Actor Formation, Social Co-Ordination and Political Strategy: Some Conceptual Problems in the Study of Social Movements

Sage Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

ACTOR FORMATION, SOCIAL CO-ORDINATION, AND POLITICAL STRATEGY: SOME CONCEPTUAL PROBLEMS IN THE STUDY OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS Author(s): Gerardo L. Munck Source: Sociology, Vol. 29, No. 4 (November 1995), pp. 667-685Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/42855611Accessed: 27-05-2015 23:25 UTC

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

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

This content downloaded from 112.198.90.36 on Wed, 27 May 2015 23:25:41 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SOCIOLOGY Vol. 29 No. 4 November 1995 667-685

ACTOR FORMATION, SOCIAL CO-ORDINATION, AND POLITICAL STRATEGY: SOME CONCEPTUAL

PROBLEMS IN THE STUDY OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

Gerardo L. Munck

Abstract A survey of the literature on social movements shows that the contributions by American and European scholars have shed considerable light on two problems: why social movements emerge with particular identities and how organisers give coherence to a movement and co-ordinate the actions of their followers. The challenge faced by movement organisers in seeking to bring about change - a challenge that forces a social movement to engage strategically as a social actor, with its political-institutional environment - has received, however, relatively little attention. Seeking to fill this gap in the literature I argue that the distinct analytical issues raised by the problem of political strategy which social movements face can only be addressed through a synthesis that builds upon, but goes beyond, the contributions made by American and European scholars. The challenge is to conceive of social movements as strategic actors, while acknowledging the implications that a movement's collective identity and social nature has for an analysis of strategic action.

Key words : social movement, collective action, collective identity, strategy, change

Introduction

Social movements, as a type of collective action oriented toward change by a decentralised mass or collectivity of people led, in a non-hierarchical fashion, by a social actor, have played an important role in recent history. They have also, deservedly, been the topic of much theorising. In the wake of 1968 two schools of analysis emerged in the United States and in Europe, each making distinct contributions to the analysis of social movements. While these two schools, emphasising the notions of strategy and identity res- pectively, have developed in large part as competing approaches to the analysis of social movements, it is actually possible to see them as partial and complementary attempts at theorising the same phenomenon. This article argues that only through a synthesis of elements drawn from both schools, can an account of all key dimensions of social movements be addressed.

The need to combine insights from both the American and European schools is particularly critical to the understanding of the challenges and dilemmas associated with social movements' orientation toward change. This is probably the area of inquiry in which social movement theory is at its weakest. Part of the problem is that social movements bring change by


668 GERARDO L. MUNCK

entering the political-institutional arena and elaborating a political strategy; yet, because students of social movements were originally attracted to study them because they were seen as alternatives to more conventional forms of politics, little was done to theorise the link between social movements and national political institutions. A more enduring problem, which has become apparent as the engagement of social movements with normal or institu- tionalised politics has been acknowledged, concerns the inability to address this issue from within the framework of either the American or European approaches. A central aim of this article is to develop the argument that the manner in which social movements become challengers of these more conventional forms of politics, and the dilemmas associated with such a role, can only be adequately accounted for by emphasising the notion of social movements as strategic actors, something stressed within the American literature, while rooting the conceptualisation of strategic action in the notion of collective identity developed by European theories of social movements.

This paper thus seeks to contribute to the ongoing efforts to theorise social movements by drawing upon both the American and European contributions. First, an overview of the bare essentials of the two approaches is provided, focusing on the counterpoised notions of strategy and identity. Second, the possibility of a convergence of the European and American approaches is discussed. After criticising one of the main attempts at synthesis, the three central problems an analyst of social movements must confront - the problems of actor formation, social co-ordination and political strategy -are outlined. While European theorists have shed light on the problem of actor formation and American authors on the problem of social co-ordination, the problem of political strategy is shown to lie outside the reach of either approach. The final task I confront is to show how a synthesis that builds upon, but also goes beyond, the contributions by American and European students of social movements can generate new insights that are useful in analysing the problem of political strategy. To show the applicability of these insights a brief discussion of the role of social movements in the recently democratised polities of Latin America and East Central Europe is provided.

Two Distinct Perspectives on Social Movements: Strategy and Identity

Most recent theorising about social movements takes as its starting point the theoretical debate that sprang up in response to the political and social agitation during the 1960s and early 1970s. As I have indicated, it is now quite conventional to contrast two approaches to the study of social movement: a European approach stressing the notion of 'identity', and an American approach focusing on the notion of 'strategy' (Cohen 1985; Scott 1990). Reflecting the two distinct intellectual traditions within which these two schools emerged, this distinction draws upon a body of literature much


SOME CONCEPTUAL PROBLEMS IN SOCIAL MOVEMENTS 669

broader than that solely concerned with social movements, raising questions about the relationship of agency to structure and the linkage between micro and macro levels of analysis. Thus, while an attempt to synthesise these two approaches may be advisable, it is crucial to begin with some brief references to the different ways in which these two schools addressed collective action. Indeed, it is only on the basis of a clear understanding of the fundamental differences between the bodies of literature originating in the US and Europe that a proper synthesis can be generated.

The American Notion of Strategy: An Actor-Centred Perspective The American literature on social movements first articulated the notion of

strategy through the writings of 'resource mobilisation' theorists, who understood social movements in terms of the collective action problem posited by rational choice theory (Klandermans and Tarrow 1988:4-7; Cohen 1985:674- 90). The influence of Mancur Olson's (1965) conceptualisation of strategic calculation as the implacable calculus of self-interested 'rational' actors, leading to the ominous free-rider problem, was evident. Collective action was only possible when the proper incentives were provided and when clear steps were taken to avoid free riding. To be sure, Olson was criticised, in particular by showing how the costs of participation could be lowered; but the critique did not escape the limits of the Olsonian problematic. While individuals were seen as responding to different incentives, which Olson had not stressed, the emergence of a social movement was still conceptualised in terms of the obstacles to individual participation in collective action. To put it succinctly, social movements were studied in terms of individuals who strategically assessed the costs and benefits of participation in collective action (Zald and McCarthy 1979; Oberschall 1973).

If theorising about social movements was framed by the resource mobilisation school as the search for the micro-foundations of macro-phenomena, some contributions by American scholars departed quite sharply from this formulation. Sidney Tarrow, in particular, has provided a sweeping critique of the work of resource mobilisation theorists throughout the 1970s and 1980s, whom he takes to task for failing to recognise the specific type of collective action that is associated with social movements and the peculiar collective action problems movements confront. Resource mobilisation theorists had essentially applied Olson's interest-group-derived theory to the study of a phenomenon that could not be understood in the same terms as interest groups (Tarrow 1994:2-3, 14-6). In an important departure, which clearly breaks with the Olsonian problematic, Tarrow then suggested that the collective action problem social movements face is 'social' and not 'individual', that is, movements face a transaction cost problem which impedes the social co-ordination that necessarily underlines collective action. The problem is less one of getting individuals to participate per se, than of getting individuals, who



already find themselves in a variety of groups and organisations, to act in a sustained manner toward a common goal. The study of social movements is, therefore, about how movement organisers draw upon a series of resources to solve this problem of co-ordination (Tarrow 1994:23, 27).

While Tarrow's recent work represents a considerable advance over the work of the resource mobilisation school, it is still important to locate his work within an American tradition of social movement analysis centred around the notion of strategy. If Tarrow's analysis breaks with the Olsonian bent of resource mobilisation school, his conceptual framework is still actor-centred, and his entire argument hinges on the strategic problem of getting 'from here to there'. Social movement theory is essentially about a variety of resources which organisers or leaders draw upon to constitute a movement.

The European Notion of Collective Identity: The Structural Constitution of Actors Compared to American researchers, students of social movements in

Continental Europe favored a very different style of analysis. In Europe, the resurgence of attention given to social movements was linked to the fortunes of class analysis which had reached an impasse. As many conflicts arising in society appeared to escape explanation in traditional class terms, a very important part of the left departed from a series of Marxist tenets, until then faithfully defended.1 In contrast to the American literature, however, Euro- pean theorists rejected the notion that social movements could be conceived of primarily as strategic actors.

Reflecting their rooting in structural class analysis, European 'new social movements' theorists typically began their analysis with the more structurally based notion of collective identity or simply identity.2 As Alain Touraine puts it, 'the entire analysis starts from social relations, not from the actors . . . [in such a way that] . . . The identity of the actor cannot be defined independently of the real conflict with the adversary and of recognition of the stake of the struggle' (1977:344, 312; 1988:49). The identity of a social movement is thus seen as constituted within the structure of conflict of a particular society. In the cases that triggered much of the theorising, for example, the 'new' social movements were seen as actors that expressed the structure of conflict in emerging post-industrial societies.3

The importance assigned to a structural form of analysis does not mean that European theorists conceived of social movements as an actorless process. Indeed, probably the key significance of European theorising was that it broke with the structuralism common in Marxist class analysis. Social movements were defined as a type of collective action, which necessarily presupposed the existence of an actor. Indeed, European theorists, like their American counterparts, discussed the challenges movement organisers faced (Alberoni 1991:212-6, 283-90; Touraine 1988:Chapter 7). But this discussion about actors and their strategies was not carried out, as in the American literature,



from the perspective of the actor. Rather, seeking to avoid the dissociation of the analysis of structure and action, a point stressed by Touraine (1977:317), the notion of collective identity captured the sense in which these were structurally-constituted actors, who had to be understood, first of all, in terms of the structure of conflict of a society, and only secondarily in terms of the strategies they pursued.

Towards a Synthesis: The Terms of a Cross-Atlantic Debate The simultaneous development of these two schools of thought about social

movements has led some authors to inquire about the complementary nature of both bodies of literature and the possibility of a synthesis. Indeed, Tarrow sees the 'political process' model that he and several other contributors advanced as representing a convergence of the European and American approaches. This claim, however, is based on a particular reading of the European critique of the American literature: that is, according to Tarrow, the European critique of American theorising hinged on the application of Olson's individualistic interest group theory to social movements. Hence, Tarrow's break with the Olsonian problematic is seen as incorporating the contribution of the European theorists. But, as indicated above, Tarrow's recent work does not break with an actor-centred perspective and does not erase the difference between the strategy-oriented thinking in the US and the identity-oriented European thinking.4

The standard critique that the European literature offers of an actor-centred perspective still remains valid. In this light, actor-centred analyses are, at best, incomplete because they can not account for the preferences of strategic actors.5 This is no small gap, given that movement organisers, as strategic actors, are assigned a fundamental role in the US literature, constituting in some sense the very source of the movement. More ominously, however, actor-centred analyses are dangerously prone to voluntarism, given that there is nothing that clearly anchors strategic analysis, in the absence of an understanding of actors as structurally constituted and rooted in the conflicts they express.6

The failure of the American attempt at synthesis should not be seen as the result of some fundamental incompatibility between the contributions made by American and European students of social movements. The lesson, rather, is that Tarrow's attempt at synthesis fails because it is formulated on the basis of the terms set by the American literature, doing nothing to avoid the limitations of an actor-centred perspective. The possibility that a conceptual synthesis could be elaborated by taking the European concern with collective identity as the point of departure remains open. Indeed, the most promising avenue for bridging a concern with both the identity and strategic dimension of social movements is to be found in the terms elaborated by the Europeans. The European notion of collective identity does not preclude an analysis of



strategic actors, and even provides the elements needed to correctly conceptualise the problem of strategy. It constitutes, in short, the basis from which to begin a true cross-Atlantic debate between the two main approaches.

Building Blocks of a Theory of Social Movements: Actor Formation, Social Co-ordination , and Political Strategy

An analyst of social movements must confront three problems in the light of a conceptualisation of social movements as a type of collective action oriented toward change by a decentralised mass or collectivity of people led, in a non-hierarchical fashion, by a social actor. Very briefly, the problem of actor formation pertains to the emergence of a movement's founders or organisers, or the social actor who organises and orients a social movement; the problem of social co-ordination relates to the constitution of a social movement as a movement or the challenge of organising a decentralised mass or collectivity of people in a non-hierarchical fashion; and the problem of political strategy is linked to a social movement's orientation toward change. An explanation of these three problems constitutes the building blocks of a comprehensive theory of social movements.

The Emergence of Movement Founders: The Problem of Actor Formation The emergence of a movement's founders is, in analytical terms, the starting

point of an analysis of social movements. Founders are, quite literally, the social actors who both organise a decentralised mass and orient it toward change and who, in such a role, constitute the core of a social movement. If the centrality of founders is acknowledged within both the American and European literature (Tarrow 1994:23; Touraine 1977:299, 329; Alberoni 1984: 127-8, 141-52), there is, nonetheless, a key difference between these two approaches on this matter. This is essentially that, while the American actor-centred view takes movement founders as given, the Europeans insist that the analysis cannot start with actors but with an explanation of the emergence of these actors. Ironically, for all the centrality given to these actors, the American literature has nothing substantial to say about their origin. Having adopted an actor-centred approach, this literature is crippled by the impossibility of conceptualising and explaining the formation of actors in terms of the actors themselves. It is only in the European literature that this issue has been addressed.

To summarise a complex discussion, European theorising has analysed the emergence of movement founders in terms of the shared experience a set of people have, in the context of a structural crisis, that 'things could be different'. Founders thus emerge as carriers of a vision of a new order out of the structure of the old order and, in this sense, the shared experience, which



constitutes a group as such, does not occur in a vacuum, but within, and in conflict with, a structurally defined order (Alberoni 1984:56-9, Chapter 2). There are two key implications of this conceptualisation of the process of actor formation. On the one hand, it affects how we think of collective identities. Because the emergence of a movement's founders, which represents the real birth of a movement, is a shared experience of the possibility that things could be different, this vision of a new order is carried by the founders from the very outset. In other words, a social movement is born with a collective identity. On the other hand, this conceptualisation means that an explanation of the emergence of a movement's founders must be provided in terms of the structure of conflict in a particular society. To this end, European students of social movements have drawn upon various theories which account for the structure of social conflict, such as Touraine's own theory of post-industrial society or French regulation theory, to explain the rise and very identity of social movement actors (Touraine 1977:92-100; Steinmetz 1994:191-2).

The Constitution of a Social Movement as a Movement: The Problem of Social Co-ordination

If the emergence of movement founders is a crucial element upon which the American scholars are virtually silent, they have made a substantial contribution to the analysis of the process whereby a social movement is constituted as a movement, that is, the process whereby movement leaders co-ordinate, in a non-hierarchical fashion, a decentralised mass or collectivity of people. As Tarrow argues, in the clearest articulation of this problem, this process entails a distinctive challenge since social movements have organisers but, by definition, are more than organisations. In other words, founders do not have the capacity to control their followers through compulsory sanctions and must, therefore, give coherence to a movement and co-ordinate their followers' actions by other means (Tarrow 1994:16-7, 189).

Much of Tarrow's effort, drawing upon recent American theorising, is focused precisely on how movement founders confront this problem of social co-ordination by drawing upon these 'other means'. His explanation of social movements is thus built around resources, such as the repertoires of con- tention, the social networks and the cultural frames, which founders have at their disposal and which allow them to co-ordinate the actions of participants (Tarrow 1994:16-23, Chapters 6, 7, and 8). 7 This contribution to our understanding of a problem the main European theorists have, for the most part, ignored is certainly valuable (Melucci 1989:21-2; Scott 1990:68-9, Chapter 5; and Steinmetz 1994:195-6). If the European analysis of the problem of actor formation provides the basic elements for the first building block in social movement theory, the American analysis of the problem of social co-ordination goes a long way toward shaping the second building block.8



A Social Movement's Orientation Toward Change: The Problem of Political Strategy

These contributions notwithstanding, neither the American nor the Euro- pean literature has adequately addressed the distinct challenge that movement founders face as they engage strategically with their political-institutional environment in an attempt to realise change. Indeed, while both schools provide some elements essential to this theoretical task, they also suffer from serious weaknesses that prevent an adequate understanding of the problem of political strategy.

European theorists have correctly stressed two key elements. They have highlighted, on the one hand, the specificity of social movements in terms of their distinctly social identity. In their arguments about actor formation, indeed, they have depicted leaders emerging, and the movement itself being formed, in a social sphere. As Francesco Alberoni (1991:92) puts it, the process of actor formation is essentially 'pre-political', or as Touraine (1977: 335-6; 1988:151) argues, social movements can only originate within a field of social relations that has its own dynamics and is autonomous from a political-institutional sphere. Social movements are seen, in short, as constituted within civil society. On the other hand, as noted above, European theorists have correctly stressed the importance of a social movement's collective identity and the implications of collective identity for an analysis of strategic action. But they have tended to stress the social and cultural aims of social movements (Scott 1990:16-9; Melucci 1989:3, 7, 23, 43-4; Kuechler and Dalton 1990:287) and, despite some exceptions (Touraine 1977:336-73; Scott 1990: Chapter 6; Dalton and Kuechler 1990), have done relatively little to develop the notion of leaders as strategic social actors vis--vis a political- institutional sphere.

The American literature, in contrast, has focused quite explicitly on political-institutional outcomes and has considered the link between social movements and political institutions quite extensively (Tilly 1978; Tarrow 1994: Chapter 10). Due to two key shortcomings of its actor-centred perspective, however, this literature fails to acknowledge the specificity of the challenge the problem of political strategy presents to movement founders. The first limitation of American theorising is its lack of clarity concerning the 'social' dimension of social movements. The problem can be seen, for example, in Tarrow's work, an author who makes a point of stressing 'the social' in social movements, yet defines 'the social' in opposition to 'the individual' but not in contrast to a political-institutional sphere (Tarrow 1994:16). As a result, Tarrow is unable to distinguish between two quite different leadership challenges: one pertaining to a movement's internal relations and social nature and involving a co-ordination task; the other hinging upon the relationship between a socially constituted movement and its political-institutional environment and involving strategic considerations linked to its orientation towards change. Tarrow's explanatory argument thus



fails to stress the distinctively strategic problem raised by the political- institutional environment, which he sees, in the guise of 'political opportunity structures', as one more external resource, along with repertoires of con- tention, social networks and cultural frames, which organisers draw upon to solve the problem of social co-ordination (Tarrow 1994:17-23). Lacking a clear sense of the process of actor formation as a social as opposed to political process, the American perspective thus fails to distinguish the specific strategic challenge that pertains to a movement's link with its external environment, lumping together and confusing the political-strategic challenge linked to a movement's orientation toward change with the strategic considerations raised by the problem of social co-ordination.9

The second limitation of American theorising, again due to the actor- centred perspective, is its failure to spell out what it means to think about a social movement as a strategic actor. The problem is that, because strategic calculations presume a definition of ends, it is only on the basis of the (prior) process of collective identity formation that it makes sense to talk about an actor's strategies. Essentially, as Alessandro Pizzorno writes: in order ... to calculate costs and benefits . . . the calculating subject [has] to be assured of an identifying collectivity ' (1985:57). Yet, the rejection of the notion of collective identity by American theorists leads them to overlook this point. The basic implication of the irreducibility of means and ends - that is, that no matter how much founders strategise, bargain or negotiate, social movements as a type of collective action can never be analysed solely in terms of cost-benefit calculations or instrumental rationality (Touraine 1988:68; Melucci 1989: 35) - is simply lost.

In sum, despite its emphasis on political-institutional outcomes, the limits of an actor-centred perspective prevent the American literature from offering a clear analysis of the problem of political strategy. This task can only be completed by elaborating a synthesis that builds upon, but goes beyond, the European conceptualisation of social movements as constituted in civil society and invested with collective identity.

The Problem of Political Strategy: Outline of an Analysis and an Application

Given the centrality of the problem of political strategy to a comprehensive social movement theory and the relative lack of attention it has received, in the rest of this article I begin to oudine an analysis of this problem. The issue is discussed first, from the perspective of a social movement's orientation toward change. Subsequently, this discussion is deepened by adding a second relevant perspective: that of a movement's distinctly social nature. Finally, the applicability of the proposed analysis is illustrated through a brief discussion of the role of social movements in the recently democratised politics of Latin America and East Central Europe.



Linking Identity and Strategy: The Necessity and Dangers of Strategie Action The shortcomings of one-sided theoretical approaches that stress either the

structural constitution of a social movement's identity, or its ability to engage in strategic action, are clearly seen when approximating social movements in terms of what is probably their most widely accepted defining feature, that is, that they are a type of collective action oriented toward change (Melucci 1989:29; Tarrow 1994:3-4). This orientation toward change forces a movement's founders or organisers to act as strategic actors. That is, to be goal or outcome-oriented and weigh the consequence of their actions in relationship with their environment, or embody, to use Max Weber's (1946:120) termino- logy, an 'ethic of responsibility'. Yet, a social movement can only generate change if it asserts the non-negotiable nature of its identity and refuses to act purely as a strategic actor. Because of this dual imperative, a movement's orientation toward change must be thought of in terms of the interplay between its ability to engage in strategic action and its initial identity, rather than in terms of either dimension separately.

The challenge at the core of a movement's strategic problem can be spelled out quite directly in terms of this interplay between identity and strategy. In brief, the problem of political strategy highlights that, though social movements must engage in strategic action, for this is how their orientation towards change is manifested, this engagement introduces a fundamental tension between the identity and the strategic action of a movement which, according to how it is managed, either enables or hinders its full development.

The outcome is negative when the link between a movement's identity and its strategy is broken. This can happen, on the one hand, when strategic considerations override and pervert a movement's identity. This is a variant of the danger Roberto Unger calls 'the demonic problem of politics: the tendency of means to create their own ends, or the difficulty of realizing . . . chosen ends except through means that bring about [unwanted] results . . .' (1987:396). In this situation, a movement can be said to fail because, upon entering into contact with its environment rather than transforming it, it is transformed by its environment. The vision of change, the non-negotiable identity of a social movement is lost, as it becomes part of the system it originally set out to change and ceases to embody the promise of engaging in a new form of politics.

The link between a movement's identity and its strategy can be broken, on the other hand, when strategic considerations are cast aside in the name of its identity. In this situation, a social movement reacts to the tendency for strategy to dominate at the expense of vision and, shying away from strategic action, retreats to activity purely expressive of its identity. The challenge of engaging with its environment and the need to develop its orientation towards change are simply ignored. In both situations, then, if for different reasons, the problem of strategy is left unanswered, as the pursuit of means suitable to a movement's identity or goals is abandoned. Unable to fulfill its orientation toward change, the full development of a social movement is hindered.



The successful management of the problem of strategy depends upon the ability of organisers to confront the thorny issue of means and ends on entering the stage of strategic actions in such a way that, when they engage in politics, the selected means are consistent with the movement's identity and goals. The challenge is to maintain a careful balance between the movement's need to assert those non-negotiable elements that make its struggle for change a conflict over ends, and that eliminate the possibility of purely instrumental action, with the equally pressing need to engage in instrumental action and act, as a strategising actors, according to an instrumental rationality. For a social movement's orientation towards change can only be realised by conjoining its identity, its vision of change, to an appropriate strategy, the means to effectively bring about change. What distinguishes a social movement, in sum, is that it advances a struggle over fundamentals in such a way that it engages in strategic action that is subsumed under its identity dimension or, to put it in different terms, that it maintains a 'consistent' relation between identity and strategy.

Linking the Social and the Political: The Ambiguity of Self-Limiting Action If the strategic problem a movement confronts as a result of its orientation

toward change gives rise to the generic challenge outlined above, it is also necessary to capture the peculiarity of a social movement's strategic interaction with its political-institutional environment inasmuch as a movement is constituted and rooted in civil society. Indeed, it is only by jointly considering the generic, along with the more specifically political, aspect of this challenge that the full significance of the problem of political strategy can be appreciated. The manner in which a social movement confronts the challenge raised by its orientation toward change can be discussed in terms of the four broad options that result from combining the degree to which the pursuit of strategic action is 'consistent' with the movement's identity and goals, and the arena in which it operates (see Figure 1).

As many scholars have noted, of the four options, social movements typically engage in a 'self-limiting' form of action. The argument is quite familiar. Originating in small-scale experiments, social movements develop an anti-political thrust, which counterpoises their emphasis on a 'bottom up' form of action to the global projects elaborated 'from above'. They seek change in the world of civil society through a politics of identity and shy away from the political-institutional sphere and its strategic politics. They retain a consistent connection between means and ends, in other words, by restricting their arena of operation to civil society.

While this self-limiting tendency has been correctly stressed as a common pattern, it is also important to point out that, in light of the problem of political strategy social movements must confront, this tendency carries an ambiguous connotation. While it is correct to see social movements as constituted and acting 'in' civil society, inasmuch as they are strategic actors



Figure 1 The Problem of Political Strategy: Four Broad Options

Identity/Strategy Consistency

High Low 1

Politically- I Populist oriented . Political Force

. . Social (strategy Political- . . Movement i prevails Institutional (offensive prevails over identity:

strategy) | loss of autonomy) Arena i i v' of - - - - - -4^- - - - - Operation / |

/ Communal/ / I Fundamentalist

limiting Social Force Social Social I ^ (identity Movement prevails

(defensive over strategy: strategy) j turn inwards)

they must also act 'from' civil society, representing interests constituted in civil society within a political-institutional sphere. Therefore, while social movements may be at home when operating primarily in a social arena, the refusal to enter into the political-institutional sphere and engage in a strategic politics can be seen as a partial failure to face up to the unavoidable challenge associated with a movement's orientation toward change (Alberoni 1984:158- 60; Unger 1987:405; Kuechler and Dalton 1990:286-7; Scott 1990:141-3, 150-2).

The ambiguity of a movement's self-limiting tendency can be understood in terms of the dangers of strategic action. As a temporary measure, especially in the initial phase of development of a movement, self-limiting behavior can follow from a very clear strategic assessment of the possibilities faced by a group in a particularly unfavorable context. In other words, based on an evaluation of its weakness within a field of forces, and given the imperatives of means-ends consistency, a movement's organisers may decide to not expose themselves to the vagaries of politics, with its inherent tendency toward compromises and bargains. A self-limiting social movement is thus properly seen as a social movement, in that its self-limiting tendency does entail a dimension of strategic action that is consistent with its goals. But it is also a somewhat



ambiguous social movement, in that it avoids the dangers of strategic action by adopting a defensive strategy that restricts and mutes its promise to bring about change.

A self-limiting social movement, however, is not a static entity and it can transform itself in various ways. One possibility is for such a movement to break with the restrictions intrinsic to a self-limiting form of action, and to unfold its full potential by adopting an offensive rather than a defensive strategy. In this case, the movement retains a consistent connection between means and ends, but rather than restricting its arena of operation to civil society, as when it adopts a self-limiting form of action, it acts both 'in' and 'from' its social sphere of origin. What emerges then is a politically-oriented social movement that, without being fully defined by its political action (Touraine 1977:367), acts upon its orientation toward change by 'converting social mobilization into political power' (Offe 1991:883). Only then are we faced with a social force capable of challenging the order entailed in political institutions.

The difficulties in making the transition from a defensive to an offensive strategy are, however, quite serious and present a constant counterbalance to the attractive option of making such forays into the political-institutional arena. The dangers to which a self-limiting social movement exposes itself upon entering the political-institutional arena, indeed, are probably more likely than not to lead to the undermining rather than the fulfillment of the movement's orientation toward change. One of the most frequently encountered pitfalls a self-limiting movement confronts upon entering the political-institutional sphere is the loss of its autonomy. In this scenario, strategic considerations overwhelm and begin to drive the actions of the movement, resulting in the all-too-common pattern of a movement captured or co-opted from above, thus becoming an element of a populist political force . Though there may be continuity in terms of what used to be the organis- ational component of the movement, the social movement as such ceases to exist. Rather than being a movement constituted in civil society which projects itself politically, it becomes a group incorporated within the political- institutional system that loses its capacity to engage in conflicts over fundamentals, because its identity is defined by its relationship to the state or a political party.

Another equally fateful scenario is open to organisers who, ironically, react forcefully to the temptation and threat of populism. In this scenario, a self-limiting social movement advances a pure politics of identity, or a Weberian 'ethic of ultimate ends', geared towards the protection of its identity against the intrusion of outsiders. If it remains embedded in the social sphere, the assertion of non-negotiable goals, to the extent that strategic considerations are simply disregarded, transforms a self-limiting movement into a communal or a fundamentalist social force . By overreacting to the dangers of incorporation into the political-institutional system, a movement abandons its



strategic goals and ceases to be a social movement for lack of a vocation for change. In summary, if the move beyond a defensive strategy is attractive, since it can lead to the transformation of a self-limiting movement into a politically- oriented one and the unleashing of its full potential as an agent of change, the dangers of such a move are equally forceful and consequential for the development of a self-limiting social movement.

Social Movements and Democracy in Latin America and East Central Europe While this is not the place for an extensive empirical analysis of social

movements, the usefulness of this analysis of the problem of political strategy can be illustrated in the context of social movements in the emerging democracies in Latin America and East Central Europe. Indeed, the value of stressing the political strategic challenge social movements face is clearly demonstrated by the persistent trend whereby social movements, which played important roles in the struggles through the 1980s to bring an end to various forms of authoritarian rule in Latin America and East Central Europe, rapidly faded from the national political scene once new, but still fragile, democracies were installed (Boschi 1990; Arato 1992). Albeit in a sketchy manner, a connection can be shown between the changing difficulty movement organisers faced in addressing the problem of political strategy and this cyclical pattern of movement mobilisation and demobilisation.

The upsurge in social movement activity was linked, somewhat ironically, to the manner in which the harsh political conditions under authoritarian rule resolved 'from the outside organisers' strategic dilemmas. Indeed, in the context of authoritarianism, problematic issues of political strategy, which in other contexts might have undermined the development of social movements, were overcome as the defensive self-limiting tendency of movements acquired a political dimension by reason of their very autonomy from the state. The divide between the social sphere in which social movements originated and the political-institutional sphere was thus bridged, quite unproblematically, as they became politically-oriented social movements that formed a broad coalition around an oppositional, anti-authoritarian, strategy. Otherwise complex issues of strategy were simply subsumed under the overriding goal of ending authoritarian rule.

The conditions faced by social movements, however, started to change as soon as the opponents of authoritarian rule made some gains, initially when the issue of negotiations with the authoritarian rulers emerged and political parties from the pre-authoritarian period or new proto-parties moved to centre stage. Thereafter, further changes took place as the old rulers fell and new and more democratic authorities took power. Indeed, in a short period of time it proved impossible to continue relying on a political strategy that simply confronted civil society against the state. The politicisation of civil society under authoritarian rule gave way to a new context in which the ability



of social movements to project themselves politically was complicated as the usual pitfalls movements face in engaging in politics re-merged.

The ostensibly puzzling decline of social movements that had aided the 'resurrection' or the 're-inventing' of 'civil society' (O'Donnell and Schmitter 1986: Chapter 5; Ekiert 1992:349) under repressive systems, only to lose their strength as efforts at social organisation and activism were less threatened by a repressive state, is thus ironically linked to the very process of dmocratisation. For the decline of social movements, to the point of practical dis- appearance as a visible presence on the national political arena, can be partially accounted for in terms of the increased difficulties movement organisers faced in projecting themselves politically, without succumbing to the dangers such political forays entail as a result of a changing political context. Indeed, the days of heroic opposition have been replaced by the travails of economic crisis, which expose movement organisers to the twin dangers of a populist politics and the pure politics of identity, dangers that are particularly threatening given the lack of a new political project that can orient a movement's political strategy in the new context. In sum, while the problem of political strategy is but one element in the analysis of social movements, the variable ability of organisers to confront successfully the unavoidable political strategic challenge they face appears linked to the decline of social movements in newly democratised polities.

Conclusion : Social Movements and Democratic Theory

In surveying the literature on social movements, I have argued that a comprehensive theory of social movements can be seen as consisting of three building blocks that address the distinct issues raised by three central analytical problems: the problems of actor formation, social co-ordination and political strategy. The analysis of social movements starts with the problem of actor formation, given that the emergence of movement founders or organisers is a prerequisite for the handling of the other two problems. But the rise of a movement's founders does not in itself ensure its full development. On the one hand, if it is to be constituted out of a non-hierarchically organised and decentralised mass, a movement's organisers must solve the problem of social co-ordination. On the other hand, if a movement is to realise its orientation toward change, organisers must solve the problem of political strategy. Indeed, only when all three problems are successfully resolved is a social movement fully formed.

As the discussion of the literature shows, the contributions by American and European scholars can be considered as partial and complementary, in that they each contribute to our understanding of one of the key problems at the heart of social movement theory. Thus, the work done by European scholars on the problem of actor formation and by American scholars on the problem



of social co-ordination can be seen as providing two of the three building blocks that jointly define a comprehensive theory of social movements. The current literature remains, however, quite weak with regards to the problem of political strategy, a problem that raises a particular theoretical challenge. Essentially, while the first two building blocks of a comprehensive social movement theory can be forged by simply 'adding up' the contributions of European and American scholars, an adequate explanation of the political strategic challenge social movements face, the third and final building block in a comprehensive theory, must be based on a proper synthesis that breaks with the parameters of European and American thinking about social movements and generates new theoretical insights. Seeking to outline an analysis that would help to fill what remains the most significant gap in current social movement theorising, I have attempted just such a task of synthesis.

In addressing the problem of political strategy, I have highlighted what is an excruciating dilemma: that while a social movement must move onto the political stage if it is to fulfill its orientation toward change, the difficulties in making the transition from a defensive to an offensive strategy threaten to undermine this orientation toward change. On seeking to engage in politics organisers are always open to threatening tendencies. On the one hand, the imperatives of strategic considerations may lead to the reversal of a means- ends logic and the loss of any transformative capability. On the other hand, as a reaction to this populist threat, a countervailing tendency may push organisers to retreat upon themselves and manifest a purely expressive behavior. In both scenarios the potential to form a social movement is lost.

This understanding of social movements is of relevance to democratic theory. Much of the debate concerning the link between social movements and democracy has focused on the former's contribution to democratising relations in civil society. This type of contribution is certainly quite character- istic of social movements. Yet, as my argument has sought to show, implicit in this view is a defensive posture, which sees civil society as a bulwark against the power of the state and which does not exhaust the possibilities embodied in social movements. This posture may be proper in the formative stages of a social movement, when it acts in a truly self-limiting manner as a result of a strategic assessment of its possibilities in a particularly unfavorable context. But, a self-limiting movement can only continue to grow by projecting itself 'from' civil society. Only with this latter step can we legitimately talk about the direct contributions of a social movement to political democracy.

Despite the common tendency to see social movements as self-limiting and anti-political, I have sought to show that social movements can ill afford to consider politics as something distant, corrupt, or a matter solely of elites. Because politics is about power, and as Anthony Giddens (1987:17-34) writes, the nation-state is the most important 'container' of power in the modern epoch, social movements are forced to link their concerns with the issue of state power. This view asserts a social movement's need for a 'political moment'



and differs from the view that holds that social movements contribute to democracy only or primarily through their actions 'in' civil society, that is, by democratising relations in civil society. It emphasises, rather, the link between social movements and democracy as a political-institutional form.

The connection between social movements and political democracy is very important from the point of view of democratic theory. For it shows that it is not sufficient to understand the functioning of democracy by focusing exclusively on political institutions. It provides an invitation to rethink the contributions to democratic theory based on the study of political elites and political institutions, such as political parties, elections and constitutional structures, in the light of the insights offered by social movement theory. It provides an invitation to start studying in a more integrated form the diverse phenomena that define the contours of our contemporary world.

Acknowledgements I am indebted to three anonymous reviewers for their comments as well as to the Campus Research Board of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign for the research funds they provided.

Notes 1. The continued relevance for the study of social movements of the notion of

classes, seen as actors rather than objective situations, however, is a point stressed by Touraine (1977:130-1, 137-9; 1988:41-2, 68-9). For a broad discussion of the connection between class analysis and social movement theorising, see Steinmetz (1994).

2. As the very useful surveys in Rucht (1991) show, there is probably more variation in the ideas advanced among European authors than among American authors. In referring to the work on social movements by Europeans I stress in particular the works of Touraine and Alberoni.

3. There is some debate among European theorists over how to conceive of the very structure of conflict in a society. Touraine argues that each type of society has one central conflict. The term 'social movement' is then used not to designate any type of force for change or for collective action' but rather only for the 'truly central conflicts' (1988:26). Such a view is criticised by Melucci (1989:202-3), who seeks to acknowledge a plurality of conflicts and hence a plurality of social movements within a society.

4. The dispute between American and European authors, in other words, has not been only about how to conceptualise the micro-macro or individual-social linkage, as Tarrow (1994:222) implies, but also about how to conceptualise the structure/agency problem.

5. Because US social movement analysis resembles game theoretic analysis, which 'takes preferences as given and has nothing to offer concerning preference formation' (Elster 1982:480), US theorising entails an important limitation. As Berger and Offe argue, because 'logically, the game [posited by game theory] starts only after the actors have been constituted, and their order of preferences has been formed as a result of processes that cannot themselves be considered part of the game' (1982:525), a full explanation of collective action must be accounted for through a conceptual framework other than that of rational choice.



6. The voluntaristic tendency associateci with Tarrow's actor-centred perspective is most evident in his discussion of a movement's cultural frames or ideology. Rather than argue, as Alberoni (1984:128, 144-7) does, that the production of cultural frames occurs after these founders, as carriers of a movement's collective identity, have emerged, Tarrow (1991:412-3) states that the production of cultural frames by organisers actually defines a movement's collective identity. In essence, by reversing the sequence of events, Tarrow overlooks the very real sense in which a movement is born with the emergence of the founders, who then carry its vision inside them.

7. Tarrow also refers to the 'political opportunity structure' (1994:17-8) as a resource founders can use to construct a movement. This factor, however, concerns a social movement's relationship with its political environment and affects its political strategy rather than the ability of founders to tackle the problem of social co-ordination.

8. Melucci argues quite correctly that The two perspectives [to the study of social movements] are not irreconcilable' and that, while they have mistakenly been seen as comprehensive explanations of social movements, 'each is legitimate within its own parameters' (1989:22).

9. As the work by Tarrow (1994: Chapters 4 and 5) and several recent contributions show, the concept of political opportunity structure is still very useful for thinking about the strategic options movement organisers face and would thus play a central role in an analysis of the problem of political strategy.

References Alberoni, F. 1984. Movement and Institution. New York: Columbia University Press. Alberoni, F. 1991. Genese. Rio de Janeiro: Rocco. Arato, A. 1992. 'Civil Society in the Emerging Democracies: Poland and Hungary', in M. L. Nugent (ed.) From Leninism to Freedom: The Challenges of Dmocratisation. Boulder, Col.: Westview Press. Berger, J. and Offe, C. 1982. 'Functionalism vs. Rational Choice: Some Questions Concerning the Rationality of Choosing One or the Other'. Theory and Society 11:521-6. Boschi, R. 1990. 'Social Movements, Party System and Democratic Consolidation: Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina', in D. Ethier (ed.) Democratic Transition and Cons- olidation in Southern Europe , Latin American and Southeast Asia. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Cohen, J. L. 1985. 'Strategy or Identity: New Theoretical Paradigms and Con- temporary Social Movements'. Social Research 52:663-716. DALTON, R. J. and Kuechler, M. (eds.) 1990. Challenging the Political Order: New Social and Political Movements in Western Democracies. New York: Oxford University Press. Ekiert, G. 1992. 'Peculiarities of Post-communist Politics: The Case of Poland'. Studies in Comparative Communism XXV:341-61. Elster, J. 1982. 'Marxism, Functionalism, and Game Theory, the Case for Methodo- logical Individualism', Theory and Society 11:453-82. Giddens, A. 1987. The Nation State and Violence. Berkeley: University of California Press. Klandermans, B. and Tarrow, S. 1988. 'Mobilisation into Social Movements: Synthesizing European and American Approaches', in B. Klandermans, H. Kriesi and S. Tarrow (eds.) International Social Movement Research Vol. 1. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Kuechler, M. and Dalton, R. J. 1990. 'New Social Movements and the Political Order: Inducing Change for Long-term Stability?' in R. J. Dalton and M. Kuechler



(eds.) Challenging the Political Order : New Social and Political Movements in Western Democracies. New York: Oxford University Press. Melucci, A. 1989. Nomads of the Present : Social Movements and Individual Needs in Contemporary Society. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. OBERSCHALL, A. 1973. Social Conflict and Social Movements. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. O'Donnell, G. and SCHMITTER, P. 1986. Transitions From Authoritarian Rule : Tentative Conclusions about Uncertain Democracies. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Offe, C. 1991. 'Capitalism by Democratic Design? Democratic Theory Facing the Triple Transition in East Central Europe'. Social Research 58:865-92. OLSON, M. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Pizzorno, A. 1985. 'On the Rationality of Democratic Choice'. Telos 63:41-69. RUCHT, D. (ed.) 1991. Research on Social Movements: The State of the Art in Western Europe and the USA. Boulder, Col.: Westview Press. SCOTT, A. 1990. Ideology and Social Movements. London: Un win Hyman. Steinmetz, G. 1994. 'Regulation Theory, Post-Marxism, and the New Social Move- ments'. Comparative Studies in Society and History 36:176-212. Tarrow, S. 1991. 'Comparing Social Movement Participation in Western Europe and the United States: Problems, Uses, and a Proposal for Synthesis', in D. Rucht (ed.) Research on Social Movements: The State of the Art in Western Europe and the USA. Boulder, Col.: Westview Press. Tarrow, S. 1994. Power in Movement: Social Movements , Collective Action and Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press. Tilly, C. 1978. From Mobilisation to Revolution. Reading, Mass.: Addison Wesley. Touradme, A. 1977. The Self-Reproduction of Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. TOURADME, A. 1988. The Return of the Actor: Social Theory in Postindustrial Society. Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota Press. UNGER, R. M. 1987. False Necessity: Anti-Necessitarian Social Theory in the Service of Radical Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Weber, M. 1946. Politics as a Vocation', in H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (eds.) From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press. Zald, M. N. and McCarthy, J. D. (eds.) 1979. The Dynamics of Social Movements. Cambridge, Mass.: Winthrop.

Biographical note: GERARDO L. MUNCK is Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. His publications include 'Identity and Ambiguity in Democratic Struggles', in Foweraker and Craig (eds.), Popular Movements and Political Change in Mexico (1990); 'Beyond Electoralism in El Salvador: Conflict Resolution Through Negotiated Compromise', Third World Quarterly (1993); 'Between Theory and History and Beyond Traditional Area Studies: A New Compara- tive Perspective on Latin America', Comparative Politics (1993); 'Democratic Stability and Its Limits: An Analysis of Chile's 1993 Elections', Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs (1994); and 'Democratic Transitions in Comparative Perspective', Comparative Politics (1994). He is presently completing a book on bureaucratic- authoritarianism and regime change. His research interests include democratic transitions in Latin America and Eastern Europe, and the linkage between dmocratisation and economic reform. Address: Department of Political Science, 361 Lincoln Hall, 702 South Wright St., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA.


Article Contentsp. [667]p. 668p. 669p. 670p. 671p. 672p. 673p. 674p. 675p. 676p. 677p. 678p. 679p. 680p. 681p. 682p. 683p. 684p. 685

Issue Table of ContentsSociology, Vol. 29, No. 4 (November 1995) pp. 579-780Front MatterDEATH AND DYINGDEATH IN THE NEWS: THE PUBLIC INVIGILATION OF PRIVATE EMOTION [pp. 579-596]HEROIC DEATH [pp. 597-613]

ALL QUIET ON THE WORKPLACE FRONT? A CRITIQUE OF RECENT TRENDS IN BRITISH INDUSTRIAL SOCIOLOGY [pp. 615-633]OUTLINE OF A PRACTICAL THEORY OF FOOTBALL VIOLENCE [pp. 635-651]PARTNERS: THE SOCIAL ORGANISATION OF ROTATING SAVINGS AND CREDIT SOCIETIES AMONG EXILIC JAMAICANS [pp. 653-666]ACTOR FORMATION, SOCIAL CO-ORDINATION, AND POLITICAL STRATEGY: SOME CONCEPTUAL PROBLEMS IN THE STUDY OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS [pp. 667-685]PRIVACY AND THE FAMILY: CONCEPTUAL AND EMPIRICAL REFLECTIONS [pp. 687-702]RESEARCH NOTETHE CONSERVATIVE PARLIAMENTARY ELITE 1964-1994: THE END OF SOCIAL CONVERGENCE? [pp. 703-713]PARENTS' OCCUPATIONS AND THEIR CHILDREN'S OCCUPATIONAL ATTAINMENT: A CONTRIBUTION TO THE DEBATE ON THE CLASS ASSIGNMENT OF FAMILIES [pp. 715-728]

REVIEW ESSAYCHILDHOOD AND THE SOCIOLOGICAL GAZE: PARADIGMS AND PARADOXES [pp. 729-737]

BOOK REVIEWSReview: untitled [pp. 739-740]Review: untitled [pp. 740-741]Review: untitled [pp. 741-742]Review: untitled [pp. 743-744]Review: untitled [pp. 744-745]Review: untitled [pp. 745-747]Review: untitled [pp. 747-748]Review: untitled [pp. 748-750]Review: untitled [pp. 750-752]Review: untitled [pp. 752-753]Review: untitled [pp. 753-755]Review: untitled [pp. 755-756]Review: untitled [pp. 756-758]Review: untitled [pp. 758-759]Review: untitled [pp. 759-761]Review: untitled [pp. 761-762]Review: untitled [pp. 762-763]Review: untitled [pp. 763-765]Review: untitled [pp. 765-766]Review: untitled [pp. 766-767]Review: untitled [pp. 768-770]Review: untitled [pp. 770-772]

BOOKS RECEIVED [pp. 773-780]Back Matter

Actor Formation, Social Co-Ordination and Political Strategy: Some Conceptual Problems in the Study of Social Movements

Documents