This article discusses Holstein and Gubrium's (2000) analytic for understanding the production of postmodern selves and suggests that it is a means by which to further understandings about the construction of social movement selves. According to Holstein and Gubrium's perspective, the construction of postmodern subjectivity is an interplay between circumstantial resources and self-constituting work. As an example, I discuss research about a social movement organization in the GLBT (gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender) movement, Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG). I begin by illustrating how PFLAG parents can be understood as drawing on the narrative resources of the GLBT movement, in particular the dominant narrative of coming out. Next I discuss how PFLAG parents also do selves (as heterosexual parents), through everyday interactional identity work to construct affiliation. In so doing, I illustrate a key process of Holstein and Gubrium's analytic—the interplay between cultural constraints and artful agency in the production of postmodern selves—and show how it can help to explain the production of subjectivity in today's social movements. I close with a discussion of the significance of understanding the production of social movement selves for social movement literature.

Social movements research has neglected small scale, localized social change efforts. This chapter addresses the questions of whether such small scale localized social change efforts can even be considered social movements and the extent to which theories and concepts developed from studies of large-scale social movements are applicable at the small scale, local level. A definition of a social movement can be developed from the existing literature that applies to the “localized social movement.” Likewise, the general social movement theories—namely resource mobilization theory and new social movement theory, are applicable to the localized social movement, but specific concepts of those theories need to be modified. Concepts such as social movement organization, social movement community, social movement structure, social movement identity and frames, and political opportunity structure take on changed levels of importance and different empirical characteristics in the localized social movement. The chapter also looks at the relationship between localized social movements and large scale social movements, showing how they may intersect, influence, or combine with each other.

This project explores cohort and period trends in political participation in the United States between 1973 and 2008. We examine the extent to which protest attendance and petition signing have diffused to different kinds of actors across multiple generations; we test claims central to understanding trends in social movement participation. Using aggregated, cross-sectional survey data on political involvement from 34,241 respondents, we examine changes in the probability of ever having attended a protest or signed a petition over time periods and across cohorts using cross-classified, random-effects models. We find a strong generational effect on the probability of ever having attended a protest, which explains much of the observed change in self-reports of protest behavior. More than half of this generational effect is a result of compositional change, but we find little evidence that protest attendance diffused to new types of actors. We compare these findings with a less confrontational form of protesting, petition signing, which shows more period than cohort effects. We argue that social movement activities have not become a widespread means of civic engagement.

The research collected in this volume not only takes up concepts from social movement studies, but also enriches them by providing knowledge about various types of transnational activists. It also encourages the dialogue, as yet only sporadic, between historians and social scientists and enriches the understanding of transnational activism, showing interesting precedents for cosmopolitan activities and helping to dispel the view that cosmopolitanism is only a recent phenomenon. Finally, it points to the unresolved question addressing the very meaning of transnationalism by examining many different types of activists, showing how different contexts brought about different types, a point which this chapter aims to further stress by comparing the Global Justice Movement at the turn of the millennium with the anti-austerity protests about a decade later. This collection therefore offers a very important contribution for the development of social movement studies, which in the future we hope will encourage further research considering other geographic areas and historical periods, as well as further interdisciplinary and cross-time comparisons.

This chapter explores the role of unions as social movements. To do this, it begins by examining, firstly, the role of social movements more generally, before putting forward three propositions about what social movement unionism should entail. The first of these propositions is that social movement unionism should imply ‘grassroots democracy’, or at least close linkages with grassroots concerns either through formal democratic structures or more informal mechanisms to promote accountability. The second is that it should involve reaching out to other groups and seeking broad aims of social justice, and the third is that it implies a fight against the harmful aspects of international business and the current ‘neo-liberal hegemony’. This fight does not imply ‘fighting for its own sake’, but protecting the weakest in society from the worst excesses of capitalism. The chapter then turns briefly to examine criticisms of trade unions as social movements, before turning to the experiences of Brazil, South Africa and the United States, as examples of the capacity of unions to recapture a ‘social movement’ role.

Hank Johnston's ‘What is a social movement’ serves as a basic introduction to social movement theory. The aim is to provide a clear understanding of what a social movement is. By giving case exampl...

Recent developments in social movement research have evidenced a greater underlying consensus in the field than one might have assumed. Efforts have been made to bridge different perspectives and merge them into a new synthesis. Yet, comparative discussion of the concept of ‘social movement’ has been largely neglected so far. This article reviews and contrasts systematically the definitions of ‘social movement’ formulated by some of the most influential authors in the field. A substantial convergence may be detected between otherwise very different approaches on three points at least. Social movements are defined as networks of informal interactions between a plurality of individuals, groups and/or organizations, engaged in political or cultural conflicts, on the basis of shared collective identities. It is argued that the concept is sharp enough a) to differentiate social movements from related concepts such as interest groups, political parties, protest events and coalitions; b) to identify a specific area of investigation and theorising for social movement research.

The goal of this book is to join social movement analysis with collective action theory. To that end, the author introduces the organizational empowerment model of collective action. All social movement theories lack a discussion of the influence of movement organization on the tactics of an organization. A national survey of social movement organizations is employed to develop a model of how the organizational features of the local group, competition among social movement organizations, the political settings of the organization, and organizational empowerment influence collective action style. This model will allow for testing some long held assumptions about organizational change as well as assumptions about the efficacy of poor people organized to achieve change.

Women have long been involved in social movement activism in the United States, from the nation’s beginning up to the present, and in waves of feminist activism as well as in a variety of other social movements, including the civil rights movement, the environmental movement, and conservative mobilizations. The Oxford Handbook of U.S. Women’s Social Movement Activism provides both a detailed and extensive examination of the wide range of U.S. women’s collective efforts, as well as a broad overview of the scholarship on women’s social movement struggles. The volume’s five sections consider various dimensions of women’s social movement activism: (1) women’s collective action over time exploring the long history of women’s social movement participation, (2) the variety of social issues that mobilize women to act collectively, (3) the myriad types of resistance strategies and tactics utilized by activists, (4) both the forums and targets of women’s mobilizations, and (5) women’s participation in a diversity of activist efforts beyond women’s movements. The five sections present a total of thirty-six chapters, each written by leading scholars of women’s social movement mobilizations. The chapters, in addition to describing women’s activism and reviewing the scholarly literature, also define important directions for future research on women and social movements, providing scholars with a guide to what we still do not know about women’s collective struggles.

The paper is a theoretical review of “social movement” term definitions. Aiming to show differences among definitions within different paradigms and scientific evolution of the term the main approaches of defining social movements are discussed. Initially, social movements were studied by psychologists, who were examining different forms of collective behavior, such as mobs, crowds, protests and etc. Most of them considered social movements as an irrational and destructive form of collective action driven by the instincts of people. During the next decades, the theory of social movements was developed mostly by sociologists who, on the contrary, started to seek social reasons inducing this type of collective action. Different theoretical schools proposed various concepts of explaining the origin of social movements, but all of them agreed on the main characteristics: rational and organized collective action driven by unfulfilled social needs. Different authors linked social movement definitions with other important social phenomena such as norms and values, social conflict, social identity, and social network. Political scientists have also contributed to the study of social movements but in terms of power and state, terrorism and violence. Discussing psychological, sociological, and political science approaches to term definition we came to the conclusion that the most inclusive sociological definition is viewing social movement as a social network through which collective action is performed to achieve total or partial social change. Such kind of definition makes it possible to reveal the main criteria necessary to distinguish social movement as a separate social phenomenon from other types of collective action.