Course point :
New Social Movements
Social activism has experienced a form of revival in recent years. As happened in the 1960s, some authors (journalists, political scientists…) are proposing the label of «new social movements» to designate such phenomena as the anti-globalisation movement, the ecologist movement, the jobless movement, and so forth. Several sociologists have tried to conceptualise these «new social movements» (NSM). The aim of this course point is to assess the scientific value of such a concept. We will focus here on the adjective «new», because social movements are currently the object of a whole sub-discipline of sociology.
A
French precursor : Alain Touraine
For A. Touraine, in each society there is one, and only one, social movement. A social movement embodies a project for social change directed toward «historicity». Touraine thus places himself in a Marxian tradition which takes into account an alleged «meaning of history». A genuine social movement must identify an enemy and have an identity consisting in a global social project. In the 1960s and 1970s, Touraine and his colleagues were in search of the social movement (the students’ movement? The anti-nuclear movement? The regionalist movement ?), and had the project of revealing to the social movement its own meaning. In other words, Touraine wanted to be another Karl Marx. So NSM was used rather as an action-oriented concept than as a genuine sociological concept.
A
concept used by international political science
Several sociologists have used the concept of NSM in a more scientific way than Touraine. The underlying idea was that a «post-industrial society» (D. Bell) was emerging. With this society, «post materialist values» (Ronald Inglehart) were also emerging. As basic material needs had been satisfied by our modern societies, and as young generations have been raised in peace and are better-educated, new needs, qualified as «post-materialist», have arisen. People want participation, self-esteem, autonomy, quality of life, and so on. In consequence, new social movements have emerged, directed toward the satisfaction of post-materialist needs. In particular, the way they organise is different. For example, we may think of environmentalist, feminist, homosexual, regionalist… movements.
On this basis, numerous sociologists have constructed more complex models of NSM. In particular, one can quote Melluci, Offe, Kriesi, Klandermans… But how is a NSM precisely to be defined ? Four dimensions are usually highlighted:
The way a movement is organised and its repertory of action : NSM are supposed to be organised in a specific way, valorising participation by each member, general assemblies…; the organisation is here thought in opposition with «old social movements» and their supposed «leninist» organisation (democratic centralism…). Moreover, the forms of protest have been renewed: sit-ins, hunger strikes…
The demands of NSM: the latter are often non-negotiable, they tend to oppose social control… They also tend to highlight identity issues.
The relations to the polity (Tilly): once upon a time, politics were dominated by parties and trade unions. In the NSM era, the stake is no longer taking power, but rather building a space of autonomy against the state.
Finally, identities: class identity is no longer dominant; new identities are valued in the public space : sexual identities, regional identities, and so forth.
Despite a certain theoretical renewal , the NSM theory also presents some general polemical aspects, which might be debated. For instance the over-mentioned French precursor, Alain Touraine, defended the idea of a «sociological involvement». Sociologists were supposed to communicate directly with the NSM actors in order to theorise their collective mobilisations. One may say that this contradicts the so-called «sociological neutrality or objectivity», which is one of the main scientific priorities for a sociologist. One could also compare this trend with Pierre Bourdieu’s behaviour, publicly taking part in social conflicts at the end of his career in the late 80s and the 90s.
Furthermore numerous authors aiming at representing the NSM theory are confronted with the same intrinsic theoretical limit: they adapt the Marxian idea of a meaning of history, which remains too general. This lack of precision conveys the impression that they are arguing tautologically.
Even Florence Passy’s study, developing the concept of «altruistic actions», which tends to be heuristically more relevant than other works, fatally suffers from omissions. The author takes into account the militants of «the Berne Convention[1]» to show that this NSM is based on a class conflict depending on access to control, to power. She concludes for instance that phenomena such as technocratic and also middle-class over-representation should explain why the ranks of the Berne NSM have swollen so rapidly (from 30 militants in 1964 to 7,000 in 1970). The religious variable is not taken into account, despite the potential impact of Protestantism on the emergence of this Convention. Moreover this study mainly concerns Switzerland, whereas the theoretical analysis is presented as too obvious and universalizable. Other perspectives might have been dealt with: Why and how the Berne militants are suffering from a lack of control ? What is the link between the militants’ «route» and their will to help third world countries?
This example perfectly highlights the intrinsic limit of all NSM approaches : they do not integrate a «comprehensive» explanation or interpretation. They would insist on the concept of over-representation, neglecting any subjectivity. They would thus not focus on the «construction of identity» (feminine, gay, regionalist…) or on «a subjective class consciousness» as developed by Karl Marx.
Last but not least, the use of the adjective «new» social movements, associated with the idea of theoretical innovation , is also really questionnable, if one defends the idea of a continuity in history as opposed to a «crisis» vew. This limit reflects a confusion between the militant and the sociological discourse. The example of ATTAC appears to be relevant to illustrate this point: Bernard Cassen and other representatives have adopted a message similar to that developed in radical protests in the 70s, and that is not new. However, because of strategic motivations, they contribute to show up the CP as being «behind the times» and so thus justify their own existence and innovation.
To conclude on a more positive point, we cannot deny that the NSM theory has rehabilitated the cultural and ideological dimensions in the analysis of collective mobilisartions.