The role of identity in contemporary social movements

Identity, understood as both personal and collective, decisively represents and determines social
movements all over the world. In contemporary reality, even more so than in the past, identity is
becoming complex, fluid and interactive and is increasingly the main driver of any social action of
citizenship or protest.
According to some scholars, contemporary social movements are different from those of the past,
and their transformation began with the progressive disappearance of the working class as the
engine of protest. Scholar Pichardo (1997) illustrated the characteristic elements of contemporary
social movements through the NMS (New Social Movement) paradigm, which analyses them from
both a macro and micro perspective.
- At the macro level, it analyses the relationship between these movements and the economic
and cultural structure of a country.
- At the micro level, it examines how personal identity is involved in social movements.

The differences between contemporary movements are most evident in ideology, tactics, structure
and participants.

Ideology
The main ideology of the NMS is characterised by a focus on quality of life rather than economic
redistribution. The main elements of the NMS focus on self-reflective concepts such as autonomy
and identity.

Tactics
In terms of tactics, there is no single distinctive tactical style, but dominant elements can be
identified: public opinion, anti-establishment politics and criticism of modern democracies. The
NMS remain outside conventional political channels, although some integrate into the party system
and form their own. They mainly use tactics of disruption and protest, usually in highly dramatic
tones and accompanied by distinctive costumes and symbols.

Structure
In terms of structure, the NMS also try to reflect the type of government they wish to achieve. They
are characterised by a fluid, non-rigid and anti-bureaucratic style of organisation, with communal
voting and temporary ad hoc organisations.

Participants
There are two visions of who the participants of NMS are.
1. According to the first, the main participants are the members of the 'new' middle class: a
new created social stratum employed in the non-productive sectors of the economy.
According to NMS theorists, this class is dominant because its members do not depend
on the corporate world for their sustenance.
2. The other view is that NMS participants are not defined by class boundaries, but by a
common interest in social issues. It is an ideological rather than an ethnic, religious or
class-based community.
3. Offe (1985) proposes a view that incorporates the previous ones. According to him,
participants come from three sectors: the new middle class, elements of the old middle
 class and a 'peripheral' population consisting of people with little involvement in the
labour market.

Are Contemporary Movements a Product of the Postindustrial Era?

Another debate about the new social movements concerns their origins: are they a consequence of
the post-industrial economy or of changes in cultural values?
Again, there are two schools of thought:
1. According to the first, NSMs emerge as a reaction to the increasing interference of the
state and the economy in the civic sphere due to the transition to a capitalist economy.
Increasing social domination leads to the formation of movements that defend society
against state interference and profit-oriented economic power.
2. The second school suggests that NSMs arise from a change in the cultural values of
Western society, where economic security has allowed people to focus on issues of
identity and personal growth towards a post-materialist society, rather than on economic
or political issues.
Thus, their exact origin and nature remain open to debate and research.

Are Contemporary Movements unique?

The question of whether contemporary movements really represent something unique is certainly
answered by their emphasis on identity, culture and the role of the civil sphere in social movements,
aspects often ignored in the past. However, it is unclear whether a new theory is needed to fully
understand these differences, or whether a modification of existing theories would be sufficient to
better understand not only the 'how' of movements, but also the 'why'.

Limits of NMS paradigm

The NMS paradigm is limited by an ideological prejudice, which is its exclusive focus on left-wing
movements, neglecting right-wing movements that emerged as reactions to post-industrial society. It
is therefore necessary to consider a broader range of movements for a more comprehensive
understanding of social phenomena.
Moreover, when analysing contemporary social movements, it is necessary to analyse not only their
internal organisational aspects, but also the relational ones that lead to the formation of inter-
organisational networks, as Mario Diani and Ivano Bison explain in their article Organisations,
Coalitions and Movements.

Inter-organizational networks
In particular, according to these scholars, there are three elements that distinguish social movements
from other processes of collective action:
1. The presence of conflictual orientations towards specific adversaries.
2. Dense or dispersed informal exchanges between individuals and organisations engaged
in collective projects.
3. Strong or weak collective identity among members of such networks.

Such inter-organisational networks produce very broad collective identities that transcend
individual events or coalitions, providing a sense of common goal that enables actors to see
themselves as part of a broader process of change.
Within a single event, several different types of processes can be identified, with both conflictual
and consensual dynamics coexisting. In particular, five types of processes can be distinguished:
1. Consensus movement processes: in which network actors share solidarity and common
values without necessarily identifying specific antagonists.
2. Conflictual coalitional processes: in which actors explicitly identify antagonists, but
coalitional networks are weak, temporary and instrumental.
3. Consensus coalition processes: in which there is a sharing of resources aimed at
achieving practical goals, without a narrative linking episodes in a broader picture.
4. Conflictual organizational processes: in which there are specific organisations that
manage available resources by creating low-intensity networks.
5. Consensual organizational processes: where specific organisations operate in autonomy
without creating external networks.

The development of alliances and collective identities is closely linked to the social and cultural
dimension of the context in which a movement is born. This is something that scholars have only
recently started to realise. In fact, before the 1970s, there was a tendency to ignore why people
mobilised. Since the 1970s and 1980s, however, it has become essential to think about the link
between the culture of a place and collective action. Participants in the 'new' social movements are
driven by the search for recognition of new identities and lifestyles.

Collective Identity
More recent theorists have therefore begun to consider why collective actors act. That is, why do
people join collective efforts, especially when they are not sure that their participation will be
useful, and when they could benefit from the work of others without contributing?
According to some scholars, this happens because people are moved by pre-existing friendships or
family relations that lead to mutual support. In fact, some movements even manage to mobilise
people who have no connections at all, by using 'moral shocks' that appeal directly to the concept of
collective identity.

Francesca Polletta and James Jasper define it as: "a cognitive, moral and emotional connection to a
larger community.
It is a fluid and relational act of perception that includes both imagined and real communities.
Collective identities influence words and actions and provide shared categories for giving meaning
to the social world.
Movement organisers shape identities to make the movement attractive to potential participants, for
example turning unknown events into successful epics by constructing clear images of 'us' and
'them'. Membership and eventual exit depend on this: when collective identities no longer match the
movement's values, a member stops following. Work on collective identities is therefore crucial for
recruiting, maintaining engagement and managing the dynamics within social movements.

Tactical choice: identity and strategy

The choice of strategies and tactics also depends on the collective identity of the group, which can
also change over the course of the work, as activists shape it according to the strategic context, for
example by highlighting similarities or differences with the outside audiences.
According to Jasper (1997), from a strategic perspective, collective identities can be categorised as
'activist', 'organisational' or 'tactical'.
- The first implies a history of political activity, usually wider than a specific movement.
- An organisational identity implies loyalty to a single organisation and its members. -
- Those with a tactical identity may call themselves vanguards or be proud of particular styles
of action such as non-violence or civil disobedience.
Such identities may coexist with both movement identities and pre-existing collective identities, and
may be mixed up with them in complex ways. For example, a person may identify as a non-violent
feminist, an ecological activist and a member of the 'Matrix' affinity group: each of these identities
involves identification with a wider collective.

Movement success: identity as an outcome

The concept of identity is also useful for the evaluation of movement outcomes. In some cases, the
impact is intentional, in others it is a side effect of other goals.

For example, changing identities is often a primary goal of movements. This may be most obvious
in religious movements, for example, but many other movements consider it to be one of their
goals, in addition to others. Developing group pride, for example, is a form of identity work.
Participation also transforms the biographies of activists, shaping their personal identities even after
the end of the movement, whether this is an explicit goal or not. This is true not only for those who
have been active for a long time or intensively, but also for many occasional participants.

Conclusion
The concept of identity is the only element that justifies a distinction between contemporary social
movements and those of the past, as it characterises them in terms of ideology, tactics, structure and
participants. The moment a 'new' social movement is born, a network of connections and a specific
shared collective identity is always created. This characterises the movement in its tactics and
strategies and also works as an aggregating factor for the participating members.
The transformation of individual and collective identities is a crucial goal for many contemporary
movements, since it not only consolidates their commitment, but also changes the terrain of political
conflict.
Only through a clear understanding of the role and social weight of personal and collective identity
it is possible to fully understand the complexity and dynamism of interactions in contemporary
social contexts.