Alain Touraine, Manuel Castells and Social Movement Theory a Critical Appraisal

Author(s): John A. Hannigan

Source: The Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 4 (Winter, 1985), pp. 435-454
Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the Midwest Sociological Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4106097
Accessed: 10/09/2010 09:45

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

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 support@jstor.org.

Blackwell Publishing and Midwest Sociological Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to The Sociological Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org
 ALAINTOURAINE,MANUELCASTELLS
AND SOCIALMOVEMENTTHEORY:
A CRITICALAPPRAISAL

John A. Hannigan
Universityof Toronto

The "actiontheory"of Alain Touraineand Manuel Castells'theory of urban

movementstogetherconstitutea social movementparadigmwhichdifferssignifi-
cantly from both the traditionalcollectivebehaviorexplanationand the newer
resourcemobilizationmodel. In this paper,the Touraine-Castells perspectiveis
contrastedto the existing approacheswith relationto social movementcauses,
and outcomes.It is arguedthat the work of this "FrenchSchool"
characteristics,
representsa partialrealizationof Traugott's(1978)attemptto reconceptualize
social
movementsas distinctphenomenaintegrallylinkedto the analysisof socialchange
outsideinstitutionalchannels.

The recent appearance of the English translation of three major books on social
movements by the European writers Alain Touraine and Manuel Castells provides an
excellent opportunityto analyze the significanceand potential of their work as it relates
to the study of social movements and social change. Touraine's "action theory" and
Castells' "theory of urban movements" together suggest a paradigm which is different
from both the traditional collective behavior approach to social movements and the
newer resourcemobilization interpretation.This third theoretical currentis derivedfrom
the neo-Marxist analysis of changing structuresof class and class relations, however, in
its stress on emergent group identity and ideological consciousness constitutes a
potentially valuable extension of the Turner-Killian(1972) emergent norm approach to
social movements and collective behavior.
While Touraine's ideas on the historical shift to a post-industrial society are
reasonably well-known in America, his more recent work on action theory and social
movements has received relatively little critical scrutiny.' Castells' (1976, 1977, 1978)
original propositions about urban social movements have been extensively critiqued by
urban sociologists and planners (see Jaret, 1983; McKeown, 1980; Pickvance, 1975,
1977;Saunders, 1981;Zukin, 1980), but his revisedand elaboratedmodel as portrayedin
Address all Communications to: Professor John A. Hannigan, Division of Social Sciences, Scarborough
Campus, University of Toronto, Scarborough, Ontario, Canada MIC IA4.

The Sociological Quarterly,Volume 26, Number 4, pages 435-454.

Copyright o 1985 by JAI Press, Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
ISSN: 0038-0253
436 THESOCIOLOGICALQUARTERLYVol. 26/No. 4/1985

The Cityand the Grassroots(1983) still awaits criticalassessment. In both cases, analysis
of the work of this "French School"2has not been undertaken from within the area of
social movements, a lacuna which this article seeks to remedy.
The genesis of both theoreticalperspectiveswas the "May Revolution"in Paris (1968).
To Touraine the approaching "class struggle without classes"could best be understood
through the notion of the social movement as an essential unit of both structure and
history (Bauman, 1983:596).Castells'view of social movements was similarly"formedin
the post-1968 period when street action seemed to be the main source of change"
(Pickvance, 1978:175).Castells' work was originally based on Poulantzas' attempt to
develop a "regionaltheory"of the state; however, Castells now acknowledges Touraine's
action model as the main grounding for his theoretical framework, although he points
out that his theory of urbanmovements should not be consideredmerelyan "application"
of Touraine'sideas.
In this article, the assumptions and ideas of the French School will be compared (see
Table 1) with those of traditional social movement theory and resource mobilization
theory under seven headings:context, defining characteristics,genesis/ reasons for social

Table 1
Traditional, Resource Mobilization and French School Models
of Social Movements Compared
Traditional Resource Mobilization French School

Context Political consensus and Elite fragmentation and New forms of conflict and
stability political realignment change

Defining Non-institutional Institutional Anti-institutional

Characteristics orientation orientation orientation

Irrational Rational-instrumental Rational-moral

Spontaneous and Planned, sometimes Spontaneous but not

amorphous origins: even manufactured amorphous origins:
negative feature positive feature

Genesis Social strain Changing availability of Structural contradictions

resources

Basis for Col- Solidary incentives Selective incentives Purposive incentives

lective Action

Organization Follows life cycle Contingent upon goals, Grassroots: structureas

resources, external action
conditions

External None Significant Implicit but not central

Closed system Open system

Outcomes Depends on leadership Depends on relative Autonomy plus identity

permeability of the
polity
AlainTouraine,ManuelCastellsand SocialMovement Theory:A CriticalAppraisal 437

movement formation, basis for collective action, organization,external dependence, and

factors determiningsocial movement success or failure. In the final section, I will present
a critiqueof the Touraine-Castellsperspectiveand argue that their work partiallyrealizes
Traugott's(1978:49) call for a return of the sociology of social movements to its proper
focus, namely, "the analysis of large scale social change outside institutionalchannels."

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

HistoricalContext
The traditional collective behavior perspective crystalized during the 1950's when
consensus views and a fundamentalfaith in democratic institutions dominated the social
sciences in the United States. Rather than a central fact of social life, movements were
treated as anomalies, symptoms of system malfunction and strain. Such "breakdown"
theories disregarded the role of conflict within collective action and reduced it to
pathological reaction and marginality(Melucci, 1984:820).
In the late 1960'sand early 1970's,scholars became more aware of power concentra-
tion and its effects, in part as a result of observing the fate of the civil rights and anti-war
movements in the United States. Increasingly,"political"approaches became dominant
in the field, and elite disunity was treated as a central requirementfor social movement
success. This growing emphasis on elite fragmentation reflects, I think, the realignment
of the Democratic Party away from New Deal politics and towards a series of coalitions
with special interest groups (blacks, women, farm workers, etc.) who formed the core
social movements of the time. Resource mobilization theorists thus rejected the
Parsonian paradigm of the 1950'sfor a viewpoint "more sensitive to the role of power
and power strugglesin mobilizing people for collective action" (Burton, 1984:48).
The ideas of the French School, as previously noted, are rooted in the events of May
1968, and subsequent changes in French politics and society. In the wake of the May
protests, an array of single issue movements emerged to contest many aspects of
everyday life from tenants' rights to environmental protection. Touraine, Castells and
their associates were both excited by these developments and, at the same time,
distrustful of where these movements were headed. On the one hand, they sensed a
common vision of an autonomous, decentralized, self-managed society which might
potentially provide "thebasis for a renovation of radicalsocial theory"(Hirsh, 1981:208).
On the other hand, they feared both the narrow instrumentalism of these single
movements and the potential for cooptation by established left wing political interests.
The adoption of Eurocommuniststrategiesby the Frenchand Italian Communist parties
in the 1970'sand the temporary Union of the Left in France in 1978catalyzed the latter
set of reservations and reinforced the emphasis on unified, independent, mass action
outside the electoral context.

Defining Characteristics
Generally, social movements have been distinguished from other social forms on the
basis that they occur outside the institutional framework already forming everyday life,
and that they are in come manner oriented towards a degree of social change.
438 THESOCIOLOGICAL Vol.26/No. 4/1985
QUARTERLY

Traditional collective behavior theory has tended to focus on the first of these criteria,
emphasizing a movement's spontaneity and lack of structure, especially in the early
stages of its career. Blumer (1969:8) writes that, in its beginning, a social movement is
typically "amorphous, poorly organized and without form" and it is characterizedby
collective behavior "on the primitivelevel"as well as by mechanismsof interactionwhich
are "elementary"and "spontaneous."
Resource mobilization theorists, by contrast, are more inclined to treat social
movements as extensions of institutionalized actions and to focus on a movement's
attempts to reform the predominant social structure and/or gain entry to the polity.
Such institutional change movements are characterized by "rational actions oriented
toward clearly defined fixed goals with centralizedorganizationalcontrol over resources
and clearly demarcated outcomes that can be evaluated in terms of tangible gains"
(Jenkins, 1983:529).
The French School identifieswith the traditionalconcept of social movements but in a
radically different way. Castells (1983:295) attacks resource mobilization theorists
(specificallyOberschalland Ash) for denying that the social movement"has a reality of
its own" and for "immediately incorporating it into the political process aimed
fundamentally at the state." Social movements, he argues, are key sources of social
innovation preciselybecause "theyare not necessarilylimited to, or bound by the rules of
the game and the institutionalization of dominant values and norms" (p. 294). Thus,
social movements can be analyticallydistinguished from established forms. By implica-
tion, one cannot locate social action of the type associated with social movements within
established structures,as have Zald and Berger(1978) for corporate coups, bureaucratic
insurgencyand mass movements in organizations.
Clearly,then, Touraine and Castells believe that social movements are distinguishable
primarilyon the basis of their anti-institutionalorientation. Does this mean that they are
by definition revolutionary rather than reformist?Touraine says "not necessarily."In
fact, revolutionary and reformist tendencies can coexist in the same movement. In his
analysis of the Solidarity movement in Poland, Touraine (1983b:3) grapples with this
question and concludes that Solidarity in fact contained two movements: (1) a popular
social movement which concerned itself with institutional reforms such as trying to
install competent and hard-workingmanagersin industryand wanting to see censorship
abolished; and (2) a "social liberation movement" which was fighting against the power
and privileges of a ruling class. Over time, the movement underwenta double evolution
whereinthe leadershipincreasinglyfought for political gains while the rank and file came
to view Solidarity as an instrumentfor the liberation of society.
Like the originalcollective behaviortheorists,the French School introducesthe notion
of spontaneity into its conceptualization of a social movement, but as a positive feature
rather than a negative one. Unlike Blumer, the spontaneous is "not equated with the
amorphous" (Sennett, 1981:x). Social movements are seen as having their roots in a
spontaneous form of opposition and this quality can continue to energize a developing
movement. At the same time, it is recognized that spontaneity by itself is not enough to
transform a social movement into a political force. Touraine demonstrates that
uncoordinated direct action by anti-nuclearmilitants in France only led to a "dangerous
confusion"(1983a:27)and that the "defensivepopulism"of the coal miners of Silesia was
counter-productivein moving the Solidaritymovement towards becoming an instrument
AlainTouraine,ManuelCastellsand SocialMovementTheory:A CriticalAppraisal 439

for societal liberation (1983b). In La Prophetie Anti-nucleaire (Anti-nuclear Protest),

Touraine (1983a:60-61) clearly shows that "the dream of a spontaneous coming
together" of local populations opposed to nuclear power plants and ecology militants
from the outside was unrealisticand doomed to fail.
Both Touraine and Castells claim to have located elements of a kind of cultural revolt
within the social movements which they have analyzed. While this has within it the
promise of elevatingthe movement to a new level of creativechallenge, it can also lead to
practical problems. In the Madrid Citizens' Movement, for example, the pursuit of new
cultural themes had to be muted since "the further its cultural content departed from
current values, the more difficult it became for people to involve themselves in this
community building" (Castells, 1983:271). As a result, cultural experimentation by
women's organizations and youthful participants within the movement was "not
welcome." The more affective, uncontrolled forms of collective behavior practiced by
youthful elements, notably, singing revolutionary chants, dancing in large groups and
engaging in partial nudity, were seen as "incompatible with the Movement trying to
portray itself as representative of the normal resident as opposed to the radical and
deviant fringe"(p. 271). Thus, spontaneity is valued within the social movement but only
in the proper "creativecontext."
Finally, traditionalsocial movement theory has assumed that movement actors are, at
least in the beginning, "underthe dominance of restlessnessand collective excitement"
(Blumer, 1969:11) and, as a result, more or less irrational. By contrast, resource
mobilization theory is built on the assumption that social movement actors, both among
the leadership and the rank and file, are primarilydominated by rational, instrumental
considerations.The Touraine-Castellsapproach similarlyrecognizesthe basic rationality
of social movement participants but stresses the prominence of moral or purposive
incentives. Sennett (1981:ix) stresses that Touraine "takes seriously"the importance for
movement actors of such experiencesas commitment and the desire for justice.
In sum, the French School views a social movement as unique, anti-institutional,
spontaneous but not amorphous, and rational-moral.

Genesis/Reasonsfor SocialMovement Formation

Jenkins (1983:530)has identifiedthe question of why movements form as the "sinequa
non of the study of social movements." In contrast to traditional explanations which
accorded primacy to grievances arising out of the structural strains of rapid social
change, the resourcemobilization perspectivedownplays the role of grievances. Instead,
certain movements arise at a particularpoint in time due to the "changingavailability of
resources, organization and opportunities for collective action" (p. 530). This changing
availability may be traced to historical changes (as in the U.S. civil rights movement of
the 1950's), to the ability of social movement entrepreneursto redefine longstanding
grievances in new terms, or to "accidents"(such as that at Three Mile Island) which
suddenly inject a new level of resources into groups already organized and moderately
resourceful. Note, however, that while resource mobilization theorists acknowledge the
significanceof political change in facilitatingsocial movement growth, unlike the French
School, they do not connect the rise of specific social movements to longer term societal
transformations.
440 THESOCIOLOGICAL Vol. 26/No. 4/1985
QUARTERLY

Touraine and Castells adopt a view of social movement genesis which is Althusserian
in form, but some of its basic assumptions have much in common with traditional
collective behavior explanations. According to this view, the traditional Marxist model
of an economic base determining a political and ideological superstructureis no longer
adequate to explain social change in post-industrialsociety. Instead, the system can be
conceptualized as a complex of three levels-economic, political and ideological-in
which contradictionsdevelop both within and between each level. Castells locates these
new social contradictions within the sphere of collective consumption (housing, educa-
tion, health) and suggests that they are most clearly manifestedat the urbanlevel. Urban
problems are, in his view, increasingly at the heart of political debate in industrial
capitalist societies and this is because of the contradiction between the increasing
socialization of goods and the fact that they are managed in the interests of capital
(Elliott, 1980:155). Similarly, Touraine (1981:6-7) argues that "what is crucial is no
longer the struggle between capital and labour in the factory but that between the
different kinds of apparatus and uses"; in other words, between a highly centralized,
technology-dominated state and a populace fighting to exercise a degree of self-
managementin the various spheres of the programmedsociety.
As one reads Touraine and Castells, it becomes increasingly clear that beneath the
language of neo-Marxist social theory, there are strong currents of the traditional mass
society perspective.Touraine (1981:15) talks of the "crisisof industrialculture"in which
the old anchoring institutions, the family and the Church, have "burstapart,"and where
"the channels of society no longer correspond to the cultural content they are meant to
bear." In the face of this developing social vacuum, there is a backlash of messianic
movements which attempt to "salvagea collective existence threatened with disintegra-
tion" (p. 16). This is followed by the establishment of community utopias which, he
argues, is a necessary step towards paving the way for more lasting social and political
change. Community utopias rarely endure, however, they prepare the ground for the
formation of populist movements founded on the desire of social groups experiencing
crisis to strengthen their own collective identity and regain control over their own
development. Finally, new social movements arise in which the power sources against
whom one must fight are located and defined and political action is undertaken.
The same themes are evident in Castells'analysis of urban movements. He talks of a
modern urban society with an overpowered labour movement, an omni-present, one-
way communication system indifferentto cultural identities, an all-powerfulcentralized
state, a structuraleconomic crisis, and cultural uncertainty(Castells, 1983:330).Against
this backdrop develop urban movements which seek to transformurban meaning and to
redefine urban functions and forms. Unlike Touraine, however, Castells despairs of the
possibility of these urban movements constituting "a new central social movement able
to transformour history"and, ultimately, labels them "reactiveutopias" (1983:328).
What distinguishes the French School from traditional perspectives which similarly
link institutionalbreakdown, the rise of a monolithic, one way media and the emergence
of social movements is the role of the individualin consciously building his or her future.
Traditional collective behavior theories treated the individual as an irrational puppet
manipulated by crowd conditions and demagogues and carried along by the forces of
history. The French School, by contrast, "rejectsthe notion that society moves towards
ends of which the membersof society are unaware"(Sennett, 1981:ix).Rather,true social
AlainTouraine,ManuelCastellsand SocialMovement Theory:A CriticalAppraisal 441

movements are consciously constructedby rank and file membersand are the expression
of the collective will. Furthermore,where traditionalcollective behavior theory treats the
social movement as symptomatic of the breakdown of the social and moral orders, the
French School views them not as a rejectionof order by marginalmen but as a vanguard
of a fight to reconstructthe social order itself.3Thus, Touraine (1983b:2)argues that the
Solidarity Movement in Poland is both an upsurge of collective will and an "instrument
for the reconstructionof a whole society, for the renewal of social institutions and even
of those economic and social forces which may eventually enter into conflict with
Solidarity itself." In short, social movements representsolutions, not symptoms, to the
crisis of contemporarysociety.

Basisfor CollectiveAction
Characteristicof most of the existing literature on social movements has been the
belief that rank and file members are somehow manipulated by social movement
organization leaders into participatingin collective action. In the traditional collective
behavior approaches, the basis of this manipulation was the charismatic personality of
the leader(s). In more contemporary versions, notably Smelser's (1963) value-added
theory, movement leaders reinterpret members' fears and resentment in terms of a
generalizedbelief which then becomes the basis for mobilization.
Resource mobilization theory credits movement memberswith a much greaterdegree
of rationality but the "mobilization by manipulation" theme is still paramount. The
major debate here is over the usefulness of Mancur Olson's (1968) theory of collective
action. Originally, resource mobilization theorists assumed that both movement entre-
preneursand members were motivated by selective incentivesand that free-ridingcould
be minimized by the provision of non-collective material benefits. More recently, it has
been recognized that the major task in mobilization is to "generatesolidarity and moral
commitments to the broad collectivities in whose name movements act" (Jenkins,1983:
538). Selective incentives must, therefore, be buttressed by the collective incentives
related to group solidarity and commitment to a moral purpose. Implicit in this is the
assumption that goals, ideology and strategy are determinedby the leadershipwhile the
membership is treated as a resource. This reaches its zenith in the professional social
movement which communicates with its followers primarilythrough the mass media.
The French School accords a much greater role in social movements to both
purposive incentives and to the rank and file. Castells (1983:293) argues that Olson's
problem is in the "theoreticalAntipodes" as far as the study of urban movements and
social change is concerned. In history, there are three kinds of actors-the dominant
elite, the creators of a new social order and the rentiers of any social organization.
Olson's free-riderhypothesis,in pure or modified form, is concernedwith the behavior of
the rentierswhile, Castellsclaims, the study of social movements centersaround how and
why the creatorschallenge the dominants.
Touraine's concept of a social movement is framed in terms of a search by rank and
file members for the conditions and meaning of their actions. This self-analysissucceeds
(1) if the actors are able to identify the "stakes"over which the conflict is being fought
(not just rolling back a new technology such as nuclear power, but reshaping the wider
structureof power) and the "opponent"(a social class or institution, not just society or
442 THESOCIOLOGICAL Vol. 26/No. 4/1985
QUARTERLY

the state) (Rayner, 1984:166);(2) if the self-analysis is able to be transformed into a

program for action. the basis for collective action, then, according to Touraine and
Castells, is a kind of do-it-yourself movement building in which, rather than being
mobilized through leader-generatedselective or solidary incentives, participantsjointly
struggle to create a new identity and a new vision of the future. Solidarity and moral
commitmentare thus the products of a group effort ratherthan something negotiated by
the leadership. In a sense, this is closest to the emergent norm perspectiveproposed by
Turner and Killian, although the conditions under which new perceptions and defini-
tions emergeare considerablyless naturalistic(especially with the "sociologicalinterven-
tion") and the group pressure to conform is more openly articulated. Whereas Turner
and Killian(1972:259-261)view the emergenceof a "senseof injustice"as the key process
in the development of a social movement, the French School stressesthe transformation
of this sense of injusticeinto a wider ideological critique and into a program for action.

Organization
According to traditional collective behavior theory, the primary organizational
division within social movements is between the leadershipand the rank and file. Only in
the final "institutional"stage does the movement crystallize into a fixed organization
with definite personnel and structure(Blumer, 1969:12).
In keeping with its origins in the field of formal organizations, resource mobilization
theory has consistently addressedthe question of what form of organizationalstructure
is most effective under what conditions. In the study of complex organizations,following
Burns and Stalker (1961) and Lawrence and Lorsch (1967), a dichotomy is drawn
between a mechanical form which is almost Weber's ideal type of bureaucracyand an
organic form which is the logical opposite. However, there is "no best way to organize
for the purpose of achieving the highly varied goals of organizations within a highly
varied environment"(Hall, 1982:90). Resource mobilization theorists have carried this
"contingency"approach over into the study of social movement organizations,contrast-
ing a centralizedbureaucraticmodel and a decentralizedinformal model. As with formal
organizations, different organizational structuresare effective for different tasks (Zald
and Ash, 1966), and the appropriateness of a specific organizational pattern varies
according to the degree of external dependency, competition for resourcesand the need
for ideological commitment.
The French School, by contrast, de-emphasizes the importance of social movement
organization and focuses on the movement as a whole. According to Castells, concrete
social movement organizationsare only the locus of observationratherthan the frame of
analysis(Pickvance, 1976:199)and organizationsare importantonly to the extent that they
allow the "linkingof contradictions."Touraineinsists that a movement is greaterthan the
sum of its associations and that the former should not be confused with the latter
(1981:150-152).Organizations,in fact, become substitutedfor movementsand this weakens
the cause. Typically, organizedgroups are prone to take over and graft themselves onto
movements,eventuallycontaminatingthem. For example,the Frenchanti-nuclearMalville
Committees were invaded by various left wing groups in 1977 and these "organized
tendencies"took over. As a result, the ecology movement, which "had a base but no
organization"(Touraine, 1983a:82),saw itself invaded and dispossessedof its struggle.
Alain Touraine,ManuelCastellsand SocialMovement Theory:A CriticalAppraisal 443

This negative view toward organizations is reflected in Touraine's choice of partici-

pants in his "sociological interventions."4The intervention groups, which are central to
the research, are composed of rank and file members rather than leaders and
organizers. Actors are invited to participate in the intervention (i.e., reflect about a
movement outside the organizations which lay claim to representing it) because they
are aware of a disharmony between the movement and its forms of action and
organization (Touraine, 1981:153).
This suspicion of specific organizations and of the leadership cadre mirrors, in part,
Piven and Cloward's(1977) concern that formalized organizations "divertenergiesfrom
mass defiance and provide political elites with a forum for propagating symbolic
reassurancesand therebydemobilizing mass defiance"(Jenkins, 1983:544).However, it is
equally a fear of contamination and cooptation by left wing (i.e., Communist) trade
unions and political organizations who tread the same ideological territory. Castells
witnessed this in the Paris GrandEnsemble (high-risehousing suburb)of Sarcelleswhere
a broad based popular movement was reduced to a skeletal form as a result of a political
takeover in 1968, and Touraine saw it in the invasion of the Malville Committees by
militants from the extreme left in 1977. At the same time, both Castells and Touraine
recognize that for a "vast current of opinion" to be translated into an effective political
force requiresa program and organization and a set of preciselydefined objectives. The
paradox of social movement building is how to achieve these without surrenderingthe
autonomy of the challenginggroup.

ExternalDependence
Traditional collective behavior perspectivestended to treat the social movement as a
closed system, stressing the role of movement leadership, commitment and control. By
contrast,the resourcemobilizationtheoristshave adopted an open system or organization-
environment interaction model which puts considerableemphasis on the significanceof
outside contributionsand the cooptation of institutionalresources. Especiallyinfluential
has been the model of protest as a political resourceproposed by Lipsky (1968) wherein
social movement organizations seek to win over powerful third parties who then put
pressure on the protest targets (the authorities) to respond to the grievances of the
protestors.
Generally, the French School tends to de-emphasize the dependence of the social
movement on externally derived aid. However, in their specific empirical studies,
Touraine and Castells do indicate some recognition of the importance of the external
environment. Accordingly, Castells (1983:277) insists that to succeed an urban move-
ment must be connected to society through a series of organizational "operators"-the
mass media, the professionals and left wing political parties. The media allow the
Movement to communicate to different sectors of public opinion and thereby to
overcome its local base. Professionals provide both an informed critique of the existing,
technocratic rationale for exploitative metropolitan growth and legitimacy for the
demands of the urban movement. Left wing political parties, while a threat to a
movement autonomy, provide the strength and militancy necessary to mount a
substantive challenge to the existing urban structure and thus help to transform
neighborhood mobilization into a social movement.
444 THESOCIOLOGICALQUARTERLYVol. 26/No. 4/1985

Touraine,while somewhatless explicit in discussingthe nature of this external

dependence,neverthelessstresses the needs for an alliance between the incipient
movementand institutionalized elements(tradeunions,politicalparties).For example,
he makesmuchof the willingnessof Frenchecologiststo formulatea joint declaration
with CFDT, a social democratictrade union, callingfor a moratoriumon the fast
breederstageof France'snuclearprogram.LikeCastells,Tourainerecognizesthe roleof
dissidentscientistswithinthe establishmentin providingthe knowledge,competenceand
legitimacywith which to challengethe technocraticsystem"on the adversary'sown
ground"(1983a:21).In the case of Solidarity,Tourainerecognizesthat the evolutionof
the movementwasdependentnot onlyon its internaldynamicsbutalso on theactionsof
the Polish state;first to accommodateand then to crush Solidarity.The historyof
Solidarity,he notes,is thusdeterminedby threefactors:its own internaldynamics,the
evolutionof its adversary,and the changingpoliticalsituation(1983b:86).

FactorsDeterminingSuccessor Failure
Traditionalcollectivebehaviorapproachesto social movementswere not primarily
concernedwiththe questionof socialmovementoutcomes.If anything,theyarguedthat
movementspassedthrougha "lifecycle"culminatingin eithercollapse,bureaucratiza-
tion, or institutionalaccommodation(Jenkins,1983:543).
In "SocialMovementOrganizations: Growth,Decay,and Change"-a majortake-off
point for the resource mobilization perspective-Zaldand Ash (1966)arguethat this
evolutionaryapproach to socialmovement outcomesis incompleteand theyproceedto
specify a number of conditions underwhich alternativetransformationprocessestake
place. In recent years, social movement successhas been tracedto widerchangesin the
Americanpoliticalsystem which have opened up the possibilityof polity access to
groupsformerlyexcludedand unableto coopt institutionalresources.The allianceof
farmworkers,feminists,civilrightsgroupsandenvironmentalists withliberaldemocratic
elementswithinthe Americanpoliticalsystemhas beentreatedas the key sourceof a
favorableoutcome.Alternatively,movementsof the poor may succeedthroughmass
defianceand disruption(Pivenand Cloward,1977)but this is most likelyonly under
conditionsof "regimecrisis."
Initially,Castellssaidlittleaboutthe factorsdeterminingsocialmovementsuccessor
failure.In general,successappearedto dependon the importanceof the stake(issue)
involved(Olives,1976)and on the degreeto whicha socialbasebecomesorganizedinto
a socialforce (Pickvance,1977).More recently,however,Castells(1983:322-323)has
arguedthat the futureof an urbanmovementdependson its abilityto successfully
articulatethree basic goals: improvedcollective consumption,the creation of an
autonomouscommunityculture,and politicalself-management. A full urbansocial
movementproduceschangeat all threelevels,the urban,culturaland political.Whena
movementproducesa high level of urbanand culturalchange but does not funda-
mentally alter the political system, Castells sees the result as an urban utopia. When a
movement achieves only the urban effects, this is said to constitute urban corporatism.
When neighborhood movements are purely a political arena for partisan organizations
and thereby fail to produce urban or cultural effects, Castells claims the existence of
urban shadows. Finally, when movements obtain their immediate urban demands
AlainTouraine,ManuelCastellsand SocialMovement Theory:A CriticalAppraisal 445

without modifying the urban system, foster the strength of left wing parties without
changing the institutions,and improve neighborhood social networks without redefining
the urban culture, then you have urban reform (Castells, 1983:283).
The same themes of autonomy and identity characterize Touraine's formula for a
social movement fully realizing its potential. More specifically, social movements have
three dimensions: (a) Identity (I), the definition which the social movement actor gives
himself; (b) Opposition (0), the definition of his adversary;and (c) Totality (T), the
stakes over which the movement and its adversaryare in conflict. The more closely these
three dimensions are integrated,the more the "projectlevel" of the movement is raised.
When the movement acts effectively, according to the I-O-T formula, its capacity for
historical action is extremely strong; if, on the other hand, the three components are
separated, this capacity is weakened (Touraine, 1981:84). The ecological movement in
France failed because it was unable to elevate its definition of the stakes to the societal
level and because of the opposition to the dominant class. By contrast, Solidarity,despite
its eventual repression by the Polish state, succeeded to a greater extent because it
successfully formulated an "ethic"(Touraine, 1983:186) which transcended its specific
methods of action or organizationalmanifestations.
The feminist movement provides severalillustrationsof the negativeconsequencesof a
lack of I-O-T integration. Radical feminists, on the one hand, have become "detached
from any social basis," focusing instead on the "affirmation of identity" (Touraine,
1981:221).On the other hand, more moderate elements in the feminist movement who
are fighting for specific goals (such as equal pay for equal work) are also limited because
they are seeking institutionalconcessions ratherthan defining their adversaryand stakes
more completely. Touraine (1981:87) explains that "no social movement can be solidly
formed if its claims are not built upon a wide base to which it accords great autonomy
while at the same time endeavouringto rise to a higher level of opposition."
Social movement outcomes, then, can be judged not just by reference to the state
and the possibility of sharing power within a given social structure (Castells,
1983:294) as orthodox resource mobilization theory posits, but according to the
ability of movement actors to create new definitions and to collectively act upon
them.

A CRITICALAPPRAISAL
Does the work of the French School merely representa Gallic version of that reflectedin
recent American work on social movements and thus have "littleto entice contemporary
students of social movements," as Gamson (1983:814) has stated in his review of
Touraine's The Voice and the Eye? Or, is it in fact a major new perspective on social
movements and social change which constitutes "arguably the most radical and
uncompromisingchallenge to the still so recent 'deterministic'tradition of sociology," as
Bauman (1983:596)has claimed in the Britishjournal, Sociology?
In this final section, I will argue that the work of Touraineand Castellsdoes advance a
novel perspective on social movements which builds on the Turner-Killianconcept of
emergence and connects it to the overall process of historical conflict and change in a
manner not previously contemplated by social movement theory. First, however, it is
necessaryto look at key criticismswhich have been and can be levelled at their work.
446 THESOCIOLOGICAL Vol. 26/No. 4/1985
QUARTERLY

Theoreticaland Methodological Weaknesses

A critiqueof the French School should center on four aspects of the Castells-Touraine
approach to social movements: theoretical lacunae, lack of conceptual precision,
methodology and structuraldeterminism.

TheoreticalLacunae
The most serious gap in Touraine's action theory and Castells' theory of urban
movements is the failure to recognize the role of social movement organizations and of
organizational structurein determiningthe fate of the social movement. As McKeown
(1980:277) has pointed out in his critical examination of the central concepts in Castells'
urban sociology, it is naive to assume that "organizationsare a readily available and
uniform means for the expressions of social movements"; in fact, organizations vary
greatlyaccording to their aims, membership,geographicallocation, and connection with
other organizations. A social base does not, as the French School assumes, become
transformed into a social force "at the wave of the magic wand of organization"
(Pickvance, 1977:179);rather,this is a product of the deliberateprocess of mobilization.
While it is true that specific social movement organizations can sometimes act as an
albatross around the movement, as a whole, these can also act as vehicles for member
recruitmentand socialization, for the coordination of activities, for the communication
of goals and ideology, and for the negotiation of external legitimacy. In short, as
Pickvance (1975:218) has noted, the very "survival and success of social movements
depends on the resources they are able to obtain" through the medium of constituent
social movement organizations.
Furthermore,the specific structureof a movement does relate to its success or failure.
Gamson's (1975, 1980) analysis of challenging groups in the United States since 1800
indicated that such groups were, in fact, more likely to succeed in their challenge where
they possessed a centralized, bureaucraticform of organization.5And, Barkan (1979:
29-30) has demonstrated that in opting for a grass-roots structure which stresses
democratic decision-making and maximum participation for all, the anti-nuclear
movement in the United States traded off "the ability to act quickly and effectively in
conflict situations."
In short, if the social movement is to collectively act upon its alternate vision,
organization must be treated as more than merely a way of linking together social
contradictions. It is, therefore, difficult to accept Touraine's pronouncement (1981:189)
that "the strongest and most fecund movement is not the most unified and organized,
but, on the contrary, the most divided," especially given that Touraine has failed to
address the ongoing debate between Gamson and his critics(Goldstone, 1980;Piven and
Cloward, 1978).
Not only does the Touraine-Castells approach minimize the process of member
mobilization, but it also tells us little about what happens once a collective ethic has been
successfully proclaimed. If success depends not just on the ability to formulate new
definitions but on the ability of the movement to collectively act upon them, then we
need to know far more about the conditions which facilitate or hinder such action. As
Touraine's Polish study reveals, the evolution of one's opponent and that of the general
political environmentmust be consideredas well as the internalprocessesif one is to deal
AlainTouraine,ManuelCastellsand SocialMovementTheory:A CriticalAppraisal 447

adequately with social movement outcomes. Turner's(1969) explorations of the public

perceptionsof protest is a recognition of the importanceof this external element in social
movement development, even where the primaryemphasis is, like the French School, on
emergentdefinitions of reality.

Lackof ConceptualPrecision
The French School has been criticized for its lack of conceptual precision. The central
concept of "historicity,"for example, is opaquely defined (Nagel, 1983:924;Smith, 1982:
981) in Touraine's analysis of social movements, although his empirical study of
Solidarity comes closest to impartingwhat is meant by this (see Touraine, 1983b:59-63).
Similarly, McKeown (1980:277) charges that the precise empirical meaning of concepts
such as integration, regulation, confrontation, mobilization, mobilizing potential, social
change, and contradiction is "far from evident" in Castells' writing and this strips his
hypothesis of a "clearlyidentifiableempirical meaning."

Methodology
The methodology of the French School raisesmany unansweredquestions. Touraine's
method of sociological intervention is especially open to critical doubt. If the interven-
tion group is seen as a kind of microcosm of the movement as a whole, then far more
detail is needed as to the background of the participants,how they were recruited,their
internal structure,etc. (Gamson, 1983:813).Touraine does this partiallyin Anti-Nuclear
Protest but mainly in anecdotal fashion. If, as Touraineseems to believe, the intervention
group representschange in the making, then more rigorousevidence must be providedto
link the experimentalgroup "conversions"to the actions of the movement as a whole and
to those of its opponents. As Rayner (1984:167) has noted, Touraine's researchdesign
does not include control groups with which intervention is not attempted so it is
impossible to know whetherthe same adjustmentof strategyand expectations might not
have evolved naturally without the influence of the intervention program. Similarly,
while his methodology is more orthodox, Castells can be criticized for assuming that it
was the actions of the Citizens' Movement in Madrid which brought about wholesale
changes in the government approach to housing without expressly demonstratinghow
this pressureconverted into concrete action by the state.
One can criticize both Touraine's method of sociological intervention and Castells'
normative analysis for the central assumption that the intellectual can claim privileged
insight into the right way to organize society and into the "correct"modes of action
(Eyerman, 1984:80). To say this is not to claim that sociology is value free, nor to
disclaim the right or responsibility of the social scientist to engage in social action.
Rather, it suggests that social movements should be given the same autonomy from
non-Comteian interventionas Touraine and his colleagues urge with relation to political
parties.

Structural Determinism
Both Touraine and Castells have been criticized for the extent to which their
theoretical schemes rest upon an evolutionary theory of structural and historical
448 THESOCIOLOGICALQUARTERLYVol. 26/No. 4/1985

development. Eyerman (1984:88) questions Touraine's assumption that only one

unifying oppositional social movement is possible at each level of historicaldevelopment
and that he (Touraine) has been able to both locate the point of historicaltransitionand
to predict which movement is capable of replacing the working class in the post-
industrial society. Similarly, Castells' claim that collective consumption has replaced
production as the key process within advanced monopoly capitalism lacks empirical
evidence (McKeown, 1980:264),both in terms of precise causes and consequences.
Both writers,despite their emphasis on the ability of individual social actors to make
their own history through collective will formation, have not been able to fully escape the
bonds of structuraldeterminism. In his earlierwork, Castells sought to do so by striking
a balance between structures and practices through the use of Poulantzas' concept of
"relativeautonomy." However, as Saunders (1981:201) has pointed out, the concept of
relativeautonomy proved inadequate to the tasks it was set to perform;Castells'theory,
as a result, fell between structural determinism and an action frame of reference. In
Touraine's action theory model and in Castells' more recent work, there is a far more
explicit ideological analysis of actions but the wider theory of structuraltransformation
and social transition remains largely speculative and inadequately articulated with the
analysis of the micro-sociological processes of identity formation and consciousness-
raising within social movement groups. As a result, the "tension between structural
constraintand social action" (Lemert, 1981:662)is not fully addressed.

Potentialfor SocialMovement Theory

Finally, what value does the work of the French School have for the study of social
movements and what benefits accrue from adopting this perspective?By neglecting the
role of human initiative and involvement in the process of social change, the other social
movement perspectiveshave reinforcedthe tendency of American sociology to treat the
study of social movements and social change distinctly and separately (Das, 1981:28).
Touraine and Castells, by contrast, attempt to provide a "way of grasping the meaning
and import of social movements in a broader scheme of societal development"(Bourg,
1981:378).While one may question Touraine'sassertion that individual movements are
but particular manifestations of one larger, overarching, historically significant move-
ment, nevertheless, by emphasizing the "interests"of the actors involved in a collective
conflict, the French School directs the field toward greater consideration of the basic
meaning and orientation of collective action.
As Melucci (1984:821)has recognized, the resource mobilization model is valuable in
explaining how a movement is set up and maintains its structurebut it says little about
why the movement initially arises. Action theory represents the mirror image of this,
emphasizing why rather than how. Put somewhat differently, resource mobilization
focuses on bureaucratismand pragmatism, action theory on enthusiasm and idealism.
As Zurcherand Snow (1981:479)have pointed out, both factors supply a movement with
its life-blood and, therefore, this dialectic between organization and passion must be
understood if the internal dynamics of a social movement are to be explained.
By treating the social movement as an analytically distinctive form, Touraine and
Castells provide a new, restricted,but more coherent definition of a social movement in
line with that suggested by Traugott (1978). In this narrowerview of what constitutes a
AlainTouraine,ManuelCastellsand SocialMovementTheory:A CriticalAppraisal 449

social movement, there are two major criteria: an anti-institutional character and the
formation of a distinctive group identity. This obviously eliminates some of what is
commonly regardedas falling within the field (e.g., anti-pornographycrusades). At the
same time, by shifting the definitional thrust away from the medium of protest (outside
normal institutional channels) to the broader social and cultural opposition implied by
the movement's actions, conceptual ambiguity is actually reduced. For instance, the
Green Party in France and Germany currently operates both within and outside of an
established political context. Under existing definitions, it would thus be difficult to
judge whether or not the "Greens"constitute a social movement per se. By contrast, the
French School would interpretthe rise of the Greens within the wider context of social
and political change in contemporary Europe and thereby focus on the extent of the
movement's anti-institutional character rather than on its relative ability to penetrate
neo-corporatistpolitical structures.
To Traugott's (1978:48) question-how can we effectively recognize the anti-
institutional character of the true social movement?-the French School provides an
answer. A genuine movement must be able to transcend both a sense of localism and a
narrow concern with a single issue. Its members must be able to transform their
opposition into a systematic critique of the dominant structure of power. Touraine
suggests that the ecology movement has this potential but has failed to grasp the breadth
of the stakes involved and the scope of the opposition. By contrast, Solidarity, as it has
evolved, has more completely come to terms with the meaning of anti-institutionality.
For Traugott'sconcept of positive solidarity, Touraine and Castells have substituted
the more specific concept of group identity. This identity can be ethnically based or
historicallyoriginated(Castells, 1983:319),based on class consciousness or commitment
to an ethic (Touraine, 1983b). Without a concrete sense of identity, a social movement
will not fully develop.
Both identity and an anti-institutional orientation are products of the group process
and thus are emergent from the internal dialogue and self-analysis of the incipient
movement itself. This is consistent with Turnerand Killian's(1972:259-261) proposition
that the emergent norm-the central element that permits a variety of forms of action
derived from varied motives to take place under common definition and justification-
matures and crystallizes with the development of the social movement. As Rayner
(1984:167-168) has suggested, it is "the details of the face-to-face interaction"within the
movement which is the most valuable aspect of Touraine'sempirical work, and it is this
which promises to extend our understandingof how collective interestsand identitiesare
emergent.
A further contribution of Touraine and Castells to social movement theory is the
movement typology implied in their work. Since both an anti-institutionalconsciousness
and a sense of group identity are emergent products of interaction within the true social
movement, one can cross relate these in terms of their relative absence or presence (see
Table 2).
A social liberationmovement (the Warsawarm of Solidarity best epitomizes this type)
has achieved a high awareness of the meaning of its challenge and has seen its actions in
relation to the need to reconstruct societal structures and values as a whole. Further-
more, it has created a distinct, self-conscious cultural identity which contributes to the
autonomy of the group and provides a basis for movement solidarity. It is this latter
450 THESOCIOLOGICALQUARTERLYVol. 26/No. 4/1985

Table 2
of
Typology Social Movements
Emergent Group Identity
High Low

Social Revolutionary
High liberation movement
Emergent movement
movement
Anti-Institutional
Awareness Cultural Professional
Low reform
movement

dimension, in particular, which elevates the social liberation movement beyond just a
politically aware value-orientedmovement of the type describedby Smelser (1963).
By contrast, a revolutionary movement has recognized the need to reconstitute the
existing political order but lacks the distinct cultural base upon which a collective
resocializationcan be mounted. Gamson (1968:49) hints at this when he suggests that a
revolutionary movement, unlike a separatist movement, might aim at replacing an
existing regime with a new order but wish to preservethe existing political community in
its present form.
A cultural movement has developed a distinct sense of self-identity but has not
adequately connected its goals and actions to a wider critique of the social system. The
gay movement, for example, has merged the defense of cultural identity with a powerful
drive into the political system (at least in some cities, notably San Francisco), but has
been unwilling as a movement to commit itself to the wider struggle to reconstitute
American society; as a result, it has isolated itself as a cultural community and has
become "justanother interestgroup playing coalition politics"(Castells, 1983:323).
Finally, the professional reform movement, the focus of much of the existing research
utilizing the resource mobilization perspective, lacks both anti-institutionalawareness
and a sense of distinct identity. Since the goal of the professional reform movement is to
alter some element of the existing system and/or gain entry to the polity, a further
reaching institutional critique is automatically excluded. For example, the Greenpeace
Foundation, a leading ecological social movement organization, seeks a wide number of
reformsfrom saving whales to stopping the dumping of toxic wastes into the oceans, but
purposely avoids a direct political challenge based on the interconnectednessof these
issues. Furthermore,the highly centralizedstructureof the professionalsocial movement
organization with its "outside leadership, full time paid staff, small or non-existent
membership,resourcesfrom conscience constituenciesand actions that 'speak for' rather
than involve an aggrievedgroup"(Jenkins, 1983:533)all but rules out the emergenceof a
concerted, anti-institutionalawarenessat a grassroots level.
In the future, we need to know much more about the conditions which lead to the
development of one form of social movement as against another. In particular, what
produces the dual consciousness which characterizesthe social liberationmovement? To
what extent does this reflecthistoricalcircumstances,existing communities of interest,or
successful mobilization efforts? Under what conditions do movements transform
Alain Touraine,ManuelCastellsand SocialMovement Theory:A CriticalAppraisal 451

themselves from cultural or revolutionary movements into social liberation movements?

Do those from different social classes, as Jenkins (1983:539) has suggested, respond to
different forms of incentives and thus differentially engage in the kind of purposive
self-analysis and movement building advocated by the French School? What role does
the movement leadership play in "keynoting"emergent ideologies and identities? To
what extent do external conditions influence the movement's progress towards an
emergent anti-institutionalawareness?
Despite evident weaknesses,the work of Touraineand Castells has significantlyadded
to Traugott's (1978:49) vision of the social movement as a distinct phenomenon
integrally linked to the analysis of social change outside institutionalized channels.
Specifically, their researchhas returnedsocial movement analysis to a focus on the rank
and file member, on purposive incentives and on the social psychological concept of
emergence. Although not wholly successful, this is the first major attempt6 since
Smelser's value added theory to link micro and macro processes in the analysis of
collective action. Yet, until their theory becomes grounded in a greater emphasis on the
role of organizationalstructureand strategy and the importance of external legitimation
and support, the French School will ultimately fall short in their attempt to formulate a
powerful and complete account of the emergence of a "total"social movement.

NOTES
1. This probably reflects the lack of an English translation until 1983 of Touraine's two major empirical
applications:Anti-nuclearProtest, and Solidarity:Poland 1980-81. For criticalreviewsof the theoreticalscheme
set out in an earlierwork, The Voiceand the Eye, see Bourg (1981), Gamson (1983), Nagel (1983), and Smith
(1982).
2. Castellshas for some time been Professorof City and Regional Planningat Berkeley.However, his theory
of urbanmovements was originallyconceived and elaboratedat the Centred'Etudesdes Movements Sociaux of
the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique in Paris of which Alain Touraine was the director.
3. In this, a parallelcan be drawn with the "subcultural"theory of urbanism(see Fischer, 1976)which turned
the traditionalPark-Burgess-Wirththeory of urbananomie upsidedown by arguingthat urbansubcommunities
were sources of social support and identity rather than indicators of social disorganizationin the metropolis.
4. It should be noted, however, that Gamson's successful challenges tended to have goals which did not
requiredisplacingother groups from power and which were concentratedon a single issue (Tilly et al., 1975).It
could thus be arguedthat such protestgroups would not meet the criteriaof the French School for qualifyingas a
social movement.
5. The object of the method of sociological intervention is to raise the consciousness of the movement
memberswho have been broughttogether in the group such that they graspthe full scope of the strugglein which
they have been participating.The researcherserves two functions, that of interpreteror agitator (forcing the
group to question basic assumptions and engage in self-analysis)and that of analyst or secretary(reportingand
explaining the results of the self-analysis). The sociologist thus acts as a catalyst to the emergence of anti-
institutional awarenessand group identity but does not himself become an active member of the movement.
6. Jenkins (1983:550)has called for resource mobilization theory to expand its scope to more fully link the
study of social movementswith both macro (a comparativesociology of states) and micro (a more sophisticated
social psychology of collective action) concerns. Doing so, however,will "likelyremaina problem in the future"
(p.530).

REFERENCES
Ash-Garner, Roberta
1977 Social Movements in America. Chicago: Rand McNally.
452 THESOCIOLOGICALQUARTERLYVol. 26/No. 4/1985

Barkan, Steven E.
1979 "Strategic, tactical and organizational dilemmas of the protest movement against nuclear power."
Social Problems 27:19-37.
Bauman, Zygmunt
1983 "Review of 'Anti-nuclear protest and solidarity: Poland 1980-81' by Alain Touraine."Sociology 17:
596-598.
Blumer, Herbert
1969 "Social movements." Pp. 8-29 in Barry McLaughlin (ed.), Studies in Social Movements: A Social
Psychological Perspective. New York: The Free Press.
Bourg, Carroll J.
1981 "Review of 'The voice and the eye: an analysis of social movements' by Alain Touraine."
Sociological Analysis 42:378-379.
Burns, Tom and G.M. Stalker
1961 The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock.
Burton, Michael G.
1984 "Elites and collective protest."The Sociological Quarterly 25:45-66.
Castells, Manuel
1976 "Theoretical propositions for an experimental study of urban social movements." Pp. 147-173 in
C.G. Pickvance (ed.), Urban Sociology: Critical Essays. London: Tavistock.
1977 The Urban Question: A Marxist Approach. London: Edward Arnold.
1978 City, Class and Power. London: Macmillan.
1983 The City and the Grassroots: A Cross-Cultural Theory of Urban Social Movements. London:
Edward Arnold.
Das, Mitra
1981 "Social movements, social change and mass communications." International Review of Modern
Sociology 11:127-143.
Elliott, Brian
1980 "Manuel Castells and the new urban sociology." British Journal of Sociology 31:151-158.
Eyerman, Ron
1984 "Social movements and social theory." Sociology 18:71-82.
Fischer, Claude S.
1976 The Urban Experience. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Gamson, William
1968 Power and Discontent. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
1975 The Strategy of Social Protest. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
1980 "Understandingthe careers of challenging groups." American Journal of Sociology 85:1043-1060.
1983 "Review of 'The voice and the eye: an analysis of social movements' by Alain Touraine."American
Journal of Sociology 88:812-814.
Goldstone, J.A.
1980 "The weakness of organization."American Journal of Sociology 85:1017-1092.
Hall, Richard H.
1982 Organizations:Structureand Process. 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hirsh, Arthur
1981 The French New Left: An Intellectual History from Sartre to Gorz. Boston: South End Press.
Jaret, Charles
1983 "Recent neo-Marxist urban analysis." Annual Review of Sociology 9:499-525.
Jenkins, J. Craig
1983 "Resource mobilization theory and the study of social movements." Annual Review of Sociology 9:
527-553.
Lawrence, Paul R. and Jay W. Lorsch
1967 Organization and Environment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Lemert, Charles
1981 "Literarypolitics and the champ of French sociology." Theory and Society 10:645-669.
Lipsky, Michael
1968 "Protest as a political resource."American Political Science Review 62:1145-1158.
AlainTouraine,ManuelCastellsand SocialMovementTheory:A CriticalAppraisal 453

McKeown, Kieran
1980 "The urban sociology of Manuel Castells: a critical examination of the central concepts." The
Economic and Social Review 11:257-280.
Melucci, Alberto
1984 "An end to social movements? Introductory paper to sessions on 'new' movements and change in
organizational forms." Social Science Information 23:819-835.
Nagel, J.
1983 "Review of 'The voice and the eye: an analysis of social movements' by Alain Touraine." Social
Forces 61:923-924.
Oberschall, Anthony
1973 Social Conflict and Social Movements. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Olives, J.
1976 "The struggle against urban renewal in the Cite d'Alionte (Paris)." Pp. 194-197 in Pickvance (ed.),
Urban Sociology: Critical Essays. London: Tavistock.
Olson, Mancur
1968 The Logic of Collective Action. New York: Schocken.
Pickvance, C.G.
1975 "On the study of urban social movements." The Sociological Review 23:29-44.
1976 Urban Sociology: Critical Essays. London: Tavistock.
1977 "From 'social base' to 'social force': some analytical issues in the study of urban protest." Pp.
175-186 in M. Harloe (ed.), Captive Cities: Studies in the Political Economy of Cities and Regions.
London: Wiley.
1978 "Review of 'The urban question' by Manuel Castells."The Sociological Review 26:173-176.
Piven, Francis Fox and Richard A. Cloward
1977 Poor People's Movements. New York: Pantheon.
1978 "Social movements and societal conditions: a response to Roach and Roach." Social Problems 26:
172-178.
Rayner, Steve
1984 "Review of 'Anti-nuclear protest: the opposition to nuclear energy in France' by Alain Touraine."
The Sociological Review 32:165-166.
Saunders, Peter
1981 Social Theory and the Urban Question. London: Hutchinson.
Sennett, Richard
1981 "Foreword." Pp. ix-xi in Alain Touraine (ed.), The Voice and the Eye: An Analysis of Social
Movements. Trans. Alan Duff. London: Cambridge University Press.
Smelser, Neil
1963 Theory of Collective Behavior. New York: The Free Press.
Smith, W. Rand
1982 "Review of 'The voice and the eye: an analysis of social movements' by Alain Touraine." The
American Political Science Review 76:980-981.
Tilly, Charles, Louise Tilly and Richard Tilly
1975 The Rebellious Century: 1830-1930. London: J.M. Dent.
Touraine, Alain
1981 The Voice and the Eye: An Analysis of Social Movements. Trans. Alan Duff. London: Cambridge
University Press.
1983a Anti-Nuclear Protest: The Opposition to Nuclear Energy in France. With Zsuzsa Hegedus, Francois
Dubet and Michel Wieviorka. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
1983b Solidarity: Poland 1980-81. With Francois Dubet, Michel Wieviorka and Jan Strzelecki. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Traugott, Mark
1978 "Reconceiving social movements." Social Problems 26:38-49.
Turner, Ralph H.
1969 "The public perception of protest." American Sociological Review 34:815-831.
Turner, Ralph H. and Lewis M. Killian
1972 Collective Behavior. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
454 THESOCIOLOGICALQUARTERLYVol. 26/No. 4/1985

Zald, Mayer and Roberta Ash

1966 "Social movement organizations: growth, decay and change." Social Forces 44:327-341.
Zald, Mayer and Michael A. Berger
1978 "Social movements in organizations: coup d'etat, insurgency and mass movements." American
Journal of Sociology 83:823-861.
Zukin, Sharon
1980 "The cutting edge: a decade of the new urban sociology." Theory and Society 9:575-601.
Zurcher, Louis and David A. Snow
1981 "Collective behavior: social movements." Pp. 447-482 in Morris Rosenberg and Ralph H. Turner
(eds.), Social Psychology: Sociological Perspectives. New York: Basic Books.