New Social Movements

Communication
Theory

Robert Huesca Eleven:

Four

November
2001

Pages
Conceptual Contributions of New 415–433
Social Movements to Development
Communication Research

The field of development communication faces a critical juncture regarding its

theoretical and pragmatic relevance due to both internal debates and criticisms,
and external restructuring of political, economic, and social systems on a glo-
bal scale. The internal debates and criticisms indicate, at best, that the field is in
some degree of conceptual disarray and, at worst, that it is detrimental to the
goals of improving the human condition materially and symbolically. The con-
comitant external changes to social systems constitute a daunting context that
questions the legitimacy and rationale of development efforts while fostering
new forms of social change. This article argues that the field must redirect its
attention in order to respond to the persistence of substandard living condi-
tions that demonstrate the continued relevance of development efforts in gen-
eral, specifically by drawing from the findings of scholarship of new social
movements, combining them with relevant areas from participatory communi-
cation for development research.

The field of development communication currently faces a critical junc-

ture that both challenges its social relevance and offers new opportuni-
ties for practical and theoretical progress (Wilkins, 2000). This juncture
is characterized by changes in external, material, and symbolic contexts
that frame the nature of these challenges while indicating fruitful direc-
tions for the continued progression of development communication
theory. Advancements in communication technologies occurring simul-
taneously with the worldwide restructuring of political, economic, and
social systems have reduced the legitimacy of traditional institutions,
promoted the virtue of markets, and questioned the pertinence of devel-
opment communication theory and practice (Escobar, 2000). Further-
more, the evolution of development communication theory has been
marked by severe internal criticism and heated debate that, although
broadening definitions, encouraging intellectual pluralism, and renew-
ing interest in the field, have clouded the direction for future conceptual
advancement.

Copyright © 2001 International Communication Association

415
 Communication
Theory

An area of recent theoretical interest that might fruitfully contribute

to the directions taken by development communication scholars is of-
fered by research of what have been called “new social movements.”
This growing body of research, which has emerged from sociology and
political science, demonstrates the continued interest and ability of people
to strive for alterations in politics, economics, and culture—relevant are-
nas for traditional development practice. The findings from these stud-
ies serve to inform and guide development communication research, as
well as to commend its continued evolution. Moreover, the specific theo-
retical understandings and characteristics of new social movements con-
verge conceptually with the advancements in participatory communica-
tion for development research. The convergence of these two bodies of
research offers directions for the continued study of development com-
munication while renewing conceptual interest in specific aspects of par-
ticipatory approaches to development.

Studying New Social Movements

Beginning in the late 1960s, scholars from sociology and political sci-
ence began conceptualizing forces of social change as emerging from
coordinated actions occurring outside formal institutions like political
parties and labor unions. What made these theories of social change
“new” was their attention to identity formation as a locus of coordi-
nated action and their de-emphasis of group access to institutional re-
sources or adherence to overarching ideologies that guided mobiliza-
tion. This focus on new social movements gained renewed momentum
in the 1980s and 1990s, especially in Latin America, with the emergence
of ethnic, gender, and issue organizing initiatives that similarly were not
explained satisfactorily by liberal democratic or Marxist theories of so-
cial change.
The theoretical evolution of the new social movements research par-
allels the intellectual transformation of the development communica-
tion field, especially in its dissatisfaction with the evaluations and pre-
scriptions suggested by early modernization and dependency theories,
which are conceptually analogous to liberal democratic and Marxist
theories of social change. Because of its focus on action, the new social
movements literature has described and analyzed social contexts and
action processes in a way that enriches further inquiry into development
communication. Despite the outstanding descriptions and evaluations
of social contexts and actions, however, the new social movements lit-
erature proceeds with little, if any, sense of communication processes
and often with naive assumptions regarding the power of mass media,
much as early development theories conceived of them as magic
multipliers.1 Nevertheless, the research into new social movements pro-

416
 New Social Movements

vides both practical and conceptual directions to development commu-

nication theory.
The study of new social movements has generated literally hundreds
of research projects, large and small, which would be impossible to re-
view in this article. What follows, therefore, is a summary of the key
ideas in the literature that bear directly on the contemporary study of
development communication. These key ideas attend to context, basic
definitions, and characteristics, and the role of power as depicted in the
study of new social movements. This summary will serve as a basic frame-
work that will both inform and be informed by participatory communi-
cation approaches to development.
The Context of Globalization
Numerous scholars from distinct philosophical traditions and academic
disciplines have examined broad, historical changes when analyzing the
emergence of new social movements. They have noted that contempo-
rary societies are in a period of radical transformation that is changing
basic human senses of time, space, self, and society (Castells, 1996b;
Escobar & Alvarez, 1992; Hopenhayn, 1993; Rodrik, 1997; Touraine,
1971). Referred to variously by terms such as “postmodern,”
“postindustrial,” “the information society,” and “globalization,” this
period has been accelerated by the advent of new communication tech-
nologies that have enabled the restructuring of global capitalism such
that it has altered significantly the production, distribution, and con-
sumption of material and symbolic culture.
In his impressive study of the nature and consequences of this rare,
historical interval, Castells (1996b) concluded that we are entering the
period of the “network society” characterized by “placeless space” and
governed by “timeless time.” Localities in the network society “become
disembodied from their cultural, historical, geographic meaning, and
reintegrated into functional networks, inducing a space of flows that sub-
stitutes for the space of places” (p. 375). The configurations of this new
space of flows are determined mostly by the organizational capacity of
dominant elites and are apparent in flexible work flows, outsourced pro-
duction, instantaneous global financial transactions, and a homogeneous,
elite, business culture linked by wired laptops and ubiquitous cellular phones.
Taking up strategic positions within the space of flows, however, is not
limited to the agency of dominant elites. These transnational capital flows
combined with improvements in communication and transportation have
unleashed a web of processes that have facilitated migrations across the
borders of underdeveloped and industrialized states resulting in postcolonial
cities and reterritorialized subcultures (Sassen, 1998). Hence, the reper-
cussions of placeless space reach asymmetrically, though not unilater-
ally, from the resource-rich strategic planners to the “human robots”
who execute tasks that cannot be automated (Castells, 1996b, p. 244).

417
 Communication
Theory

The emergence of a space of flows has been accompanied by a com-

mensurate shift in the dominant sense of temporality, which is charac-
terized by erasure and nonlinearity. Rather than being disciplined by
clock time, as occurred in modernity, space is marked by relativized time
that systematically perturbs the sequential ordering of tasks performed
in its context. New computing technologies enable the manipulation of
time as contingent systems can program past, present, and future to
interact with one another in the same process. As with the coordination
of the space of flows, time management belongs largely to elites in the
network, while underprivileged actors continue to experience the time
discipline of clock-run assembly lines and short life expectancies. The
radical shifts in time order, together with a modified sense of space,
alters “the operations and outcomes in processes of production, experi-
ence, power, and culture” in which both social order and change occur
(Castells, 1996b, p. 469).
In the context of this significant global restructuring, traditional insti-
tutions (including development agencies) charged with maintaining so-
cial order and managing change have slowly lost authority, power, and
credibility. The power of corporations has begun to eclipse the authority
of the state as significant policy decisions are negotiated in multilateral
arenas and private associations to facilitate global restructuring.2 The
resulting relocation of significant centers of economic productivity and
the shifting of work practices from cyclical to random, flexible, and
contingent schedules has segmented and disorganized masses of people,
leaving traditional institutions incapable of responding to their needs
and interests. Anchoring institutions such as labor unions, political par-
ties, churches, and families are seen as incapable of reproducing culture
in a manner congruous with the changes occurring at elite levels of soci-
ety (Castells, 1983; Hannigan, 1985; Hellman, 1992; Touraine, 1971).
This erosion of legitimacy and power forces traditional institutions, in-
cluding development agencies, to rethink their organization and approach
to problems and inequities that persistent in the global society.
Nevertheless, the same forces that have undermined the legitimacy,
authority, and power of traditional institutions and organizations also
have created a symbolic space for new forms of resistance to exploita-
tion and domination. In the timeless space of flows, neither the logic of
modernization nor dependency governs political and economic policies,
but an “anything goes” spirit of so-called free trade guides the treaties
and procedures of transnational regimes. Bolstered by intensified, glo-
bal interconnections through production and consumption activities,
neoliberal policies have resulted in the partial erasure of national bound-
aries and a profound cultural crossing of material and symbolic prod-
ucts that limit the capacity of dominant ideologies to dominate, even
while perpetuating relationships of subordination (García Canclini, 1993;

418
 New Social Movements

Stern, 2000). From an analytic perspective, this material and symbolic

restructuring coincides with the postmodern(ization) perspective that
demands more concern, respect, and tolerance for diverse forms of hu-
man subjectivity and identity when exploring social order and change
(Beverley & Oviedo, 1993; Waters, 1995).
Indeed, new social movements, often diverse and focused on identity
formation, have arisen in this rich, contradictory context and may pose
the most significant challenge in the global struggle for democratic guar-
antees and the provision of social services (Melucci, 1998). A number of
scholars have documented how a wide variety of social movements have
converged on common issues such as human rights, the environment,
and labor standards to affect policies in national and transnational are-
nas (Brecher, Costello, & Smith, 2000; Evans, 2000; Keck & Sikkink,
1998; Starr, 2000). Dubbed “globalization from below,” the process of
coordinating social action transnationally has been enabled by the ab-
stract contextual shifts described earlier. For example, the movement of
capital, technology, equipment, and commodities has created unstable
identity contexts—placeless space—for workers and consumers that dis-
turb traditional senses of self in terms of expectations and demands.
New social movements arising in this context have taken advantage of
cheap communication and transportation technologies to create and
sustain global communities that have engaged transnational regimes such
as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and World Trade
Organization. In fact, transnational regimes often provide symbolic cat-
egories and material venues that can be used by new social movements
as tactical positions in constructing and lodging demands.
Studies of globalization from below ironically tend to examine the
process of transnational coordination from above. That is, they empha-
size and focus on the importance of networks and alliances across bor-
ders. For example, Evans (2000) explains the importance of the connec-
tions established by rubber tappers in Brazil with environmental activ-
ists in the United States in challenging Brazilian deforestation policies in
the arena of the World Bank and IMF. Likewise, Brecher, Costello, and
Smith (2000) provide multiple accounts of how transnational networks
linking small, grassroots movements were fundamental in coordinating
actions to dispute, for example, water policies in Bolivia, labor negotia-
tions in the United States, and drug pricing in Africa. Although these
accounts are useful at documenting the consequences of new social move-
ments, which often appear ephemeral, small, and isolated, they gloss
over the crucial and complex process of movement emergence and de-
velopment.
Within the daunting context of a radically restructured global society,
new social movements have emerged as widespread phenomena that
appear to be playing a role that once was fulfilled by formal institutions

419
 Communication
Theory

such as political parties and labor unions. Given the potential impor-
tance of new social movements in the process of social change, develop-
ment communication scholars would be wise to attend to their forma-
tion, maintenance, and difficulties in order to rethink the field’s practi-
cal and theoretical future. What follows is a brief review of the main
characteristics of new social movements.
Understanding New Social Movements
New social movements have been conceptualized as responding effec-
tively to the major shifts in social, political, and economic relations de-
scribed above. They have been understood for nearly 30 years as recog-
nizing the decline in the importance of material relations of production
and the reduction, not elimination, of the role played by unions and
parties in effecting change (Touraine, 1971). These early observations,
which were grounded in European experiences, have been noted in Latin
America, as well, where new forms of organizing and acting for social
change occurred in the 1980s and 1990s (Alvarez, Dagnino, & Escobar,
1998; Escobar & Alvarez, 1992; Fals Borda, 1992; Hellman, 1997;
Hopenhayn, 1993). Making sense of these new forms has evolved from
early studies celebrating the profound impact of new social movements
on political structures and policy agendas, to current research that is
more circumspect and modest in assessing their consequences (Slater,
1994). Despite the changing sense of the overall impact of new social
movements, this theoretical framework has always maintained that these
forms of organizing represented departures from the structures and prac-
tices that were situated at the heart of both modernization and depen-
dency analyses. Hence, new social movements exist in a historical con-
juncture of challenge and instability, just as development communication
seems to occupy a crossroads that questions its theoretical direction.
Efforts to define new social movements and differentiate them from
earlier theories of protest and collective mobilization have been conten-
tious and inexact. Prior to the new social movements theories, research-
ers conceptualized coordinated action as resulting from unruly mobs
characterized by certain psychological attributes (crowd behavior), ideo-
logical unification and direction (frame alignment processes), or access
and management of material supports and organizational forms (resource
mobilization).3 What these prior approaches held in common was the
desire to develop reductionist explanations by focusing on cognitive,
structural, or organizational factors contributing to movement emer-
gence and maintenance. New social movement theorists have reacted
against this reductionist tendency of these earlier approaches.
Indeed, several scholars have resisted even defining new social move-
ments, as such an external imposition would violate the self-determina-
tion, fluidity, heterogeneity, and openness that characterize them (Escobar
& Alvarez, 1992; Melucci, 1998). Nevertheless, a number of shared,

420
 New Social Movements

general characteristics have emerged that distinguish this area of research

from earlier approaches to collective behavior. New social movements
are generally understood to be small, decentralized, and democratic in
their structure; cyclical and diffuse in their temporal arrangement; and
action driven toward identity construction in their orientation. In the
most general sense, new social movements have been defined as hetero-
geneous groups forming outside of formal institutions and operating in
discontinuous cycles to forge collective meanings and identities that di-
rect action. Each of these dimensions, structural, temporal, and identity,
is outlined briefly below.
The small, decentralized, and democratic structures of new social
movements have been interpreted as a rejection of, alternative to, and
model for traditional organizations that bridge the spheres of the insti-
tutionalized system and the everyday life world (Fals Borda, 1992;
Habermas, 1981; Hannigan, 1985). Political parties, labor unions, and
other large bureaucracies represent ossified, unresponsive structures
unable to sense changing interests, difficulties, and priorities of their
traditional constituents. New social movements offer structures that re-
flect a more human scale and rely upon member participation in their
maintenance (Flacks, 1994). The intense participation generated in these
alternative structures means that new social movements frequently con-
verge on highly personal and intimate issues, such as gender and sexual-
ity, that limit their range of interest (Johnston, Laraña, & Gusfield, 1994).
Ironically, such narrow interests necessitate boundary identification and
maintenance, which paradoxically limit membership and participation.
Lesbian feminist groups, for example, have created a space where a
marginalized population could openly discuss issues relevant to their
experiences, yet the group’s cohesion required differentiating itself from
other feminist organizations (Taylor & Whittier, 1992). The practices of
boundary setting and maintaining are generally understood as axiom-
atic strategies of identity movements springing from participatory set-
tings. They are mentioned here to illustrate the limits and contradictions
that permeate small, democratic structures, which run the risk of dis-
solving into segmented, self-referential organizations incapable of forg-
ing alliances that might constitute stronger forces of social change
(Hellman, 1997; Johnston, Laraña, & Gusfield, 1994).
Because of their small, decentralized structure, new social movements
are marked temporally by sporadic, yet cyclical, orientations toward
expressing collective identity and discontent (Downing, 1996). The tem-
poral ebb and flow of action is related to the deinstitutionalized con-
texts of new social movements, which emerge more often in the invisible
laboratories and submerged networks of everyday life. Such networks
are contingent upon and responsive to changing circumstances in the
environment, an orientation more consistent with contemporary condi-

421
 Communication
Theory

tions where space organizes time, not vice versa (Castells, 1996b). A
sporadic temporal orientation means that new social movements, such
as the early Madres de la Plaza de Mayo movement in Argentina, are
difficult to document because they are often hidden from the view of
social critics (Jelin, 1994).4 They also appear to be of ephemeral, fleet-
ing, and transient consequence, but actually they constitute a “perma-
nent reality” because of their impact on transcendent social relation-
ships (Melucci, 1994).
Finally, new social movements are oriented less toward instrumental
aims of material concessions and more toward the construction of iden-
tities and meanings that give direction to collective behavior (Castells,
1983; Habermas, 1981; Lowe, 1986; Melucci, 1998; Touraine, 1981).
The identity orientation of new social movements has been conceptual-
ized in significantly different ways by scholars. One group treats iden-
tity formation as a static category that operates theoretically as a func-
tional stand-in for ideology. Variously termed “experienced conscious-
ness,” “interactional accomplishments,” and “identity frames,” these
conceptualizations of identity focus on symbolic expressions of self, an-
tagonists, allies, and audiences as the basis for interpreting social action
(Flacks, 1994; Hunt, Benford, & Snow, 1994; Johnston, Laraña, &
Gusfield, 1994; Snow & Benford, 1988). Despite an acknowledgment
of the importance played by the interactional processes in which identi-
ties are constructed and reconstructed, analyses from this orientation
tend to focus on “interpretive schemata,” or end products, which pre-
cede and guide subsequent actions.
A slightly different conceptualization of identity has emerged from
scholars who have based their understanding of identity on an episte-
mology of action (Castells, 1983; Lowe, 1986; Melucci, 1989; Touraine,
1981). This perspective posits that new social movement participation,
mobilization, intervention, reproduction, and dissolution all emerge
through interactions that effectively constitute collective identities and
visions for the future. Rather than proposing that identity functions as
an antecedent to action, the epistemology of action perspective suggests
that identity is bound up in and inseparable from action. From this per-
spective, empirical research of identity and new social movements must
center on processes including how individuals become involved, sus-
tained, and estranged from movements; how actors construct collective
identity in action; and how the unity of various elements of action are
produced (Castells, 1983; Hellman, 1994; Melucci, 1989; Stern, 2000).
Nevertheless, “the problem for most analysts is that we do not know
enough about how this [the making of social movements] takes place”
(Hellman, 1994, p. 124). Indeed, few scholars of new social movements
have actually focused on how the injustices at the heart of most move-
ments get translated into the everyday lives and actions of collectivities

422
 New Social Movements

and their members. “Despite the centrality of collective identity to new

social movement theory, no one has dissected the way that constituen-
cies involved in defending their rights develop politicized group identi-
ties” (Taylor & Whittier, 1992, p. 105). An orientation toward the pro-
cesses of identity construction would avoid the halls of power and ex-
amine the contexts of everyday life given the distinctive formations of
new social movements. “It is in these back alleys of society . . . that I
have sensed the embryos of a new society” (Castells, 1996a, p. 362).
Focusing on the contexts of everyday life, however, does not imply
that scholars of new social movements ignore the force and power em-
bedded in larger social, political, and economic structures. On the con-
trary, adopting an epistemology of action has provided a theoretically
rich framework for bridging the influences of both structure and agency
on social change. Scholars have acknowledged that meanings and iden-
tities of social movements are not self-formed through collective action
alone but in interaction with powerful institutions (Scott, 1995). Action
orientations toward new social movements acknowledge both discur-
sive-symbolic and material-structural factors that play a part in both the
reproduction and transformation of the social system (Castells, 1983;
Escobar & Alvarez, 1992). Nevertheless, researchers of new social move-
ments have not treated these two dimensions as independent areas of
investigation and analysis, but as products of discourse and interpreta-
tion. In determining the characteristics of both symbolic and structural
factors, researchers of new social movements have privileged the actual
participants of collective action as sources of interpretation (Castells,
1983, 1996a; Hellman, 1997; Melucci, 1998; Touraine, 1981). This turn
toward the interpretive subjectivity of movement participants is accom-
panied by an explicit theory of power vis-à-vis processes of social change.
Whereas power is admittedly asymmetrical in the restructured, global
society, it generally is not conceptualized as either transparent or one
dimensional in the new social movements literature. Rather, power is
viewed as a relationship that is diffused throughout the social system
and reproduced subjectively (Alvarez, Dagnino, & Escobar, 1998;
Touraine, 1988). “The new power lies in the codes of information and
in the images of representation around which societies organize their
institutions, and people build their lives, and decide their behavior. The
sites of this power are people’s minds” (Castells, 1996a, p. 359). In un-
derstanding new social movements and their impacts, processes of iden-
tity construction and self-transformation are themselves posited as ma-
jor strategies of political change (Taylor & Whittier, 1992). Such a
conceptualization of power not only necessitates reproduction, it is sub-
ject to modification and reinvention, which opens the way toward build-
ing strategies for social change (Fals Borda, 1992). New social move-
ments research eschews binary notions, such as powerful-powerless, and

423
 Communication
Theory

embraces more multilayered, diffuse, yet asymmetrical understandings

of power that are subject to negotiation, challenge, and redefinition.
The identification of the significant role played by new social move-
ments in contemporary processes of social change offers theoretical and
practical guidance to scholars of development communication. The stud-
ies of globalization and its accompanying shifts in basic time-space un-
derstandings illuminate the exigencies facing development communica-
tion researchers even while raising new questions and difficulties. The
identification of the characteristics of new social movements provides
practical and conceptual guidance to development communication schol-
ars while offering renewed relevance to this general area of inquiry.
Moreover, the emphasis on the hows of social movements via the episte-
mology of action orientation toward identity construction invites atten-
tion to communication processes as a key dimension in understanding
movement emergence, formation, maintenance, and dissolution. There-
fore, studies of new social movements not only provide direction to de-
velopment communication scholars, but they also point to areas where
communication research might fruitfully contribute to understandings
of these processes.
The area of participatory communication for development seems par-
ticularly compatible with continued research into new social movements.
Historically, the emergence of participatory communication approaches
represents a departure from both modernization and dependency mod-
els of development, just as new social movements theory challenges lib-
eral democratic and Marxist-structuralist accounts of social change. The
focus on the dialogical processes at the heart of participatory communi-
cation for development further mirrors the attention to identity forma-
tion as a central characteristic of what’s “new” about new social move-
ments. Finally, renewed attention to power among participatory com-
munication scholars coincides with conceptualizations of power that have
been incorporated into the understandings of new social movements and
their impacts. To demonstrate how the research of new social move-
ments can contribute to development communication scholarship, I will
summarize those areas of participatory development communication that
are particularly amenable to such a conceptual synthesis.

Participatory Communication for Social Change

Since the early 1970s, the dominant paradigm of development commu-
nication has undergone significant challenge. This challenge was par-
ticularly intense from Latin American scholars, who questioned the le-
gitimacy of modernization approaches to development and called for
more appropriate communication theories and practices. One of the
outcomes of this intense critique of the dominant paradigm has been the

424
 New Social Movements

emergence of a substantial body of research in the area of participatory

communication for development. Despite a robust history and a rich
evolution, the concept of participatory communication is subject to loose
interpretation that appears at best to be variable and contested and at
worst misused and distorted (Arnst, 1996; Jacobson & Servaes, 1999).
The current state of conceptual confusion in the participatory commu-
nication field begs intervention of the sort potentially offered by the
research into new social movements. In fact, the theoretical insights of
new social movements scholars augment research of participatory com-
munication for development in several key areas that are summarized
below. 5
Noncommunication Models of
Communication for Development
Latin American critics of the dominant paradigm of development faulted
big media and diffusion projects for implementing practices that belied
the dynamic essence at the heart of communication (Beltrán, 1975, 1980;
Freire, 1970, 1973b). Modernization projects did this by relying on com-
munication models that depicted active senders providing passive re-
ceivers with valuable information to achieve social change. Critics ar-
gued that such static, linear, and transmission models violated the dy-
namic, interactive, and meaning-centered nature of communication.6
Latin American scholars introduced a phenomenological and critical
orientation that radically altered the conceptualization, study, and prac-
tice of development communication.
They suggested that more fluid and elastic communication models
centering on how meaning comes to be form the basis for development
communication interventions. These more fluid and meaning-centered
conceptualizations of communication emphasized copresence,
intersubjectivity, phenomenological “being in the world,” and openness
of interlocutors (Pasquali, 1963). This view introduced a sophisticated
grounding that collective understandings of social reality are achieved
between people, in material contexts, and in communication. In other
words, traditional development approaches of understanding and chang-
ing reality through the unilateral definition of problems, objectives, and
solutions were criticized as violating the process essence of meaning
making that is central to communication.
The phenomenological turn in development communication was ac-
companied by a commensurate introduction of critical theories of soci-
ety and a concern for the role played by institutions in maintaining struc-
tures of inequality. Best known of the early critical development schol-
ars is Freire (1970), whose experience in traditional educational struc-
tures was seen as analogous to modernization approaches to develop-
ment. In contrast to oppressive, top-down pedagogies and development
programs, Freire proposed a liberating, participatory approach that cen-

425
 Communication
Theory

tered on praxis, as a reflexive, theoretically guided practice. Under this

orientation, he suggested that practitioners close the distance between
teacher and student, development agent and client, researcher and re-
searched in order to enter into a co-learning relationship guided by ac-
tion and reflection. This orientation was shot through with the ethical
stance on the side of the poor that was articulated by liberation theolo-
gians who influenced Freire’s scholarship at the time. The introduction
of critical theory tied to participatory research approaches added a sen-
sitivity toward power relations that had been absent in the dominant
development discourse to date.
Dialogic Methods
Although the critique of the dominant paradigm provided both a philo-
sophical and epistemological framework for scholarship, it also suggested
a practical, companion method in the form of dialogue. Dialogic com-
munication was held in stark contrast to information transmission mod-
els emerging from Lasswell’s (1964) 5-point question of who says what
in what channel to whom with what effect. This required development
researchers and practitioners to seek out the experiences, understand-
ings, and aspirations of others to jointly construct reality and formulate
actions (Beltrán, 1980). Freire (1970, 1973a) provided concrete exer-
cises for initiating critical dialogues to, in effect, deconstruct social con-
texts, separate out their constituent parts, and reconstruct a thematic
universe for pursuing social transformation. This methodological ap-
proach generated a “cultural synthesis” between development collabo-
rators to arrive at mutually identified problems, needs, and guidelines
for action.
Aside from its practical contribution, dialogue was promoted as an
ethical communication choice within the development context. Freire
(1970) argued that true humanization emerged from one’s ability “to
name the world” in dialogic encounters. Grounded in Buber’s notion of
“I-Thou” communication, Freire argued that subject-object distinctions
were impossible to maintain in true dialogue because one’s sense of self
and the world is elicited in interaction with others. The resulting fusion
of identities and communal naming of the world did not emerge merely
from an exchange of information, but required a moral commitment
among dialogue partners. “Being dialogic is not invading, not manipu-
lating, not imposing orders. Being dialogic is pledging oneself to the
constant transformation of reality” (Freire, 1973b, p. 46). This highly
developed sense of dialogue, simultaneously practical and rarefied, has been
adopted and refined by scholars who advocate its use in participatory de-
velopment research and practice (Fals Borda, 1988; Rahman, 1993).
Power Revisited
Early advocates of participatory approaches to development communi-
cation recognized power dynamics as shaping both development and

426
 New Social Movements

research projects. For the most part, however, these early critics concep-
tualized power through a set of binary opposites—powerful/powerless,
oppressor/oppressed, authoritarian/liberatory—and naively called for its
general redistribution within cultures and across nations.
More recent research has focused explicitly on power and conceptu-
alized it in a nuanced and problematic way. For the most part, power
has been theorized as both multicentered and asymmetrical (Servaes,
1996b; Tehranian, 1999). This multicentered and asymmetrical perspec-
tive acknowledges the force of institutions and structures, but empha-
sizes the role of human agency in reproducing and transforming them
(Tehranian, 1999). Within this generalized framework of power, partici-
patory communication is seen by some as being a potential source of
social transformation (Nair & White, 1994; Riaño, 1994). By virtue of
the differences—ethnic, gender, sexual, and the like—that multiple so-
cial actors bring development projects, participatory communication re-
veals how power functions to subordinate certain groups of people
(Riaño, 1994). Within participatory development communication
projects, individuals and groups experience “generative power” whereby
they create the capacity for action, which can be harnessed to reshape
and transform conditions of subordination (Nair & White, 1994). Far
from asserting an even distribution of power, recent attention of partici-
patory development communication research has attempted to be more
sensitive to the multiple dimensions of power, especially as they emerge
from groups marked by inherent differences.

Discussion and Conclusion

The coincidental research into new social movements and participatory
communication for development have run along parallel tracks that hold
much potential for mutual enrichment. Scholars of new social move-
ments have articulated a valuable sense of the context of globalization
that must be reckoned with by development researchers. Furthermore,
they have provided practical guidance regarding where communication
development scholars might direct their attention. Finally, research of
new social movements has included a complex interpretation of power
relations in social change efforts that enriches development communica-
tion scholarship in this shared area of interest.
For the most part, scholars of new social movements have examined
the importance of the contemporary transformations in social reality to
a far greater degree than has the communication field. They have argued
convincingly that the contemporary context of development efforts has
shifted significantly in the past 20 years, altering baseline notions of
time and space, and diminishing the importance of traditional institu-
tions. This refined sense of context can inform development communi-

427
 Communication
Theory

cation scholars and practitioners who must reconsider how they con-
ceptualize their enterprise. Many scholars and practitioners have already
demonstrated sensitivity to these contextual changes by directing their
attention away from state projects and big media interventions toward
grassroots initiatives. Even scholars who have adopted this orientation,
though, stand to gain conceptual ground by incorporating
postmodern(ization) sensibilities into their research. For example, inter-
preting participants themselves as multidimensional, dynamic, unstable,
and emergent will have a significant impact on intellectual inquiry and
strategic intervention. Rather than paralyzing research and practice, as
some versions of postmodern theory are wont to do, such a sensibility
will open up new possibilities for intellectual and pragmatic advance.
Development scholars and practitioners might be drawn to the physical
junctions, hybrid zones, and global cities where transnational capital
intersects with reterritorialized subjects who are amenable to new no-
tions of community, membership, expectations, and entitlement. Devel-
opment communication theories and practices that are responsive to the
contextual shifts highlighted above will need to be far more flexible and
contingent in their descriptions, explanations, and prescriptions for in-
terventions.
Despite the unstable and diffuse nature of the contemporary context,
technological and political forces driving globalization have opened up
new possibilities for coordinating action through the creation of cross-
border networks. A number of scholars reviewed above have documented
the gains of grassroots organizations that have forged alliances with like-
minded groups to achieve significant concessions in a process dubbed
“globalization from below.” Although these studies tend to neglect the
complex and necessary dynamics of grassroots movement formation on
which global networks rely, they are useful to development communica-
tion scholars nonetheless. Of course these studies highlight how devel-
opment projects might enter the “space of flows” of global networking
to extend their impacts, but they also suggest that global networks can
shape and energize emergent movements by providing new symbolic
categories and frames of reference that participants can access when
formulating expectations and demands. Attention to such details will
capture a dynamic aspect of global networking that may provide impor-
tant insights to cross-border solidarity efforts.
Whereas the shifting social context noted above carries significant
implications for development communication theory, the description of
the characteristics of new social movements provides practical direction
and guidance as well. The identification of decentralized, diffuse, and
democratic groups emerging outside of institutional structures reinforces
many of the practical and theoretical directions pursued by participa-
tory approaches to development communication. The additional focus

428
 New Social Movements

on the sporadic, yet cyclical, orientation of new social movements, how-

ever, invites development communication scholars to attend to temporal
dimensions more systematically in research and practice. Most develop-
ment projects, even those occurring at the grassroots level, tend to incor-
porate linear notions of time into their design and assessment. Incorpo-
rating the ebb and flow of action characteristic of deinstitutionalized
contexts into development theory and practice will necessarily change
the design and study of development communication. Rather than pro-
ceeding in a linear progression, development projects themselves might
become more sporadic, multifocused, and cyclical in nature to align them-
selves to the rhythms of the lifeworld reflected in new social movements.
Such development projects will build in dimensions of contingency, flux,
and responsiveness to anticipated exigencies that arise in the contexts of
everyday life. These dimensions must also be added to the conceptual
repertoire of development communication scholars as they go about the
task of understanding and assessing particular development efforts. At-
tending to temporality in the ways suggested by the research of new
social movements will achieve a coherence and consistency between de-
velopment communication theory and the contemporary context marked
by globalization.
Aside from raising awareness of temporality, new social movements
research also emphasizes the importance of understanding the processes
of identity formation in action. Several scholars of new social move-
ments have stated that the most significant challenge facing researchers
in this area regards studying how this transformation of self-in-action
takes place. Participatory approaches to development are well positioned
to respond to this challenge and to contribute to understandings of iden-
tity formation. With the introduction of critical theories and methods
articulated by early critics of the dominant paradigm, participatory com-
munication scholars have an established methodology based on dialogic
praxis that offers a promising mode of entree into the study of how
social movements emerge and develop. The philosophical foundation
established by phenomenological explanations of collective understand-
ings and the embrace of dialogic praxis as a methodological mandate of
participatory communication research are consistent with the presup-
positions and theories that describe and explain new social movements.
Taking the direction indicated by the challenges noted above suggests
that development communication scholars actively align themselves with
popular movements as a way of gaining insights to the identity forma-
tion process that has eluded research of new social movements.
Aligning research with popular movements, or even studying them at
a distance, necessitates an acknowledgment of and accounting for power.
Although scholars have noted power’s complexity in its simultaneously
asymmetrical and multidimensional nature, they have also identified

429
 Communication
Theory

conceptualizations of power as possibly the thorniest problematic issue

facing researchers of new social movements. Noting the tendency of iden-
tity movements to set and maintain boundaries, scholars have warned
that such groups run the risk of dissolving into self-referential organiza-
tions that undercut their democratic origins. Moreover, movements re-
sisting the tendencies of globalization have exercised power that is of a
reactionary and oppressive nature, such as the cases of militia, skinhead,
and fundamentalist Christian groups. Neither new social movements
research nor participatory development communication scholarship has
offered a viable theoretical response for coming to terms with this em-
pirical and conceptual challenge. Thinking through the issue of how it is
that liberating processes (participation in the collective construction of
identity) can generate oppressive consequences constitutes the most sig-
nificant theoretical challenge currently facing both of these fields.
Participatory approaches to development communication stand to gain
conceptual clarity, practical direction, and renewed relevance by draw-
ing on the contributions from scholarship of new social movements.
The articulation of a changed global context, identification of shared
characteristics, and elaboration of power relationships associated with
new social movements provide pointers for the study and practice of
development communication. The recent emphasis on how identities
emerge in action invites participatory development communication re-
searchers to play a central role in contributing to our understanding of
these groups in effecting social change. Drawing on established concepts
and tools from participatory approaches with renewed direction from
the new social movements research promises to give development com-
munication theory and practice greater focus and relevance as it contin-
ues to evolve.

Robert Huesca (PhD, Ohio State University, 1994) is an associate professor in the Department of
Author
Communication at Trinity University. The author thanks Peter Shields, Karin Wilkins, and the
anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on the manuscript. He also acknowledges the work of
Brenda Dervin in “verbing communication,” which was central to the analysis of communication
process in this paper.

Notes 1 The work of Habermas (1981) stands as an exception, as he conceptualized new social move-
ments early on as “sub-culturally protected communications groups” and “communicative struc-
tures” (p. 36). The substantial body of Habermas’s scholarship into constructing a theory of com-
municative action has been adopted widely in development communication (e.g., Jacobson, 1993;
Jacobson & Kolluri, 1999). His research occupies an insignificant space, however, in the vast re-
search of new social movements that has emerged from sociology and political science.
2 Scholars debate the extent of the decline of the role and autonomy of the nation-state and warn
against discarding its importance as an analytic category in an untimely fashion. Most social scien-
tists tend to agree, however, that contemporary forces in political, economic, and cultural arenas
are undermining the legitimacy and force of the nation-state with unprecedented intensity. The
point here is not to argue the irrelevance of the nation-state, but merely to establish a significant
shift in our understanding of the context in which development practices occur.

430
 New Social Movements

3 A valuable historical review of this research was published in McAdam, McCarthy, and Zald
(1988). Other scholarship useful at sketching out the general patterns in social movement research
and the distinctions made by new social movement theorists include Escobar & Alvarez (1992),
Hannigan (1985), and Melucci (1989, 1994).
4 The Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo movement in Argentina began in the kitchens and living
rooms of women whose children were disappeared by the military. It eventually evolved into an
internationally recognized human rights campaign but was marked by sporadic organizing and
protest efforts.
5 Because the history and current state of participatory communication for development is widely
and extensively documented elsewhere, a complete review here is neither necessary nor possible.
Readers who are interested in knowing more details of this research tradition should consult Huesca
(in press), Jacobson & Servaes (1999), Servaes (1996a), and White (1994).
6 The work of Dervin (1993) and Dervin and Clark (1993) has been fundamental in clarifying the
conceptualizations here regarding noncommunication theories of communication.

Alvarez, S. E., Dagnino, E., & Escobar, A. (1998). Introduction: The cultural and the political in References
Latin American social movements. In S. E. Alvarez, E. Dagnino, & A. Escobar (Eds.), Cultures
of politics/politics of cultures: Re-visioning Latin American social movements (pp. 1–29). Boul-
der, CO: Westview.
Arnst, R. (1996). Participation approaches to the research process. In J. Servaes, T. L. Jacobson, &
S. A. White (Eds.), Participatory communication for social change (pp. 109–126). New Delhi,
India: Sage.
Beltrán, L. R. (1975). Research ideologies in conflict. Journal of Communication, 25(2), 187–193.
Beltrán, L. R. (1980). A farewell to Aristotle: “Horizontal” communication. Communica-
tion, 5, 5–41.
Beverley, J., & Oviedo, J. (1993). Introduction: The postmodernism debate in Latin America, bound-
ary 2, 20(3), 1–17.
Brecher, J., Costello, T., & Smith, B. (2000). Globalization from below: The power of solidarity.
Boston: South End Press.
Castells, M. (1983). The city and the grassroots: A cross-cultural theory of urban social move-
ments. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Castells, M. (1996a). The power of identity. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Castells, M. (1996b). The rise of the network society. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Dervin, B. (1993). Verbing communication: Mandate for disciplinary invention. Journal of Com-
munication, 43, 45–54.
Dervin, B., & Clark, K. (1993). Communication and democracy: A mandate for procedural inven-
tion. In S. Splichal & J. Wasko (Eds.), Communication and democracy (pp. 103–140). Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.
Downing, J. (1996). Internationalizing media theory: Transition, power, culture: Reflections on
media in Russia, Poland and Hungary 1980–95. London: Sage.
Escobar, A. (2000). Place, power, and networks in globalization and postdevelopment. In K. G.
Wilkins (Ed.), Redeveloping communication for social change: Theory, practice, and power
(pp. 163–173). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Escobar, A., & Alvarez, S. E. (1992). Introduction: Theory and protest in Latin America today. In
A. Escobar & S. E. Alvarez (Eds.), The making of social movements in Latin America: Identity,
strategy, and democracy (pp. 1–15). Boulder, CO: Westview.
Evans, P. (2000). Fighting marginalization with transnational networks: Counter-hegemonic glo-
balization. Contemporary Sociology, 29(1), 230–241.
Fals Borda, O. (1988). Knowledge and people’s power: Lessons with peasants in Nicaragua, Mexico
and Colombia. New Delhi, India: Indian Social Institute.
Fals Borda, O. (1992). Social movements and political power in Latin America. In A. Escobar & S.
E. Alvarez (Eds.), The making of social movements in Latin America: Identity, strategy, and
democracy (pp. 303–316). Boulder, CO: Westview.
Flacks, R. (1994). The party’s over—so what is to be done? In E. Laraña, H. Johnston, & J. R.
Gusfield (Eds.), New social movements: From ideology to identity (pp. 330–351). Philadelphia:
Temple University Press.

431
 Communication
Theory

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. Bergman Ramos, Trans.). New York: Herder &
Herder.
Freire, P. (1973a). Education for critical consciousness. New York: Seabury Press.
Freire, P. (1973b). ¿Extensión o comunicación? (L. Ronzoni, Trans.). Buenos Aires, Argentina:
Siglo 21.
García Canclini, N. (1993). The hybrid: A conversation with Margarita Zires, Raymundo Mier,
and Mabel Piccini. boundary 2, 20(3), 77–92.
Habermas, J. (1981). New social movements. Telos, 49, 33–37.
Hannigan, J. A. (1985). Alain Touraine, Manuel Castells and social movement theory: A critical
appraisal. Sociological Quarterly, 26(4), 435–454.
Hellman, J. A. (1992). The study of new social movements in Latin America and the question of
autonomy. In A. Escobar & S. Alvarez (Eds.), The making of social movements in Latin America:
Identity, strategy, and democracy (pp. 52–61). Boulder, CO: Westview.
Hellman, J. A. (1994). Mexican popular movements, clientelism and the process of democratiza-
tion. Latin American Perspectives, 21(2), 124–142.
Hellman, J. A. (1997). Social movements: Revolution, reform and reaction. NACLA report on the
Americas, 30(6), 13–18.
Hopenhayn, M. (1993). Postmodernism and neoliberalism in Latin America. boundary 2, 20(3),
93–109.
Huesca, R. (in press). Participatory approaches to communication for development. In W. B.
Gudykunst & B. Mody (Eds.), Handbook of international and intercultural communication
(3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hunt, S. A., Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (1994). Identity fields: Framing processes and the social
construction of movement identities. In E. Laraña, H. Johnston, & J. R. Gusfield (Eds.), New
social movements: From ideology to identity (pp. 185–208). Philadelphia: Temple University
Press.
Jacobson, T. L. (1993). A pragmatist account of participatory communication research for national
development. Communication Theory, 3, 214–230.
Jacobson, T. L., & Kolluri, S. (1999). Participatory communication as communicative action. In
T. L. Jacobson & J. Servaes (Eds.), Theoretical approaches to participatory communication (pp.
265–280). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Jacobson, T. L., & Servaes, J. (1999). Introduction. In T. L. Jacobson & J. Servaes (Eds.), Theoreti-
cal approaches to participatory communication (pp. 1–13). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Jelin, E. (1994). The politics of memory: The human rights movement and the construction of
democracy in Argentina. Latin American Perspectives, 21(2), 38–58.
Johnston, H., Laraña, E., & Gusfield, J. R. (1994) Identities, grievances, and new social move-
ments. In E. Laraña, H. Johnston, & J. R. Gusfield (Eds.), New social movements: From ideol-
ogy to identity (pp. 3–35). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Keck, M. E., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond borders: Advocacy networks in international
politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Lasswell, H. D. (1964). The structure and function of communication in society. In L. Bryson (Ed.),
The communication of ideas (pp. 37–51). New York: Cooper Square.(Original work published
1948)
Lowe, S. (1986). Urban social movements: The city after Castells. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
McAdam, D., McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. (1988). Social movements. In N. J. Smelser (Ed.),
The handbook of sociology (pp. 695–737). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Melucci, A. (1989). Nomads of the present. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Melucci, A. (1994). A strange kind of newness: What’s “new” in new social movements. In E.
Laraña, H. Johnston, & J. R. Gusfield (Eds.), New social movements: From ideology to identity
(pp. 101–130). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Melucci, A. (1998). Third world or planetary conflicts? In S. E. Alvarez, E. Dagnino, & A. Escobar
(Eds.), Cultures of politics/politics of cultures: Re-visioning Latin American social movements
(pp. 422–436). Boulder, CO: Westview.
Nair, K. S., & White, S. A. (1994). Participatory development communication as cultural renewal.
In S. A. White, K. S. Nair, & J. Ascroft (Eds.), Participatory communication: Working for
change and development (pp. 138–193). New Delhi, India: Sage.
Pasquali, A. (1963). Comunicación y cultura de masas. Caracas: Universidad Central de Venezuela.

432
 New Social Movements

Rahman, M. A. (1993). People’s self development: Perspectives on participatory action research.

London: Zed Books.
Riaño, P. (1994). Women’s participation in communication: Elements of a framework. In P. Riaño
(Ed.), Women in grassroots communication (pp. 3–29). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rodrik, D. (1997). Has globalization gone too far? Washington, DC: Institute for International
Economics.
Sassen, S. (1998). Globalization and its discontents. New York: New Press.
Scott, A. (1995). Culture or politics? Recent literature on social movements, class and politics.
Theory, Culture & Society, 12, 169–178.
Servaes, J. (1996a). Introduction: Participatory communication and research in development set-
tings. In J. Servaes, T. L. Jacobson, & S. A. White (Eds.), Participatory communication for
social change (pp. 13–25). New Delhi, India: Sage.
Servaes, J. (1996b). Participatory communication research with new social movements: A realistic
utopia. In J. Servaes, T. L. Jacobson, & S. A. White (Eds.), Participatory communication for
social change (pp. 82–108). New Delhi, India: Sage.
Slater, D. (1994). Introduction. Latin American Perspectives, 21(2), 5–10.
Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization,
International Social Movement Research, 1, 197–217.
Starr, A. (2000). Naming the enemy: Anti-corporate movements confront globalization. London:
Zed Books.
Stern, M. J. (2000). Back to the future? Manuel Castells’ The information age and the prospects for
social change. Cultural Studies, 14(1), 99–116.
Taylor, V., & Whittier, E. (1992). Collective identity in social movement communities: Lesbian
feminist mobilization. In A. D. Morris & C. McClurg Mueller (Eds.), Frontiers in social move-
ment theory (pp. 104–129). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Tehranian, M. (1999). Global communication and world politics: Domination, development and
discourse. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Touraine, A. (1971). The post-industrial society: Tomorrow’s social history: Classes, conflicts and
culture in the programmed society (Leonard F. X. Mayhew, Trans.). New York: Random House.
Touraine, A. (1981). The voice and the eye. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Touraine, A. (1988). Return of the actor: Social theory in postindustrial society. Minneapolis: Uni-
versity of Minnesota Press.
Waters, M. (1995). Globalization. London: Routledge.
White, S. A. (1994). The concept of participation: Transforming rhetoric to reality. In S. A. White,
K. S. Nair, & J. Ascroft (Eds.), Participatory communication: Working for change and develop-
ment (pp. 15–32). New Delhi, India: Sage.
Wilkins, K. G. (2001). Introduction. In K. G. Wilkins (Ed.), Redeveloping communication for
social change: Theory, practice, and power (pp. 1–4). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

433