Sociological Forum, Vol. 13, No.

2, 1998

Review Essay
Structure and Culture in Social Movement
Theory
Marco G. Giugni1,2

The Politics of Social Protest. Comparative Perspectives on States and

Social Movements. J. Craig Jenkins and Bert Klandermans, eds.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1995.
Social Movements and Culture. Hank Johnston and Bert Klandermans, eds.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1995.
Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements. Political Opportunities,
Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings. Doug McAdam, John
D. McCarthy, and Mayer N. Zald, eds. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1996.
Frontiers in Social Movement Theory. Aldon D. Morris and Carol McClurg
Mueller, eds. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1992.

Scholarly accounts of social movements seem to follow a cyclical pattern. Like a sound wave, they have lower and higher limits, indicating the
relative weight of structure and of culture in the explanations offered. This
metaphor obviously simplifies the diversity of existing work on social movements. Yet there is a tension in this literature between explanations that
stress structural constraints and those that stress cultural variables.
1

Department of Political Science, University of Geneva, 102, Boulevard Carl-Vogt, 1211

Geneve 4, Switzerland; e-mail: marco.giugni@politic.unige.ch.
2
To whom correspondence should be addressed.

365
0884-8971/98/0600-0365S15.00/0 1998 Plenum Publishing Corporation

366

Giugni

Classical approaches, above all the collective behavior theory, examine

social movements under the prism of social disorganization and psychological strain. In reaction to explanations in terms of social disorganization,
studies of contentious politics in the 1970s were dominated by resource
mobilization, which underscored almost exclusively structural factors. Social
networks and political institutions became the new pivots in the theories
of social movements.
To counteract the danger of a new determinism, this time a structural
one, new models have brought the wave back to the other side of the range,
and an increasing number of studies now pay attention to the role of myths,
rites, and symbolsthat is, cultural formationsin social movements.
Twenty years after the "cultural revolution" began with the fundamental
work of Clifford Geertz (1973) and by continuing the culturalist approach
in the analysis of revolutions (e.g., Fischer, 1980; Hunt, 1984; Sewell, 1980),
many studies of "nonrevolutionary" collective action have underscored the
role of cultural variables in the emergence and subsequent development of
social movements.
The four edited collections under review clearly testify to this "cultural
turn." With one exception (The Politics of Social Movements), they all deal
with the cultural dimension of collective action. Taken together, these books
examine the relationship between structure and culture in social movement
theory. This relationship has always been difficult, as shown in the views
of two of the founders of sociology. According to Karl Marx, structures
(i.e., economic conditions) determine culture (i.e., ideology), whereas for
Max Weber, culture (i.e., the Protestant ethic) comes before structures (i.e.,
the modern capitalist system). These four books offers us an opportunity
to discuss the often conflicting relationship between structure and culture
in theories of social movements.

II

At the risk of simplifying, we may distinguish between two conceptions

of structures in contemporary social theory. On the one hand, many recent
works have elaborated on the idea of structures as a frame within which
human action takes place. This conception stems from the European sociological tradition, in particular from the Marxist theory of social classes
and from the Weberian approach to bureaucratic institutions. On the other
hand, American sociology has favored a relational conception of structures,
the latter being defined as networks of social relations.

Structure and Culture

367

European sociology's structuralist tradition has strongly influenced the

study of collective action. Unlike rational choice theory, which has mainly
affected American political science, but has also had an impact on the old
continent, the structural approach to social movements maintains and,
above all, attempts to demonstrate empirically that individual behaviors are
channeled by a series of structural constraints. Institutions, particularly political institutions, are among of the principal sources of structural constraints. Recent developments within the neo-institutionalist perspective in
several social science subfields point in the same direction by trying to situate the actor in her/his context (e.g., Powell and DiMaggio, 1991; Scott,
1995; Steinmo et al., 1992). In its broader version, this perspective aims to
analyze all durable or regular aspects of social life; in its narrower version,
it looks at the impact of institutions on human action. The political process
approach to social movements, at least in the version which Tarrow (in
McAdam et al., 1996) calls statist, is grounded precisely in this neo-institutionalist view of society. The central place taken by the concept of political opportunity structure in this perspective clearly shows on which side
of the band is the wave followed by the authors who refer to it (see for
instance Kitschelt, 1986; Kriesi et al., 1995; Tarrow, 1994). In a similar vein,
the "third generation" of students of revolutions that emerged during the
1970s has emphasized the role of political and economic structures, especially state structures, while the "second generation" stressed the impact
of social strains and of their social-psychological consequences, and the
"first generation" dealt with the natural history of revolutions in a rather
descriptive manner (Goldstone, 1980).
Beside this "outside-in" conception of structures, another view, which
we may call "inside-out," has largely influenced the study of social movements. I am referring to structural analysis in social science that aims to
explain behaviors and institutions by looking at the relations between social
actors and organizations. This approach has its theoretical origin in the
works of authors such as Nadel (1957) and the German sociologist Georg
Simmel. It has recently gained legitimacy as a result of the development,
in the 1980s, of methodological tools and statistical techniques that allow
for the empirical application of its theoretical principles. This relational
view of structures that focuses on the links and exchanges between the elements of a given social structure or system has been put forward by authors
who follow resource mobilization theory. Although most existing work does
not refer explicitly to structural sociology (for exceptions see Diani, 1995;
Knoke, 1990; Rosenthal et al., 1985), several authors have stressed the crucial role of social networks and, more generally of mobilizing structures,

368

Giugni

for the emergence of social movements as well as for their development

over time (e.g., Fernandez and McAdam, 1988; McAdam, 1988; Gould,
1993, 1995; Snow et al., 1980).3

III

The concept of culture, like that of structure, has different meanings

in the literature on social movements. Notwithstanding the arbitrary nature
of all classifications, we can distinguish between three approaches to culture: value-oriented, framing, and social-psychological approaches. Each
perspective rests on a specific definition of culture and is therefore variously
operationalized in social movement theory.
The value-oriented perspective has its theoretical roots in the Weberian and Durkheimian sociological traditions. Although these two traditions, as Swidler (in Johnston and Klandermans, 1995) remarks, carry two
different conceptions of culture, both put forward the idea of "symbolic
configurations or formations that constrain and enable action by structuring
actors' normative commitments and their understandings of the world and
of their own possibilities within it" (Emirbayer and Goodwin, 1996:365). If
Weber considered culture as a set of internalized norms and values that
guide individual action, Durkheim was bent on defining how collective representations solidify social solidarities. The monumental attempt by lalcott
Parsons (1937) to forge a synthesis between the two perspectivesin his
voluntaristic theory of actionresulted in a deterministic view of culture
the latter of which provides social actors with abstract and general norms
of conduct. Explanations of collective action based on this perspective have
found their preferred terrain in Europe. The new social movement approach, in particular, has tended to relate macrostructural changes in western societies to new cultural orientations in these societies (e.g., Melucci,
1996) so that the emergence of new types of social movements over the
last few decades are linked to the emergence of new individual needs, to
the internalization of certain (postmaterialist) values in the course of socialization, or to the individuals' identification with values carried by certain
social classes. This traditional conception of culture also underlies the study
of social revolutions (e.g., Fischer, 1980; Hunt, 1984; Sewell,1980). This has
3

In addition to the two versions outlined here, we should note the existence of a third
conception of structure that, however, has not influenced the study of social movements but
which we find in a great many works in linguistics, cognitive psychology, and structural
anthropology. In this case, it is a matter of identifying and explaining systematic regularities
in human conscience and cultural beliefs that brings this types of structuralism as well as
Talcott Parsons' structural-functionalism closer to the cultural dimensions of social action.

Structure and Culture

369

led Foran (1993) to foresee the birth of a "fourth generation" of historians

of revolutions, a generation that pays more attention to cultural aspects.
While the value-oriented approach is located above all at the macrosociological level, the framing perspective rests on meso and micro levels.
The theoretical origin of this perspective is to be found in the work of
Erving Goffman, more specifically in his fundamental Frame Analysis
(1974), but also in symbolic interactionism. Thanks first to the work of William Gamson (above all, Gamson et al., 1982) and later but more explicitly
to various contributions by David Snow and his collaborators, Goffman's
insights about "schemes of interpretation" in everyday life have been applied to the study of social movements (see in particular Snow and Benford
in Morris and McClurg Mueller, 1992; Snow et al., 1986). Here the stress
is on the links between existing interpretations of objective facts and events
on the one hand and participation in social movement activities on the
other handthat is, between collective action frames, or master frames,
and protest. This has the advantage of turning our attention to the relationship between cultural elements and their transposition into action. Furthermore, this perspective has paid much attention to the discursive aspects
of social movements. Though the notion of framing processes has come to
include an increasingly wide range of cultural phenomena, its original definition as McAdam et al. say in the book under review referred to "conscious
strategic efforts by groups of people to fashion shared understandings of the
world and of themselves that legitimate and motivate collective action" (6,
emphasis in the original). The strategic action by social movement organizations aimed at recruiting new members and formulating problems to
which a solution in the form of collective action is needed is at the heart
of this focus on framing processes. While such a narrow definition allows
for an easier operationalization and empirical test of its theoretical statements, it ignores a series of other equally important modalities through
which culture influence social movements.
The social-psychological perspective focuses on the social construction
of protest primarily at the individual levelthat is, on the modalities
through which social actors are led to act collectively because of feelings
of injustice, individual effectiveness, or shared identities (Gamson, 1992,
and in Johnston and Klandermans, 1995). In this perspective, the cognitive
processes through which individuals become involved in social movements
are at center stage (e.g., Eyerman and Jamison, 1991; Klandermans, 1997).
Insofar as these cognitive processes are shaped by social interactions (Gamson in Morris and McClurg Mueller, 1992), it harks back to Goffman's
work and symbolic interactionism. However, the focus here is primarily on
the individual work of categorization, attribution, and construction of meaning that facilitates or impedes participation in collective action. Several re-

370

Giugni

cent studies on the role of emotions and sexuality within social movements
also can be said to follow this third perspective (e.g., Goodwin, 1997; Taylor
and Whittier in Morris and McClurg Mueller, 1992). These studies deal
with "all those psychic structures that constrain and enable action by channeling flows and investments ('cathexes') of emotional energy" (Emirbayer
and Goodwin, 1996:368).

IV

In the light of the above discussion on the diverse conceptions of structure and culture for the study of collective action, I will now focus more
directly on the four books under review. They are edited collections, recently published, which all deal more or less explicitly with the role of structural and cultural factors in social movement theory. However, the cultural
dimension is taken into account more fully in the volume edited by
Johnston and Klandermans and in the collection put together by Morris
and McClurg Mueller. Jenkins and Klandermans' volume, on the other
hand, looks mainly at the structural determinants of protest. Finally, the
collection edited by McAdam et al. aims to integrate structure (in the two
meanings discussed above) and culture.
Morris and McClurg Mueller's Frontiers in Social Movement Theory has
had the great merit to bring the debate on the role of culture back into
the social movement literature and has thus been at the forefront of the
recent "cultural turn" in the study of social movements. Other works also
have dealt with this aspectin particular the studies by Gamson and those
by Snow and his collaborators mentioned earlierbut unlike previous work,
this book offers an explicit critique of resource mobilization and rational
choice perspectives in the study of social movements, especially their failure
to take into account the cultural aspects of such movements. As the preface
to the volume states, the goaland, I believe, one of the strengthsof this
book is to focus our attention explicitly on "how social movements generate
and are affected by the construction of meaning, consciousness raising, the
manipulation of symbols, and collective identities" (ix). In other words, following the distinctions I have proposed, it treats culture as a framing process and looks at the social-psychological mechanisms underlying
participation in social movements. More concerned with theoretical issues
than with research advances, this book suggests several ways to integrate
structural and cultural factors. Three elements are seen as essential: reconceptualizing the actor as a socially embedded individual, taking into account
the context of social interaction, and elaborating the concepts of meaning,
frames, and identity within the mobilization process. In addition, we are

Structure and Culture

371

recalled of the need of relating the cultural and the structural aspects of
social movements. Although not all chapters systematically follow this
agenda (a task not easy to accomplish in a collective work), the book as a
whole does a good job of combining, if not truly integrating, structure and
culture. To be sure, its principal aim is to transcend the opposition of strategy and identity, that is, to view them not as being in contradiction, but
as related and mutually influencing each other. In pursuing this aim, many
of the authors place culture at center stage. This is illustrated in Myra Marx
Ferree's contribution to the volume, specifically in her claim that individuals
should be regarded as members of a community whose interests reflect their
structural locations. Similarly, Debra Friedman and Doug McAdam's attempt at a synthesis of resource mobilization and rational choice theories
uses collective identity as a link between these theories.
Johnston and Klandermans' Social Movements and Culture puts its focus somewhere between the framing and the social-psychological perspectives, between discourse analysis and cognitive processes. This volume is
entirely devoted to cultural aspects of social movements. This is clearly evident in the chapters written by Ann Swidler, Michael Billig, and Gary Alan
Fine, where the concept of culture is at the center of the discussion. While
this broader approach sheds a new light on the study of social movements,
however, it pushes us away from the search of concepts and theories that
bridge structural and cultural accounts. Ann Swidler's essay is perhaps an
exception insofar as she takes into consideration the impact of the larger
institutional context on the cultural dynamics within movements. She define
institutions as "well-established, stable sets of purposes and rules backed
by sanctions," such as legally structured marriage, employment relationship,
and established norms in consumer transactions, that may create both contraints and opportunities for individuals. In the case of social movements,
of course, the most relevant institutions are political ones, such as regime
type and forms of repression. Among the contributions in this volume, I
found particularly appealing Rick Fantasia and Eric Hirsch's suggestion to
shift away from a static view of culture as simply providing opportunities
and constraints for social action toward a more dynamic perspective that
treats culture as a contested terrain. Their case study of the struggle over
the veil in the Algerian revolution effectively shows the advantages of this
interactive approach to culture. Unfortunately, only a few of the papers
present research findings. This weakness notwithstanding, the volume edited by Hank Johnston and Bert Klandermans remains an important point
of reference for all those who are interested in the cultural dimensions of
collective action.
With The Politics of Social Protest, edited by Jenkins and Klandermans,
we leave the cultural dimension of movements for the structural components

372

Giugni

of protest. This book gives us a quite representative overview of the structural currents in social movement theorythat is, of structures as relatively
stable features of a movement's environment that influence action by shaping opportunities. The state as a structure is at the core of this volume, and
the articles explore the relationship between the state, the system of political
representation, social movements, and the citizens (5). Among the four volumes under review, this is the only one consistently devoted to presenting
research findings. The book's structure is clear and straightforward, its three
parts dealing with the three main stages of protest: origins, development as
influenced by the political opportunity structure, and outcomes. However,
the book also has several weaknesses. First of all, the scheme presented in
the introduction is not followed consistently along the volume. Second,
though the editors maintain that little attention has been paid to the interactions between social movements and the state (3) and that, therefore, this
book bridges this gap, in fact a great many works have focused on such
interactions starting from at least the mid-1980s. The political process approach, in fact, looks precisely at the relation between the state and social
movements. Finally, the book seems to suffer a certain lack of unity. Beside
the varying quality of the individual chapters, the range of contributions is,
perhaps, too heterogeneous. In a time when there is a plethora of edited
collections being published in the field of collective action, I think it is absolutely necessary that they center around specific, preferably neglected topics, such as the consequences of social movements, the impact of
globalization on social movements, the policing of protest, and the relations
between social movements, revolutions, and contentious politics.
Finally, we come to McAdam, McCarthy, and Zald's Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements. This volume makes an explicit attempt to
link the three main sets of variables on which, currently, something of a
consensus exists: political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and framing
processes. In doing so, this book gets closer than the others under review
to articulating structural and cultural factors in social movement theory.
The result is a good overview of the state of the art in social movement
research with its blend of programmatic statements, theoretical elaborations, and empirical findings. Among the research essays, Donatella della
Porta's is noteworthy for its anticipation of her comparative study on the
policing of protest, a field of investigation that promises dramatically to
improve our knowledge of the dynamics of mobilization and repression. In
offering a sensitizing framework, McAdam, McCarthy, and Zald endeavor
to integrate the notion of structure as a frame external to social movements,
the notion of structure as social networks and organization internal to social
movements, and the notion of culture as a process of social construction
of protest objects. Although these three main dimensionspolitical oppor-

373

Structure and Culture

tunities, mobilizing structures, and framing processesare not new in the

literature on social movements, this volume succeeds in integrating them
in a consistent and systematic manner. Nonetheless, in spite of this effort
at synthesis, political opportunities are clearly privileged, and the cultural
dimension is limited to its strategic aspects. Hence, structure has the edge
over culture in this book, which may simply reflect the present state of
research in the field of collective action and social movements.

V
The comeback of cultural variables in the study of social movements
is more than welcome, particularly since the recently prevailing theories
have stressed social and political structures at the expense of cultural formations. This comeback, however, is not without dangers. It runs the not
unfamiliar risk that the discovery of a new paradigm leads scholars to forget
the advances made by the former paradigm so that cultural factors are put
at the center of the analysis of collective action while the crucial role of
structures is neglected. In other words, the danger is that cultural determinism may replace structural determinism. Perhaps we should acknowledge the relational nature of all social phenomena and, accordingly, adopt
a perspective that derives the consequencespurposive or unintendedof
human action from the interaction structuring all of social life (Tilly, 1996).
Hence, it seems that much remains to be done in order to arrive at a truly
relational conception of both structures and culture, thereby achieving a
better integration of these two fundamental components of human action.
The four books reviewed here, though none principally focuses on the
dialectic of these two aspects, testify to a prevailing substantialist view of
structures and culturethat is, the view that the fundamental units of all
inquiry are substances of various kinds, such as things, beings, or essences
(Emirbayer, 1997)in contrast to a relational perspective, according to
which structure and culture stem from past and present interactions and
embody them. To avoid reifying Structure and Culture, we should explore
their interpenetration in concrete social relations, acknowledging them not
as warring entities but as different abstractions from the same observations.
The books reviewed here deserve praise for putting at center of the
discussion two sets of factors critical for explanations of the emergence, development, and outcomes of social movements: the constraints and (political) opportunities that emerge at given moments on the one hand and the
symbolic and discursive context of social movements as well as the role
played by movements in the construction of such (cultural) contexts on the
other. However, in general we still are far from a model that integrates all

Giugni

374

of these factors and that shows theoretically as well as empirically how structure^) and culture(s) interact to shape collective action. In the end, except
for few exceptions (among the most recent ones, I can mention Banaszak,
1996, and Diani, 1996, in addition to some of the papers included in the
books reviewed), the relationship between structure and culture remains
problematic in the study of social movements. In this field, Marx and Weber
continue to walk side by side, but their paths still cross only with difficulty.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am indebted to Hanspeter Kriesi, Florence Passy, and Charles Tilly
for their comments and thoughts on a previous draft. A special thanks goes
to Suzanne Keller, whose insightful comments and exceptional editorial
skills have improved the essay dramatically.

REFERENCES
Banaszak, Ann Lee
1996 Why Movements Succeed or Fail. Opportunity, Culture, and the Struggle
for Woman Suffrage. Princeton, HI:
Princeton University Press.
Diani, Mario
1995 Green Networks. A Structural Analysis of the Italian Environmental Movement. E d i n b u r g h : E d i n b u r g h
University Press.
1996 "Linking mobilization frames and political opportunities: Insights from regional populism in Italy." American
Sociological Review 61:1053-1069.
Emirbayer, Mustafa
1997 "Manifesto for a relational sociology."
American J o u r n a l of Sociology
103:281-317.
Emirbayer, Mustafa and Jeff Goodwin
1996 "Symbols, positions, objects: Toward a
new theory of revolutions and collective action." History and Theory
35:358-374.
Eyerman, Ron and Andrew Jamison
1991 Social Movements. A Cognitive Approach. University Park: Pennsylvania
State University Press.
Fernandez, Roberto M. and Doug McAdam
1988 "Social networks and social movements: Multiorganizational fields and

recruitement to Mississippi freedom

summer." Sociological Forum 3:357382.
Fischer, Michael M. J.
1980 Iran. From Religious Dispute to
Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Foran, John
1993 "Theories of revolution revisited: Toward a fourth generation?" Sociological Theory 11:1-20.
Gamson, William A.
1992 Talking Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gamson, William A., Bruce Fireman, and
Steven Rytina
1982 Encounters with Unjust Authority.
Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
Geertz, Clifford
1973 The Interpretation of Cultures. New
York: Basic Books.
Goffman, Erving
1974 Frame Analysis. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Goldstone, Jack
1980 "Theories of revolution: The third generation." World Politics 23: 425-453.
Goodwin, Jeff
1997 "The libidinal constitution of a highrisk social movement: Affectual ties

Structure and Culture

and solidarity in the Huk rebellion,
1946-1954." American Sociological
Review 62:53-69.
Gould, Roger V.
1993 "Collective action and network structure." American Sociological Review
58:182-196.
1995 Insurgent Identities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hunt, Lynn
1984 Politics, Culture, and Class in the
French Revolution. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Kitschelt, Herbert
1986 "Political opportunity structures and
political protest: Anti-nuclear movements in four democracies." British
Journal of Political Science 16:57-85.
Klandermans, Bert
1997 The Social Psychology of Protest.
Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Knoke, David
1990 Organizing for Collective Action. The
Political Economies of American Associations. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de
Gruyter.
Kriesi, Hanspeter, Ruud Koopmans, Jan
Willem Duyvendak, and Marco Giugni
1995 New Social Movements in Western
Europe. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
McAdam, Doug
1988 Freedom Summer. The Idealists Revisited. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Melucci, Alberto
1996 Challenging Codes. Collective Action
in the Information Age. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Nadel, Siegfried Frederick
1957 The Theory of Social Structure. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Parsons, Talcott
1937 The Structure of Social Action. New
York: Free Press.

375
Powell, Walter W. and Paul J. DiMaggio, eds.
1991 The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press,
Rosenthal, N., M. Fingrutd, M. Ethier, R.
Karant, and D. McDonald
1985 "Social movements and network
analysis: A case study of nineteenthcentury women's reform in New York
State." American Journal of Sociology
90:1022-1055.
Scott, W. Richard
1995 Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sewell, William H., Jr.
1980 Work and Revolution in France. The
Language of Labor from the Old Regime to 1848. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Snow, David A., E. Burke Rochford, Jr.,
Steven K. Worden, and Robert D. Benford
1986 "Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation." American Sociological Review
51:464-481.
Snow, David A., Louis A. Zurcher, and
Sheldon Ekland-Olson
1980 "Social networks and social movements: A microstructural approach to
differential recruitment." American
Sociological Review 45:787-801.
Steinmo, Sven, Kathleen Thelen, and
Frank Longstreth, eds.
1992 Structuring Politics. Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis.
Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Tarrow, Sidney
1994 Power in Movement. Social Movements, Collective Action and Mass
Publics in the Modern State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tilly, Charles
1996 "Invisible elbow." Sociological Forum
11:589-601.