INTRODUCTION: AUTHORITY IN CONTENTION

Abstract

In the summer of 2002, the Collective Behavior and Social Movements section of the American Sociological Association held one of its periodic workshops at the University of Notre Dame. The theme of the workshop and the title of this volume, Authority in Contention, was originally suggested by David Snow and later refined by the workshop committee. The conference theme was inspired in part by the ideas developed and published in Doug McAdam, Charles Tilly, and Sidney Tarrow’s Dynamics of Contention, and a good portion of the conference developed in reaction to the ideas presented in the book. But although the conference itself was reacting to the DOC agenda (along with just about everyone else in the social movements field at the time), the agenda was broader in scope. As important as the contentious politics agenda has become, the conference organizers wanted to take a step back and look more broadly at empirical terrain that might reflect what we collectively consider to be social movement research and theorizing. In part, this means moving beyond a state-centered view of contentious politics and toward a more open definition of what might be fruitfully examined by social movement theories – and in turn what might inform those theories even as we use them in more traditional social movement arenas. The danger of the contentious politics framework, as articulated by David Snow in his chapter on resisting the hegemony of the approach, is that much important social movement activity would be defined out or, or at least severely neglected, by contentious politics thinking and that a broader frame of mind is necessary to guide social movement scholarship.