COMPARING SOCIAL MOVEMENT PARTICIPATION
IN WESTERN EUROPE AND THE UNITED STATES:
PROBLEMS, USES, AND A PROPOSAL FOR SYNTHESIS*
Sidney Tarrow
Cornell University, USA
This paper considers some reasons why there have
been few comparisons between European and American
socia2 movements. I t then considers some of the
advantages from a compam t i v e approach, o f f e m e q t e s
i n which comparative research can heZp to improve
anaZysis and interpretation, and outZines some probtems
faced by students of comparative social movements.
I t then proposes a synthesis of the American ttresource
mobiZizationU and European "new socia2 mvementsN
tmditions.
When in t h e l a t e 1960's t h e institutionalized politics of t h e
postwar decades were challenged by worker, s t u d e n t a n d
generalized discontent, scholarly certitudes were also shattered.
From the calm assurance t h a t ideology and militancy were
dead, some experts conluded t h a t mass politics had gone t o o
f a r and t h a t democratic institutions were threatened by
hypermobilization (Crozier et al., 1975). Students of social
movements were more cautious, but on both sides of t h e Atlantic
they questioned inherited schemes and proposed n e w ones,
launching two new paradigms-what has been called "resource
mobilization" in t h e United S t a t e s and "new social movements"
in Western Europe.
*This version was written while I was a visiting fellow of t h e
European University Institute in Fiesole. An e a r l i e r version
was presented t o t h e CES Research Planning Group Workshop
on Participation in Social Movements, held in Ithaca, New
York,August 16th-18th, 1985. I wish t o thank my colleagues
in that group for their reactions t o t h a t paper. I particularly
wish t o thank Donatella della Porta, Hanspeter Kriesi and Bert
Klandermans and Alberto Melucci (to whose work t h i s paper
is particularly indebted) for their helpful comments. They of
course bear no responsibility for either version.
International Journal of M a s s Emergencies and Disasters, 1986
146
On t h e European side, t h e most obvious casualty was t h e
notion t h a t t h e working class was a radical social movement's
necessary basis a n d economic benefits i t s goal (Touraine, 1971).
On t h e American side a major casualty was t h e old idea t h a t
movement a c t i v i t y was caused by personal rootlessness t h a t
failed t o survive t h e decade (Oberschall, 1973). For both groups
of scholars, t h e m o r e contentious politics of t h e l a t e 1960's
and early 1970's represented a breath of fresh a i r for a subject
t h a t , for t o o long, had hovered on t h e e d g e of scholarly and
political legitimacy.
In t h e wake of those years, even as i t was becoming clear
t h a t both t h e "end of ideology" paradigm and its "crisis of
democracy" successor were exaggerated stereotypes, serious
research on social movements continued to evolve. For example,
despite t h e vogue of marxist studies in t h e 1970's in Europe,
simple class models of mobilization would never recover, while
in t h e United States, t h e idea t h a t social movement participants
were rootless a l i e n a t e s never reappeared. T h e field of social
movement research has been permantently--and positively-a f f e c t e d by t h e movements and conflicts t h a t marked both
Western Europe and t h e United S t a t e s since t h e l a t e 1960's.
Thus f a r , a l l t o t h e good. However, despite t h e common
origins of t h e new field of social movement studies in t h e politics
of t h e 1960's, we find l i t t l e consensus between European and
American scholars on problems, methods o r subjects of study.
Nor is t h e r e clarity on what consitutues a "new" movement
a n d on how i t differs from "old" examples of t h e s a m e
phenomenon. Finally, t h e problem of participation in social
movements h a s been d e a l t with in d i f f e r e n t ways on e a c h side
of t h e Atlantic, with a predominant emphasis on t h e individual
in t h e United S t a t e s a n d on movements as a whole in Western
Europe. The result, I shall argue, has been a field of study t h a t
a d d s up t o considerably less than t h e sum of i t s p a r t s and which-as a result--has n o t y e t had a n i m p a c t proportional t o t h e
remarkable changes i t h a s documented in Western societies.
The first problem t o be faced in t h e comparative analysis
of social movments is t o understand this disjunction between
t w o research traditions t h a t have emerged differently from
similar experiences. Since Klandermans has delineated them
in such detail elsewhere in this volume, I will make only a f e w
general observations regarding t h e t w o traditions. I will then
o f f e r some broad guidelines t o f a c i l i t a t e comparison in this
diffuse and heterogenous field. Then, in P a r t Two I will propose
a level of analysis t h a t might allow for synthesis between t h e
t w o major traditions. Based on a n interesting and growing
convergence among a group of European and American scholars
147
(Klandermans, 1984 and 1985a and b; Klandermans a n d Oegema,
1984 and 1985; Kriesi, 1982, 1985a and b a n d Kriesi et al., 1985;
McAdam, 1982, 1983, 1984, and 1985; Melucci, 1980, 1982,
1985a and b and Melucci et al., 1984; a n d Snow, 1 9 7 6 and 1 9 8 5
and Snow et al., 1980). I shall a r g u e f o r a partial synthesis around
a n extension of Klandermans' concept of "consensus mobilization"
as a potential way of linking t h e s t r u c t u r a l a p p r o a c h of t h e
new social movements school with t h e more micro-analytical
approach of American scholars and those Europeans influenced
by them.
Comparison between European and A m e r i c a n social
movements has been modest until now. First, s i n c e t h e t w o
traditions d o not mesh e i t h e r theoretically o r methodologically,
many American and European scholars a r e only d i m l y a w a r e
of one another's work; second, t h e European emphasis on s t r u c t u r e
and t h e American focus on motivations produce d a t a t h a t a r e
difficult to compare, even f o r those with a n a m b i t i o n t o
synthesize and a passing knowledge of m o r e than o n e country;
third, neither tradition has been markedly successful i n producing
comparative research--the f o r m e r because i t s preferred s t r u c t u r a l
parameters a r e global and d o not predict variations between
countries, and t h e l a t t e r because individual motivations a n d
decisions a r e difficult and expensive subjects t o s t u d y in m o r e
than one political system.
Although comparison is not a magic answer t o t h e problems
of a n y field--least of all one t h a t is as dispersed a n d changing
as t h e social movement field-given t h e c u r r e n t g a p between
t h e dominant paradigms in t h e Western European a n d American
branches of this field, comparison m a y o f f e r a n u m b e r of a i d s
t o b e t t e r definition, m o r e consistent operationalization a n d
g r e a t e r synthesis than h a s been apparent until now. A t t h e v e r y
least, I shall argue, comparison will help scholars on both sides
of t h e A t l a n t i c t o know whether t h e y a r e studying examples
of t h e s a m e phenomena, and, if so, t o what they c a n a t t r i b u t e
t h e differences t h e y find.
I, Comparing Social Movements:
Uses, Examples, Problems
A rapid survey of English language t e x t s in c o m p a r a t i v e
politics t u r n s up a remarkable finding: in this field f e w of t h e
authors surveyed give more than passing attention t o e i t h e r
social or political movements. The indices of s e v e n popular
t e x t s in comparative politics were scanned f o r t h e following
entries: "anomic groups," "civil strife", "collective action,"
148
"dissent," "movements," "protest," "revolution," "riots," "social
movements," "terrorism" and "violents." The least hospitable
t o t r e a t m e n t of social movements was S.E. Finer's Comparative
Government (1970), with n o index references t o these concepts;
and t h e most hospitable was Almond and Powell's Comparative
Politics: System, Process and Politics (1978, with 21 pages).
The t e r m "social movement" itself turned up in none of t h e
seven indices, while t h e most frequent term--"revolution"-was
found in six o u t of seven of t h e texts,
Considerations of space f o r c e m e t o pass over this remarkable
omission in silence. In this section, 1 will briefly review some
of t h e advantages of comparison for social movement studies;
second, I will give some examples of a r e a s in which comparative
research could help t o clarify problems of analysis or
interpretation; and, third, I will outline s o m e particularly thorny
problems t h a t students of comparative social movements should
expect t o encounter.
A. Uses
First, comparison can be a corrective t o t h e theoretically
sweeping but generally narrowly t e s t e d structural models t h a t
have dominated much of t h e field until now. Social movements,
being unusual phenomena, produce actions t h a t may be classified
as rare events. As a result, unlike other fields of sociology o r
political science, t h e y have encouraged one-variable explanations
and structural paradigms. Comparison help t o c o r r e c t this
weakness by revealing t h a t similar outcomes a r e frequently
accompanied by partially o r wholly different conditions, thereby
forcing t h e analyst t o adopt a m o r e complicated or b e t t e r
specified model.
Second, comparison can s e r v e as a check upon premature
closure on what seems t o t h e observer as "obvious" causal p a t t e r n s
t h a t have emerged from narrowly drawn observations on
individuals and groups in t h e s a m e political system. When analysis
of t h e s a m e movement o r behavior in another system shows
l i t t l e relationship between familiarly coupled variables, t h e
analyst is forced t o specify t h e posited relationship b e t t e r o r
translate it into more general t e r m s t h a t will cover t h e variety
of conditions with which it is associated in different countries.
Third, comparison can sensitize observers t o theoretical
possibilities of social movements even when these a r e n o t evident
on their home ground. For example, it is almost t h e only way
to delimit t h e potential range of participation in social
movements among groups at different "distances" from t h e
movement's epicenter. This is important because social
movements--unlike
formal
organizations--frequently
lack
149
observable boundaries. If movement M a t t r a c t s s u p p o r t f r o m
social group G in country a, but n o t in country b, t h e n t h e r a n g e
of a t t r a c t i o n of e a c h can be related t o f e a t u r e s of social
structure, movement s t r a t e g y o r political opportunity structure.
If we only study t h e movement in country b but n o t in country
a, we m a y never know t h a t its nonappeal t o group G in t h e f o r m e r
is a theoretically interesting issues.
Fourth, comparison can help us t o overcome the d i l e m m a
t h a t t h e countries t h a t produce t h e most research on social
movement organizations m a y n o t be t h e ones in which these
movements a r e most important o r most typical. A good example
is t h e large number of studies on t h e American C o m m u n i s t
party t h a t were done from t h e 1930's on. An o b s e r v e r f r o m
Mars in t h e 21st. century might be forgiven for thinking t h a t
t h e CP-USA was a major f o r c e in American society d u r i n g this
period. Comparison at least f o r c e s us t o look at o t h e r countries
in which similar phenomena c a n b e found and m a y t a k e a d i f f e r e n t
shape.
Fifth, comparing similar movements across n a t i o n a l lines
can sensitize us to t h e variety of outcomes t h a t m o v e m e n t s
enjoy o r suffer under d i f f e r e n t conditions, thereby cautioning
us against gross generalizations about t h e Iron Law of Oligarchy
o r t h e "inevitable" cooptation of revolutionary movements.
T a k e t h e question of repression; while it is a c o n s t a n t of state
responses t o social movements, its forms, its degree a n d whether
i t is accompanied by reform and accomodation will v a r y g r e a t l y
between different systems. Given t h e vagaries w i t h which
outcomes can be causally linked t o events, comparison is probably
t h e only method t h a t can give us a sense of balance a b o u t how
political systems respond t o social movements.
Sixth, comparison brings o u t t h e major f a c t o r t h a t sociologists
and social psychologists normally ignore-political inetitutions
and their e f f e c t s on t h e opportunities, constraints and channelling
of social movement organization, f o r m s of action a n d o u t c o m e s
(Tilly, 1978). When similar s e c t o r s of social m o v e m e n t a c t i v i t y
a r e compared in political systems with different institutional
arrangements, t h e a r r a n g e m e n t s themselves a r e f r e q u e n t l y
found t o correspond t o differences in style, s t r a t e g y or o u t c o m e s
t h a t individual o r group variables within systems frequently
fail t o explain. T h e comparison of similar organizations,
movements or sectors across national boundaries is probably
t h e most fruitful way of d e t e c t i n g t h e influence o f politics
on collective action.
Finally, especially comparison across t i m e can provide a
healthy dose of realism--or add empirical backing-to claims
t h a t "new" social movements a r e fundamentally d i f f e r e n t than
150
what has c o m e before. Pizzorno (1978) h a s written sensibly
about strike waves t h a t unless we compare t h e m t o past peaks
of collective action, we a r e in danger of concluding t h a t t h e
revolution is upon us e a c h t i m e t h e r e is a n increase in t h e
magnitude of collective action.
The s a m e is t r u e of t h e f o r m s t h a t collective action takes.
Tilly (1978), who has done more than anyone t o reconstruct
past 'repertoires of collective action, finds t h a t l i t t l e has been
added t o our basic repertoire since t h e strike became widespread
in t h e 19th. century. The Tillys' (1975) work shows t h a t only
a systematic comparison between past and present behavior
of s o d a 1 movements can put i n t o balance t h e importance of
t h e "new" and t h e "old" in new social movements.
B. Examples
I. Structural Models. In t h e past, many sweepingly structural
explanations of social movements were based upon reductive
notions of mass psychology, social dislocation, o r t h e mode
of production, with little systematic a t t e m p t t o link a c t u a l
movements t o their structural presuppositions in m o r e than
a metaphorical way. The findings of t h e last 1 5 years of research
i n t o new social movements, show t h a t t h e r e was f o r a t i m e
t h e s a m e danger. Many of t h e studies were e i t h e r generic or
case study in method, non-comparative in scope and merely
illustrated in one case o r another t h e structural theories of
posrindustrial society t h a t inspired them. With only a f e w
exceptions (Melucci, 1980; Nedelmann, 1984; Offe, 1983) t h e
l a t t e r failed t o even define in what t h e "newness" of new social
movements consisted, making f e w explicit comparisons between
t h e supposed new movements and others t h a t were now
presumably "old." As Roth writes, t h e theories t h a t have inspired
many studies "prove to be especially inadequate when faced
by t h e question of t h e 'newness' of new social movements. On
t h e assumption of a coming postindustrial society, societal
analysis was of t e n hastily squeezed i n t o some spectacular f e a t u r e s
t h a t were empirically inconclusive... research on new social
movements must be embedded in t h e c o n t e x t of macrosocietal
analysis--but without reductionism" (1985).
The oniy way t o demonstrate t h e newness of new social
movements and i t s relation to structural change would be t o
compare similar movements in different societies, beginning
with their structural development and contradictions and t h e
empirical reflections of t h e l a t t e r in social movement
organizations and behavior. Recently some students, like Brand
et al. (19851, Kitschelt (1984) and Rucht (1984), have been
a t t e m p t i n g t o compare similar movements in different industrial
151
countries, s t a r t i n g f r o m general s t r u c t u r a l premises but adding
comparative variables like economic modernization (Rucht)
and f e a t u r e s of t h e institutional s t r u c t u r e (Kitschelt) to t h e
fundamental changes posited in advanced c a p i t a l i s t societies.
Others, like Kriesi (19851, t r a c e s t r u c t u r a l trends t o h r e e r
prospects f o r d i f f e r e n t generations, and t h e n c e t o d i f f e r e n t i a l
motivations f o r participation in social movements. In looking
at t h e s e r e c e n t studies, o n e has a positive impression o f increasing
concreteness, g r e a t e r comparative consciousness (if n o t a c t u a l
comparative research design) and a shift towards rhe c e n t r a l
theoretical question of how movements t r a n s l a t e s t r u c t u r a l
potential i n t o mobilization.
2. Individualistic a n d Group Models. Particularly in t h e United
States, w e have many studies in which individual motivation
o r group environment provide plausible explanations f o r movement
outcomes. But f e w researchers in this tradition a t t e m p t e d t o
combine, o r even compare, individual and structural explanations
of t h e disposition t o participate in social movements.
An important problem in doing s o is t h e absence of sufficient
variance within systems in structural variables to enable us
t o examine t h e d a t a in ways t h a t can plausibly r e l a t e s t r u c t u r a l
t o motivational explanations. Recall t h e d e b a t e s in t h e 1970's
about t h e c o r r e l a t e s of American black riot behavior (Spilerman,
1970, 1972 and Mazur, 1972). Individualistic explanations like
deprivation and group explanations like t h e r e l a t i v e size of
t h e black population explained very l i t t l e in t h e v a r i a n c e in
a c t u a l riot outcomes c i t y by city. With t h e exception o f umbrellalike variables like "region", s t r u c t u r a l f a c t o r s in t h e American
system explained little variance either. An i m p o r t a n t reason
why is t h a t , f o r structural variables t o explain o u t c o m e s , t h e r e
h a s t o be significant variance in their range, something t h a t
may n o t have been t r u e f o r t h e uniformly miserable s t a t u s of
American blacks in t h e ghettos of t h e 1960's. Only cross-national
analysis of mass rioting by suppressed minority populations
in different cities would have produced a n a d e q u a t e test of
t h e s t r u c t u r a l models of urban rioting t h a t proved unconvincing
when applied t o t h e American system alone.
Steps a r e being t a k e n t o move towards m o r e a d e q u a t e
structural explanations of social movement a c t i v i t y f r o m t h e
s t a r t i n g point of t h e individual. Klandermans (1984) h a s innovated
with a panel study of workers' propensity t o strike o v e r t i m e ,
tracking changes in willingness t o participate a c c o r d i n g to
changing riskheward incentives and their perceptions of t h e
likelihood of others' participating and of achieving success.
Della P o r t a a n d Mattina (1985), though not employing individual
d a t a , have ingeniously linked t h e motivations of t h o s e who join
152
Basque extremist groups t o t h e s t r u c t u r e and popular culture
of t h e region. McAdam (1984), using individual questionnaire
d a t a , h a s compared attitudinal and s t r u c t u r a l explanations of
particpation in a high risk a c t i v i t y in t h e American civil rights
movement. Tarrow (described in 1983) using protest e v e n t s
d a t a in Italy, is relating variations in participation t o variations
in both political and economic structure. Overall, o n e h a s t h e
impression t h a t s o m e empirical researchers coming from t h e
"American" tradition a r e moving cautiously towards t h e m o r e
structural perspectives of t h e "new social movement1' school.
3. The Range of Attraction Problem. In a recent s t a t e m e n t
(1984), Tilly regards social movements as virtually equivalent
t o t h e interaction between insurgent populations and authorities-albeit one which m a y continue over a long period. In contrast,
many scholars regard movement involvement more narrowly-as something t h a t is virtually coterminous with membership
in movement organizations, which risks excluding many who
participate from outside these organizations.
Herein lies a fundamental barrier to developing a n integrated
social movement field. Students of new social movements have
shown t h a t conventional membership in conventional organizations
is not characteristic of many of t h e movements t h e y study
(Melucci, 1985b). But organizations1 activities frequently
stimulate t h e activation of those outside of their boundaries
(Klandermans, this volume). T h e only reasonable solution, it
s e e m s t o m e , is t o focus a t t e n t i o n on both organization members
and external participants in social movement activity, leaving
as a n empirical question t h e relative magnitude, t h e importance,
and t h e relationship between t h e two. Using comparative analysis,
this would draw a t t e n t i o n t o t h e f a c t o r s which m a y explain
a g r e a t e r o r less g r e a t range of a t t r a c t i o n of social movement
organizations.
For example, although t h e e v e n t s of May 1968 practically
shut down t h e French economy, t h e i r solution in J u n e of t h a t
year and in t h e following devaluation essentially ended t h e
French c y c l e of protest (Salvati and Gigliobianci, 1981). In
contrast, though it never reached such a peak of conflict as
in France, t h e Italian Hot Autumn was a "creeping May", t h a t
continued well into t h e 1970's. What explains t h e d i f f e r e n t range
and length of a t t r a c t i o n of t h e t w o movements? Only a
comparison of movement organizational strategies, individual
motivations and calculations, a n d t h e structural development
of t h e t w o systems a n d their internal conflict s t r u c t u r e s can
explain t h e longer a t t r a c t i o n of t h e Italian movement o r t h e
sharper peak of t h e French o n e (Tarrow, 1985).
4. Accidents of Birth. We d o not always study movements
153
as a d i r e c t function of their importance o r frequency in a system.
Government grants, t h e a t t r a c t i o n s or f e a r s of a m o v e m e n t ,
or intellectual and ideological traditions appear t o be equally
important. When we look at t h e large body of r e s e a r c h on n e w
social movements, i t a p p e a r s t h a t much of it c o m e s from t h e
more advanced countries of northern o r c e n t r a l Europe. But
does this mean t h a t t h e F.R.G. has produced more n e w social
movements than Italy, f o r e x a m p l e ? O r t h a t West Germans,
with a narrower party system, produce more r e s e a r c h on t h e
subject than Italians, who a r e possessed with their p a r t y s y s t e m
to t h e exclusion of almost a l l o t h e r a c t o r s or insticutions?
In examining t h e resource mobilization paradigm, we see
one possible e f f e c t of such a c c i d e n t s of birth. Designed in a
period of affluence and expanding political r e s o u r c e s in t h e
United States, t h e picture it d r e w of social m o v e m e n t a c t i v i t y
was r a t h e r a docile and institutionalized o n e (Jenkins, 1983;
McAdam, 1982). As a result, concepts like "entrepreneurshipw-which Zald clearly intended t o mean moral, and not prof itseeking
entrepreneurship--tended t o t a k e on a merchandizing quality,
The s a m e theory might have taken on a different m e a n i n g in
a different place o r time.
Comparative work between similar movements in d i f f e r e n t
countries could put t o t h e test whether t h e "merchandizing"
e l e m e n t s in American social movement organizations hold outside
of t h e United States, Comparison could also put to t h e test
one of Zald's most controversial findings-that t h e i n c r e a s e in
social movement activity h e s a w was in p a r t t h e r e s u l t of a
more generous governmental and Foundation grant environment.
Recently, resource mobilization concepts h a v e begun t o
be applied t o European situations, f o r example by Klandermans
(19841, and Tarrow (1983 and 1985). Of work in progress, perhaps
t h e most promising is della Portals a t t e m p t s t o s t u d y t h e
organizational resources mobilized by Italy's l e f t w i n g terrorist
organizations (1985a). The application of resource mobilization
concepts t o m o r e aggressive, m o r e ideological and m o r e risktaking f o r m s of social movement activity will allow u s t o t e s t
t h e theory and e i t h e r extend i t s boundaries o r r e s t r i c t t h e m
with g r e a t e r confidence t o t h e a r e a of its birth.
5. Movements and Outcomes. The most r e c u r r e n t model
in t h e social movement field has been t h e "career" model which
s e e s movements a s progressing internally from mass m o v e m e n t
t o bureaucratic organization and externally from insurgency
t o incorporation. But both comparative and historical analysis
suggest t h a t movements tend t o arise under c e r t a i n systemic
conditions, appearing in large numbers during cycles of protest
154
o r crises and dying out o r becoming senescent during periods
of quiescence (Tarrow, 1983).
The f a c t t h a t large numbers of movements appear during
periods of unrest suggests t h a t i t m a y be t h e conditions of
national politics and not f a c t o r s internal t o social movement
organizations t h a t drive their evolution and outcomes (Tilly,
1984). Therefore, i t seems to follow t h a t only t h e comparative
analysis of social movements within and between cycles of
mobilization can provide clues as t o t h e conditions in which
bureaucratization and or incorporation will t a k e place.
Tilly (described in 1978), in a major project on English social
protest, i s assembling d a t a on over 6,000 contentious e v e n t s
between 1828 and 1834. Tarrow (described in 19831, in a partial
replication of Tilly's method, has collected d a t a on over 5,000
Italian protest e v e n t s and strikes f o r t h e period 1966-73. Olzak
(1989, using similar methods, is amassing a unique d a t a s e t
on American e t h n i c conflicts. These projects, which emphasize
the action phases of protest e v e n t s and social conflicts, have
yet t o demonstrate t h a t t h e y c a n c h a r t t h e rise and f a l l of social
movement organizations a c r o s s t i m e and space. Their major
advantage lies in providing access to t h e changing repertory
of protest and catalogues of t h e developing demands of t h e
a c t o r s involved and their relation t o each other over time.
Through t i m e series and cross sectional analysis of these d a t a ,
systematic understanding of t h e dynamic of protest movements
within and between broad historic cycles m a y soon b e possible.
6. Politics and Social Movements. I have argued elsewhere
(1983) for t h e insertion of t h e political opportunity s t r u c t u r e
i n t o social movement studies. What this has to d o with t h e
decision t o participate should b e fairly obvious. Not only cycles
of mobilization but variables associated with t h e presence o r
absence of influential allies, with openness of a c c e s s t o political
institutions, and with t h e divisions within o r unity of e l i t e s
appear t o a f f e c t people's willingness t o participate in social
movement activity (Ibid., Part. 3).
Resource mobilization theorists have been m o r e sympathetic
t o this idea than "new social movement" theorists. O n c e assuming
t h a t resources to b e mobilized determine t h e shape and degree
of participation, it is a short and logical s t e p t o t h e conclusion
t h a t t h e political system can provide such resources. But resource
mobilization theorists have been slower t o conceptualize exactly
how politics can f i t i n t o their schemes. Comparison can provide
a "handle" on this problem by showing t h e political institutional
arrangements in which participation is stimulated as opposed
t o where they a r e not. Kitschelt (1984) appears t o be following
155
such a s t r a t e g y implicitly in his comparative work o n
environmental movements in four countries.
New social movement theorists h a v e been strangely insensitive
t o t h e influence of politics on participation decisions. Perhaps
because many of t h e movements t h e y study a r e e x p l i c i t reactions
against t h e "old" politics (Berger, 1979; Offe, 1983), t h e y h a v e
rather emphasized t h e social structural and c u l t u r a l sources
of participation. Comparison between countries w i t h s t r o n g
and weak party s y s t e m s or between populations w i t h high a n d
low partisan identification would b e t t e r help to d e m o n s t r a t e
t h e non-political n a t u r e of t h e new social phenomena t h e y s t u d y
than repeated reassertions of their non-political c h a r a c t e r .
7. "New" and "Old" in Social Movements. Though I h a v e
from t i m e t o t i m e expressed scepticism in this e s s a y a t s o m e
of t h e more far-reaching claims of t h e new social movement
school, one accomplishment deserves emphasis a n d approval:
t h e a r r a y of new methods and approaches t h a t h a v e e n t e r e d
t h e field from this direction. American work has relied too
heavily on t h e survey instrument t o c a p t u r e t h e processes inherent
in group formation and individual affiliation. Kriesi (1985a)
found t h a t this t y p e of instrument has a precise (and negative)
ideological connotation t o t h e subjects of social movement
research and is most likely t o b e rejected by t h e m , S o m e
American researchers, such as Snow (1976), have enriched our
knowledge
of
religious
movements
through
participant-observations, but t h i s is a r a r i t y in t h e United States.
The collective focus and cultural change e m p h a s i s of t h e
new social movement tradition has led t o g r e a t e r methodologlcal
innovation. Touraine (1978) and his school have developed a
method of "sociological intervention" t h a t goes far--some might
say t o o f a r (Amiot, 1980; Minguet, 1980)--towards bridging
t h e gap between researchers and their subjects. T h e work of
Melucci and his group (19841, though intervening less in t h e
group's existence, perhaps goes f u r t h e r towards t a p p i n g its
internal processes and dynamic. Kriesi (1985a) argues persuasively
f o r "direct access" methods. Finally, methods of "life history"
analysis, originally c r e a t e d to study t h e lives of " l i t t l e people",
a r e being adapted by researchers associated with t h e C a r l o
C a t t a n e o Institute of Bologna on f o r m e r Italian t e r r o r i s t s (della
Porta, 1985b), and by Luisa Passerini on former p a r t i c i p a n t s
in t h e Italian student movement.
But t h e r e i s this danger: t h a t unless they can be applied
systematically t o both new and old movements, m e t h o d s which
bring o u t t h e originality, t h e new cultural content a n d t h e new
collective identities in new social movements m a y b e
self-reifying. For if they demonstrate "newness" in o n e case,
156
and fail t o investigate it in t h e other, we will not understand
in what t h e "newness" of t h e new social movements consists
and w e may be destined to rediscover a "new" politics e v e r y
t i m e a new issue or a new way of packaging it appears on t h e
agenda.
C,Problems
Many problems of studying social movements have been
touched on in previous sections of t h i s essay. Here I would simply
like t o outline t h r e e which seem t o m e potential dangers in
inhibiting successful comparative research on participation
in social movements between Western Europe and t h e United
States: t h e problem of t h e dispersed n a t u r e of t h e field, t h a t
of t h e varying costs and risks of social movement activity,
and t h a t of relating information on groups and organizations
t o d a t a on movement cycles.
1. The Dispersed N a t u r e of t h e Field. Analysts have always
considered a tremendous variety of phenomena t o be social
movements. Comparative analysis increases this potential range,
especially when students f r o m different a r e a s a t t e m p t t o
communicate using different definitions and p a r a m e t e r s of
social movement activity. In making comparisons, we quickly
become a w a r e t h a t t h e s e c t o r a l goals of t h e movement c a n
have a strong impact on its organization, i t s strategy, and its
motivational structure. Thus we cannot simply compare
movements across countries; we must f i r s t . a s k what t h e
movement is for, and make s u r e w e a r e n o t comparing movements
whose sectoral goals make f o r a n entirely different universe
of motivations.
Different definitions of social movements make t h e problem
still m o r e complex. For Touraine, a social movement must involve
a collective identity, a desire f o r rupture and a totalizing ideology
(1978); f o r McCarthy and Zald, virtually a l l new organizations
which challenge some a s p e c t of public policy would f i t i n t o
t h e category of SMO (1977); for Tilly, it is only challenging
groups intent on e n t r y i n t o t h e polity t h a t engage in social
movementlike collective a c t i o n (1978); while I have used a hybrid
definition involving: 1) leaders seeking policy changes o r
institutional access; 2) who claim t o represent groups outside
t h e polity; 3) and employ disruptive d i r e c t action; 4) against
authorities o r power holders in public o r private institutions
(1983).
Each definition produces a different population of groups
and a different set of behaviors t h a t are relevant, a l l of which
makes i t tremendously difficult t o t r a n s l a t e findings from one
research tradition o r country t o another. For example, American
157
public interest groups which specialize in lobbying c a n n o t easily
be compared t o German environmental groups using d i r e c t action.
There is no a priori reason t o exclude e i t h e r t y p e o f group,
but a major e f f o r t at classification and preliminary comparison
will be necessary before a s y s t e m a t i c comparative analysis
is undertaken.
2. The Costs and Risks of Insurgency. Most s t u d e n t s would
a g r e e t h a t social movements o p e r a t e in some way o u t s i d e the
routine political institutions and boundaries which d e f i n e t h e
a c c e p t a b l e limits of legitimate political activity. B u t such
institutions and boundaries differ broadly in ways that make
it difficult t o define a priori what will be a social m o v e m e n t
a c t i v i t y and what will not. I t follows t h a t t h e decision to
participate in social movement a c t i v i t i e s will vary a c c o r d i n g
t o these rules of t h e game, as perceived by potential participants.
The problems t h a t this raises a r e obvious. A s t r i k e m a y
be illegitimate in a n authoritarian system; it m a y test t h e
boundaries of legitimacy in a semi-authoritarian o n e and it
may be wholly a c c e p t a b l e in a liberal democracy. While s t r i k e s
can certainly be compared between these t h r e e types o f systems,
it is not a t all c l e a r t h a t strikers make t h e s a m e kind of decision
when they a g r e e t o go o u t on strike in each one, E v e n within
liberal democracies, small changes c a n be crucial in a f f e c t i n g
t h e risks and c o s t s of joining in collective action; f o r example,
t h e c o s t s and risks of striking were reduced tremendously in
t h e United S t a t e s a f t e r t h e passage of t h e NLRB (Piven and
Cloward, 1977). We must at least t a k e c a r e t o understand t h e
institutional environment of people's decision ' t o p a r t i c i p a t e
before comparing them in d i f f e r e n t societies or periods.
3. Organizations, Groups and Movements. I observed e a r l i e r
t h a t t h e focus of much European research is t h e movement-considering t h e l a t t e r a s a l l those individuals who a r e emotionally
and behaviorally involved in disruptive direct a c t i o n against
institutions or elites--while t h e subject of much American
research is t h e movement organization. These c o n t r a s t i n g f o c i
a r e probably inevitable as long as European and American scholars
continue t o begin with different precepts of what is important.
But since this contributes heavily t o t h e current noncumulative
and non-comparable n a t u r e of t h e field, we should a t l e a s t be
a w a r e t h a t t h e findings of each school a r e not s o - m u c h
contradictory as complementary, since their proponents m a y
be trying t o explain o r explore different things.
I t may, however, be possible t o g o somewhat f u r t h e r in t h e
direction of synthesis than these remarks would suggest. F o r
between t h e structural approach of t h e European school and
t h e individualistic approach of t h e American one t h e r e is a n
158
intermediate a r e a of social movement research t h a t some scholars
a r e beginning t o explore and which has t h e potential t o link
t h e two traditions. I r e f e r t o t h e social, cultural a n d ideological
environment in which social movements a r e formed. In t h e
final section of this paper, I will a r g u e t h a t t h e most fruitful
direction for research of a comparative and a comparable nature
t o be done in both Western Europe and t h e United S t a t e s at
t h e present t i m e lies in this intermediate a r e a between s t r u c t u r e
and action.
II. Transforming S t r u c t u r e i n t o Action:
Consensus Mobilization and Social Movements
A hypothetical chain of causation f o r social movement
participation t h a t c a n help us in ordering groups, organizations
and movements in a theoretically coherent way h a s been offered
by Klandermans in this volume:
Participation in social movements i s something t h a t
takes place in t h e c o n t e x t of t h e formation of mobilization
potentials, t h e formation and activation of recruitment
networks and t h e arousing of t h e motivation to participate.
I t is important t o distinguish these processes because
they require very different activities of social movement
organizations and different theories a r e needed t o analyze
them.
I will pick up on and extend Klandermans' threefold phase
model and propose i t as t h e skeleton for a framework within
which t o compare social movement participation in different
countries. The e f f o r t m a y also yield a possible linkage between
t h e structural approach of t h e new social movement school
and t h e motivational one of t h e "American" one.
In . t h e section t h a t follows, I h a v e tried to interpret t h e
discussions of t h e workshop of t h e CES Research Planning Group
on participation in social movements, held at Cornell University
in August, 1985. I a m most in d e b t t o P.G. Klandermans'
contributions (1984 and in this volume), but also t r y t o draw
upon t h e papers presented by Hanspeter Kriesi, 1985b, Doug
McAdam, 1985, Alberto Melucci, 1985b and David Snow, 1985,
and on t h e discussions at t h e workshop. I wish t o emphasize
t h a t t h e inferences made in t h e remainder of this paper a r e
mine alone, and d o not c o m m i t t h e o t h e r members of t h e planning
group.
L e t us begin with definitions:
By t h e formation of mobilization potentials Klandermans
means t h e structural f a c t o r s which produce t h e groups and
159
individuals with a predisposition towards social movement
participation. These f a c t o r s , "resulting f r o m d e v e l o p m e n t s
in postindustrial societies, deprivations and aspirations f r o m
among t h e societal groups who most immediately experience
their unfavorable consequences and among groups which a r e
extra-sensitive because of t h e development of post-material
values," (ibid.) a r e t h e s a m e variables t h a t s t u d e n t s of n e w
social movements have emphasized. I believe t h a t t h e y c o n s t i t u t e
t h e objective and necessary--but f a r from suff icient--starting
point from which t o begin t o understand decisions to p a r t i c i p a t e
in social movement activity.
By arousal of t h e motivation t o participate, I intend w h a t
Klandermans h a s called (1984) "action mobilization"-that is,
t h e activation of structurally determined potentials i n t o actlon,
e i t h e r in t h e form of joining social movement organizations
or participating in their activities. This i s what t h e American
tradition has emphasized, "with a g r e a t d e a l of a t t e n t i o n t o
t h e mobilization of resources...to t h e c o s t s and b e n e f i t s of
participation and t o t h e f a c t o r s t h a t influence t h e m , but n o
a t t e n t i o n at a l l t o t h e formation of mobilization potentials
movements draw from in mobilization campaigns." (ibid.) Action
mobilization is t h e endpoint of decisions t o participate, b u t
it is not possible t o understand without analyzing prior processes
t h a t a r e missing in much of existing American research.
What is mainly missing between these t w o f o c i is t h e
formation and activation of recruitment networks--the "how"
of social movement participation. I will define t h i s a r e a
provisionally as t h e creation of networks, a r e n a s and m e n t a l i t i e s
in which predispositions favorable t o action mobilization a r e
formed-where what Klandermans (1984) h a s called "consensus
mobilization occurs." I t is this as-yet badly-defined, shifting
and unformed a r e a t h a t I believe has t h e g r e a t e s t potential
f o r linking t h e t w o main European and American traditions
of social movement research, by mediating b e t w e e n a c t o r s
"dispossessed" of t h e i r meanings through too-st r u c t u r a l a n
approach, and t h e pure goals and motivations founding a tooindividualistic approach, in Melucci's words (1985c:3).
Consensus mobilization is intended by Klandermans to describe
t h e creation of a reservoir of sentiment pools by a social
movement organization t o draw upon eventually when campaigns
begin. But i t actually is p a r t of a set of processes which--while
responsive t o both s t r u c t u r a l preconditions and mobilization
campaings-cannot be reduced t o e i t h e r o n e o r t h e o t h e r and
obliges us t o t a k e account of cultural trends, c o m m u n i t y a n d
social networks and ideological processes within individuals
and groups in order t o understand how structural p o t e n t i a l s
160
a r e translated into decisions t o participate. Although n o thorough
inventory of research and concepts with possible relevance
t o this intermediate a r e a h a s y e t been accomplished, t h e following
examples m a y make m o r e c o n c r e t e what its boundaries may
be and some of t h e problems encountered in defining them:
1. Among t h e cultural trends o f t e n cited as having relevance
t o consensus mobilization is t h e concept of t h e "formation of
new collective identities" which Melucci (1982) has seen as
t h e translation of new structural contradictions i n t o new
solidarities. As Melucci explains it, collective identity "is nothing
else than t h e shared definition of t h e field of opportunities
and constraints offered to collective action" (198%).
Scholars using t h e concept of collective identity h a v e not
always been crystal c l e a r in showing how structural trends
translate i n t o new collective identitities. Nor has t h e t e r m
been used univocally o r unambiguously by a l l its proponents.
A key question is whether t h e concept helps t o understand
collective action t h a t would not otherwise b e explicable with
more conventional concepts (for example, interest). Another
is whether t h e solidarities t h a t unite people over a particular
issue o r campaign continue to unify t h e m once t h a t issue is
past. A third is how collective identities a r e formed-objectively,
as seems t o be Pizzorno's conception (1978) o r "negotiated",
as Melucci feels. If these problems c a n b e clarified o r overcome,
t h e concept of collective identity may prove t o be a key
component of consensus mobilization.
2. Community and social group network processes with
implications f o r action mobilization have been studied by McAdam
(1984 and 1985) and Snow, et al. (1984). In d i f f e r e n t ways, each
writer has shown how t h e formation of networks broader than,
and prior to, social movement participation is highly relevant
t o t h e capacities of social movements t o mobilize people i n t o
action. Recently, Brand (1985, cited in Roth, 1985) h a s developed
t h e concept of "scenes" in t h e larger West German cities, in
which a movement culture is sustained by social networks,
The creation and reproduction of such mavement milieux
a r e themselves interesting f o r empirical analysis, beyond t h e
e x t e n t t o which they provide a recruitment reservoir f o r
movement organizers (Melucci, 1 9 8 5 ~10).
: But t h e r e is a danger
if t h e concept of "movement networks" replaces t h e traditional
concept of movement organizations altogether as our focus
of attention, leaving us with a n "area" of socialization,
negotiation and convergence whose empirical s t a t u s o r
implications f o r social action a r e n o t at a l l clear. W e should
not underestimate t h e capacity of movemnt organizations-however their tutelage m a y be rejected by t h e members of
161
new movement networks-to stimulate the l a t t e r i n t o exitence
and act as a point of reference, if only of a negative sort.
3. Finally, "frame alignment" has been identified as a key
internal process by Snow (1989, in which individuals re-interpret
facts and relationships in ways which prepare t h e groundwork
for their subsequent action mobilization. This is cloee t o what
Piven and Cloward (1977) mean when they discuss the concept
of "transvaluation1' and to Melucci's notion of "alternative codesn
(1984).
At this stage, we still need t o know more about how f r a m e
alignment processes relate causally t o decisions t o participate.
There is at least some evidence t h a t they may follow, rather
than precede, t h e first stages of participation in collective
action. This is not just a traditional chicken-and-egg dilemma,
but a problem of the causal relation between a c t i o n and its
rationalization. For example, della Porta (1985) has observed
that Italian terrorists frequently appear not t o have explicitly
"decided" t o engage in clandestine violent activity, so much
as t o have been led t o it imperceptably through t h e consequences
of previous actions.
These examples a r e put forward with no pretence t h a t they
a r e either exhaustive or proven, but t o suggest how t h e formation
of new collective identities, of movement or pre-movement
social networks and of individual ideological processes may
contribute t o action mobilization through t h e creation of a r e a s
of consensus for action t h a t go well beyond the preconditions
for social movements found in objective structural trends.
The advantages of conceiving of consensus mobilization
as a distinct analytical stage in t h e process of decisions to
participate in social movement activity should be fairly obvious.
First, it links t h e impersonal and largely invisible sttuctural
factors t h a t a r e said t o produce the groups and cleavages t h a t
lie behind social and political conflict t o observable collective
action. Sewnd, it posits a plausible (and observable) role for
group processes between t h e formation of mobilization potentials
and action mobilization. And third, it makes i t possible t o apply
theoretical concepts t o their most appropriate level of analysis:
structural theories t o t h e formation of mobilization potentials,
group, organizational or cultural diffusion theories t o consensus
mobilization, and motivational theories t o action mobilization.
At this early stage, several questions still need t o be raised
about t h e concept of consensus mobilization and its analytical
status and implications for social movement studies:
First, can consensus mobilizations occur in the absence
of a particular SMO able t o take advantage of it, or at least
(and here Meluccils work has much t o teach) in t h e absence
162
of t h e kind of SMO t h a t c a n practically "use" such mobilization?
Klandermans rightly a r g u e s t h a t movement organizations
themselves engage in consensus mobilization; t h e question i s
whether they must d o so f o r t h e process t o begin, o r whether
it can be triggered by less intentional processes.
For example, t h e "punk" phenomenon t h a t swept Europe
in t h e last f e w years revealed many of t h e a t t r i b u t e s of collective
identity, social networks and f r a m realignment described above.
But in t h e absence of a n SMO interested in it, Punk a p p e a r s
t o have ended in t h e marketplace, even in those countries-like Britain-in which it had a radical potential. If consensus
mobilization o c c u r s in t h e absence of c o n c r e t e organizations
t o stimulate it, then t h e need is f o r anthropological studies
of groups, communities and a g e cohorts, r a t h e r than of
organizations, issues and movements.
Second, can consensus mobilization be stimulated by groups
or organizations t h a t a r e n o t its ultimate beneficiaries but
which have orher purposes o r natures? One thinks of t h e role
of t h e Black churches in stimulating t h e Civil Rights movement
in t h e American South (Morris, 19811, o r of t h e role of European
unions earlier in t h e century as transmission belts f o r leftwing
parties or movements. If such a process occurs, w e must look
beyond t h e mobilization campaigns of particular SMO's at t h e
e n t i r e political opportunity s t r u c t u r e of a social movement
in order t o understand how consensus mobilization occurs.
Indeed, a s soon as we a d d a temporal dimension, t h e process
may become e v e n more complicated, f o r a c t i o n mobilization
of a particular group during a n earlier period m a y become t h e
basis f o r consensus mobilization t h a t benefits a n o t h e r at a l a t e r
time. For example, t h e Italian Communist p a r t y has o f t e n
bewailed t h e f a c t t h a t t h e terrorists of t h e 1970's were its
"unwanted children"--e.g., a generation stimulated into political
action by t h e PC1 o r it's a f f i l i a t e s but unable to find in t h e
party a satisfying o u t l e t f o r t h e i r energies o r ideologies.
Third, t h e logic of dividing analysis of decisions to participate
into s e p a r a t e analytical phases--the formation of mobilization
potentials, consensus mobilization and action mobilization-c u t s directly a c r o s s t h e grain of t h e dominant m o d e of social
movement studies: e.g. studies of individual movements,
organizations and policy issues. For once w e posit t h a t consensus
mobilization c a n o c c u r ' i n at l e a s t partial independence of t h e
particular SMO o r issue a r e a t h a t it will ultimately benefit,
it becomes c l e a r t h a t t h e e n t i r e process may n o t be issue o r
even group-specific. In this case, t h e f u t u r e participants m a y
not even be recognizable empirically as such unless we a r e
prepared t o follow them historically through their own
163
socialization, recruitment and political action. T h i s is n o t
impossible t o accomplish, but t h e inherited traditions and
methodologies of social movement studies, which on t h e o n e
hand a r e based largely on individual survey d a t a , a n d on t h e
other on organizational case studies, will need to b e seriously
modified in order t o c a r r y o u t t h i s task.
IV. Conclusion
What is certainly c l e a r is t h a t , in order t o understand how
successful social movement organizations a r e in tapping t h e
potential for mobilization in t h e structural trends a n d cleavages
of advanced industrial society, we will have t o a n a l y z e t h e
processes which produce consensus mobilization within social
networks, new cultural con t e x t s and individualsr n o r m s and
values and link these t o both t h e structural trends and t h e a c t i o n s
t h a t t h e y supposedly produce.
In this way, we m a y b e a b l e t o build bridges b e t w e e n t h e
two dominant traditions of social movement research i n Western
Europe and t h e United States, s o as t o b e t t e r understand t h e
relationship between "new" and "old" social m o v e m e n t s and
b e t t e r connect t h e far-reaching structural changes underway
in western societies to t h e broad waves of collective a c t i o n
t h a t have marked these societies since t h e 1960's.
The t i m e is now ripe f o r such a re-examination. Although
t h e dust has long s e t t l e d on t h e f i r s t wave of the c y c l e of protest
t h a t began in t h e 19601s, t h e success of the G r e e n s and t h e
partial success of the European disarmament m o v e m e n t , t h e
continuation of pockets of terrorism and the reappearance of
mass violence in West Germany and Britain a l l p o i n t t o t h e
f a c t t h a t t h e advanced democracies of North A m e r i c a and
Western Europe have n o t returned t o t h e quiescent politics
of the 19501s, nor a r e t h e y likely t o in the predictable future.
The f a c t t h a t t h e y a r e still functioning democracies a f t e r t w e n t y
years of economic and social change, institutional instability
and turbulent m a s s politics makes more compelling a concerted
a t t e m p t t o understand t h e translation of structure i n t o action.
References
Almond,
1954
Almond,
1978
Gabriel
The Appeals of Communism. Princeton: Princeton.
Gabriel and G. Bingham Powell
Comparative Politics: System, Process a n d Politics.
Boston: Little, Brown.
Amiot, Michel
1980 "L'intervention sociologique, la science et la prophdtie,"
Sociologie du Travail, 4:415-424.
Barnes, Samuel and Max Kaase (Eds.)
1979 Political Action: Mass Participation in Five Western
Democracies. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Bertsch, Gary, R.P. Clark and D.M. Wood
1978 Comparative Political Systems: Power and Policy
in Three Worlds. New York: Wiley.
Blondel, Jean
1969 An Introduction t o Comparative Government. London:
Weidenf eld and Nicholson.
Brand, Karl-Werner
1982 Neue soziale Bewegungen, Entstehung, Funktion und
Perspektive
neuer
Protestpotentiale,
Opladen:
Westdeutscher Verlag.
Brand, Karl-Werner (Ed.)
1985 Neue Soziale Bewegungen in Westeuropa und den
USA. Ein Internationaler Vergleich. Frankfort: N.Y.
Castells, Manuel
1983 The City and the Grassroots. Berkeley: University
of California.
Crozier, Michel, S, Huntington and J. Warunaki (Eds.)
1975 The Crisis of Democracy. Report on the Governability
of Democracies. New York: NYU Press.
Della Porta, Donatella
1981 Theories et m6thodes dans l a sociologie des
mouvements collectifs. Memoire 4 1'Ecole d e s Hautes
Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris.
1985a "Lef t-wing political violence in Italy during t h e 1970's:
The formation of terrorist organizations," delivered
t o t h e IPSA Congress, Paris.
1985b "Life histories and collective movements: A technique
f o r the analysis of collective movements," paper
delivered t o the International Workshop on New Social
Movements, Bonn.
Della Porta, Donatella and L. Mattina
1985 "Political cycles and ethnic mobilization: The Basque
Case," paper delivered t o the International Political
Science Association meetings, Paris.
Dogan, Mattei and Dominique Pelassy
1982 Sociologie politique comparative:
Probl6mes et
Perspectives. Paris: Economics.
165
Donati, Paolo
1984 "Organization between movement a n d institutions,"
Social Science Information, 4/5:837-859.
Finer, Samuel E.
1970 Comparative Government. London: Penguin.
Hitchner, Dell and I. Levine
1967 Comparative Government and Politics.
Harper and Row.
N e w York:
Inglehart, Ronald
1977 The Silent Revolution. Princeton: Princeton.
Irish, Marion and E. Frank
1978 Introduction to Comparative
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Politics,
2nd
ed.
Jenkins, J. C r a i g
1983 "Resource mobilization theory and t h e s t u d y of social
movements," Annual Review of Sociology, 9527-553.
Kitschelt, Herbert
1984 "Protest s t r a t e g i e s and policy
movements," unpublished paper.
impacts
of
social
Klandermans, P.G.
1984 "Mobilization and participation: A social psychological
expansion of resource mobilization theory," American
Sociological Review, 49 (Octoberh583-600.
1985 "Unionists, Feminists, Pacifists: Comparisons of
organization, mobilization and participation," ASA
paper, Washington, D.C.
Klandermans, P.G. and D. Oegema
1984 "Mobilizing f o r peace; t h e 1983 peace demonstration
in the Hague," ASA paper, San Antonio, Texas.
1985 "Campaigning f o r a
government in t h e
Washington, D.C.
Kriesi, Hanspeter
1982 AKW-Gegner
Ruegger.
nuclear f r e e z e a n d local
Netherlands,"
ASA paper,
in d e r Sch weiz. Diessenhofen: Verlag
1985a "The rebellion of t h e research objects of social
research," unpublished paper prepared f o r t h e workshop
on t h e analysis of social movements, Bonn.
166
1985b "Structural determinants of l a t e n t political potentials:
Cycles of protest and cycles of protest generations,"
paper presented t o t h e CES Research Planning Group
Workshop on Participation in Social Movements, Ithaca,
New York.
Kriesi, Hanspeter (Ed.)
1985 Bewegungen in d e r schweizer Politik. Frankfurt:
Campus.
Lange, Peter, E. Ercole and S. Tarrow
1985 "Phases
of
mobilization:
Social
movements,
generational recruitment and a t t i t u d e s t o dissent
in a sample of Italian communist activists," unpublished
paper.
Marsh, Alan
1977 P r o t e s t and Political Consciousness. Beverly Hills:
sage.
Marsh, Robert
1967 Com p a r a tive
Sociology:
A
Cod if ication
of
Cross-Societal Analysis. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
Marx, Gary and J a m e s Wood
1975 "Strands of theory and research in collective behavior,"
Annual Review of Sociology: 363-428.
Mazur, Alan
1972 "The causes of black riots," American Sociological
Review, 37:490-492.
McAdam, Doug
1982 The Political Process and t h e Development of Black
Insurgency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
1983 "Tactical innovation and t h e p a c e of insurgency,"
American Sociological Review, 48:735-754.
1984 "Structural vs. attitudinal f a c t o r s in social movement
recruitment," presented t o t h e annual meeting of
the ASAj San Antonio, Texas.
1985 "Macropolitical political processes and individual
activism : building m icro-macro bridges,"
paper
presented t o t h e CES Research Planning Group
workshop on participation in social movements, Ithaca,
N.Y.
McCarthy, John and Mayer Zald
1973 The Trend of Social Movements in America:
Prof essionalization
and
Resource
Mobilization.
Morristown, N.J.: General Learning Press.
'
167
1977 "Resource mobilization and social movements: a
partial theory," American Journal of Sociology, 82:
1212-1241
Melucci, Alberto
1975 Sistema politico, partiti e movimenti sociali. Milan:
Feltrinelli.
1980 "The new social movements; a theoretical approach,"
Social Science Information, 19:199226.
1982 L'invenzione d e l presente. Bologna: Mulino.
1985a "Movimenti sociali negli anni '80: Alla ricerca d i
un oggetto perduto?" S t a t o e mercato, 14:3-25.
1985b "Multipolar action systems: Systemic environment
and
individual
involvement
in
contemporary
movements,'' paper presented t o t h e C E S Research
Planning Group workshop on participation in social
movements, Ithaca, N.Y.
1985c "The symbolic challenge of contemporary movements,"
Social Research (forthcoming).
Melucci, Alberto and Mario Diani
1983 Nazioni senza stato: I movimenti etnico-nazionali
in Occidente. Torino: Loescher.
Melucci, Alberto et al.
1984 Altri codici: Aree d i movimenti nella
Bologna: Mulino.
metropoli.
Merkl, P e t e r
1977 Modern Comparative Politics. Hlnsdale, 111.: Dryden.
Minguet, Guy
1980 "Les mouvements sociaux, l a sociologie de l'action
et l'intervention sociologique," Revue Francaise d e
Sociologie, 1:121-133,
Morris, Aldon
1981 "The black sit-in movement: an analysis o f internal
organization," American Sociological ~ e v i e w ,46:744767.
Muller, Edward N.
1980 "The psychology of political protest and violence."
Pp. 69-99 in T.R. Gurr (Ed.): Handbook o f Political
Conf k t . N.Y.: F r e e Press.
168
Mullet-Rommel, Ferdinand
1985a "New social movements and t h e smaller parties: a
comparative perspective," West European Politics,
1:41-54.
1985b "Social movements and t h e Greens: New internal
politics in Germany," European Journal of Political
Research, 1353-67.
Nedelmann, Birgitta
1984 "New social movements and changes in processes
of intermediation," Social Science Information, 6:10291048.
Nelkin, Dorothy and M. Pollak
1981 The Atom Beseiged. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Oberschall, Anthony
1973 Social Conflict and Social Movements. Englewood
Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Offe, Claus
1983 "New social movements: Challenging t h e boundaries
of institutional politics," unpublished paper.
Olson, Mancur
1965 The Logic of Collective Action. New York: Schoken.
Olzak, Susan arid Denise d i Gregorio
1985 "Ethnic collective action in American cities; 18771914: Research design a d coding procedures," Cornell
University Sociology Technical Report, 85-1.
Piven, Frances Fox and Richard Cloward
1977 Poor People's Movements. N.Y.: Pantheon.
Pizzorno, Alessandro
1978 "Political exchange and collective identity in industrial
conflict." Pp. 277-298 in C.Crouch and A. Pizzorno
(Eds.): The Resurgence of Class Conflict in Western
Europe since 1968. London: MacMillan, vol. II.
Roth, Roland
1985 "Fordism and new social movements: Phases of social
development as a framework f o r t h e analysis of social
movements," paper presented to t h e Workshop on
analysis of social movements, Bonn.
Rucht, D i e t e r
1984 "Comparative new social movements, organizations
and strategies," presented at t h e EGOS Conference,
Aarhus, Denmark.
169
1985 "New social movements: The state of discussion and
research in West Germany," paper presented to t h e
Workshop on analysis of social movements, Bonn.
Salvati, Michele and Alfredo Gigliobianco
1981 "May 1968 and t h e Hot Autumn of 1969: T h e responses
of t w o ruling classes." In S. Berger (Ed.): Organizing
Interests in Western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Shorter, Edward and Charles Tilly
1974 Strikes in France. 1830-1968.
Harvard.
Cambridge,
Mass.:
Snow, David
1976 The Nichiren Shosha Buddhist movement in America.
Ann Arbor, Michigan.
1985 "Frame alignment processes,
micromobilization,
and movement recruitment," paper presented at t h e
CES
Research
Planning
Group
Workshop
on
participation in social movements, Ithaca, N.Y.
Snow, David, L. Zurcher and S. Eckland-Olson
1980 "Social networks and social movements: A rnicrostructural application t o differential recruitment,"
American Sociological Review, 45:787-801.
Spilerman, Seymor
1970 "The causes of racial disturbances: A comparison
of alternative explanations," American Sociological
Review, 35:627-649.
1972 "Strategic considerations in analyzing t h e distribution
of racial disturbances," American Sociological Review,
37:493-499.
Statera, Gianni
1975 Death of a Utopia. New York: Oxford.
Tarrow, Sidney
1967 P e a s a n t Communism in Southern Italy. N e w Haven:
Yale.
1983 Struggling t o Reform (Ithaca, N.Y.: Western Societies
Program Occasional Paper No. 15).
1985 "The crisis of t h e l a t e 1960's and t h e transition t o
m a t u r e capitalism." In G. Arrighi (Ed.): T h e Political
Economy of Southern Europe. Beverly Hills: Sage.
170
Tilly, Charles
1969 "Collective violence in European perspective." In
H.C. Graham and T.R. Gurr (Eds.): Violence in America:
Historical and Comparative Perspectives. New York:
Prager.
1978 From Mobilization to Revolution. Reading, Mass.:
Addison-Wesley.
1984 "Social movements and national politics.'' In C. Bright
and S. Harding (ads.): Statemaking and Social
Movements. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
Tilly, Charles, L. Tilly and R. Tilly
1975 The Rebellious Century. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard.
Touraine, Alain
1968 Le Communisme Utopique: Le Mouvement d e Mai,
1968. Paris: Seuil.
1971 The Post Industrial Society: Tomorrow's Social History.
New York: Random House.
1978 La Voix et le Regard. Paris: Seuil.
1984 Le Retour d e llActeur. Paris: Fayard.
Touraine, Alain, F. Dubet, Z. Hegedus, M. Wieviorka
1978 Lutte Edudiante. Paris: Seuil.
1987 Le Pays contre L'Etat. Paris: Seuil.
Touraine, Alain, Z. Hegedus and F. Dubet
1980 La Prophetie antinucleaire. Paris: Seuil.
Vallier, Ivan (Ed.)
1971 Comparative Methods in Sociology. Berkely: University
of California.
Webb, Keith et al.
1983 "Etiology and outcomes of protest: New European
perspectives," American Behavioral Scientist, 26:311322.
Zald, Mayer and Roberta Ash
I966 Social movement organizations: growth, decay and
change," Social Forces, 44:327-341.
Zald, Mayer and John McCarthy
1979 The Dynamics of Social Movements. Cambridge,
Mass.: Winthrop.
Zimmermann, Ekkart
1980 "Macro-comparative research on political protest."
Pp. 167-237 in T. Gurr (Ed.): Handbook of Political
Conflict. New York: Free Press.
SOCIAL INFLUENCE PERSPECTIVE ON CROWD ILU3H4VIOR
Leon Mann
The Flinders University, Australia
Research guided by a social influence perspective
on crowd behavior i s considered under three categories:
leader t o crowd; crowd t o members; crowd t o outsidsrs.
I t i s argued that a single model of crowd inftuence
which r e l i e s on a single process i s inadequate. I t
i s found that several social influene processes a f f e c t
the attitudes and actions of crowd members-socia2
facilitation,
model Zing and imitation,
confomity
t o group norms, group discussion and persuasive
appeals. The operation of these social infZuence
processes i s examined for a variety of crowd forms
including crusade m l l i e s (Newton & Mann, 19801,
crazy auctions (Mann, 1975), speotators t o a dispute
(Mann, PaZeg & Hawkins, 19781, baiting crowds (Maran,
1981) and queues (Mann, 1970, 19771. The size of
the crowd i s shown t o be an important factor mediating
the probability that people w i l l be drawn t o the
crowd, induced t o join, and become inftuenced by
the leader ' 8 persuasive message. I t i s suggested
that cultural differences i n such factors as conformity
pressures are linked t o the incidence of crozrd a c t i v i t y
and the likelihood of social influence occurring
i n crowds i n various countries. Future research should
investigate the comparative vuZnerabiZity t o inf Zueme
of strangers and groups of friends i n crowds,
individual differences i n sueceptibitity t o crowd
influence and discontinuities i n individuaZ behavior
associated with changes i n crowd size and proportion
of crowd members already responding.
The social influence perspective has been the main theoretical
approach guiding my research on crowds over the p a s t 15 years.
The essential problem of crowd behavior from this perspective
is the question of how, why and to what extent crowd members
are affected by their participation in such events as marathon
International Journal of Maas Emergencies and Disastem, 1986
172
queues (Mann, 1970), baiting crowds (Mann, 1981), crusade rallies
(Newton & Mann, 1980), cracy auctions (Mann 19751, and
s p e c t a t o r s t o a dispute (Mann, P a l e g & Hawkins, 1978). This
approach focuses on t w o major kinds of social influence: direct
a t t e m p t s t o modify t h e a t t i t u d e s and a c t i o n s of crowd members
by means of persuasion, discussion, conformity pressures and
s o on; and changes in t h e responses of crowd members caused
by social interaction processes, including social facilitation,
modelling and imitation.
Traditional approaches t o t h e question of social influence
in crowds s t e m from t h r e e theoretical viewpoints--contagion
theory (LeBon, 1895), convergence theory (Allport, 19241, and
emergent norm theory (Turner & Killian, 1972). In essence e a c h
approach postulates a distinct mechanism responsible f o r the
manner in which crowds a f f e c t ordinary rational individuals
into mindless, destructive beings. Contagion, a vaguely defined
process, involves t h e spread of a f f e c t o r behavior f r o m one
participant t o another through suggestion (LeBon, 18951, circular
escalation of feelings (Blumer, 1953), and imitation (Wheeler,
1966). Convergence theory a t t r i b u t e s changes t h a t occur when
a n individual joins a crowd t o a release of l a t e n t predispositions,
The crowd merely s e r v e s as a n excuse o r trigger f o r t h e
expression of previously restrained feelings. The mechanism
responsible f o r these apparent changes is social facilitation,
a n intensification of pre-existing responses when in t h e presence
of others. T h e principle is s t a t e d in t h e dictum: "The individual
in t h e crowd behaves just as h e would behave alone, only more
so" (Allport, 1924:295). Emergent norm theory (Turner & Killian,
1972) maintains t h a t changes which occur when a person belongs
t o a crowd a r e due to t h e development of norms, common
understandings about appropriate conduct, t o which t h e individual
is led t o conform. Group pressure encourages behavior consistent
with t h e emergent norm, inhibits behavior contrary t o it, and
justifies restraining a c t i o n against dissenters. The mechanism
favored by this approach is conformity based on normative
and information influence (cf. Deutsch & Gerard, 1955).
A critique of t h e t h r e e classic approaches is beyond t h e
scope of this paper. I t c a n b e argued t h a t while these approaches
work quite well f o r some kinds of crowd behavior, t h e y fail
t o encompass t h e full spectrum of changes in ideas and conduct
t h a t occur when individuals a r e involved in crowds. Each approach
relies upon a single explanatory mechanism. But it is likely
t h a t a number of processes in combination o r in sequence a r e
responsible f o r t h e complex nature of influence between people
in crowd situations. The a i m of this paper is to review research
relating t o t h e operation of various social influence processes-
173
-such as conformity pressures, modelling and imitation, d i r e c t
a t t e m p t s at persuasion, and group discussion o n changes in
a t t i t u d e s and responses in a variety of crowd settings. A second
a i m is t o review evidence concerning t h e size o f t h e crowd
a s a f a c t o r mediating t h e probability and magnitude of social
influence,
Social influence as conceived in this approach consists of
temporary changes and responses d u e to t h e m e r e presence
of others, as well as long-term changes in a t t i t u d e s and beliefs
d u e t o new information and impressions gained f r o m participation
in crowd activity.
Three major categories of influence relationship c a n b e
identified:
(1) leader t o crowd;
(2) crowd to members;
(3) crowd t o outsiders.
The nature of these relationships i s reciprocal o r i n t e r a c t i v e
as influence flows f r o m leader t o crowd and f r o m t h e crowd
t o i t s members and outsiders.
1. Leaders and Crowds
E f f e c t of leader on crowd
The persuasive techniques l e a d e r s use t o influence crowds
have been known and practised f o r centuries. Advice on principles
of persuasion can b e found in such diverse sources as Aristotle
(Rhetoric), Machiavelli (Discourses), Lenin (What is to b e done?),
and Hitler (Mein Kampf). Many totalitarian leaders, concerned
with winning support, h a v e written insightfully on t h e a r t of
propaganda, how t o win, organize and control the masses. While
some of t h e tactics advocated have been validated in t h e
laboratory (e.g., a communicator's effectiveness is increased
if he initially expresses some views t h a t a r e also h e l d by his
audience) t h e r e has been no s y s t e m a t i c s t u d y of t h e f a c t o r s
associated with charismatic crowd leadership. A c c o u n t s of
how successful leaders "work" t h e crowd provide a useful source
of information. "Priming" of t h e audience appears to h a v e been
a major e l e m e n t a t Hitler's rallies; before Hitler a p p e a r e d in
a carefully orchestrated blaze of lights, fanfares, and "sieg
heils", his audience had already been brought t o f e v e r pitch
by a n hour o r m o r e of singing and shouting of slogans (Qualter,
1962).
Breaux's (1975) study of student demonstrations at Oxford
University in t h e mid-1970's provides a n i n t e r e s t i n g example
of how crowd leaders and their lieutenants initiate c h a n t s t o