the symbolic challenge of contemporary movements me lucci

7/25/2019 The Symbolic Challenge of Contemporary Movements Me Lucci

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-symbolic-challenge-of-contemporary-movements-me-lucci 1/29

The Symbolic Challenge of Contemporary MovementsAuthor(s): ALBERTO MELUCCISource: Social Research, Vol. 52, No. 4, Social Movements (WINTER 1985), pp. 789-816Published by: The New SchoolStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40970398 .

Accessed: 09/12/2014 16:22

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The New School is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Research.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 148.206.159.132 on Tue, 9 Dec 2014 16:22:25 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=newschool

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40970398?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/40970398?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=newschool



The

Symbolic

Challenge

of

Contemporary

Movements

/

BY

ALBERTO MELUCCI

Action

ystems

Sociological

theory

nd

research

uring

he

seventies ave

undoubtedly rovided

deeper understanding

f

contempo-

rary

ocial

movements.

he

forms

f

collective

ction

which

have

emerged uring

he

pasttwenty ears

n

fields

reviously

untouched y ocial onflictsage,sexdifferences,ealth, ela-

tion

o

nature,

uman

urvival)

re

taking y

now n

increasing

importance

n

sociological

nalysis

nd

they

ecome

ontrover-

sial and

stimulatingopics

for

both

theory

nd research.

he

eighties

eem

to offernew

material o

this

reflection,

ince

collective

ction

s

shifting

ore nd more

from

he

"political"

form,

whichwas

common o traditional

pposition

movements

in

Western

ocieties,

o

a

cultural

round.

Theoretical rameworksnd empiricalknowledge f con-

temporary

omplex

ocieties

uggest

hat:

(1)

The

emergent

onflicts

ave

a

permanent

nd

noncon-

junctural

nature;

new

forms f

solidarity

nd

action

coexist

withmore

traditional

memberships

such

as

classes,

nterest

groups,

associations).

hough

their

empirical

features

an

vary

widely,

hey

become stable

nd

irreversible

omponents

of

contemporary

ocial

systems,

ecause

they

re

strictly

on-

nectedto

deep

structural

hanges

n

these

systems.

(2)

Widespread

networks f conflictual

olidarity

ulfill

function

f

socializationnd

"submerged"

articipation.

hey

open

new channels or

grouping

nd

selecting

lites,

esides

SOCIAL

RESEARCH,

Vol.

52,

No. 4

(Winter

985)







790

SOCIAL

RESEARCH

the more traditional nes. The

ways

f

political

ocialization,

the

patterns

f

cultural

nnovation,

he

means

of institutional

modernizationre

therefore edefined utsidethe

actionof

already

stablished

gencies.

(3)

One of

the

main

problems

f

"complexity"

s

the

gap

between

nstitutional

ystems

f

representation

nd decision

making

nd "civil

ociety."

eeds and forms

f action

rising

from he

society

re not

easily

daptable

o the

existing

han-

nels of political articipationnd to the

organizational

orms

of

political

gencies;

moreover,

ince

the

outcomes f collec-

tive

action

are difficulto

predict,

his

ncreases he

already

high

degree

of

uncertainty

ystems

re

confronted

ith.

A

reflectionn

both heoretical

nd

empirical

imensions f

contemporary

movements s thus a

step

which

cannot be

avoided in

the

debate on

paradigms

llowing

satisfactory

understanding

f

complex

ystems.

In thefield fsocialmovements,ociologynherits legacy

of

dualism

from

hilosophies

f

history.

ollective ctionhas

always

een treated ither

s an

effect

f

structural

rises

nd

contradictions

r as an

expression

of

shared

beliefs and

orientations.

he dualism

between

tructurend

actors

eems

to

be the

common

feature

f

traditional

nalysis

f collective

action,

n

both

Marxist nd

functionalist

pproaches.

The

duality

can

be

formulated

n

terms of

breakdown/

solidarity.The formerpproach s representedytheories f

collective

ehavior

nd mass

society2

nd

holds

collective

c-

tion

o

be a result

f economic

risis nd

social

disintegration,

particularly

mong

the

rootless.

The latter onsiders

ocial

movements

s

expressions

f shared

nterests ithin com-

mon

structural

ocation

especially

class

condition,

s in

any

viewpoints

erived

rom

Marxism).

reakdown heories isre-

1

Following

C.

Tilly,

L.

Tilly,

and

R.

Tilly,

The Rebellious

entury,

830-1930

(Cam-

bridge:

Harvard

University

ress,

1975),

and B.

Useem,

"Solidarity

Model,

Break-

down

Model,

and

the

Boston

Anti-Busing

Movement,"

American

ociological

eview

45

(1980).

2

See

especially

N.

Smelser,

Theory f

Collective ehavior

New

York:

Macmillan,

1963),

and

A.

Kornhauser,

The

Politics

f

Mass

SocietyGlencoe,

111.:

ree

Press,

1959).







THE

SYMBOLIC

CHALLENGE

791

gard

the dimension f conflictwithin

ollective

ction and

easily

reduce t

to

pathological

eaction

nd

marginality.

ol-

idarity

models

re

unable to

explain

he

passage

from

given

social

conditionto collective ction.

The classical Marxist

problem

how

to

pass

from lass condition o class

conscious-

ness)

still

xists nd

can'tbe

solved

without

aking

nto onsid-

eration ow a collectivector

s formed nd how his

dentity

s

maintained.

Duality

an be viewed lso in terms fstructuremotivation:3

collectivection s seen as

a

product

f the

ogic

of the

ystem,

or as a result f

personal

eliefs. he

stress s

in the first ase

on

social-economic

ontext,

n

the secondon

the role of

deol-

ogy

nd values.Either ctors re

dispossessed

f the

meanings

of their

ction,

r

theyproduce

meanings

nd

goals

appar-

ently

without

ny

constraints.

The seventies nabled

sociological heory

o move

beyond

thebreakdown/solidarityr structure/motivationlternatives.

In

Europe

the

nalyses

f

Touraine

nd

Habermas,

ased on a

systemicpproach,

riedto establish

link between

he new

forms

f conflict

nd

the

emerging

tructuref

postindustrial

capitalism.4

ome American uthorsfocused

theirreflection

on how a

movement

s

made

up,

if

and

how

t

survives

n

time

and in

relation o

its

environment,

n

terms f

resource obili-

zation.

3FollowingK. Webb, "Social Movements:Contingentor Inherent Phenomena?",

paper presented

at the

Conference on

Social

Movements nd Political

Systems,

Milan,

June

1983.

4

A.

Touraine,

Production e

la

société

Paris:

Seuil,

1973)

and La voix

et le

regard

(Paris:

Seuil,

1978);

J.

Habermas,

Zur

Rekonstruktiones

historischen

aterialismus

(Frankfurt:

uhrkamp,

1976).

5J.

D.

McCarthy

nd M. N.

Zald,

The

Trend

of

Social

Movementsn

America:

rof

s-

sionalization

nd Resource

Mobilization

Morristown,

N.J.:

General

Learning

Press,

1973)

and

"Resource

Mobilization nd

Social

Movements:

A

Partial

Theory,"

American

our-

nal

of

Sociology

6

(1977);

M.

N.

Zald and

J.

D.

McCarthy,

ds.,

The

Dynamics

f

Social

Movements

Cambridge:

Winthrop,

1979);

W. A.

Gamson,

The

Strategyf

Social

Protest

(Homewood,

111.:

Dorsey, 1975);

A.

Oberschall,

Social

Conflict

nd

Social

Movements

(Englewood

Cliffs,

N.J.:

Prentice-Hall,

1973);

C.

Tilly,

From

Mobilization o

Revolution

(Reading,

Mass.:

Addison-

Wesley,

1978).

For

a review and

discussion of the

resource

mobilization

approach,

see

J.

C.

Jenkins,

"Resource

Mobilization

Theory

and

the

Study

of

Social

Movements,"

Annual

Review

f

Sociology (1983),

and

J.

Freeman,

ed.,

Social

Movements

f

the

ixties

nd

Seventies

New

York:

Longman,

1983).







792

SOCIAL

RESEARCH

The

seventies leave us what

I

would call a

"skeptical

paradigm"

toward social

movements:collective

ction is not a

"thing,"

nor does it

merely express

what movements

say

of

themselves;

nalysis

has rather

to discover the

system

f

inter-

nal and external

relationships

whichconstitutes he action.

But

the

seventies'

theories also leave two

problems

unresolved.

Structural

heories,

based on

system nalysis,explain

why

ut

not how

a movement s

set

up

and

maintains ts

structure^that

is,

they only hypothesize

about

potential

conflictwithout ac-

counting

for

concrete collective action and actors. On

the

other

hand,

the resource mobilization

pproach regards

such

action as mere data and

fails to examine its

meaning

and

orientation. n

this

case,

how but not

why.

ach

question

could

be

legitimate

within ts

limits,

but

frequently

uthors tend to

present

their

theories as

global explanations

of social move-

ments.6

n

my

view,

the

analysis

should concentrate

on the

systemicrelationships rather than on the simple logic of

actors. But at

the same time action cannot

be

considered

only

within

tructural ontradictions.Action has to be viewed

as an

interplay

of

aims, resources,

and

obstacles,

as

a

purposive

orientation

hich s set

up

within

system f opportunities

nd

constraints.

ovements are

action

ystems

perating

n

a

systemic

field

of

possibilities

nd limits.7That is

why

the

organization

becomes a critical

point

of

observation,

n

analytical

evel

too

often underestimated or reduced to formal structures.The

way

the

movement ctors set

up

their ction is

the concrete

ink

between rientationsnd

systemicpportunities

onstraints.

Movements are social

constructions.

Rather than

a conse-

quence

of

crises or

dysfunctions,

ather

than

an

expression

of

beliefs,

collectiveaction is

"built"

by

an

organizational

nvest-

6

For a

widerdiscussion f the theoretical

egacy

f the

seventies,

ee

A.

Melucci,

ed.,

Altri

odici:Aree di movimentoella

metropoliBologna:

II

Mulino,

1984)

and

"An

End to

Social

Movements?",

ocial

cience

nformation

4

(1984).

7This concept s derivedfromdifferentheoreticalrameworks.f. Touraine,

Production

e la

société;

M.

Crozier and

E.

Friedberg,

L'acteur

t e

système

Paris:

Seuil,

1977);

J.

S.

Coleman,

Social Structurend a

Theory

f

Action,"

olish

ociological

Bulletin,

o.

1/2

1975).







THE

SYMBOLIC CHALLENGE

793

ment.

Organization"

s not here

an

empirical

eature ut an

analytical

evel.

Keeping together

ndividuals nd

mobilizing

resources

or the actionmeans

allocating

alues,

capabilities,

decisions

n

a field

which s delimited:

ossibilities

nd bound-

aries

provided

by

social

relationshipshape

the

action,

but

neither esources

or constraints

an be activated utside he

action tself.

Social movements

re thus

action

ystems

n that

they

have

structures:he

unity

nd

continuity

f the ctionwouldnotbe

possible

without

ntegration

nd

interdependence

f

ndividu-

als and

groups,

n

spite

of the

apparent

ooseness

f

this

kind

of social

phenomena.

ut movements

re

action

ystems

n that

their

tructures

re

built

by

aims, beliefs,

ecisions,

nd ex-

changes operating

n

a

systemic

ield.

A

collective

dentity

s

nothing

lse

than

shared

definitionf thefield f

opportuni-

ties and

constraints

ffered

to

collective

ction:

"shared"

means onstructedndnegotiatedhrough repeatedprocess

of

"activation"

f social

relationships

onnecting

he

actors.8

To consider

movement

s an

action

ystem

means

to

stop

treating

t

ust

as

an

empirical

henomenon.

he

empirical

forms f

collective

ction re

objects

f

analysis,

nd

they

re

not

meaningful

n

themselves.

urrently

ne

speaks

of

a

"movement"

s

a

unity,

o which

ne

attributes

oals,

hoices,

interests,

ecisions.

But this

unity,

f

any,

s a

result

rather

than a pointof departure; therwisene must ssumethat

there

s a sort

of

deep

"mind"of

the

movement,

nsteadof

considering

t

as

a

system

f social

relationships.

collective

action can't

be

explained

without

aking

nto

account

how

internal nd

externalresources

re

mobilized,

ow

organi-

zational

tructures

re

built nd

maintained,

ow

leadership

8

On the

oncept

f collective

dentity,

ee

A.

Pizzorno,

Scambio

olitico

identità

collettiva

elconflitto

i

classe,"

n C. Crouch nd

A.

Pizzorno,

ds.,

Conflitti

n

Europa

(Milan:

Etas

Libri,

977)

and "Identità

interesse,"

n L.

Sciolla, d.,

dentità

Turin:

Rosenberg,

983);

E.

Reynaud,

Identitésollectivest

changement

ocial:Les cul-

tures

ollectives

omme

dynamique

'action,"

ociologie

u Travail

22

(1982).

The

construction

f

organizational

ettings

s

systems

f action

s

pointed

ut

by

Crozier

and Fried

berg,

L acteur t le

système.







794 SOCIAL

RESEARCH

functions re assured. What

empirically

s called a "social

movement"s a

system

f

action,

onnecting

lural

orienta-

tions nd

meanings.

A

single

ollective

ction,moreover,

on-

tainsdifferentinds f

behavior,

nd the

analysis

as to

break

its

apparentunity

nd to findout the

various

lements on-

verging

n

it and

possibly aving

differentutcomes.

Onlyby

separating

ifferent

nalytical

lements

an

one

understand

how

they

re

kept together y

an

"organizational"

tructure,

how a collective

dentity

sbuilt

hrough complex ystem

f

negotiations,

xchanges,

ecisions;

how action

an

occur as

a

result

f

systemic

eterminations

nd of

individual nd

group

orientations.

The

field

of

social movements

heory

needs a shift

way

from

mpirical

eneralizations

o

analytical

efinitions.

ust

for

methodologicalurpose

will ndicate

he essential ines

of

my

own

theoretical

ath.9

assume thatthe

meaning

f

collectivectiondependson itssystemf referencend on its

analytical

imensions.

he same

empirical

behavior

can be

viewed

n

different

ays,

whether r not t

refers

o an

organi-

zational

ystem,

o

a

political ystem,

o a mode of

production:

claims

gainst

n

ineffective

uthority

re

differentromde-

mands for

broadeningparticipation

nd are still different

from

ction

hallenging

he

production

nd

appropriation

f

resources

n

a

system.

Apart

from he

system

f

reference,

action an be analyzed lso according o its nternalnalytical

dimensions.

Using

conflict,

olidarity,

nd

the

breaking f

the

system

imits,

have differentiated

mong

various

ypes

f col-

lective ction.

I

defineconflict s a

relationship

etween

pposed

actors

fighting

or the same

resources,

o

which

both

give

value.

Solidarity

s the

capability

f an actor to share a collective

identity,

hat

s,

the

capability

f

recognizing

nd

being

recog-

9 I have

developed

my

theoretical reflections n several works. See

particularly

A.

Melucci,

The New Social

Movements:

A

Theoretical

Approach,"

Social

Science

nfor-

mation 19

(1980),

L'invenzionedel

presente:

Movimenti,

dentità,

bisogni

ndividuali

(Bologna:

II

Mulino,

1982),

and "End

to Social Movements?"







THE

SYMBOLIC

CHALLENGE

795

nized as a

part

of

the same

system

f social

relationships.

Limits f a

system

ndicate

he

range

of variations olerated

withints

existing

tructure.

breaking

f these imits

ushes

a

system eyond

he

acceptable

ange

of variations.

I

define

nalytically

social

movement

s

a form

f collec-

tive ction

a)

based

on

solidarity,

b)

carrying

n a

conflict,

c)

breaking

he limits

of the

system

n

which action

occurs.

These

dimensions,

hich re

entirely

nalytical,

nable one

to

separate

ocialmovementsrom thercollective

henomena

which

re

very

ften

mpirically

ssociated

with movements"

and

"protest":

ne can

speak

of

deviance,

regulatedgriev-

ances,

ggregated-mass

ehavior,

ccording

o which f these

dimensionss

present

r

absent.

Moreover,

ifferent inds f

movements

nd collective ctions

an be assessed

ccording

o

the

system

f reference

f action.

Beyond

he ctual ontent f a

definition

which

s

always

n

operationalool and not a metaphysicalruth), hat s impor-

tant

to

me

is the

methodological

rientation.

ince a

move-

ment

s

not

a

thing

ut a

system

f

action,

we have

to

mprove

our

capability

f

going beyond

the

empirical

nity hrough

analytical

nstrumentss

sophisticated

s

possible.

What have

outlined

bove s

a

way,

till

oughly esigned,

f

making

ur

tools more effective.

The

Systemic

ield

and theActors

Complex systems equire

a

growing

ntervention

n

social

relationships,

n

symbolic

roduction,

n

individual

dentity

and needs. Postindustrial

ocietiesno

longer

have

an

"eco-

nomic"

basis;

they

produce by

an

increasing ntegration

f

economic,

olitical,

nd

cultural tructures.Material"

oods

are

produced

and

consumed

with he mediation f

huge

in-

formationalnd

symbolic ystems.

Social conflicts

move from

the traditional

economic/

industrial

ystem

o cultural

grounds: they

affect

personal







796

SOCIAL

RESEARCH

identity,

he time

nd the

space

in

everyday

ife,

he

motiva-

tion and the cultural

patterns

f individual

ction.Conflicts

reveal

major

shift

n

the

structure

f

complex ystems,

nd

new contradictions

ppear

affecting

heirfundamental

ogic.

On

the one

hand,

highly

ifferentiated

ystems

ncreasingly

produce

and distribute esources

for

individualization,

or

self-realization,

or an autonomous

uilding

f

personal

nd

collectivedentities.

nd that s because

complex

ystems

re

informational

ystems

nd

they

cannot survivewithout s-

suming

certain

utonomous

apacity

n individual

lements,

which

have

to be able

to

produce

and receive

nformation.

Consequently

he

system

must

mprove

he

autonomy

f indi-

viduals nd

groups

nd their

apacity

or

becoming

ffective

terminals

f

complex

nformationaletworks.

On

the other

hand,

these

systems

eed more

and more

integration. hey

have to extend heir ontrol ver the

same

fundamentalesourceswhich llowtheirfunctioning,fthey

want to

survive.Power must affect

veryday

ife,

the

deep

motivation

f ndividual ctionmust e

manipulated,

he

pro-

cess

by

which

people give

meaning

o

things

nd their ction

must be under

control.

One

can

speak

of

"power

micro-

physics"10

r of

a

shift n

social action from external

to

"internal ature."11 he conflicts f the

eighties

evealthese

new

contradictions,

nd

they mply

n

intense

edefinition

f

the ocation f socialmovementsnd of their orms f action.

They

nvolve

ocial

groups

more

directly

ffected

y

the

pro-

cessesoutlined bove.

They

arise

n

those reas of

the

system

which

re connected o the most ntensivenformational

nd

symbolic

nvestments

nd

exposed

to the

greatest

ressures

for

conformity.

he actors

n

these conflicts re

no

longer

social

classes,

hat

s,

stable

groups

defined

y

a

specific

ocial

condition and culture

(as

the

working

class was

during

capitalistic

ndustrialization).

10

M.

Foucault,

Microfisica

el

potere

Turin:

Einaudi,

1977).

11

Habermas,

Zur

Rekonstruktion.







THE

SYMBOLIC

CHALLENGE

797

Actors

n

conflicts

re

increasingly

emporary,

nd their

functions to

reveal he

takes,

o announce

to

society

hat

a

fundamental

roblem

exists

n

a

given

area.

They

have a

growing ymbolic

unction;

ne can

probably peak

of a

prophetic

unction.

hey

are a

kind

of

newmedia}2

They

do not

fight

merely

or

material

oals,

or

to increase heir

participa-

tion

n

the

ystem. hey fight

or

ymbolic

nd cultural

takes,

for different

eaning

nd orientationf social ction.

They

try

o

changepeople's

ives,

hey

believe hat

you

can

change

your

ife

today

while

fighting

or more

general changes

n

society.13

Because

t

apprehends

movement

nly

s a

given mpiri-

cal

actor,

esourcemobilization

heory

s unableto

explain

he

meaning

f these

ontemporary

orms

f

action.The field f

new socialconflictss created

by

the

system

nd

its

contradic-

tory equirements.

he

activation f

specific

ssues

depends

rather n historicalnd conjuncturalactors.pecific mpiri-

cal conflicts

re

carriedout

by

different

roups

which

on-

verge

on

the

groundprovidedby

the

system.

he field

nd

the stakes f

antagonistic

onflicts

must herefore e defined

at the

synchronie

evelof the

system.

ctors,

n the

contrary,

can be

identified

nlyby

taking

ntoaccount

diachronic,

on-

junctural

actors,

articularly

he

functioning

f

the

political

system.

Resource

mobilization

heory

can

help

in

under-

standing ow differentlements onvergen activating pe-

cific

orms f

collective

ction,

ut

cannot

xplainwhy

ction

arisesand where t

is

going.

The

resource

mobilization

pproach

avoids the

macrolevel

12

J.

H.

Marx and

B.

Holzner,

"The Social Construction f Strain and

Ideological

Models of Grievance in

Contemporary

Movements,"

Pacific

Sociological

Review

20

(1977);

J.

Sassoon,

"Ideology, Symbolism

nd

Rituality

n Social

Movements,"

ocial

Science

nformation

4

(1984).

13

A

discussionof these

topics connecting hem to general changes in postindustrial

societies s

proposed

in A.

Melucci,

"Ten

Hypotheses

for the

Analysis

of New

Move-

ments,"

n D.

Pinto, d.,

Contrmporary

talian

Sociology

Cambridge:

Cambridge

Univer-

sity

Press,

1981)

and "New

Movements,

Terrorism and the Political

System,"

ocialist

Review 56

(1981).







798 SOCIAL

RESEARCH

(which

is the main interestof theories such as Touraine's or

Haber

mas's),

but

in

fact it tends to reduce

every

collective

action

to the

political

evel. But

that

way

it misses

the

cultural

orientation

of the

emerging

social conflicts. lsewhere

I

have

spoken

of

"political

overload" of

many contemporary nalyses

on

social movements.14 ometimes

implicitly, ery

often

ex-

plicitly,

he

relationship

between movements nd the

political

system

becomes the focus

of

attention

nd debate. Of course

this

viewpoint

is

legitimate,

unless it exhausts

any possible

consideration

of other dimensions.15

Contemporary

social

conflicts

re not

just political,

since

they

affect

the

system's

cultural

production.

Collective

action is not carried

out

simply

for

exchanging goods

in

the

political

marketor for

mproving

the

participation

n

the

system.

t

challenges

the

logic

govern-

ing

production

and

appropriation

of social

resources.

The

concept

of movement tself seems

increasingly

nade-

quate, if referredto recentphenomena. I preferto speak of

movement

etworksr

movementreas

as the

network

of

groups

14

Melucci,

"End to Social Movements?"

15

An

analysis

of

social movementswhich takes

account of

systemic

nteraction nd

the

political

ystem esponses

is

proposed

by

K. Webb et

al.,

"Etiology

nd Outcomes

of Protest: New

European

Perspectives,"

American ehavioralScientist

6

(1983);

S.

Tarrow,

"Movimenti

organizzazioni

sociali: Che

cosa

sono,

quando

hanno

successo,"

Laboratorio

olitico

(1982)

and

Struggling

o

Reform:

ocial

Movementsnd

PolicyChange

During Cycles f

Protest,

Western Societies Occasional

Papers,

no. 15

(Ithaca,

N.Y.:

Cornell University, 983); D. Della Porta,"Leadership Strategies nd Organizational

Resources:

The

Crisis of

the French Women's

Movement,"

paper presented

at the

6th

EGOS

Colloquium,

Florence,

November

1983;

Y.

Ergas,

"Politica sociale

e

governo

della

protesta,"

n S.

Belligni,

ed.,

Governare a democrazia

Milan:

Angeli,

1981);

A.

Marsh,

Protest nd Political

Consciousness

London:

Sage,

1977);

J.

Wilson,

"Social

Protest nd Social

Control,"

Social Problems

4

(1977);

F. Fox Piven

and R.

Cloward,

Poor

People's

Movements

New

York:

Pantheon,

1977).

A

"political"

reduction

of the

women's movement an be

found in

J.

Freeman,

The

Politics

f

Women's iberation

New

York:

Longman,

1975),

and

J.

Gelb,

Women nd Public

Policies

Princeton:

Princeton

University

ress,

1982).

For a

critique

of this

reduction,

ee

Y.

Ergas,

"The Disinte-

grative

Revolution: Welfare

Politics and

Emergent

Collective

Identities,"

paper pre-

sented

at

the Conference

on

Performance

f Italian

Institutions,

ellagio,

June

1983.

Referring

o

contemporary

movements,

have used the

expression "postpolitical

movements"

Melucci,

L'invenzione el

presente).

Offe

speaks

of

the

"metapolitical

paradigm"

of these movements

C.

Offe,

"New Social Movements

as a

Metapolitical

Challenge," unpublished

paper,

University

f

Bielefeld,

1983).







THE

SYMBOLIC

CHALLENGE

799

and individuals

haring

conflictual ulture nd a collective

identity.

his definition

ncludes not

only

"formal"

rgani-

zations

but also

the network

f "informal"

elationships

on-

necting

ore individuals nd

groups

to

a

broader

area of

participants

nd "users" of

services

nd cultural

goods

pro-

duced

by

the

movement.16

The

inadequacy

of

the

concept

of social movement s a

symptom

f a more

general epistemological roblem.

The

concept

f movement

elongs

o the same semantic nd con-

ceptual

frameworkn which

ther

notions,

uchas

progress

r

revolution,

were formed. n

a world

where

change

means

crisis

management

nd

maintenance f

systemic

quilibrium,

where no future"

s not

only

slogan

but the

recognition

hat

the

system

s both

planetary

nd

dramatically

ulnerable,

n

such a

world

the

historicist

aradigm

fades and

reveals the

need for

new

conceptual

rames.

In thefieldof collectivection the lack ofmoreadequate

concepts

makes t

difficulto

get

rid

of a

notion uch as "social

movement";

ut

I

am

aware thatthe

concept

of

"movement

network"

s a

temporary

djustment

overing

lack of more

satisfactory

efinitionsnd

perhaps

facilitating

he transition

to

another

paradigm.

But such

a

concept

ndicates lso that

collective ction s

changing

ts

organizational

orms,

which re

becoming airly

differentromtraditional olitical rganizations.Moreover,

they

are

increasing

utonomous

from

political

systems;

proper

space

for

collective

ction

s created within

omplex

societies s

a

specific

ubsystem.

t

becomes

he

point

of con-

vergence

for

different

orms

f behaviorwhich

the

system

cannot

ntegrate

including

not

only

conflicting

rientations

but

also

deviant

behavior,

ultural

nnovation,

tc.).

16

See

also,although

eferred

omoreformalrganizations,heconceptsf"socialmovement

ndustry"

McCarthy

nd

Zald,

"Resource

Mobilization")

nd

"social

movementector"

R.

Garner

nd M. N.

Zald,

"Social Movement

ectors nd

Sys-

tematic

onstraint,"

orking

aper

no.

238,

Center or

Research n Social

Organiza-

tion,

University

f

Michigan,

981).







800

SOCIAL

RESEARCH

The normal ituation f

today's

movement"

s a

network

f

small

groups

ubmerged

n

everyday

ifewhich

equire

per-

sonal nvolvement

n

experiencing

nd

practicing

ultural

n-

novation.

hey

emerge

nly

on

specific

ssues,

s

for nstance

the

big

mobilizations

or

peace,

for

abortion,

gainst

nuclear

policy,

tc.

The

submerged

network,

lthough omposed

of

separate

mall

groups,

s a

system

f

exchange

persons

nd

informationirculate

long

the

network;

ome

agencies,

uch

as local freeradios,

bookshops,

magazinesprovide

certain

unity).17

Such networks

first

utlined

by

Gerlach

nd

Hine18)

have

the

following

haracteristics:

a)

they

llow

multiple

member-

ship;

b)

militantisms

onlypart-time

nd

short-term;

c)

per-

sonal involvement nd affective

olidarity

s

required

as

a

condition

or

participation

n

many

f the

groups.

This is

not

a

temporary

henomenon

but

a

morphological

hift

n

the

structure f collective ction.

One can

speak

of

a

two-pole

model:

atency

nd

visibility,

ach

having

wo

different

unctions.

atency

llows

people

to

expe-

rience

directly

ew cultural

models

changes

n the

system

f

meanings

which are

very

often

opposed

to the

dominant

social

codes:

the

meaning

of sexual

differences,

ime

and

space,relationship

o

nature,

o the

body,

nd

so on.

Latency

creates new cultural

codes

and

makes

individuals

practice

them.When smallgroupsemergeto confront political u-

thority

n

a

specific

ssue,

visibility

emonstrates

he

opposi-

tion to the

logic

underlying

ecision

making

with

regard

to

publicpolicy.

At

the

same

time,

public

mobilization

ndicates

to

the rest

f

society

hat

he

specific

roblem

s connected

o

17

1

am

referring

to the results

of broad

empirical

research

on new

forms of

collective

action

(youth,

women,

environmentalists,

eoreligious)

in

the

Milan

met-

ropolitan

area. See

Melucci,

Altri

odia;

P.

R.

Donati,

"Organization

Between

Move-

ment and

Institution,"

ocial Science

nformation

4

(1984);

Sassoon,

"Ideology,

Sym-

bolism,and Rituality."

18

L.

P. Gerlach and

V. H.

Hine,

People,

Power and

Change

(Indianapolis:

Bobbs-

Merrill,

1970).







THE

SYMBOLIC CHALLENGE

801

the

general

ogic

of the

system,

nd

also

that

lternative

ul-

tural models

are

possible.

These two

poles,visibility

nd

latency,

re

reciprocally

or-

related.

Latency

llows

visibility

n

that t feeds the former

with

olidarity

esources nd with cultural

ramework

or

mobilization.

Visibility

einforces

ubmerged

networks. t

provides

nergies

o renew

solidarity,

acilitatesreation f

new

groups

and recruitment

f new militants ttracted

y

public

mobilization ho then flow nto the

submerged

net-

work.

The new

organizational

orm

f

contemporary

ovements

is not

ust

"instrumental"or

their

goals.

t

is

a

goal

in

itself.

Since

the

action s

focused n cultural

odes,

the

orm

f the

movements a

message, symbolic

hallenge

o

the dominant

patterns.

hort-term nd

reversible

ommitment,

multiple

leadership

hat an

be

challenged, emporary

nd ad hoc

or-

ganizational tructures re the bases for internal ollective

identity,

ut

also for

symbolic

onfrontationith

he

ystem.

People

are offered he

possibility

f another

experience

f

time,

pace,

nterpersonal

elations,

hich

pposesoperational

rationality

f

apparatuses.

A

different

ay

of

naming

the

world

uddenly

everses he dominant

odes.

The

medium,

he movement

tself s a new

medium,

s the

message.

As

prophets

without

nchantment,

ontemporary

movements ractice n the presentthe change they are

struggling

or:

they

edefine he

meaning

f social

actionfor

the whole

ociety.

Peace

Mobilizations:olitical r

Symbolic?

I

will

try

now to

apply

the

conceptual

rameworkutlined

above to the

unexpected

wave of

mobilizations or

peace

whichhas been

troubling

ll Western ountries rom hebe-

ginning

f

the

eighties,

with

gigantic

emonstrations

rossing







802

SOCIAL

RESEARCH

the main

apitals

f theWesternworld.

Two

general uestions

can be

raised:

What

produces

these forms f mobilization?

What s the

meaning

f individual nd collective ction?

For

both

questions

he

answers

might

eem obvious:mobili-

zation s a reaction o the

changing olitical

nd

military

cene,

after the decisions

regarding

nuclear

weapons

in

Europe;

peace

is the

goal,

as

a

universal

ood

threatened

y

the

nu-

clear

race

and

by

the riskof total

warfare.

These answers re as obviousas

they

re

incomplete

nd

partial: they

contain the same

simplification

n

the

"peace

movement" s that

lready pplied

to

other

recent ollective

mobilizations

n

complex

ocieties.

So far

have

spoken

of

peace

mobilizationsnd not

of

peace

movement ecause

as

I

explained

before

don't think hat

"peace

movement" as

any analytical nity.

Empiricalphe-

nomena

of recent

years

are

multidimensionalealities

which

converge, nly n a specific onjuncture,n thegroundof-

fered

by peace

mobilizations.

The

changes

n

military olicies

ffer he

conjunctural

p-

portunity

or he

emergence

nd

coagulation

f different

le-

ments:

(1)

There is

first f all a

reactiono the

changes

n

military

policies

whichhas

two main

aspects:

a)

mobilization

f

political

actors

in

a

broad sense of

parties,

nions,

pressure

groups,

associations);b) collective earof an irreversibleatastrophe.

In

the

first

ase,

the

logic

of action

an be

explained

lmost

entirely

ithin he national

political

ystems.

nner

dynamics,

alreadyoperating

n

these

systems,

re

activated

y

interna-

tional

conjuncture:

he

residual

political

new left"

of the

seventies

n

West

Germany,

r the

Communist

arty

n

Italy,

find on

the

peace

ground

an

opportunity

or

their

political

action.The

second

lement

f reaction

s collective

ear,

which

can be

analyzed

s a sum

of atomized

ehaviors,

ollowing

he

classical

nalyses

f crowdbehavior r

aggregative

ehavior.19

19

Smelser,

Theory f

Collective

ehavior;

F.

Alberoni,

Movimento

istituzione

Bologna:

II

Mulino,

1981).







THE

SYMBOLIC

CHALLENGE

803

(2)

A

second

component

f

peace

mobilizationss what

would call a

moral

topianism

hat s

not

ust

a

contemporary

phenomenon.

very

ocial

ystem

ontains certain mount f

moral and

totalizing xpectations

oward

happiness,

ustice,

truth,

nd so on.

These claimsdo not have social

ttributions,

do not involve

pecific

ocial

interests

r

practical-historical

projects. hey

live on the

borders f

greatreligions

r

great

cultural nd

political

waves,

n

the form f small

ects,

ereti-

cal

cults,

theological

ircles. The

great

collective

rocesses

offer

a

channel to

express

this

moral

utopianism,

which

otherwise ould

survive

n

marginal

nclaves.

The

peace

issue s a

ground

of

expression

orthese otaliz-

ingaspirations,

hich ecome

visible

hrough

cyclical p

and

down

wave.

Contemporary

nternational

onjuncture

ffers

social and

cultural

pportunity

or

a

phenomenon

which

has

only

an occasional ink with he

activating

ituation.

(3) But peace mobilizationsre notonlya reaction o the

recent

militaryolicies.

olitical ctors

have

only

minor

ole

in

mobilization.

he fear of

the bomb

doesn't

explain

the

patterns

f

solidarity,

rganization,

dentity

f recent

ollective

action,

which

s

very

different

rom n

aggregative

ehavior

such

as a

panic.

Moral

utopianism

ould not

eave its

margi-

nality

f

t

werenot

pushed

by

collective

rocesses

which

have

their

roots

elsewhere.

Myhypothesiss thatpeace mobilizationslso express on-

flicts f a

complex

ociety.

here is a

qualitative

ap

between

recent

mobilizationsnd

pacifism

f

thefifties.

here

s,

on the

contrary,

continuity

ith

ther

mobilizationsf the

eventies

and

early eighties youth,

women,

ecological

mobilizations).

An

understanding

f

peace

mobilizations f the

eighties

thusneeds a

consideration ot

only

of

the nuclear

war

threat

but

of the

whole

system

n

which

his

possibility

ccurs.

Information as

today

become

central

esource,

nd con-

temporary

ystems

epend

on itfortheir

urvival nd

devel-

opment.

The

capability

f

collecting,

rocessing,

ransferring

information

as been

developed

n

the ast

twenty ears

t a







804 SOCIAL

RESEARCH

level which s not

comparable

o thatof the whole

history

f

mankind.

That increases he

artificial,

built"

haracteristicsf social

life.

A

large

amountof our

everyday xperiences

ccur

n

a

socially roduced

environment.

edia

represent

nd reflect

our

actions;

ndividuals

ncorporate

nd

reproduce

hesemes-

sages

n

a sort f

self-growingpiral.

Where re "nature"

nd

"reality"

utside the cultural

epresentations

nd

images

we

receivefrom nd

produce

for our socialworld?

Social

system

cquires

planetary

imension,

nd theevents

are not

mportant

n

themselves

r for the

place

and

people

where

hey

ccur but for their

ymbolic

mpact

n the world

system.

Informationalocieties

develop

a

cultural

production

not

directly

onnected o the needs

for

survival

r

for

reproduc-

tion:

n

that

hey

re

"postmaterial"

ocieties

nd

they roduce

a "cultural urplus."Since informationannotbe separated

from

human

capability

f

perceiving

t,

social

intervention

affects

more and more man himself.

arge

investments

n

biological

esearch,

motivational

esearch,

rain

research,

e-

cent

developments

f

neurosciences,

articularly

n the most

developed

countries,

how

that

the

deepest

bases

of human

behavior

become a field

of

exploration

nd

intervention:

biological

nd motivational

tructure

f

humans

becomes

a

valuableresource.

A

society

ased on

information

edefines

pace

and

time.

Space

loses its

physical

imits

nd can

be extended

or con-

tracted t

a

degree

that

one could

hardly magine

only

few

years go.

A

whole

ibrary

an

be stocked

n

a

space

smaller

than

book,

butthe

symbolicpace

everybody

an be

in

touch

with eaches

he whole

planet

nd even

extraterrestrial

pace.

The timeneeded

to

produce

and

process

nformation

as

been

reduced

so

rapidly

n recent

years

that

we

can

already

experience

the dramatic

gap

regarding

therhuman time

experiences.

he

gap

between

he

time

computer

eeds

to

process

nformation

nd

the

time

for

human

analysis

f

the







THE

SYMBOLIC CHALLENGE

805

output

s still

eryhigh.

However,

esearch n

artificial

ntelli-

gence

has

been

growing

n

the

direction f the reduction f

this

ag.

But the mostdramatic s the

gap

concerning

ther

times f our

everyday xperience:

he

inner

times,

imes

f

feelings

nd

emotions,

imes

of

questions

without

nswers,

timesfor

unifying

he

fragments

f

personal

dentity.

Control ver informational

roduction,

ccumulation,

nd

circulation

epends

on

codes

which

rganize

nd make

nfor-

mationunderstandable.n

complex

societies,

ower

consists

more nd moreof

operational

odes,

formal

ules,

knowledge

organizers.

n

the

operational ogic,

informations

not a

shared resource ccessible

o

everybody,

ut

an

empty ign,

the

key

f which s controlled

yonly

few

people.

The access

to

knowledge

ecomes

a

field of a new

kind of

power

and

conflicts.

Moreover,

he

possibility

f

unifying

ndividual x-

perience

eyond

he

operational

ationality

ecomesmore nd

more difficult: here is no place for questionsconcerning

individual

estiny

nd

choices, ife,birth, eath,

ove.

The

"nuclear ituation"s the

possibility

f

totaldestruction

has

to be

consideredwithin he

framework have

ust

out-

lined.

(1)

The

nuclear

ituations the

extreme,

aradoxical

xam-

ple

of social

capability

f

ntervening

n

society

tself. t

is the

ultimate

xpression

f an

"artificial,"

elf-reflexiveocial ife.

Contemporaryocieties roducethemselves o a degreethat

includes he

possibility

f final

destruction.

(2)

This

situation,

or the

first

ime

in

human

history,

transforms

eace

and

war nto

global

ocial

roblem.

ociety

n

itself

s

concernedwith

question

which

ffects hesurvival f

mankind nd

which

annot herefore e restrictedo

the

epa-

ratearea

of

technical,

military,

r

political

ecision.While he

war,

from

he

point

f view

of

technology,

ecomesmore nd

more a

specialist's

ield,

ts

meaning

s

paradoxically

eversed

andbecomes

general

ocial

uestion

oncerning

llof us and

everybody.

(3)

For

the

first

ime

n

history

war and

peace acquire

a







806 SOCIAL RESEARCH

planetary

imension nd break the

imits

f relations

mong

the states which have maintained

n

modern

history

monopoly

ver

them.

The

complex

ystem

f relations e

call

society cquires

he

power

of self-destruction

ut at the

same

time

disposes

of the chances of survival

nd

development.

"The social"becomes

he field f

power,

isk,

nd

responsibil-

ity.

(4)

The "nuclear situation"

rings

the war

threat o

the

informationalield,

particularly

o a

symbolic round.

The

actual war would be

the end

of

war,

bringing

with

t the

disappearance

f mankind.

o the confrontation

ithin

hese

limitss

necessarily

symbolic ight

nd

a

struggle

or

ontrol-

ling

nformation.

he

concept

f

deterrence,

key

oncept

n

contemporary olitical

nd

military

nternational

elations,

operatesmainly

n

symbolic round.

t

intervenes

n

infor-

mation

nd

representations

f

opponents,

y

creating

mirror

game nwhich very layer ries o influenceheother nd to

take

advantage

f

the

enemy'smisperception.

The nuclear

ituation

ontains wo

paradoxes.

First,

f

soci-

ety

produces

he

power

of

self-destruction,

t

shows

both the

highest

evel

of

self-reflection,

f action

on

itself,

nd

the

potential

nd

final nd

of this

apability.

econd,

the nuclear

situations the

product

f an

information

ociety

nd,

as

such,

it

s

no

longer

eversible.

t is

virtuallympossible

or

nforma-

tionon thenuclearbomband itsproductionodisappear nd

therefore

o come

back

to a

prenuclear

ociety.

ne

has

to

imagine

catastrophe

r situation

n

which

here

s total

on-

trolover

nformationnd

the

erasing

f

facts nd

the rewrit-

ing

of

history,

n

Orwellian

erms.

Otherwise

he bomb

s

an

incumbentnd irreversible

ossibility

f

human

ociety,

oth

resultof the

largest

widening

f choices

and

opportunities

ever

produced by

material

nd cultural volution

nd

an

ir-

reversible

isk.We

can

only go beyond,

onfronting

t.

The "nuclear ituation" as substantial

nalogies

with ther

contemporary

orms

f

intervention

f

society

n itself.

ar-

ticularly enetic

ngineering,

nd

all

forms f

voluntary

c-







THE

SYMBOLIC

CHALLENGE

807

tion on

biological

bases

of

behavior,

eproduction,hought,

life tself

re as

radical

nterventionsn human

destiny

s the

nuclear

hreat.

he differences not the

rreversibility

which

could also

be true for

geneticmanipulation

r

ecological

is-

asters)

but the

specific

haracteristics

f nuclear

threat:

ime

(destruction

ould be almost

nstantaneous)

nd

space

(de-

struction

ould be

global),

which

makenuclear

war

ncompara-

ble with

ny

other

ntervention

n the future f

mankind.

So what s at stake n

contemporary

ovements,

nd

par-

ticularly

n

peace

mobilizations,

s

the

roduction

f

the

human

species,

t the ndividual

nd

collective

evel: the

possibility

or

men,

as

individuals nd as

species,

o

controlnot

only

their

"products"

ut

their

"making,"

ulturally

nd

socially

and

more nd

more

biologically).

hat

s at stake s the

production

of

human

existence nd its

quality.

In

collective

ction for

peace,

one

can find some

dimen-

sions of thisemerging ieldof conflicts.

(1)

Struggle gainst

militaryolicies

eveals he ransnational

nature f

contemporaryroblems

nd conflicts20

nd

the

global

interdependence

f the

planetary

ystem.

ollective ction

hal-

lenges

not

only

he actual

shape

of

internationalelations ut

the

ogic

governing

hem.

The world

ystem

s

formally

set

of

relations

mong

overeign

tates,

ut n

fact t s

dominated

by

the two-blocs

ogic

and

by

the

imbalances

etween

North

and South.Withinhetwoempires, echnocraticnd military

apparatuses

ontrol

nformationalnd

decisional

esources or

survival nd

they

are also

responsible

or

the

unequal

ex-

change among

different

reas of the

planet.

The

exhausting

of

the

nation-state

ystem

s

perhaps

he

fundamental

essage

of

contemporaryacifism,

ven

f

there

re still

good

deal of

"national"

uestions

nresolved.21

hrough

he

peace

issue

one

can

hear an

appeal

to

give

society

he

power

of

deciding

nd

20S.

Hegedus,

Pacifisme,

eutralismeu

un

nouveau

mouvement

ransnational

pour

la

paix?",

presented

t Feltrinelli

oundation

onference,

Milan,

June

1983.

21

A.

Melucci

and M.

Diani,

Naziono enza

tato:

movimenti

tnico-nazionalin

Occidente

(Turin:

Loescher,

983).







808 SOCIAL

RESEARCH

controlling

ts own

existence,

n

a new set of relations

mong

its elements

groups,

nterests,

ultures,

nations").

A

new

n-

tersocietalrder is not a

utopia

but

great

aspiration

f our

planetary

ituationwhere the nation-statesre

extinguishing

themselves ot because of socialism

the

myth

f the end of

the

state)

but

because

they

ose

their

uthority:

rom

bove,

a

planetary,

multinational

olitical

nd economic

nterdepen-

dence movesthe center

f actualdecision

making

lsewhere;

from elow,

multiplication

f autonomous enters f decision

gives

civil

ocieties"

power

hey

never

had

during

hedevel-

opment

of modern tates.

The

problem

f

political

management

f this

new situation

is not

an

easy

one;

but

the

planetary

ystem

as

to start rom

the ocial ransformation

f its

nature,

f

t

wants o

find

new

political

means

for ts survival.

(2)

Peace

mobilizations

oint

out

the

increasing

ecisional

dimensionf thecontemporaryituation.ocietynd its des-

tiny

re

constructed,

s

a result of

decisionsand

choices,

products

f social

relationships

nd

notof the

pparently

atal

logic

of

apparatuses,

pretending

hey

have

a

right

to

a

monopoly

f

"rationality."

(3)

Collective

ction

for

peace

reveals,

inally,

hecontractual

nature

f social

ife

n

complex

ystems:

he survival

f

man-

kind

depends

on

the

capability

f

negotiating

nds.

Discussion

on endsdisappearsfrom he scene ofcollective ebates,nul-

lified

by

the

operational

riteria

f

efficacity

r

by

the

pure

consumption

f

signs.

Collective

ction

ays

hat heends

must

be

visible,

egotiable,

nder control.

Acceptance

of

the

contractual

nature

of

contemporary

societies

means:

a)

to

recognize

hat he

differences

f

inter-

ests

and

a certain

mount

of

conflict

an't

be eliminated

n

complex

ystems;

b)

to

recognize

he

necessity

f

limits,

hat

is,

rules f

the

game,

which

an

be

established

nd

changed

by

negotiation;

c)

power

s one ofthese imitsnd itsnegotiabil-

ity epends

on

its

visibility,

d)

to

recognize

he

risk,

hat

s,

the

openness

and

temporariness

f

every

decisional

process

re-







THE

SYMBOLIC

CHALLENGE

809

ducing

uncertainty.

isk,

which n

ethicalterms

means re-

sponsibility

nd

freedom,

s an irreversible

omponent

f

the

contemporary

ituation.t is not

bigger

orthe nuclear itua-

tionthan

t s for

other

possibilities

f destruction

biological,

chemical,

cological)

onnected o the

ncreasing

ntervention

of

society

n itself.

The

risk

points

out

definitely

hat the

destiny

f

humanshas been

put

into their

hands.

Naming

heWorld

The

form

f

contemporary

ovements,

nd of

peace

mobili-

zations s

well,

s

the mostdirect

xpression

f the

message

collective

ction nnounces

o the

society.

he

meaning

f the

actionhas to be

found

n

the action tself

more than

n

the

pursued

goals:

movementsre not

qualifiedby

what

they

do

butbywhatthey re.

The

legacy

f

industrial

ociety

s an

image

of social

move-

ments s

tragic

haracters.

hey

act on the

historical

cene,

heroesor villains

epending

n the

point

of

view,

but

always

oriented oward

reat

dealsor

a

dramatic

estiny.

he

history

of the

nineteenth

nd

twentieth

enturies

s full

of

these

images,

ot

merely

hetorical.

hey

have

maintained

heir

orce

until

ecent

years.

Movements

f the

sixties nd

also

the first

wave of feminismn the seventies tillbelongto thisepic

representation:

n

the

struggle

f

progress

gainst

arbarism,

everyone

an

choose

his side

and can

be

sure of

the

oppo-

nent's

necessary

reakdown

At

the

beginning

f the

eighties

lmost

nothing

eems to

survive f

these

pic representations.

ovementsre

lost,

nd

there s no

character

ccupying

he

scene. But

there re

a lot

of

submerged

etworks,

f

groups

nd

experiences

hat nsist

on

considering

hemselves

against."

But

who

cares

about

them?

They

seemmore nterestedn themselves han n the

outer

world,

hey

pparently

gnore

politics,

hey

don't

fight

against

power.

They

don't

have

big

leaders,

organization







810

SOCIAL

RESEARCH

seems

quite

nefficient,

isenchantmentas

superseded

great

ideals.

Many

observers onsiderthese

realities,

whichdon't

challenge

he

political ystem

nd are not interested

n

the

institutionalffects f their

action,

as

residual,

folkloristic

phenomena

n

the

big

scenarioof

politics.

I

am

convinced,

n the

contrary,

hat hese

poor

and disen-

chantedforms f

action

re the seeds

of a

qualitative

hange

in

contemporary

ollective ction.

Certainly ontemporarymovements

roduce

some effects n

political

nstitutions,

l-

though hey

re

not

mainly

riented

oward

olitical hange.

They

modernize

nstitutions,

hey

urnish

hemnewelites

who

renew ulture nd

organization.

ut conflict

oes

beyond

n-

stitutionalenewal nd affects

he

meaning

f

individual c-

tion

nd thecodes which

hape

behaviors. hus

contemporary

movements ave

to be read on differentevels.

There

is

in

their ctiona

component

which nfluences

n-

stitutions,overnments,olicies; here re pushestoward he

renewal of

cultures,

anguages,

habits.

All

these effects

facilitate

he

adaptation

of

complex

systems

o the trans-

formations

f

the environment

nd

to

the

accelerated

pace

of internal

hanges

hey

re

exposed

to.

But

beyond

modernization,

eyond

cultural

nnovation,

movements

uestion

ociety

n

something

else":

who

decides

on

codes,

who establishes

ules

of

normality,

hat

s the

space

fordifference,owcan one be recognizednotforbeing n-

cluded

but for

being

accepted

s

different,

ot for

ncreasing

the amount

of

exchanges

but for

affirming

nother

kind of

exchange?

This is the

deepest

and the

most

hidden

message

of

the

movements.

Movements

resent

o

the

rationalizingppara-

tuses

questions

which are

not

allowed.

While

the

problem

becomes

o

operationalize

hat

n

anonymous

ower

has

de-

cided,they

sk where

we are

going

and

why.

Their

voice

s

difficultohear because

they peak

from

particularistic

oint

of

view,

tarting

rom

specific

ondition

r location

as

being

young,

eing

woman,

nd so

on).

Nevertheless,

hey

peak

to







THE

SYMBOLIC CHALLENGE

811

the whole

society.

he

problems

hey

raise affect

he

global

logic

of

contemporary

ystems.

Starting

rom

temporary

iological

nd

social

condition,

the

youth

movement as

presented

o

society

he

problem

f

time.

outh

s no more a

simplebiological

ondition

ut has

become

symbolic

efinition. ne is not

young nly

because

of one's

age

but

because

one assumes ultural haracteristics

f

variability

nd

temporarinessroper

to

youth.

he condition

of the

young

s a mirror

hrough

which more

general

ppeal

is

raised:the

right

o reverse he ife

ime,

o

make

temporary

existentialnd

professional

hoices,

o

dispose

of a timemea-

sured

not

onlyby

the

rhythm

f

operational fficacity.

Rooted

in

the

particularism

f

a condition

marked

by

bi-

ology

and

history,

he women'smovement as raised a

fun-

damental

uestion oncerning

veryone

n

complex ystems:

how communication

s

possible,

how to

communicatewith

"another"without enying hedifferencey powerrelations.

Beyond

he

demandfor

equality,

eyond

he

nclusion

n

the

field

f masculine

ights,

omen re

yet

peaking

f

the

right

to

difference

nd

to

"otherness."

hat is

why

hey

ometimes

choose

silence,

ecause t s difficult

o

find

words ther

han

those of the

dominant

anguage.

The

ecological

nebula

grown

n

the

ast decade

collects if-

ferent

lements:

modernization f the

system,

ew

elites

n

formation,ut also conflictualrientations hichchallenge

the

logic

of

relationships

etween

man

and

natureand be-

tweenman

and his nature.

This

ecological

ulture

aises

the

question

f how

to deal with

nature

nside

and outsideour-

selves.

he

body,

he

biological

tructure,

he

environmentre

the

limits for

the

"destructive

reation"

of

technological

societies.

Where

can

human

intervention

top?

What is

the

place

for

"nature" till

onstituting

nd

surrounding

uman

life?

Contemporary

ocietieshave eliminated rom he fieldof

human

xperience

what

was

not

measurable

nd

controllable,

what n

the

traditional

orld

belonged

to

the

dimension

f







812

SOCIAL RESEARCH

the sacred.

The final

meaning

f

existence,

uestions

n what

escapes

ndividual

xperience,

eed a new

"religious"

esearch

or

simply

need

for

connecting

he

external

hange

to

an

interior

rowth.

heterogeneous

rea

emerges

ooking

ora

"newconsciousness."

t seems

very

ar

from raditional orms

of conflictual

ovements.

evertheless,

henwe are notcon-

frontedwith

multinational

orporations

elling ecurity,

e

can observe

way

f resistance

o

operational

odes,

n

appeal

to

shadow,

searchforan interior

nity gainst

he

mpera-

tives f

efficacity.

All

theseforms f collective

ction

hallenge

he dominant

logic

on a

symbolic round.

They

question

efinition

f

codes,

nominationf

reality. hey

don't

sk,

they

ffer.

hey

offer

y

theirown

existence

ther

ways

of

defining

he

meaning

of

individual nd collective

ction.

They

don't

eparate

ndividual

change

from

ollective

ction,

hey

ranslate

general

ppeal

inthehereand nowof ndividualxperience. heyactas new

media:

they nlighten

what

very

ystem

oesn't

ay

of

itself,

the amount

of

silence,

violence,

rrationality

hich s

always

hidden

n dominant odes.

At the same

time,

hrough

what

hey

o,

or rather

hrough

how

they

o

it,

movements

nnounce o

society

hat

omething

"else" is

possible.

Peace mobilizations

ike other

forms

of mobilizations

coagulateand make visiblethissubmerged nebula."They

offer field or xternal

ction o networksf

solidarity

hich

live

n

differentreas

of

society

nd share hecultural

eversal

and the

symbolic hallenge

to

the

system.

ontractual

nd

short-term

nvolvements,

oincidence etween

ollective

oals

and individual

xperience

f

change,

globalism

f

symbolic

appeal

and

particularism

f actors' ocial

ocations,

ll these

are

aspects

f collective

mobilizations.

n

the

peace

issue,

s

in

other forms f

contemporary

obilizations,

e

can

see the

end of a distinctionetween nstrumentalnd

expressive

i-

mensions f action.

Medium s the

message,

nd

action ends

back

to the

system

ts own

paradoxes.







THE SYMBOLIC

CHALLENGE 813

Coming

ack toPolitics

Apparently

he outcome

of

contemporary

orms

f collec-

tive action

cannot

be

measured.

Movementsrealize the

paradox

of

being

both

winners nd losers.

Since

they

chal-

lenge

the

dominant ultural

odes,

theirmere existence

s a

reversal f

symbolic

ystems

mbodied

n

power

relationships.

Success

nd failure re thus

meaninglessoncepts

f

referred

to the

symbolic hallenge.

But

movements

on't

exist

only

n their

ultural

message;

they

re also

social

organizations,

nd

they

onfront

olitical

systems

hen

hey

hoose

public

mobilization.

rom his

point

of view

they

produce

modernization,

timulate

nnovation,

push

to

reform.

hey

provide

new

elites,

ssure he

change

of

the

personnel

n

political

nstitutions,

reate

new

patterns

f

behavior nd new

models

f

organization.

ere their utcome

canbe measured, utonemustnotforgethat his sonly ne

part,

and not

always

the most

mportant,

f

contemporary

collective

ction.

Those

stressing

he

ack

of

efficacity

f these

forms f action

not

only

don'tcatch

he

symbolic

ntagonism

ut

also under-

estimate

he

political

mpact

f

mobilizations.

For

instance,

he

peace

mobilizations ave

fundamental

transnational

ffects:

or the first ime

ction,

lso

located n

a

specific ational ontext, as effectst theplanetaryevel nd

on the

system

f

nternational

elations. he lack of mobiliza-

tions

n

Eastern ountries s

paradoxically

part

of the

same

scene: t

reveals nd

makes

learthe

authoritarian

tructuref

these

ocieties

nd the

amount

f

repression ower

has to use

to

control

hem.

Collective

ction

cts

also

as a

symbolic ultiplier:

ince

t is

not

aiming

or

fficacity,

t

challenges

he

operational

ogic

of

technocratic-militarypparatuses

nd

questions

he

bases of

their

ower.

t

makes

pparatuses

o

produce ustifications,

t

pushes

them

to

reveal their

ogic

and

the

weakness

f

their

"reasons." t

makes the

power

visible. n

systems

where the







814

SOCIAL RESEARCH

power

becomes

ncreasinglynonymous

nd

neutral,

where

t

is

incorporated

n

formal

procedures,

o make

it visible s a

fundamental

olitical

chievement:

he

only

conditionfor

negotiating

he rules and for

making

ocial

decisionsmore

transparent.

What

peace

mobilizations

ropose

to the collective

on-

sciousnesss that

urvival f

societies,

ike

ndividual

ife,

s

not

assured

nymore y

a

metasocial

rder

or

by

an historicalaw

(progress

r

revolution).

or the first ime societies ecome

radically

ware

of their

contingency,

hey

realize

they

"are

thrown"

n

the

world,

hey

iscover

hey

re not

necessary

nd

thus

they

are

irreversibly esponsible

for their destinies.

Catastrophe,

uffering,

reedom,

ll

belong

to the

possible

future,

nd

they

re

not fatal vents.

Moreover,

o collective

well-being

an be assured

as a final

solution.

t has to be

renewed

by

decisions,

negotiations,

ctions.

That

is,

by

polis

activity.

But,

if

so,

a

critical

problem

of

complex

societies

s the

relationship

etween

political

nstitutions

nd actors

nd the

emerging attern

f collective

ction.

What

kindof

represen-

tation could

offer

political

ffectiveness

o the

movements

without

negating

their

autonomy?

How can

movements

translate

heir

messages

nto

ffective

olitical

hanges?

hese

questions

an't

find

asy

answers,

f course.

But

if

we assume

that the structurend orientationsf contemporary ove-

ments re

likely

o shift

n

the

direction utlined

bove,

two

consequences

an be

pointed

out.

First,

he

organizational

orms

of traditional

olitical

n-

stitutions,

lso

those

oming

rom he

eftist

nheritance,

re

in

themselves

nadequate

to

represent

he new

collective

e-

mands.

Political

rganizations

re

shaped

for

representing

el-

atively

table

nterests,

or

achieving

ong-term

oals

through

the accumulation

f short-term

esults,

or

mediating

mong

different emands

through

he

professional

ctionof

repre-

sentatives.

his

structure,

lthough

ubmitted

o

increasing







THE

SYMBOLIC

CHALLENGE

815

adjustments,

till

ulfills

mportant

unctions

n

Western

oliti-

cal

systems.

ut tcan't venhear the

voiceof

movements,

nd

when t

does,

t s unable

to

adapt

tself o the

variability

f the

actors

nd

issuescollective

ction nvolves.

Second,

because

of

the

fragmentation

f collective

ction,

social movements an't survive

n

complex

societieswithout

some forms f

political

epresentation.

he

existence f chan-

nels

of

representation

nd of institutional

ctors

capable

of

translating

n

"policies"

he

message

fcollectivection s the

only

condition

preserving

movements

rom

atomization r

from

marginal

violence.

Openness

and

responsiveness

f

political

epresentation

eep

clear an

appropriate

pace

for

collectivection

nd let t exist.

But

movements on't

exhaust

themselves

n

representation;

ollectivection

urvives

eyond

institutional

ediation;

t

reappears

n

different

reas of

the

social

system

nd feeds

new conflicts.

Mobilizationsf theeightieshowthat n thepassagefrom

latency

o

visibility

function s

carried out

by

temporary

organizations

roviding

inancial nd

technical

esources or

public

ampaigns

n

specific

ssues

while

recognizing

he au-

tonomy

f

submerged

etworks.t

is a

way

of

redefining

nd

inventing

orms

f

political

epresentation,

nd

also

an

op-

portunity

or he

more

traditional

olitical

ctors o

meetnew

demands.

A new political pace is designedbeyondthe traditional

distinction

etween

tate

and

"civil

ociety":

n intermediate

public

pace,

whose

function

s not

to

institutionalize

he

move-

ments or

to

transform

hem

nto

parties,

ut to make

ociety

hear their

messages

nd

translate hese

messages

nto

political

decision

making,

while the

movements

maintain

heir au-

tonomy.22

22SeeJ.Cohen, CrisisManagementnd SocialMovements,"elos, o.52 (1982):

24-41,

and

"Rethinking

ocial

Movements,"

erkeley

ournal

f

Sociology

8

(1983):

97-113.







816 SOCIAL

RESEARCH

Conflicts

nd

power

can't

be held

by

the

same actors.The

myth

f

the movements

ransforming

hemselves

nto

trans-

parentpower

has

alreadyproduced ragic onsequences.

he

distance etween

processesby

which

needs

and

conflicts

re

formed

nd

structures

erformingystemic

ntegration

nd

goals

is a condition or

making ower

visible,

hat

s,

negoti-

able. The

enlargement

f

the

public

space,

betweenmove-

ments nd

institutions,

s the

task

for

a

real

"postindustrial"

democracy,

task n whichbothmovementsnd

political

c-

torsare concerned.

the symbolic challenge of contemporary movements me lucci

Documents