New Social Movements: A Critical Review

Author(s): Nelson A. Pichardo

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 23 (1997), pp. 411-430
Published by: Annual Reviews
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2952558 .
Accessed: 04/11/2012 12:23

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org
Annu.Rev.Sociol. 1997.23:411-30
?
Copyright 1997 byAnnualReviewsInc. All rightsreserved

NEW SOCIAL MOVEMENTS:

A CriticalReview
NelsonA. Pichardo
Department ofNew York,Albany,New York12222;
ofSociology,StateUniversity
e-mail:NP662@louise.csbs.albany.edu

KEY WORDS: culture,

identity, newmiddleclass
postindustrial,

ABSTRACT
DiscussionsofNew Social Movements havesoughttoexplaintheapparent shift
in theformsof contemporary social movements in Westernnationsby linking
world. However,thecentralpropositions
it to theriseof a postmodern of the
NSM paradigmhavenotbeencritically analyzedin termsofitsconceptsorthe
evidence.Thisreviewprovidesa criticalanalysisoftheNSM thesis,findingthat
thecentralpropositionsarenotdefensibleas a theoryora paradigm.

INTRODUCTION
The "New" Social Movement(NSM) paradigmis a recentadditionto social
theorythatstressesboththemacrohistorical elementsof
and microhistorical
social movements.On themacrolevel,theNSM paradigmconcentrates on
therelationship betweentheriseof contemporary social movements and the
largereconomicstructure, and on theroleofculturein suchmovements. On
themicrolevel,theparadigmis concernedwithhow issues of identity and
personalbehaviorare boundup in social movements.The NSM paradigm
offersa historically specificvisionof social movements as associatedwith
newformsofmiddle-class radicalism.It presents viewof social
a distinctive
movements andofthelargersociopolitical environment,ofhowindividuals fit
into,respondto,and changethesystem.However,whether thisnascentview
qualifiesas a cogentandempirically grounded paradigm hasnotbeenseriously
examined.This reviewprovidesa critiqueof thecentralpropositions of the
NSM paradigm, assessingtheevidencesupporting itsclaims.

411
0360-0572/97/0815-0411$08.00
412 PICHARDO

TheNSM paradigm arguesfora temporal, linkedunderstanding

structurally
ofsocial movements. Social movements areseenas beingshapedandlargely
determined bysocialstructure. In theindustrial era,following a Marxistlogic,
socialmovements werebelievedto be centered in theworking class. Working
class movements wereseen as instrumentally based actionsconcernedwith
matters of economicredistribution. Regardlessof whether social movements
of theindustrialeracan be characterized in suchcategorical terms,itwas the
standard by whichcontemporary movements were compared. Contemporary
movements (post-1965) were, however, not well explained by social theories
thatsaw theworking class as thesiteofrevolutionary protest (Eyerman 1984,
Olofsson1988). In Europe,thedefining eventswerethewide-scalestudent
proteststhattookplace in FranceandBerlinin 1968 and in Italyin 1969. In
theUnitedStates,theriseof thestudent antiwarmovement ofthemid-1960s
was seen as marking a similar radical departure from the past. In Europe,
whereMarxisttheories ofsocialmovements dominated, Marxisttheorists were
to
unable provide a convincing explanation for why students had become the
vanguard ofprotest andwhymovement demandscentered aroundqualityoflife
ratherthanredistributive issues(Touraine1971). Withthepredicted Marxist
revolutionnotinsight,theshiftofprotest awayfromtheworking class,andthe
changingshapeand formofprotestin contemporary times,Marxisttheorists
saw theneedtoreformulate theirideas. Whilenotall Marxistwentinthesame
direction(see Boggs 1986), some of thempostulatedtheNSM paradigmas
an alternative(see Cohen 1985,Melucci 1980, 1985,Touraine1977, 1981).
In fact,much of theNSM discoursecan be said to be a directreactionto
theperceiveddeficiencies ofMarxism(Epstein1990,Laclau & Mouffe1985,
Plotke1990).

NSM PARADIGM
Althoughtherearediffering perspectiveson NSMs (see Buechler1995foran
overview),a setofcoreconceptsandbeliefscan be saidto comprisetheNSM
paradigm.The centralclaimsoftheNSM paradigmare,first, thatNSMs are
economyand,second,thatNSMs are
a productoftheshiftto a postindustrial
uniqueand, as such,different fromsocial movements of theindustrial
age.
NSMs are said to be a productof thepostmaterial age (some referto it as
maturecapitalism andareseenas fundamentally
orpostindustrialism) different
fromtheworkingclass movements of theindustrial
period(Olofsson1988).
NSM demandsarebelievedto havemovedawayfromtheinstrumental issues
ofindustrialismtothequalityoflifeissuesofpostmaterialism(Buechier1995,
Burklin1984,Inglehart 1990,Parkin1968). NSMs are,in short,qualitatively
different
(Melucci1981).
 NEWSOCIALMOVEMENTS 413

However,whenbroadlyrelatedtocontemporary movements, theseobserva-

tionsareessentially flawed.Justas theMarxisttheories tendedtomarginalize
protestthatdid notstemfromtheworkingclass, so too haveNSM theorists
marginalized social movements thatdo notoriginate fromtheleft.Contem-
poraryright-wing movements are notthesubjectof theirfocus. Thus,the
NSM paradigmdescribes(at best)onlya portionofthesocialmovement uni-
verse.Butthereis no a priorireasonforeliminating conservative andcounter
movements fromconsideration. One mightexcusetheomissionof counter-
movements because are
they believedto be reactions to insurgent movements,
largelydetermined bythegoals,ideology, tactics,andparticipants (ina negative
way)ofthese(see Mottl1980,Pichardo1995,Zald & Useem1987). However,
thisis notthecase formovements, manyofwhichoverthelast20 yearsseem
to be uniquereactions(of a conservative character)to thealienating effectsof
postindustrial society.Some examplesincludetheChristian Rightandmilitia
movements.However,theNSM paradigmis based solelyon observations of
left-wing movements andreflects thisideologicalbias undergirding theNSM
paradigm.Yet,movements ofboththeleftandtherightarelinkedto changes
in social structure.Understanding howothersocialgroupsperceiveandreact
to thesechangescan onlybroadenourknowledge ofsocialchange.
The NSM paradigmcan onlyclaimto explainleft-wing movements of the
modernage.' Amongthemovements typically studiedbyNSM researchers are
the"urbansocialstruggles, theenvironmental orecologymovements, women's
andgayliberation, thepeace movement, andcultural revoltlinkedprimarily to
student andyouthactivism" (Boggs1986:39-40).Is thereanyreasontobelieve
thatthepopulations supportingthesemovements, whicharesaidtobe a product
of a fundamental change in the economic shouldbe affected
structure, while
thosepopulations supporting the militia, wise
right-to-life, use, and Christian
rightmovements shouldnotbesimilarly affected? Although apossiblerationale
forthisdistinction couldbe constructed, theNSM perspective offers none,and
itsfailureto do so marksa seriousflawin itsreasoning.2 It is notthepurpose
ofthisreviewto extendtheNSM thesisto right-wing movements, althoughI
shalloffer some tentativesuggestions in the conclusion.
Putting thisasidefornow,let'sreviewtheNSM paradigmin termsofwhat
itclaims.As is typicalofnewparadigms in theprocessofestablishing them-
selves,theirpropositions are strongly to
stated(or perhapsoverstated) firmly

mostsocial movement
tIn all fairness, of left-wing
theoriesarebasedon observations move-
ments;thisis a broadfailingofsocialmovement researchingeneral.Nonetheless,withthecurrent
growth ofright-wing movements
conservative inthemodemera,itis perhapsespeciallypertinent
to NSM theory to accountforthemas well.
2Thisrefersspecifically to whyothersocial groups(especiallyconservative
groups)do not
engagein activism.
414 PICHARDO

themfromothertheories.Subsequently,
distinguish propositions
thesestrong
arereevaluated,andweakerpropositionsmaybe substituted.Strongstatements
maybe hardtodefend.Thisis especiallythecase fortheNSM paradigm.Many
ofitsoriginalstrong havebeenfoundwanting.Therefore,
propositions I focus
hereprimarily on theweakerversions.

AreContemporary Unique?
Movements
The first
claimoftheNSM paradigm is thatcontemporarymovements arefun-
damentally different thanmovements
incharacter ofthepast.Thesedifferences
aresaidto appearintheideologyandgoals,tactics,structure,
andparticipants
ofcontemporary movements.

IDEOLOGY AND GOALS The central factorcharacteristicofNSMs is theirdis-

tinctideologicaloutlook(Daltonet al 1990). It is fromthisdifference thatall
othersflow.The NSM paradigmstatesthatcontemporary social movements
represent a fundamental breakfromindustrial era movements.Ratherthan
focusing on economic redistribution (as do working-classmovements), NSMs
emphasizequalityof lifeand life-style concerns.Thus,NSMs questionthe
wealth-oriented materialistic goals of industrial
societies.Theyalso call into
the of
question structures representative democracies thatlimitcitizeninput
and participation in governance, insteadadvocatingdirectdemocracy, self-
helpgroups,andcooperative stylesofsocialorganization. "The themeof the
self-defense anddemocratization, raisedimplicitly(andsometimes explicitly)
by the .
movements, [is]. . the most element
significant in the contemporary
strugglefordemocratization" (Cohen1983:102).Takentogether, thevaluesof
and
NSMs centeron autonomy identity (Offe1985).
In manyways,identity claimsare themostdistinctive featureof NSMs
(Kauffman all
1990),although previous movements can also be described as ex-
pressingidentity claims (see e.g. Aronowitz 1992). The focus on identityis
considered uniquein modern movements because"identity also
politics express
thebeliefthatidentity itself-itselaboration, expression,oraffirmation-is and
shouldbe a fundamental focusof political work. In thisway, politicsof
the
identityhaveled to an unprecedented politicizationofpreviously nonpolitical
terrains.. ." (Kauffman1990:67). This is expressedin thenotionthat"the
personalis political."However,whether thepoliticsof identity represents a
liberation orstagnation ofmodernpoliticsis a pointofcontention. The libera-
tionofjoiningthepersonalwiththepoliticalmayrepresent a radicalchallenge
to thehegemony ofstatedomination, butitmayalso resultin an "anti-politics
ofidentity"-anapoliticalwithdrawal frompolitics(Kauffman 1990).
However,littleempiricalworkhas examinedtheimpactof identity claims
on socialmovement participation, withtwonotableexceptions: Klandermans
 NEWSOCIALMOVEMENTS 415

(1994) hasexamined, intheDutchpeacemovement, howthevarying collective

identities,as representedby thedifferent memberships,
organizational predicted
thedefection of participantsfrom the movement. NA Pichardo, H Sullivan-
Catlin,& G Deane(unpublished manuscript) have examined the role of personal
identity in relationto in
participation the environmentalmovement. Their find-
ingsshowa significant, though not strong, between
association self-reported
environmental identityandparticipationbothinconventional socialmovement
activities(eventparticipation, organizational membership, movement contri-
butions)andin everyday behaviors(conserving energyand water, using alter-
nativetransportation, andpurchasing productsmadefrom recycled materials).
Clearly,moreempiricalworkon theconnection betweenidentity, at all its
levels,andmovement participationneedstobe done.
Theother, supposedly unique,ideologicalfeatureofNSMs isitsself-reflexive
character. Thismeansthatparticipants areconstantlyquestioning themeaning
of whatis beingdone(Cohen 1985,Gusfield1994, Melucci 1994). This has
led toconsciouschoicesofstructure and action-choices said to typify NSMs.
The best exampleof thisis the consciousness-raising groups characteristic
of thefeminist movement (Van der Gaag 1985; see also thevolumeedited
by Katzenstein & Muller1987). The decisionto organizein a decentralized
fashion,to operateunderdemocratic principleswithrotating leadership,is
seen by some as consistentwith Michel's Iron Law of Oligarchy, whereby
of
the goals organizations become displaced (Kitschelt 1990). The unique
ideologicalorientation and character
self-reflexive largelydictate the kinds of
tactics,structures,andparticipants evidenced in NSMs.

The belief
theirideologicalorientation.
TACTICS The tacticsofNSMs mirror
in theunrepresentative characterofmoderndemocracies is consistentwithits
NSMs prefer
tacticalorientation.
anti-institutional toremain outsideofnormal
politicalchannels,employing tactics
disruptive and mobilizing public opinion
togainpoliticalleverage.Theyalsotendtousehighly dramatic andpreplanned
formsof demonstrations repletewithcostumes and symbolic representations
(Tarrow1994).
This,however, does notmeanthatNSMs do notinvolvethemselves inpoli-
tics,noravoidbecoming themselves.
institutionalized As noted by Eder (1985),
"NSMs manifest a formof middle-classprotest which oscillates from moral
crusadetopoliticalpressure grouptosocialmovement" (p. 881). Some NSMs
havebecomeintegrated intothepartysystem andgainedregularaccesstoregu-
latory,implementation, anddecision-making bodies,whileothershaveformed
politicalpartiesthatregularly for
contest electoral
representation (Berry1993,
Hager 1993, Kitschelt1990, Gelb & Paley 1982, Rochon1990, Rochon&
Mazmanian1993,Tarrow1990). A number ofGreenpartiesareprominent in
416 PICHARDO

Europe,withseveralhavinglocal manifestationsin theUnitedStates(Bahro

1986,Burklin1982, 1985,Capra & Spretnak1984,Hershey1993,Kolinsky
1989,Muller-Rommel 1985, 1990,Poguntke1993). However,no directcor-
respondenceappearsbetweensupporters of NSMs and thosewho vote for
Greenparties(Chandler& Siaroff1986,Muller-Rommel 1985). So, theNSM
tacticalstyleofNSMs;
paradigmrecognizesthatthereis no trulydistinctive
politicshavebeenrecentandmore
publicopinionandanti-institutional
rather,
prominent to therepertoire
additions ofsocialmovements.

STRUCTURE The anti-institutional postureofNSMs also extendsto theway

theyorganize.NSMs attempt to replicatein theirown structures
thetypeof
representative
government theydesire.Thatis, theyorganizethemselves in a
fluidnonrigidstylethatavoidsthedangersof oligarchization. Theytendto
votecommunally
rotateleadership, on all issues,andto haveimpermanentad
hocorganizations(Offe1985). Theyalsoespousean anti-bureaucratic posture,
arguingagainstwhattheyperceiveas thedehumanizing character
of modern
bureaucracy.
[NSMs] opposethebureaucratization of societyin economicsand politicsthatallegedly
suffocatesthe abilityof individualcitizensto participatein thedefinition
of collective
goodsandidentities. Insteadtheycall fora culturallylibertariantransformation
of social
thatgivesmoreleewayto individualchoiceand collectiveself-organization
institutions
outsidetheeconomiccommodity cycleor bureaucratic politicalorganization
(Kitschelt
1993:15).

Thus,theycallforandcreatestructures thataremoreresponsive totheneeds

of theindividuals-open,decentralized, nonhierarchical
(Zimmerman 1987).
Motivatedbythelessonsofthepast,theyhopeto avoidbecomingcooptedor
deradicalized.This is to claim,notthatall NSMs are so organized,butthat
thisformoforganizing thaninpasttimes.The ideal-typical
is moreprevalent
styleofNSMs shouldnotbe seenas reflecting
organizational theorganizational
stylesofeveryNSM. Groupssuchas theNationalOrganization ofWomen,and
variousenvironmental groupsemploymoretraditional hierarchical
centralized,
formsoforganization (Paley& Leif 1982,Shaiko1993).

PARTICIPANTS Therearetwoviewson whotheparticipants ofNSMs areand

whytheyjoin. The firstplaces thebase of supportwithinthe"new"middle
emergedsocialstratum
class: a recently employedinthenonproductive sectors
oftheeconomy(Cotgrove& Duff1981,Lowe & Goyder1983,Rudig1988).
Researchontheriseofthenewmiddleclasswithin societyseems
postindustrial
ofthissocialphenomenon
to establishthecredibility (Brint1994). ButNSM
theorists go a stepbeyond,by arguingthatthisstratum producesthechief
participantsof NSMs becausethey arenotboundtothe corporate motive
profit
 NEWSOCIALMOVEMENTS 417

nordependent on thecorporateworldfortheirsustenance.Instead,theytend
to work in areas thatare highlydependentuponstateexpenditures such as
academia, the arts,and human serviceagencies,and theytendto be highly
educated(Offe1985). Another positsthatNSMs aretheresultof
explanation
overthecontrolofwork.
conflict
theprofessionals
Inthisconflict, whosecontrol andskillsaredefending
is basedonexpertise
themselvesagainsttheencroachments on theirworkautonomy by colleagueswho are
primarilyinvolvedin the administrationof thelargeprivateand publicemployersfor
whomtheformer work.Tendingto lose outinthisconflict,theskillsandservice-oriented
constitute
professionals potentialforthenew social movements,
a crucialstructural all
of whichattackin one way or anothertheunrestricted reignoftechnocracy (Kriesiet al
1995:xix).

However,thereis recognition thatwithinthisoveralldescriptive categoriza-

tiondifferencesexist.
Theotherviewoftheparticipants ofNSMs is thattheyarenotdefined byclass
boundaries butaremarked bya commonconcernoversocialissues.Itis anide-
ological,ratherthanethnic,religious,orclass-basedcommunity. In thislight
Arato& Cohen(1984) refertotheWestGermanGreensas a "catch-all" party.
Theyaredefinedbycommonvaluesrather thana commonstructural location.
Offe(1985) offersa slightly
differentviewofwhotheNSM participants are. He
arguesthattheyaredrawnfromthreesectors:thenewmiddleclass,elements
of theold middleclass (farmers, shopowners,and artisan-producers), and a
"peripheral"population consisting ofpersonsnotheavilyengagedinthelabor
market(students, housewives,and retired persons). A numberof studiesof
thepeace movement invariouscountries havedemonstrated an equallydiverse
(Parkin1968; see also thevolumeeditedby Kaltefleiter
set of participants
& Pfaltzgraff 1985). Diani & Lodi (1988) showthatwithintheMilan ecol-
ogy movement, severaldifferent currents attractsomewhatdifferent sets of
participants.
However,neither view,initsnarrowly defined sense,is supported bytheev-
idence.Studiesofenvironmental movements revealthatNSM participants are
drawnprimarily fromtwopopulations: The"new"middleclassis one;theother
boundcommunities
is geographically thatarebeingdirectly affectedbytheneg-
ativeexternalities
ofindustrialgrowth. Participantsarethemoreideologically
committed middleclass as well as communities thatprotest thesitingofhaz-
andwasteincinerators,
ardouswastesites,landfills, orchemicaland/or radiation
poisoningofthelocal environment (see Apter& Sawa 1984,1970,Opp 1988,
Szasz 1994,Walsh1981). Theoldmiddleclasstypically is also involvedinre-
gionalissues(Touraine1981). Inshort, theparticipantsofenvironmental move-
mentsdo notdrawsignificantly fromoutsidethewhitemiddleclassunlessthere
is somemotivating, geographically based,grievance.For example,minority
418 PICHARDO

communities haverarelyparticipated in theenvironmental movement, except

inprotest overtheplacement ofunwanted wastefacilities(Bullard1990).3 The
lack of minority participationis equallytrueof mostotherNSMs, including
theanimalrights, feminist,peace,andgayandlesbianmovements.
Whether middle-class participantsengagedsignificantly inprotestinthepast
is a criticalquestionfortheNSM paradigm.Such activity has beenseverely
underestimated. Wavesof middle-class protest haveoccurredsincetheearly
1800sinbothEuropeandtheUnitedStates.Theseincludetheabolition, prohi-
bition,suffrage, andprogressive (as wellas a number ofnativist) movements.
Thus,whether themiddleclass is onlynewlyinvolvedin socialmovements is
indeedopento question.
Aretheseproposedcharacteristics unique?If suchdifferences exist,thenit
wouldmarka significant breakfromthepast. The problemis thattoo many
exceptionsarecited.NSMs espouseopen,democratic, nonhierarchical struc-
tures,yettherearemanyNSM organizations thatarenotso characterized. They
disdaininstitutional politics,yetmanyNSMs areregularly consultedbygov-
ernmental bodies,andothershaveformed politicalparties.NSMs tendtodraw
fromthenewmiddleclass,yetmanycommunity-based mobilizations (primar-
ilyenvironmental) havedeveloped.Furthermore, themiddleclassis nota new
siteof socialprotest.NSMs tendto employnontraditional tacticsbutalso use
thosecommonly employedbysocialmovements ofthepast(lobbying, getting
outthevote,courtcases,etc).
One cannotevadethefactthatthestriking ofthecontemporary...
feature ofthe
situation
movements The old patterns
is itsheterogeneity. ofcollectiveactioncertainly
continueto
exist.In somemovements theymayevenbe statistically
preponderant (Cohen1985:665).

Notonlyaretheindividual characteristics
ofmovements inquestion,so too
arethoseofthenewsocialmovements in general.D'Anieriet al (1990) argue
thatthereis nodifference
betweenutopianmovements ofthe1800sandpresent-
day movements.In a similarvein,Calhoun(1991) sees no starkdifferences
betweenmovements of thenineteenth and twentieth centuries, arguingthat
socialmovements ofthenineteenthcentury werenotdominated byeconomistic
organizations.
The notionof movement "newness"has also been criticizedin termsof
whether contemporarymovements representa distinctbreakfrommovements
of thepast. For Touraine(1982), thisradicaldeparture is a functionoftheir
and thechangedlocusesand stakesof thestruggles.For
level of reflexivity
Evers(1985), whatis newaboutNSMs is thatthe"transformatory potential
withinnewsocialmovements (p. 49). That
is notpolitical,butsocio-cultural"
societyfromthestate.However,a hostof other
is, theyaimto reappropriate

3Thiskindofplacement has beenreferred racism,a termgrounded

to as environmental in the
beliefthatdecisionsaboutlocatinghazardouswastesitesignoretheinterestsofminority
groups.
 NEWSOCIALMOVEMENTS 419

authors havestressed thecontinuityofNSMs withpreviousmovements (Cohen

1985,Crighton & Mason 1986,Eder 1985). PerhapsMelucci(1994) putthe
natureandimportance ofthiscontroversy inthebestlightwhenhe said itwas
futile.It is nota questionofdecidingwhether theempiricaldataobservedare
equivalentandcomparable; instead,thequestionis whether theirmeaningand
theplace theyoccupyinthesystemofsocialrelations can be considered tobe
thesame(1994:105).
Apartfromwhether NSMs represent breaksfrompreviousmovements, a
relatedquestionis whether NSMs arenewat all. As notedabove,NSMs often
containelementsof theold and new. Eder (1985) sees NSMs as embracing
twotypesofphenomena:Culturalmovements that"opposepresentsociallife
... [and]politicalmovements [that]challengemodern statedomination" (p. 5).
Mouffe(1984) seesthenovelty ofNSMs notinthenewantagonisms butinthe
"diffusion ofsocialconflictintootherareasandthepoliticization ofmoreand
morerelations"(p. 141).
However,somehavebeenespeciallycriticaloftheclaimsto originality of
new social movements.Ratherthanarguingcontinuity or discontinuity with
previousmovements, theimpactofNSM theory
Plotke(1990) criticizes on the
direction ofsocialmovements. He arguesthataccountsofa widespread "new
socialmovement discourse"arewrongin crucialways.Dubiousclaimsabout
themovements, aboutwhattheyareand shouldbe, arepolitically significant
because theyare takenseriouslybothby analystsand by some participants
withinthemovements" (p. 81). These"dubiousclaims"arean outgrowth of
thetheoretical withMarxism,whichhas leftNSM theorists
conflict "unpre-
paredto engagein thetheoretical and politicaldebatein theUnitedStates,
whereneoconservative interpretationsbecamedominant in thelate 1970sand
1980s"(p. 82). In otherwords,thedebateoverwhat'snewis notjustan aca-
demicpolemic;ithas realconsequencesformovements thatmayleave them
vulnerable to counterattacks.

AreContemporary a Product
Movements
ofthePostindustrial
Era?
Relatedtothequestionof"what'snew"is a secondissue-whetherNSMs area
product toa postindustrial
oftheshift economy.Thereis disagreement overthe
exactnatureofthisrelationship.Twoschoolsofthought exist-one stressesan
objectiveandtheother, a subjectiveclassposition(see Eder1985). The objec-
factors
tiveschoolstressessocialstructural thatformed "new"socialclassesas
oppositionalgroups,whilethesubjective schoolofthought stressesattitudinal
changesthathaveformed like-minded groups.Within theobjectiveschool,the
first whatI callthe"stateintrusion"
variation, hypothesis,is a post-Marxistview
thatlinkstheriseofNSMs to thechanging requirements ofcapitalaccumula-
tionin thepostmodern age. Withtheadventof a service/technical economy
420 PICHARDO

withitsemphasison growth andinformation management, capitalaccumula-

tionnecessitates social as well as economicdomination.Social domination
involvescontrolling dissentandknowledge(ensuring conformity) and there-
forerequiresan expansionof thestate'scoercivemechanisms thecivic into
sphere(Habermas1987,Melucci1984,Sassoon 1984,Touraine1971). NSMs
are concernedwiththe"self-defense of 'society'againstthestate. . . and the
marketeconomy.. ." (Cohen 1985:664). Habermas(1981) refersto thepro-
cess bywhichthestateandmarket economysubstitute strategic actionforthe
symbolicprocessesofcommunication as "innercolonization."
Mouffe(1984) offersa different version. She sees a similarprocessex-
ceptthatshe linksitto thecommodification ofsociallife(wheresocialneeds
dependon themarketforsatisfaction), bureaucratization (resulting fromthe
intervention ofthe state into all areas of social reproduction), and cultural mas-
sification(resulting from thepervasive influence of the mass media that destroys
or modifiesexistingcollectiveidentities).Thesenewformsof subordination
areresponsible fortheriseofNSMs,whichrepresent novelforms ofresistance.
Theuniquenature ofconflict in modern societies is said to be partlya function
ofthreecharacteristics of domination and deprivation. First, theimpact ofthe
on
stateandeconomy society is said to no longer be class specific but "dispersed
in time,space,andkindso as to affect virtually everymemberofsocietyin a
of
broadvariety ways"(Offe 1985:844). Second, therehas beena deepening
of domination andsocial control, making itseffects morecomprehensive and
inescapable. Third, the political and economic institutions have lostthe ability
to correcttheirowndefects(irreversibility) requiring actionfromoutsidethe
officialpoliticalinstitutions to correct its flaws (Offe 1985).
NSMs arebelievedtobe a reaction tothestate'sattempts tocontrolthecivic
sphere.4Forsome,what unique is about NSMs is that they "emergeprimarily
outsidethebourgeois publicsphere ... as extra-institutional phenomena rooted
in civilsociety ... [that] point to a recovery ofcivil society" (Boggs 1986:47).
Thus,we see movements thatareconcerned withcultural questions(involving
matters of sexual identification, role definitions, and community). NSMs are
also reactionsto theexpansive(growthoriented)natureof postindustrialism,
whichneedstoneglectthesocialcostsofgrowth tomaintain profitability.This
growth orientation has two principal consequences. First, it produces a mass
consumerculturemarkedby mega-malls, stripmalls,mass advertising, and
plannedobsolescence.Many NSMs reject this form of cultural manipulation.
Second,therequirements of a massconsumer culturehavenegativeenviron-
mentalmanifestations thatarelargely unwelcome andunwanted. Theseinclude
garbagedumps, incinerators, and toxic pollution as well as the exploitation of

withthetacticalchoicesofmovements,
4Thisshouldnotbe confused suchas theanimalrights
movement, tomobilizethestatetoenterintothecivicspheretoattaintheirgoals.
thatoftenattempt
 NEWSOCIALMOVEMENTS 421

theenvironment fortherawmaterials of industrialproduction.Thus,NSMs

also represent qualityof lifeconcerns.Ultimately, theaim ofparticipants in
NSMs is "nottoseizepowerin ordertobuilda newworld,buttoregainpower
overtheirownlivesbydisengaging from themarket rationalityofproductivism"
(Gorz 1982:75).
Sometheorists haveusedthewritings ofGramscitoilluminate theprocesses
of culturaldomination thatthestateemploysto maintainpower(see Carroll
1992 foran overview).This"cultural Marxism"is a critiqueof"Marx'scon-
ceptsof therelationsandforcesofproduction forinadequateattention to the
consciousexperience ofinstitutionsandcreativepracticalreasoning"(Weiner
1982:13). Thisemphasison theculturalbasisofconflict in themodernera is
imputedto be one ofthedefining characteristics ofNSMs (Cohen1983,Eder
1985,Feher& Heller1983,Gorz 1982,Melucci 1980,Scott1990). The ide-
ologicalhegemony of thestaterequirescounter-hegemonic actionsby social
movements to dismantlethedominant social viewsthatreinforce thelegiti-
macyofthecapitalist system(Cohen1983). Current notions, suchas that"the
personalis political," thatis,thateveryday behaviorhas politicalramifications
and,by implication, supportsthehegemony of therulingclasses,reflect the
emphasisofNSMs on doingbattlenotonlyon an economiclevelbutalso on a
culturallevel(Mooers& Sears 1992). This"cultureconflict" is manifested in
thelife-style emphasisofNSMs andis fought on symbolicandidentity levels
(Kauffman 1990,Weiner1982).
The secondschoolofthought concerning theoriginsofNSMs placestheir
cause in thesubjectiveconsciousnessof theactors. Thereare twoprincipal
variants.The first is the"valueshift"hypothesis thatcentersaroundthelarger
economic,political,and social contextof Westernnations.5 This viewstates
thatthepeopleofWestern nationshavereacheda pointofeconomicandpo-
liticalsecurity in themodernage (wheretheirbasic needsforsustenance and
survivalarerelatively assured).Thisconfidence ledto a shiftinpublicopinion
(culture)awayfromissuesrelating to economicorpoliticalsecurity to issues
ofpersonalgrowth andself-actualization. The underlying mechanism is based
on a Maslowianpsychological schemewhereanindividual is firstandforemost
concernedwithissuesofsurvivalandsecurity; oncethesebasicneedsaresat-
isfied,one is able to moveup theladderto higher-order concerns(Falik 1983,
Inglehart 1977,1981). Thisschemeimpliesthatthesocializationexperiences
ofvariousagecohorts, andtheconditions ofscarcity present during theirforma-
tiveyears,resultin a fixedmaterialistic orpostmaterialistic orientation. Thus,
NSMs represent theshiftto postmaterial valuesthatstressissuesof identity,
participation, andqualityof liferather thaneconomicmatters.But thevalue

5Thisis referred changeapproach.See also Kitschelt

to by Poguntke(1993) as a structural
(1988) andMarkovits& Meyer(1985).
422 PICHARDO

changesarenottheonlyattitudinal changesthatresultinNSMs. ForInglehart

(1977),postmaterial valuescombinewithincreasesinpoliticalefficacy andpo-
liticaldistrustto resultin increasedpoliticalactivism.Thisviewsaysnothing
aboutactionsofthestateexceptinso muchas itprovidesfortheeconomicand
politicalsecurity ofitspopulace.
Thesecondvaluechangevariant concerning theorigins ofNSMs is the"cycle
ofprotests" argument. It statesthatNSMs aresimplyrecentmanifestations of
a cyclicalpattern ofsocialmovements (see Tarrow1983). Somelinkthecycles
to"anti-modern orromantic-ideological reactionstofunctional principles,
con-
tradictions, andalienating effectsofmodern societies"(Brand1990:24;see also
Eder 1982),othersto recurring wavesofculturalcriticisms linkedto changes
inthecultural climate(Brand1990)ortopoliticalandsocialevents.Thesepe-
riodsaresaidto actas fertile groundfortheproliferation ofsocialmovements
sensitizing thepopulationto theproblemsof modernsocieties(Brand1990,
Rudig1988).
However,theevidencesupporting theseviewsis notconclusive.The "state
intrusion" hypothesis suffers because of the difficulty in empirically estab-
lishinga linkbetweentheactionsofthestateand incidenceofNSMs. Such
connections can onlybe drawnbyinference, byestablishing themeaningand
intent ofactionsofthestateandhypothesizing abouttheirconsequences."The
workofinterpretation is inevitably riskyandlesstotalizing" (Cohen1985:665).
the
Specifically, hypothesized changes in thestatearevagueanddifficult toop-
erationalize, and themechanism by which actionsof the stateare linkedto
is
social movements notspecified.
The "valueshift"hypothesis, on theotherhand,is based on empiricalob-
servations ofchangesinpublicopinionoverthelast30 years.The evidenceof
a value shiftseemscompelling.Opinionstudiesin bothEuropeand North
Americahave chronicleda changein the values of thepublicthatmoved
fromeconomicto non-economic concerns,as is suggestedbythehypothesis
(Inglehart 1977,1981,1990,Kaase 1990). However, thereareseveralproblems
withthisthesis.
First,thehypothesis locatesthevalue changein a specificclass segment:
theso-called"new"middleclass(Inglehart 1990). However, the"new"middle
in
class is defined widelydivergent waysthatcontribute to inconsistentresults
fromvariousinvestigations. This is also trueof theindicators employedto
markthedifferences betweenthe"new"middleclass andothersocialclasses.
Severalformulations ofthe"new"middleclass(Ehrenreich & Ehrenreich 1977,
Gouldner1979,Kristol1972,Ladd 1978,1979)employed differingdefinitions
ofthenewmiddleclass andproducedinconsistent results.Brint(1984) tested
thefourvariations bylookingatthepresenceof "antibusiness" and"egalitarian"
sentiment amongthegroupsas definedbyeach oftheaboveresearchers. He
foundthatthefourgroupsdefinedas composingthe"new"middleclass did
 NEWSOCIALMOVEMENTS 423

notpossessdissenting attitudes.He concludedthat"thetheorists weresimply

incorrect in [thatthey]... exaggeratedthelevelsofdissentandeventhelevels
of liberalism foundin thenewclass" (p. 60). Brint'sreviewshowsthatNSM
scholarshavefailedto provideempiricalevidencethatwouldallow themto
concludewithconfidence thatsucha newandmilitant class,linkedto NSMs,
has arisenintheUnitedStatesorEurope.
The secondproblemwiththevalueshifthypothesis is thatthecause forthe
value changeis imputedto be a function oftheincreasing securityandpros-
perityofmodern Western countries.
Thisconnection is less amenabletodirect
empiricalverification. Otherpossibleexplanations fortherisein postmodern
valuescouldbe offered including thegrowingbureaucratization of society,or
thatthevaluesare cyclicalratherthanrootedin theabilityof theeconomic
structure to provideforthematerial benefitofthepopulation.6
Third,relyingstrictly on economicaffluence as indicating postmaterialism
maymissmoreimportant ofsocialvalues.As statedbyCotgrove
determinants
& Duff(1981), "perhapsInglehart and laterresearchers have been looking
at the wrongkindof variablesto explainsupportforpostmaterialism. By
concentrating onthelevelofaffluence ofanindividual as determinant, theyhave
neglected ideals[thatis,personalvalues]as a possiblecause"(p. 98). Thepoint
is thattheremaybe a difference betweenpublicandprivate valuesandthatone's
publicvaluesmaybe morecentral topredicting support forpostmaterial values.
Fourth,thetwoelementsof Inglehart's model,thearguments concerning
scarcityand socialization,lead to contradictory expectations.As statedby
Boltken& Jagodzinski (1985),
If theresponsesto thevalueindexreflect internalized theyshouldbe
valueorientations,
fairlystablein adulthood.If,on theotherhand,respondentbehavioris affected
to a larger
extentbyeconomicchanges,usuallyno stability can be expected.Butthesamesequence
ofactionscannotbe bothstableandunstable(p. 444).

The "cycleofprotests"argument thattieschangesin theculturalclimateto

wavesofmovements differsfromthe"valueshift"hypothesis in thatitaddsa
timedimension to theshiftin socialmoodandmakesno assertions aboutthe
sourceofsocialmovements.
structural bodyofliterature
Thereis nosignificant
dimension
thehistorical
testing oftheargument, althoughsuchshiftshavebeen
notedby otherauthors(Hirschman1981, Huntington 1981, Namenwirth &
Weber1987,Schlesinger 1986). Brand(1990) hasdonea comparative studyof
Germany,England,andtheUnitedStatesthatshowsa linkagebetween phasesof

6A discussionof new social movementsin LatinAmerica,by Slater(1985) also indirectly

andtheconcomitant
thebeliefthateconomicprosperity
refutes valuechangesitbegetsunderlie the
riseofNSMs. LatinAmericannationscan hardlybe describedas capableof satisfyingthebasic
needsforeconomicandphysicalsecurityoftheirpeople.However,without ascertaining whether
themodelprovidedbyNSMs is in somemannerbeingdiffused, theexistenceof NSMs in Latin
Americacannotbe usedas definitive ofthevaluechangehypothesis.
refutation
424 PICHARDO

culturalcriticisms andthemanifestation ofnewmiddle-class radicalism (social

movements) from1800-1990.Pichardo(1993) presents a similarargument for
thePopulist/Progressive eramovements intheUnitedStates,whichdemonstrate
strikingsimilaritiesto theriseofNSMs. The middle-class radicalismof that
periodis linkedtotheadvancing restrictions
oncommunity spacebrought about
byindustrialism. Butthesedataaretoopreliminary tobe convincing.
However,intermsofwhether NSMs area productofthepostindustrial age,
thecycles-of-protest argument implicitlyrespondsin thenegative.For ifthe
valuesaretiedtotheriseofpostindustrial societyorlinkedtotheriseofthenew
middleclass,thentheycouldnothavebeenpresent before.Brand'sformulation
maybe a waytoreconcilethetwoviews,butthatwouldrequiretheNSM thesis
to be substantially altered.
Yetanother strainofcritique castsdoubtontheconnection betweenthelarger
macro-historical societalchangesassociatedwithpostindustrialism andNSMs.
Olofsson(1988) arguesthatthe"cultural revolutionary activities... [ofNSMs]
can be articulated withverydifferent politico-ideological formations, social
groups,andclasses"(p. 31). In otherwords,thereis no necessary connection
betweenpostindustrialism andtheprojectofNSMs.
Similarly, the"cyclesofprotest" argument has an alternative explanation.7
Ratherthanseeingthemas a consequenceofchangingvaluesassociatedwith
modernization, whichinturndictatetacticaloptionsthatareinconcert withthe
values,another pointofviewsuggeststhatchangesinthetacticalrepertoire of
movements areindependent ofthevaluesandgoalsexpressed bythemovement.
Ratherthanlinkingchangesin tacticsto newvaluesandgoals,theyareto be
seenmoreintermsofan evolvinginteraction betweentheagentsofrepression
andmovement actorswherenewtacticsareanoutcomeoftheability ofagentsof
repression toaccommodate totheoldtactics,thereby rendering themineffective
(Koopmans1983). Newtacticsarea responsetotheneedtofindnewformsof
effectivetactics.Another explanation forthewavesofprotest arguesthatthey
aretheoutcomeofcompetition betweenmovement organizations (Tarrow1989,
1991). In thisview,thecompetition forresourcesand membership between
movement organizations leads to innovation,militancy, thendecline.Tarrow
(1991) further arguesthatthosewhoargueforthe"newness"ofcontemporary
movements havesimplymistaken anearlyphaseofmovement development for
a newhistorical stageofcollectiveaction.
Finally,theNSM thesislimitsthephenomenon toWestern nations,yetsome
authors haveattempted toextendthethesistounderdeveloped countries. Slater
(1985),inaninteresting turnontheNSM thesis,relatesLatinAmerican contem-
porarymovements to excessivecentralization of decision-making power,the
state'sincapacity todeliveradequatesocialservices,andtheerodinglegitimacy

7Thisidea was suggested

byBertKlandermans.
 NEWSOCIALMOVEMENTS 425

of thestate.8Butthemerepresenceof NSMs in non-Western nationsargues

againstbothhypotheses-ofstateintrusion (becauseNSMs aretriggeredbythe
changeto a postindustrialeconomy, a changenotoccurringinLatinAmerican
nations)or of value change(becausethevaluechangesare a productof the
economicandphysicalsecurity of a country'spopulation,
whichalso cannot
be said to be characteristic
ofLatinAmericannations).
Whatremainsis of questionablevalueas a paradigmor theory.The rela-
tionshipbetweenstructure andtheriseofcontemporary movements is at best
uncertain, andmostoftheso-calleduniquecharacteristicsandfeaturesarenot
unique.Whatseemstobe uniqueis theirideological(identity)orientation-the
onehypothesized thatseemstruly
characteristic tomarka breakfromthepast.

SUMMARY
So whathavewe? Thereis significant doubtintermsofwhether contemporary
movements arespecifically a product ofpostindustrial
society.Themechanisms
citedwithintheNSM literature disagreesignificantly,
depending on thevaria-
tion.In turn,eachofthesevariations hassignificantweaknesses-inconclusive
empiricalsupport, questionable operationalizationofvariables,ambiguousor
abstractconcepts,and feasiblealternative explanations.The same could be
said forwhether contemporary movements represent anything unique.Except
fortheissue of identity, theso-calleduniquecharacteristics ofcontemporary
movements arenotuniqueat all. Atbest,itcan be arguedthattheyarerecent
additionsto therepertoire of social movements.But changesin repertoires
havebeennotedbyotherauthors (mostnotably Tilly1979)without employing
explanations thatcall fornewtheories.
Theprincipal contributions oftheNSM perspective areitsemphasesoniden-
tity,
culture,andtheroleofthecivicsphere-aspectsofsocialmovements that
hadbeenlargelyoverlooked.Thefailuretoattend toidentity issueswasrooted
in thebeliefthatsocialmovement was instrumentally
participation based. In
fact,Parkin(1968) believesthattheexpressive dimension ofparticipationmay
be a featureofsocialmovements dominated bythemiddleclass. The expres-
sivenatureofparticipation is linkedtotheculturalaspectsofmovements as the
goal of expressiveactionis guidedby a particular moraloutlookconcerning
theappropriate normative order.Thecivicsphere,whereculture resides,which
hadtraditionally beenseenas beingdominated ordetermined bytheeconomic
sphere,is nowseenas a locusof socialprotest.This"liberation" ofthecivic
spherehas brought to focustherealization thatthecivicsphereis an area of
contentionjustas aretheeconomicandpoliticalspheres.

8SlateremployedMouffe'scommodification ofthestate-intrusion
variation which
hypothesis,
to provideforthephysicalandeconomicsecurity
is notlinkedto thecapacityofgovernments of
itspopulace.
426 PICHARDO

However,theneed fora new theoryof social movementsto accountfor

thesedifferences
is uncertain.
Notthatsocialmovement theory(in particular
theresourcemobilizationtheory)presented
a completeaccountofmovement
dynamics(see Canel 1992,Klandermans 1986,Klandermans& Tarrow1986).
oftheory
Buta modification thatattended
tothe"why"ofmovements inaddition
to the"how"wouldseemtobe a better direction
toproceed.

CONCLUSION
The inability oftheNSM schoolto adequatelydefenditsmostcentralpropo-
sitionsarguesagainstlabelingorreferring totheNSM thesisas a paradigmor
theoryaboutcontemporary movements. Norcan simplyarguing thattheNSM
thesisappliesonlytoleft-wing movements ofthecontemporary erasalvageits
imageas a theory. Evenlimiting thethesisto oppositional movements (which
traditionally comefrom theleft)is insufficient as manyconservative movements
can also be so characterized. The addedinability to argueconvincingly fora
typology of contemporary movements or a linkto changesin socioeconomic
structures leavestheNSM thesisuntenable as a theory.
Does thatmeanthatthereis nothing behindthisschoolofthought? Is it,as
Tarrow(1991) believes,thatresearchers mistookan earlyphaseofmovement
development fora newhistorical stageof collectiveaction,or did something
genuinely uniquetakeplace? The principalquestionis notwhether contem-
porarymovements displayuniquecharacteristics, forthetacticsand stylesof
movements areoftena functionofexpediency ratherthanprinciple andthusare
guidedbytheutilitarian logicofachieving goals. Itis morea matter ofwhether
contemporary movements arereacting tothechanging natureofdomination in
thepostindustrial world.Putanother way,arecontemporary movements unique
becauseof theuniquecharacter ofdomination necessitatedbytheemergence
ofthepostindustrial era?
In myopinion,anyrescueoftheNSM thesismustbeginwithan inclusionof
contemporary conservativemovements bothpresently and historically.With
such an inclusiontheprocessof government intrusionintothecivic sphere
wouldbe moreclearlyhighlighted as conservative mobilizations are also re-
actingto theactionsofgovernments to controlthecivicsphere.The religious
valuesthatunderpin theideologicalstructure ofmanyconservative movements
mustbe seen as an additionalsourceof friction thathas alwaysresidedin
and traditionally dominated thecivic sphere.Withtheseparationof church
and statethattookplace in theeighteenth century, religiousgroupslosttheir
state-sanctioned positionwithin
privileged thecivicsphere.9 Manyconservative

9Thiswas becausethecoercivemechanisms ofthestatewereno longeravailableto religious

groupsto sanctionwaywardbelievers.Thus,thecultural
behavioralcodespreferred
byreligious
groupscouldno longerbe guaranteed
to dominatethecivicsphere.
 NEW SOCIAL MOVEMENTS 427

mobilizations in theUnitedStatesof theeighteenth and nineteenth

centuries
canbe understood as attempts byreligiousgroupstocoercethestatetoenforce
behavioraland moralcodes consistent withtheirbeliefs.Thus,theevolving
history of thecivicsphereand thesocial andpoliticalconflictsinvolvingthe
civic sphereneedto be detailed. In thisway,we can betterunderstand the
natureof modernconflict and therole of thecivic spherein generatingand
maintaining thatconflict.It is theobservationconcerningtheroleofthecivic
sphere(wherecultureand identity reside)in modernconflictthatis perhaps
themostprovocative andinformative aspectoftheNSM thesisandtheelement
aroundwhicha reformulation oftheNSM thesisshouldbe constructed.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thanksto Bert Klandermans, RichardLachmann,JohnLogan, and Steve

Seidmanforcomments on earlierdrafts.

VisittheAnnualReviewshomepage at
http://www.annurev.org.

Literature
Cited

ApterDE, Sawa N. 1984. AgainsttheState: BullardRD. 1990. Dumpingin Dixie: Race,

Politicsand Social Protestin Japan.Cam- Class and Environmental Quality.Boulder,
bridge,MA: HarvardUniv.Press CO: Westview
AratoA, CohenJ. 1984. The GermanGreen BurklinWP. 1984. Grune Politik.Opladen:
Party:a movement betweenfundamentalism Westdeutscher Verlag
andmodernism. Dissent31:327-32 BurklinWP. 1985. The GermanGreens: the
AronowitzS.1992.ThePoliticsofIdentity. New postindustrialnon-established andthepolit-
York:Routiedge ical system.Int.Polit.Sci. Rev.6(4)463-81
BahroR. 1986.BuildingtheGreenMovement. CalhounC. 1993.What'snewaboutnewsocial
Philadelphia:New Soc. Publ. movements?The early19thcentury recon-
BerryJM.1993.Citizengroupsandthechang- sidered.Soc. Sci. Hist.17:385-427
ingnatureofinterest grouppoliticsinAmer- Canel E. 1992. New social movement theory
ica.Ann.Am.Acad.Polit.Soc. Sci. 528:30-41 andresourcemobilization: theneedforinte-
BoggsC. 1986.SocialMovements andPolitical gration.In Organizing Dissent: Contempo-
PowerPhiladelphia, PA: TempleUniv.Press rarySocial Movements in Theoryand Prac-
BoltkenF, BrandK. 1990. Cyclicalaspects tice,ed. WK Carroll,pp. 22-51. Toronto:
of new social movements:waves of cul- Garamond
turalcriticismand mobilizationcycles of CapraF,Spretnak C. 1984.GreenPolitics.New
newmiddle-class. In Challenging thePoliti- York:EP Dutton
cal Order,ed. RJDalton,DM Kuechier,pp. CarrollWK, ed. 1992. OrganizingDissent:
23-42. New York:OxfordUniv.Press Contemporary Social Movements in Theory
BoltkenF, Jagodzinski W. 1985.In an environ- and Practice.Toronto:Garamond
mentof insecurity:postmaterialism in the ChandlerWM, Siaroff A. 1986.Postindustrial
EuropeanCommunity, 1970-1980. Comp. politicsin Germanyand the originsof the
Polit.Stud.4:453-84 Greens.Comp.Polit.18:303-25
BrintS. 1984.New class andcumulative trend CohenJ. 1983. Rethinking social movements.
explanations oftheliberalattitudes
ofprofes- Berkeley J.Sociol.28:97-114
sionals.Am.J.Sociol.90:30-71 CohenJ. 1985. Strategy or identity:newthe-
BrintS. 1994.In anAgeofExperts:TheChang- oreticalparadigmsand contemporary social
ingRoleofProfessionals inPoliticsandPub- movements. Soc. Res. 52:663-716
lic Life.Princeton,
NJ:Princeton Univ.Press CotgroveS, DuffA. 1981. Environmental-
428 PICHARDO

ism,values,andsocialchange.Br.J.Sociol. Acad. Polit.Soc. Sci. 528:142-56

32:92-110 HirschmanAO. 1981. Shifting Involvements.
Crighton E, MasonDS. 1986.Solidarity andthe Princeton, NJ:Princeton Univ.Press
Greens:theriseofnewsocialmovements in Huntington S. 1981. AmericanPolitics: The
East and WestEurope.Res. in Soc. Move- Promiseof Disharmony.Cambridge,MA:
ments:Conflict and Change9:155-75 HarvardUniv.Press
DaltonRJ,KuechlerM, BurklinW. 1990.The InglehartR. 1977. The Silent Revolution:
challengeof new In
socialmovements. Chal- ChangingValuesand PoliticalStylesAmong
lengingthePoliticalOrder,ed. RJDalton,M Western Publics. Princeton,NJ: Princeton
Kuechler, pp.3-20. NewYork:OxfordUniv. Univ.Press
Press Inglehart R. 1981. Post-materialism in an en-
D'AnieriP, ErnstC, KierE. 1990.Newsocial vironment of insecurity.
Am.Polit.Sci. Rev.
in
movements historical perspective.Comp. 75:880-900
Polit.22:445-58 InglehartR. 1990.Values,ideology, andcogni-
Diani M, Lodi G. 1988. Threein one: cur- tivemobilization in new social movements.
in
rents theMilanecologymovement. In In- In ChallengingthePoliticalOrder,ed. RJ
ternational SocialMovement Research,ed.B Dalton,M Kuechler,pp. 23-42. New York:
E S
Klandermans, Kriesi, Tarrow,1:103-24. OxfordUniv.Press
Greenwich, CT: JAI Kaase M. 1990.Social movements andpolitical
K.
Eder 1982. new A social movement? Telos innovation. In Challenging thePoliticalOr-
52:5-20 M
der,ed. RJDalton, Kuechler, pp. 84-101.
Eder K. 1985. The 'new' social movements: New York:OxfordUniv.Press
moralcrusades,politicalpressuregroups,or Kaltefleiter W, Pfaltzgraff RL, eds. 1985. The
socialmovements? Sociol.Res. 52:869-901 Peace Movements in Europeand theUnited
Ehrenreich J, Ehrenreich B. 1977. The prof- States.London:CroomHelm
essional-managerial class.RadicalAm.11:7- Katzenstein MF, MullerCM, eds. 1987. The
31 Women's Movements oftheUnitedStatesand
EpsteinB. 1990. Rethinking social movement Western Europe.Philadelphia:TempleUniv.
theory. SocialistRev.21:35-65 Press
EversT. 1985.Identity: thehiddensideofsocial Kauffman LA. 1990.The anti-politics ofiden-
movements inLatinAmerica.In NewSocial tity.SocialistRev.20:69-80
Movements and theStatein LatinAmerica, Kitschelt H. 1990.New social movements and
ed.D Slater,pp.43-71.Amsterdam: CEDLA "NewPolitics"partiesinWestern Europe.In
Eyerman R. 1984. Social movements and social Challenging thePoliticalOrder, ed. RJ Dal-
theory. Sociology18:71-82 ton,M Kuechler,pp. 179-208. New York:
Falik M. 1983. Ideologyand AbortionPolicy OxfordUniv.Press
Politics.New York:Praeger KitscheltH. 1993. Social movements, politi-
FeherF, HellerA. 1983.FromRed to Green. cal parties,anddemocratic theory. Ann.Am.
Telos59:35-44 Acad. Polit.Soc. Sci. 528:13-29
Gelb J, PalleyML. 1982. Womenand Public Klandermans B. 1986. New social movements
Policies.Princeton: Princeton Univ.Press andresourcemobilization: theEuropeanand
Gorz A. 1982. Farewellto theWorking Class. theAmericanapproach.Int.J. Mass Emer-
London:Pluto gencies & Disasters 4:13-37
GouldnerAW. 1979. TheFutureofIntellectu- KlandermansB. 1994. Transientidentities?
als and theRiseoftheNewClass. NewYork: Membershippatternsin the Dutch peace
Seabury movement. See Larajiaet al, pp. 168-84
GusfieldJR. 1994. The reflexivity of social KlandermansB, TarrowS. 1986. Mobi-
movements: collectivebehaviorandmassso- lizationintosocial movements:synthesiz-
cietytheoryrevisited. In New Social Move- ingEuropeanand Americanapproaches.In
ments: FromIdeologyto Identity, ed. E FromStructure toAction:Comparing Social
Larafna, H Johnston, JRGusfield, pp.58-78. Movement ResearchAcrossCultures, Vol. 1,
Philadelphia:Temple Univ.Press Int.Soc. MovementRes., ed.B Klandermans,
HabermasJ. 1981. New social movements. H Kriesi,S Tarrow, pp. 1-38.Greenwich, CT:
Telos49:33-37 JAI
HabermasJ.1987. TheTheoryofCommunica- Kolinsky E. 1989.TheGreensinWestGermany,
tiveAction.Vol 2. Cambridge, Eng.: Polity New York:Berg
HagerC. 1993.Citizenmovements andtechno- KoopmansR. 1983. The dynamicsof protest
logicalpolicymaking in Germany. Ann.Am. waves: WestGermany, 1965 to 1989. Am.
Acad. Polit.Soc. Sci. 528:42-55 Sociol.Rev.58:637-58
HersheyMR. 1993. Citizens'groupsand po- KriesiH, KoopmansR, DyvendakJW,Guigni
liticalpartiesin theUnitedStates.Ann.Am. MG. 1995.NewSocialMovements inWestern
 NEW SOCIAL MOVEMENTS 429

Europe. Minneapolis,MN: Univ. Minn. Olofsson G. 1988. Afterthe working-class

Press movement?An essay on what's'new' and
KristolI. 1972. Aboutequality.Commentary what's'social' inthenewsocialmovements.
54:41-47 Acta31:15-34
Laclau E, MouffeC. 1985.Hegemony and So- Opp K. 1988. Grievancesand participation in
cialistStrategy:Towardsa Radical Demo- socialmovements. Am.Sociol.Rev.53:853-
craticPolitics.London:Verso 64
Ladd EC Jr.1978. The new lines are drawn: ParkinF. 1968.MiddleClass Radicalism.New
class andideologyinAmerica.PartI. Public York:Praeger
Qpin.3:48-53 PichardoNA. 1993. Social movements and
Ladd EC Jr.1979. Pursuingthe new class: social structure:theonsetofindustrializa-
social theoryand surveydata. In The New tionand thechangingshapeofsocial move-
Class? ed.B Bruce-Briggs, pp. 101-22.New mentsin theUnitedStates.Am. Sociol. As-
Brunswick, NJ:Transaction Books soc. Conf.
LaraftaE, Johnston H, GusfieldJR,eds. 1994. PichardoNA. 1995.The powereliteand elite-
New Social Movements:FromIdeologyto drivencountermovements: the associated
Identity.Philadelphia:TempleUniv.Press farmers of Californiaduringthe 1930s. So-
Lowe PD, GoyderJM. 1983. Environmental ciol.Forum10:21-50
Groupsin Politics.London:Allen& Unwin PichardoNA, Sullivan-Catlin H, Deane G.
MelucciA. 1980.Thenewsocialmovements: a 1995.Is thepersonalpolitical:everyday be-
theoreticalapproach.Soc. Sci. Info.19:199- havioralcorrelates ofenvironmental identity.
226 Am.Social Assoc.Conf.,Washington, DC
MelucciA. 1981.Tenhypotheses fortheanal- PlotkeD. 1990.What'sso newaboutnewsocial
ysisof social movements. In Contemporary movements? SocialistRev.20:81-102
ItalianSociology,ed. D Pinto,pp. 173-94. PoguntkeT. 1993. Alternative Politics.Edin-
New York:Cambridge Univ.Press burgh:Edinburgh Univ.Press
MelucciA. 1984.Anendtosocialmovements? RochonTR. 1990. The WestEuropeanpeace
Soc. Sci. Info.23:819-35 movement andthetheory ofnewsocialmove-
Melucci A. 1985. The symbolicchallenge ments.In Challenging thePoliticalOrder,ed.
of contemporary movements. Sociol. Res. RJ Dalton,M Kuechler,pp. 105-21. New
52:789-815 York'OxfordUniv.Press
Melucci A. 1994. A strangekindof newness: Rochon TR, MazmanianDA. 1993. Social
what'snew in new social movements. See movements andthepolicyprocess.Ann.Am.
Larafaetal, pp. 101-30 Acad. Polit.Soc. Sci. 528:75-87
MolotchH. 1970. Oil in Santa Barbaraand RudigW. 1988.Peace andecologymovements
powerin America.Sociol. Inquiry40:131- in WesternEurope. Western Europe Polit.
44 11:26-39
Mooers C, Sears A. 1992. The "New Social SassoonJ.1984.Ideology,symbolicactionand
Movements" andthewithering awayofstate ritualityin social movements: theeffectson
theory.In OrganizingDissent: Contempo- organizational forms. Soc. Sci. Info.23:861-
rarySocial Movements in Theoryand Prac- 73
tice, ed. WK Carroll,pp. 52-68. Toronto: Schlesinger AM Jr.1986.The CyclesofAmer-
Garamond icanHistory. Boston:Houghton Mifflin
MottlTL. 1980.The analysisofcountermove- ScottA. 1990. Ideologyand theNew Social
ments.Soc. Probl.27:620-35 Movements. London:UnwinHyman
MouffeC. 1984.Towardsa theoretical interpre- ShaikoRG. 1993. GreenpeaceU.S.A.: some-
tationofnewsocial movements. In Rethink- thingold, new,borrowed.Ann.Am.Acad.
ingMarx.New York:Int.Gen./IMMRC Polit.Soc. Sci. 528:88-100
Muller-Rommel F. 1985.Socialmovements and SlaterD, ed. 1985. New Social Movements
theGreens:thenewinternal politicsin Ger- and theStateinLatinAmerica.Amsterdam:
many.Eur J.Polit.Res. 13:53-67 CEDLA
Muller-Rommel F. 1990. New politicalmove- Szasz A. 1994. Ecopopulism: Toxic Waste
mentsandthedeclineof partyorganization. andtheMovementfor Environmental Justice.
In ChallengingthePoliticalOrder,ed. RJ Minneapolis, MN: Univ.Minn.Press
M
Dalton, Kuechler, to
pp.209-31. New York: TarrowS. 1983. Struggling Reform:Social
OxfordUniv.Press Movements and PolicyChangeDuringCy-
Namenwirth ZJ, Weber RP. 1987.Dynamicsof cles of Protest.Ithaca,NY: CornellUniv.
Culture.Boston:Allen& Unwin (Western Societies Pap. No. 15)
OffeC. 1985. New social movements:chal- TarrowS. 1989. Democracvand Disorder:
lengingtheboundariesof institutional poli- Protestand PoliticsinItaly1965-1975.Ox-
tics.Sociol.Res. 52:817-68 ford,England:Clarendon
430 PICHARDO
TarrowS. 1990. The Phantomof the Opera:
politicalpartiesandsocialmovements ofthe
1960sand 1970sin Italy.In Challenging the
PoliticalOrder,ed. RJ Dalton,M Kuech-
ler,pp. 251-73. New York: OxfordUniv.
Press
TarrowS. 1991.Struggle, Politics,andReform:
CollectiveAction,Social Movements, and
CyclesofProtest.Ithaca,NY: CornellUniv.
(Western SocietiesPap. No. 21)
TarrowS. 1994.PowerinMovement. NewYork:
CambridgeUniv.Press
Tilly,C. 1979. Repertoiresof contention in
AmericaandBritain,1750-1830.In TheDy-
namicsofSocial Movements, ed. MN Zald,
J McCarthy, pp. 126-55. Cambridge,MA:
Winthrop
TouraineA. 1971.TheMayMovement: Revolt
and Reform. New York:RandomHouse
TouraineA. 1977.TheSelf-Production ofSoci-
ety.Chicago:Univ.ChicagoPress
TouraineA. 1981. The Voiceand theEye: An
Analysisof Social Movements. Cambridge,
MA: Cambridge Univ.Press
TouraineA. 1982.Triumph ordownfall ofcivil
society? In Humanitiesin Review,ed. D
Reiss, pp. 218-34. New York: Cambridge
Univ.Press
VanderGaag M. 1985.Womenorganizing. In
The InvisibleDecade, ed. G Ashworth, L
Bonnerjea,pp. 133-40.London:Gower
WalshEJ.1981.Resourcemobilization andcit-
izen protestin communities aroundThree
Mile Island.Soc. Probl.29:1-21
WeinerR. 1982. Collectiveidentity formation
andsocialmovements. Psychol.Soc. Theory
3:13-23
Zald MN, Useem B. 1987. Movementand
countermovement interaction:mobilization,
tactics,and state involvement. In Social
Movements inan Organizational Society,ed.
MN Zald, JD McCarthy, pp. 319-36. New
Brunswick, NJ:Transaction Books
Zimmerman MK. 1987. The women'shealth
movement:a critiqueof medicalenterprise
andthepositionofwomen.InAnalyzing Gen-
der,ed. BB Hess, MM Ferree,pp. 442-72.
Newbury Park,CA: Sage