Burdick1995). Ethnographic because theoretical" tendedto resist"grand movements,moreover, generalizations close-up views of collective action often looked messy, with activist groups and coalitionsforming,dividing,andreassemblingandwith significantsectorsof their targetconstituenciesremainingon the sidelines. This articletells four long storiesin a shortspace. The firstis an accountof the post-1960s paradigmshift in social scientific studies of collective action, which, and thoughoverlyabbreviated canonical,is necessaryfor examiningthe stateof the when theory traveledbeyond Europe what transpired field today and particularly and North America. The second is an appraisalof how ideas aboutperiodization The thirdconcernsthe censhapedcompetingpost-1960s analyticalframeworks. and centripetal,or fragmentingand unifying, impactsof identitypolitics, trifugal attentionsocial scientistsdevote to movementsthey like, and the disproportionate theirinfrequent effortsto theorizeright-wingmovements.The fourthstoryinvolves new developmentsin social movements themselves, particularlyan intensifying on transnational activism,a disenchantment the partof diverseactivistswith idenand a resurgenceof variedkinds of strugglesagainstinequality. tity politics, One of the most strikingfeatures of the collective action field is its continuDebates have tended to occur along paring intellectualcompartmentalization. allel and disconnectedtracks,reflectingdifferentdisciplinarypersonalnetworks and forms of socialization and inquiryand a majordivide separatingcase study and grand theory practitioners.One recent effort at synthesis notes that scholars of revolutions,strikes,wars, social movements,ethnic mobilizations,democratization,and nationalism have paid little attention to each other's findings (McAdamet al 2001). Studentsof right-wingmovementsrarelyengage theories about other kinds of collective action. Despite frequent gestures toward transoccasionalsuccesses), anthro(andnotwithstanding gressingacademicboundaries on the one hand and sociologists and political scientists on the other pologists social have had little impacton or awarenessof each other'sefforts to understand movements.1 editedby U.S. on focusedanthologies socialmovements 'Oneof the few non-regionally of is unfamiliarity, despitethe inclusionof case anthropologists indicative this mutual Whileit may be truethat a studies-virtuallyall first-rate-from rangeof disciplines. outsidethe industrial Northis largelyunder-theorized" "thestudyof protest (Boudreau literature unaware a substantial of 1996,p. 175),Fox & Starn (1997)suggest-seemingly

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

287

A short article of broad scope can obviously invoke only some theorists and works (and movements). I emphasize recent work and allude sparingly to the "classics"of the field andmore brieflythanI would prefer(or not at all) to various for relevantissues. Anthropologists, reasonsnotedabove, areless well represented than scholarsfrom otherdisciplines. Geographically, emphasisof this review the is on the Americas and Europe, not because significant social movements have not occurredelsewhere, but because these have been prominentsites of pertinent theoretical Academicbooks andspecializedjourals-including those production. devoted to collective action studies, such as Mobilizationand Research in Social Movements, Conflictsand Change-have been key forafor manydebates.Because activists and scholars engage each other (and sometimes are each other), some of the most provocativeanalyses of social movements' visions, strategies, and practices appear in nonacademicmedia: hybrid activist-scholarlypublications, smalljournalsof opinion, 'zines, web pages, organizinghandbooks,and manuals kinds of movements. by those who seek to controlparticular

A CONVENTIONAL STORY SHIFING PARADIGMS OF

In the early 1970s, functionalism still held sway in U.S. sociology. Park and the Chicago School had, since the 1920s, juxtaposed "social organization"institutionalized,conventional patternsof everyday life-to "collective behavior," a category that included crowds, "sects," fashions, and mass movements, all of which they saw as simultaneouslysymptoms of societal disequilibriaand of harbingers new patternsof social relations(Park1967). Smelser(1962) rejected the notion of "disequilibria" "too strong"and attributed as collective behaviorto tensions thatexceeded the capacityof a social system's homeostaticmechanisms andthatconstituteda sourceof new bases of Durkheimian-style Related solidarity. as psychological theories explainedthe rise of totalitarianism a mass response to economic crises and "magneticleaders"by individualswith a "mob mentality" character" (Arendt1951) or an "authoritarian (Fromm1941). These theoriesabout totalitarianism were of limited use in analyzingturmoilin largely democratic,affluentpolities in the 1960s. Olson (1965) advanceda notion that remainsa point of departure much theorizing.An economist, Olson rejectedtheoriesbased on for the irrationality individuals[althoughhe also statedit would "bebetterto turnto of "fanatic" "lunaticfringe"moveor psychology"thanto economics to understand ments "inunstablecountries"(1965, pp. 161-62)]. Instead,he posited individuals on contentious littleabout ampleandcharged the politics-that "westillknowrelatively betweenthe cataclysmic of war territory upheaval revolutionary andthe smallincidents of everyday ... where into resistance, socialstruggles peopleenter openprotest do not yet seekthetotaloverthrow thesocialorder" 3). Moreover, froma few individuals of (p. apart ineachgroup whosework historical documentation scholarship, and the genuinely engages vastliterature historians collective on action tendsto be surprisingly underutilized. by

288

EDELMAN so rationaltheywouldnotparticipate collective endeavors-a rather premise in odd for the turbulent 1960s-because each could benefitfromothers'activityas a "free rider," pursuinglow-risk self-interestat the group'sexpense. Like the "tragedyof the commons"model, which was latercriticized(Prakash1998) as divorcedfrom cultureor-alternatively-as a caricature a historicallyspecific homo economiof cus, thisperspectiveexplainedcollective actionas the sum of strategicdecisionsby individuals,who could only be inducedto join a groupeffortthroughincentivesor sanctions.Given the stabilityof NorthAmericaandWesternEuropeand the high risks many 1960s activists assumed-arrests, police beatings, ruined careers"rational choice" did not appearto be a promisingavenueof interpretation Marxism, still in or close to the mainstreamin Europeanuniversitiesin "the long 1960s," viewed conflict in capitalist societies as revolving aroundthe fundamentalcontradiction between the bourgeoisieand the proletariat. all but the In most heterodoxMarxist(Thompson1971) tendencies,class interestandhistorical from class position (althoughclasses "in"and agency derivedunproblematically "of' themselvesraisedless easily resolvedissues of consciousnessandhegemony). This frameworktoo was of little use in making sense of movementsin the 1960s thatfrequentlyhad largely middle-classleadershipand multiclassconstituencies. By the mid-1970s, two distinctperspectivesemergedthat attemptedto fill the theoreticalvacuum:the "identity-oriented" Europeanparadigm[also or apparent widely termednew social movements (NSMs)] and the "resourcemobilization" or Americanparadigm(Cohen 1985, Della Porta& Diani 1999, Foweraker1995, Gamer 1997, Larafiaet al 1994, McAdam et al 1996a). Neither comprised an entirelycoherent"school,"butfor heuristicpurposesthe differencesbetweenthem constitutea suitable,if conventional,point of departure. For Touraine(1988), among the first and most prolific advocates of a NSMs the approach, issue of social movementshas two dimensions,loosely derivedfrom of Marx'sandWeber'sthought.The firstis the notionof a "central conflict" aspects in society; for Marx,this was the strugglebetween labor and capitalin industrial society. But, Touraine argues,with the passage to a "postindustrial" society, laborcapitalconflict subsides,othersocial cleavages become more salient and generate new identities, and the exercise of power is less in the realm of work and more in "the setting of a way of life, forms of behavior,and needs" (1988, p. 25). The mainWeberian elementin Touraine's is approach the conceptof "theactor"as key protagonistof "social action."In postindustrial society, diversecollectivities have a growing capacity to act on themselves and to struggle for "historicity"-"the set of cultural,cognitive, economic, and ethical models ... throughwhich social practices are constituted"(1988, pp. 40-41). Tourainethus posits the "way of life" as the focus of contention;strugglesthat seek to affect the relationsof domination characteristicof the "way of life" (with its forms of knowledge, mores, and investment)are "social movements."He explicitly excludes from this category, however, forms of "collective behavior"that "defend"the social order or "social struggles"directedat the state. Melucci (1989) arguedthat social movementshave threeimportant dimensions:actors'recognitionof commonalitiesand

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

289

sharedidentities,objectives,and understandings; adversarial relationswith opponents who claim the same goods or values; and actions that exceed the tolerance limits of a social system, therebypushing it to change. Melucci did a doctorate under Tourainein the 1970s at the Ecole Pratiquedes Hautes Etudes, but this definitionsuggests a move beyond his professor'sstress on the structural preconditions of forms of collective action in postindustrialsociety. Instead, adopting Habermas's(1981) terminology(thoughnot his emphasis on "defensive"movements), Melucci pointedto how the stateandmarketrationalizethe privatesphere, generatingnew social groupingsand collective action that illuminates"the silent elements of the dominantcodes" and "publicizesnew alternatives" and arbitrary (1989, p. 63). Touraine,Melucci, and other advocates of NSMs theory (Laclau & Mouffe to 1985) delineatedcharacteristics they saw as particular the NSMs and that contrastedwith the "old"laboror working-classmovement.Althoughthe "old"labor movement upheld class as the primarysocial cleavage, category of analysis, organizationalprinciple, and political issue, the NSMs emerge out of the crisis of modernityand focus on struggles over symbolic, informational,and culturalresources and rights to specificity and difference.Participation NSMs is itself a in goal, apartfrom any instrumental objectives, because everydaymovementpractices embody in embryonic form the changes the movements seek. The NSMs diffuse "social conflictualityto more and more numerousrelations."This proliferationof "pointsof antagonism" produces"new social subjects"whose "multiple social positions"complicateinterpretations political agency based on a single, of of identity (Laclau& Mouffe 1985). privilegedprinciple If NSMs theoristsin Europetendedto explaincollective action as a responseto "claims,"grievances,or postindustrial society, on the other side of the Atlantic a coterie of social scientists pointedout that the mere existence of discongrowing could not explainhow movementsarose tent, which was presumably omnipresent, in particulartimes and places. Several authorsin particular(McCarthy& Zald 1977, Zald 1992, McAdamet al 1996b) arguedfor a focus on "resourcemobilization."This "strategy-oriented" (Cohen 1985) took Olson's rational-actor paradigm as "one of its underlyingproblems"(McCarthy& Zald 1977, p. 1216) postulate but professed to have solved the "freerider"puzzle by analyzingthe resourcesmaterial,human, cognitive, technical, and organizational-that movements deployed in order to expand, rewardparticipants,and gain a stake in the political system. Resource mobilization (RM) theory, with its focus on the construction of "social movement industries"made up of "social movement organizations," regardedcollective action mainly as interestgrouppolitics played out by socially connectedgroupsratherthanby the most disaffected.Movement"entrepreneurs" had the task of mobilizingresourcesandchannelingdiscontentinto organizational forms. Resource availabilityand preferencestructuresbecame the perspective's centralfoci ratherthanthe structural bases of social conflict (as in Touraine's version of NSMs) or state and marketassaultson the privatesphere(as in Melucci's and Habermas'sversions).

290

EDELMAN In underscoringthe importanceof mobilizationprocesses and well-endowed (andcompetitionamongthe latter),the RM paradigmtendedto disorganizations regardsituationsin which social movements, usually of the very poor, emerged with few resourcesor whereovertorganization-in contextsof extremeinequality, severerepression,and hopeless odds-endangered participants, producing"shadforms (Melucci 1989), or "hidden" owy" (Piven & Cloward1977), "submerged" of resistance(Scott 1990) that might or might not lead to collective action (Burdick 1998). By viewing social movementsas interestgrouppolitics, the paradigm understood"success" primarilyas the achievement of policy objectives rather RM proponents than in relationto broaderprocesses of culturaltransformation. eventually conceded as well that their frameworkdid not deal adequatelywith and "enthusiasm, spontaneity, conversionexperiences"or the "feelingsof solidar(Zald 1992, pp. ity and communalsharing"thatrewardedmovementparticipants 330-31). Several scholars influenced by the American paradigm advocated incorpo(POS) into the rating a focus on states and on "political opportunitystructure" RM model's concern with the internaldynamics of organizations.The POS approach tended to examine movement strategizingin the context of the balance of opportunities-threats challengersand facilitation-repression authorities for by case materialsemSome POS scholarswho workedwith European 1998). (Tarrow studyingthe frequencyof contentiousevents over phasizeda diachronicapproach, methodsinfluencedbyAnnaleshistorians'"serial" durations (with historyand long and"longuesdurees")(Shorter theirdistinctionbetween"events," "conjunctures," & Tilly 1974, Tilly 1986). OtherEuropeanists (Tarrow1989) examinedthe openand closing of POSs over much shorterperiods. A complementaryapproach ing involved analyzingconflicts occurringaroundthe same time in relationto space, withina given regionor nation(Shorter& Tilly 1974), or as partof a cross-national had comparison(Gamson& Meyer 1996). This synchronicapproach antecedents, not always acknowledged,in Europeanstudiesof early industrial-era protest,such as Hobsbawm & Rude (1968), who analyzed, for 1830-1832, types of repression anddisturbances accordingto frequency,geographicallocation,categoriesof and damagesinflicted. personstargeted, Criticsnoted thatthe POS perspectivegave little attentionto discursiveaspects of identity,gender,the social constructionof POS itself, or its local and internationalaspects(Abdulhadi1998). They further chargedthatPOS was too broadand "adustbin" (Della Porta& Diani 1999, p. 223) or"aspongethatsoaksup imprecise, virtuallyeveryaspectof the social movementenvironment... an all-encompassing fudge factor ... [which] may explain nothing at all" (Gamson& Meyer 1996, p. POS proponentscame to see it as one element of a broaderpo274). Increasingly, sources litical process, which includedgreateremphasison the cultural-historical of discontent,protest,andmobilization(andwhich was distinctfrom-and apparently incognizantof-the similarlynamedperspectivethatevolved out of Manchester anthropology).By the 1990s, proponentsof the political process approach echoed Cohen's (1985) call for fusing the Europeanand American paradigms

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

291

and professed to have an "emergingsynthesis."This included "political opporand "framing,"a category encompassing the tunities,""mobilizing structures," discursive, ways in which collective identitiesarose, as well as the interpretative, and dramaturgical practices that shaped movement participants'understandings of theirconditionand of possible alternatives (McAdamet al 1996a, 2001; Tarrow 1998). By the end of the decade, political process enthusiastscould claim thatthe model occupieda "dominant" (Garner1997) or "hegemonic" (Giugni 1999) place in the study of social movements.

INTERROGATING THE CANON

It is remarkable how little attentionhas been devoted to understanding why contrastingapproaches originatedon differentsides of the Atlantic.Melucci attributed the rise in the United States of RM theory,with its presumption rationalityand of to metaphorsabout "entrepreneurs," the "unprecedented developmentof organization theory in the analysis of business and administration" to the weakness and of Marxist or radical thought in U.S. sociology (1989, p. 194). Della Porta & Diani (1999) indicate that in the 1980s, rising disillusion with a strong Marxist intellectualtraditionin Europe contributedto a search for new non-class-based dimensions of conflict. Foweraker(1995), looking at the sociopolitical context of theory, suggests that in western Europe the "social democratic consensus," developed welfare states, and powerfullabor organizationsand corporatisttraditions contributedto making NSMs look genuinely "new" and to producingexIn planationsthat stressedmajorsocietal transformations. contrast,in the United States, in the absence of a strong labor movement or a social democraticclass pact, outsider groups (the civil rights movement was the paradigmaticcase for RM theorists) had to mobilize resources to gain representationin the political difsystem (McAdamet al 2001, Morris 1999). A furthercause of trans-Atlantic ferences was the isolation in which theoristsof the two traditionsworked;only in the mid-1980s were there sustained contacts between and joint conferences of social movements scholars from Europe and North America (McAdam et al 1996a). How did NSMs and POS theories fare when they traveledoutside Europeand NorthAmerica?LatinAmerica,in particular, been fertile territory studies has for of collective action,thoughlargelyby scholarsand scholar-activists influencedby NSMs (Escobar& Alvarez 1992, Alvarezet al 1998) or historical-structural perspectives (Eckstein1989).2 EventhoughRM andPOS perspectiveson movements' 2"Historical-structural" "show and to values,traditions, rituals be of approaches ideology, and of to and consequence tracethe importance culture group, organization, community and of Yet that is dynamics to otherfeatures socialstructure. theyneverpresume protest determined socialstructure. of to mechanically by Theyshowthe patterning defiance be on circumstances" 1989,p. 3). (Eckstein contingent historical

292

EDELMAN

interactionswith states were pertinentin Latin America (Foweraker1995), they had less appeal outside developed northerndemocraciesbecause it was difficult, especially underauthoritarian regimes, to imagine political opportunityas a significantexplanatorycategory;tellingly, in the few works on Latin America that make explicit use of a POS perspective,such as Schneider's(1995) ethnographic on the tour-de-force Chile's urbanpoorunderthe Pinochetdictatorship, theoretical framework understated. is Davis (1999, p. 586) arguesthatNSMs theory'semphasis on civil society appealed"tothe lived experienceandnormativeideals of Latin Americanintellectuals."Also important, however,were the ties to LatinAmerica of NSMs theoristsin Europe.Touraine,who spent the mid-1950s at the Univerin sity of Chile and developed his ideas about "historicity" dialogue with Latin in the early 1970s (Touraine1973), has had continuingties Americansociologists to the region. The writingsof Laclau,a native of Argentinaestablishedin Europe that who shiftedfromAlthusserianism a poststructuralism drew selectively and to on Gramsci(Laclau& Mouffe 1985), have been widely read in idiosyncratically that in the 1970s Latin America since the early 1970s. It is likely, furthermore, and 1980s visceral anti-U.S. sentiments(especially in Mexico and among exiles in there) and a strong Europhilestreak (particularly Buenos Aires) predisposed Latin Americanintellectualsto embraceNSMs perspectivesand to ignore those from U.S. academia.Anthropologistswere drawnto NSMs perspectivesfor similar reasons, as well as for the centralrole thatNSMs accordedto culturalpractice as a force for political transformation (Alvarez et al 1998, Escobar & Alvarez 1992). WithinLatinAmerica,recentstudiesof collective actionclustergeographically, in the of mirroring concentration earliersocial scientificproduction certainselected The 1994 Zapatistauprisingin the southernMexican state of Chiapashas places. outpouringof scholarlywork, much of it directedat ininspiredan extraordinary a sympatheticpublic or mobilizing solidarity.Drawingon three decades forming of work on Chiapas,Collier (1994), producedless than a year after the Zapatistas' rebellion, remains an essential reference. Emphasizingagrarianratherthan indigenoussources of insurgency,especially the constitutionalmodificationsthat effectively ended land reform,Collierdescribeshow communityfactionalismand populationgrowthgeneratedan exodus of disaffectedmigrantsto remotejungles in easternChiapas.Althoughthe Zapatistascondemnedthe NorthAmericanFree Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and warned of its deleterious consequences for to Mexico's peasantry, linking the insurrection NAFTA,Collier says, was a "pretext," because other grievanceshad kindled the movementduringyears of clanNationalLiberationArmy destine organizing.In 1994, the originsof the Zapatista (EZLN)were unclear.Harvey(1998), whose researchbegannearlya decadebefore the uprising,details the multiplestrandsof peasant,indigenous,and studentorganizing thateventuallycoalesced in the EZLN.In analyzingthe Zapatistas'struggle on behalf of ChiapasIndiansand the Mexican poor in general,Harveymaintains thatthe constructionof democracyin Mexico often dependson informallocal and

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

293

regional,ratherthanformalnational-levelprocesses.3Womack(1999) introduces a first-ratecollection of primarydocumentson Chiapasand extends inquiryforward and backwardin time. He relates the erraticcourse of EZLN-govemment negotiationsand also traces the notoriousintransigence,venality, and bigotry of ancestors'schemes to defraud contemporary highlandelites to theirconquistador the Crown of tributeand to racialize space in their urbancenters. Drawing on a decades-long involvementwith Chiapas,Nash (1997) indicates how Zapatista outreachcampaignsare elements of a broaderprojectof mobilizing civil society and of redefiningmodernistnotions of democracyin a pluriethnicMexico. The Zapatistacase is significantnot only for its reverberations within Mexico, but also because it figures as a prototype for sometimes rhapsodic claims about a new period characterizedby "informational" (Castells 1997) or "postmoder" (Nash 1997) movements and "democratic" (Touraine2000) guerrillas. Most Zapatistainternetactivity is carriedout by a small numberof sympathetic individualsand nongovernmental (NGOs), buttheirpresenceon the organizations net has allowed them to communicatedemands, foster alliances, and represent themselves as part of a global struggleagainstneoliberalcapitalism.Among the most in-depthand singulartreatments this phenomenonis a U.S. Army-funded of RAND Corporationstudy (Ronfeldt et al 1998) that provides a glimpse of how counterinsurgency plannersview this new form of politics. Apart from the high-profileZapatistas,diverse Latin American struggles led social scientiststo reconsiderapproaches collective actionandNSMs theory,in to Two outstandinganthologies (Escobar& Alvarez 1992, Alvarez et al particular. 1998), among the few in which anthropologists(as well as Latin America-based scholars) are well represented,provide a useful guide to the field as it developed in the 1990s. Despite the wide scope of these anthologies,which rangefromexaminationsof the state (Fals Borda 1992) and democratization (Calderonet al (1992) to cyberpolitics (Ribeiro 1998) and grassroots(Baierle 1998; Yudice 1998) and transnational (Alvarez 1998) organizing,two broad areas are conspicuously absent, or nearly so. Peasant movements receive relatively short shrift, apart from Starn (1992). This is perhaps surprising,given that in Mexico outside Chiapas (Pare 1994, Williams 2001), in CentralAmerica (Edelman 1998, Edelman 1999), and elsewhere, these have been in the forefrontof opposition to neoliberalismand thatin Brazil social movementsresearchhas concentrated heavily on strugglesof small farmersand the landless (Houtzager& Kurtz2000, Maybury-Lewis1994, Pereira 1997, Stephen 1997). Right-wing movements are another area largely ignored in these volumes, reflectingin all likelihood a reluctanceon the part of 3This Rubin's workon theleftistZapotec movement COCEI in (1997)innovative parallels Oaxaca. Bothworkscritique state-centered of Juchitan, understandings Mexican politics (Castells 1997).

294

EDELMAN NSMs scholarsto acknowledgethat conservativeresponses are also an outcome of proliferatingsocial tensions, rapidculturalchange, the advanceof democratization, and the progressivemovementsthemselves (Calhoun 1994, Payne 2000, Pichardo1997). When NSMs perspectivestraveledoutsideof social democraticEurope,the inclusion in theirpurviewof majormovementsin LatinAmerica-human rightsand democratization, communities, indigenousand minoritypeoples, Christian-based the urbanpoor, street children-entailed a recognition of economic and power inequalitiesas key dimensions of collective action. This did not mean a resortto an obsolete, unidimensionalclass analysis, however, because the actors in moand tion went way beyondthe traditional proletariat because investigationsof real movements nearly always uncoveredparticipantsfrom a range of class origins This continued and intense contentionover issues of identity and representation. significance of class or distributiveconflicts led many Latin Americaniststo eschew NSMs terminologyaltogetherand to speak instead of "popular" (literally, "people's")movements(Foweraker1995).

PERIODIZATION DEBATES:SO WHAT'S NEW?

One irony of the stress on newness of NSMs was that emerging movements of women, environmentalists, gays and lesbians, and oppressedminorities,as well as anticolonialforces in the ThirdWorld, sought to uncover hidden histories of their political ancestors in order to fortify their legitimacy and forge new collective identities.This rediscoveryof the complexity of old and first-wavesocial of movementswas partof widereffortsto theorizeperiodizations collective action The and "protestrepertoires." throughexamining "origins,""waves,""cycles," discussion of movements in terms of origins has occurredchiefly in relation to Two recentworkshighlightwhatis at stake (Grove 1995, Judd environmentalism. movementsthat arose in Effortsto theorizethe Northernenvironmentalist 2000). the 1960s, while acknowledgingtheirdiversity,usually arguedthat affluenceand urbanization producedan appreciationand need for naturalamenities. Melucci, environinsinuatedthatcontemporary bluntdeclaration, in an uncharacteristically elite" living in a mental movementsare offspringof a "new intellectual-political "gildedbut marginalizingghetto"(Melucci 1996, p. 165). Similar"postmaterialist" premisesextendedto explanationsof nineteenth-and early twentieth-century conservationcampaignsas projects of "enlightenedelites" or even of "a gentry overwhelmedby industrialization" (Castells 1997, p. 121). Against this predomto inant outlook, Grove (1995) attributesthe rise of environmentalism Europe's encounterwith the tropics and to the devastationcaused by rapaciousplantation economies. Judd, focusing on ruralNew England, also challenges the thesis of the elite origins of conservation,which he says derivesfrom a "tendencyto glean evidence of rising concern aboutforests from federalpublications,nationaljournals, or writingsof prominentthinkers"(2000, pp. 90-91). In a meticulous study

SOCIALMOVEMENTS

295

of local sources, he finds a pervasiveconservationethic, rooted in common uses of forest, pasture, and farmland,which supersededprivatepropertyrights until well into the nineteenthcentury.After 1870, "conservationtook on class overtook tones" (2000, p. 178) as genteel anglers, hunters, and federal bureaucrats up the cause, reshaping notions about the place of "nature"in agrarianlandscapes, as well as nature itself. The thesis of conservation's upper-class origins, Judd maintains, contributesto demagogic efforts today to paint environmentalismas an elite conspiracy unfairly implemented at great cost to the workingpoor. to Guha& Martinez-Alier (1997) traceearly environmentalism the destruction wroughtby the industrialrevolutionat home and in colonial territoriesand to a heterogeneouscollection of thinkers,such as Aldous Huxley, MahatmaGandhi, and urbanistLewis Mumford.The main contributionof the work, however, is and its trenchant overconsumption its elaborationof critiqueof developed-country encommonalitiesanddistinctionsbetweenmovements.They findpostmaterialist vironmentalismsin the "empty-belly"South ("essentialisteco-feminism,"which and sees poor women as embodying intrinsic"naturalness," "deepecology" tendencies, which reverebiotic integritymore thanhumanneeds), as well as ones in the "full-stomach" North (environmental justice movements), which deploy the language of class and, at times, race to organize. "Social conflicts with ecologracism"(siting dumps in ical content"include struggles against "environmental (waste disposal in poorercountries), minoritycommunities),"toxic imperialism" "ecologically unequalexchange"(based on prices which do not reflect local externalities),the North "dumping"subsidized agriculturalsurplusesin the South (to the detrimentof small farmersthere), and "biopiracy" (corporateappropriation of genetic resourceswithoutrecognitionof peasantor indigenousintellectual propertyrights). Withinfeminism,theperiodization discussionhasbeencastin termsof "waves," a conventionthat reveals and conceals key continuitiesand rupturesin forms of exclusion and of women's collective action. The demands of differentnational "first-wave" women's movements are usually said to have centered on suffrage and political rights [although it is also clear that issues of sexuality and male violence were importantin contexts as varied as Germany (Grossmann 1995) and Puerto Rico (Findlay 1998)]; "second-wave"movements in the 1960s and 1970s demandedequity in the workplaceand domestic unit, exposed the political foundationsof seeminglypersonalcircumstances, championeda rangeof new and from access to abortionto protectionfrom sexual harassment; "thirdand rights, wave"feminists, generallyborn after 1963 and active in the 1990s and after,take culturalproductionand sexual politics as key sites of struggle, seeking to fuel micropoliticalstrugglesoutside of formalinstitutionalchannels. Historianswho located first-wavefeminism in the mid-nineteenthto the early twentiethcenturyusually did so provisionally,concernedthat such clear-cutcategorizationsobscuredsignificantantecedentsas well as majorvariationsbetween, say, the United States and Norway, or India and France (Sarah 1983); indeed,

296

EDELMAN

argumentsfor the inclusion of women in "the rights of man"reach back to the French Revolution (Scott 1996) and the early abolitionist movement (Keck & Sikkink1998,Lerner1998), althoughtheywerenot alwaysbackedby collectiveaction. Discussions aboutthird-wave feminism,in contrast,reflectthe emergence(in the UnitedStates,at least) of a deeply felt generational identitydefinedagainstboth older second waversandconservativepostfeministsof the 1980s (Baumgardner & Richards2000, Heywood & Drake 1997). The waves formulation problematical thatit privilegespoliticalgenerations in is andtendsto maskvariationamongmovementparticipants organizations and along lines of age, class, race, and sexual orientation, well as between- andafter-wave as activity.In the United States,for example,linkingthe firstand second waves were the elite-led NationalWomen'sParty(whichprovidedmanyalumnaeto the second wave) and the Communist-dominated Congressof AmericanWomen,which for 5 WorldWarII boasted some 250,000 members(several of whom years following were leadinghistoriansof the firstwave andactivistsof the second wave) before it dissolved duringthe 1950s red scare(Rosen 2000). Whittier(1995) pointsout that numerouslocal radicalfeminist collectives were active duringthe hostile 1980s intervalbetweenthe second andthirdwaves but thattheirrejectionof mainstream politics often renderedthem invisible to social movementsscholars whose main focus was nationalorganizations. Political process theorists did not generally draw sharpdistinctions between waves or between new and old movementsbut some nonethelessposited a significant breakbetween the "parochial," defensive forms of collective action characteristicof Europeup to the mid-nineteenth machine-breaking, century(charivaris, field invasions,food riots) and the modem repertoireof contentionthat flowered after 1848 with the consolidation of nation-states.Tilly (1986, p. 392), for example, describedthe social movement as a challenge to the state that employs a of and protestrepertoire publicmeetings,demonstrations, strikesandthatattempts to bargainwith establishedauthoritieson behalf of its constituency. Tarrow(1998), also employing a political process perspective,sharedTilly's notion of a fundamentalshift in protest repertoiresaroundthe mid-nineteenth century. For Tarrow,however, the principal concept for periodizationwas the "protestcycle" [which in laterwork (1998) he termedcycle of contention],a time of heightenedactivitytypically involving more thanone movement. Althoughthe claims of some 1980s NSMs enthusiaststhatNSMs represented a fundamentalrupturewith a putative,unitaryold movement were quickly recognized as "spurious"(Escobar & Alvarez 1992), even recent work sometimes maintainsa markednew-versus-olddistinction,arguing,for example, thatthe traditional Left did not considerthe relationbetween cultureand politics a "central question"(Dagnino 1998, p. 34). Such assertions,likely rootedin social scientists' of curious underutilization the "vastnumberof accountsby historians... on the culturalactivitiesof political movements"(Eyerman& Jamison 1998, p. 12), beof came difficultto sustainas sympathizers the 1960s movementsrecoveredearlier, forgottenhistories of activism. Some pointedto the identity-baseddimensionsof

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

297

old working-classmovements,which in the United States (Calhoun 1993, Flacks 1988, Freeman2000; Mishler 1999) andelsewhere(Fisher1999; Waterman 1998) took up such issues as child labor,work environments,women's status,housing, health,communitylife, education,and access to public services. The middleclass, the supposedlydistinctivesourceof new movements,was also prominentin many olderones, notablycampaignsin Europeandthe UnitedStatesfor abolition,prohibition, reproductive rights,and suffrage(Grossmann1995, Lerer 1998, Pichardo 1997). How, though, were these earlier versions of culturalpolitics forgottenin the initialenthusiasmaboutNSMs? Some scholarsbelieve that"thespecifictacticsand methodsof staterepression"and theirimpacton movements"havereceived little systematic attention"(Carley 1997, p. 153).4 Adam (1995) traces the sources of some NSMs theorists'"amnesia" aboutearliermilitanttraditions both the crisis to in Marxism,which allowed leftist scholarsto "see"non-class-basedactivity they hadpreviouslyoverlooked,andto the impactof totalitarian regimesin Europeand the Cold Warred scare in the United States, which destroyeddiverse progressive movements. Althoughsome collective action theoristsdeplorethe lack of "a theorythatexbetweenpreexistingprotesttraditions the rise... of new and plainsthe relationship social movements"(Morris1999, p. 536), evidence aboundsof activistcontinuities from one erato anotherandacrossmovements.Among the approaches the literin atureon the UnitedStatesarethose thatemphasizebroadculturaltransformations, the life trajectories groupsof activists,the role of institutionsandorganizations, of andthe reinventing musicalandothertraditions. of Flacks (1988, p. 181) notes that as the U.S. New Deal generationretreated politicallyin the 1950s andconcentrated on family life, manytriedto applyhumanisticand democraticvalues in the home, culture. producingoffspringpredisposedto questionmainstream currentof anarchisticmockery of Togetherwith a "vibrantsemi-underground conventionalauthority"(Flacks 1988, p. 181) embodied in the Beat poets, Mad mumagazine,risque satiristslike Lenny Bruce, and rock and rhythm-and-blues which discredited"thenotion thatcreativityobeyed a color line" (Isserman& sic, Kazin 2000, p. 19), this quiet culturalshift laid the groundworkfor rebellion in the 1960s. Some accounts of the 1960s argue that futurestudentactivists "grew up with little or no contact with a previous generationthat had been radicalized by the Depression"(Fraseret al 1988, p. 17). However,veteranradicalsdisillusioned with earliertraditions-Communism, pacifism, Trotskyism-had by that time often discardedold dogmas while retainingpolitical ideals, contacts, and skills that contributed anti-VietnamWar, mightily to the civil rights, antinuclear, 4Hart makesa similar (1996. p. 238), in a magnificent studyof the GreekResistance, observation thengoeson to provide impressive historical but an oral account ColdWarof erapolitical suchassertions reflect intellectual political and however, repression. Usually, isolation fromthose(Arditti1999,Feldman a 1991)who havemaderepression central objectof study.

298

EDELMAN and women's movements (Freeman2000, Rosen 2000, Whittier 1995). Institualso servedas bridgesbetweenthe protestcycles tions thatsurvivedMcCarthyism of the 1930s and 1960s (Horton et al 1990). The rediscovery and nurturingof musical and other artistictraditionsare importantfeaturesof social movements' action repertoiresand continuity (Eyerman& Jamison 1998), althoughexprescontention sive culturehas also sometimesconstituteda sourceof intramovement (Monson 1997).

IDENTITY-BASED AND ANTI-IDENTIT''YPOLITICS

The "inventionand creationof new rights"(Dagnino 1998, p. 50; Melucci 1989), rooted in the strugglesof emergentsocial groups,clearly acceleratedin "thelong 1960s"along with the mass adoptionandrefashioningof views and practicesthat were earlier peculiar to small culturaland political avant-gardes(Flacks 1988, Fraseret al 1988, Isserman& Kazin 2000). For Castells (1997) as for his mentor is Touraine, "identity" a processthroughwhich social actorsconstructmeaningon that are given priorityover otherpotentialsources the basis of culturalattributes of meaning. Calhoun (1994) historicizes the category in relation to the rise of individualismsince the ProtestantReformation,the advent of nation-states,and Enlightenmentappeals to natureas a "moralsource."Whetherand under what identitiesproducedopportunities conditionsthe recent proliferationof particular remainsmuch debated,as are for new alliances or merely political fragmentation the related tendencies of identity-basedmovements to oscillate between downplaying and celebratingdifferencesfrom majoritygroupsor to lose theirpolitical characteraltogether. shiftsoccurringoutof strugglesfor new rightsis the changAmong the dramatic ing view of disability.Charlton(1998) chronicleshow people considereddisabled in southernAfrica, Asia, and the Americasorganized,often againstthe wishes of able-bodiedadvocates,to make notions of normalitymore inclusive paternalistic, and to "breakwith the traditionalperception of disability as a sick, abnormal, and pathetic condition" (p. 10). Disability oppression has interrelatedsources: poverty and powerlessness, resulting from both economic exclusion and underdevelopment(four fifths of the world's disabled live in poor countries);views of the disabled as degradedand aberrant,which legitimize exclusionarypractices; and internalizationby the disabled themselves of attitudesof self-loathing and of self-pity, which hinderunderstanding their situationand organizingaroundit. To perhapsa greaterextent thanwith othermovements,the aspirationsof the disand abled intersectwith strugglesagainstotherforms of discrimination for housof a ban on land mines, the democratization technology ing and veterans'rights, and scientific knowledge, and the creation or preservationof workplace opportunities and social safety nets. They also, however, complicate the demands of othermovementsin ways outsidersseldom anticipate.Saxton(1998), for example,

SOCIALMOVEMENTS

299

in a searing critique of assumptions about prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion,challenges the belief that the quality of life for disabled people is necessarily inferior and that raising a child with a disability is an undesirable experience. The reproductive rights movementemphasizesthe right to have an abortion; the disabilityrights movement,the right not to have to have an abortion. (p. 375; emphasisin original). Otheridentity-basedsocial movementshave foundexpandingmainstream conof normalitya source of internalcontention.This is dramaticallyillusceptions tratedin the course of gay and lesbianpolitics since the 1969 Stonewallrebellion. Early gay liberationmovements practiced consciousness raising, exalted longrepressedsexualities,contestedthe dominantsex/gendersystem, openly occupied and the depathologizationof public space, and struggledfor nondiscrimination The "assimilationist" homosexuality. advocacy groups that emerged out of more radical and inclusive gay liberation movements of the early 1970s engaged in a denial of difference intended to gain access to mainstreamsocial institutions and in positing an artificiallyhomogeneous "gay essence" intendedto build political unity (Cohen 2001). With the advent of AIDS and rising homophobiain the 1980s, and a shift to confrontational tactics spurredby "the urgency of imdeath"(Hodge 2000, p. 356), activists attemptedto destabilizethe "gay pending white middle-classidentity,"which had dominatedthe movementand to ally with a wider range of sexually, economically, and racially marginalizedcollectivities. In contrastto the assimilationists,this involved an assertionof fundamentaldifference with "heteronormativity," well as a greateracknowledgmentof how as gay and lesbian identitieswere plural,socially constructed,and inflectedby race, class, and national origin (Adam 1995, Stein 1997). This "queer"challenge to earlier gay activism professed to have resolved a centralconundrumof identity a politics by privileging"affinity," sharedoppositionto class-, race-, and genderbased power and a common AIDS catastropheratherthan particular varieties of sexual desire. Some scholar-activists,however, maintain that academic "queer theory" is still mired in privilege, fails to follow the lead of the radical street movement,and gives scant attentionto political-economicaspects of power at all to levels, fromthe stateand social class structure the everydaypracticesthatshape public space (Hodge 2000). The lattermisgiving is sharedby critics who question whetherthe category"queer" an "overarching is unifier"or just "another fraction in the overall mosaic of contemporary and lesbian organizing"(Adam 1995, gay p. 164). The danger that identity-basedpolitics could become a form of "narcissistic withdrawal" impelled by aspirationsfor individualself-realizationand "political tribalism"(Melucci 1989, p. 209) has producedsimilarcommentariesfrom various directions.Claims of differencecan fortify demandsfor new rights, but they can imply an abdicationof rights as well. In a scathing attack on "cultural" or

300

EDELMAN "difference" feminism, di Leonardo(1998) points out thatjournalisticand New Age "women's culture tropes"ignore political-economic dimensions of gender oppression and presupposean immanentand superiorfemale morality and nurto turingcapabilitythatis held up as an alternative the destructivemilitarismand environmental causedby aggressive,patriarchal ruin men. The implicationof such argumentsis that women deserve a place in society not because of any inherent right but because of their innate capacity to make things better,a stance that no otheroppressedgroupis requiredto take. "Beneath the current black-female-student-chicano-gay-elderly-youth-disabled, ad nauseam, 'struggles,"'Reed (1999) proclaimsin an acerbic yet cogent African-American analysis of postsegregation politics, "lies a simple truth:There is no coherentoppositionto the presentadministrative apparatus" 55). He at(p. tributesthe "atrophy oppositionwithinthe black community" the breakdown of to of the civil-rights-era consensus, a media-anointedleadership so enamored of and racialpolitics"thatit is incapableof acknowledging "authenticity" "corporate class and interest-group differentiationwithin the supposedly unitary"community," and an "academichermeticism"that is isolated from political action and disinterestedin distinguishingchallenges to socioeconomic hierarchyfrom politically insignificant"everydayresistance"fads (1999, pp. 56, 151). Although it would not be hard to take issue with Reed's categoricalgloom (or his indifference to other strugglesin his ad nauseaminventory),his largerpoint-that class dynamics arise from and operateautonomouslywithin and across identity-based collectivities-remains an unavoidablelimitationon the emancipatorypotential of movementsdefinedin purely identityor differenceterms. A relatedpitfall of identity-based mobilizationsis the facility with which many become little more than fodder for lucrativecorporatemarketingcrusades.In an astutediscussionof how branding activism, practiceshavegeneratedanticorporate Klein (1999) maintainsthat"diversity" now "themantra global capital,"used is of to absorbidentityimageryof all kinds in orderto peddle "mono-multiculturalism" across myriaddifferentiated markets(p. 115). Warren's(1998) insightful study of pan-Mayaactivists, however, highlights mobilizationandof calls for a new class polcomplicationsboth of identity-based itics. Beginning in the mid-1980s, in the aftermathof genocide and in the midst of continuingcivil war,alongside and sometimesagainstpopularmovementsthat demandedsocial rights (land, freedom to organize,an end to militaryimpunity), pan-Mayaintellectualslaunchedan unabashedlyessentialist culturalprojectthat ancientcalendricalandnumerincludesrevitalizingIndianlanguages,revalorizing ical systems (andmoregenerally,ethnicallyspecificepistemologies,spiritualities, and leadershippractices), and overturningreceived Ladino versions of history with new readingsof indigenousand Spanishchronicles.Theirmovementsclaim a privileged authorityin representingMayan peoples, and strive for a "pluricultural"nationin which they have collective, as well as individual,rights.The panMaya movements' carving out of political space via essentialist practices leads Warren arguefor a middle groundin the analysis of identitypolitics, focusing to

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

301

on "the coexistence of multiple politics and histories...hidden the antagonism by of... anthropological constructions" (1998, p. 179).5 such constructionsin the pursuitof a groundedanalysis of mulTranscending tiple politics is a challengingtask. Chhachhi& Pittin (1999) questionapproaches that either consider the primacy of one identity over anotheror simply "addtogethergender,ethnicityandclass" (p. 68). Instead,they suggest viewing women's possibilities for action throughthe prism of time, space, and place in order to understandhow their "very multiplicity of roles and plethoraof pressuresmay provide both the impetus and the necessary networking"for them to press demands at various work sites (p. 74). They suggest that "the question of women's consciousness"remainsan "underdeveloped" in theorizingidenarea literature women in situationsof naon tity politics. A considerableethnographic tional conflict, however,suggests that this projectis furtheralong than Chhachhi & Pittin believe. Hart's (1996) oral historical account of women in the Greek Resistance, Abdulhadi's (1998) examinationof Palestinian women's efforts to carve out autonomous space within a larger nationalist movement, Aretxaga's (1997) work on gender politics in NorthernIreland,and Arditti's (1999) study of grandmothers the disappearedin Argentinaare notably successful efforts of to move beyond formulaic "additive"approachesand to comprehendhow multiple identities emerge from and configure each other and political action, subjectivity, and memory. Debates continue over the limitations and potentialities of multiple politics (Stephen 1997), including mobilizing around motherhood and the extent to which this implies essentialistnotions of womanhood(Gledhill 2000).

AND CONSERVATIVE RIGHT-WING MOVEMENTS

Even though identity-basedmovementssometimes walk a fine line between celand promotingexclusivity or intolerance,the former diebratingparticularities mension has received vastly more attentionthan the latter.NSMs scholars have largely skirtedthe issue of right-wingcollective action, in partdue to Touraine's (and others') limiting of the field to movements that seek "historicity"and in who 5Inthissheechoesfeminists callfor"risking" essentialism theformative in stagesof movements Warren locates origins pan-Maya the of movements (Calhoun 1994).Although in 1940sCatholic activism in thecrisisof theGuatemalan in the 1980s,Forster's and state of labor in streams the1940spoints a proto-panto (1998)reconstruction ethnic migration of identities thepiedmont in belt. Mayan blurring specificindigenous plantation Grandin liberalism of (2000),who tracespan-Maya ideologyto the nineteenth-century indigenist K'iche'elites,argues "thedanger that facedby manyof thecurrent of proponents Mayan nationalism to do withtheirtrading the sortof universalisms will render has in that the creation an indigenous of to of identity meaningless the majority rural, poverty-stricken Maya" 228-29). (pp.

302

EDELMAN movements overwhelminglychoose to study"attractive" partbecauseresearchers with which they sympathize(Calhoun1994, Hellman 1992, Pichardo1997, Stam 1999). Political process theorists typically emphasized Western civic movements and largely sidesteppedin-depthanalysis of troublingquestions raised by the "violent, sectarian, and self-enclosed identity movements" of the 1990s (Tarrow1998, p. 204). Apartfrom some attemptsto systematizeconcepts such as backlash and reaction (Hirschman1991) or to view conservativemovements as of merely reactionarymirror-images identity-basedNSMs (Gamer 1997), studies of the right constitute yet anotherparallel universe in collective action research, with inconsistent connections to larger traditions of social movement theory. The exceptions suggest a varietyof moves to specify the objects of study.For involves "a complex balancing act between a Ginsburg(1998), "conservatism" celebrationof individualism,economic freedom, and capitalism, and libertarian a traditionalist emphasis on community,moral order,and the like" (pp. 47-48). fieldworkwith pro-choice and antiabortion She describes activists-surely itself act-and chartsthe changing composition of the right-to-lifemovea balancing ment, as evangelical Protestantmen-many inclined to violence-displaced the moderatewomen who had been local leadersin North Dakota.Diamond (1995), in a far-reachinganalysis of U.S. right-wing politics, objects that conservatism implies reticenceaboutchange and thus fails to capturewhat many self-described the she are conservatives about."Tobe right-wing," argues,"meansto support state in its capacityas enforcerof orderand to oppose the state as distributorof wealth and power downwardand more equitablyin society" (p. 9, emphasisin original). Berlet& Lyons(2000), in a landmark studyof Americanright-wingpopulismfrom Bacon's rebellion in 1676 to the militias of the 1990s, note that classifying populist movements(which make antielitistappealsto "thepeople")along a right-left spectrumis often misleading.In contrastto Diamond,they stressthatsome rightist movementshave advocateddownwarddistributionof wealth and power, though and not to everyone,andthatsome rejectthe statealtogether havetriedto overthrow it (pp. 5-6). In an examinationof putschistmilitaryofficers in Argentina,homibands in Nicaragua,Payne cidal landownersin Brazil, and violent paramilitary defines her object as "uncivilmovements,"which employ deliberatevio(2000) lence and threats, as well as more conventional tactics and appeals to threatened identities,to advanceexclusionarypolicies in democraticpolities. Echoing Melucci's discussion of NSMs, she declaresthat uncivil movements"emphasize identity over interests.They use culturalsymbols to empowernew movements" (p. 17). movements in Europe is among the cases The emergence of antiimmigrant that indicate the urgency of grasping how the right deploys cultural politics. Stolcke (1995) contends that new "doctrinesof exclusion" differ from older varieties of organicistracism in positing irreducibleculturaldifferencesand deeply and ingrained propensitiesto fearandloathestrangers to wish to live amongpeople

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

303

of the same national group. This new culturalfundamentalismeschews claims about innate inferiorityin favor of a rhetoric of difference. It posits a supposedly generic human attribute-anxiety about the "other"-in order to construct an antiuniversalist politics, assiduously avoiding rhetorictoo directly suggestive of fascist and Nazi racism. Stoler (1999), in a brief paper on the far-rightFront Nationale (FN) in Aix-en-Provence,calls attention-like Stolcke-to a peculiar effaced or irrelsituationwhereracialdiscourselooms largeandis simultaneously racism" that evant.However,in contrastto frameworks distinguisha new "cultural from earlier "colonial racism," she indicates that the old racism also spoke "a language of cultural competencies, 'good taste' and discrepantparenting values" (p. 33), while the contemporaryFN draws from a broaderFrench cultural that includes a toned-downracismbut also patrioticrepublicanismand repertoire anxieties about Europeanintegrationand globalization. In the United States, a which "posits a basic theme of right-wing populist narrativesis "producerism," noble hard-workingmiddle group constantly in conflict with lazy, malevolent, or sinful parasites at the top and bottom of the social order"(Berlet & Lyons, p. 348). Althoughthe ChristianRight employs coded scapegoatingto identify sowhite supremacists cial problemswith low-incomecommunitiesof color, far-right endorsean explicitly biological racism.Each tends to reinforcethe otherin public discourse.NSMs theorists,as well as governmentagencies, media, and humanrelationsorganizations, (Cohen frequentlybrandright-wingmovements"irrational" Berlet & Lyons (2000) warnagainstsuch "centrist/extremist" 1985, pp. 666-67). which see such movements as fringe phenomena.This, they arinterpretations, "obscuresthe rationalchoices and partiallylegitimate grievances that help gue, to fuel right-wing populist movements, and hides the fact that right-wing bigotry and scapegoating are firmly rooted in the mainstreamsocial and political order"(p. 14). They give only passing attention, however, to how the ownership and content of communicationsmedia shape notions of common sense and facilitate growth of right-wing movements. The impact of hate radio and internet sites seems to have been covered most by scholars interested in monitoring (Hilliard & Keith 1999), ratherthan theorizing (Castells 1997), reactionary movements. Stock (1996) considers producerismalmost synonymouswith the "ruralproducerradicalism" that (along with a "cultureof vigilantism")has been a constant of U.S. small-farmer reformliberpolitics for 200 years. Early twentieth-century such as the Farmer-Labor of the 1920s, had ties to ruralproducerradalism, Party liberalism"neglected the values of many icalism, but more recent"compensatory ruralAmericans.The U.S. farmcrisis of the 1980s gave rise to armedright-wing conservationist influenced groups(Stock 1996) andto antimilitarist, organizations Christiannotions of land stewardship(Mooney & Majka 1995). Clearly,"the by roots of violence, racism, and hatredcan be and have been nourishedin the same soil andfromthe same experiencesthatgeneratedruralmovementsfor democracy and equality"(Stock 1996, p. 148).

304

EDELMAN

TRANSNATIONAL MOVEMENTS: GLOBALIZATION-FROM-BELOW?

At the same time that some U.S. farmers turned to right-wing populism, others gravitated to movements-many of them transnational-influenced by environmentalism, feminism, and opposition to unfettered free trade (Mooney & Majka 1995, Ritchie 1996). From the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s, farmers' protests at GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) meetings galvanized a growing international movement critical of the lack of democratic accountability of supranational institutions, of the terms under which agriculture was included in freetrade agreements, and of how neoliberal policies and industrial farming threatened rural livelihoods, human health, genetic diversity, and the resource base (Brecher et al 2000). Small-farmer opposition actions and transnational organizing flourished in areas where regional economic integration and supranational governance were making their weight felt at the local level. In France, farmer Jose Bove demolished a McDonald's, attracting worldwide attention and national acclaim for his denunciations of agribusiness, free trade, and "la malbouffe," a word he coined that may be roughly glossed as "junk food" (Bove et al 2000, pp. 7784). The action of Bove and his collaborators was modeled in part on events in India, where peasants in Karnataka destroyed a Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet and ransacked facilities owned by the multinational seed company Cargill (Gupta 1998). In North America, the Canadian National Farmers Union spearheaded links with counterpart groups in Mexico and the United States in order to influence the NAFTA negotiations (Ritchie 1996). In Central America, peasant leaders forged contacts with European, Canadian, and Indian activists, created a regional transnational lobbying organization, and played a major role in the formation of a global small farmer network called the Via Campesina/Peasant Road (Edelman 1998). In 1993, Falk introduced the phrase globalization-from-below to refer to a global civil society linking "transnational social forces animated by environmental concerns, human rights, hostility to patriarchy, and a vision of human community based on the unity of diverse cultures seeking an end to poverty, oppression, humiliation, and collective violence" (1993, p. 39). Explicitly directed against elite and corporate-led "globalization from above," the multistranded opposition that Falk described involved diverse sectors organizing across borders and raising connections like those that small farmers made between livelihood, health, intellectual property, environment, human rights, and the expanding dominance of supranational governance institutions. The Barbados meetings in the 1970s and after that brought together native activists and anthropologists from throughout the Americas (Brysk 2000), the global women's meetings sponsored by the United Nations in the 1980s and 1990s (Alvarez 1998), the 1992 Earth Summit (Gupta 1998), the NGO forums held in tandem with World Bank, International Monetary Fund, (IMF) and Group of Seven Industrialized countries meetings, and a multitude of similar events connected issues and activists in postmaterialist and identity- and

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

305

class-basedmovementsas neverbefore (Adam 1995, Brecheret al 2000, Charlton 1998). Just a few years ago, one of the foremostobserversof this process could state have been "subject to little strategic reflection" that the new internationalisms and have "as yet little or no theoreticalstatus"(Waterman 1998, p. 4). Appadurai that (2000) recentlyremarked "thesociology of these emergentsocial forms-part movements,partnetworks,partorganizations-has yet to be developed"(p. 15). Researchon transnational organizinghas, however,flourishedin the mid- to late 1990s. Initially, it usually looked at organizationsthat crossed one or two adjacent borders,such as issue-orientedbinationalcoalitions of U.S. and Mexican activists(Fox 2000), the sanctuary movementthataidedCentral Americanrefugees coalitions (Ayres 1998). Increasingly,schol(Cunningham1999), or anti-NAFTA ars have examined globalization-from-below terms of its antecedents,protest in Risserepertoires, geographicreach, and theoreticaland strategicunderpinnings. Kappen (1995) investigates how internationalgovernance structureslegitimize transnational activists' efforts, increase their access to nationalpolities, and bolster their capacity to form effective coalitions. Smith et al (1997) analyze a wide activism and advancea broaderprojectof relatingcontemrangeof transnational to previous cross-borderefforts, earlier theories of collective poraryorganizing action, and debates aboutglobal governance.Waterman (1998) provides a subtle discussion of emerging labor internationalisms, groundedin a thoroughunderof old working-classtransnational solidarities.Keck & Sikkink (1998) standing focus on transnational advocacynetworks,which they distinguishfromcoalitions, and "civil society" by their "nodal"organizationand their use of inmovements, formation,symbolic, leverage,andaccountability politics. They employ a concept of "network" potentiallyincludes social movements,but also media, unions, that and NGOs, and intergovernmental governmental organizations. When the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize was awardedto the International Campaign to Ban Landminesand Jody Williams, the ICBL had to wait for nearly a year to receive its half of the award money because it had no bank account and no address and was not an officially registeredorganizationanywherein the world (Mekata2000). Acephalous,horizontal,loosely networkedalliances,of which the ICBL was emblematic,have emergedas majoractorson the world scene and are frequentlysaid to have important advantagesvis-a-vis hierarchical organizations, butalso supranational Alstates, particularly governanceandfinancialinstitutions. definitionsof the termnetworkarecommon(Castells 1997), thoughall-embracing more restrictedinterpretations most revealingas regardsconcreteinstancesof are collective action. Among the most developed discussions of networksis the previously cited RAND study of the Zapatistas(Ronfeldtet al 1998). Distinguishing between "chain,""star"or "hub,"and "all-channel" networks,dependingon the between nodes, the RAND authorsare mainly degree and type of interconnection interested in developing a counterinsurgencystrategy to replace 1980s "lowwhendispersed intensityconflict"doctrine.Among theirconcernsare"swarming," nodes of a networkconvergeon a target(as humanrights NGOs did in Chiapas),

306

EDELMAN and "sustainablepulsing," when "swarmers" coalesce, disperse, and recombine for attackson new targets(as in anti-Maastricht marchesin Europeand, one supin poses, morerecentdemonstrations Seattleandelsewhere).Accordingto RAND, combatingnetworksrequiresmimicking their form with interagencyand multijurisdictionalcooperation.States seeking foreign investmentare most vulnerable to "netwar" campaignsthat may damage their image or generateperceptionsof thatinvest heavily in linking brandimages to coninstability.Giantcorporations sumer identities may be similarly threatenedby informationalcampaigns, such as the antisweatshopmovement,that expose perniciousenvironmental labor and practices(Klein 1999, Ross 1997). Fox (2000) specifies with greaterclarity than most theorists differences between transnational movements,coalitions, and networks,accordingto the extent and to whichtheyengage in mutualsupport joint actionsandshareorganizedsocial bases, ideologies, and political cultures (with movementsunited along the most dimensionsandnetworksalongthe fewest). He cautionsthatalthoughthe concepts and are often used interchangeably the categoriessometimesblur,such analytical distinctions are necessary to keep in view imbalances and political differences withinwhatmightotherwiseappearfromthe outsideto be cohesive "transnational movements."Like Keck & Sikkink(1998), he is circumspectregardinghypotheses about "global"civil society because in their "hardversion" such assertions suggest that changing internationalpolitical norms and new technologies have fundamentallyand universally altered the balance of power between state and society. networks (2000) also points to the limited success thattransnational Appadurai and attributesit to "a tendency for stakeholder have had in "self-globalization" issues to oppose local interests organizationsconcerned with bread-and-butter researchers alliances"(p. 17), somethingamplydocumented other by againstglobal Fox & Brown 1998). His assertionthat networks' greatestedge (Edelman 1998, vis-a-vis corporationsis that "they do not need to compete with each other"is perhapsless persuasivebecausenetworksandtheirnodes collaborateeven as they vie for funding, supporters,and political access, and it is their loose, horizontal structureinstead that confers advantagesover hierarchicalorganizations,as the RAND group (Ronfeldt et al 1998) worries. Similarly,the notion that "one of the biggest disadvantagesfaced by activists workingfor the poor in fora such as the WorldBank, the U.N. system, the WTO [WorldTradeOrganization],[and] NAFTA... is their alienationfrom the vocabularyused by the university-policy nexus" (Appadurai2000, p. 17) is belied by a range of investigationsfrom various world regions that demonstratelevels of sophisticationon the part of grassroots activists that sometimes exceed those of their elite antagonists(Edelman 1998, Fox & Brown 1998, Gupta 1998). Otherpower differentials,beyond purely discursive ones, clearly skew contentionbetween activists and these formidable institutions. and "local"-continues nonetheless to "Civil society"-"global," "national," generate considerableexcitement and an outsized literature,most of it beyond

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

307

the scope of this article. Scholarshave devoted extensive attentionto the genealogy and boundariesof the concept (Cohen 1995, Comaroff & Comaroff 1999, Walzer 1995), its Gramscianroots (Nielsen 1995), and-more germane in considering social movements-to conservative and progressive variants of "civil society" discourse (Macdonald 1994, White 1994) and to the complicatedrelations between movements and other organizationalforms which make up civil society, particularlyNGOs (Alvarez 1998, Edelman 1999, Fox & Brown 1998, Gill 2000), but also political parties(Schneider& Schneider2001). The key watershedin discussions from a wide variety of viewpoints and regions is the end of the Cold War,which at times is attributed just to the failure of centrally not planned economies to keep pace with informationaland technological innovations but also to civil society itself, either its rise in the East (Chilton 1995) or its activities in the West (Tirman1999). The end of superpowercompetition openedpolitical space not only in erstwhilesocialist societies but also in capitalist states where corruptionand authoritarianism political life could no longer be in justified by the struggle against internationalcommunism.Weller (1999) shuns the term civil society as Eurocentricand insufficientlyattentiveto informalcommunity ties in his examinationof institutionsin Taiwan and China "intermediate" between the state and family. He nonetheless develops a suggestive thesis about how village temples and informallocal associations, often led by women and mobilizing aroundidioms of traditionalChinese culture,energizednationallevel environmental strugglesin Taiwan.He indicatesthatcomparablegroups on the mainland already back underreported protest movements and could evolve as componentsof a gradualprocess of democratization. Schneider& Schneider (2001) trace the emergence of antimafiacivic movements in Sicily, which they locate in the expansion after WorldWarII of urban,educated, outward-looking social groups and the erosion in the post-Cold War era of an anti-Communist landowner-Christian crime alliance.Like Weller,who Democratic-organized the political polivalence of traditionalChinese institutions and the emphasizes significance of local practices in a rapidly changing national and international context, the Schneidersdemonstratethat the struggleto retakesocial space from the mafia and its allies entails contention in neighborhoods,kin groups, workalternative civic sensiplaces, schools, and state institutions,as well as nurturing bilities anddebunkingassumptionsaboutthe ancientroots of the mafiain Sicilian society. The end of the Cold War,while opening political space for all mannerof civil society initiatives,also broughtacceleratedeconomic liberalizationand pressure on welfare-stateinstitutionsin developed and developing countries.Even before the fall of the Berlin Wall, duringthe free-market that swept much triumphalism of the world in the 1980s, it became increasinglyartificialto envision NSMs as unengaged with the state. Indeed, fiscal austerityand draconian"adjustments" in public-sectorservices made states key targetsfor forces seeking to safeguard historic social conquests and prevent furtherrollback of healthcare,education, housing, and transportation programs.It is by now commonplaceto indicatehow

308

EDELMAN globalizationgeneratesidentitypolitics (Castells 1997), how attackson welfarestateinstitutions resistancemovements(Edelman1999), andhow supranational fire governanceinstitutions(NAFTA, IMF, World Bank, WTO) are part and parcel of each process (Ayres 1998, Ritchie 1996). It is less frequentto find analyses that link these trends to the expandingmovement against corporatepower and unfetteredfree trade which burst into public consciousness in 1999 during the and Seattle demonstrations riots againstthe WTO.6 At first glance the anti-freetradecoalition of environmental,labor, and farm activists would seem an unlikely combinationof social forces, demands,and political practices.Brecheret al (2000) arguethatan "epochalchange"is occurring, movementsfindcommongroundandpressnotjust for new rights,but as disparate institutionsto generallyheld for adherenceby corporations, states, and suprastate norms.Accordingto these authors, the apparent local, national,andglobal instioppositionamongstrengthening tutions is based on a false premise: that more power at one level of governance is necessarily disempoweringto people at others. But today the of exact oppositeis the case. The empowerment local and nationalcommunities and polities today requiresa degree of global regulationand governance (p. 40). Although duly cognizant of the divisions that afflict social movements, they counpointto successfulcampaignsto securedebtforgivenessfor underdeveloped tries, to derailthe proposedMultilateral Agreementon Investment,to secureratificationof a global climatetreatyand a protocolregulatinggeneticallyengineered organisms,andto stallthe WTOMillenniumRoundas examplesof how grassroots pressuremay establish and enforce new norms of conductthatbetterbalance the public interestand special interests. With a lucidity and empiricalfoundationfar beyond anythingby Habermasor invasionsof public space and Melucci, Klein (1999) examines how market-based individuals' "life-worlds"have become an impetus for anticorporateactivism. Global corporations'outsourcing of productionhad allowed them to concentrate on brandingand on efforts to insinuate brand concepts into the broader culturevia sponsorships,advertising,and "synergies"with the sports, arts, and entertainmentworlds. In North America and elsewhere, this was taking place alongside privatizationof services, forcing schools, neighborhoods,museums, to and broadcasters turnto corporationsfor support,thus commercializingwhat malls were reshapingcommuremainedof the public sphere.Superstore-studded nities into newly privatizedpseudo-publicspaces. Brandingbecame so entangled and with culture,space, andidentitiesthatconsumersincreasinglyfelt bombarded of activism the aftermath the Seattle in to mediaattention anti-free-trade 6Thesudden use of of raises demonstrations thequestion theeffectiveness socialmovements' of disrupdebate has about whichthere longbeensubstantial versus moderate tiveandviolent tactics, 1977,Tarrow 1999,Piven& Cloward 1998). (Giugni

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

309

complicit in and threatenedby corporate wrongdoing. High-profile events in 1995-1996 that pitted environmentaland huian rights activists against some of the world's most powerfulcorporations-the "McLibel"trialof anti-McDonald's activists in England, Aung San Suu Kyi's denunciationsof labor conditions in Burma, Nigerian Ken Saro-Wiwa's execution during the Ogoni people's mobilization against Shell Oil-led growing numbers to link particularproblems to a broadercorporateassault on democracy,on communities, on culturalproduction (concentrationof cultureindustries,restrictionson artisanalfoods), and on the environment.The new willingness of establishedhuman-rights and environmentalorganizationsto protest corporatemalfeasancefurtherfed the "rising bad mood" regardingtransnationalcorporationsand supranationalgovernance institutions.

CONCLUSION
Recent writings on collective action suggest several areas of potential crossfertilization that could invigorate social movements research. Political process and NSMs theoristscould benefit from a greatersensitivity to the historicaland culturalprocessesthroughwhich some of theirmainanalyticalcategories(frames, submergednetworks,movementculture)are constructed,as well as a more genuine appreciation the lived experienceof movementparticipants nonparticiof and oral pants,somethingthatis accessible primarilythroughethnography, narratives, or documentaryhistory. Ethnographicanalyses of social movements have been most persuasivewhen they transcend single-organization single-issue focus the or of much collective action researchin favor of broaderexaminationsof the political and social fields within which mobilizationsoccur. Although ethnographers have often providedcompelling, fine-grainedaccounts of collective action, they have been less consistent when it comes to developing dynamic analyses of either the largerpolitical contexts in which mobilizationsoccur or the preexisting militanttraditionsand the organizingprocesses thatconstitutemovements'proximate and remote roots. To anthropologists,some of the issues (rationality,free riders) that continue to engross the grand theorists of contentious politics may appearmisplacedor peculiarlydevoid of culturalcontent,but othersof theirconcerns certainlymerit greaterattention(cycles of contention,protest repertoires) if anthropologistsare to avoid revertingto their traditionaldisciplinarypredilection for advancingahistoricalpseudo-explanations phenomenawith profound for historicalroots. The role of ethnography the study of social movementshas been significant in butseldomtheorized.Ethnographers-like historianswho workwith documentary or oral sources-may have privileged access to the lived experience of activists and nonactivists,as well as a window onto the "submerged" organizing,informal networks,protestactivities,ideological differences,publicclaim-making,fear and repression,and internaltensions, which are almost everywherefeaturesof social

310

EDELMAN movements. Some of these aspects raise questions that can be addressedonly though ethnographicor ethnographicallyinformed historical research.Weller's (1999) study of how environmentalism emerged from local temples in Taiwan, to Whittier's(1995) specificationof how lesbian communescontributed keeping at radicalfeminismalive in the 1980s, andthe Schneiders'(2001) attendance rural feastedtogether,uneasilyawarethat Sicilianpicnics wheremafiosiandantimafiosi they were antagonistsin a largercultural-political struggle,aremerelya few examobserversbutlargelyinvisples of the kindsof processesavailableto ethnographic ible to those workingat a temporalor geographicaldistancefromthe activitiesthey are analyzing.As a collection of methods, however,ethnographyalone-as traditionallyconceived-is hardlysufficientfor studyingthe deep historicalroots or wide geographicalconnections of most contemporarymobilizations. Nor does ethnographynecessarily innoculate researchersagainst the common pitfalls of overidentificationwith the movements they study, accepting activist claims at face value, or representing"movements"as more cohesive than they really are (Edelman1999, Hellman 1992). as If anythinghas distinguishedanthropological, opposed to other,studentsof it may well be a greaterpreoccupationwith the researcher's social movements, political engagement,from the "reinvented" anthropologyof the early 1970s to of the 1990s (Burdick 1998, p. 181). For some, the the "barefoot" anthropology "committed"stance is an unproblematicmatter of preexisting ethical-political principles, as when one U.S. anthropologist-newly arrivedin South Africaidentifiedherself in a squattercamp as "a memberof the ANC [AfricanNational Congress]"(Scheper-Hughes1995, p. 414). An astute scholar of rural Mexico (Pare 1994, p. 15) observes, For many of us it turnedout to be impossible to record acts of repression and forms of exploitation and to witness the difficulties the peasant organizationshad in makingtheirvoice heardwithouttaking sides.... Participation-whether directly in the organization,in advising groups, in collective analysis with the organizationsthemselves, in negotiations,in publicity, in solidarity,in communications,or in the governmentas a planner,functionary or technician-necessarily implies taking a position, a "committed" vision. of Ethnographers social movements who share these sensibilities frequently indicate thattheir own political involvement(Charlton1998, Cunningham1999, Schneider 1995, Stephen 1997, Waterman1998) or their location in groups perceived as sympatheticor suffering a similar oppression (Aretxaga 1997, Hart 1996) is precisely what permits them access to activist interlocutors.Yet unproblematicversions of this position potentially mask vital movement dynamics and may even limit researchers'political usefulness for activists. Real social movementsareoften notoriouslyephemeralandfactionalized(Brecheret al 2000, Tilly 1986), manifest major discrepanciesamong leaders and between leaders

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

311

and supporters(Edelman 1999, Morris 1999, Rubin 1997), and-probably most important-rarely attractmore than a minority of the constituencies they claim to represent(Burdick 1998). To which faction or leader does the ethnographer "commit"?What does that commitmentimply about hearing dissenting or uninterestedvoices or graspingalternativehistories, political projects, or forms of culturaltransformation? commitmentis a sine qua non of social movements If how are we to understand movements about which we do not feel ethnography, "intenselyprotective"(Hellman 1992, p. 55) or which we may, in fact, not like at all? The tendencyof collective actionscholarsto focus on groupsandorganizations with explicit programsfor change is, as Burdicksuggests, in effect an acceptance "of the claim of the movement to be a privileged site in the contestation and change in social values." Elevating the question of lack of participationto the same level of importanceas mobilization, he charges that much "sociological writing on the 'freeloader'problemring[s] a bit hollow and even a bit arrogant in its presumption... that social movementorganizationalaction is the only, or best, social change game in town" (1998, pp. 199-200). In a candid account of his efforts to place researchfindingsat the service of his activistinterlocutors, he most usefully arguesthat accompanyinga movementmay, for the ethnographer, entail "reportingthe patternedtestimony of people in the movement's targeted constituencywho on the one handheld views andengagedin actionsvery much in line with movementgoals, butwho on the otherhandfelt stronglyputoff, alienated, or marginalized one or anotheraspectof movementrhetoricor practice"(1998, by p. 191). In order to accomplish this, though, it is not the movement itself that becomes the object of study, but ratherthe broadersocial field within which it operates(cf. Gledhill 2000). The widening of social fields impliedby the rise of transnational activism sugthatthis challengewill be even harder meet in theeraof globalization-fromto gests below. Overthe past threedecades,theoristshave had to scrambleto keep up with the rapidlyevolving formsof contentiouspolitics. Fromidentity-based movements that allegedly eschewed engagementwith the state, to mobilizationsthattargeted neoliberalefforts to decimatesocial-welfareinstitutions,to more recent struggles financial againstcorporatepower and supranational goverance and international "scholars havecome lateto theparty" & Sikkink1998, p. 4). Part institutions, (Keck of the difficultyis recognizingtransformative momentsas they arebeing lived and even whatcomprises"movement The activism,for exactivity." new anticorporate an actionrepertoire combinesdecidedlypostmodern that elements ample,employs and"swarming") with othersthatharkback (informational politics, cyber-attacks, to early nineteenth-century forms of direct action, albeit with global ratherthan local audiences(uprootinggeneticallymodifiedcrops, ransackingcorporatefranchises). Whetherornot we areon thevergeof a new cycle of NSMs, it is alreadyevidentthatunderstanding today'smobilizationswill requirenew conceptionsof what constitutesethnography, and observation,participation, certainlyengagement.

312

EDELMAN

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many thanks to Jimmy Weir and Susan Falls for research assistance, to the numerous colleagues who provided bibliographical advice, and to John Burdick and Khaled Furani for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this review. Visit the Annual Reviews home page at www.AnnualReviews.org LITERATURECITED AbdulhadiR. 1998. The Palestinianwomen's autonomousmovement:emergence,dynamics, and challenges. Gend. Soc. 12(6):64973 AdamBD. 1995. TheRise of a Gay andLesbian Movement.New York:Twayne.Rev. ed. Alvarez SE. 1998. Latin Americanfeminisms "go global": trends of the 1990s and challenges for the new millennium.See Alvarez et al 1998, pp. 293-324 Alvarez SE, Dagnino E, EscobarA, ed. 1998. Culturesof Politics/Politicsof Cultures:ReLatinAmericanSocial Movements. Visioning Boulder,CO: Westview AppaduraiA. 2000. Grassrootsglobalization and the research imagination.Public Cult. 12(1):1-19 ArdittiR. 1999. SearchingforLife: TheGrandmothersof the Plaza de Mayo and the Disappeared Children of Argentina.Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press Arendt H. 1951. The Origins of TotalitarianBrace & World ism. New York:Harcourt, AretxagaB. 1997. ShatteringSilence: Women, Nationalism, and Political Subjectivity in Northern Ireland. Princeton,NJ: Princeton Univ. Press Ayres JM. 1998. Defying Conventional Wisand dom:Political Movements PopularContentionAgainstNorthAmericanFree Trade. Toronto:Univ. TorontoPress Baierle SG. 1998. The explosionof experience: the emergenceof a new ethical-political principle in popularmovements.See Alvarezet al 1998,pp.118-38 J, Baumgardner RichardsA. 2000. Manifesta: Young Women,Feminism, and the Future. Straus& Giroux New York:Farrar, Berlet C, Lyons MN. 2000. Right-WingPopulism in America: Too Close for Comfort. New York:Guilford Boudreau V. 1996. Northern theory, southern protest: opportunity structureanalysis in cross-national perspective. Moblization 1(2):175-89 Bove J, DufourF, LuneauG. 2000. Le Monde n'est pas une Marchandise. Des Paysans contre la Malbouffe.Paris:Decouverte BrecherJ, Costello T, SmithB. 2000. Globalizationfrom Below: ThePowerof Solidarity. Boston: SouthEnd Brysk A. 2000. From TribalVillage to Global Village:IndianRights and InternationalReCA: StanlationsinLatinAmerica.Stanford, ford Univ. Press BurdickJ. 1995. Uniting theoryandpracticein of the ethnography social movements:notes towarda hopefulrealism.Dialect. Anthropol. 20:361-85 Burdick J. 1998. Blessed Anastdcia: Women, Race, and Popular Christianity in Brazil. New York:Routledge Calder6n F, Piscitelli A, Reyna JL. 1992. Social movements: actors, theories, expectations. See Alvarez et al 1998, pp. 19-36 CalhounC. 1993. "New social movements"of the early nineteenthcentury.Soc. Sci. Hist. 17(3):385-427 CalhounC. 1994. Social theoryandthe politics of identity.In Social Theoryand the Politics of Identity,ed. C Calhoun,pp. 9-36. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Carley M. 1997. Defining forms of successful state repressionof social movementorganizations:a case studyof the FBI's COINTELPRO and the American Indian movement.

SOCIALMOVEMENTS Res. Soc. Move. Conflict Change 20:15176 Castells M. 1997. The InformationAge: Economy,Societyand Culture.Vol. 2. ThePower of Identity.Oxford,UK: Blackwell CharltonJI. 1998. Nothing About Us Without Us: Disability Oppression and Empowerment. Berkeley:Univ. Calif. Press Chhachhi A, Pittin R. 1999. Multiple identities, multiple strategies:confrontingstate, capital and patriarchy.In Labour Worldwide in the Era of Globalization:Alternative Union Models in the New WorldOrder, ed. R Munck,P Waterman, 64-79. London: pp. Macmillan Chilton P. 1995. Mechanics of change: social movements,transnational coalitions,and the transformation processes in EasternEurope. See Risse-Kappen 1995, pp. 189226 Chomsky A, Lauria-SantiagoA, eds. 1998. Identity and Struggle at the Margins of the Nation-State:TheLaboringPeoples of Central America and the Hispanic Caribbean. Durham,NC: Duke Univ. Press. Cohen CJ. 2001. Punks, bulldaggers,and welfare queens: the radical potential of queer politics? In SexualIdentities,QueerPolitics, ed. M Blasius, pp. 200-27. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniv. Press Cohen JL. 1985. Strategy or identity: new theoretical paradigms and contemporary social movements. Soc. Res. 52(4):663716 CohenJL. 1995. Interpreting notion of civil the society. See Walzer1995, pp. 35-40 CollierGA [withE LoweryQuaratiello].1994. Basta! Land and the ZapatistaRebellion in Chiapas. Oakland, CA: Inst. Food & Dev. Policy ComaroffJL, ComaroffJ. 1999. Introduction. In Civil Societyand thePoliticalImagination in Africa, ed. JL Comaroff,J Comaroff,pp. 1-43. Chicago:Univ. Chicago. Cunningham H. 1999. The ethnography of transnational social activism:understanding the global as local practice. Am. Ethnol. 26(3):583-604

313

Dagnino E. 1998. Culture, citizenship, and democracy: changing discourses and practices of the LatinAmericanleft. See Alvarez et al 1998, pp. 33-63 Davis DE. 1999. The power of distance: retheorizingsocial movementsin LatinAmerica. TheorySoc. 28(4):585-638 Della Porta D, Diani M. 1999. Social Movements:An Introduction. London:Blackwell Diamond S. 1995. Roads to Dominion: RightWingMovementsand Political Power in the UnitedStates. New York:Guilford di Leonardo M. 1998. Exotics at Home: Anthropologies, Others, American Modernity. Chicago:Univ. Chicago Press Dudziak ML. 2000. Cold War Civil Rights: Race and theImageofAmericanDemocracy. Princeton,NJ: PrincetonUniv. Press Eckstein S, ed. 1989. Power and Popular Protest: Latin AmericanSocial Movements. Berkeley:Univ. Calif. Press. EdelmanM. 1998. Transnational peasantpolitics in CentralAmerica.LatinAm. Res. Rev. 33(3):49-86 EdelmanM. 1999. PeasantsAgainstGlobalization:RuralSocial Movementsin Costa Rica. Stanford,CA: StanfordUniv. Press EscobarA, Alvarez SE, eds. 1992. The Making of Social Movementsin Latin America: Identity,Strategy,and Democracy. Boulder, CO: Westview EyermanR, JamisonA. 1998. Music and Social Movements: in MobilizingTraditions the TwentiethCentury. Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniv. Press FalkR. 1993. The makingof global citizenship. InGlobal Visions:BeyondtheNew World Order, ed. JB Childs, J Brecher,J Cutler,pp. 39-50. Boston: South End Fals Borda0. 1992. Social movementsandpolitical power in Latin America. See Escobar & Alvarez 1992, pp. 303-16 FeldmanA. 1991. Formationsof Violence:The Narrative of the Body and Political Terror in NorthernIreland.Chicago:Univ. Chicago Press Findlay EJ. 1998. Free love and domesticity: sexuality and the shaping of working-class

314

EDELMAN Retreat of the Bolivian State. New York: ColumbiaUniv. Press GinsburgFD. 1998 [1989]. Contested Lives: The AbortionDebate in an AmericanCommunity.Berkeley:Univ. Calif. Press. 2nd ed. Giugni M. 1999. Introduction. How social movements matter: past research, present problems,future developments.See Giugni et al 1999, pp. xiii-xxxiii Giugni M, McAdam D, Tilly C, eds. 1999. How Social MovementsMatter. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press Gledhill J. 2000. Power and its Disguises: AnthropologicalPerspectiveson Politics. London: Pluto Press. 2nd. ed. GrandinG. 2000. The Blood of Guatemala:A History of Race and Nation. Durham,NC: Duke Univ. Press GrossmannA. 1995. ReformingSex: The German Movement Birth Controland Aborfor tion Reform,1920-1950. New York:Oxford Univ. Press Grove RH. 1995. Green Imperialism: Colonial Expansion, TropicalIsland Edens and the Origins of Environmentalism,16001860. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Guha R, Martinez-AlierJ. 1997. Varietiesof Environmentalism: Essays North and South. London:Earthscan Gupta A. 1998. Postcolonial Developments: Agriculturein the Makingof ModernIndia. Durham,NC: Duke Univ. Press HabermasJ. 1981. New social movements.Telos 49:33-37 Hart J. 1996. New Voices in the Nation: Women and the Greek Resistance, 19411964. Ithaca,NY: CornellUniv. Press Harvey N. 1998. The Chiapas Rebellion: The Strugglefor Landand Democracy.Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press Hellman JA. 1992. The study of new social movements in Latin America and the question of autonomy. See Escobar & Alvarez 1992, pp. 52-61 Heywood L, Drake J, eds. 1997. ThirdWave Agenda: Being Feminist, Doing Feminism. Minneapolis:Univ. Minn. Press

feminism in Puerto Rico, 1900-1917. See 1998, pp. 229Chomsky& Lauria-Santiago 59 soFisherD. 1999. "Abandof little comrades": cialist Sunday schools in Scotland. In Popular Education and Social Movements in Scotland Today, ed. J Crowther,I Martin, M Shaw,pp. 136-42. Edinburgh: Natl. Org. Adult Learn. Flacks R. 1988. Making History: The American Left and theAmericanMind.New York: ColumbiaUniv. Press. Forster C. 1998. Reforging national revolution: campesino labor struggles in Guatemala, 1944-1954. See Chomsky & LauriaSantiago 1998, pp. 196-226 FowerakerJ. 1995. Theorizing Social Movements.London:Pluto Fox JA. 2000. Assessing Binational Civil Society Coalitions:Lessonsfrom the Mexico-US Pap. No. 26. Santa Cruz: Experience.Work. Res. Cent., Univ. Calif. Chicano/Latino Fox JA, Brown LD, eds. 1998. The Struggle for Accountability. The World Bank, NGOs, and Grassroots Movements. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press Fox RG, Starn0, eds. 1997. Between Resistance and Revolution:CulturalPolitics and Social Protest.New Brunswick,NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press FraserR, BertauxD, Eynon B, Grele R, Le Wita B, et al. 1988. 1968: A StudentGeneration in Revolt.New York:Pantheon FreemanJB. 2000. WorkingClass New York: Life and Labor Since World War II. New York:New Press Fromm E. 1941. Escape from Freedom. New York:Holt, Rhinehart Winston & GamsonWA, MeyerDS. 1996. Framingpolitical opportunity. See McAdam et al 1996b, 274-90 pp. R. Garner 1997. Fifty yearsof social movement In theory:aninterpretation. Social Movement Theoryand Research:An AnnotatedBibliographical Guide, ed. R Garer, J Tenuto,pp. 1-58. Lanham,MD: Scarecrow Gill L. 2000. Teetering on the Rim: Global Restructuring,Daily Life, and the Armed

SOCIALMOVEMENTS HilliardRL, Keith MC. 1999. Wavesof Rancor: Tuningin the Radical Right. Armonk, NY: Sharpe HirschmanAO. 1991. The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy. CamUniv. Press bridge, MA: Harvard HobsbawmE, RudeG. 1968. CaptainSwing:A Social History of the GreatEnglish Agricultural Uprisingof 1830. New York:Pantheon from a queer Hodge GD. 2000. Retrenchment ideal: class privilege and the failureof idenPlan. tity politics in AIDS activism.Environ. D 18:355-76 Horton M, Kohl J, Kohl H. 1990. The Long Haul: An Autobiography.New York:Doubleday Houtzager PP, Kurtz MJ. 2000. The institutional roots of popular mobilization: state transformation ruralpoliticsin Braziland and Chile, 1960-1995. Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist. 42(2):394-424 IssermanM, KazinM. 2000. AmericaDivided: The Civil Warof the 1960s. New York:Oxford Univ. Press JuddRW.2000. Common PeoLands,Common ple: The Origins of Conservationin Northern New England.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press Keck ME, Sikkink K. 1998. Activists Beyond Borders:AdvocacyNetworksin International Politics. Ithaca, NY: Corell Univ. Press Klein N. 1999. No Logo: TakingAim at the BrandBullies. New York:PicadorUSA LaclauE, Mouffe C. 1985. Hegemonyand Socialist Strategy: Towardsa Radical Democratic Politics. London:Verso Larafia JohnstonH, GusfieldJR, eds. 1994. E, New Social Movements:From Ideology to Identity.Philadelphia: TempleUniv. Press Lerer G. 1998. The meaning of Seneca Falls: 1848-1998. Dissent 45(4):35-41 MacdonaldL. 1994. Globalising civil society: interpretinginternationalNGOs in Central America.Millennium Int.Stud.23(2):267J. 85 Maybury-LewisB. 1994. The Politics of the Possible: TheBrazilianRural Workers' Tra-

315

de Union Movement,1964-1985. Philadelphia:TempleUniv. Press McAdamD, McCarthyJD, Zald MN. 1996a. Introduction: opportunities, mobilizing and structures, framingprocesses-toward a synthetic,comparative perspectiveon social movements. See McAdam et al 1996b, pp. 1-20 McAdam D, McCarthyJD, Zald MN, eds. 1996b. ComparativePerspectiveson Social Movements:Political Opportunities,Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings. Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniv. Press McAdam D, TarrowS, Tilly C. 2001. Dynamics of Contention.Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniv. Press JD, McCarthy ZaldMN. 1977. Resourcemobilization and social movements:a partialtheory.Am.J. Sociol. 82(6):1212-41 MekataM. 2000. Buildingpartnerships toward a common goal: experiences of the international Campaignto Ban Landmines.In The ThirdForce: TheRise of Transnational Civil Society, ed. AM Florini, pp. 143-76. Washington, DC: CarnegieEndow.Int. Peace MelucciA. 1989.Nomadsof thePresent:Social Movements IndividualNeeds in Contemand porary Society. Philadelphia:Temple Univ. Press Melucci A. 1996. Challenging Codes: Collective Action in the InformationAge. Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniv. Press Mishler PC. 1999. Raising Reds: The Young Pioneers,RadicalSummer Camps,and CommunistPolitical Culturein the UnitedStates. New York:ColumbiaUniv. Press Monson I. 1997. Abbey Lincoln's straight ahead: jazz in the era of the civil rights movement.See Fox & Star 1997, pp. 17194 Mooney PH, Majka TJ. 1995. Farmers' and FarmWorkers' Movements: Social Protestin AmericanAgriculture.New York:Twayne Morris AD. 1999. A retrospective on the civil rightsmovement:political and intellectual landmarks. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 25:51739 Nash J. 1997. The fiesta of the word: the

316

EDELMAN The Case Against the Global Economyand for a Turntoward the Local, ed. J Mander, E Goldsmith, pp. 494-500. San Francisco: SierraClub Ronfeldt D, ArquillaJ, Fuller GE, FullerM. 1998. The ZapatistaSocial Netwar in Mexico. SantaMonica,CA: RAND Corp.Arroyo Cent. Roseberry W. 1995. Latin American peasant studiesin a 'postcolonial'era.J. LatinAmer. Anthro.1(1):150-77 Rosen R. 2000. TheWorld Split Open:How the Movement ModernWomen's ChangedAmerica. New York:Viking Ross A, ed. 1997. No Sweat: Fashion, Free Trade,and the Rights of GarmentWorkers. London:Verso RubinJW. 1997. Decenteringthe Regime:Ethnicity, Radicalism and Democracy in Juchitdn, Mexico. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press Sarah E, ed. 1983. Reassessments of "First Wave"Feminism.Oxford,UK: Pergamon SaxtonM. 1998. Disabilityrights and selective abortion.In AbortionWars:A Half Century of Struggle,1950-2000, ed. R. Solinger,pp. 374-93. Berkeley:Univ. Calif. Press. Scheper-HughesN. 1995. The primacyof the ethical:propositionsfor a militantanthropology. Curr.Anthropol.36(1):409-20 Schneider CL. 1995. ShantytownProtest in Pinochet'sChile.Philadelphia: TempleUniv. Press SchneiderJC, SchneiderPT. 2001. Reversible Destiny: Mafia,Antimafia,and the Struggle for Palermo.Berkeley:Univ. Calif. Press Scott JC. 1990. Dominationand the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts.New Haven, CT:Yale Univ. Press. Scott JW. 1996. Only Paradoxes to Offer: French Feminists and the Rights of Man. Univ. Press Cambridge,MA: Harvard Shorter E, Tilly C. 1974. Strikes in France 1830-1968. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press SmelserNJ. 1962. Theoryof CollectiveBehavior. New York:Free Smith J, Chatfield C, Pagnucco R. 1997.

Zapatistauprisingand radicaldemocracyin Mexico. Am.Anthropol.99(2):261-74 Nielsen K. 1995. Reconceptualizingcivil sociturnety for now: some somewhatGranscian ings. See Walzer 1995, pp. 41-67 Olson Jr.,M. 1965. TheLogic of CollectiveAction:Public Goodsand theTheoryof Groups. HarvardEcon. Stud., Vol. 124. Cambridge, Univ. Press MA: Harvard Pare L. 1994. Algunas reflexiones metodologicas sobre el analisis de los movimientos sociales en el campo.Rev.Mex.Sociol. 61(2): 15-24 Park RE. 1967. On Social Control and Collective Behavior: Selected Papers, ed. RH Turner. Chicago:Univ. Chicago Press Payne LA. 2000. Uncivil Movements: The ArmedRight Wingand Democracy in Latin America. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press PereiraAW. 1997. The End of the Peasantry: The Rural Labor Movement in Northeast Brazil, 1961-1988. Pittsburgh:Univ. PittsburghPress PichardoNA. 1997. New social movements:a criticalreview.Annu.Rev.Sociol. 23:411-30 Piven FF, ClowardRA. 1977. Poor People's Movements:Why They Succeed, How They Fail. New York:Pantheon Prakash 1998. Fairness,social capitalandthe S. commons: the societal foundations of collective action in the Himalaya. In PrivatizingNature:PoliticalStrugglesforthe Global ed. Commons, M Goldman,pp. 167-97. London: Pluto ReedA, Jr.1999.Stirringsin theJug:BlackPolEra. Minneapoitics in the Post-Segregation lis: Univ. Minn. Press Ribeiro GL. 1998. Cybercultural politics: political activism at a distance in a transnationalworld.See Alvarezet al 1998, pp. 32552 Risse-KappenT, ed. 1995. Bringing Transnational Relations Back In: Non-StateActors, Instiand Domestic Structures International tutions. Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniv. Press. Ritchie M. 1996. Cross-borderorganizing. In

SOCIALMOVEMENTS and Transnational Social Movements Global Politics: SolidarityBeyond the State. Syracuse, NY: SyracuseUniv. Press Starn0. 1992. 'I dreamedof foxes andhawks:' reflections on peasant protest, new social movements, and the rondas campesinas of northernPeru. See Escobar & Alvarez, pp. 89-111 Starn 0. 1999. Nightwatch: The Politics of Protest in the Andes. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press Stein A. 1997. Sisters and queers: the decentering of lesbian feminism. In The Gender/SexualityReader: Culture,History, Political Economy, ed. RN Lancaster, M di Leonardo,pp. 378-91. New York:Routledge and StephenL. 1997. Women Social Movements in LatinAmerica:PowerfromBelow. Austin: Univ. Texas Press Stock CM. 1996. Rural Radicals: Righteous Rage in theAmericanGrain.Ithaca,NY:Cornell Univ. Press Stolcke V. 1995. Talkingculture:new boundaries, new rhetoricsof exclusion in Europe. Curr.Anthropol.16(1):1-34 Stoler AL. 1999. Racist visions for the twentyfirst century:on the culturalpolitics of the Frenchradicalright.J. Int. Inst. 7(1):1, 2021, 33 Tarrow S. 1989. Democracy and Disorder: Protest and Politics in Italy 1965-1975. Oxford, UK: Clarendon TarrowS. 1998. Power in Movement:Social Movementsand ContentiousPolitics. Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniv. Press. 2nd ed. TaylorDE. 2000. The rise of the environmental Am. justice paradigm. Behav.Sci. 43(4):50880 ThompsonE. 1971. The moraleconomy of the Past English crowdin the eighteenthcentury. Present 50:76-136 Tilly C. 1986. The ContentiousFrench. CamUniv. Press bridge,MA: Harvard TirmanJ. 1999. How we ended the cold war: peace activists' demand for an end to nuclear madnessplayed a decisive role. Nation 269(14):13-21 TouraineA. 1973. Las clases sociales. In Las

317

Clases Sociales en America Latina, ed. R Benitez Zenteno, pp. 3-71. Mexico City, Mex.: Siglo XXI TouraineA. 1988 [1984]. Return of the Actor: Social Theory in Postindustrial Society. Transl.M. Godzich. Minneapolis:Univ. Minn. Press (FromFrench) Touraine A. 2000. Can We Live Together? EqualityandDifference.Stanford,CA: Stanford Univ. Press VincentJ. 1990.Anthropology Politics: Viand sions, Traditions,and Trends.Tucson:Univ. Ariz. Press a WalzerM, ed. 1995. Toward Global Civil Society. Providence,RI: BerghahnBooks Warren KB. 1998. Indigenous Movements and their Critics: Pan-Maya Activism in Guatemala. Princeton,NJ: PrincetonUniv. Press Waterman 1998. Globalization,Social MoveP. ments and the New Internationalisms.London: Mansell Weller RP. 1999. AlternateCivilities: Democracyand Culturein Chinaand Taiwan.Boulder,CO: Westview White G. 1994. Civil society, democratization and development.I. Clearing the analytical ground.Democratization1(3):375-90 WhittierN. 1995. Feminist Generations: The Persistence of the Radical Women'sMovement.Philadelphia: TempleUniv. Press Williams HL. 2001. Social Movements and EconomicTransition: Marketsand Distributive Conflict in Mexico. Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniv. Press Wolf ER. 1969. Peasant Warsof the Twentieth Century.New York:Harper& Row WomackJ, Jr. 1999. Rebellion in Chiapas:An Historical Reader. New York:New YuidiceG. 1998. The globalization of culture and the new civil society. See Alvarez et al 1998, pp. 353-79 Zald MN. 1992. Lookingbackward look forto ward: reflections on the past and future of the resourcemobilizationresearchprogram. In Frontiersin Social MovementTheory,ed. AD Morris,C McMueller,pp. 326-48. New Haven,CT: Yale Univ. Press