Organizational Style in Middle Class and Poor People's Social Movement

Organizations: An Empirical Assessment of New Social Movements Theory

©
Copyright

Bob Edwards
Washington, D.C.
1994

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to the Faculty of the

Department of Sociology
School of Arts and Sciences
The Catholic University of America,
Washington, DC

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy

This document is an abbreviation of the full dissertation.

The document here retains only the theoretical material and arguments pertaining to New
Social Movements theory and Resource Mobilization theory. Chapters 3-6 have been
deleted. Anyone interested in those chapters should contact me by e-mail, or retrieve the
complete dissertation from the archive at the University of Michigan.

I am posting this to the Academia network because to date none of this material has been
published, other than as a doctoral dissertation. The theoretical review and interpretation of
NSM theory is distinctive and still useful for students and young scholars of social
movements. The synthetic analysis and outline of a theoretical integration of NSM and RM
theories was not entirely unique at the time it was written and others have taken up that
agenda in the meantime.

Please take into account that this manuscript was written in the early 1990's and has not
been edited in anyway since that time. Thus, it does not benefit from two decades of more
recent theorizing, writing and argumentation on the relative merits and potential syntheses of
NSM and RM theories of social movements which I argue below are, or can be, broadly
complementary approaches for understanding and analyzing social movements.
 Organizational Style in Middle Class and Poor People's Social Movement
Organizations: An Empirical Assessment of New Social Movements Theory
by

Bob Edwards, Ph.D.

Department of Sociology
East Carolina University
EdwardsR@ecu.edu

ABSTRACT

This research uses a resource mobilization analytic framework to undertake an

empirical assessment of central and controversial claims of new social movements (NSM)
theory. Key dimensions of organizational style along which social movement organizations
(SMOs) among the "new" social movements are expected to differ significantly from those
within "old" social movements are specified. These include degree of bureaucracy,
(de)centralization of power and organizational operating strategy, whether participatory or
professionalized. The rich organizational level data assembled here from separate national
samples of "new" and "old" SMOs enable each dimension of organizational style to be
examined empirically. Multiple regression analyses of cross-movement differences and
intra-movement variation over time in these indicators of organizational style constitutes the
empirical basis for assessing new social movements theory.
NSM data comes from 411 peace movement organizations (PMOs) that responded to
a nationally representative 1988 mail survey of "groups working for peace" in the United
States. The PMO sample of 803 was drawn from among the 7,700 groups listed in the 1987
edition of the Grassroots Peace Directory. "Old" movement data comes primarily from 177
poor people's empowerment organizations that responded to a 1987 mailed survey of 482
groups that received grant funding from the Campaign for Human Development (CHD)
between 1982-1986. The strengths and limitations of this unique cross-movement data set
are described and its appropriateness for assessing specific claims of NSM theory claims
discussed extensively.
Results of the cross movement analyses generally contradict or fail to confirm
relevant expectations of NSM theory and undermine confidence in it as an explanation of
the distinctiveness of the so called new social movements. Generally only the smallest
SMOs regardless of their social class base, social change goals or the broader movement to
which they belong fit the NSM organizational profile. Similarly, the age related
expectations of NSM theory regarding the persistence of the NSM organizational style over
time find no support in this assessment. NSM theory undervalues the importance of meso
level social structures in understanding the reflexive relationship between social movements
and social change, and oversimplifies the dynamics related to the distribution, persistence,
and transformation of SMO forms over time.
 Table of Contents

Organizational Style in Middle-Class & Poor People's

Social Movement Organizations:
An Empirical Assessment of New Social Movements Theory

Chapter 1: Context, Design and Overview

I. Introduction
II. Context of this Research
III. Design of this Research
A. "So What's 'New' About the 'New Social Movements'?"
B. Empirical Imprecision in NSM Theory
IV. Organization of this Dissertation

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature

I. Introduction
II. Origins and Emergence of the "New" Social Movements
A. Macro-Economic Restructuring and NSM Emergence
B. Welfare-State Intrusion and the NSMs
C. The "New Middle Class" and NSM Origins
1. Class Theoretic Accounts
2. Class Coincident Accounts
3. A Diffuse Social Alliance
III. A Distinctive Alliance
A. Distinctive Ideological Bond
1. Orientation Toward Modernity
2. Shared Critique of "Progress" and Growth
3. Post-materialist Values
B. Ideologically Structured Action of the NSMs
1. A Distinctive Political Style
2. A Distinctive Organizational Style
IV. Organizational Style in "New" and "Old" Movements
A. Empirical Imprecision in Discussing Organizational Style
B. Cross Movement Expectations in Organizational Style
1. Bureaucracy of Structure
2. Centralization of Governance
3. Operating Strategy
V. Persistence of SMO Organizational Style Over Time
A. Excessive Agency and Structure in Meso Level Explanations
1. Ideological Agency and Organizational Style
2. Structural Determination of Organizational Style
B. A Historically Contextualized Approach
1. Dynamics of SMO Transformation
2. Strategic Adaptability and SMO Style
3. Neo-institutionalism and SMO Style
 C. Collective Identity, Political Context and SMO Founding Cohort
1. Collective Identity in Social Movements
D. Founding Cohort and SMO Organizational Style
E. Expectations of Persistence in NSMO Organizational Style
1. Expectations of a Values Driven Perspective
2. Expectations of a Structurally Determined Perspective
3. Expectations of a Reflexive Perspective
VI. Chapter Summary and Notes

Chapter 7: Theoretical Recapitulation: American & European Social Movement

Theory

I. Introduction
II. Complementary Emphases in NSM & RM Theory
A. Civil Society Infrastructures and Identities in RM Theory
B. Organizational Centrality in NSM Theory
III. SMOs as Organizations in European and American Research
IV. Contributions of this Research to Recent Debates Over the NSMs
V. Chapter Summary and Notes

Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations

Bibliography
 Organizational Style in Middle-Class & Poor People's Social Movement
Organizations: An Empirical Assessment of New Social Movements Theory

CHAPTER 1: CONTEXT, DESIGN AND OVERVIEW

INTRODUCTION
This research uses a resource mobilization analytic framework to undertake an
empirical assessment of some central and controversial claims of new social movements
theory. It specifies a series of key dimensions of organizational style along which social
movement organizations (SMOs) among the "new" social movements are expected to differ
significantly from those within "old" social movements. These include degree of
bureaucracy, (de)centralization of authority, and organizational operating strategy, whether
participatory or professionalized. The rich organizational level data assembled here from
separate national samples of "new" and "old" social movement organizations enable each
dimension of organizational style to be examined empirically. Multiple regression analyses
of cross-movement differences and intra-movement variation over time in these indicators of
organizational style constitutes the empirical basis for assessing new social movements
theory. After briefly setting the context for this research, this chapter will discuss its design
and describe its organization.

CONTEXT OF THIS RESEARCH

The 1960s and early 1970s were marked by dramatic social conflict within most
Western societies. The social movement protagonists whose political, social and cultural
challenges often claimed center-stage in those dramas left a diverse and enduring legacy. In
the decades since the 1960s the political, social and cultural significance of social
movements has become widely recognized. Their agendas and collective action are now
integral features of public debate and academic analysis of social change in Western Europe
and the United States. The renaissance of social movement research on both sides of the
Atlantic that began during the 1970s represented a concerted effort, by a younger generation
of analysts, to understand the emergence, significance and effects of the movements of the
1960s. In the United States this younger cohort of researchers developed resource
mobilization (RM) theory while their Western European counterparts formulated new social
movements (NSM) theory.1
In contrast to the theories dominant during the 1960s, both NSM and RM theory
accord social movements legitimacy and consider them important factors in shaping broad
patterns of social change. On neither side of the Atlantic did the received academic wisdom
of the 1950s and 1960s view social movements in a generally favorable light (Jenkins, 1983;
Melucci, 1989). In the U.S. the most hospitable analyses of social movements considered
them temporary disequilibria soon to be reintegrated into smoothly functioning social
systems. Though quite different, European analyses, dominated by Marxist conceptions of
class conflict, saw the movements arising during the 1960s as equally frivolous or
contemptible. To that orientation only the worker's movement truly challenged capitalist
injustices. Other movements either fragmented the opposition, or they were bourgeois and
irrelevant to the political agenda of the Left.
These two analytic perspectives developed in relative isolation from one another
until the mid 1980s (Klandermans 1986). Since then a large secondary literature has been
produced. Much of that work has sought to distill the core content of each theory and
identify contrasts or common ground between them.2 Since the mid 1980s a sustained

1
 2

debate over the merits of NSM theory has emerged among movement researchers in the
United States.
Published assessments of NSM theory, with which I am familiar, have tended to
follow one of two templates. The first poses a theoretical competition between NSM and
RM and either picks a winner or declares the need for synthesis. Some of these have been
based on rigorous comparative case studies (Rochon 1988), but many resemble collages that
portray assorted anecdotes as sustained critiques of one theory or the other. The second type
are abstract theoretical syntheses or critical appraisals (Scott 1990). These tend to be
narrowly focused on the work of a few theorists (Kivisto 1984; Hannigan 1985) or on
specific concepts like collective identity (Cohen 1985) or social class (Oloffson 1988;
Bagguley 1992). In the main these assessments have been inconclusive and few have
brought systematic, empirical evidence to bear on key aspects of the debate (Rohrschneider
1990). To date these have been neither systematic nor sufficiently empirical for a rigorous
assessment of NSM theory. In the absence of systematic evidence the debate over the merits
of NSM theory has taken on an increasingly reified and ideological tone in recent years.
This dissertation is systematic, empirical and designed to accurately and directly
assess two of the strongest claims of NSM theory. One, if compared on pertinent features of
organizational style during comparable time periods, the mid-1980s, a "new" movement
should differ significantly from an "old-style," class and status movement. Two, because the
changes in advanced industrial societies said to have generated the "new" movements are not
merely conjunctural, but permanent and pervasive (Melucci 1989; Touraine 1981; Inglehart
1992), more recently founded "new" social movement organizations (NSMOs) should differ
significantly from chronologically older organizations within that same NSM. This
research constitutes a rather limited test of NSM theory by focusing only on organizational
style. It is also limited in the sense that it has been constructed to be a relatively easy test to
"pass." The next section discusses the design of this assessment of NSM theory.

DESIGN OF THIS RESEARCH

Initially I conceived this research as a relatively straight-forward cross movement
comparison that would bring systematic evidence to bear in assessing some central and
controversial claims of NSM theory. Comparable data gathered during the same time period
was available on national samples of "new" and "old" social movement organizations. But
did their organizational styles differ in the ways claimed by NSM theorists? Did NSM
organizations retain their distinctive organizational style over time? These were clean and
simple research questions. However, answering them empirically has required making some
working assumptions crucial to the design of this assessment.
This assessment of NSM theory rests on four foundational assumptions. One, in the
United States during the mid-1980s peace movement groups and poor people's
empowerment organizations were appropriate exemplars of what NSM theorists refer to as
"new" and "old" social movements. Two, the differences in class base and social change
goals between the populations of peace movement groups and poor people's empowerment
organizations represented here are consistent with the portrayals of "new" and "old" social
movements commonly implied by NSM theorists. Three, social movement organizations
and especially organizational level analysis are more central to NSM theory than the
relatively scant attention to them in the literature suggests. Four, the organizational
dimensions of NSMs are a more appropriate basis for assessing NSM theory than either their
advocacy style or their relationship to the polity. These foundational assumptions are
discussed and defended in appropriate parts of subsequent chapters, yet I will introduce each
briefly in the rest of this section.
 3

"What's ’new’ about the ’new social movements’?"

The relative meaning of "new" and the continuing debate over the novelty of the
NSMs highlight a persistent ambiguity in NSM theory that has been a source of confusion
and disagreement among researchers in the United States. Much of that debate has been
framed as "what's ’new’ about the ’new social movements’?" (Melucci 1989). Yet, this
apparently simple question is double-barreled and raises two questions that must be
answered before specific hypotheses can be operationalized. My answers to these questions
amount to the first two working assumptions underlying this research.
What specific features constitute the novel family resemblance among NSMs that
distinguishes them from other social movements? In abstract terms, some theorists stress
the NSM's "historical significance within the system of complex societies" (Melucci, 1989),
the "universal stakes at risk in their struggles over the reproduction of culture and identity"
(Touraine, 1985), or the "historical novelty" of the very struggles they wage (Habermas,
1984). Distinctive NSM demands are often said to be unified by a common theme: the
nature-society relationship (Eder 1993; Moscovici 1990). Cohen (1985) has described the
NSMs as identity oriented and ends in themselves in contrast to the strategic political
orientation commonly associated with RM analyses. In more concrete terms, the "new"
movements are generally said to differ from "old" movements in their values or ideology,
the socio-economic class of their members, their innovative political style and their
distinctive organizational style (for a review see Dalton, Kuechler, and Burklin, 1990).
Which contemporary social movements are "new" movements and which are not?
Despite some disagreement over the exact roster of "new" movements, most NSM theorists
look to an extended "family of related movements" with the peace, women's and ecology the
most commonly cited core NSMs (Della Porta and Rucht 1991).3 Organized labor is the
archetypal "old" movement in NSM theory, but the category is actually much broader.
Brand (1990) succinctly described "old" movements as "class and status" movements. In the
U.S. context this would include: the civil rights movement; farmworkers mobilizations led
by the United Farm Workers; more recent mobilizations in defense of family farms;
politicized religious constituencies like the religious right; "Alinsky-style" community
organizing; and mobilizations by the homeless or other economically and politically
marginalized constituencies.
Poor people's empowerment organizations (PPOs) and peace movement
organizations (PMOs) with middle class memberships are used here as representatives of
"new" and "old" social movements respectively.4 NSM theorists would expect these two
SMO populations to evidence significant differences in ideology and goals, base of support,
advocacy repertoire and organizational style. The differences in class base and goals
between the two SMO populations represented here fit these expectations quite well.5 To
what extent they evidence expected differences in organizational style is the central question
in this assessment of NSM theory. In order to pose that question in operational terms, I
have, with some trepidation, had to impose a measure of empirical precision beyond that
provided by most NSM theorists.

Empirical Imprecision in NSM Theory

A reading of the broader NSM theoretical literature indicates that NSM theorists
have made quite clear, in general terms, how the NSMs differ from their "old-style"
counterparts. However, it becomes just as clear that these expectations lack empirical
specificity. Consequently, I have had to derive verifiable expectations from what NSM
theorists consistently imply, but seldom explicitly state. Doing so required making the last
two working assumptions crucial to the design of this research.
 4

In order to operationalize core concerns of one theory (NSM) in the analytical

categories of the other (RM), I had to develop a modest working synthesis of the two
perspectives, despite my initial desire to skirt that morass at all costs. As a result I have
identified several ways in which explicit concerns of one framework (RM) complement
implicit problematics of the other (NSM).6 Most important for this research is my
contention that social movement organizations and organizational level analysis are actually
core issues in NSM theory despite the scant attention paid to them by most NSM theorists.
NSM groups are commonly described as being anti-hierarchical, informal, anti-
oligarchic, or highly participatory. The spectrum of the NSM literature consistently implies
that a culturally innovative and distinctive organizational style characterizes the NSMs in
contrast to other social movements. Organizational style has three facets: degree of
bureaucracy and formalization in group structure; (de)centralization of power in group
governance; and the degree of participation and professionalization in its operating strategy.
Organizational dimensions of the NSMs are used here instead of political ones
because doing so makes this research a more fair and robust assessment of NSM theory for
two reasons. First, critics of NSM theory have themselves been criticized for imposing a
"political reductionism" on the NSMs. Such a political reductionism is said to ignore or
devalue social and cultural dimensions considered important to the NSMs. Second, the
distinctive organizational style said to characterize the NSMs has been consistently
mentioned by NSM theorists since the late 1970s, in contrast to some recent misgivings
regarding the distinctiveness of the NSM tactical repertoire (see Klandermans, Kriesi and
Tarrow, 1988; Rucht, ed. 1991). Furthermore, the challenge to the status quo of advanced
capitalist societies represented by the NSMs is rendered most visible by their organizational
structure and their internal power relations which are based on direct participation without
conscious regard to political effectiveness (Melucci 1994:123-24).
In a recent essay Melucci (1994) contends that as long as the debate over NSM
theory fails to clearly specify the distinctive features of the NSMs, it will remain an arid and
ideological back and forth between supporters and critics of "newness." This research
advances this debate by using systematic cross-movement data to examine, empirically,
central claims of NSM theory without imposing "politically reductionistic" assessment
criteria.

ORGANIZATION OF THIS DISSERTATION

This concluding section describes the contents of the remaining chapters in this
dissertation. Following this introduction, Chapter 2 reviews the literature pertinent to this
assessment of NSM theory. This literature provides the basis of specific operationalizations
of dependent indicators of organizational style. Material pertinent to assessments of cross-
movement and over time variations in SMO organizational style are reviewed in separate
sections, which conclude with specific hypotheses derived from NSM theory.
This literature review differs from previous secondary treatments of NSM theory in
several ways. First, it draws widely from NSM writings to synthesize the dynamics of
emergence, persistence and social change typical of the range of NSM theorizing rather than
focusing on either a single concept like collective identity or a single theorist. The diverse
accounts of NSM emergence are grouped into generally macro-structural, new middle class
and cultural explanations. Second, it emphasizes the general agreement among NSM
theorists about the distinctive ideology, constituency, collective action repertoire and
organizational style that are said to distinguish NSMs from other social movements.
Specifically, it operationalizes the explicit and implicit claims of NSM theory and derives
verifiable hypotheses from what NSM theorists most often only imply. Third, it links NSM
 5

theory to the broader research literature pertinent to transformations of SMO organizational

style. The concept of collective identity figures prominently in NSM analyses of the
formation and persistence organizational style among NSM organizations and is examined
in some detail.
Chapter 3 describes the self-report survey data and archival data used here. NSM
data comes from 411 PMOs that responded to a nationally representative 1988 mail survey
of "groups working for peace" in the United States. The PMO sample of 803 was drawn
from among the 7,700 groups listed in the 1987 edition of the Grassroots Peace Directory.
"Old" movement data comes primarily from 177 poor people's empowerment organizations
that responded to a 1987 mailed survey of 482 groups that received grant funding from the
Campaign for Human Development (CHD) between 1982-1986. Survey data on poor
people's organizations was supplemented by archival data gathered from CHD files. The
strengths and limitations of this unique cross-movement data set are described and its
appropriateness for assessing specific claims of NSM theory discussed. Subsequently the
research design and rationale for differentiating SMOs into three distinct social movement
organizational domains (SMO domains), national SMOs, larger non-national SMOs, and
small non-national SMOs is examined. The organizational demography of each SMO
domain is described and typical groups are profiled. The chapter concludes by discussing
the importance of SMO domains and the rather conservative design of this research.
Chapter 4 describes the construction of seven dependent indicators of organizational
style. Separate measures of organizational structure and procedural formality are derived to
compare the level of bureaucratization among SMOs. Separate indicators of member
participation in organizational governance and the degree to which recognized leaders are
responsible for group finances are constructed to assess centralization of power among
SMOs. Three indicators of SMO operating strategy are developed: the proportion of
members actively volunteering time to the work of the group; the range of activities in
which they participate; and a measure of professionalization are derived to assess SMO
operating strategies. SMO operating strategy is distinct from, but not necessarily unrelated
to social change strategy. Operating strategy relates most directly to SMO staffing, whether
paid or voluntary, and the range and proportion of organizational tasks performed by each.
The chapter concludes by describing cross-domain variation in the seven dependent
variables.
Chapter 5 analyzes cross movement variation in organizational style by comparing
the domain of large non-national, poor people's groups to all three PMO domains on these
seven dependent indicators of organizational style. Bivariate and multivariate analyses of
cross-movement differences in organizational style are presented and discussed. In order to
assess how predictors of organizational style vary across SMO domains, a multivariate
analysis of intra-domain variations in organizational style is presented. Cross-movement
analyses generally contradict or fail to support relevant expectations of NSM theory which
appears to greatly oversimplify the dynamics underlying the distribution of organizational
style within populations of SMOs. Organizational style is found to vary more across SMO
domains when social movement industry is held constant than across SMIs when SMO
domain is constant. NSM theory gains the most support from the cross-domain comparison
between PPOs and SPMOs. However, this analysis strongly suggests that SPMOs are
distinctive in organizational style when compared to PPOs, LPMOs and NPMOs primarily
because they are exceptionally small. Even within the SPMO domain SMO size is inversely
related to adherence to the NSM organizational style.
Chapter 6 assesses the influence of organizational age and founding cohort on
variations in organizational style within a NSM industry, the U.S. peace movement. Four
 6

distinct PMO founding cohorts are distinguished and their association with variations in
organizational style analyzed. Results of bivariate and multivariate analysis of SMO age
and founding cohort as predictors of organizational style are presented. Organizational
style varies significantly among the surviving members of the four PMO founding cohorts,
while a linear measure of SMO age is unrelated. SMO founding cohort is found to be a
better predictor of SMO organizational style than either age or social class base. Specific
expectations of NSM theory are also assessed with little support found. The clear indication
here is that NSM theory undervalues the importance of meso level social structures in
understanding the reflexive relationship between social movements and social change.
Chapter 7 offers some reasons why NSM theory finds so little support from this
assessment and attempts to anticipate likely criticisms of its design and representation of
NSM theory. In the main this research offers no unqualified support for either the cross-
movement or age related expectations of NSM theory regarding organizational style. The
distinctive NSM organizational style is found almost exclusively among distinctively small
SMOs regardless of their social class base, social change goals or the broader movement to
which they belong. Similarly, neither the structural transformation nor "culture shift" said to
be underway in advanced capitalist societies appears to have exerted either a permanent or
pervasive impact upon the organizational style of NSM organizations.

Notes for Chapter 1

1. I use resource mobilization theory in reference to what are often called resource mobilization
(Zald & McCarthy 1987; Jenkins 1983) and political process (Tilly 1978; McAdam 1983;
Tarrow 1994) theories. Though often treated as distinct, they are complementary emphases of a
single analytic framework (see McAdam, McCarthy & Zald 1988). NSM theory will be
discussed extensively in chapter 2.

2. See especially Cohen (1985), Klandermans (1986), Klandermans, Kriesi, and Tarrow, eds.
(1988), Dalton, Kuechler and Burklin (1990), Mayer (1991), Diani (1992), Escobar and Alvarez
(1992), Larana, Johnston and Gusfield (1994), and McAdam, McCarthy, and Zald, eds. (1995).
For comparative, cross-national analyses of transnational social movements see for
instance, Katzenstein and Mueller (1987) on the women's movement, Nelkin and Pollack (1981)
and Joppke (1989, 1991) on anti-nuclear mobilizations, Gale (1986) and McCormick (1989) on
the environmental movement and Rochon (1988) and Klandermans (1990) on the peace
movement. For comparative cross-movement analyses of NSMs within particular nation-states,
see Rucht (1991), Koopmans (1992), Duyvendak (1992) and Kriesi (1993).

3. The contrasting positions of Touraine and Habermas illustrate the range of opinion on this
question. At one extreme Touraine insists that there is but one "new" movement in post-
industrial society and that it assumes the historical role of primary agent of social change once
played by the labor movement in the industrial era (1981). At the opposite extreme Habermas
(1981) has counted the peace and environmental movements along with parents' associations,
school protest, self-help, religious fundamentalism, tax protest, citizen action, urban squatters
and minority movements among the "new" movements, while placing the women's movement in
a category by itself.

4. Though no NSM theorists I am aware of contest the core status of the peace movement,
several NSM analysts do contend that other contemporary movements, most often
 7

environmentalism, are better exemplars (Milbrath 1984; Oloffson 1988; Moscovici 1990; Eder
1993; Dalton 1994). However, with the exception of Milbrath, these writings of the late 1980s
and early 1990s reflect revisions of earlier positions prompted by the decline of the peace
movement from its early 1980s surge and the increasing influence of environmentalism.

5. This contention is discussed theoretically in the literature review in chapter 2 and

demonstrated empirically in chapter 3.

6. The nature of this particular research requires an emphasis on aspects of RM theory that
complement implicit problematics of NSM theory. However, the opposite is just as true.
Explicit concerns of NSM theory complement crucial, yet often taken for granted aspects of RM
theory. These are discussed in some detail in chapter 7.

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

INTRODUCTION

Since the late 1980s a wide range of European social movement analysis has been
available in English and a large body of interpretation, critical appraisal and synthesis has
been produced. A reading of this body of work reveals that NSM theorists are united less by
an underlying theory of social change or social movement(s), than by a common assessment
of the historical significance and impact of a specific, extended "family" of contemporary
social movements. The relative consensus among NSM theorists regarding what
distinguishes "new" from "old" movements is directly related to this unifying assessment.
By contrast, diverse explanations of NSM emergence, and by extension the persistence of
their distinctive features, reflects the range of social change theories within which specific
formulations are embedded.1
This dissertation will undertake two broad assessments of NSM theory. The first
relates to the common judgement of the cultural significance and historical innovation of the
NSMs. It is a straightforward cross-movement analysis assessing explicit claims regarding
the distinctiveness of NSMs when compared to other types of social movements. The
second assessment, however, examines expectations about the persistence of distinctive
NSM features over time. Unlike the first, this requires examining the various formulations
of NSM origins and emergence and distilling the broad models of social change implicit
within them. In both cases the expectations of NSM theory are seldom formulated as
empirically verifiable, nomothetic statements and therefore must be derived from the
consistent implications of NSM theory.
Consequently, this literature review differs from previous secondary treatments of
NSM theory in three ways. It draws widely from NSM writings to synthesize the dynamics
of emergence, persistence and social change typical of the range of NSM theorizing rather
than focusing on either a single concept like collective identity or a single theorist. It also
links NSM theory to relevant treatments of organizations and social change. Most especially
it operationalizes the explicit and implicit claims of NSM theory. Deriving verifiable
hypotheses from what NSM theorists most often only imply involves no small risk of being
criticized for "clearly misinterpreting" what NSM theorists seldom clearly state.
Nevertheless, this review begins with the diverse dynamics of NSM origins and
emergence grouped broadly under macro-economic, macro-political and new middle class
headings. By different theoretical paths NSM theorists generally identify the new middle
 8

class as the core NSM constituency whose ideology and/or social location explain NSM
distinctiveness. The contours of this diffuse alliance, its distinctive ideology and the
distinctive NSM political and organizational styles are discussed in detail. The first half of
this chapter sets up the cross-movement analysis of expected differences in organizational
style between "new" and "old" movement organizations. It concludes by specifying six
verifiable expectations of NSM theory to be assessed in chapter 5.
The second half of this chapter provides the theoretical context for an analysis of
persistence in organizational style among groups of a single NSM. Three broad perspectives
explaining the influence of age and historical context on the expected persistence of NSM
organizational style over time are reviewed. Generally these are not explicitly stated in the
NSM literature. Rather the first two which over emphasize either ideological agency or
structural determination are derived from the clear implications of divergent NSM
theorizations of movement emergence. Hints of a third, more reflexive account, are sparsely
distributed throughout the broader NSM literature. I elaborate a provisional, reflexive
explanation for the persistence of social movement organizational forms over time by
integrating recent organizational theory on the transformation of organizational populations
with recent social movement analysis emphasizing the social construction of collective
identity into a broad resource mobilization analytical framework. This half of the chapter
concludes by delineating eight verifiable expectations used to assess these three explanations
in chapter 6.

ORIGINS AND EMERGENCE OF THE "NEW" SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

The reliance of the "new" movements upon a "new middle class" base figures
prominently in all NSM analyses, yet the significance accorded this group in explanations of
NSM emergence varies. Distinct macro-structural theories of either societal transformation
(Touraine 1974, 1981) or crisis (Habermas 1973) treat the new middle class as a key
intervening variable in the emergence of the NSMs. By contrast class centered, meso-level
accounts premised upon the relative continuity of societal development (Parkin 1968;
Cotgrove and Duff 1981; Kriesi 1993) or micro-socialization accounts of silent revolution
and culture shift (Inglehart 1977, 1990) stressing the prior emergence of "new" values
consider the new middle class to be the key explanatory variable in the analysis and
explanation of NSM emergence.

Macro-Economic Restructuring and NSM Emergence

Some form of the post-industrial society thesis reverberates throughout most NSM
analysis (Touraine 1974; Melucci 1978, 1980, 1989; see also Bell 1973). According to
Touraine, one powerful social movement played the central role in each of the historical
transitions from agrarian to merchant to industrial societies. During the period of rapid
industrialization class struggle generated the labor movement which is the archetypal "old"
social movement among NSM theorists. Touraine's work has centered on the search for the
post-industrial, functional equivalent of both class struggle and the labor movement. It has
shown rather little concern to specify with any empirical clarity either the contours of post-
industrial societies or features of the "new" movements such as their goals, ideologies,
organization, strategy, adherents, public discourse, or outcomes (Rucht 1991:372). A
student of Touraine's, Alberto Melucci, shares what he describes as a "production model"
(1989:50) that roots NSM emergence in new conflicts generated by post-industrial forms of
social and economic production, but rejects the missionary aspects of both Touraine's theory
and methodology (1989:199-205; Rucht 1991:370).
 9

According to Melucci the preservation of capitalist development in what he calls

"complex societies" is no longer possible by elites preserving their control of the labor force
and the transformation of natural resources for market as in industrial societies. Institutions
of social control have intervened in the private, symbolic and communicative realms of
everyday life. Social conflicts are no longer centered around primarily economic issues and
struggles over the distribution of material resources. Rather the landscape of social conflict
has shifted to cultural grounds and the very creation of meaning and identity has become
contested terrain (1984:826). Such new forms of social conflict most often occur between
agents of social control and members of the new middle class. Unlike Touraine, he has
devoted significant analytic energy to specifying the social-psychological contours of these
conflicts, their internal dynamics, and the salient features of NSM collective action (1978;
1980; 1984; 1985; 1988; 1989).
Both Touraine and Melucci tend to root NSM emergence in new terrains and forms
of conflict arising from prior transformations in the structure of economic and social
production. Others take either a more traditional Marxist approach stressing the inability of
"late" capitalism to perpetuate its own expansion (Bagguley 1992; Lash and Urry 1987) or a
societal crisis stemming from a systemic incapacity to manage internal conflicts arising from
the advanced state of capitalist development (Offe 1985a, 1985b).
In this vein politics or the state are often portrayed as semi-autonomous facilitators
of NSM emergence. For example, as markets, production, and capital become increasingly
dispersed throughout a global economy, the class composition of particular nation-states is
restructured. The traditional working class becomes marginalized and their political power
weakened. This trend in concert with the increasing size, power and distinct political
interests of the "service class" underlie the emergence of the "new" movements (Lash and
Urry 1987). Offe points instead to the simultaneous broadening, deepening and increasing
irreversibility in the forms of domination and deprivation within advanced capitalist
societies. These lead to the structural incapacity of existing economic and political
institutions to perceive and deal with the global threats, risks and deprivations they
themselves cause (1985a:845-847). The emergence of "new" movements has been
facilitated by the provision of policy initiatives, information, and new standards of
legitimation by dissenting elites in both the state and segments of the private sector
(1985a:855).

Welfare-State Intrusion and the NSMs

Political institutions and the state play a part in "production models" of NSM
emergence described above, but their role is scripted and directed by prior transformations in
the structure and relations of economic production. In more Weberian versions of NSM
theory political institutions, especially the state, are not treated as reflections of underlying
economic structures as they are in the more Marxist "production models." In these
formulations of NSM theory state administrative and social control policies are considered a
direct causal factor in NSM emergence. Habermas (1981) essentially argues that the growth
of the "economic-administrative complex" of advanced capitalist welfare states has met the
material needs of its people at the cost of extending its administrative rationality into the
inner most, private lives of its citizens. This "colonization of the lifeworld" has broken
down the formerly distinct barrier between "public" and "private" life. This has generated
new conflicts over cultural reproduction, social integration and socialization. In a position
that seems to have much in common with Melucci, the NSMs have arisen from within the
strata of society either most affected by the consequences of this growth in complexity or
most sensitive to its intrusion upon the autonomy of one's way of life.
 10

NSM theorists often stress inadequacies of the West European neo-corporatist

compromise between the state, labor and industry to manage the economy and mediate
domestic conflicts over the distribution of material resources (Kitscheldt 1985; Scott 1990;
Wilson 1990 for a review). In an argument close to that of Offe described above, these
institutions become increasingly unable to mediate citizen interests which are less and less
related to the distribution of material resources. The NSMs arose as new middle class
citizens began to pursue their interests outside the institutionalized neo-corporatist channels
of polity access.
The structural accounts of the NSMs discussed above are not mutually exclusive of
each other, but rather stress either the capacities or inadequacies of primarily economic or
political institutions within the West European democracies. All consider the "new"
movements to be the response of new constituencies to conflicts derived from these prior
structural changes. The "new middle class" is an important, intervening factor in NSM
emergence. A final model of NSM emergence treats it as the central factor, originating in
either the prominence of younger cohorts with post-materialist values, the result of broad
social changes, increased educational levels or the gradual restructuring of class relations in
wealthy nations.

The "New Middle Class" and NSM Origins

Members of the "new middle class" are generally considered the core constituency of
the "new" movements (Melucci 1989; Klandermans, Kriesi and Tarrow 1989; Dalton and
Kuechler 1990). Several empirical studies have found significant support for this claim
(Parkin 1968; Cotgrove and Duff 1980; Kriesi 1989; Diani and Lodi 1988; Inglehart 1992;
for dissenting analysis see Rohrschneider 1990). Besides "new middle class," this group has
been referred to variously as, "service class" (Lash and Urry 1987), "human capital class"
(Melucci 1988), or the "state class" (Mattausch 1989). All of these have much in common
with the North American "new class" debate (Gouldner 1979; Bruce-Briggs 1979; for a
review see Brint 1984; for integration with NSM theory see Kriesi 1989).

Class Theoretic Accounts

"New class" has been criticized as a muddled and poorly defined concept (Bell 1979)
with various definitions each leading to different political implications (Bruce-Briggs 1979).
Like "new middle class" it has been used heuristically as a catch all for a diverse mix of
highly educated, middle-class radicals (McCrea and Markle 1989). Other versions are based
in a strong class theoretic analysis of the changing basis, structure and conflicts between
"new" and "old" classes in Western democracies (Giddens 1973; Gouldner 1979; Wright
1985). The significance of the new middle class(es) for social movements and political
cleavage structures continues to be contested terrain.
Gouldner subdivided the new class into "humanistic intellectuals" and a "technical
intelligentsia." Both were key players in struggles for women's liberation and
environmentalism, the preeminent conflicts in the new class's guerilla warfare against the
old classes (1979:16-17). Bell (1974:479-82) also saw an increasingly prominent "new
middle class" with anti-bourgeois values as the social base of the movements of the 1960s
and 1970s. Bell, like other market neo-conservatives (Crozier, et al, 1976), considered these
movements a serious threat to state authority that imperiled democracy. In a systematic
comparison of alternative new class definitions and an empirical assessment of their
differing associations with political attitudes, Brint (1984) concluded that new class power
and perseverance had been exaggerated. Specifically he found a consistent split among the
four new class subcategories, social and cultural specialists, managers, technical specialists
 11

and human service professionals. Only social and cultural specialists were consistently
liberal and critical of business interests.
This political split between new class subgroups seriously compromises assumptions
that the political potential of new class constituents is uniformly progressive. Kriesi
(1989:1082-1083) offers a narrower definition of new class which includes only Gouldner's
"humanistic intellectuals" or Brint's "social and cultural specialists." This narrower, "new
class" is a subset of the broader "new middle classes" and the NSMs are but one arena of
confrontation between the divergent political interests of these two new middle class
subgroups. Both the political split among new class subgroups and the smaller NSM base
represented by the progressive subgroup raise questions about the theorized long-term
political impact of the NSMs (Dalton 1988). Other accounts of NSM emergence use "new
middle class" solely as a heuristic device and make little or no effort to root it in any theory
of class structure and conflict, new or otherwise.

Class Coincident Accounts

According to Inglehart (1977; 1990) advanced industrial societies have undergone
sweeping, but poorly understood cultural changes during the period since WWII. These
changes have transformed the value orientations of younger generations thereby altering
their political and social priorities. His elaborate social change theory of culture shift hinges
on three key assumptions. Inglehart articulates what he calls the "scarcity hypothesis" and
the "socialization hypothesis." In the former people are assumed to value what is in scarce
supply and place less value on things that are abundant. The latter holds that the values one
internalizes in late-adolescence and early adulthood persist throughout life forming an
enduring ballast in one's value priorities.
From this point Inglehart argues that throughout the West, the decades following
WWII were ones of increasing affluence and security and decreasing in community, self-
expression, spirituality and nurturance. Consequently increasing numbers of people
socialized during those decades have come to value belonging, self-expression and non-
material aspects of life quality over material goods and security. This contrasts sharply with
prior generations raised and socialized during the Depression when economic security was
in short supply and communal ties are implied to have been strong.
Inglehart's third assumption is simply that value priorities translate directly into an
internally consistent program of political action. The link between values and political
behavior is not problematic in this view. The NSMs are believed to be expressions of the
post-materialist values and political priorities among post-WWII birth cohorts. Though
Inglehart's work most clearly articulates this socialization theory of NSM emergence, that of
Barnes and Kaase (1979) and Dalton (1988) fit here as well.
Parkin's (1968) analysis of the class composition of the British peace movement and
Cotgrove and Duff's (1980) of British environmentalists offer similar explanations for NSM
emergence. Reasoning in part from the liberalizing effects of post-secondary education,
Parkin has suggested that people estranged from the central values of industrial society
would both become involved in NSMs and self-select "... welfare and creative professions
[which] provide acceptable sanctuaries to those who wish to avoid direct involvement in
capitalist enterprises" (1968:182). With a slightly different spin Cotgrove and Duff
(1980:340-3), locate the new middle class on the periphery of industrial society and argue
that their environmentalism is consistent with their class interests. It is a protest against
their relative powerlessness, an opposition to the capitalist values and institutions that have
marginalized them.
 12

A Diffuse Social Alliance

The NSMs incorporate sympathetic portions of various networks into a diffuse
movement encompassing a cross-section of like minded people from various sectors of
society. They are not coterminous with pre-existing union, religious, or ethnic
organizational networks. Despite disagreement over the precise role played by the "new
middle class" in the diverse explanations of NSM origins and emergence, the primary NSM
constituency is generally considered to come from within it. A majority of NSM analysts
depart from a strict logic of class conflict and use the term "new middle class" in a loose and
heuristic way. In fact, because the NSM base is a diffuse social alliance rather than a single
class, Offe (1985a:835) suggests that the "new" movements express the opposite of class
conflict. Similarly, Giddens (1973) has described them as "class aware" but not "class
conscious" and their demands are generally considered rather "class un-specific" (Offe
1985b; Dalton, Kuechler and Burklin 1990).
In addition to elements of the new middle class other groups are said to round out the
"new" movement alliance. A second constituency includes "decommodified" groups who
occupy peripheral or marginal positions in the labor market. This group is said to include
students, retirees, non-working spouses and the unemployed, many of whom would be
considered "middle class" in socio-economic status categorizations common in the U.S.
context. A third component of the NSM alliance includes segments of the "old middle
class" such as farmers and craftsman. But these are a much smaller, constituency associated
almost exclusively with environmental conflicts (Offe 1985a; Melucci 1989; Rucht 1990).
Another common NSM description of this diffuse alliance splits it into two groups.
The first consists of "victims of modernization" who have been marginalized by the
development of advanced capitalist societies, but belong to no single socio-economic
stratum. This group is considered to be suffering directly and disproportionately from
problems associated with modernization (Klandermans and Tarrow 1988). Those living
near nuclear plants, noisy airports, or downstream from polluting facilities are examples of
this group (Rucht 1988). However in this alternative account, most NSM participants as
well as their inner circles seem to come from a second group whose values and needs are
said to exert hegemonic influence upon NSM dynamics (Brand et al. 1985).
This second group whose members are described as highly educated, unaffiliated
with any religious group, relatively young, with post-materialist, and employed in social or
cultural services values comprise the NSM core (Offe 1985a; Kriesi 1989; Inglehart 1990;
Dalton 1988). These members of the new middle class are said to be most sensitive to a
new set of problems arising from the negative, even self-destructive, side-effects of
industrial growth, technological development and increased social complexity (Offe 1985a;
Habermas 1984). This core constituency forms changing coalitions with various
marginalized groups whose participation in the NSMs seems to vary by issue and country
(Klandermans 1986). Besides elaborations of the "new" movement base as a social alliance
centered around elements of the "new middle class," NSM theorists have also defined it
through explicit and implicit contrasts with the constituents of "old" movements.
Consequently, economically marginalized or disadvantaged groups are neither influential
nor enduring members of the NSM alliance.
The "...distinguishing feature of new social movements is that they lack the narrow
special interest appeal to any one social grouping....The environment and peace movements
garner their support from a socially diffuse group of individuals who share their goals not
from a distinct class, ethnic, or social stratum" (Dalton et al. 1990:12). "Old" movements
are typically said to include labor, agrarian, race/ethnic, religious, and nationalist
movements. "Old" movements are comprised primarily of socio-economically
 13

disadvantaged people for whom the movement is a means to gain political power and
economic benefits when more conventional channels were closed to them (Dalton et al,
1990). Old movement constituents are said to be embedded in distinct social networks
within clearly defined social or economic collectivities. The "old" movements represent the
unique and specialized interests of those class or race/ethnic-based constituencies.
In the U.S. context these would include the civil rights movement and black power
movements. A politicized religious constituency, like the religious right, would be an "old-
style" movement. La Raza and the farmworker's movement of the 1960s and 1970s fall
within the "old-style" characterization as does the more recent small farmer organizing most
publicized by Farm Aid. Political mobilizations by the homeless and mobilizations for
affordable housing in urban areas would also be "old-style" movements. Finally, Alinsky-
style community organizing and other community or congregation based organizing by poor,
working class or minority constituencies are also among the current U.S. movements that
clearly fit NSM portrayals of "old" movements.

A DISTINCTIVE ALLIANCE

Distinctive Ideological Bond

The diffuse social alliance at the base of the new social movements is often said to
be unified by a common ideological bond which has been variously described by NSM
theorists. Three emphases emerge from a reading of this literature and will be discussed
next.
Orientation Toward Modernity
Though NSM theory varies regarding exactly where to draw the line between new
and old movements, there is near consensus on the NSM status of the women's,
environmental and peace movements. At one extreme Touraine insists there is but one
central new movement assuming the historical role played by the labor movement in the
industrial era (1985). In a succession of analyses he (1971, 1981, 1983) has identified
different labor successors until finally concluding (1992) that an array of contemporary
mobilizations embody some aspects of the one overarching new movement, but that no
single movement embodies it all. At the other extreme Habermas (1981) defines NSMs as
those seeking to defend their autonomy in private life against the encroachment and
manipulation of impersonal state and economic collective actors. Peace and environmental
movements along with parents' associations, school protest, self-help, religious
fundamentalism, tax protest, citizen action and minority movements meet this defensive
criterion and qualify as NSMs. Few scholars of NSMs share either the extreme exclusion of
Touraine or inclusion of Habermas.
Articulating a more common position Offe (1990), Kuechler and Dalton (1990)
exclude both reactionary movements and those that retreat from political contention
becoming religious or lifestyle enclaves of civil society. Offe (1985a) points out that though
the NSMs are critical of modernity, they are not romantic or idealist attempts to recapture
the good old days. Kriesi (1988) further elaborates this same dual character of NSMs. They
seek to defend against the erosion of personal autonomy by the intrusion of impersonal
corporate actors into the spheres of private life. This dual character of NSMs as articulating
claims that are both proactive and defensive, but not reactionary or romantic enjoys wide
support among NSM theorists (Kuechler and Dalton 1990, Offe 1990).
Shared Critique of "Progress" and Growth
Consistent with this dual character there is also wide support that NSMs embrace a
common critique of modernization in advanced capitalist democracies. This critique is
 14

generally considered a reaction to broad processes of modernization, characterized most

often as continuous economic growth, unaccountable powerholders, and increasing
complexity in social differentiation (Melucci 1980; Habermas 1981; Brand 1982). The
unintended consequences of these developments have caused new grievances (Klandermans
1986) pertaining to universal threats to the human future, like global warming or nuclear
war. The NSMs developed a far reaching and profound critique of traditional systems of
economic, political and social relations dominant in Western societies since the late 19th
century (Rochon 1990).
According to Kriesi (1988) the loss of control and autonomy implied by Habermas'
term "colonization of the lifeworld," captures the heart of the NSM critique. "Colonization
of the lifeworld" involves among other things a shift in control from the local or parochial
level to the national state as well as from individuals to corporate actors generally.
Following a Weberian "iron cage" logic, the unprecedented individualization in
contemporary Western societies has led ironically to decreases in individual freedom as the
choices of everyday life confronting people are prestructured by large, anonymous state or
economic actors. Consequently the NSMs struggle proactively for new lifestyles by
consolidating their liberation from the bonds of traditional social institutions like religion,
family and community, and defensively by expanding their newly acquired "action-spaces"
within civil society.
This proactive and defensive orientation has been described by Kitschelt (1988) as
"left-libertarian" denoting the NSM emphasis upon participatory democracy, cooperative
social organization, self-help groups and the pursuit of a general enhancement of an
individual's control of decisions affecting their everyday lives. The concept of the future
advocated by the NSMs is defined primarily in negative terms (Offe 1985a). The NSMs
know what they do not want, but are unsure or inconsistent with respect to the operational
details of their social change proposals (Kuechler and Dalton 1990:281). Their long-term
goal centers around a search for a new quality of life encompassing new relationships with
nature, one's own body, the opposite sex, work, and consumption. Solidarity in the struggle
for new lifestyles becomes a primary NSM goal taking precedence over instrumental
attempts to gain advantages within the established political system (Melucci 1980; Donati
1984; Klandermans 1986).
More commonly NSMs embrace universal critiques of broad social processes --
continued economic growth and a coming environmental catastrophe, Cold War and the
prospect of nuclear war, rational bureaucratic hierarchies, representational authority and
unaccountable, inaccessible powerholders-- which seem to pose universal threats to all
people regardless of class, religion, or race/ethnicity. They are said to pursue universal
goods (Mitchell 1979) whose benefits cannot be limited to a specific group and excluded
from others. In other words the NSMs "...have become the self-appointed representatives of
mass interest" (Kuechler and Dalton 1990:297) embracing what is generally considered to be
a unique set of values which distinguish them from "old" social movements (Klandermans
and Tarrow 1988).

Post-Materialist Values
For two decades Inglehart and his collaborators have been documenting value trends
in Western Europe and the United States paying particular attention to increasing adherence
to a post-materialist value orientation (Inglehart 1971, 1977, 1992a; Dalton 1988; Barnes
and Kaase 1979). Postmaterialists value self-expression, belonging, and intellectual or
aesthetic satisfaction over concerns with either physical or economic security. They are
more concerned with the quality of their lives than with increased consumption or earning.
 15

Politically they would prioritize giving people more say in important government decisions,
having more beautiful cities or protecting freedom of speech over maintaining a stable
economy, fighting crime, or maintaining a strong defense (Inglehart 1977; Dalton 1988).
Postmaterialists have been shown to express attitudinal support for and be participants in
European NSMs in higher proportions than their materialist counterparts (Inglehart 1990;
Kriesi 1989). While postmaterialists are widely considered the core of the NSMs, "old"
class and status movements are generally said to be driven by the concerns of their
materialist counterparts. Concern for economic growth, redistribution of wealth, increased
power within the existing system, efficiency of means and security is the consensus NSM
characterization of the "old" movement priorities.
Growing out of their common critique of modern capitalist forms of social
organization the NSMs reject hierarchical, bureaucratic and centralized social relations.
They are also hostile to the instrumental rationality, efficiency of means and procedural
formality characteristic of contemporary state and corporate structures. By contrast they
embrace autonomy, direct participation, identity, self-actualization, harmony with nature,
simplicity, sustainability, spontaneity, expression and means-ends consistency (Klandermans
1989; Dalton and Kuechler 1990; Melucci 1984; Donati 1984; Gundelach 1989; Rucht
1990; Sassoon 1984; Milbrath 1984; Rothchild-Witt 1979; Ferree and Hess 1985; Lash and
Urry 1987; Cohen 1985). Whether framed as a new social paradigm or a discrete set of
post-materialist values, the NSM ideological bond is widely considered the major
distinguishing factor between "new" and "old" movements (Kriesi 1988, Brand 1985, 1990,
Inglehart 1990, Klandermans 1986, 1988).

Ideologically Structured Action of the NSMs

The NSM alliance consists of "communities of like-minded individuals who have
undergone similar political socialization, follow a similar life-style, and show similar
problem sensibility (Brand 1990:27). Core members of the peace, environmental and
women's movements are united by a common ideological bond that determines the nature of
the movement such that political and organizational manifestations are epiphenomenal
(Kuechler and Dalton 1990:280ff). In other words a superstructure of distinctive NSM
political and organizational style is said to be constructed upon a unified base of ideology,
values and collective identity.
The NSMs are said to prioritize considerations of identity over strategic rationality
and goal attainment (Cohen 1985; Melucci 1985; Offe 1985a) and reject an inconsistency of
means and ends characteristic of left-wing, vanguard groups following a Leninist model
(Donati 1984). NSM collective actions and organizations are ends in themselves. Broader
political goals or organizational effectiveness in achieving them are secondary
considerations (Melucci 1978; Offe 1985a; Sassoon 1984; Habermas 1984). Gundelach
even suggests that NSM groups would disband before adopting a more rationally
bureaucratic style of organization (1988). Explanations of NSM political and organizational
style treat them as ideologically structured forms of collective action, despite variations of
emphasis between specific NSM theorists.

A Distinctive Political Style

The distinctive political style of the NSMs is generally considered by NSM theorists
to be the consequence of their ideological antipathy toward conventional politics. However,
Offe (1985a) and Melucci (1980) have suggested structural constraints limiting the political
strategies available to the NSMs. A decentralized structure and lack of an enduring social
base precludes the NSMs from the conventional political bargaining and insider tactics
 16

typical of "old" class and status movements. The NSMs simply cannot deliver the electoral
or other resources necessary to extract concessions from either political parties or state
agencies. Similarly, their increased reliance on the media to amplify communicative and
symbolic actions may just as well be a concession to their exclusion from the polity as a
form of ideologically structured action.
The neo-corporatist polity structure, common throughout Western Europe, formally
or informally sanctions interest groups, organized labor and other "old" movement
organizations, according them an "official" status in, and routine access to, the governing
process. They become legitimate participants in both the legislative and administrative
processes. Close ties to political parties also give "old" movements direct and insider access
to electoral politics and party nomination processes. In Europe this collaboration has been
so close that the "old" movement organizations and interest groups are virtually
indistinguishable from official political actors (Lehmbruch and Schmitter, eds. 1982;
Dalton, Kuechler and Burklin 1990; Wilson 1990).
In marked contrast the NSMs reject such close cooperation and insider access, and
are generally said to relish their outsider status and reliance upon the unconventional politics
of protest and confrontation. They seek to influence public policy indirectly through
symbolic challenge, broadening the scope of political debate, and influencing public
opinion. NSM autonomy from the political establishment is evidenced by a limited focus on
the political system, preference for unconventional tactics, and scant interest in gaining
power (Melucci 1978). The NSM tactical repertoire is said to center around confrontational,
direct actions with some use of both lawful demonstrations and illegal, nonviolent action
(Klandermans and Tarrow 1989; Rucht 1990).
Unconventional forms of political participation include signing petitions, lawful
demonstrations, boycotts, rent strikes, wildcat labor strikes, occupying buildings, sit-ins,
blocking traffic, graffiti slogans, damaging property, and violence (Barnes and Kaase
1979:543-546; for a review see Pagnucco 1992). The exclusive reliance on such tactics is
frequently characterized by NSM analysts as the "new" politics. Less presumptuously
Dalton (1988) has described this "protest politics" as a tactical repertoire involving several
thresholds of participation. Across the first, separating conventional from unconventional
tactics, are petitions and lawful demonstrations which are often considered unorthodox, but
lie within accepted political norms. The second threshold involves a shift to direct-action
tactics like boycotts or rent strikes. Non-violent, but illegal actions like occupying
buildings, sit-ins, or obstructing traffic are a third threshold before adopting personal
violence or terrorist tactics.
Protest, demonstrations and other unconventional (Offe 1985a), confrontational
(Rucht 1990), symbolic (Melucci 1985) or communicative (Habermas 1984; Epstein 1991)
actions are used routinely by NSMs. More so than the old movements, the NSMs rely
heavily on media coverage to extend the reach of these unconventional actions (Rochon
1990). Gaining coverage is an indirect means of communicating movement concerns to a
wider audience in hopes of gaining exposure for specific issues and influencing political
agenda setting. These communicative actions exhibit an implicit strategy intended to
broaden the scope of mainstream political contention and deepen its reach into formerly a-
political aspects of public and private life (Offe 1985a).2
NSMs are also said to pursue a counter-cultural strategy aimed at building
oppositional social institutions and changing people through the dissemination of movement
cultural products like music, publications, food, and clothing (Donati 1984). They do so
through public moral witness (Epstein 1990), counter-cultural community education
programs (Holsworth 1989) or movement marketing venues such as festivals, concerts,
 17

exhibits, bookstores, and community centers (Donati 1984; Rochon 1990; Rothchild-Witt
1979). This communicative strategy of symbolic confrontation in conjunction with building
oppositional or counter-cultural institutions politicizes NSMO organizational style.

A Distinctive Organizational Style

Like political style, NSM organizational style is most often treated as a form of
ideologically structured action further differentiating the NSMs from other social
movements. "The normal situation of today's [NSM] is to be a network of small groups
submerged in everyday life which requires a personal involvement in experiencing and
practicing cultural innovation" (Melucci 1984:829). The distinct organizational style is
widely considered to be one of the more important NSM social innovations. The
organizational structures and patterns of operation characteristic of NSMs are said to differ
greatly from those of other movements (Donati 1984:843).
The NSM organizational style has most often been defined negatively in reference to
ideological antipathy toward organizational forms associated with other social movements.
Portrayals of SMO form generally rely upon contrasting ideal types -- informal versus
formal, grassroots versus professionalized, decentralized versus centralized, participatory
versus oligarchic -- which are implied to typify entire social movement industries. The
consistent implication among NSM theorists is that NSMOs will exhibit this innovative
organizational style. Further, the clear implication among NSM theorists is that
organizational style among "old-style" SMOs is distinctly different, but equally
monochromatic among the organizations of a given "old" social movement industry.
Descriptions of NSM organizational style frequently have been derived deductively
from the implications of member values or ideology. For example, NSMs are said to value
autonomy and direct participation while expressing antipathy to the concept of
representation (Klandermans 1986) and all forms of mediation (Melucci 1980; Gundelach
1984). Consequently NSM groups are said to have developed participatory organizational
structures with more emphasis on member participation than on hierarchy or centralized
authority (Gundelach 1988:434). NSM groups are commonly described as anti-oligarchic
and anti-bureaucratic leading them to prefer consensus decision making processes or have
multiple leadership which is open to challenge and temporary, ad hoc organizational
structures (Melucci 1984). Instead of formalized affiliations NSMOs are said to be
characterized by informal relations knitting them together in loose, temporary coalitions or
"networks of networks."
In a positive generalization that foreshadows most NSM theory expectations about
organizational style among NSMOs, Gerlach and Hine (1970) constructed the following
ideal type based on an analysis of the black power movement and pentecostal churches in
the U.S. SMOs are independent, local groups not subordinate to any centralized authority.
Leadership is diffused among a variety of members and not centralized in one "head." They
have a web-like or network structure linked through personal relations rather than
hierarchical relations defined by specific roles or offices. Staggenborg (1988:590) offers a
compatible, yet more concrete description of informal SMOs of the kind said to typify entire
NSM industries. They have few established procedures, loose membership requirements,
minimal role differentiation, ad hoc decision processes, fluid organizational structure, and
tasks are assigned to meet immediate needs. Further they are dominated by nonprofessional
or volunteer staff, vulnerable to leadership changes and loosely connected to rather
autonomous subunits.
The most common general description of NSM organizational style refers to a
segmented, poly-cephalous, interacting, network (SPIN) form of organization (see Rucht, ed.
 18

1991). In a review of Italian social movements research, Marchi (1986) uses SPIN to
summarize the NSM organizational style as leaderless, decentralized, segmented, consisting
of extended interpersonal networks characterized by strong interpersonal bonds and a
minimal division of labor. Gundelach also utilizes the SPIN style in reviewing the state of
social movements research in The Netherlands (Gundelach 1991).

ORGANIZATIONAL STYLE IN "NEW" AND "OLD" MOVEMENTS

Empirical Imprecision in Discussing Organizational Style

NSM theorists make quite clear what they consider the distinctive contours of the
NSM organizational style in contrast to the style typical of "old" class and status
movements. However, they do so without empirical specificity.3 The organizational style of
"old" movements is commonly portrayed as the polar opposite of NSMs, but seldom
specified in detail by NSM theorists. Consequently, operational expectations are
consistently implied throughout NSM analyses, but not explicitly stated.
Further, NSM analysts typically refer to an extended family of NSMs and seldom
employ concepts comparable to social movement sector, industry or organization in resource
mobilization theory (McCarthy and Zald 1977). At different times all three levels of
analysis are referred to simply as "the NSMs." The NSM organizational style is sometimes
said to characterize relations between different NSMs and between NSM groups and the
larger NSM of which they are a part. It has also been said to characterize processes internal
to specific NSM groups and between those groups and individual participants. Several
levels of analysis are often commingled even though NSM theoretical expectations
regarding collective identity, political and organizational style have varying implications at
each. All three RM concepts, social movement sector (SMS), industry (SMI) and
organization (SMO) and a new concept SMO domain, will be used in the present research in
order to operationalize specific NSM expectations. Their use will be discussed more fully
when considering the research design in the next chapter.
SMO domain is a category applicable across movements. Any movement, whether
"new" or "old," would have groups in each of these three domains, 1.) small budget,
nonnational SMOs, 2.) large budget, nonnational SMOs and 3.) national SMOs regardless of
budget.4 I expect to find more cross domain variation in organizational style when holding
movement constant than cross movement variation when holding domain constant. In other
words national peace movement organizations would have more in common
organizationally with the national race/ethnic and women's SMOs studied by Minkoff
(1993) or the Washington, D.C. based SMOs among the groups analyzed by Walker (1992),
than they would with either small or large nonnational peace movement groups. However,
NSM theory expects just the opposite, stylistic uniformity across all NSM domains in
conjunction with significant cross movement differences regardless of domain.

Cross Movement Expectations in Organizational Style 5

Organizational style is a broad concept encompassing the bureaucracy of SMO
structure, the centralization of its governance and the voluntarism or professionalization of
its operating strategy. At least two measures for each of these three aspects of
organizational style will be used in both the cross-movement and through time assessments
of NSM theory.6 Levels of bureaucracy will be assessed by examining the formalization of
group structure and operating procedures. Centralization of power will be assessed by
considering the extent to which recognized leaders control SMO finances and the amount of
rank and file participation in SMO governance. SMO operating strategy is assessed in three
 19

ways, the range of organizational activities in which members participate, the proportion of
members actively involved in doing the work of the group and the extent to which the group
depends upon volunteer activists or paid staff. Specific expectations to be assessed will be
discussed next.
Both the NSM ideological bond and the distinctive organizational style theorized to
flow from it are said to characterize entire new social movement industries (NSMIs). In
other words all NSMOs are expected to exhibit the NSM organizational style. This style is
generally considered to be an innovative and distinctive feature of entire NSMIs. So if
examined during comparable time periods, the mid-1980s, NSMOs should uniformly adhere
to the distinctive NSM organizational style and differ significantly from representative "old-
style" class and status SMOs in the following ways.

Bureaucracy of Structure:
1.) Organizational structure will be less formal in NSMOs than in "old-style" SMOs,
2.) NSMOs will have lower levels of procedural formality than "old-style" SMOs.
Centralization of Governance:
3.) Financial responsibility will be less centralized in NSMOs than in "old-style"
SMOs,
4.) Governance processes will be more participatory in NSMOs than in "old-style"
SMOs.
Operating Strategy:
5.) NSMOs will have higher proportions of their members actively involved in the
group's work than "old-style" SMOs,
6.) NSMOs will be less dependent upon paid staff and more so on volunteer member
labor than "old-style" SMOs.
Like political style, NSM theory treats organizational style as a form of ideologically
structured action that clearly differentiates NSMs from "old-style" class and status
movements. Structured consistently with movement ideology and collective identity, this
distinctive organizational style prefigures the society for which the NSMs struggle and
embodies the social relations they advocate. Organizational style is a key aspect of the NSM
social change strategy and places the organizational aspects of social movements near the
core of NSM theory, rather than on its periphery.7 The next section presents the theoretical
orientation for an analysis of NSM theory expectations regarding the persistence over time
of NSM organizational style. It concludes with the elaboration of specific expectations to be
assessed.

PERSISTENCE OF SMO ORGANIZATIONAL STYLE OVER TIME

As described above, the broad corpus of NSM theory exhibits general agreement
about both the contours and frequency of a distinctive NSM organizational style compared
to "old-style" class and status movements. The situation regarding explanations of the
origins, persistence and transformation of NSM organizational style is less straightforward.
Within the NSM corpus there are three broad explanations of the influence of age and
historical context upon both the frequency and persistence of the NSM organizational style.
Each has been extrapolated from varying NSM theories of movement emergence which
themselves are linked implicitly to divergent broad stroke theorizations of social change.

Excessive Agency and Structure in Meso Level Explanations

To varying degrees all three perspectives utilize the concept of collective identity to
bridge the gap between macro and micro levels of analysis. Collective identity also connects
 20

often abstract, ungrounded theories of NSM emergence with the distinctive political actions
and organizational style of the NSMs. In the first perspective, collective identity is used as a
catchy synonym for shared values and aggregated individual identities. In the second
collective identity is a distant abstraction, generated by macro-social forces and absorbed
directly by individuals. Simply stated, the former leans on individual agency with scant
attention to structural constraints of individual action. By contrast, the latter tends toward a
structural determinism with activists playing roles scripted for their social location by forces
of macro restructuring. These two time-worn explanations of meso-level social phenomena
are treated briefly and somewhat schematically in the next section. Following that a
provisional and reflexive perspective, integrating aspects of the first two with recent
organizational theory is discussed in some detail.

Ideological Agency and Organizational Style

The most common NSM explanation of organizational style follows from the
assumption that it is primarily a reflection of member ideology and shared values. For
example, the ideologically based antipathy of NSM members toward bureaucratic structures,
representational authority, and professionalized operations has been said to make them
immune to the "iron law of oligarchy" developed in Michels' (1959) analysis of Italian
political parties (Gundelach 1988; Kuechler and Dalton 1990). Michels argued that as
political parties, and by extension other political organizations, aged they would become
more bureaucratic and administratively top-heavy. Those with power in the organization
would become increasingly concerned with preserving the group as a means of retaining the
relative privilege and status they derived from their positions within the party. Toward this
end leadership would act to centralize control, marginalize the rank and file, and pacify
group goals in an effort to insure organizational persistence. The shared values and
ideological bond of NSM members are widely considered to thwart the theorized
inevitability of this process. NSM groups are implicitly anthropomorphized and treated like
atomized individuals capable of operating unfettered by the structural constraints and power
relations Michels saw pushing party leaders on an oligarchic trajectory.
This is curious, because NSM analysts explicitly reject conceptions of atomized
individuals unconstrained by social structure, yet implicitly accept that condition when
considering NSM collectivities. NSM theorists often point out that the policies of corporate
and state actors impinge more and more upon the autonomy of individuals. Lifeworlds have
been colonized, individual self-expression constrained, and the pursuit of valued lifestyles
have been inhibited by intrusive corporate and state actors. Though these constraints upon
individual action and the grievances arising from them are widely recognized, member
ideology is often the only factor said to shape the political and organizational styles of NSM
collectivities.
That NSM members actually do share values is routinely taken for granted. That
individuals with divergent values commonly belong to the same voluntary associations is
not seriously considered. Furthermore the relation between the presumed shared values that
activists bring to the task of creating SMOs and the subsequent form of those SMOs is
considered both direct and causal. Inglehart's (1990) work on post-materialist socialization
is typically cited to account for the existence of these values in the first place. Actually
forming the groups and finding a basis for unity despite the diffuse character of the NSM
alliance is taken for granted and not problematized in this approach.8 Adherence to the
NSM organizational style is expected to be proportional to the frequency and saliency of
these values among SMO members.
 21

Structural Determination of Organizational Style

A second approach for explaining the persistence or transformation of SMO forms is
articulated within the broader NSM literature. It stresses that the changes in advanced
industrial societies since 1968, which are said to have generated the NSMs are not merely
conjunctural, but permanent and pervasive (Habermas 1984; Melucci 1989; Touraine 1981;
Inglehart 1992). Consequently, the NSM organizational style is expected to become more
and more prevalent as these macro processes continue. This pervasive and ongoing
restructuring generates new social conflicts, new collective actors, and new collective
identities which unify NSM participants and orient their collective actions amidst the
changing political landscape of advanced capitalist societies (Pizzorno 1978; Touraine 1985;
Melucci 1988). The major concern in this model lies in explaining the origins of the new
conflicts and identities. The mediating social relations and processes by which new terrains
of conflict and new collective identities translate into mobilized collectivities exhibiting
distinctive political and organizational styles are apparently not problematic in this
perspective.
Like the first model, having a "new collective identity" logically precedes NSM
involvement. By locating the origins of collective identity in macro processes of economic
(Touraine 1985) and administrative (Habermas 1984) restructuring, collective identity is
explicitly treated a characteristic of entire, or even multiple NSM industries. Ironically, this
all encompassing and overly abstract formulation reduces collective identity to a rather blunt
and imprecise analytic concept. By nesting collective identity exclusively or even primarily
at the NSM industry or sector level, more fine grained analyses of variation in collective
identity are bracketed by definition. Further if ideology and collective identity are
considered constant across the NSM sector, then neither concept is available to account for
any aspect of intra-NSM variation.
The first of these two models subscribes to what Tilly (1984b) describes as the
"pernicious postulate that mental events cause social behavior" and further that the
aggregation effects of individual actions can adequately explain broad patterns of social
change. The second succumbs to the notion that social change is a coherent phenomenon
driven by a single prime mover (Boudon 1986). In the first model "collective identity" gives
the traditional "hearts and minds" approach to social movements a contemporary cosmetic
makeover. The second uses it in a manner reminiscent of "culture" and "consciousness" in
traditional functionalist and ortho-Marxist analyses respectively. Ironically, neither takes the
"collective" seriously. Neither adequately differentiates between individual activist
identities and a distinct NSM collective identity. Neither grounds collective identity by
embedding it in the ongoing relational context of a specific collectivity. Human agency in
creating, revising and reproducing collective identities within the bounds of specific NSM
collectivities is on the one hand unnecessary, and on the other overshadowed by the
sweeping consequences of macro restructuring.

A Historically Contextualized Approach

An analytically superior alternative conceptualizes collective identity as a human
product, socially constructed from an ongoing process of purposeful interaction within
SMOs and informal mobilizing structures. Movement mobilizing structures are often
preexisting and may not have been formed as direct or overt expressions of a collective
identity. In such cases its own history and traditions carry momentum influencing
organizational style independent of member values. In newly forming SMOs the values and
ideology of founding members could be expected to exert a much greater influence on
organizational style. This influence may well persist despite subsequent turnovers in
 22

leadership and membership. Broader environmental factors, especially political and cultural
contexts, would also exert an influence upon organizational style, but that influence would
be mediated by the agency of those active in the group. Contextual influences would
arguably be most pronounced during founding and a relatively short period following. Not
because SMO leaders become less attuned to them as time goes on, but because the SMO
itself is more malleable until such a time as it has established its own "recipe" for pursuing
desired social change (Walker 1992).
In this more reflexive approach movement mobilizing structures become the meso
level social contexts within which movement collective identities are created, revised and
reproduced. A nuanced and analytically robust conceptualization of collective identity in
conjunction with recent thinking about the transformation and persistence of organizational
forms within specific organizational populations undergirds an understanding of "founding
cohorts" and their impact upon the creation and persistence of a distinctive organizational
style. The next section will examine this in some detail.
In an prescient essay on the interrelations between organizations and social structure,
Stinchcombe (1965) observed systematic and orderly differences in the organizational form
of typical contemporary firms according to the founding period of their respective industries
(143). In "...an attempt to explain on social structural grounds the correlation between the
time in history that a particular type of organization was invented and the social structure of
organizations of that type which exist at the present time" (143), he referred to
"traditionalizing" forces within organizations that work to preserve rather than transform
organizational style over time. Organizational forms and types (for example, SMOs) have a
history which determines some aspects of their present organizational style. Organizational
types invented at a certain time depend upon the "social technology" available at that time
(153ff).
Applying this to SMOs suggests that they are created by groups of activists seeking
either to engender social change or to protect valued aspects of life from perceived threats.
Attentive to the broader social and political context, SMO founders craft organizations to fit
their perceptions of the existing political and cultural opportunities for collective action.
The particular blend of resonant issues, preferred tactics and political opportunities
characteristic of the period in which an SMO was founded and subsequently established a
niche for itself will substantially influence its founding organizational style. The implication
of this is that the current style of particular SMOs will be due in part to the impact of the
political and cultural context of the period during which they were founded and became
established.

Dynamics of SMO Transformation

Recent literature on both social movements and other organizational populations
contain three broad expectations for how environmental factors would affect the
transformation of SMOs over time (Powell and Friedkin 1987; Aldrich and Marsden 1988).
Despite significant differences, both the strategic adaptability and neo-institutional
perspectives (Powell & DiMaggio 1992) see organizational populations change as large
numbers of groups adapt to shifting conditions. By framing the problem of organizational
transformation as one of self-conscious strategic adaptation for the former and a more tacit,
mimetic adaptation for the latter, both perspectives emphasize internal organizational
characteristics thought to influence adaptive capacity. By contrast, population ecologists
argue that once founded and established organizations remain rather inert, with at best
limited adaptive capabilities (Hannan and Freeman 1989). Framed as a problem of
selection, ecological explanations of organizational transformation concentrate upon
 23

environmental changes that favor certain kinds of groups over others. Transformations in
SMO populations occur as existing groups are replaced by newly founded ones whose
forms, strategies or tactical repertoires are effective or innovative by comparison.
Substantive transformations of individual groups are, in this view, less frequent and more
problematic than conventional wisdom suggests.
Strategic Adaptability and SMO Style
An unquestioned presumption of strategic adaptability among SMOs implies that,
given necessary resources, SMOs are routinely capable of transforming themselves amidst
shifting political and cultural opportunities in order to more effectively pursue desired social
change. The early RM emphasis upon management, external funding, and especially
professionalized SMO forms resonates with a presumption of strategic adaptability. The
image of SMO leaders weighing various courses of action and choosing the one that seems
an effective or efficient way to achieve goals and adapting the SMO accordingly fits as well.
Variable access to appropriate resources --whether timely and accurate information, savvy
leadership, efficient organizations, finances or mobilized constituents able to boycott, protest
or otherwise get the message out-- are key explanatory variables.
At this point it is worth noting that NSM theorists generally make the same
presumption of strategic adaptability. In other words, NSM organizations are treated as
equally malleable to activist efforts to alter their form. Only the activist goals, values, and
social change strategies presumed to shape SMO style diverge from early RM theory on this
point. Though strategic adaptability still dominates mainstream organizational theory
(Aldrich and Marsden 1988; Scott 1992) recent developments in institutional analysis of
organizations suggest very different dynamics of SMO transformation (Meyer and Rowan
1977; Powell and DiMaggio, eds. 1992).

Neo-institutionalism and SMO Style

Institutional theories of organizations stress a different dynamic behind
organizational persistence and transformation. Rather than conceptualize and create an
organizational structure from scratch, SMO founders would tend to mimic the form and
operations of culturally available and legitimate templates for how to be a particular type of
group. If for example, they were founding a nuclear freeze group in the early 1980s, they
would probably fashion the style of the PMO after existing freeze groups, or some other
SMO that founders had prior experience with. This mimetic process is usually considered to
exert a conservatizing influence, leading to increased uniformity within sectors and an
overall conformity with organizational styles deemed legitimate by a mainstream hegemony
(DiMaggio and Powell 1983). Other possibilities exist.
Specific organizational trajectories would depend upon the historical context of
founding and whether an SMO aligns itself with radical, counter-cultural or reformist
constituencies. SMOs emerging during surges of protest mobilization may establish
themselves around an oppositional template of SMO form legitimated by a movement-based
"counter-hegemony" (Gramsci 1971). For example, the internal structure and governance of
some movement organizations are oriented around egalitarian and non-hierarchical
templates (Gundelach 1988; Lash and Urry 1987) which are marginal to mainstream society,
but highly legitimate within a specific movement community. Such a counter legitimacy
may well be both more resonant and more influential during a cycle of protest or when a
movement was surging than it would be in times of demobilization or abeyance.
Hannan and Freeman (1984) argue convincingly that over time organizational forms
tend toward inertia rather than self-conscious, incremental adaptation. In the same vein
 24

Stinchcombe (168ff) suggests that organizational forms persist over time because they are
effective and become institutionalized through an intra-organizational process of
"traditionalizing." He further points out that this does not necessarily lead to an
isomorphism of conventional strategic efficiency. Loosely coupled organizational systems
with manifest "inefficiencies" and a poor track record in achieving stated goals, like school
systems, persist, or even expand, because of widespread perceptions of their legitimacy
(Weick 1976; Meyer and Rowan 1977). In an even more loosely coupled organizational
sector SMOs with various "inefficiencies" like consensus decision making (Downey 1986;
Holsworth 1989; Epstein 1990) or indirect goal attainment strategies (Edwards and Marullo
1994) persist because they are legitimated by oppositional sectors of society. They retain
support in part by effectively working to reproduce those sectors, despite frequent failure to
achieve stated political or social change goals. Such variations within the social movement
sector can be linked to a founding cohort effect which is influenced by both the broader
context of the period during which a group was founded and the specific relations
embedding it in that context.

Collective Identity, Political Context and SMO Founding Cohort

Tarrow (1989) has argued implicitly that just such a founding cohort effect explains
the preference for a particular organizational style among the NSMs. Cohorts of SMOs
founded within the same socio-political context and oriented toward comparable movement
subcultures may well adopt a distinctive organizational style. SMO ability to retain that
style will depend upon the durability of the supporting constituency legitimating it and the
SMOs ability to retain the legitimacy of that sector. The persistence of a specific SMO style
will also be related to the production, through an intra-organizational "traditionalizing"
process, of a resonant collective identity. Though subject to revision an organizationally
based collective identity provides a cognitive ballast capable of orienting an SMO's course
through personnel turnovers amidst ever changing organizational, social, political and
cultural context.

Collective Identity in Social Movements

By conceptualizing collective identity more as a product than precursor of social
movement involvement, Melucci (1988) and Klandermans (1992) provide an elaboration of
what have been called "traditionalizing" processes in the preceding discussion. Because
members of contemporary European movements do not share a common identity based on
either class or social location (Kriesi 1989), the creation and reproduction of a collective
identity is said to be a critically important task of the NSMs (Melucci 1989). Within the
NSM literature SMOs are considered to be the "free spaces" (Evans and Boyte 1986) within
which this process happens (Cohen 1985). Nonetheless collective identity formation is most
often treated exclusively as a broader feature of entire movements or even multiple
movements.
Melucci (1988), however, stresses the social construction of collective identity through
an ongoing process of interaction, negotiation and conflict. Such relational processes are
most often embedded within SMOs and other less formalized movement mobilizing
structures. Collective identity is internal to mobilizing structures and individuals that
partake of one reconstitute their individual identities, to some degree, around this new and
valued collective identity (Friedman and McAdam 1992). SMO collective identities are an
underlying and largely taken for granted core framework of codes, classifications and habits
that orient everyday forms of activism. What Gamson (1992) calls "condensing symbols"
such as "green," "feminist," "Christian," "gay" or "pacifist" often expresses, in shorthand
 25

form, the core elements of a collective identity despite wide intra-movement variation in
specific interpretations.
Collective identities produced within movements change over time and if successful
enter the public realm becoming available in some form to those outside a particular
organization or movement (Friedman and McAdam 1992). However, Taylor and Whittier
(1992) contend that collective identities must be oppositional in order to sustain social
movements. Once available to a wider public their "oppositional" character is lost. They
argue for example that by the early 1980s a collective "feminist" identity had entered the
mainstream of American society with a large number of non-oppositional women taking it
as their own and its significance for the movement declined accordingly. By contrast the
enduring oppositional character of lesbian feminism has, more or less by default, become the
core oppositional collective identity of the U.S. women's movement since the late 1980s
(Taylor and Whittier 1992). Collective identity is not a characteristic of whole movements,
much less "families" of movements. Rather than a movement level characteristic, collective
identity is socially constructed by participants and most often nested within SMOs which
constitute the relational boundries that orient collective interaction among activists.
Activists do not become involved in movements in isolation and seclusion, but in the
context of SMO's, friendship networks and other informal mobilizing structures of a social
movement community (Buechler 1990). As a result collective identity is nested variably
within oppositional or reformist movement collectivities and varies within movements.
Despite commonalities, what it means to be a peace activist is not the same in
SANE/FREEZE (now Peace Action), the War Resisters League and the Baptist Peace
Fellowship. Considered within a national context the anarchist War Resisters League is
clearly more oppositional than either Peace Action or the Baptist Peace Fellowship despite
comparability in their broad critiques of U.S. foreign and military policies. However, when
contextualized within the recent fundamentalist ascendancy in several Baptist
denominations, the BPF too is an oppositional collectivity. A collective identity nested
within the BPF would be at once "oppositional" within church politics and "moderate" or
"reformist" within the wider U.S. peace movement industry.
Collective identity can fruitfully be considered an organizational level characteristic
that provides an underlying and largely taken for granted cognitive basis for assessing
political and organizational environments and for calculating the costs and benefits of
various collective action (Melucci 1988:343). But even in this more nuanced formulation its
meaning and significance can be expected to vary according to the national, movement or
institutional interpretative context within which it is considered.

Founding Cohort and SMO Organizational Style

The conceptualization of SMO founding cohort to be explored in this research rests
on three components of the preceding discussion, the impact of period specific
environmental context on founding organizational style, the possibility of inertia in
organizational form despite mimetic pressures toward institutional isomorphism, and the
development of an organizationally based collective identity. Assessing the environmental
context of SMO founding requires consideration of the broader socio-political context, the
immediate movement structures from which the new SMO came, the careers of founders,
and the social sector or constituency supporting it. The interplay between inertia of
individual organizations within a context of increasing bureaucratic isomorphism in
organizational populations must also be considered. Once established an SMO's form will
tend toward inertia. Changes will typically be mimetic and gradual. Environmental
pressures toward more and more rationalized forms will be constant and the persistence of
 26

alternative organizational styles is possible only under certain conditions; namely counter-
legitimacy from an enduring and supportive constituency and an SMO collective identity
capable of orienting SMO actions in ways considered legitimate by its non-mainstream
constituency.
Counter-hegemonic organizational templates may gain particular currency during
movement surges as lots of new SMOs are forming and innovations in political and
organizational style are more common. SMOs founded during a mobilization surge often
define their organizational and tactical preference in contrast to more established SMOs
within their same SMI. For example, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee
consciously wanted to be a different kind of civil rights organization than the NAACP or the
Southern Christian Leadership Council (Carson 1984). The "new left" and women's
liberation organizational style contrasted sharply from that of the "old left" and women's
rights respectively (Isserman 1987; Freeman 1975). More recently radical environmental
organizations, like Earth First! and Rainforest Action, contrast with mainstream
environmental groups (Scarce 1992). Similarly, the Aids Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT
UP) differs in organizational and political style from more conventional groups like the Gay
Men's Health Alliance. These innovative SMOs were all founded during mobilization
surges of their respective SMIs.
SMO organizational and tactical innovations are more common during mobilization
surges (McAdam 1983). SMOs founded later in the mobilization surge would likely mimic
the form and style of the innovative and cutting edge groups that formed during early stages
of the surge. The interaction between increased foundings, heightened mobilization, more
open conflict with opponents, and increased solidarity would produce a distinct, period
specific template of organizational and political style. That template would gain currency,
or counter-legitimacy among constituencies participating in the mobilization surge.
As the mobilization surge receded the imprint of a counter legitimate SMO template
would be remain on a specific cohort of SMOs. The template would then be carried by
activists to subsequently founded SMOs. Yet over time SMO founders would become more
attuned to changed political and environmental contexts and orient newly founded SMOs
accordingly. SMOs founded during periods of movement decline or those with less radical
goals may worry more about mainstream legitimacy and adopt more conventional
organizational and political styles. Once founded that way they too would likely retain that
style even through a subsequent mobilization surge.
Cohorts of American peace movement organizations likely bear the imprint of the
collective action frames, tactical repertoires, preferred social change strategies and resonant
issues dominant during the period in which they were founded and became established.
Since WWII the U.S. peace movement has been dominated by steady anti-Cold War
activities punctuated by mobilization surges during Cold War "offensives" in Vietnam,
Central America or the deployment of missiles in Western Europe (Kleidman 1993).
Specific PMO cohorts establishing their founding identity amidst anti-war mobilizations
likely vary in how they orient their peacemaking efforts within the broader peace movement
community when compared to those founded during peacetime campaigns. Similarly groups
founded to oppose US involvement in Vietnam, during the height of a cycle of protest that
saw numerous movements mobilizing at once are likely to retain more radical and counter-
cultural orientation than those founded prior to that period. By the same token peace groups
founded during the peace movement abeyance of the 1970s when peace action focused on
improving US-USSR relations and negotiating arms control agreements probably adopted
more conventionally legitimate organizational templates than groups still active in the 1980s
that dated to the Vietnam War era.
 27

This reflexive perspective theorizes a complex interaction between environmental

and intra-organizational processes. This contrasts with both the "hearts and minds" and
macro-deterministic perspectives which portray rather simple and direct causes of
organizational style. This provisional theorization expects that SMOs founded during
distinct movement contexts will differ from one another and that these cohort differences
would persist over time. Culturally innovative and distinct organizational styles associated
with particular founding cohorts would also persist in concert with an enduring counter-
hegemonic constituency. The carrying capacity of a persistent oppositional sector will likely
wax and wane over time and support for movement activities will likely flow to SMOs
accorded greater legitimacy by specific non-mainstream constituencies. The ongoing social
construction of an SMO-based collective identity resonant with that of supportive
oppositional constituencies will be a key factor in explaining which SMOs retain support for
their innovative or distinct political or organizational styles.

Expectations of Persistence in NSMO Organizational Style 9

Three broad explanations for the persistence of NSMO organizational style through
time have been presented above. The first, characterized as a values driven perspective,
considers organizational style to be a reflection of preexisting member values and ideology.
The second, structural determination model, treats NSMO organizational style as an artifact
the macro-economic restructuring typical of advanced capitalism and the shift to a post-
industrial social base. The third, a provisional and more reflexive perspective, outlined
specific environmental and organizational conditions in which an innovative and counter-
hegemonic organizational style, like the NSM style, could persist over time despite various
pressures toward isomorphism.

Expectations of a Values Driven Perspective

The expectations of the values driven perspective are the most explicitly stated by
NSM theorists. NSMOs are said to be exceptions to the "iron law of oligarchy." Because of
the NSM collective identity and ideology, NSMOs will resist pressures toward goals
displacement and the adoption of a more bureaucratic, centralized and professionalized
organizational style. This expectation is two fold.
1.) NSMO age should be unrelated to all indicators of organizational style.
Chronologically older NSMOs should not be any more bureaucratic,
centralized or professionalized than recently founded NSMOs.
2.) By contrast, among "old-style" SMOs, age should be positively related to greater
bureaucracy, centralization and professionalization.10

Expectations of a Structurally Determined Perspective

The expectations of the structural determination model are not as straight forward.
The ongoing shift to a "post-industrial" social base continues to transform the economic
base, class structure and political relations of advanced capitalist societies. Consequently
the effect of restructuring on NSM organizational style is becoming stronger and more
pervasive. This implies related expectations regarding the persistence of NSM
organizational style.
1.) Much of the social upheaval of 1968 has been linked by NSM theorists to the
effects of the shift to post-industrial society. The late 1960s to early 1970s
constitute a hinge of history for NSM theory. NSMOs founded during or
since that time would be expected to exhibit the NSM organizational style
more thoroughly than NSMOs founded prior to that time.
 28

2.) Because the restructuring is ongoing its effects are becoming more and more
pronounced. The chronologically youngest NSMOs, those most influenced
by the restructuring, should exhibit the distinctive NSM style more
thoroughly than chronologically older NSMOs. In other words, NSMO age
should be negatively related to fitting the NSM organizational style, even
among groups founded since the 1960s.
3.) The previous expectation matches the broad expectations of the "iron law of
oligarchy." However, the existence of a high proportion of young NSMOs
founded bureaucratic, centralized, and professionalized would be contradict
NSM theory. Consequently the youngest, most recently founded NSMOs
should fit the NSM style with few exceptions.

Expectations of a Reflexive Perspective

The third, reflexive theory, of the persistence of NSM organizational style is
provisional and the rigorous assessment of hypotheses associated with it is beyond the scope
of this research.11 However, several expectations can be explored to determine if it warrants
more rigorous investigation in subsequent research. A founding cohort effect resulting in
part from contextual features unique to the cycle of protest during the 1960s would only be
expected to characterize SMOs founded during that period. So if aspects of NSM
organizational style are rooted in a 1960s cohort effect several expectations follow.
1.) SMOs founded during that period would be expected to differ in organizational
style from SMOs of older cohorts.
2.) Because the cohort effect is unique to the founding period and not ongoing and
pervasive, SMOs founded during the period would differ from those of
younger cohorts.
3). Subsequent historical contexts would be related to their own cohort effects with a
differing impact upon SMO organizational style.

The preceding section has examined the ways NSM theory expects organizational
style to vary over time and the varying ways each conceptualizes collective identity. In two
of these, meso-level social processes are for all practical purposes ignored and neither
adequately considers micro-macro linkage structures. Neither conceptualizes collective
identity in an analytically useful way because both treat it independently of grounded social
collectivities. By contrast, a third strand of NSM analysis emphasizing collective identity as
the product of, not precursor to, NSM involvement was discussed. This nuanced
conceptualization of collective identity is necessary for explaining variations in SMO
organizational style over time, but by itself is not sufficient. It was therefore integrated with
recent theory on organizational transformations and the potential impact of SMO founding
cohorts was suggested. A provisional meso-theory was sketched.

CHAPTER SUMMARY
This chapter reviewed the diverse research literature pertinent to the assessment of
NSM theory to be undertaken in this research. The chapter was divided into four major
sections. The first two sections introduced recent European research on the "new" social
movements by reviewing explanations of their origins and emergence, as well as,
explanations and descriptions of their theorized distinctiveness compared to other types of
social movements. The third major section derives hypotheses regarding cross movement
differences in organizational style between "new" and "old" social movements. The final
section of the chapter reviewed three ways to explain the persistence of organizational style
 29

among NSM groups and concluded by deriving hypotheses from each one. Each major
section of the chapter will be summarized briefly.
A broad range of recent European research on social movements and social change is
commonly referred to as new social movements theory. A reading of this body of work
reveals that it embodies a variety of explanations of the origins, distinctiveness and impact
of the NSMs. NSM theorists are unified by a common assessment of the socio-cultural
significance of an extended "family" of contemporary social movements. The relative
consensus among NSM theorists regarding what distinguishes "new" from "old" movements
is directly related to this unifying assessment. The first section of this chapter drew widely
from NSM writings to synthesize the dynamics of emergence, persistence and social change
typical of the range of NSM theorizing. By different theoretical paths, NSM theorists
generally identify the new middle class as the core NSM constituency whose ideology and/or
social location explain NSM distinctiveness. This core NSM constituency was described as
a diffuse social alliance.
The second major section of the chapter provided a detailed description of this new
middle class alliance and what NSM theorists consider distinctive about it. The NSM
alliance is often said to be unified by a bond of shared ideology and values. The contours of
this distinctive ideology and its relationship to NSM political and organizational style were
presented. NSM organizational style is most often treated as a form of ideologically
structured action and is also widely considered to be one of the more important social
innovations of the NSMs. Consequently, theorized differences in organizational style
between "new" and "old" social movement organizations represent a central claim among
NSM theorists.
The third and fourth sections of the chapter derive specific empirical tests of NSM
theory from what NSM theorists consistently imply, but seldom specify about the
distinctiveness of the NSM organizational style and its persistence over time. NSM theorists
make quite clear what they consider the distinctive contours of the NSM organizational style
in contrast to that of "old" class and status movements. However, they do so without
empirical specificity. The third section discusses this imprecision in some detail. The
concept of social movement organizational domain was introduced to help specify expected
cross-movement differences in levels of bureaucracy, centralization of power and operating
strategy between "new" and "old" movement organizations. It concluded by specifying six
verifiable hypotheses of NSM theory to be tested in chapter 5.
The final section of this chapter provided the theoretical context and hypotheses for
an analysis of the persistence of the NSM organizational style over time. The NSM
literature has said comparatively little about how the NSMs are expected to change over
time. By integrating what NSM theorists have said about this with what is clearly implied
by their various explanations of NSM emergence, I have described two analytical
perspectives typical of much NSM theorizing. I have labeled them "values driven" and
"structurally determined" perspectives. The former treats organizational style as a direct
reflection of the values and ideology of NSM members. In the second both the ideology and
organizational style of the NSMs is said to be generated directly by permanent and pervasive
processes of macro restructuring currently underway in advanced capitalist societies. I also
elaborated an alternative perspective that depends on the concept of "founding cohorts."
This final section concluded by discussing eight hypotheses derived from these three
explanations of variations in NSMO organizational style over time.
 30

Notes for Chapter 2

1. The NSM literature, like its US counterpart, has disproportionately attended to questions
of movement origins. Until recently theorizations of social movement persistence on both
sides of the Atlantic have tended to be extensions of the dynamics of emergence implying
that movement demobilization and persistence were simply the converse of mobilization
and emergence. This seems to be changing in the last few years as researchers have been
examining questions of movement continuity, persistence, and reproduction during periods
of abeyance and demobilization (see Rupp & Taylor 1987; Minkoff 1993; Lofland and
Marullo 1993; Edwards & Marullo 1994).

2. According to Rucht (1990) this characterization may impute too much strategic
rationality to some exclusively identity oriented and expressive NSM actions which seem to
have no strategy at all.

3. There are several reasons for this and they are discussed in the concluding chapter of this
dissertation.

4. Transnational SMOs which operate in several nation-states simultaneously would

constitute a fourth domain of SMOs. For an analysis of expansion in the transnational
domain during the 1980s see Smith (1994). For a definitional analysis differentiating
transnational SMOs from nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and international NGOs
see Smith, Pagnucco and Romeril (1993).

5. The analysis of these expectations is undertaken in chapter 5.

6. Specific measures operationalizing the three key dimensions of organizational style will
be developed in chapter 4 below. A brief review of how these concepts have been
operationalized in prior social movements research will presented in chapter 4 as well.

7. The concluding chapter of this dissertation develops this argument more fully.

8. Among NSM theorists, Melucci (1989) is the strongest dissenter from this position.
Precisely because of this problematic, he contends that the construction of a unifying
collective identity which logically follows involvement is the crucial task confronting the
NSMs.

9. The analysis of these expectations is undertaken in chapter 6.

10. Clearly this is a cross-movement expectation of NSM theory, but it seemed appropriate
to discuss it in this context.

11. The limitations of this research, especially those related to the "left censoring" of its
design, arise from attempting to ascertain features of a founding cohort by examining only
its surviving members at single point in time subsequent to their period of founding. This is
discussed further in chapter 6.
 CHAPTER 7
THEORETICAL RECAPITULATION:
AMERICAN AND EUROPEAN SOCIAL MOVEMENT THEORY

INTRODUCTION

The two preceding chapters have systematically examined central claims of NSM
theory regarding cross-movement and age related variations in the organizational style of
SMOs. The results presented and discussed have cast much doubt over the utility of NSM
theory as an explanation of the distinctiveness and, by implication, the emergence of the
"new" social movements. The clear indication here is that NSM theory greatly
oversimplifies the dynamics underlying the distribution, persistence, or transformation of
SMO forms. SMO domain, regardless of the social movement industry to which it belongs,
is a far better predictor of organizational style than the systematic movement level
differences expected by NSM theory. Furthermore, among NSM organizations founding
cohorts offer a more promising analytical model for understanding variations and
persistence of SMO forms over time than the macro restructuring processes posited by NSM
theory.
Some readers may be surprised by these results and raise reasonable questions about
the design of this research, my representation of NSM theory or my use of resource
mobilization analytical categories. At several points along the way I have discussed
precautions taken to design a rather conservative assessment of NSM theory and this chapter
will not take up that issue again. Instead the theoretical working assumptions undergirding
my portrayal of NSM theory and my use of a resource mobilization perspective to assess
some of its central claims will be discussed. First I argue that despite clear differences
between the explicit emphases of NSM and resource mobilization theories, social movement
organizations (and civil society) are integral to both. Consequently using the NSM
organization as unit of analysis is both appropriate and necessary for a systematic, empirical
assessment of NSM theory. The chapter concludes by discussing the contribution of this
research to recent debates about the novelty of the NSMs.

COMPLEMENTARY EMPHASES IN NSM AND RM THEORY

In chapter 1, I stated that this dissertation would not fit within a strand of social
movements meta theorizing that has offered thorough, but rather abstracted syntheses or
critical appraisals of recent social movement theories. However, my use of a resource
mobilization analytical framework to approach an assessment of NSM theory has
precipitated a more modest type of working synthesis. The point of this working synthesis is
not to merge the two theories, but to accurately translate core concerns of one into the
analytical categories of the other. In this process I have identified several ways in which
explicit concerns of one framework (RM) complement implicit problematics of the other
(NSM). For example I contend below that SMOs and SMO level analysis are actually core
issues in NSM theory despite the scant attention paid to them by most NSM theorists.
Indeed this entire assessment of NSM theory hangs on that point. In this section I outline
this working synthesis because it helps clarify some ambiguities in this dialogue and raises
fruitful questions.
Contemporary social movement theories are, at root, meso-level theories of social
change, yet they are commonly compared, criticized or even synthesized without
consideration of the implicit theorizations of social change in which they are embedded.
Conflicting perspectives on the reflexive relationship between social movements and social

31
 32

change underlies much debate over social movement theory generally. To paraphrase
Boudon (1986:21) social movement theories take for granted that, in the range of variables
that can in theory be used to analyze social movements, certain sub-ranges are more relevant
than others. That these assumptions often remain implicit, are seldom formulated as
verifiable and nomothetic statements, and are frequently debated without benefit of either
comparative or systematic data has been a source of confusion in both North American and
European social movements literature.
In an influential essay, Cohen (1985) contrasted the identity orientation of NSM
theory with the strategic orientation of RM theory portraying the two as rather incompatible.
Her portrayal accurately represents the range of variables explicitly emphasized by both
theories, but the complementarity of their implicit, but core, concerns is generally
overlooked. The defining problematic of RM theory focuses on how constituencies desiring
social change mobilize effectively to pursue it. RM theory tends to take for granted the
preexistence of social change constituencies as well as the civil society infrastructures and
collective identities that often bound them.
By contrast the predominant problematic of NSM theory focuses on the origins,
integration and reproduction of such social change constituencies. Organizational dynamics
have most often been treated as reflections of NSM collective identities or as "action spaces"
within which alternative lifestyles can be developed and pursued. Historically oriented
movement analysts have been criticized for under valuing these social or cultural collective
actions and imposing a "political reductionism" on the NSMs. Each theory considers
problematic what the other takes for granted, while taking for granted what the other
considers problematic. Yet, identity is arguably as important for RM theory as strategy is for
NSM theory, while the converse is true regarding civil society and the polity.

Civil Society Infrastructures and Identities in RM Theory

In the mid-1970s RM theory reoriented social movement analysis by taking the
analytical insights of organizational sociology and extending them by analogy to
movements.1 Organizational dynamics, especially of SMOs, became an explicit focus of
U.S. social movement analysis. Because of the timing of this analytical borrowing, RM
theory also imported the then dominant organizational theory perception of strategic
adaptability among organizations. Despite watershed differences in goals and motivations,
SMOs were considered to share bounded rationality and strategic adaptability with both state
and market organizations. Divergence in goals and motivations, not "irrationality" or
"deviance," distinguished SMOs from other collective actors (Zald and Ash 1966). Social
movement industries and SMOs also diverge from market or polity based collective actors
by their structural location in civil society.
As a staging ground for citizen challenges to the status quo, civil society plays an
important though often implicit role in RM analysis. RM theory presumes that the polity is
generally unresponsive to the concerns of average citizens with prevailing power relations
systematically constraining their access to it. Consequently, social movements, largely
through the agency of SMOs, practice "politics by other means" in order to gain desired
social change. Movement politics are typically based in civil society which functions as a
beach head from which movements challenge state and economic entities (Tilly 1978).
RM analysts have explicitly emphasized the strategic utility of preexisting civil
infrastructures and collective identities in explanations of movement emergence (Oberschall
1973, 1993; McAdam 1983; Morris 1984). The varying forms and co-optability of
preexisting civil infrastructures have also been linked to differing rates of movement
mobilization (McCarthy 1987). However, explicit RM analytic treatments of such civil
 33

society resources have typically concentrated on the cooptation by movements of preexisting

religious, civic, ethnic, occupational and educational infrastructures.2 Their substantive and
analytic importance in RM theory has been overshadowed by disproportionate analytical
attention to problematics of SMO agency and political efficacy. However, the production,
maintenance and reproduction of such civil society resources are more central to RM theory
than the amount of explicit attention they have received suggests.3

Organizational Centrality in NSM Theory

By contrast the production, maintenance and reproduction of "action spaces" and
movement based collective identities is the predominant problematic of NSM theory (Cohen
and Arato 1993). However, the social change strategy said to characterize the NSMs makes
organizational dynamics, especially organizational style, a core concern for NSM theory.
The NSM organizations claim a prophetic role on the political stage. "As prophets without
enchantment contemporary movements practice in the present the change they are struggling
for: they redefine the meaning of social action for the whole society" (Melucci 1984:830).
This part requires confronting the public at large with situations deemed by the NSMs to be
detrimental to all, while offering their individual lifestyles and organizational style of their
groups as a solution. NSM organizations must express the distinct values and culture of
their base and reflect in microcosm the social change they desire. In essence their structure,
operations, and internal relations validate broader NSM claims about being able to produce
the social changes they desire (Offe 1985a).
NSM organizations are often considered to be ends in themselves, even more so than
instrumental means for attaining specific goals (Melucci 1985; Donati 1984; Sassoon 1984;
Gundelach 1984). NSM organizational form is considered a political message, a symbolic
challenge to dominant social patterns (Melucci 1984:830). Following McLuhan (1964)
many NSM analysts contend that NSM organizations are simultaneously the means and
message of social change. NSMs are said to value form over function, process over
outcome. NSM theorists explicitly connect a fusion of means and ends with the
politicization of personal relations. Though seldom stated explicitly, this fusion applies just
as forcefully to NSM organizational relations and dynamics. The organizational style of
NSMOs is, by clear implication, just as central to NSM theory as the life styles of NSM
participants.
Among NSM theorists Melucci (1984, 1994) has argued most forcefully that SMOs
should be placed near the center of NSM analysis. The combined effect of NSM values,
ideology and social change strategy locates organizational style near the center of the NSM
agenda, making the SMO a critical analytical level which cannot be ignored (Melucci
1984:821-22). The way movement collective actors socially construct their action, action
spaces, and mobilizing structures, both formal and informal, is the concrete link between
their orientations and the systemic opportunities and constraints within which they struggle
(Melucci 1984; Donati 1984).

SMOs AS ORGANIZATIONS IN EUROPEAN AND AMERICAN RESEARCH

So, if organizational dynamics are as integral to NSM theory, as Melucci contends,
and NSMO level analysis should not be ignored, why has NSM research paid so little
empirical attention to either? A similar question could just as well be posed about the North
American situation. Why, despite twenty years of resource mobilization theory, is the lack
of systematic, empirical analysis of the organizational diversity within and across SMIs still
an ironic weakness in the literature? On both sides of the Atlantic SMO organizational
forms are still most frequently portrayed as contrasting ideal types -- formal versus informal,
 34

bureaucratic versus collectivist, centralized versus decentralized, professionalized versus

grassroots -- often with little sensitivity to the variety and range of organizational style
within a given SMI.
Three factors help account for this gap and highlight how the present research has
helped to close it. First, NSM theorists, generally, have not maintained a clear distinction
between the cultural significance of the NSMs and their historical predominance. The
tremendous significance attributed to the NSMs has all too often been equated with
empirical frequency. Further, some analysts have blurred distinctions between movement
participants and conscience constituents implying that those who adhere to a post-materialist
value orientation are actual, rather than potential, NSM adherents and supporters.
This problem is compounded when the NSMs are treated as a social vanguard whose
long term socio-cultural significance is considered to far outweigh any lack of short-term
social change impact (Milbrath 1984; Dalton 1994). To the extent analysts accept that
prophetic NSM actions can "redefine the meaning of social action for the whole society," the
most important NSM groups will be those on the cutting edge of contemporary social
conflicts. However, such cutting edge groups are both more likely to fit the theoretical
expectations of NSM analysts and more likely to be researched. This implicit dual selection
bias makes general descriptions of entire movement industries based on limited numbers of
cutting edge cases more likely. The disproportionate attention of RM analysis to national
SMOs evidences a similar selection bias. In this case, the characteristic features of one
SMO domain have skewed general perceptions of the substantially more numerous groups in
the other two domains (Edwards 1994).
Second, the causal role attributed to movement ideology facilitates a blending of
normative and empirical arguments. Analysts who presume that organizational style directly
reflects activist ideology, are less likely to consider problematic ironic disjunctures between
an SMO's organizational style and the stated ideological preference of its leaders and
members. Similarly, predominant SMO forms, social change strategies or tactics may not be
the most politically efficacious, and those that are may contradict the normative preferences
of some activists and analysts.
Third, analytic models of organizational transformation and style deduced from
either movement ideology or grand social theory have often been treated as literal
descriptions rather than ideal types. NSM theorists have often continued this practice, but
they hardly invented it. Early analyses of SMOs, especially from a "natural history/life
cycle" perspective on social movements, favored deductive descriptions of ideal types and
inexorable trajectories of SMO development. Whether by routinized charisma or inevitable
oligarchy, the longer an SMO existed the less conflictual its relations with mainstream
society would become. To the extent that this characterization is accurate, SMO analyses
were constrained by theoretical commitments which saw SMOs as either too rational for
"irrational" protesters, or too formalized for radical action, or just a fleeting weigh station on
the road to integration (an early exception is Zald and Ash, 1966).
In the case of feminist organizations, Martin (1990) critiques deductive, ideal typic
formulations that marginalize numerous organizational forms created by feminists and
serving feminist goals because they fail to conform to an idealized conception of "feminist
organizations." In addition to illuminating the constraints of both ideologically driven or
purely deductive analytic orientations, Martin's analysis suggests a more structural constraint
hindering much SMO analysis. It originates in a simple lack of data from which the range
and frequency of SMO forms could even be described much less compared across
movements or through time. The organizational aspects of social movements on both sides
of the Atlantic are currently so "over theorized" relative to systematic data available that one
 35

could meaningfully contribute to movement theorizing simply by presenting a nationally

representative description of a population of SMOs.4

CONTRIBUTION TO RECENT DEBATES OVER THE NSMs

The academic debate over the "newness" of the NSMs and analytical utility of NSM
theory has become increasingly reified and ideological. In a recent essay Melucci contends
that as long as this debate fails to specify the distinctive features of the NSMs it will remain
an arid back and forth between supporters and critics of "newness" (1994). This research
has advanced this debate in three ways.
First, the unique cross-movement data assembled here is, to my knowledge,
unprecedented in social movements research and bears precisely on persistent features of
this debate. Framing this research in operational terms and deriving testable hypotheses
from the corpus of NSM writings was not as simple and straight forward a task as I first
imagined. Consequently the specification of verifiable hypotheses regarding cross-
movement variations in organizational style between "new" and "old" social movements
proved a necessary risk. Deriving testable propositions from what NSM theorists
consistently imply, but seldom specifically state, requires going out on a limb and becoming
vulnerable to various disingenuous criticisms. For example, the expectations I derive from
NSM theory regarding persistence of SMO forms over time could be assailed for an
"obvious failure to grasp the significance of macro-restructuring," without the critic ever
having to demonstrate a single direct connection between restructuring and meso-level
social movement dynamics.
Second, with some trepidation I have imposed a degree of empirical precision upon
NSM theory in order to operationalize features considered distinctive to the NSMs. In part
of chapter two I went to some length to discuss the empirical imprecision characteristic of
NSM theory generally and its portrayal of the distinctiveness of both NSM political and
organizational style in particular. Broad social processes said to be generating the NSMs as
well as NSM ideology and social critique receive extensive treatment in the literature
compared to either organizational or political style. This imprecision is exacerbated by the
frequent elasticity of the term "the new social movements." On occasion this refers to
specific groups, entire movements or an interrelated set of movements all in the same article.
Finally, movement theorists like Alberto Melucci and Jean Cohen have accused
analysts like Charles Tilly or Sidney Tarrow of political reductionism in their assessment
and critique of NSM theory. By concentrating on measurable aspects of social movement
impact upon and relations with the polity such analytical perspectives are said to suffer from
a "myopia of the visible." They are said to ignore social and cultural dimensions of
collective action considered so significant to the NSMs. By ignoring these other "modalities
of conflict" politically reductionistic critiques devalue efforts by the NSMs to effect social
change through the production of cultural codes and the symbolic challenge to the dominant
social logic. "This kind of reductionism eliminates from the field of scientific inquiry the
question of the appearance of a new paradigm of collective action. This question disappears
from the scene without any detailed or well-argued answer in the negative (Melucci 1994:
107)."
In this research I have taken these concerns seriously and designed this assessment to
provide the empirical leverage needed to respond to Melucci's rhetorical gauntlet.
According to Melucci the features of the NSMs that render most visible their challenge to
the system are organizational structure and internal power relations based on direct
participation without conscious regard to political effectiveness. The concept of
organizational style developed in this research has operationalized precisely the features of
 36

organizational structure, centralization of power and participation in operations identified by

Melucci as most appropriate for the task at hand. By focusing on the organizational rather
than political style of the NSMs this assessment is not vulnerable to charges of political
reductionism and it can advance this debate beyond its current ideological impasse.
In the main this research offers no unqualified support for either the cross-movement
or age related expectations of NSM theory. The distinctive NSM organizational style is
primarily found among distinctively small SMOs regardless of movement, class base or
social change goals. Similarly neither the theorized structural transformation nor culture
shift underway in advance capitalist societies appear to exert a permanent and pervasive
impact upon the organizational style of PMOs and by implication new social movement
organizations generally. Based on this research the response to Melucci's question is "No,
there does not appear to be a new paradigm of collective action orienting NSM
organizational style consistent with central claims of new social movements theory."
In this concluding chapter I have offered some reasons why NSM theory fared so
poorly in this assessment despite consistent efforts to construct a conservative test.
Nonetheless such a thorough lack of support may surprise some readers and prompt
questions about the soundness of the research design, my representation of NSM theory or
my intentions in undertaking the project. Any one of these may well be written off as
obvious misrepresentations of what NSM theorists have seldom clearly stated. Throughout
this dissertation I have clarified the precautions taken to construct fair and reasonable
assessment criteria and this concluding chapter has laid bare the theoretical working
assumptions underlying this research. Regarding questions about my intent I can simply say
that as the "resident skeptic" in a hotbed of resource mobilization theory, I began this project
with a certain affinity for NSM theory.

CHAPTER SUMMARY
This chapter discusses the theoretical working assumptions undergirding my
portrayal of NSM theory and my use of a resource mobilization perspective to assess some
of its central claims. In so doing it offers some reasons why NSM theory finds so little
support from this assessment and attempts to anticipate likely criticisms of my
representation of NSM theory. The chapter concludes by discussing the contribution of this
research to recent debates about the novelty of the NSMs.
The distinct, but complementary emphases of RM and NSM theory are examined.
The substantive and analytic importance of civil infrastructures and collective identities in
RM theory has been overshadowed by disproportionate analytical attention to problematics
of SMO agency and political efficacy. However, the production, maintenance and
reproduction of such civil society resources are more central to RM theory than the amount
of explicit analytic attention they have received suggests. By contrast the predominant
problematic of NSM theory focuses on the origins, integration and reproduction of such
social change constituencies. Organizational dynamics and considerations of political
efficacy have most often been treated as reflections of NSM ideology or collective identity.
Each theory considers problematic what the other takes for granted, while taking for granted
what the other considers problematic. Yet, identity is arguably as important for RM theory
as strategy is for NSM theory, while the converse is true regarding civil society and the
polity.
Most important for this research is my contention that SMOs and SMO level
analyses are crucial to complete NSM theory, despite the lack of systematic empirical
research by NSM theorists. Three factors help account for this gap and highlight how the
present research has helped to close it. First, NSM theorists have often equated the
 37

historical frequency of the NSMs with attributions of their historical significance. Second,
the causal role attributed to movement ideology facilitates a blending of normative and
empirical arguments. Third, analytic models of organizational transformation have often
been treated as empirical descriptions rather than ideal types. Consequently, the academic
debate over the "newness" of the NSMs the and analytical utility of NSM theory has become
increasingly reified and ideological. This dissertation advances research in this area by
assembling a unique cross-movement data set to assess empirically features considered
distinctive to the NSMs.
Neither the cross-movement nor age related expectations of NSM theory regarding
organizational style find unqualified support in this assesment. The distinctive NSM
organizational style is found almost exclusively among very small SMOs regardless of their
social class base, social change goals or the broader movement to which they belong.
Similarly, neither the structural transformation nor "culture shift" said to be underway in
advanced capitalist societies appears to have exerted either a permanent or pervasive impact
upon the organizational style of NSM organizations.

Notes for Chapter 7

1. I use the terms "U.S." or "RM" theory in reference to what are often called resource
mobilization (Zald & McCarthy 1987; Jenkins 1983) and political process (Tilly 1978;
McAdam 1983) theories. Though often treated as rivals, they are quite compatible (see
McAdam, McCarthy & Zald 1988).

2. Two factors help explain this. First, the case of the civil rights movement is archetypal
in movements analysis (Crist & McCarthy 1995). It entered the post WWII period with
dense indigenous infrastructures and a unifying collective identity in place. Though their
importance has been stressed in explanations of emergence, RM analysts have generally
been slow to appreciate the difficulties of producing comparable resources in emerging
community-based movements (lesbian/gay) and issue based movements (environment and
peace).

3. This would be especially true when explaining movement continuity through periods of
abeyance and decline rather than emergence and mobilization. RM analysis has recently
begun to pay attention to issues of movement continuity (Taylor 1989), cycles of protest
(Tarrow 1989), mobilization surges (Lofland & Marullo 1993) and movement decline
(Edwards & Marullo 1995).

4. That reanalyses of Gamson's (1975) data set on national SMOs active prior to WWII are
still appearing in top journals only underscores the dearth of comparable data on
contemporary SMOs (see for example, Frey, et al 1992).
 GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Social An ongoing collective effort to engender substantive social change.

Movement

SMO Social Movement Organizations are named collectivities organized formally

or informally to work for the soical change goals of a particular social
movement.

SMI A Social Movement Industry is the population of SMOs operating in a single

nation-state to bring about the goals of a social movement.

SMO Social movement organizational domains are distinct subsets

Domain within an SMI that control for the broadest variations in size and
scope of operations among SMOs. Each SMI contains three SMO
domains: national SMOs, large generally formally organized,
nonnational SMOs and small nonnational SMO that are usually not
formally organized.

NSM New social movement refers to an extended family of contemporary social

movements often considered distinct in ideology, social change strategy,
political tactics, and organizational style from other types of movements.
Women's, ecology, and peace movements are the most commonly cited
exemplars.

NSMO New Social Movement Organization a more or less formal organizations

dedicated primarily to bringing about the social change goals of a particular
NSM.

NSMI New Social Movement Industry is the population of SMOs operating within a
single nation-state to bring about the goals of a specific NSM.

PPO Poor People's SMO

PMO Peace Movement Organization

SPMO Small, nonational Peace Movement Organization

LPMO Large, nonational Peace Movement Organization

NPMO National Peace Movement Organization

Eighties cohort Refers to PMOs founded since 1979.

Seventies cohort Refers to PMOs founded between 1974-1979.

Sixties cohort Refers to PMOs founded between 1965-1973.

Fifties cohort Refers to PMOs founded prior to 1965.

38
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alberoni, Francesco. 1984. Movement and Institution. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Adam, Barry. 1987. The Rise of a Gay and Lesbian Movement. Boston: Twayne.
Aldrich, Howard. and Ellen Auster. 1986. "Even Dwarfs Started Small: Liabilities of Age
and Size and Their Strategic Implications." Pp. 165-198 in Research in
Organizational Behavior, vol. 8, edited by Barry Staw and L.L. Cummings.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Aldrich, H., U. Staber, C. Zimmer, and J.J. Beggs. 1990. "Minimalism and Mortality:
Patterns of Disbanding Among U.S. Trade Associations, 1900-1983." In
Organizational Evolution: New Directions, ed. J.V. Singh. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Aldrich, Howard. and Peter. Marsden. 1988. "Environments and Organizations" in
Handbook of Sociology ed. by N. Smelser. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Alinsky, Saul. 1971. Rules for Radicals. New York: Random House.
Aveni, Andrian. 1978. "Organizational Linkages and Resource Mobilization." Sociological
Quarterly 19:185-202.
Bagguley, Paul. 1992. "Social Change, the middle class and the emergence of 'new social
movements': a critical analysis." The Sociological Review 92:27-48.
Barnes, Sam and Max Kaase. 1979. Political Action: Mass Participation in Five Western
Democracies. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications.
Barnett, W.P. and Glenn Carroll. 1987. "Competition and Mutualism Among Early
Telephone Companies." Administrative Science Quarterly 32(3):400-421.
Bassnett, Susan. 1986. Feminist Experiences: The Women's Movement in Four Cultures.
London: Allen and Unwin.
Baum, J.A.C. 1989. "Liabilities of Newness, Adolescence and Obsolescence: Exploring Age
Dependence in Organizational Mortality." Working paper Stern School of Business,
Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison. Cited in Singh and Lumsden 1990.
Bell, Daniel. 1973. The Coming Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forcasting.
New York: Basic Books.
Benford, Rob. 1993. "Frame Disputes within the Nuclear Disarmament Movement," Social
Forces 71 (March):677-701.
Berger, Peter L., B. Berger, and H. Kelner. 1973. The Homeless Mind: Modernization and
Consciousness. New York: Random House.
Berger, Suzanne. 1979. "Politics and Anti-politics in Western Europe in the Seventies."
Daedalus, 108: 27-50.
Boggs, Carl. 1986. Social Movements and Political Power. Philadelphia: Temple University
Press.
Boudon, Raymond. 1986. Theories of Social Change: A Critical Appraisal. Cambridge:
Polity Press.
. 1993. "The Granduer and Decadence of the Developement Sciences: A Study of the
Sociology of Knowledge." The Annals (New Series) 3:117-133.
Boulding, Elise. 1990. "The Early Eighties Peak of the Peace Movement," in S. Marullo and
J. Lofland, (eds.) Peace Action in the Eighties, (New Brunwick, NJ: Rutgers):19-36.
Boyte, Harry C. 1980. Backyard Revolution: Understanding the New Citizen Movement.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Brand, Karl-Werner. 1990. "Cyclical Aspects of New Social Movements: Waves of Cultural
Criticism and Mobilization Cycles of New Middle-Class Radicalism." Pps. 23-42 in
Challenging the Political Order: New Social and Political Movements in Western

39
 40

Democracies, edited by Russell Dalton and Manfred Kuechler. New York: Oxford
University Press.
. 1982. "Neue soziale Bewegungen, Entstehung, Funktion und Perspektive neuer
Protestpontiale. Eine Zwischenbilanz. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
, ed. 1985. Neue soziale Bewegungen in Westeuropa und den USA. Ein internationaler
Vergleich. Frankfurt: Campus.
Brienes, Wini. 1982. Organization and Community in the New Left, 1962-1968: The Great
Refusal. New York: Praeger.
Brint, Steven. 1984. "'New Class' and Cumulative Trend Explanations of the Liberal
Political Attitudes of Professionals." American Journal of Sociology 90:30-71.
Bruce-Briggs, Bruce, ed. 1979. The New Class. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Buechler, Steven. 1990. Women's Movements in the United States: Woman Suffrage, Equal
Rights and Beyond. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Bullard, Robert., ed. 1993. Confronting Environmental Racism: Voices from the Grassroots.
Boston: South End Press.
Cable, Sherry. 1984. "Professionalization in Social Movement Organizations: A Case Study
of Pennsylvanians for Biblical Morality." Sociological Focus, 7:287-304.
Carson, Clayborne. 1984. In Struggle: SNCC and the Black Awakening of the 1960s.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Calhoun, C.J. 1983. "The radicalism of tradition: Community strength on venerable disguise
and borrowed language." American Journal of Sociology, 88: 886-914.
Cambridge Women's Peace Collective. 1984. My Country is the Whole World. London:
Pandora Press.
Capra, Fritjof, and Charlene Spretnak. 1984. Green Politics. New York: Dutton.
Carroll, Glenn R. 1981. "Dynamics of Organizational Expansion in National Systems of
Education." American Sociological Review 46:585-599.
. 1983. "A Stochastic Model of Organizational Mortality: Review and Reanalysis." Social
Science Research 12:303-329.
. 1984. "Organizational Ecology" Annual Review of Sociology 10:71-93.
. 1987. Publish and Perish: The Organizational Ecology of Newspaper Industries.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
, and Yangchung Paul Huo. 1988. "Organizational and Electoral Paradoxes of the
Knights of Labor." in Glenn Carroll Ecological Models of Organizations.
Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Castells, Manuel. 1983. The City and the Grassroots. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Carroll, G.R., ed. 1988. "Ecological models of organizations." Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Chandler, William M., and Alan Siaroff. 1986. "Postindustrial Politics in Germany and the
Origins of the Greens." Comparative Politics, 18: 303-25.
Chatfield, Charles, with Robert Kleidman. 1992. The American Peace Movement. Boston:
Twayne.
Cloward, Richard, and Frances Fox Piven. 1984. "Disruption and organization. A rejoinder."
Theory and Society. 13: 587-599.
Cohen, Jean. 1985. "'Strategy or identity': New theoretical paradigms and contemporary
social movements." Social Research. 59: 663-717.
, and Andrew Arato. 1992. Civil Society and Political Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
 41

Collier, R.B. and D. Collier. 1991. Shaping the Political Arena: Critical Junctures, the Labor
Movement, and Regime Dynamics in Latin America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Colwell, Mary Anna C. 1989. "Organizational and Management Characteristics of Peace
Groups." Working Paper #8, Institute for Nonprofit Organization Management,
University of San Francisco.
, and Doug Bond. 1994. "American Peace Movement Organizations: The 1988 and 1992
Surveys." San Francisco: Institute for Nonprofit Management, University of San
Francisco.
Conrad, Ann P., John D. McCarthy and Joseph Shields. 1987. "CHD Strategic Planning
Process: Grantee Survey, Report Number 7 to the Grants Assessment Group."
Washington, D.C.: Campaign for Human Development.
Cortright, David. 1993 Peace Works. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Cotrove, Stephan, and Andrew Duff. 1980. "Environmentalism, Middle-Class Radicalism
and Politics." Sociological Review, 28: 333-51.
Cotrove, Stephan, and Andrew Duff. 1981. "Environmentalism, Values and Social Change."
British Journal of Sociology, 32: 92-110.
Coutin, Susan B. 1993. The Culture of Protest: Religious Activism and the U.S. Sanctuary
Movements. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Crist, John and John D. McCarthy. 1995. "'If I Had A Hammer': Methodological Insurgency
in the Study of Social Movements." Unpublished paper Washington, D.C.: Life
Cycle Institute, Catholic University of America.
Crozier, Michel, Samuel Huntington, and Joji Watanuki, eds., The Crisis of Democracy.
New York: New York University Press.
D'Anieri, P. C. Ernst, and E. Kier. 1990. "New social movements in historical perspective."
Comparative Politics. 22:445-458.
D'Emillio, John. 1983. Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Dalton, Russell. 1994. The Green Rainbow. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
. 1988. Citizen Politics in Western Democracies. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House
Publishers.
, and Manfred Kuechler, eds. 1990. Challenging the Political Order: New Social
Movements in Western Democracies. New York: Oxford University Press.
, M. Kuechler, and W. Burklin. 1990. "The Challenge of New Movements." Pp. 3-20 in
Russell Dalton and Manfred Kuechler, eds. 1990. Challenging the Political Order:
New Social Movements in Western Democracies. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Delacroix, Jacques, Anand Swaninathan, and Michael Solt. 1989. "Density Dependence
Versus Population Dynamics: An Ecological Study of Failings in the California
Wine Industry." American Sociological Review 54:245-262.
Delgado, G. 1986. Organizing the Movement: The Roots and Growth of ACORN.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
. 1993. From the Ground Up: Problems and Prospects for Community Organizing.
Prepared for the Ford Foundation by the Center for Third World Organizing:
Oakland, CA.
. 1994. Beyond the Politics of Place: New Directions in Community Organizing in the
1990s. Oakland, CA: Applied Research Center.
Della Porta and Rucht. 1991. "Left-Libertarian Movements in Context: A Comparison of
Italy and West Germany, 1965-1990." Berlin: Wissenschafszentrum Berlin fur
 42

Sozialforschung gGmbh (WZB).

Diani, Mario. 1992. "The Concept of Social Movement." The Sociological Review,1-25.
Diani, Mario, and Giovanni Lodi. 1988. "Three in One: Currents in the Ecological
Movement in Milan." In Bert Klandermans, Hanspeter Kriesi and Sidney Tarrow,
eds, From Structure to Action: Comparing Movement Participation Across Cultures.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
DiMaggio, Paul and Walter Powell. 1983. "The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional
Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields." American
Sociological Review 48:147-160.
DiMaggio, P.J. and H.K. Anheier. 1990. "The Sociology of Nonprofit Organizations."
Annual Review of Sociology, 16:137-159.
Donati, Paolo R. 1984. "Organization between Movement and Institution." Social Science
Information, 23: 837-59.
Downs, Anthony. 1972. "Up and Down with Ecology- 'The Issue Attention Cycle'" Public
Interest 28:38-50.
Downey, Gary. 1986. "Ideology and the Clamshell Identity: Organizational Dilemmas in the
Anti-Nuclear Power Movement." Social Problems 33:357-73.
Dubois, Pierre. 1978. "New Forms of Industrial Conflict." In Colin Crouch and Alessandro
Pizzorno, eds, The Resurgence of Class Conflict in Western Europe Since 1968, vol.
2 New York: Holmes and Meier/London: Macmillan.
Dunlap, R., and Karl van Liere. 1978. "The 'New Environmental Paradigm,'" Journal of
Environmental Education, 9: 10-19.
Duyvendak, J.W. 1990. Profiles and trajectories of five social movements. Unpubl. paper,
University of Amsterdam.
. 1992. The Power of Politics. France: New social movements in an old polity. Ph.D.
Thesis, University of Amsterdam.
Eder, Klaus. 1993. The New Politics of Class: Social Movements and Cultural Dynamics in
Advanced Societies. London: Sage Publications.
Edwards, Bob. 1994. "Semi-formal Organizational Structure Among Social Movement
Organizations: An Analysis of the U.S. Peace Movement." Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Quarterly 23(4):309-333.
, and Sam Marullo. 1995 (Forthcoming). "Organizational Mortality in a Declining Social
Movement: The Demise of Peace Movement Organizations in the End of the Cold
War Era." American Sociological Review.
, and J.D. McCarthy. 1992. "Social Movement Schools." Sociological Forum 7(3):541-
550.
Edwards, L.P. 1927. The Natural History of Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Eisenstadt, S.N. 1993. "New Social Movements and Alternative Modes of Development."
The Annals 3:111-116.
Eisinger, P.K. 1973. "The conditions of protest behavior in American cities." American
Political Science Review. 67: 11-28.
Epstein, Barbara. 1990. "The Politics of Moral Witness: Religion and Nonviolent Direct
Action." Pp. 106-124 in Sam Marullo and John Lofland, eds., Peace Action in the
Eighties. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
. 1991. Political Protest and Cultural Revolution: Nonviolent Direct Action in the 1970s
and 1980s. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Escobar, A. and S.E. Alvarez. 1992. The Making of Social Movements in Latin America:
Identity, Strategy and Democracy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
 43

Evans, Sara. 1979. Personal Politics. New York: Knoph.

. 1980. Personal Politics. New York: Vintage Books.
, and Harry Boyte. 1986. Free Spaces: The Sources of Democratic Change in America.
New York: Harper and Row.
Ferree, Myra Marx. 1987. "Strategy and Tactics of the Women's Movement: The Role of
Political Parties." In Mary Katzenstein and Carol Mueller, eds, The Women's
Movements of the United States and Western Europe. Philadelphia: Temple
University Press.
. 1987. "Feminist politics in the U.S. and West Germany." In Mary Katzenstein and Carol
Mueller, eds, The Women's Movements of the United States and Western Europe.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Ferree, Myra Marx, and Beth Hess. 1985. Controversy and Coalition: The New Feminist
Movement. Boston: Twayne.
Fichman, M. and D.A. Levinthal. 1988. "Honeymoons and the Liability of Adolescence: A
New Perspective on Duration Dependence in Social and Organizational
Relationships." Cited in Aldrich et al. 1990.
Fireman, Bruce, and William Gamson. 1979. "Utilitarian Logic in the Resource
Mobilization Perspective." In Mayer Zald and John McCarthy, eds, The Dynamics of
Social Movements. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.
Fisher, Robert. 1984. Let the People Decide: Neighborhood Organizing in America. Boston:
Twayne Press.
Fisher, Stephen L. 1993. Fighting Back in Appalachia: Traditions of Resistance and Change.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Foreman, Dave. 1991. Confessions of an Eco-Warrior. New York: Harmony.
Foss, Daniel A. and Ralph Larkin. 1986. Beyond Revolution: A New Theory of Social
Movements. South Hadley, MA: Bergin and Garvey.
Freeman, John, Glenn Carroll, and Michael Hannan. 1983. "The Liability of Newness: Age
Dependence in Organizational Death Rates." American Sociological Review 48:692-
710.
Freeman, John. and Michael Hannan. 1987. "The Ecology of Restaurants Revisited."
American Journal of Sociology 88:1116-1145.
Freeman, Jo. 1973. "The Tyranny of Structurelessness." Ms. 3:20-25.
. 1975. The Politics of Women's Liberation. New York: David McKay.
. 1979. "The Women's Liberation Movement: Its Origins, Organization, Activities and
Ideas." In Women: A Feminist Perspective, ed. by Jo Freeman. Palo Alto, CA:
Mayfield.
. 1979. "Resource Mobilization and Strategy." In Mayer Zald and John McCarthy, eds,
The Dynamics of Social Movements, Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.
. 1983. "A Model for Analyzing the Strategic Options of Social Movement
Organizations." In Jo Freeman, ed., Social Movements of the Sixties and Seventies.
New York and London: Longman.
. 1987. "Whom you Know vs. Whom you Represent." In Mary Katzenstein and Carol
Mueller, eds, The Women's Movements of the United States and Western Europe.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Frey, R. Scott, Thomas Dietz and Linda Kalof. 1992. "Characteristics of Successful
American Protest Groups: Another Look at Gamson's Strategy of Social Protest."
American Sociological Review 2(September): 368-87.
Friedman and McAdam 1992. "Collective Identity and Activism: Networks, Choices, and
the Life of a Social Movement." Pps. 156-42 in Frontiers of Social Movement
 44

Theory, edited by Aldon Morris and Carol Mueller. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Freudenberg, Nicholas. 1984. Not in Our Backyards!: Community Action for Health and the
Environment. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Gais, Thomas L. and Jack L. Walker, Jr. 1991. "Pathways to Influence in American
Politics." Pp. 103-120 in Walker 1991.
Gale, Richard. 1986. "Social Movements and the State: The Environmental Movement,
Countermovement, and Government Agencies." Sociological Perspectives 29:202-
240.
Gamson, William A. 1975. The Strategy of Social Protest. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
. 1990. "Challenging Groups Since 1945." Pp. 145-180 in Strategy of Social Protest,
2nd edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
. 1992. Talking Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
, and E. Schmeidler. 1984. "Organizing the poor." Theory and Society. 13:567-585.
, and David Meyer. 1992. "Framing Political Opportunity". Paper presented at the
Conference on European/American Perspectives on Social Movements, Washington,
DC, Aug. 13-15.
Gelb, Joyce, 1989. Feminism and Politics: A Comparative Perspective. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Gerlach, Luther and Virginia Hine. 1970. People, Power and Change: Movements of Social
Transformation. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
Giddens, Anthony. 1973. The Class Structure of Advanced Capitalist Societies. New York:
Barnes and Noble.
. 1993. "Industrialization, Ecology and the Development of Life Polics." The Annals
(New Series) 3:47-58.
Gittell, Marilyn. 1980. Limits to Citizen Participation: The Decline of Community
Organizations. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Goldstone, Jack A. 1980. "The Weakness of Organization: A New Look at Gamson's The
Strategy of Social Protest." American Journal of Sociology 85:1017-1042.
Gouldner, Alvin. 1979. The Future of the Intellectuals and the Rise of the New Class. New
York: Seabury.
Gramsci, Antonio. 1971. Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. Edited
by Q. Hoare and G.N. Smith. New York: International Publishers.
Grieder, William. 1993. Who Will Tell the People: The Betrayal of American Democracy.
New York: Simon and Schuster.
Gundelach, Peter. 1984. "Social Transformation and New Forms of Voluntary
Associations." Social Science Information, 23: 1049-81.
. 1989. "Structure and Effectiveness in New Social Movement Organizations." In Bert
Klandermans, ed., Organizing for Change: Social Movement Organizations Across
Cultures. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
. 1991. "Research on Social Movements in Denmark." Pp. 262-294 in Dieter Rucht, ed.
Research on Social Movements: The State of the Art in Western Europe and the
USA. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Gurney, Joan, and Kathleen Tierney. 1982. "Relative Deprivation and Social Movements: A
Critical Look at Twenty Years of Theory and Research." Sociological Quarterly, 23:
33-47.
Gurr, Ted R. 1970. Why Men Rebel. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Habermas, Jurgen. 1973. Legitimation Crisis. Boston: Beacon Press.
. 1981. "New Social Movements." Telos 49:33-37.
 45

. 1984. Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Vol. 1 of the Communication and the
Evolution of Society. Boston: Beacon Press.
Hall, P.D. 1992. Inventing the Nonprofit Sector and Other Essays on Philanthropy,
Voluntarism and Nonprofit Organizations. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Halliday, T, M. Powell and M. Granfors. 1987. "Minimalist Organizations: Vital Events in
State Bar Associations, 1870-1930." American Sociological Review 52:456-471.
Hannan, Michael and Glenn. Carroll. 1992. Dynamics of Organizational Populations. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Hannan, Michael and John Freeman. 1984. "Structural Inertia and Organizational Change."
American Sociological Review 49(2):149-64.
, 1987. "The Ecology of Organizational Founding: American Labor Unions, 1836-1985."
American Journal of Sociology 92:910-943.
. 1988. "The Ecology of Organizational Mortality: American Labor Unions, 1836-1985."
American Journal of Sociology 94: 25-52.
. 1989. Organizational Ecology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hannigan, John A. 1985. "Alain Touraine, Manuel Castells and Social Movement Theory: A
critical appraisal." The Sociological Quarterly 26(4)435-454.
Hays, Samuel P. 1958. Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency: The Progressive
Conservation Movement, 1980-1920. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hefgot, Joseph. 1974. "Professional Reform Organizations and the Symbolic Representation
of the Poor." American Sociological Review 39:475-91.
Hildebrandt, Kai, and Russell Dalton. 1978. "The New Politics: Political Change or
Sunshine Politics?" In Max Kaase, ed., Election and Parties. London and Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Himmelstein, J.L. 1993. "The Place and Meaning of the Nonprofit Sector". Qualitative
Sociology 16(3):319-329.
Hirsch, Fred. 1976. Social Limits to Growth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hoehn, Dick. 1992. "The New Hunger Movement in America." Unpublished manuscript.
Washington, DC: Bread for the World, Inc.
Holsworth, Robert. 1989. Let Your Life Speak: A Study of Religious Anti-Nuclear
Activism. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Horton, Myles. 1990. The Long Haul: An Autobiography. New York: Doubleday.
Huntington, Samuel. 1976. "The United States." Pp. 59-118 in M. Crozier, S. Huntington,
and S. Watanuki, eds., The Crisis of Democracy. New York: New York University
Press.
Inglehart, Ronald. 1971. "The Silent Revolution in Europe: Intergenerational Change in
Post-Industrial Societies." American Political Science Review, 65: 991-1017.
. 1977. The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles among Western
Publics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
. 1979. "Political Action: The Impact of Values, Cognitive Level, and Social
Background." In Samuel Barnes, Max Kaase et al., Political Action. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage Publications.
. 1981. "Post-Materialism in an Environment of Insecurity." American Political Science
Review. 75:880-990.
. 1984. "The Changing Structure of Political Cleavages in Western Society." In Russell
Dalton et al., eds, Electoral Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
 46

. 1990. Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
. 1992. "Changing Values: The Human Component of Global Change." The Annals of
the International Institute of Sociology (New Series) 1:99-132.
Isserman, Maurice. 1987. If I Had a Hammer: The Death of the Old Left and the Birth of the
New. New York: Basic Books.
Jasper, James. and Dorothy. Nelkin. 1992. The Animal Rights Crusade: The Growth of a
Moral Protest. New York: Free Press.
Jenkins, J. Craig. 1977. "The Radical Transformation of Organizational Goals."
Administrative Science Quarterly 22:248-67.
. 1983. "Resource Mobilization Theory and the Study of Social Movements. Annual
Review of Sociology, 9: 27-53.
. 1985. The Politics of Insurgency. New York: Columbia University Press.
. 1987. "Nonprofit Organizations and Policy Advocacy." In W. Powell, ed., The
Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook. New Haven: Yale University Press.
. 1987. "Interpreting the Stormy Sixties: Three Theories in Search of a Political Age." In
R.G. Braungart, ed., Research in Political Sociology, vol. 3. Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
, and C. Perrow. 1977. "Insurgency of the powerless: Farm workers' movements 1946-
1972." American Sociological Review. 42:249-268.
, and C.M. Eckert. 1986. "Channeling Black Insurgency: Elite Patronage and Professional
Social Movement Organizations in the Development of the Black Movement."
American Sociological Review, 51:812-829.
Joppke, Christian. 1989. "Political Process and Social Movements: Mobilizing Against
Nuclear Energy in West Germany and the United States." Paper presented at
American Sociological Association Meetings in Washington, D.C.
. 1990. "Decentralization of Control: The U.S. Nuclear Power Controversy Since Three
Mile Island." Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the American Political Science
Association
. 1991. "Social Movements During Cycles of Issue Attention: The Decline of the Anti-
nuclear energy movements in West Germany and the USA." British Journal of
Sociology 42:43-60.
Kaase, Max. and Alan Marsh. 1979. "Political Action Repertoires: Changes Over Time and
a New Typology." Pp. 137-176 in Barnes, Samuel and Max Kaase, eds. 1979.
Kaase, Max. 1984. "The Challenge of the 'Participatory Revolution' in Pluralist
Democracies." International Political Science Review, 5: 299-318.
. 1990. "Social Movements and Political Innovation." Pps. 85-101 in Challenging the
Political Order: New Social Movements in Western Democracies. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Kahn, M.E. 1989. Middle Class Radicals. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Kaltefleiter, Werner, and Robert Pfaltzgraff, eds. 1985. The Peace Movements in Europe
and the United States. London: Croom Helm.
Katzenstein, Mary Fainsod, and Carol McClurg Mueller, eds. 1987. The Women's
Movements of the United States and Western Europe. Philadelphia: Temple
University Press.
Katznelson, Ira. 1981. City Trenches. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kelly, Petra. 1984. Fighting for Hope. Boston, MA: South End Press.
King, David and Jack L. Walker, Jr. 1991. "An Ecology of Interest Groups in America." Pp.
57-75 in Jack Walker, Jr. Mobilizing Interest Groups in America: Patrons,
 47

Professions and Social Movements. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Kitschelt, Herbert. 1985. "New Social Movements in West Germany and the United States."
In Maurice Zeitlin, ed., Political Power and Social Theory, vol. 5. Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
. 1985b. "Political Opportunity Structures and Political Protest: Anti-nuclear movements
in four democracies." British Journal Political Science 16(1):57-85.
. 1988. "Left-libertarian Parties: Explaining Innovation in Competitive Party Systems."
World Politics, 40: 194-234.
Kivisto, Peter. 1984. "Contemporary Social Movements in Advanced Industrial Societies
and Sociological Intervention: An Appraisal of Alain Touraine's Practique." Acta
Sociologica 27(4):355-366.
Klandermans, Bert. 1986. "New Social Movements and Resource Mobilization: The
European and American Approaches." International Journal of Mass Emergencies
and Disasters, 4: 13-39.
. 1989. "Interorganizational Networks." In Bert Klandermans, ed., Organizing for
Change: Social Movement Organizations Across Cultures. Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
, Hanspeter Kriesi and Sidney Tarrow. 1988. From Structure to Action. Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
, and Sidney Tarrow. 1988. "Mobilization into Social Movements: Synthesizing
European and American Approaches." Pp. 1-40 in B. Klandermans, H. Kriesi and S.
Tarrow. 1988. From Structure to Action. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
. 1990. "Linking the 'old' and 'new': Movement networks in the Netherlands. Pp. 122-136
in Russell Dalton and Manfred Kuechler, eds. 1990. Challenging the Political Order:
New Social Movements in Western Democracies. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Kleidman, Robert. 1993. Organizing for Peace: Neutrality, the Test Ban, and the Freeze.
Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
Kornhauser, W. 1959. The politics of mass society. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.
Koopmans, Ruud. 1992. Democracy from Below: New Social Movements and the Political
System in West Germany. Ph.D. dissertation University of Amsterdam.
Kriesi, Hanspeter. 1993. Political Mobilization and Social Change: The Dutch Case in
Comparative Perspective. Brookfield, VT: Avebury.
. 1989. "New social movements and the new class in the Netherlands." American Journal
of Sociology. 94: 1078-1116.
. 1988. "The Interdependence of Structure and Action: Some Reflections on the State of
the Art." Pp. 349-368 in Bert Klandermans, Hanspeter Kriesi and Sidney Tarrow.
1988. From Structure to Action. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
, and Philip van Praag. 1987. "Old and New Politics: The Dutch Peace Movement and the
Traditional Political Organizations." European Journal of Political Research, 15.
. 1992. "Organizational Development of New Social Movements and their Political
Context." Paper presented at the Conference on European/American Perspectives on
the Dynamics of Social Movements, August 13-14, Life Cycle Institute, Catholic
University of America, Washington, D.C.
Kriesi, H., R. Koopmans, J.W. Duyvendak, and M. Giugni. 1992. "New social movements
and political opportunities in Western Europe." in European Journal of Political
Research. Forthcoming.
Kuechler, Manfred and Russell Dalton. 1990. "New Social Movements and the Political
Order: Inducing Change for Long-term Stability?" Pp. 277-299 in Russell Dalton and
 48

M. Kuechler, eds., Challenging the Political Order: New Social Movements in

Western Democracies. New York: Oxford University Press.
Larana, Enrique, Hank Johnston and Joseph Gusfield. New Social Movements, eds. 1994.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Lash, S. and J. Urry 1987. The End of Organized Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Lawson, R. 1983. "Origins and Evolution of a Social Movement Strategy." Urban Affairs
Quarterly, 18: 371-95.
Lehmbruch, Gerhard, and Philippe Schmitter, eds. 1982. Patterns of Neo-Corporatist Policy-
Making. Beverly Hills, CA, and London: Sage Publications.
Lipset, S.M., and Stein. Rokkan. 1985. "Cleavage structures, party systems, and voter
alignments," reprinted in S.M. Lipset, ed. Consensus and conflict. Essays in political
sociology. Pp. 113-185. New Brunswick: Transaction Books.
Lofland, John. 1985. Protest: Studies of Collective Behavior and Social Movements. New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
. 1993. "Analyzing Social Movements: Aspects, Questions, Answers, Methods."
Unpublished manuscript Davis, CA: Dept. of Sociology, University of California at
Davis.
. 1993. Polite Protesters: The American Peace Movement of the 1980s. Syracuse, NY:
Syracuse University Press
, J. V. Johnson, and Mary Anna Colwell. 1990. "Change Theories and Movement
Structure," in S. Marullo and J. Lofland, (eds.) Peace Action in the Eighties, (New
Brunwick, NJ: Rutgers): 87-105.
, and Sam Marullo, "The Soaring Phase of Social Movements: American Peace Activism,
1981-1983." In John Lofland, Polite Protesters: The American Peace Movement of
the 1980s, (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1993).
Manes, Christopher. 1990. Green Rage: Radical Environmentalism and the Unmaking of
Civilization. New York: Little, Brown and Co.
Martin, Patricia Yancy. 1990. "Rethinking Feminist Organizations." Gender & Society.
4(2):182-206.
Marullo, S. 1988. "Leadership and Membership in the Nuclear Freeze Movement: A
Specification of Resource Mobilization Theory". Sociological Quarterly 29:407-427.
Marullo, Sam. 1994. Ending the Cold War at Home: From Militarism to a More Peaceful
World Order. New York: Lexington.
, and John Lofland, eds., 1990. Peace Action in the 1980s. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
University Press.
, Mary Anna Colwell and Alexandra Chute. 1991. "Pacifist and Nonpacifist Groups in
the U.S. Peace Movement of the 1980s." Peace and Change 7 (July):235-259.
Mattausch, J. 1989. A Commitment to Campaign: a sociological study of CND. Manchester:
Manchester University Press.
Mayer, Margit. 1991. "Social Movement Research and Social Movement Practice: The U.S.
Pattern." Pp. 47-120 in Dieter Rucht, ed. Research on social movements. The state
of the art in Western Europe and the USA. Frankfurt am Main/Boulder, Co.:
Campus/Westview.
McAdam, Doug. 1982. Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1890-
1970. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
. 1983. "Tactical Innovation and the Pace of Insurgency." American Sociological Review
48:735-754.
McAdam, Doug, John D. McCarthy, and Mayer N. Zald. 1988. "Social Movements," in N.
Smelser, ed. Handbook of Sociology. Pp. 695-737. Beverly Hills: Sage.
 49

. 1995. Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Opportunities, Mobilizing

Structures and Cultural Framings. New York: Cambridge University Press.
McCarthy, John D. 1987. "Pro-Life and Pro-Choice Mobilization: Infrastructural Deficits
and New Technologies". Pp. 49-66 in Zald, Mayer N. and John D. McCarthy, 1987.
. 1990. "A Media Framing Contest: Its Shape, Newspaper Coverage Outcomes, and
Impact Upon the Citizen's Movement Against Drunken Driving." Presented at The
Workshop on Social Movements, Counter-forces, and Bystanders, Berlin, July, 5-7,
1990.
McCarthy, John D. 1994. "Activists, Authorities, and Media Framing of Drunk Driving."
Pps. 133-67 in New Social Movements, edited by E. Larana, H. Johnston and J.
Gusfield. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
, and Jim Castelli. 1994. Working for Justice: The Campaign for Human Development
and Poor Empowerment Groups. Report prepared for the Aspen Institute Nonprofit
Sector Research Fund. Washington, DC: Life Cycle Institute, Catholic University of
America.
, Joseph Shields and Melvin Hall. (Forthcoming). "American Catholic Bishops and the
Empowerment of the Poor through Community Development." In The Nonprofit
Sector and Social Justice, ed. by John H. Stansfield, II. Indianapolis, IN:
Indianapolis University Press.
, David Britt, and Mark Wolfson. 1991. "The Institutional Channeling of Social
Movements by the State in the United States." Research in Social Movements,
Conflicts and Change 13:45-76.
, Joseph Shields and Ann Conrad. 1987. "An Analysis of the Campaign for Human
Development Project Grant Files, 1971-1986." Washington, D.C.: Campaign for
Human Development.
, and Mayer N. Zald. 1977. "Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial
theory." American Journal of Sociology. 82: 1212-1241.
, and Mayer N. Zald. 1973. The Trends of Social Movements in America. Morristown,
PA: General Learning Press.
McCormick, John. 1989. Reclaiming Paradise: The Global Environmental Movement.
Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
McCrea, Francis B. and Gerald E. Markle. 1989. Minutes to Midnight: Nuclear Weapons
Protest in America. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
McLuhan, Marshall. 1964. Understanding Media: The Extension of Man. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
McNall, Scott G. 1988. The Road to Rebellion: Class Formation and Kansas Populism,
1865-1900. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Melucci, Alberto. 1978. "10 Hypotheses for the Analysis of Social Movements." Pps. 173-
94 in Diana Lo Pinto, ed. Contemporary Italian Sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
. 1980. "The New Social Movements: A Theoretical Approach. Social Science
Information, 19: 199-226.
. 1984. "An end to social movements?" Social Science Information 23:819-35.
. 1985. "The Symbolic Challenge of Contemporary Movements." Social Research, 52:
789-815.
. 1988. "Getting Involved: Identity and Mobilization in Social Movements." In Bert
Klandermans, Hanspeter Kriesi, and Sidney Tarrow, eds, From Structure to Action:
Comparing Social Movement Research across Cultures. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
 50

. 1989. Nomads of the present Social movements and individual needs in contemporary
society. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
. 1994. "A Strange Kind of Newness: What's "New" in the New Social Movements."
Pps. 101-132 in New Social Movements: From Ideology to Identity, edited by
Enrique Larana, Hank Johnston, and Joseph Gusfield. Philadelphia: Temple
University Press.
Meyer, John and Brian Rowan. 1977. "Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as
Myth Ceremony." American Journal of Sociology 83:34-363.
Meyer, David. 1990. A Winter of Discontent: The Nuclear Freeze and American Politics.
New York: Praeger.
. 1992b. "International Change from Below: Activism and the End of the Cold War."
Sociological Practice Review 3:PP
, and Sam Marullo. 1992a. "Grassroots Mobilization and International Politics: Peace
Protest and the End of the Cold War." Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and
Change 14 (1992):99-140.
, and Nancy Whittier. 1994. "Social Movement Spillover." Social Problems 41(2)277-
98.
Michels, Robert. 1959. Political Parties. New York: Dover.
Milbrath, Lester. 1984. Environmentalists: Vanguard for a New Society, Buffalo, NY: State
University of New York Press.
. 1989. Envisioning a Sustainable Society: Learning Our Way Out. Buffalo, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Milofsky, Carl, ed. 1988. Community Organizations: Studies in Resource Mobilization and
Exchange. New York: Oxford University Press.
Minkoff, Debra. 1993. "The Organization of Survival: Women's and Race-Ethnic
Voluntarist and Activist Organizations, 1955-1985." Social Forces 71(4):887-908.
Mitchell, Robert. 1979. "National Environmental Lobbies and the Apparent Illogic of
Collective Action." In C. Russell, ed., Collective Decision Making. Baltimore, MD:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
, Angella G. Mertig, and Riley E. Dunlap. 1992. "Twenty Years of Environmental
Mobilization: Trends Among National Environmental Organizations." pps. 11-26 in
R.E. Dunlap and A.G. Mertig, eds., American Environmentalism: The U.S.
Environmental Movement, 1970-1990. Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis.
Morris, Aldon. 1984. The Origins of the Civil Rights Movement: Black Communities
Organizing for Change. New York: Free Press.
Moscovici, Serge. 1990. "Questions for the twenty-first century." Theory, Culture, and
Society 7:119.
Mueller, Carol. 1987. "Collective Consciousness, Identity Transformation and the Rise of
Women in Public Office in the United States." In Mary Katzenstein and Carol
Mueller, eds, The Women's Movements of the United States and Western Europe.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Muller-Rommel, Ferdinand. 1985. "Social Movements and the Greens: New Internal
Politics in Germany. European Journal of Political Research, 13: 53-67.
Muller-Rommel, Ferdinand. 1985."New Social Movements and Smaller Parties: A
Comparative Perspective." West European Studies, 8: 41-54.
Muller-Rommel, Ferdinand. 1990. "New Political Movements and "New Politics" Parties in
Western Europe." Pps. 209-231 in Russell Dalton and M. Kuechler, eds.,
Challenging the Political Order: New Social Movements in Western Democracies.
New York: Oxford University Press.
 51

Nedelmann, Birgitta. 1984. "New Political Movements and Changes in Processes of

Intermediation." Social Science Information. 23: 1029-48.
Neidhardt, Friedhelm. 1985. "Einige Ideen zu einer allgemeinen theorie sozialer
Bewegungen." Pp. 193-204 in S. Hradil, ed. Sozialstruktur im Umbruch. Opalen:
Leske & Budrich.
Nelkin, Dorothy and M. Pollak. 1981. The Atom Besieged. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Oberschall, Anthony. 1973. Social Conflict and Social Movements. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
. 1993. Social Movements: Ideologies, Interests, and Identities. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction Publishers.
Offe, Claus. 1985. "New Social Movements: Challenging the Boundaries of Institutional
Politics." Social Research 52:817-868.
. 1985. Disorganized Capitalism: Contemporary Transformations of Work and Politics.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
_____. 1990. "Reflections on the Institutional Self-Transformation of Movement Politics: A
Tentative Stage Model." Pps. 232-250 in Russell Dalton and Manfred Kuechler, ed.
Challenging the Political Order: New Social Movements in Western Democracies.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Oloffson, G. 1988. "After the working class movement? An essay on what's "new" and
what's "social" in the new social movements." Acta Sociologica 31:15-34.
Olson, Mancur. 1968. The Logic of Collective Action. New York: Schocken.
Oommen, T.K. 1993. "Social Movements and Social Policies: A Misplace Polarity in
Social Research." The Annals (New Series) 3:183-196.
Pagnucco, Ronald. 1992. Tactical Choice by Groups Working for Peace in the
Contemporary United States: The Ruly/Unruly Divide. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America.
Parkin, Frank. 1968. Middle Class Radicalism: The Social Bases of the British Campaign
for Nuclear Disarmament. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Piven, Frances F., and Richard Cloward. 1979. Poor People's Movements: Why they
Succeed, How They Fail. New York: Vintage Books.
Pizzorno, A. 1978. "Political exchange and collective identity in industrial conflict," in C.
Crouch and A. Pizzorno, eds. The resurgence of class conflict in Western Europe
since 1968. Pp. 277-298. London: Macmillan.
Powell, W. and P.J. DiMaggio, eds. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis.
1991. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
_____ and R. Friedkin. 1987. "Organizational Change in Nonprofit Organizations." Pp. 180-
192 in The Nonprofit Sector, edited by Walter W. Powell. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Radar, Victoria. 1986. Signal Through the Flames: Mitch Snyder, CCNV and America's
Homeless. Kansas City: Sheed and Ward.
Reitzes, D.C. and D.C. Reitzes. 1987. The Alinsky Legacy: Alive and Kicking. Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Rochon, Thomas. 1988. Mobilizing for Peace: The Antinuclear Movements in Western
Europe. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
. 1990. "The West European peace movement and the theory of new social movements,"
Pp. 105-121 Russell Dalton and M. Kuechler, eds., Challenging the Political Order:
New Social Movements in Western Democracies. New York: Oxford University
Press.
 52

Rogers, Mary Beth. 1991. Cold Anger: A Story of Faith and Power Politics. Denton, TX:
University of North Texas Press.
Rohrschneider, Robert. 1990. "The Roots of Public Opinion Toward New Social
Movements: An Empirical Test of Competing Explanations." American Journal of
Political Science 34(1)1-30.
Rothchild-Witt, Joyce. 1979. "Collectivist Organization: An Alternative to Traditional
Bureaucratic Models." American Sociological Review 44:509-527.
. 1979b. "Conditions for Democracy." Pp. 215-244 in J. Case and R.C.R. Taylor, eds.,
Communes, Coops and Collectives. NY: Pantheon.
Rubinson, Richard. 1986. "Class Formation, Politics, and Institutions: Schooling in the
United States." American Journal of Sociology 92(3):519-41.
Rucht, Dieter. 1988. "Themes, Logics, and Arenas of Social Movements: A Structural
Approach." International Social Movement Research 1(1988)305-329.
. 1990. "The strategies and action repertoires of new movements," Pps. 156-175 in
Challenging the Political Order: New Social and Political Movements in Western
Democracies, edited by Russell Dalton and Manfred Kuechler. New York: Oxford
University Press.
. 1991. Research on social movements. The state of the art in Western Europe and the
USA. Frankfurt am Main/Boulder, Co.: Campus/Westview.
Rupp, Leila and Verta Taylor. 1987. Survival in the Doldrums: The American Women's
Rights Movement. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rusk, Jerrold. 1976. "Political Participation in America: A Review Essay." American
Political Science Review 70:555-585.
Ryan, Charlotte. 1991. Prime Time Activism: Media Strategies for Grassroots Organizing.
Boston: South End Press.
Sassoon, Joseph. 1984. "Ideology, symbolic action and rituality in social movements: the
effects on organizational forms." Social Science Information 23(4-5):861-73.
Scarce, Rik. 1990. Eco-Warriors: Understanding Radical Environmentalism. Noble Press.
Schlozman, Kay Lehman and John T. Tierney. 1986. Organized Interests and American
Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
Schwartz, Michael. 1976. Radical Protest and Social Structure: The Southern Farmers'
Alliance and Cotton Tenancy, 1880-1890. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Scott, Alan. 1990. Ideology the New Social Movements. London: Unwin and Hyman.
Scott, W. Richard. 1992. Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Setterberg, Fred, and Lonny Shavelson. 1993. Toxic Nation: The Fight to Save our
Communities form Chemical Contamination. New York: Wiley.
Shields, Joseph. 1992. "Evaluating Community Organization Projects: The Development of
an Empirically Based Measure.' Social Work Research & Abstracts, 28(2):15-20.
Singh, Jitendra and Charles Lumsden. 1990. "Theory and Research in Organizational
Ecology". Annual Review of Sociology 16:161-195.
Singh, Jitendra, D. Tucker, and R. House. 1986. "Organizational Legitimacy and the
Liability of Newness." Administrative Science Quarterly 31:171-193.
Smith, Jackie. 1993. "An Analysis of Response Bias in the 1988 Survey of Organizations
Working for Peace," unpublished manuscript, Notre Dame: University of Notre
Dame.
Smith, Jackie, Ron Pagnucco and Wini Romeril. 1994 (Forthcoming). "Transnational Social
Movement Organizations in the Global Political Arena." Voluntas.
. 1994. "The Transnational Social Movement Sector, 1983-1993." Paper presented at the
 53

Annual Meetings of the American Sociological Association in Los Angeles.

Snow, David and Robert Benford. 1988. "Ideology, Frame Resonance, and Participant
Mobilization." International Social Movement Research 1:197-217.
. 1992. "Master Frames and Cycles of Protest." Pp. 135-155 in Frontiers of Social
Movement Theory eds. Carol Mueller and Aldon Morris. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Solo, Pam. 1988. From Protest to Policy: Beyond the Freeze to Common Security.
Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Staber, Udo. 1989. "Age-dependence and Historical Effects on the Failure Rates of Worker
Cooperatives: An Event History Analysis." Economic and Industrial Democracy,
10:59-80.
Staggenborg, Suzanne. 1988. "The Consequences of Professionalization and Formalization
in the Pro-Choice Movement." American Sociological Review 53:585-606.
. 1991. The Pro-Choice Movement. New York: Oxford University Press.
Stinchcombe, Arthur. 1965. "Social Structure and Organizations". Pp. 142-193 in Handbook
of Organizations, ed. James G. March. Chicago: Rand-McNally.
Tarrow, Sidney. 1983. Struggling to Reform: Social Movements and Policy Change During
Cycles of Protest. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
. 1989. Struggle, Politics and Reform: Collective Action, Social Movements and Cycles
of Protest. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
. 1990. "The phantom at the opera: Political parties and social movements of the 1960s
and 1970s in Italy." Pp. 251-273 in Challenging the Political Order: New Social and
Political Movements in Western Democracies, edited by Russell Dalton and Manfred
Kuechler. New York: Oxford University Press.
. 1994. Power in Movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, Verta. 1989. "Social Movement Continuity: The Women's Movement in Abeyance."
American Sociological Review 54:761-775.
_____, & Nancy Whittier 1992. "Collective Identity in Social Movement Communities:
Lesbian Feminist Mobilization." Pps. 104-29 in Frontiers of Social Movement
Theory, edited by Aldon Morris and Carol Mueller. New Haven: Yale University
Press.
Tilly, Charles. 1978. From Mobilization to Revolution. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
. 1979. "Repertoires of Contention in America and Britain." In The Dynamics of Social
Movements, eds. Mayer N. Zald and John D. McCarthy. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.
. 1984. "Social movements and national politics," in S. Bright and S. Harding, eds.
Statemaking and social movements: Essays on history and theory. Pp. 297-317. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
. Big Structures, Large Process, Huge Comparisons. NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
, Louise Tilly, and Richard Tilly. 1975. The Rebellious Century, 1830-1930. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Topsfield Foundation. 1987. Grassroots Peace Directory. Pomfert, CT.
Touraine, Alain. 1974. The Post-Industrial Society. London: Wildwood House.
. 1981. The Voice and the Eye: An Analysis of Social Movements. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
. 1983. Anti-Nuclear Protest: The Opposition to Nuclear Energy in France. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
. 1983. Solidarity: Poland 1980-81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
. 1985. "An Introduction to the Study of Social Movements." Social Research 52:749-88.
. 1992. "Beyond Social Movements" Theory, Culture and Society 9(1):125.
 54

Tuma, N. B., and M. T. Hannan. 1984. Social Dynamics: Models and Methods. New York:
Academic Press.
Walker, J.L, Jr., 1991. Mobilizing Interest Groups in America: Patrons, Professions and
Social Movements. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Waller, Douglas. 1987. Congress and the Nuclear Freeze: An Inside Look at the Politics of a
Mass Movement. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.
Weber, Max. 1968. On Charisma and Institution Building: Selected Papers. Edited by S.N.
Eisenstadt. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Weed, Frank. 1987. "Grass-roots Activism and the Drunk Driving Issue: A Survey of
MADD Chapters." Law & Policy 9:259-278.
. 1991. "Organizational Mortality in the Anti-Drunk Driving Movement: Failure Among
Local MADD Chapters." Social Forces, 63:851-868.
Weick, Karl. 1976. "Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems."
Administrative Science Quarterly 21:1-19. `
Wellstone, Paul. 1978. How the Rural Poor Got Power: Narrative of a Grass-roots
Organizer. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.
Whittier, Nancy. 1991. "Collective Identity and the Continuity of the Women's Movement"
Paper presented at the American Sociological Association meetings in Pittsburgh.
Wilson, F.W. 1990. "Neo-Corporatism and the Rise of New Social Movements." In Russell
Dalton and Manfred Kuechler, eds., Challenging the Political Order: New Social
Movements in Western Democracies. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wittner, Laurence. 1984. Rebels Against War: The American Peace Movement, 1933-1983.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Wright, Eric Olin. 1985. Classes. London: New Left Books.
. 1986. "What is middle about the middle class?" Pps. 114-40 in J. Roemer, ed.
Analytical Marxism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
. 1990. "A general framework for the analysis of class structure." Pps. 3-43 in E.O.
Wright, ed., The Debate on Classes. London: Verso.
Wuthnow, R., ed. 1991. Between State and Markets: The Voluntary Sector in Comparative
Perspective. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Zald, Mayer and John D. McCarthy. 1987. Social Movements in an Organizational Society.
New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
, and Roberta Ash. 1966. "Social Movement Organizations: Growth, Decay, and
Change." Social Forces 44:327-341.
Zucker, Lynne. 1989. "Combining Institutional Theory and Population Ecology: No
Legitimacy, No History: Comment on Carroll-Hannan." American Sociological
Review 54:542-548.
. 1992. "The Role of Institutionalization in Cultural Persistence." Pp. 83-107 in Powell,
Walter and Paul Dimaggio, eds., The New Institutionalism in Organizational
Analysis. 1991. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Zuercher, Melanie. 1991. Making History: Ten Year's of Kentuckians for the
Commonwealth. Prestonberg, KY: Kentuckians For The Commonwealth.