-
http://ssi.sagepub.com/Information
Social Science
http://ssi.sagepub.com/content/19/2/199The online version of
this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/053901848001900201
1980 19: 199Social Science InformationAlberto Melucci
The new social movements: A theoretical approach
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Maison des Sciences de l'Homme
found at: can beSocial Science InformationAdditional services
and information for
http://ssi.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://ssi.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://ssi.sagepub.com/content/19/2/199.refs.htmlCitations:
at MARQUETTE UNIV on August 20, 2014ssi.sagepub.comDownloaded
from at MARQUETTE UNIV on August 20, 2014ssi.sagepub.comDownloaded
from
http://ssi.sagepub.com/http://ssi.sagepub.com/content/19/2/199http://www.sagepublications.comhttp://www.msh-paris.fr/en/http://ssi.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://ssi.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://ssi.sagepub.com/content/19/2/199.refs.htmlhttp://ssi.sagepub.com/http://ssi.sagepub.com/
-
What is This?
- May 1, 1980Version of Record >>
at MARQUETTE UNIV on August 20, 2014ssi.sagepub.comDownloaded
from at MARQUETTE UNIV on August 20, 2014ssi.sagepub.comDownloaded
from
http://ssi.sagepub.com/content/19/2/199.full.pdfhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://ssi.sagepub.com/http://ssi.sagepub.com/
-
199-2
Theory and methods
Theorie et methodes
Alberto Melucci
The new social movements:A theoretical approach
1. The theoretical impasse
The theoretical debate about social movements has grown
steadilysince the 1960s in response to the development of new forms
of col-lective action in advanced capitalist societies, and to the
advent ofexplosive social conflicts in the societies dependent on
them. Thedifficulties confronting theorists in this area are
evident from theimpasse experienced by two theoretical traditions
which, in theirdifferent ways, have dealt with the subject of
social movements:Marxism and functionalist sociology. The primary
concern ofclassical Marxist analysis has been to define the
preconditions ofrevolution by examining the structural
contradictions of thecapitalist system. Centering its investigation
on the logic of thesystem, it has underestimated the processes by
which collective ac-tion ermerges, as well as the internal
articulation of social
movements (mobilization, organization, leadership, ideology)
andthe forms through which revolt passes in becoming a class
move-ment. According to this view, the party, as a centralized
organiza-tion emerges, as well as the internal articulation of
social
expression of collective action, and the conquest of the
apparatusof the state remains the first objective of this action.
Every form ofaction which can not be reduced to the model of the
party is therebydiminished in value or considered to be marginal.
If the partybecomes the state, the new power is by definition the
faithful inter-pretor of collective conflicts and demands. The
creation of a
at MARQUETTE UNIV on August 20, 2014ssi.sagepub.comDownloaded
from
http://ssi.sagepub.com/
-
200
totalitarian order and the emergence of Stalinism are, it is
main-
tained, not the necessary consequences of Leninism, but
certainlythe outgrowth of its presuppositions. Marxist reflection
is beginn-ing to become aware of these limitations and to reexamine
thetheoretical foundations from which they arise. The debate
whichdeveloped in the 1970s within Marxism has shown that the
majorsource of difficulty on the theoretical level is the
separation ofanalysis of the system from analysis of the actors. As
an analysis ofthe mode of capitalist production, Marxism defines
the conditionsunder which the system enters a state of crisis. As a
theory ofrevolution, it lacks the analytic instruments required for
definingthe actors and political forms of socio-economic
transformation.
In order to extricate itself from this theoretical impasse,
theMarxist tradition must, therefore, move from a structural
analysisof class relations and of the logic of the capitalist
system towards adefinition, first, of class action, and, then, of
political action.Reflection on social movements is a crucial
theoretical issue that
can not be avoided.American sociology, for its part, has tackled
the subject of social
movements from the point of view of collective behaviour, i.e.
ofthe whole spectrum of types of behaviour ranging from the panic
tochanges in fashion, from crowd behaviour to the revolution.
Muchempirical research on the various ways in which people
conductthemselves in groups has gone into the development and
support oftheories of this kind. Studies of collective behaviour
thus constitutean obligatory point of reference; but, at the same
time, they displaythe limitations of an approach which finds the
key to the explana-tion of behaviour in the beliefs of the actors
and which, above all,places on the same level phenomena whose
structural significancevaries immensely, for example, a panic and a
revolution. The dif-ference between them, according to these
theories, lies solely in themagnitude of the beliefs which mobilize
the respective actions. Col-lective action, therefore, is always
considered to be the result of astrain which disturbs the
equilibrium of the social system. It is thisstrain which gives rise
to the generalized beliefs which are thesource of the different
types of collective behaviour and whose goalis the restoration of
equilibrium. In the analysis of the theorists ofcollective
behaviour, no reference is made to class relations or tothe mode of
the production and appropriation of resources. Thewhole inquiry
turns on adaptive reactions in the mechanisms whichensure the
smooth functioning of the system.
r at MARQUETTE UNIV on August 20, 2014ssi.sagepub.comDownloaded
from
http://ssi.sagepub.com/
-
201
In advanced capitalist societies, social movements have
challeng-ed the optimistic models which foresaw a gradual
modernizationtaking place without rupture in the existing political
and socialsystems. In explaining social movements, however, we can
nolonger be satisfied with analyses which are confined either to
thelogic of capitalist development or to dysfunctions in the
systemsintegrative mechanisms. The current debate reveals the
necessityof a sociology of collective action which is capable of
linking actorsand system, class relations and incidents of
conflict.
The theoretical question raised by the analysis of the
socialmovements found in advanced capitalist societies is that of
deter-mining if we are now confronted with a new series of class
con-flicts. Beyond the interest one might take in the novelty of
theforms and aims of the collective action under discussion, the
cen-tral problem of a sociology of social movements remains the
defini-tion of the conditions under which a class movement can
appear. In
the present essay I shall not attempt to provide a
satisfactoryanswer to this general question. Instead, I shall try
to advance a fewsteps in the study of these problems by combining
theoreticalreflection with some empirical observations on the new
socialmovements.
. t , . =, .. , , , . ~ _ , , .
.
, _
, , , , , .
2. An analytic definition
&dquo;
... , . , ,
In order to leave the rather barren and undifferentiated field
of col-
lective behaviour, it is necessary, at the start, to distinguish
dif-ferent types of behaviour. There are some kinds that I do not
con-
sider as belonging, properly speaking, to the field of
collective ac-tion and of social movements. These may be termed
examples ofcrisis behaviour or (as others call it) of aggregative
behaviour(Alberoni, 1977). What we have in mind here are those ways
ofbehaving in groups which (a) do not involve solidarity among
theactors; (b) in which the phenomenon can be decomposed down tothe
limit of the individual without losing its
distinguishingcharacteristics and properties; and (c) in which,
finally, thebehaviour is oriented exclusively toward the exterior
and does notrefer to the group itself. Collective phenomena of this
kind are the
response to the breakdown of the social system in a given area
andresult from the simple aggregation of atomized
individuals,facilitated by the diffusion of a generalized belief,
in the sense in
at MARQUETTE UNIV on August 20, 2014ssi.sagepub.comDownloaded
from
http://ssi.sagepub.com/
-
202
which Smelser defines this concept (Smelser, 1963). The types
ofempirical behaviour that may most easily be classed in this
categoryare those that the sociology of collective behaviour has
analyzedwith the closest attention, that is to say, crowd
behaviour, the
panic, etc. Yet, what are involved here are empirical objects
whoseanalytic significance can be multiple: beyond the response to
crisis,one can discover conflicts about substantive issues. On the
other
hand, in the social movements such as I will define them
below,there are certainly dimensions of collective behaviour in the
sensethat I have just proposed. The empirical object can never be
ap-prehended as such, and its significance is always the result of
thework of analytic decomposition.
I define collective action in the strict sense as the ensemble
ofthe various types of conflict-based behaviour in a social svstem
. Acollective action implies the existence of a struggle between
two ac-tors for the appropriation and orientation of social values
andresources, each of the actors being characterized by a
specificsolidarity. This general definition indicates the first
level of collec-tive action. To be complete, it requires the
addition of a secondcondition, which also specifies the second
level of collective action.Collective action also includes all the
types of behaviour whichtransgress the norms that have been
institutionalized in social roles,which go beyond the rules of the
political svstem and/or which at-tack the structure of a societys
class relations.
I call conflict-based action collective action which satisfies
onlythe first condition. I call a social movement the type of
collectiveaction which fulfills the first and the second condition.
In this
sense, a social movement is an analytic construct and not an
em-pirical object.
It should be noted that the second condition is subordinate to
thefirst. The dimension of what may be termed behaviour
&dquo;breakingoff the limits of the system being
considered&dquo; can enter the analysisonly if the first
condition, the existence of a conflict, is fulfilled. Inthis case
only can one speak of a social movement. By contrast, themere
existence of a conflict is not enough to qualify an action as
asocial movement. If the conflict does not go beyond the limits
ofthe political or organizational system under consideration, then
oneis dealing, rather, with political competition or a conflict of
interestswithin a given normative framework. I believe that the
termconflict-based action best corresponds to this type of
behaviour.On the other hand, the fact that rules are broken or that
norms are
at MARQUETTE UNIV on August 20, 2014ssi.sagepub.comDownloaded
from
http://ssi.sagepub.com/
-
203
rejected is not sufficient to identify a social movement; for
the lat-ter requires a struggle between two actors seeking the same
thing. Ifit is solely a question of the breaking of rules, we may
speak of de-viance, in the proper sense of the word. In deviant
types ofbehaviour there is a total absence of direct conflict
between two ac-tors for the control of some specific resource or
value. The actor isdefined by his marginality vis-A-vis a system of
norms and reacts tothe control they exercise without challenging
their legitimacy, that isto say, without identifying a social
adversary and without in-dicating what is at stake in his
struggle.The general categories of collective action ought now to
be
specified with respect to the different levels of the social
structure(class relations, political systems, role systems -
Melucci, 1976,1977). One may speak of conflict-based organizational
action orconflict-based political action when a conflict occurs
within thelimits of a given organization or political system. One
may not,however, speak of a class conflict-based action (in the
sense givenhere to the term conflict-based action), because, by
definition, ac-tion undertaken by a class goes beyond the
institutional limits ofthe system and challenges its fundamental
relationships. Since it at-tacks the foundations of the mode of
production, action under-taken by a class always lies, as it were,
beyond the norms of thesocial organization and the rules of the
political game.As far as social movements are concerned, it is
necessary first of
all to consider organizational movements. The types of
collectivebehaviour found in this case are situated at the level of
a givensocial organization and are directed against the power
governing asystem of norms and roles. The action aims at a
different divisionof resources, a functional adaptation of the
organization, and aredistribution of roles. But, at the same time,
it tends to transgressthe institutional limits of the organization
and to go beyond its nor-mative framework. The conflict leaves the
organization and movestoward the political system. Political
movements are collective ac-tions which tend to enlarge political
participation, and to improvethe relative position of the actor in
the societys decision processes.But political movements do not act
strictly within the existingpolitical system; they seek to surpass
the system by opening newchannels for the expression of political
demands and by pushingparticipation beyond the limits foreseen for
it.The fundamental theoretical problem, however, is that of
class
movements. Analytically, I define as collective actions which
aim at
at MARQUETTE UNIV on August 20, 2014ssi.sagepub.comDownloaded
from
http://ssi.sagepub.com/
-
204
the appropriation and orientation of social production
(Touraine,1973). The analytic nature of the definition indicates
that no con-crete social movement can be reduced purely to the
demands madeby a given class; for collective action is always
situated within agiven political and organizational framework. It
is thereforenecessary to consider two theoretical questions, that
of the articula-tion of the types of class behaviour in a system of
roles and in a
political system; and that of the empirical criteria appropriate
foridentifying class behaviour.
In an organization, the power which imposes the norms,
whichassigns the statuses and roles, and which maintains an
equilibriumbetween the functioning of the internal mechanisms and
exchangewith the environment is never a simple functional
authority. Powerin an organization is a transcription of class
relations and securestheir reproduction. One may therefore speak of
a class organiza-tional movement when the collective action within
an organizationnot only goes beyond the limits of the organization
and contests itsnorms but also attacks the source itself of power.
What is then call-ed into question is the link between the
organization and the in-terests of the dominant class,
specifically, the gearing of theorganizations functioning (which is
supposedly neutral) in such away that it best serves these
interests.
In the political system, the existence of class relations
ismanifested by the defense of the limits of the political game,
whichis not allowed to disturb the bases of domination, as well as
by thehegemonic control granted to the political forces, which act
in amore direct manner in defending the interests of the
dominantclass. Class political movements are collective actions
which notonly aim at enlarging political participation, but which
also directlychallenge the hegemony of the dominant political
forces and theirlink with class interests.
It seems difficult to speak of class movements in the pure
state,without any mediation by the political system or by the
socialorganization. All the same, I believe that the present
situation of-fers us a glimpse of transformations which are
beginning to occurwithout the aid of such mediation, and I shall
treat this topic atgreater length below. In societies which are
characterized by a lowlevel of differentiation, and in which the
state played a fundamen-tal role in unification and centralization,
social movements couldnot be expressed without the mediation of a
collective action linkedto the social organization or to the
political system. The growing
at MARQUETTE UNIV on August 20, 2014ssi.sagepub.comDownloaded
from
http://ssi.sagepub.com/
-
205
differentiation of society and the increased autonomy of the
dif-ferent systems which constitute it tend to bring about the
separa-tion of class action from its institutional or
organizational media-tion. One thus witnesses the appearance of
nascent pure move-ments which raise the problem of the control of
collective resources(nature, the body, interpersonal relations) in
directly culturalterms. The lack of any mediation at all also
reveals the weakness ofthese movements. Nevertheless, they seem to
anticipate, in an em-bryonic fashion, the possibility of wildcat
class movements whichwill refuse all mediation within the political
or organizationalspheres. (Figure 1 illustrates the dimensions of
collective action.)
FIGURE 1
Dimensions of collective action
at MARQUETTE UNIV on August 20, 2014ssi.sagepub.comDownloaded
from
http://ssi.sagepub.com/
-
206
3. The identification of types of class behaviour
Let us return now to the problem of identifying the various
types ofclass behaviour, considering that they always manifest
themselvesby the mediation of a political system and a social
organization ina concrete society. How, then, does one distinguish
classmovements from organizational movements or politicalmovements?
Obviously, the ideology and the views of the actorsare indicators
that must be treated very cautiously and used onlyafter other
conditions have been met. Without claiming to exhaustthe range of
possible conditions, I shall employ the following em-pirical
criteria:(a) First, it is necessary to analyze the mode of
production and theproductive structure. It is possible to identify
the actors involvedwith respect to the production and appropriation
of resources? Orare they definable in an exclusive manner in terms
of the system inwhich the action occurs (political actors,
organizational actors,with definite roles);(b) next, the substance
and form of the actions are of great impor-tance. A class movement
generates actions which challenge thesystem of domination. The most
significant indicator, in this case,is the non-negotiability of the
movements objectives and the in-compatibility of the forms of its
action with the mechanisms sus-taining both the hierarchy of power
within an organization and thehegemony of the dominant interests in
the political system;(c) the adversarys response. The manner in
which the system ofdomination intervenes through repression and
social control is avery important indicator of the significance of
collective action.The dominant class reacts in those areas where it
sees its intereststhreatened and where it cannot allow major errors
in the interpreta-tion of the meaning of the collective action.
When the action putsforward class demands, the adversarys response
is usually displac-ed to a higher level than the one which is
directly effected. A protestaction in the organizational sphere
which directly attacks the seatof power within an organization
provokes the intervention of thepolitical system and of the states
repressive apparatus. A politicalmovement which goes beyond the
limits of participation andmenaces the basic interests of the
dominant class provokes thedirect reaction of that class (a freeze
on investments, flight ofcapital, economic crises, foreign
intervention);
at MARQUETTE UNIV on August 20, 2014ssi.sagepub.comDownloaded
from
http://ssi.sagepub.com/
-
207
(d) It is only at this point that one should consider the way in
whichthe actors define their action, particularly how they
definethemselves as a group and how they identify the adversary and
thestakes involved in the conflict. A class movement tends to
describethe situation, in the language of its cultural system, as a
strugglebetween he who produces the social resources and he who
ap-propriates them for himself. The stakes in this struggle will
alwaysbe, whether directly or indirectly, the control and the
distributionof these resources, that is to say, of the societys
mode of produc-tion.One can make the same observations from a
different perspective
by analyzing the variations in the dimensions of the
conflict(Oberschall, 1973) as one moves from organizational
movementsto political movements, and then on to class movements
(see Figure2). First of all, with respect to the stakes involved in
a conflict, onemay assume the existence of an increasing symbolic
content and adecreasing divisibility of the stakes. A class
movement fights forstakes which always directly concern the
identity of the actors. Hereit is not simply a matter of material
resources or immediate advan-tages, but also of an orientation of
the social production, of adetermination to institute a
distribution of the social resources dif-
ferent from the particular one effected by the dominant class.
Forthis same reason, the more an action turns into a class
movement,the less the stakes are divisible or negotiable. Conflicts
within anorganization or within the political system more easily
allow theadoption of partial strategies and partial negotiations.
Anothercharacteristic that should be considered in this connection
is the
decreasing reversibility of the conflicts as one moves
fromorganizational movements to class movements. The resolution
ofconflicts becomes all the more difficult as the stakes grow in
impor-tance for the groups concerned. Another result is that
the
calculability of the situation is diminished. The relationship
bet-ween costs and benefits is clearer and the calculation of the
conse-
quences of the different courses of action is easier when the
stakesare more directly quantifiable and the solutions are
predictable.Finally, the conflict tends toward a zero-sum
resolution the nearerone comes to class movements. In the
confrontations betweenclasses the stakes are not divisible, and the
victory of one adversarymeans the defeat of the other. This does
not happen in organiza-tions and in the political system; for there
each party can hope for
at MARQUETTE UNIV on August 20, 2014ssi.sagepub.comDownloaded
from
http://ssi.sagepub.com/
-
208
at MARQUETTE UNIV on August 20, 2014ssi.sagepub.comDownloaded
from
http://ssi.sagepub.com/
-
209
partial advantages, and a victory establishes only a relative
im-balance of losses and gains.With these few remarks I have tried
to suggest a method for deal-
ing with the subject rather than to develop a systematic
scheme.Within the complexity of empirical behaviour, class action
isalways intertwined with other significations and other issues. It
isno accident that the dominant class always tends to deny the
ex-istence of class actions and to alter and diminish their
meaningeither by labelling them as deviant or by placing them
within theframework of organizational or political problems.
Analysis ought,on the contrary, to treat collective action as a
sign and to decipherits multiple significations.
4. The origins of a class movement
We must now return to the question raised at the start. A
classmovement is a movement involved in a conflict over the mode
of
production and over the appropriation and orientation of
socialresources. However, if we do not wish, as it were, to
naturalizesocial relationships, we must provide a foundation for
class con-flict. In determining what this foundation is, our
analysis will, atthe same time, indicate the conditions by which
new class conflictscan be identified, because it will have
established the logic govern-ing the structure of the formation of
movements.The starting-point of a sociology of social movement is
the
assumption that class conflict is a structural, synchronic
dimensionof any given system. But the existence of structural
antagonismmust be socially established, if one is to avoid
attributing it to amechanical determinism, or to human nature.
Otherwise, classconflict becomes an orginal, metaphysical dimension
of society.And, in this case, one must fall back on the so-called
necessary con-tradictions of the system (and where do these come
from?), withthe result that social relations are reduced to the
status of naturalrelations and thus deprived of their specific
meaning. Or else onemust turn to some sort of anthropological view,
to a philosophy ofman, whether this takes a positive form, with the
notion of a revoltthrough which human nature reappropriates its own
essence, or anegative form, with the view that homo homini lupus or
that thereexists a natural inclination to dominate. The opposition
betweenclasses is thus traced back to conflicts or to the essence
of man, to
at MARQUETTE UNIV on August 20, 2014ssi.sagepub.comDownloaded
from
http://ssi.sagepub.com/
-
210
the nature of elites and of the masses. Determinism and
humanism,positive or negative, are the negations of sociology.
It is essential, therefore, to accept that conflict is not an
originalaspect of social existence, but a fact to be explained in
terms ofsocial relations. This is equivalent to saying that it is
necessary toconstruct an analytic space which precedes the notion
of class rela-tions and from which these relations can be deduced.
I call this
space a theory of production or of relationship to an object.
In-dustrial capitalism has accustomed us to link class relations
tomaterial production, to the work involved in transforming nature.
Ibelieve that we must develop a theory of production conceived as
asocial relationship to objects and, further, that this theory must
beprogressively freed from its historical ties to industrial
society andmade to correspond more closely to the conditions of
productionprevailing in post-industrial capitalism.With the sole
aim of presenting a clearer statement of the pro-
blem and of indicating an appropriate way of treating it, I
shallproceed to give a more formal definition of this analytic
space. Idefine production as the formation or transformation of
objects,within the framework of certain social relations, by the
applicationof certain means to a primary material. The analytic
components ofproduction are thus: (a) an action; (b) a raw
material; (c) means ofproduction; (d) a social relation. The
formation or transformationof objects takes place within a social
relation and in accord with atwofold non-social limitation which
marks the anti-idealisticcharacter of the definition; in other
words, there exist conditions
representing the system of constraints governing the
production.The natural milieu of the action (the raw material) and
the in-strumental basis of the action (the means of production)
precludethe view that it is the voluntary product of mans essence.
Socialproduction is a part of nature whose specific feature is that
it is,simultaneously, the product of social relations. Production
is anatural process, a transformation of the environment, but it is
alsothe production of meaning and of social relations. The relation
ofman to his works is the affirmation of an identity, that is to
say, therecognition of the product as the result of the action of a
producer.But the attribution of something to someone is at the same
time asocial relationship, and it implies the reciprocity of this
recogni-tion. Social identity is the attribution of the condition
of belongingto; it is a relationship within which one both
recognizes and isrecognized. Production is the social capacity of
recognizing ones
at MARQUETTE UNIV on August 20, 2014ssi.sagepub.comDownloaded
from
http://ssi.sagepub.com/
-
211
own works; it is the will to appropriate and to orient a
product. Butthis orientation is not founded on human nature or on
some sortof original humanism of work; it is already a social
relationship.Production is a relationship which implies the
reciprocal recogni-tion of the (social and personal) identity of
the producers andwhich permits, on this basis, an exchange to take
place. Exchangeand, even more so, the gift, are social
relationships which attestmore directly than does pure production
to the existence of a situa-tion in which the producer both
recognizes and appropriates hiswork. Exchange and gift-giving are
possible because the producerrecognizes his works as his own and
because there is a reciprocity inthis recognition. Production,
recognition, appropriation and orien-tation are the analytic
components of production conceived as asocial relationship. To
produce also means to determine the orien-tation of production and
of the product on the basis of thereciprocal recognition of the
producers.The construction of this analytic level, which is meant
to
precede the identification of class relations, enables us to
reflect onthe process by which classes are formed and on their
antagonism,as well as on the different forms that conflict between
them cantake. On the analytic level, the formation of classes can
always betraced back to the breakdown of reciprocity of recognition
andtherefore to the separation between production and
recognition,on the one hand, and appropriation and orientation on
the other. Aknowledge of the various forms that the breakdown takes
can comeonly from historical analysis and from the comparative
an-thropology of human societies. One may suggest, by way of
exam-ple, a possible account of the historical formation of class
relationswithout thereby denying that societies display a large
variety ofevolutionary paths. An increase in the division of labour
arisesfrom a change in the relations with the environment, such as
the ex-pansion of exchanges, the transformation of the natural
conditionsof production, the exhaustion or discovery of resources,
etc. Thischange implies a delegation of responsibility in the
direction ofthose activities pertaining to the relations of
production; which is tosay that it implies the control by one
particular group over theorientation of the resources produced.
This delegation of authoritypresupposes reciprocal recognition,
between the two groups whichthereby emerge. As long as one of them
maintains control over thespecific delegated function, the fourfold
relationship comprisingproduction, recognition, appropriation, and
orientation is per-
at MARQUETTE UNIV on August 20, 2014ssi.sagepub.comDownloaded
from
http://ssi.sagepub.com/
-
212
manent. When an increase in the division of labour and in the
com-
plexity of the system reduces this control, the relationship
breaksdown and reciprocal recognition disappears. Each party
recognizesits own works but refuses to extend such recognition to
the otherparty, tending, instead, to identify itself with the
totality of thesocial field.
Classes are born, therefore, in the form of groups struggling
toappropriate and orient social production. Their antagonism,
un-balanced by the relation dominant group-dominated group, sets
itsstamp on the structure of the social system and is the source of
col-lective action.
~ ~
I B - . -. T~ .. .,
_, .
,
5. Social movements and social change ~ . ~.Most theories of
collective action attribute the birth of socialmovements either to
the breakdown of the social system or to the
formation of new interests or of new forms of solidarity and
collec-tive identity (Tilly, 1975). Before entering upon a
discussion of thisdichotomy, however, we may note a striking fact
about the currenttheories: most of them, either directly or
indirectly, presupposechange as a given factor. Whether collective
action is ascribed tothe breakdown of the system or to the
appearance of new interests,there is always a change whose nature
and causes are left unexamin-ed by the model.The fact that change
is taken for granted seems to me to be the
result of a kind of naive historicism which conceives of change
as anatural and continuous process in society and which is
concernedonly with the effects of this process. The theories to
which I referare actually theories of the activation of the factors
of collective ac-
tion, but they tell us nothing about the structural cause of
thisphenomenon. They tell us how collective action is manifested
butnot why. Some of them are explicitly theories of the activation
offactors; in this case, change is correctly taken as the models
pointof departure, as an input to be used in the construction of an
ex-planation. Consequently, one can not reproach such a theory
fornot explaining change (Tilly, 1970). But in the majority of
cases theauthors claim to give a causal and structural explanation
of collec-tive action. The link between change and collective
action thenbecomes a device by which to hide the lack of a theory
of change.Most of the current theories consider change as a
variable which
at MARQUETTE UNIV on August 20, 2014ssi.sagepub.comDownloaded
from
http://ssi.sagepub.com/
-
213
is external to the explanatory system adopted. This means
thatwhen instances of collective behaviour appear in a social
system,the change which is supposed to be the source of this
behaviour isalways assumed to be of external origin (Smelser, 1968;
Davies,1962, 1971; Feierabend et al., 1973; Gurr, 1970; Graham and
Gurr(eds), 1969; Olson, 1968). How should one explain, for
example,the appearance of strain or of rising expectations, on the
one hand,or disequilibrium in the means of responding to such
phenomena,on the other hand? Economic progress is often a sort of
deus exmachina which is made responsible for many transformations.
Butit is clear that economic progress, in turn, remains in need fo
ex-
planation. There are not many alternatives. Either one appeals
ex-clusively to exogenous causes, reducing change in every case to
anexternal variable, or else one accepts that change, too, has a
causeinternal to the system. In the former case, it is necessary to
denythe growing interdependence of systems and to consider as
external,variables which in reality are inherent in the structure
of the systemunder consideration. For example, using this approach
it isnecessary to maintain that the action of a multinational
corpora-tion in a given capitalist country is an external variable
simplybecause the companys headquarters happen to be located in
someother country. While this may be true from the point of view of
thepolitical system, it is obviously difficult to consider this
kind of in-tervention as an external variable from the point of
view of classrelations. In the latter case, one admits to
endogenous origin ofchange and thus is constrained to account for
change by means ofthe same categories used to account for
collective action. Other-wise, one will construct a contradictory
explanatory system whichis incapable of justifying all the
variables it introduces.The current theories, therefore, offer only
two possibilities.
Either they attribute change solely to exogenous causes,
therebyflying in the face of reality; or they view change as
arising withinthe system, and then they are contradictory, since
they are notcapable of explaining change by the same categories
used intreating collective action.From a logical point of view, the
central nexus of these dif-
ficulties lies, I believe, in a failure to distinguish between
synchronyand diachrony, between structure and change. The theories
in ques-tion are located, right from the start, in the realm of
change (bypresupposing it) and offer a diachronic analysis rather
than a struc-tural analysis of the origin of social movements. The
same logical
at MARQUETTE UNIV on August 20, 2014ssi.sagepub.comDownloaded
from
http://ssi.sagepub.com/
-
214
difficulty is found in many Marxist analyses which ascribe
theorigin of collective action to the contradiction between the
forces ofproduction and the relations of production. The
development ofthe forces of production is thought to bring to a
head, at a givenmoment, the contradiction between these forces and
the existingrelations of production. But how does the development
of theforces of production come about in the first place? If one is
toavoid a naive historicism, it is necessary to establish a link
betweensynchrony and diachrony, between structure and
change.Antagonism between classes is a synchronic dimension of
a
system. The struggle undertaken by the dominated class for
thereappropriation of the social production penetrates the
socialstructure itself. This accounts for the necessity of
controlling con-flict with which the dominant class is permanently
confronted. Thescission, running throughout the entire social
order, can be hiddenbehind societys apparent integration and can be
denied by thedominant ideology. But the system of domination must
constantlycome to grips with the reality of the conflict if it
wishes to protectthe bases of its reproduction. If antagonism is a
structural compo-nent of class society, the necessity of
controlling it is just as muchso.
All the same, a concrete society does not coincide with a
par-ticular mode of production, nor does it live only
synchronously.Class relations manifest themselves in a political
system and inthe forms of social organization. In a real society,
synchronic op-position between classes does not give rise to pure
types ofbehaviour; it must be deciphered in the societys history.
As for thedominant class, its share in synchronic antagonism takes
the formof a systemic action; only rarely manifest in a direct
action, it ismuch more frequently expressed through the application
of the in-struments of social integration. The dominant class
intervenesdirectly only when there exists an explicit threat to the
system ofdomination. Normally, its action is evident in categories
of socialpractice, in the control of ideology, and in repressive
manipulation.More important in this connection is the
identification of thoseforms of behaviour of the dominated classes
which indicate the
synchronic presence of conflict. Here I am referring to forms
ofaction which - before, or indepedently of a collective
mobilizationagainst class domination - are the embryonic testimony
of a scis-sion in the society, evidence of the dominant class
failure to im-pose total unity on the society. These forms of
resistance, which
at MARQUETTE UNIV on August 20, 2014ssi.sagepub.comDownloaded
from
http://ssi.sagepub.com/
-
215
may appear in the work situation, in an individuals refusal, or
inpopular culture and folklore, are what I shall call deviant
symp-toms of conflict or symbolic elaborations of latent conflict.
The de-viant character and the flight into the realm of the
symbolic are ob-viously dependent on the much more powerful
opposing action ofthe apparatus of domination, which constantly
impedes, blocks,and represses all manifest expression of class
antagonism. Thepresence of these symptoms allows us to assert the
synchronic ex-istence of conflict before, and independently of, the
appearanceof those forms of behaviour which, through the necessary
media-tion of the political system and of the organiztion, openly
translateclass conflict in a concrete society.We have now arrived
at the central problem. How does one pass
from a structural conflict to diachornic forms of behaviour
rootedin a political system and in an historical society. The
necessity ofcontrolling conflict obliges the system of domination
to interveneconstantly at the different levels of the social
structure in order tohold conflict on them within limits compatible
with the fundamen-tal class relations. External factors (increase
in the volume of ex-
changes, changes in the environment) are also elements of
dise-quilibrium that must be controlled because of the effects they
mayhave on the state of the class relations. The action of the
exogenouselements is therefore never direct. Instead, it affects
the system tothe degree that it can unbalance the societys class
relations. Henceexternal factors also provoke actions at the
different levels of thesystem, actions which are designed to keep
the resulting effectswithin the respective limits of compatibility
at each level. It is thus bymeans of adaptation that internal
changes in the political systemand/or the social organization are
generated, together with a cer-tain modernization of the relations
of production. Disturbances inthe internal equilibrium at each
level affected by the changes mayproduce contradictions. I define a
contradiction as an incom-patibility between elements or levels of
a structure. The actions re-quired to control structural conflict
can create contradictions if thechange thereby introduced is
incompatible with other elements orlevels of the system. The
contradiction functions like a catalyst onthe latent structural
antagonism. It sets in motion (diachronic)forms of collective
behaviour which react to the contradiction and,at the same time,
address themselves to the structural conflict. Col-lective action
and social movements are the expression of class con-flict in a
concrete political system and/or social organization.
at MARQUETTE UNIV on August 20, 2014ssi.sagepub.comDownloaded
from
http://ssi.sagepub.com/
-
216
It is necessary at this point to formulate the concept of
con-tradiction more precisely. The significance of structural
incom-patibility varies according to the level at which it occurs.
One mayspeak of incompatibility within a given level of society, of
incom-patibility between levels, and of incompatibility with
respect toclass relations. In the first two cases, the
contradiction does not
directly affect the class relations. Elements of the political
systemand/or of the social organization come into contradiction
withthemselves and can mobilize behaviour aimed at reestablishing
anew equilibrium within these systems. In the third case, elements
ofthe political system and/or of the social organization come
intocontradiction with the class relations and mobilize
behaviour
originating within these systems which threatens the structure
itselfof the class relations. It is in this perspective that the
different typesof movements defined at the beginning of this essay
must be con-sidered.We must now turn to the analysis of the
relationship between col-
lective action and change. The forms of collective
behaviouroriginating in certain contradictions come up against a
certain stateof the structure (the situation of class relations,
the state of thepolitical system and of the social organization).
Collective actionwhich takes place in these different states can
create new contradic-tions (incompatibilities). There thus exists a
second stage in theresponse made by the system of domination. This
new interventioncan take the form of modernization, of reform, or
of repression.One basic type of response is the development of the
forces of pro-duction.
At this point, the process may terminate with the absorbtion
ofthe collective thrust, that is to say, with the introduction of
new in-ternal changes. Or else, given the presence of certain
determinateconditions (i.e. of certain structural states), the
system may proveto be incapable of absorbing change. Failure of the
political systemto open itself up, a crisis in the social
organization, and the forma-tion of new groups linked to a nascent
mode of production: theseare factors which can bring about the
transition from one struc-ture to another, which is to say that
they can cause structuralchange. This transition can occur through
a sharp break in con-tinuity or in a much smoother fashion,
depending on the specificconditions prevailing at the time. ,With
these few remarks I have merely sketched out a theoretical
approach to the problem. I may conclude by observing that
collec-
at MARQUETTE UNIV on August 20, 2014ssi.sagepub.comDownloaded
from
http://ssi.sagepub.com/
-
217
tive action is, in reality, both a cause and an effect of
change,though in distinct logical times or stages and on different
analyticlevels. It is a cause, on the synchronic level, because the
presence ofa conflict which is manifest in deviant and symbolic
forms ofresistance, cultural revolt and individual refusal must be
monitoredconstantly and obliges the system to make continuous
adaptations.It is an effect, in a logically distinct time, because
the adaptationsmade by the system disequilibrate it and create
contradictionswhich, in their turn, generate diachronic forms of
conduct in the
political system and in the social organization. It is, finally,
onceagain a cause, in a third logically distinct time, inasmuch as
thethrust of the collective action obliges the system to adapt
itsorganization accordingly, to reform the political system, and
tomodernize the productive structure. Otherwise, in the extreme
case,change causes the system to burst asunder, thereby bringing
aboutthe transition to a new structure.
Everything I have said so far shows that the alternative
betweenbreakdown and solidarity, between collective action which
arisesfrom disintegration and action which is born of solidarity,
is, inreality, a false problem. The forms of class behaviour are,
in fact,rooted in structural conflict, but they are activated by
contradic-tions, which are always ruptures of, or at least states
of dise-quilibrium in, the social order. In social movements there
alwaysexists a link between contradiction and conflict, since
thesemovements are located at the intersection of structure and
change.The principal theoretical problem thus remains that
ofdistinguishing these two levels of analysis (and the concepts
ap-propriate to each of them) and, then, of establishing their
interrela-tionship.
6. The new social movements
Returning to the question raised at the beginning, we may now
askwhat changes in the system of production allow us to speak of
newclass conflicts. In comparison with the industrial phase
ofcapitalism, the production characteristic of advanced societies
re-quires that control reach beyond the productive structure into
theareas of consumption, services, and social relations.
Themechanisms of accumulation are no longer fed by the simple
ex-ploitation of the labour force, but rather by the manipulation
of
at MARQUETTE UNIV on August 20, 2014ssi.sagepub.comDownloaded
from
http://ssi.sagepub.com/
-
218
complex organizational systems, by control over information
andover the processes and institutions of symbol-formation, and by
in-tervention in interpersonal relations. The role of science and
of in-formation systems is growing in advanced capitalism, but one
sees,at the same time, the development of a capacity for
interventionand transformation which extends beyond the natural
environmentand exerts an influence on the social systems, on
interpersonal rela-tions, and on the very structure of the
individual (personality, theunconscious, biological identity).
Faced with these changes in the structure of production, onemust
try to determine the significance of the new social movements.More
and more, production no longer consists solely in thetransformation
of the natural environment into a technical en-vironment. It is
also becoming the production of social relationsand social systems;
indeed, it is even becoming the production ofthe individuals
biological and interpersonal identity. This produc-tion, which
continues, however, to be controlled by a dominantclass, changes
the form of the expropriation of social resources.The movement for
reappropriation which claims control over theresources produced by
society is therefore carrying its fight intonew territory. The
personal and social identity of individuals is in-creasingly
perceived as a product of social action, and therefore asthat which
is at stake in a conflict between the exigences of thevarious
agencies of social manipulation and the desire of in-dividuals to
reappropriate societys resources. Defense of the iden-tity,
continuity, and predictability of personal existence is beginn-ing
to constitute the substance of the new conflicts. In a structure
inwhich ownership of the means of production is becoming more
andmore socialized, while at the same time remaining under the
controlof particular groups, what individuals are claiming
collectively isthe right to realize their own identity: the
possibility of disposing oftheir personal creativity, their
affective life, and their biologicaland interpersonal existence.
The control and manipulation of thecenters of technocratic
domination are increasingly penetratingeveryday life, encroaching
upon the individuals possibility ofdisposing of his time, his
space, and his relationships. Personalidentity - that is to say,
the possibility, on the biological,psychological, and interpersonal
levels, of being recognized as anindividual - is the property which
is now being claimed and defend-ed ; this is the ground in which
individual and collective resistance istaking root.
I _ at MARQUETTE UNIV on August 20,
2014ssi.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://ssi.sagepub.com/
-
219
The new social movements are struggling, therefore, not only
forthe reappropriation of the material structure of production,
butalso for collective control over socio-economic development,
i.e.,for the reappropriation of time, of space, and of
relationships inthe individuals daily existence. The new forms of
class dominationare identified less and less with real social
groups and are starting toshare the impersonal character of the
various institutions. The newconflicts and the new movements are
not manifested in the actionof a single class, in the sense of a
social group identified by a par-ticular culture and way of life.
In mass society, in which culturalmodels and ways of life tend to
become homogenous, conflictsmobilize the categories and groups
which are most directly affectedby the manipulation of
socio-economic development. The absenceof a leading actor, however,
does not mean that these conflicts havelost the character of class
struggle.A certain number of characteristics shared by the recent
forms of
collective action (Touraine, 1974, 1975; Pizzorno, 1975) seem
toconfirm this hypothesis, which sees in the appropriation of
identitythe key to understanding the new movements. There is, first
of all,the end of the separation between public and private
spheres. Thoseareas which were formerly zones of private exchanges
and rewards(sexual relations, interpersonal relations, biological
identity) havebecome stakes in various conflict situations and are
now the sceneof collective action. At the same time, the field of
the public andpolitical is subjected to the pressure of individual
needs anddemands. Birth and death, illness and aging have all
become criticalpoints capable of mobilizing collective action.
These subjects haveentered the realm of public conflict and have
become,simultaneously, objects whose reappropriation is claimed
byvarious groups. Sexuality and the body, leisure, consumer
goods,ones relationship to nature - these are no longer loci of
privaterewards but areas of collective resistance, of demands for
expres-sion and pleasure which are raised in opposition to the
instrumentalrationality of the apparatuses of order.A second
characteristic to be noted is the superposition of de-
viance and social movements. When domination impinges on
dailylife, on the rules of existence, and on ways of life,
oppositionnecessarily takes the form of marginality and of
deviance.Advanc-ed societies are witnessing the proliferation of
agencies chargedwith handling social demands and needs which might
generateconflict: public intervention tends to absorb strains and
reduce con-
at MARQUETTE UNIV on August 20, 2014ssi.sagepub.comDownloaded
from
http://ssi.sagepub.com/
-
220
flicts to the status of pathology by subjecting all those who do
noconform to the norms to preventive therapies or to
rehabilitation.In this situation, social revolt which threatens the
mode of produc-tion and the orientation of resources easily tends
to merge withmarginality and deviance. This is so because such
revolts are oftenthe work of minorities; because they tend to
reject the regulatedmediation of the political system and become
violent; or, finally,because the power structures control over the
dissemination of in-
formation enables it to stigmatize all conflict-based behaviour
asdeviant.
Another important characteristic of the new social movements
isthat thev are not focused on the political system. Essentially,
theyare not oriented toward the conquest of political power or of
thestate apparatus, but rather toward the control of a field of
autonomy or of independence vis-A-vis the system. The
newmovements have often been reproached for insisting upon the
im-mediate satisfaction of their demands and for their lack of
an
overall stragety. But these traits manifest, in my opinion,
thespecificity of the new forms of collective action. The
reappropria-tion of individual and group identity is achieved
through the refusalto accept any political mediation. This
obviously raises a crucialproblem for practice and for the
development of the movements.
Particularism is the specific form of resistance to a power
whichit itself generalized. Solidarity as an objective is
anothercharacteristic of the new social movements. The struggle
centresaround the issue of group identity; there is a return to the
criterionof ascriptive membership (sex, race, age, locality) which
is the formtaken by revolt against change directed from above.
Themovements also have instrumental objectives and seek
advantageswithin the political system, but this dimension is
secondary in com-parison to the search for solidarity and in
comparison to the ex-pressive nature of the relations found in
them.We should mention, finally, direct participation and the
rejec-
tion of representation. Since what is at stake is the
reappropriationof identity, all mediation is rejected as likely to
reproduce themechanisms of control and manipulation against which
the struggleis directed in the first place. Hence the importance of
direct actionand of direct participation, in other words, of the
spontaneous,anti-authoritarian, and anti-hierarchical nature of the
protestsoriginating in these movements. Hence, also, the risk of
discon-
at MARQUETTE UNIV on August 20, 2014ssi.sagepub.comDownloaded
from
http://ssi.sagepub.com/
-
221
tinuity and of fragmentation which constantly threatens the
newmovements.
These characteristics are found in various forms in many
con-
temporary movements. I cannot, within the limits of this
essay,undertake an analysis of the specific issues which are
essential inthe different movements. I shall restrict myself to
indicating twoissues which seem to me to play a fundamental role in
several con-temporary movements. The first element is the
centrality of thebody, for example, in the womens, youth, and
homosexualmovements, as well as in the counter-cultural practices
which con-trast the body to what is often a stereotyped political
discourse.This phenomenon seems to me to possess a multiple
significance. Init we encounter, first of all, the notion of the
body as a part ofnature, i.e. the realization that man is a part of
nature andtherefore has the possibility of experiencing this body
as a basicdimension of existence and not as a fall; and this
implies, at thesame time, the possibility of taking possession of
the nature whichhe is. Then there is the notion of the body as the
seat of desires,i.e.the acceptance of drives and deep-rooted needs
as aspects of dailyexistence and not as obscure forces of evil.
Finally, there is the no-tion of the body as the nexus of
interpersonal relationships, i.e. thediscovery of communication and
of affectivity, which sexuality ex-presses and manifests. The body
in its different significationsbecomes the cultural locus of
resistance and of desire; it stands op-posed to rationalization and
it authorizes delirium.
But the body is, at the same time, an object upon which the
con-certed integrative and manipulative efforts of the system
ofdomination are focused. A medicalized sexuality entrusted to
theexperts, a body which has become a scientific object, an
erosreified in the rules of fashion and in the exigences of
industry: ad-vanced capitalism requires the notion of such a body,
a body as ob-ject, deprived of its libidinal and aggressive charge,
of its capacityfor eros and delirium. The body becomes a resource
for use in theproduction of merchandise and in social reproduction.
Its demandsmust be satisfied, provided that they are compatible
with the ex-igences of economic and social development and that
they do notimpede the advance of controlled rationalization. The
body aslibido must be neutralized and deprived of its potential to
menacethe system. There is no place for play and for eros, but only
for theregulated pleasure of a sexuality which has become a kind of
gym-nastic training for orgasm.
_ . ,
at MARQUETTE UNIV on August 20, 2014ssi.sagepub.comDownloaded
from
http://ssi.sagepub.com/
-
222
The second element which seems to me to be fundamental in
many movements is the presence of what I shall call a
regressiveutopia with a strong religious component. This phenomenon
is, onthe one hand, a constant factor in the origin of movements.
In theformative phase, the group defines its identity by referring
to apast, to a global myth of a renaissance which is often of a
religiouskind. But, on the other hand, the phenomenon possesses
aspecificity which seems to me to be closely linked with the
newsocial movements. The demands they make regarding identity
anddaily life are becoming increasingly less political. Moreover,
thegrowing secularization of society means that the legitimation of
theestablished order is not of a sacred type, but is linked more
andmore with instrumental rationalization. In this situation, the
appealof religion, freed from the ritual and organizational
apparatus ofthe churches, becomes one of the possible components of
the newmovements. The religious component, functioning as a global
mythcapable of providing a foundation for the construction of an
identi-ty, can become the cultural form of resistance to the
instrumental
rationality of the apparatus of domination. The desire for total
in-tegration, which I call integralism, is the essential
characteristic ofregressive utopias, and it can be seen at work in
the reduction ofreality to the unity of a global principle, in the
abolition of the dif-ferent levels and of the appropriate
instruments of analysis, and inthe identification of the entire
society with the sacred solidarity ofthe group. There exist several
versions of regressive utopia: com-munal integralism,
politico-religious integralism, and mystico-ascetic integralism.
What is common to all of them is the fact thatthe basic concerns of
the movement (which revolve around thereappropriation of identity)
are transcribed in the symboliclanguage of a global myth of
renaissance. As a result of theregressive and evasive aspects of
these concerns, the movements inwhich the religious component
predominates are more easilymanipulated by the power structure, and
their protest tends todissolve into individual flight and into
myth.
7. Towards a sociology of social movements?
The notion of nature has been reintroduced in advanced
capitalismas a cultural definition of needs, which are presented as
escapingthe grasp of the power structure. Nature becomes a sort of
non-
at MARQUETTE UNIV on August 20, 2014ssi.sagepub.comDownloaded
from
http://ssi.sagepub.com/
-
223
social raw material, in contrast to a social realm which
penetratesall aspects of life in society. But there can be no doubt
that we aredealing with a cultural definition of needs, and more
specificallywith the form given by post-industrial culture to the
new demandscreated by the new structure of production. The body,
desire, theunconscious, identity: these are modes of social
representation ofthat domain which, in the individual, resists
domination and ra-tionalization. Hence, this recovery of nature is,
at the same time,the realization that the nature which we are
belongs to us, that it isnot external to social action. And this
means that it can be
employed in a manner contrary to the one preferred by the
existingorder and its apparatus of rationalization. This explains
the am-biguity of the notion of nature and of needs which is found
in thenew movements: it signifies both the rejection of a social
realmmanipulated and controlled by the apparatus of the existing
order(the cultural image of the spontaneity and purity of primary
needs)and the assertion of the social realm as the locus of action
which
consciously produces mans existence and his relations with
othermen (demand concerning the right to life, to pleasure, and
todesire).
Sociology is marked by this same ambivalence. On the one hand,it
creates a conscious awareness of the way a society produces
itselfand maintains, against the heritage of metaphysics and of
thephilosophies of history, that social action produces social
systems.But, on the other hand, when it is not a mere apology for
the ex-isting order, it takes the side of movements for change. It
translatestheir languages and problems, and it is often engaged in
their strug-gles. I do not intend to enter here upon the debate
about the role ofsociology. I shall simply point out two important
tasks forsociological reflection.A sociology of class relations and
of social movements must, in
the first place, seek to develop an understanding of changes in
themode of production in advanced capitalist societies with a view
tobetter defining the novelty of the issues raised by these
movements.But it is even more necessary for it to pursue
theoretical research on
classes and the conflicts between them. The problem brought up
atthe start of the present essay is, I believe, of fundamental
impor-tance. If class relations are original features of society,
if there ex-ists no analytic space which precedes them, then the
theoreticalpossibility of raising the question of change in these
relations iseliminated. And in this case, the question of the
possibility of a
at MARQUETTE UNIV on August 20, 2014ssi.sagepub.comDownloaded
from
http://ssi.sagepub.com/
-
224
conscious intervention in the mechanisms of class formation
and
reproduction (and not of the advent of a mythical classless
society)is not one that can be raised within the limits of
scientific discourse.I believe, on the contrary, that this question
has a scientific statusand that the very fact of bringing it up for
discussion ought to havean influence on the institutional
organization and the role ofsociology. There exists a task of
scientific anticipation that asociology of social movements can not
evade. If sociology is not tobe the prophet of defeat or of the
institutionalization of the newmovements, it must tackle, in a
scientific manner, the problem ofchange in class relations and of
control over the mechanisms ofthe formation and reproduction of
classes, i.e. of the actors inthis kind of transformation. Between
longing for a utopian,conflict-free classless society, pacified and
fully responsive to in-dividual and group demands, on the one hand,
and simply describ-ing the reproduction of the class system, on the
other hand, there isperhaps room for discussing, scientifically,
the possibility of asociety which acts on its class relations in
such a way as to reducetheir ascendancy and control their
reproduction.The second question concerns the effects of the new
social
movements on the methods and practice of sociology. The
newdemands pertain more and more to the individual - to his
inner-most being, his needs, his unconscious. Sociology ought to
in-tegrate in its analysis (and adapt its methods to) problems
whichhave traditionally been thought to lie in the domain of
psychologyand psychoanalysis. The problems of the individual and of
the un-conscious have become collective problems because they are
linkedeither with the manipulation of power or with the cultural
formthat the new movements are assuming. Sociology should take
thesenew dimensions of analysis into account and develop
appropriatemethods for handling them, within the framework of its
ownlanguage and categories. The situation is admittedly a difficult
one,because the dominant class is already carrying out a
converseideological manoeuver. There is an increasing trend toward
non-differentiation and the reduction of problems to the level of
the in-dividual. In other words, the dominant class is attempting
topsychologize and medicalize the social realm in order to drain
allpotential for conflict and collective action stemming from
pro-blems of identity. It is necessary, therefore, to counteract
thistendency by sociologizing the individual, by giving to the
pro-blems of daily life, of relations, and of the unconscious the
dimen-
at MARQUETTE UNIV on August 20, 2014ssi.sagepub.comDownloaded
from
http://ssi.sagepub.com/
-
225
sion which in fact belongs to them in a programmed society.
Inother words, it is necessary to show that these problems are
whatare really at the heart of the new class conflicts.
This task, however, demands a considerable effort on
thetheoretical plane, as well as the elaboration of methods of
analysisand of ways of acting directly in the social realm. It is
necessarycarefully to scrutinize the various aspects of the
movements so as todistinguish between what pertain to the new class
conflicts andwhat derives from organizational disputes and
political struggles. Itis equally necessary, though, to scrutinize
the heritage of thecategories and methods of a number of different
disciplines(sociology, anthropology, psychology, and
psychoanalysis) inorder to elaborate suitable ways for the
sociologist to intervene inthe ambiguous territory of the new
social movements.
Alberto Melucci (born 1943) is Associate Professor of Political
Sociology at theUniversity of Milan. He is engaged in research on
new social movements and col-lective violence in Italy. Recent
publications: "Dieci ipotesi per Ianalisi delnuovi movimenti" ("Ten
hypotheses for the analysis of new socialmovements"), Quaderni
Pracentini 65-66 (1978); "Appunti su movimenti, ter-rorisrimo,
societa italiana" ("Notes on movements, terrorism, italian
society"), IlMulino 256 (1978). Authors address: Institute of
Sociology, Faculty of PoliticalSciences, University of Milan, Via
Conservatorio 7, Milan, Italy.
References
Aalberoni, F.1977 Movimento e istituzione. Bologna, 11
Mulino.
Davies, J. C. 1962 "Toward a theory of revolution", American
Sociological Review 27.
Feierabend, 1. K.; Feierabend, R. L.; Nesvold, B. A. 1973 "The
comparative study of revolution and violence", Comparative
Politics (April).
Graham, H. D.; Gurr, T. R. (eds)1969 Violence in America. New
York, Bantam Books.
Gurr, T. R.1970 Why men rebel. Princeton, NJ, Princeton
University Press.
at MARQUETTE UNIV on August 20, 2014ssi.sagepub.comDownloaded
from
http://ssi.sagepub.com/
-
226
Melucci, A.1976 Movinienti di rivolta. Milan, Etas Libri.1977
Sistema politico, partiti e tnovinienti sociali. Milan,
Feltrinelli.
Oberschall, A.1973 Social conflict and social movements.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-
Hall.
Olson, M.1968 The logic of collective action. New York, Schocken
Books.
Pizzorno, A.1975 Marche, dmocratie, action collective. Paris,
Institut dEtudes Politiques.
(Unplublished paper.)
Smelser, N. J.1963 Theory of collective behavior. New York,
MacMillan.1968 Essays in sociological explanation. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall.
Tilly, C.1970 "The changing place of collective violence", in:
M. Richter (ed.). Essays
in theory and history. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University
Press.1975 The rebellious century 1830-1930. Cambridge, Mass.,
Harvard University
Press.
Touraine, A.1973 Production de la socrete. Paris, Seuil.1974
Pour la socrologre. Paris, Seuil.1975 "Les nouveaux conflits
sociaux", Sociologie du Travail 1.