Theories on Social Movement - Essay Example

Running Head: Social Movements Distinguishing the ‘New’ from the ‘Old’ Social Movements Introduction Social movements, as a mechanism of change embodying a specific perspective of social problems, involve the participation “of large numbers of people who organize to promote or resist change” (Rootes, 1990, 7). People who participate in social change usually share an enhanced sense of moral resentment at inequalities or discrimination stemming from the social problem, and belief on the steps that should be taken (p. 7). Their beliefs may be against the status quo, which as a result may create an image of ‘they’ and ‘we’ (Polletta & Jasper, 2001, 283), further reinforcing their recognition with the cause. Social movements are created through a course of action, starting with disorder or campaigns as a response to a social problem, then organization of involved parties. People mobilize, leadership develops, duties are assigned, the public is notified, and guidelines or strategies begin to form, resulting finally in the establishment of the movement (Polletta & Jasper, 2001, 283). The course of action is not easy and there could be a decline phase in the group when it either disintegrates or is restored in a changed form. Social movements could be either reactive, involving opposition to change, or enthusiastic, with an aim for social change (Rootes, 1990, 10). Proactive social movements that aspire to reform a particular feature of human conduct, like the Women’s Christian Temperance Movement, are transformative (Polletta & Jasper, 2001, 283); those aspiring for an absolute transformation of individual conduct, like religious fundamentalist groups, are liberating (p. 283). The emphasis of the other two kinds is societal transformation: movements with goals of altering a particular feature of society, as represented by labor groups, are alterative, and organizations trying to transform the whole social order are revolutionary (Rootes, 1990, 12). The objective of this essay is to discuss the distinctions between ‘old’ and ‘new’ social movements. Theories on Social Movement Theorists of new social movement observe a greatly reformed social structure behind these new social movements, diversely referred to as ‘postindustrial’, ‘network’, or ‘information society (Pichardo, 1997, 411). In the theory of Melucci (1994, 105), ‘modernization’ has obliged that individuals be able to process or understand the informational or network components on which present-day societies rely on, but heightened individualism has been escorted by great demands toward standardized conformity. On the other hand, the theory of Touraine has strong appeal due to the importance it places to the problem of action (Pichardo, 1997, 411). As argued by Touraine (1982), the primary duty of sociology is the analysis of the social action by which interactions and relationships are developed and changed. The objective of Touraine is to explain the mechanisms of social development and to classify the developing social movement able to surpass the inconsistencies of current social organizations and shepherding a new age where in women and men may fashion their own history (Polletta & Jasper, 2001, 283). However, other scholars have argued that the theorists of new social movement declare that attempts to characterize, observe, perform, and reinterpret identity are more essential in new movements than in old ones, but have looked for distinct clarifications for that fact (Pichardo, 1997, 411). For instance, Jasper (1997) emphasizes legal involvement as a primary feature. Not like past labor and civil rights movements, which aimed for total involvement as citizens, new citizenship campaigns are conducted by people who already benefit from nearly all the customary citizens’ rights, such as the capacity to organize legally and make demands to policymakers (Plotke, 1990, 87). Members of these movements do not normally have an identity enforced on them by the legal and political structures; as a result, they have more liberty to take part in ingenious re-creations of their own identity (p. 87). The resolve of theorists of new social movement to historicize a current range of demonstrations has also persuaded attempts to explain the creation of questionable identities. A number of scholars have referred to major developments like industrialization, nation building, and urbanization, as well as to the emergence of novel intellectual frameworks, to clarify how membership to a social movement becomes the source of prejudice or exclusion but also for mobilization (Pichardo, 1997, 412). D’Emilio (1983), for instance, attributes the appearance of a ‘gay/lesbian’ identity to the industrialization and urbanization developments that facilitated an independent personal life. Homosexuals have been existent all the time and, certainly, have frequently been intensely reprimanded or rebuked, as stressed by D’Emilio (1983), but it was just at the advent of the 20th century that it became not only illegitimate, immoral, deviant behavior but an abnormal identity. In a related process, the legal establishment of racial rights in South Africa and the United States produced large-scale and intense inequality and ultimately presented the groundwork for demands by racial minorities for legal rights (Tilly, 1998, 11). In contrast, the lack of legitimate racial classifications, information, and organizations in Brazil hampered racial mobilization (Pichardo, 1997, 412). Tilly (1998) associates the emergence of social movements in nineteenth-century Britain to the increased importance of the state in the lives of the people and the new trends of social movement that emerged. Instead of making demands to an influential patron or inflicting their fury directly on the target of their discontent, furthered by Tilly (1998), members of movements increasingly performed public protests to demand involvement in a national polity. Once social movements have surfaced, equipped with recruitment drives, leaders, and organizations, planned initiatives to create mobilizing identities become relevant. Identities that are common, established, and implemented by tradition and law often have to be re-imagined by members of social movements (Polletta & Jasper, 2001, 283). They should be combined, at the very least, with an identity, such as collective identity founded on membership in a social movement. The ‘Old’ and ‘New’ Social Movements The ‘old’ social movement emerged several years ago, prior to the innovation of communication and transportation and the development of the Internet, also prior to the emergence of the notion of the global village (Rootes, 1990, 12). These social movements were normally confined geographically and centered on national problems. Obviously, several of these concerns stem from more general issues and it is more than probable that related movements were developing in various corners of the globe (p. 12). These social movements build national unions that would confer political leverage and had shared political goals (Plotke, 1990, 85). Cases in point of ‘old’ social movements are the suffragists, labor and civil rights groups, trade unions, and others. The ‘new’ social movements basically belong to the post-industrialization period and represent several movements that arose in different countries, originally in Western societies and afterwards throughout the world during the recent decades (Pichardo, 1997, 412). Moreover, they are radically distinct from ‘old’ social movements. While a large number of ‘old’ social movements placed importance on political or economic concerns, such as labor groups or freedom campaigns, the contemporary social movements have a tendency to operate towards attaining social transformation in a more general perspective, cases in point being the feminist movement, environmental movement, and the likes (Plotke, 1990, 93). Many of these movements focus on subsistence and social problems (p. 93), rather than economic development or formation of public policy. The primary characteristic of social movements, as argued by theorists of new social movements, is their stance against the state (Kauffman, 1990, 73). Opposite to ‘old’ social movements, ‘new’ social movements are created by current inconsistencies of society, conflicts between state and individual (p. 73). For example, these new social movements that focus on human rights, like peace movements and ecology campaigns, are different from the old social movements that centers on economic issues, like that of the class movement predicted by Karl Marx.  Furthermore, theorists of ‘new values’ (Pichardo, 1997, 413) emphasize that the circumstances of political strength and economic development witnessed by the post-1945 groups in Western societies, enable them to humble material preferences and encouraged them to adopt post-materialist principles, manifesting greater self-actualization, artistic, and creative drives. The new ideals of Inglehart are basically the anti-state oppositions recognized by Habermas (Rootes, 1990, 12). These perspectives transform class objectives into ‘universal human’ objectives (p. 12). One excellent example of a new social movement is the Islamic movement. The Islamic movement has already expanded throughout the globe and is intensely felt and witnessed in almost every society with a Muslim populace, regardless of its size in a local setting (Calhoun, 1993, p. 389). The ‘old’ social movements focused on political or economic concerns, such as those related to the French Revolution and the socialist movement of the 19th century.  Nevertheless, the new social movements question or defy the ‘old’ because they seem to go beyond local concerns, which are relevant to just a particular group of people and a lot of them, such as the movements that adopt ecological, gender, and racial issues (p. 389), focus on areas that address collective interests. Quite evidently, in comparison to these new trends, the ‘old’ social movements seem to be quite narrow in appeal and objective as well as in their ability to become influential and wide-ranging agents of change. The ‘old’ social movements, in truth, have never adopted the abovementioned issues, perhaps on the belief that they were less urgent or vital than the issue under consideration. Ideology and Objectives The core feature of ‘new’ social movements is their unique ideological approach. It is from this distinction that every other thing flows. The perspective of the ‘new’ social movement expresses that current social movements embody a deep-seated separation from ‘old’ social movements (Pichardo, 1997, 413). Instead of concentrating on the distribution and allocation of economic resources, ‘new’ social movements stress standard of living issues (D’Anieri et al., 1990, 447). Hence, ‘new’ social movements challenge the materialistic and profit-oriented objectives of industrial societies, such as the anti-globalization movement, whereas ‘old’ social movements, such as those of the peasants and working class, aimed to improve standard of living for the marginalized sector of the society.  The new social movements challenge the systems of representative democracies that restrict involvement and contribution of citizens in governance and policy making, rather than supporting self-help organizations, mutual forms of social organization, and direct democracy (p. 447-448), like the global citizens movement and civil rights movement. As stated by Cohen (1983), “The theme of the self-defense and democratization, raised implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) by the movements… [is] the most significant element in the contemporary struggle for democratizations” (p. 102). The principles of ‘new’ social movements focus on identity and independence (Cohen, 1983, 102), whereas ‘old’ social movements focus on political autonomy, such as those of the working class movements.  In numerous instances, claims of identity are the most unique aspect of ‘new’ social movements, even though all ‘old’ social movements can also be illustrated as expressing identity claims (Pichardo, 1997, 413). The emphasis on identity is regarded as distinctive in contemporary movements for, according to Kauffman (1990), “identity politics also express the belief that identity itself—its elaboration, expression, or affirmation—is and should be a fundamental focus of political work. In this way, the politics of identity have led to an unprecedented politicization of previously nonpolitical terrains…” (p. 67). Nevertheless, whether identity politics embodies a stagnation or emancipation of contemporary politics (Pichardo, 1997, 413) is a matter of debate. The freedom of integrating the private with the political may embody a deep-seated defiance of the supremacy of state control, but it could also lead to an apolitical abandonment of politics, or referred to as ‘anti-politics of identity’ (Pichardo, 1997, 413). The other, allegedly distinctive, ideological characteristic of ‘new’ social movements is its self-realization. This implies that members are always questioning the significance of actions or decisions (Jasper, 1997, 83). This has resulted in the informed selections of action and structure, preferences believed to characterize ‘new’ social movements. An excellent case in point is the consciousness-raising movements (p. 83), such as feminist groups. Strategies and Participants The strategies of ‘new’ social movements reflect their ideological leaning. The faith in the unrepresentative nature of contemporary democracies is in agreement with its anti-state strategic leaning (Melucci, 1994, 105). ‘New’ social movements choose to stay outside of ordinary political means, using interruptive strategies and encouraging public opinion to acquire political advantage, such as the race movement and gay/lesbian movement. They also have a tendency to employ very theatrical and preplanned kinds of protests filled with symbolic displays (Melucci, 1994, 105-106), while ‘old’ social movements had direct and straightforward strategies in articulating their cause, like those of the aristocratic movements in the West. Nonetheless, this is not to say that ‘new’ social movements do not engage themselves in political affairs, or preventing the possibility of becoming established. In terms of participants, there are two perspectives on who the members of ‘new’ social movements are and the reason they decide to become members. The first situates the foundation of support within the contemporary middle class (Polletta & Jasper, 2001, 283). Studies of the emergence of the ‘new’ middle class appear to strengthen the reliability of this social fact. However, theorists of ‘new’ social movement claim that this new middle class generates the major members of ‘new’ social movements because they are not tied to the profit-oriented goal or reliant on the business sector for their subsistence (p. 283-284). Rather, they are inclined to work in sectors that are greatly reliant on state spending like social service agencies, the arts, and education institution and they are inclined to be well educated (Polletta & Jasper, 2001, 284). For instance, green parties are peopled by those who understand their objective within a global perspective which acknowledges and supports underprivileged individuals or groups wherever they are. On the other hand, ‘old’ social movements, such as the aristocratic and White movements, were focused specifically on their own cause and objective. In terms of participants, basically, the ‘new’ social movements are hosted by individuals who have diverse cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds whereas the ‘old’ social movements were peopled by those who are greatly dependent on the state and private sector for their material subsistence and power.  Nevertheless, there is knowledge that within this general descriptive classification distinctions are present. The other perception of the members of ‘new’ social movements is that they are not characterized by class differences but are defined by a shared consideration of social problems (Plotke, 1990, 84). It is ideological, not class-based, religious, or racial/ethnic community (p. 84). Offe (1985), on the other hand, provides a quite different theory of who the members of ‘new’ social movements are. He claims that they are obtained from different sectors: ‘marginalized’ population composed of individuals not greatly involved in the labor market, such as retirees, housewives, and students; components of the traditional middle class, such as artisan-producers and farmers; and, the new middle class (Offe, 1985, 846). Several investigations of the peace movement in different societies have shown a similarly varied group of members (Pichardo, 1997, 414). Nevertheless, neither perspective, in its limitedly recognized form, is substantiated by facts. Investigations of environmental campaigns show that ‘new’ social movement members are acquired mainly from two groups: one is geographically tied populations that are being greatly influenced by the unfavorable effects of industrial development; and the other is the new middle class (Pichardo, 1997, 414). The traditional middle class usually is engaged in regional concerns, according to Touraine (1981). In other words, the members of environmental campaigns do not rely heavily on those external to the white middle class except if there is some geographically based, encouraging, issue (Pichardo, 1997, 414). Minority groups, for instance, have seldom taken part in environmental campaigns, apart from dispute over the relocation of useless waste facilities. The absence of the involvement of minority groups is similarly true of majority of other ‘new’ social movements, such as gay/lesbian, peace, and feminist movements (Polletta & Jasper, 2001, 284). Whether participants from the middle class took part considerably in ‘old’ social movements is an important issue for the framework of ‘new’ social movements. Such consideration has been extremely undervalued. Groups of middle-class demonstration have taken place since the 1800s in the United States and Europe (Calhoun, 1993, 392). These comprise progressive, suffrage, and abolition movements (p. 392). Therefore, the question whether the middle class is newly engaged in social movements is definitely a point of contention. Are these suggested features distinctive? If such dissimilarities are present, then it would define a considerable deviation from tradition. The dilemma is that a lot of exceptions are mentioned. ‘New’ social movements adopt free and democratic structures, but there are numerous ‘new’ social movement groups that are not quite typified. They oppose institutional politics, but numerous ‘new’ social movements are frequently conferred with by governmental agencies, and others have established political groups or parties (Pichardo, 1997). ‘New’ social movements have a tendency to depend on the new middle class, but numerous community-based groups, especially environmental mobilizations, have emerged (Melucci, 1994). Moreover, the middle class is not a latest spot of social movements. ‘New’ social movements have a tendency to use nonconventional strategies but also employ those usually used by ‘old’ social movements, such as court trials, voting, lobbying, and the likes. One cannot ignore the fact that the interesting characteristic of the new condition of the movements is its diversity. The traditional models of collective action definitely persist until now. In several movements they could even be statistically dominant (Pichardo, 1997, 414). Not merely are the features of movements under consideration, hence as well as those of the new social movements generally. As argued by D’Anieri and colleagues (1990) there is no distinction between ‘old’ social movements and ‘new’ ones. Likewise, Calhoun (1993) discerns no major dissimilarity between nineteenth- and twentieth-century movements, claiming that ‘old’ social movements were not governed or controlled by materialistic or profit-oriented organizations. The concept of ‘new’ social movement has also been disapproved of in terms of whether current social movements embody a striking break from ‘old’ social movements. According to Touraine (1982), this deep-seated break is a role of their reflexive nature and the altered focuses and risks of the struggles. As stated by Evers (1985), what is novel about ‘new’ social movements is that the “transformatory potential within new social movements is not political, but socio-cultural” (p. 49). Specifically, they aspire to reconstruct society. Nevertheless, several scholars have emphasized the link of ‘new’ social movements with ‘old’ ones. Melucci (1994) possibly situate the significance and nature of this debate in the most appropriate context when he declared it was pointless. It is not an issue of judging whether research findings are similar and comparable; rather, the issue is whether their value and the position they take in the social relations system can be regarded to be similar (Melucci, 1994, 126). Aside from whether ‘new’ social movements signify departures from ‘old’ movements, an associated issue is whether ‘new’ social movements are new in any way. As stated earlier, ‘new’ social movements frequently hold components of the new and old. Eder (1985) views ‘new’ social movements as including two forms of trends: cultural movements that “oppose present social life… [and] political movements [that] challenge modern state domination” (p. 5). On the other hand, Mouffe (1984) views the newness of ‘new’ social movements not in the contemporary conflicts but in the “diffusion of social conflict into other areas and the politicization of more and more relations” (p. 141). Nevertheless, several have been quite hostile to the claims of newness of ‘new’ social movements. Instead of discussing similarities or differences with ‘old’ social movements, Plotke (1990) disapproves of the influence of the theory of ‘new’ social movement on the course of social movements. He asserts that explanations of an extensive ‘new social movement discourse’ (p. 91) are erroneous in a number of ways. Doubtful assumptions about the movements, about their ‘actual’ and ‘ought to’ be characteristics, are politically important because they are addressed critically by scholars and by several members of the movements. These doubtful assumptions are an outcome of the theoretical disagreement with Marxism, which has made theorists of ‘new’ social movements “unprepared to engage in the theoretical and political debate in the United States, where neoconservative interpretations became dominant in the late 1970s and 1980s” (Pichardo, 1997, 415). In short, the discourse over the differences between ‘old’ and ‘new’ social movements is not merely an academic debate; it has actual effects for movements that could make them susceptible to defenses. Conclusions The failure of theorists of ‘new’ social movements to compellingly justify its most important proposals contradicts classification or recognizing the ‘new’ social movement argument as a theory or framework about present-day protests. Nor can merely claiming that the ‘new’ social movement argument is valid exclusively to radical movements of the current period recover its reputation as a theory. Also, confining the argument to left-wing movements is inadequate as numerous fundamentalist or conservative groups can also be quite typified. The further failure to support credibly a classification of ‘new’ social movements or a connection to transformations in socioeconomic systems makes the argument of ‘new’ social movement weak as a theory. The major issue is not whether new social movements reflect distinctive features, for the strategies and approaches of movements are usually a role of pragmatism rather than ideology and hence are oriented by the utilitarian rationale of attaining objectives. It is more of an issue of whether ‘new’ social movements are responding to the transforming character of control and power in the postindustrial period. I think that any recovery of the argument of ‘new’ social movements should start with a consideration of social movements both old and new. With such a consideration the mechanism of government intervention would be more vividly emphasized as conservative movements are responding to the decisions of governments to take over the civic sector. The religious principles that strengthen the ideological nature of numerous conservative groups should be viewed as another root of conflict that has constantly dwelled in and customarily governed the civic domain. With the eighteenth-century separation of state and church, religious movements were stripped of their legitimate influential position within the public sector. Hence, the development of the civic domain and the evolution of the political and social clashes concerning the civic domain have to be examined. In so doing, we can acquire a greater understanding of the character of contemporary conflict and the function of the public domain in creating and susyaining that conflict. Perhaps it is the theory regarding the function of the public domain, where identity and culture are situated, in contemporary conflict that is the most interesting, challenging, and informative component of the ‘old’ and ‘new’ social movements and the component around which a reconstruction of the ‘old’ and ‘new’ argument should be developed. References Calhoun, C. (1993) ‘What’s new about new social movements? The early 19th century reconsidered’. Soc Sci Hist, 17, 385-427. Cohen, J. (1983) ‘Rethinking social movements’. Berkeley J. Sociology, 28, 97-114. D’Anieri, P., Ernst, C. & Kier, E. (1990) ‘New social movements in historical perspective’. Comp. Polit., 22, 445-58. D’Emilio, J. (1983) Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities. Chicago, IL: Univ. Chicago Press. Eder, K. (1985) ‘The ‘new’ social movements: moral crusades, political pressure groups, or social movements?’ Sociol Res, 52, 869-901. Evers, T. (1985). ‘Identity: the hidden side of social movements in Latin America’. In New Social Movements and the State in Latin America, ed. D. Slater, pp. 43-71. Amsterdam: CEDLA. Jasper, J.M. (1997) The Art of Moral Protest. Chicago, IL: Univ. Chicago Press. Kauffman, L.A. (1990) ‘The anti-politics of identity’. Socialist Rev, 20, 69-80. Melucci, A. (1994) ‘A strange kind of newness: what’s new in social movements’, In Larana et al., pp. 101-30. Mouffe, C. (1984) ‘Towards a theoretical interpretation of new social movements’. In Rethinking Marx. New York: Int. Gen/IMMRC. Offe, C. (1985) ‘New social movements: challenging the boundaries of institutional politics’. Sociol Res, 52, 817-68. Pichardo, N.A. (1997) ‘New Social Movements: A Critical Review’. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 411+ Plotke, D. (1990). ‘What’s so new about new social movements?’ Socialist Rev., 20, 81-102. Polletta, F. & Jasper, J. (2001) ‘Collective Identity and Social Movements’. Annual Review of Sociology, 283. Rootes, C.A. (1990) ‘Theory of Social Movements: Theory for Social Movements?’ Philosophy and Social Action, 16(4), 5-17. Tilly, c. (1998) ‘Political identities’, In Hanagan et al. (1998), pp. 3-16. Touraine, A. (1981) The Voice and the Eye: An Analysis of Social Movements. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Touraine, A. (1982) ‘Triumph or downfall of civil society?’ In Humanities in Review, ed. D. Reiss, pp. 218-34. New York: Cambridge University Press. Read More