Luis Zaldivar

Anthropology in Action

Term Paper

Survey of Social Movements Research

There are few things more intimidating when writing a term paper than finding yourself with

loads of information that were not taken into consideration when the topic was first approached. In

particular, the menace of not being able to synthesize the loose knobs when the literature overwhelms

you can be a terrifying experience of biblical proportions. Even if this is not the problem, it is clear that

any attempt of compiling all the facts about defined subject is in itself an act of futility, always

condemned to be incomplete. For all intents and purposes, surveying is snapshot of what seems

important in a moment and time, and its aim is to enhance –rather than create- understanding.

The present survey is such an attempt. In the following pages, I will discuss the literature on

psychology, philosophy, sociology, political science, and anthropology that have dealt with the question

of how and why social movements interact with the rest of society. The reason for the multidisciplinary

emphasis is that I found that the social movement question has been interconnected from various

perspectives, one building on from the others. Isolating anthropology from such a lively debate would

be plainly wrong. Therefore, I have chosen to offer a general survey of the history of paradigm shifts as

they have occurred through the social sciences.

My sources, while I think sufficient, are not exhaustive. I have built this paper based on former

surveys, anthologies, as well as primary sources that seemed relevant in its specific context. I will begin

using them to describe the psychological behaviorism approach, and then move to sociological as well as
anthropological approaches to social movements; lastly, I will discuss how social movements research

can be improved by offering my own insight as to what I think is missing in the existing literature.

Hopefully, social movements research will still be a relevant topic when it is my turn to do

fieldwork. I am assured that the field is subject to exciting changes and insights into our conception of

politics and political entities in the ever changing process of culture. After writing this paper, I am also

assured that, somehow, I would like to be part of it.

The First Attempts

Social movements as a research question was not taken seriously by scholars until the 1950’s

and 1960’s, where the relative peace in the aftermath of WWII allowed for a retrospective look at the

big mobilizations during the past two decades before the conflict and the changing social context that

framed the emergence of a variety of collective action. While works on political sociology that treated

political parties as social movements were certainly published before this time period (none relevant),

all literature reviewed for this paper indicates that Rudolf Heberle’s “Social Movements: An introduction

to Political Sociology” (1951) was the first serious attempt to theorize social movements separately from

political parties and psychological explanations. By the 1960’s however, it was clear that the multiple

social events in developed countries could not be analyzed with the existing social scientific framework,

and something had to be done (Edelman 2001, 285).

Early social movements research is distinctly marked by Durkheimian style functionalism and the

psychological behaviorism that pervaded the social sciences in general at the time (Edelman 2001, 287).

Blumer (1969), for instance, takes sides with social psychologists in their analysis of “crowd behavior”,

believing that social movements could be attributed to mental dysfunctions that occurred at the

subconscious level. It was Park (1967), however, who created the distinction between crowd and

collective behavior, which he believed could be positive to society. Evaluation of the psychological
approaches is of no concern of this paper, as it should be enough to say that it has been relegated

because of their simplification of social action as simply irrational or expression of psychological

defectiveness. Nonetheless, the significance of these works is that scholars were already looking at the

role of identities and emotions as part of “movement culture” (Crossley 2002, 38) long before identity

and agency research kicked off almost two decades later

In 1962, Neil Smelser (1962) took some of the ideas of collective behavior and created what is

now called a value-added approach. In his work, he set off to explain the emergence of social

movements as a result of a series of factors of dissatisfaction with the status quo that affect when, if,

and how collective action will be taken place. Smelser’s factors are: 1)Structural conduciveness related

to the configuration of the system 2) Structural strain or dissatisfaction 3)Growth and spread of

generalized belief proposed cure 4) Precipitating factors 5) Mobilization of participants for action,

involving coordination for action) 6) Operation of social control performed by control agencies, whose

success will determined the fate of the collective action. Smelser firmly believed that these six factors

determined the fate of social movements, and also outlined forms of social movements that could

emerge in different dynamics. Since its original publication, Smelser’s work has been criticized for being

descriptive but not explanatory (Smith 1973, 108), and like most functionalists, his conception of

structure is problematic in the sense that it does not recognize the intrinsically conflictive nature of

social systems (Crossley 2002, 52). Nevertheless, his attempt to theorize social movements beyond the

psychological realm is significant, and should be taken into consideration –as it in fact has- in

contemporary research that focuses on utilitarian or economic approaches.

It is at this point, however, that we start seeing the separation of schools of social movement

research in the basis of territory. In the U.S, psychological determinism and “crowd behavior” were the

clear paradigm for the analysis of social research while in Europe, on the other hand, highly academic
and structural versions of Marxism (that drew heavily on European Durkheimians) dominated the

explanations of collective action. Through time, this separation led scholars reacting to this paradigm

and forming the two main schools discussed in this paper: Resource Mobilization theory (reacting

against American “collective behavior” flavor) emerged in the U.S, and New Social Movements

developed in Europe and later exported to Latin America as a reaction to Marxist analysis.

Resource Mobilization

Identified mainly as an American school closely related to political science and economics,

resource mobilization (RM) set out to explain how social movements become organized and push their

agenda into mainstream society. In other words, RM emphasizes how instead of why social actors

mobilize (Forweraker 1995, 15). In contrast to earlier research, RM theorists argue that the success of a

social movement is determined by its capacity to form alliances, find charismatic leaders, cultivate the

right strategy, and assemble the members together in an efficient manner. By doing this, RM theorists

enlighten the side of social movements dynamics that remain hidden by approaches emphasizing social

unrest and the emergence of movements (Crossley 2002, 103). Although not always explicit, RM takes a

firmly Marxist approach to social analysis by portraying social actors as acting on economic terms,

mobilizing resources in much the same way a business mobilizes commodities, and emphasizing class

struggle.

Given that resource mobilization theory emerged as a response to the functionalist approaches

outlined before in this paper, this paradigm rejected the notion of participants of social movements as

irrational; instead, these theorists embraced the “rational actor” proposal of economist Mancur Olson.

Originally, Olson (1965) outlined the view of the rational actor as individuals in a conscious pursuit that

weights the pros and cons of social mobilization, making it unlikely for individuals to join a movement

because the costs of mobilizing are usually higher than the benefits. RM took this idea further, arguing
that the only way rational actors will mobilize is if the right resources appear to make the individual

prone to join the movement. The degree to which RM theorists agree with the rational actor varies, to

the point where most only take the pieces that they see convenient without agreeing with the whole

concept (Crossley 2002, 78). However, the influence of this utilitarian logic can be traced throughout all

of the texts related to RM, specially in sociological studies of organized action and political science. Up

until this point, Homo Economicus seems to be the essential assumption behind all research.

One key insight of RM is its emphasis on the role of networks in the formation and mobilization

of social action. For instance, Oberschall (1973) distances himself from Olson by contextualizing the

choice of the rational actor and making him part of networks of solidarity that build social capital –which

is a form of benefit that was not considered before-. According to Oberschall, the effectiveness of a

social movement can be traced to the unity of pre-established networks. In his prime example, he traces

the victories of the civil rights movements to the role of black churches, black colleges, and the NAACP

among others in collaborating with the ultimate outcome of desegregation. Nevertheless, the “network

argument” is not that networks create or transform into movements; in its place, the argument is that

social movements are themselves networks that expand over boundaries and follow their own path

(Crossley 2002, 97). Another example that comes to mind supporting the importance of networks is the

conformation of environmental organizations in the contemporary inclination of fighting global

warming. As a member of different environmental organizations in the last three years, I have seen how

action is taken to new levels by groups of people that were networked but were not interested in

ecological issues before. In my experience, it has always been these networks –fraternities, unions,

workplaces, music scenes, etc- that have been the most effective at engaging in collective action, not

the individual attempts to change policy

 Another important point continuously made by RM theorists is the role of leadership in making

strategic choices for the development of social movements. The aforementioned work of Oberschall

(1973) also emphasized the distinction between leadership and membership of social movements.

Incentives, he argues, are very different for the leader than for the activist because leadership is a way

for individuals to attain status and social capital when they are in disadvantaged situations (p 28).

Interestingly, one of the arguments made by “New Social Movements” against RM is that there are

movements that avoid completely these incentives, as exemplified by the Brazilian Movement of

Landless Rural Workers (Vanden 2008, 51-52). However, I think that the emphasis on leadership can be

important in certain situations; more specifically, I believe it could be dangerous to obviate the factor of

leadership in the analysis of social movements because it could lead to gross simplifications over the

motivations behind social action.

Reading the foundational texts of the RM paradigm –for instance, Mcarthy and Zald (1977)-

makes it clear that the rationale behind RM is a result of analyzing specifically American social

movements during the 1960’, 1970’s and 1980’s. Although new forms of RM have emerged to broaden

its scope, it is easy to see how RM theorists deduced many of their claims from empirical observation.

For instance, Ladd and Hadley (1978) adopted resource mobilization after seeing how middle class

Americans provided many “resources” to the civil rights movement, or we can see this principle in action

when Jenkins (1983, 548) explains resource mobilization in terms of the freedom of American

democracy. Therefore, I think one of the main setbacks in theorizing social movements using RM is its

lack of flexibility to adapt to different environments, where resources (at least not material ones) are

not what is at stake in social movements.

In fact, critiques of RM for its adherence to economic models plague the theoretical literature of

social movements (Foweraker 1995, 17). Not wanting to recreate them all here, I want to close this
overview of RM with David Slater’s critique of RM (2008 [1995]), as it serves as a bridge for the

understanding of new social movements. First of all, Slater deconstructs the Marxist assumption of

“class interest” and its sister concept of “class struggle”. For him, and most contemporary social

movement theorists, class cannot be considered the point of departure for social theory because it does

not hold a coherent identity or “consciousness”; it is entirely possible for different groups of the same

economic category to hold complete different views of the world (p 22-23). Further, Slater emphasizes

the multiple “subjective positions” or social roles of the individual, which only attain meaning in the

discursive matrix that anthropologists call culture. Individuals are always contesting those spaces in

ways that RM cannot theorize (p 24-28). Additionally, Slater gives interesting insight on how democracy

–conceptualized by RM theorists plainly as the political context on which social movements emerge- is

also a working project, ambiguous and dialogical (p 29-34).

Resource Mobilization has thus been assessed critically by scholars who focus on the discursive,

dialectical, and abstract aspects of social life. In other words, it has been criticized by scholars who focus

on culture. In the rest of the paper, I will focus on how many cultural anthropologists and other related

scholars evaluate social movements, and explore the aspects of social movements research that RM has

left untouched.

New Social Movements (NSMs)

As noted before, NSMs arose from the rejection of Marxist social analysis because of its lack of

stress on the cultural aspects of social mobilization. Beyond simply theorizing social movements in a

different light, NSMs argue that in a post-industrial world, social actors organize for different reasons

that they did in the past. Hellman (1995) synthesizes the characteristics of these new movements as

following: 1) Emphasis on autonomy from established hierarchical political entities, 2) Stress on

horizontality and collective contribution to the political process, and 3) Quest for solidarity and social
justice in relation to subjective identities such as ethnicity, gender, etc. Escobar and Alvarez (1992), on

the other hand, identify new movements as a renovation on the forms of political practice and political

life, moving away from the Marxist dichotomy of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat into a more

dynamic form of political practice (p 1-3). In general, NSMs represents a scholarly stress on the semiotic

aspects of social life, not relying so heavily on the logic of cost-effectiveness and strategy building. With

all of the emphasis on culture and identity, anthropologists have been crucial to the development of this

paradigm.

One key thinker closely related to NSMs is the French sociologist Alain Touraine. In his work,

most importantly The Voice and the Eye (1983), he made the argument that Western society had moved

from an Industrial to a post-Industrial stage, where for the first time reflection and action over the

foundations of social life become possible (Foweraker 1995, 11). The follow up argument is that with

this new form of society, new forms of resistance appear, challenging the Marxist notion that resistance

is based on the rejection of the established means of production. Remarkably, Touraine saw the aims of

his study in The Voice and the Eye as “to help establish the belief that men and women are not subject

to historical laws and material necessity, that they produce their own historical laws and material

necessity, that they produce their won history through their cultural creations and social struggles”

(Touraine 1983, 5). Touraine’s influence in NSMs theory cannot be understated, especially as he was one

of the first to identify “new social movements” as such. Martell and Stammers (1996, 7) see Touraine as

the first theorist to present social movements as a struggle against technocracy, particularly technocracy

in communist Europe at the time he published.

Another important name behind the NSMs paradigm is the philosopher Jurgen Habermas, who

theorized social movements as part of what he saw where two distinct “levels” of social life: system and

lifeworld (Crosley 2002, 154). According to Habermas, the lifeworld is the semiotic interaction of agents
in the system, which is in itself composed of two types of interaction: non-conformative action and

discourse. Discourse is, to put it simply, the contestation of meaning in the lifeworld (very similarly to

Touraine’s concept of resistance). In industrial society, this discourse had been constantly regulated and

devoid of meaning by the bureaucratic society; however, along with Touraine, he sees social movements

as the contestation of this cultural status quo. The new conflicts, he says, “are not ignited by distribution

problems but by questions having to do with the grammar of forms of life” (Habermas 1987, 392).

The influence of Habermas and Touraine, along with other key theorists as Melucci, has framed much of

the NSMs literature. Nonetheless, NSMs theory has been taken new forms in order to encompass the

complexity that ethnographic accounts of social movements have developed through the years. Next, I

will explore two of them, the exploration of “cultural politics” and “identity based research”

Cultural Politics

One of the most important aspects of the NSMs debate is the identification of politics as cultural

phenomena. Although anthropologists, political scientists, and others assume the two concepts are

interrelated, it is not common to see them conceptualized as being essentially the same thing. Alvarez,

Dagnino, and Escobar (1998) have engaged in the debate by embracing the term “cultural politics”,

defined as “the process enacted when sets of social actors shaped by, and embodying, different cultural

meanings and practices come into conflict with each other”, pointing out that this contestation of

meaning “can be the source of processes that must accepted as political” (p 7). This reconceptualization

of what counts as political space is a great example of the way on which the NSMs debate has changed

our conception of social movements and politics in general. No longer is it adequate to assess social

mobilization as an attempt to seize power, but it is now necessary to understand the multiple levels on

which power struggle is performed, particularly in spaces where the private and the public are shaped

by cultural processes.
 For example, Kwane Dixon’s study of black social movements in Latin America (2008) clearly

identifies how Afro-Latin peoples attempt to change the political landscape not by attempting

representation in parliament, but by demanding more “cultural space” to challenge dominant racial and

gender inequality (Dixon 2008, 182). More interestingly, Dixon focuses on how these cultural identities

are woven around transnational human rights discourse, creating alliances among many Afro-Latin

groups in dissimilar countries like Uruguay, Panama, and the Hispanic communities in the U.S (p 184).

The great complexity of this dynamics makes it impossible for scholars to focus on the narrow

definitions of “culture”, “politics”, “racial identity”, etc, that pervade much of social science.

Another example is the apparent reconfiguration of Latin American feminism in the last two

decades, as analyzed by Sonia Alvarez (1998). According to Alvarez, the feminist project conceived until

the 1980’s –that involved representation, autonomous organization, global sisterhood, etc- has been

replaced by a “selective absorption” of feminist discourse into the social matrix, with an increased

tendency of feminist organizations become heterogeneous and sometimes conflictive (p 311-315). The

Latin American feminist movement, as it turns out, has split in many factions and sought to promote

different forms of transformation, becoming a multilayered space for democratization where gender

dynamics have become interwined in other cultural dynamics of Latin American society. This and other

other studies concerning cultural politics are marked by their high degree of nuance and complexity in

the understanding of social life. In contrast with the straightforward analysis performed by RM theorists,

the study of new social movements is an exercise on discursive decentering that moves way beyond

clear social boundaries and categories. Cultural politics is a case in point in the analysis of change as the

dramatic actor in all social practices

Identity Research
 Since the very conception of NSMs, identity played an important role in the separation between

“old” and “new” social movements. According to theorists such as Castells, identity is the production of

personal meaning on the basis of cultural features that are given priority over other features (Edelman

2001, 298). That is, for NSMs, identity is constantly being produced on the relationship between the

individual and the cultural environment, sometimes producing pockets of relationships among a group

of people that motive action. The conditions under which collective identities motive alliances or action

is still much debated (Edelman 2001, 298); however, it is a clear consensus that the existence of identity-

based movements is a distinct feature of NSMs in general. Agency, on the other hand, has been the

underlying concept behind much identity-based research, sometimes provoking sharp criticism for

accentuating the “narcissist withdrawal” of individuals involved in political organization (Melucci 1989,

209). The basic argument of agency based research is that the production of meaning and historicity is

rooted in the subjectivity and meaning of the individual, only being loosely connected or expressed

through the group.

Edelman (2001, 300) identifies a related scholarly concern with identity based mobilization: they

are prone to become lucrative corporate marketing crusades. As exemplified in the local context of this

paper –Jacksonville, Fl- where blackness and Latino identity are now brand names in local markets,

diversity and uniqueness have become a new motto in some corporate circles, transforming cultural

projects into commodities in the purest Marxist fashion. Reed (1999) is probably the most pessimistic,

proclaiming that “beneath the current black-female-student-chicano-gay-eldery-youth-disabled, ad

nauseam, ‘struggles’, lies a simple truth: there is no coherent opposition to the present administrative

apparatus”. Edelman also points out the limitations of representation in identity-based research, as

mobilizing around an abstraction such identity includes the potential for misrepresentation and

fragmentation of the subjects, a natural byproduct of essentialism.

 Dorothy Holland, Gretchen Fox, and Vinci Daro (2008) have taken steps to avoid these pitfalls by

eliminating the treatment of movements as unified actors, and taking a “decentered, dialogic approach”

that focus on how collective identity is pursued in dialectical fashion among multiple discourses and

practices. Following Escobar and Alvarez (1992) semiotic emphasis, Holland, Fox, and Daro define

collective identity as the emic sense of participation that is inspired and supported by their own actions,

thus constantly emerging, forming, and reforming (p. 97-99). The tensions between the movement and

other social actors –for instance, the state- further complicate this picture, transforming the two actors

in “dialogic partners” that should be studied in parallel (p. 100). One important aspect of their essay that

I want to highlight is their recognition of the power of cultural artifacts (narratives, symbols, rituals,

clothing, songs, etc) in the process of constructing collective identities. In my perspective, it is possible

that these cultural artifacts are the unifying factor behind mobilization, making them the measure upon

which we can trace the cultural processes on social action.

A lot of the literature on social movements being produced nowadays is still emphasizing

identity and meaning making in the public sphere, and I highly doubt any conclusive determination will

be made about the nature of identity. However, I do believe that the power of abstraction can lead to

determinations on how communities mobilize around certain issues and what is the best way to go

about conflict resolution. NSMs should not be reduced to discussions on what is the role of identity on

social movements, but on how social movements use identity as a unifying factor for self interest.

Synthesis of Social Movements Research

Throughout my research for this paper, I have found multiple attempts to blend the different

approaches sketched above with the hope of create an amalgam of the useful concepts leaving out

those who have been subsumed by others (Rose 1997, Foweraker 1995, Crossley 2002). For the look of

things, none have succeeded –at least not to a degree that is noticeable for an undergraduate
researcher-, and I do not see why I would have any better luck at such a feat; therefore, I will only

present concepts that I have not yet seen well represented through my research. The intended purpose

is to present my own input into what I think social movements research is or could be without

pretending to theorize without experience or data to do so; if anything, this would be my answer if I was

given a grant to study social movements and liberty to choose a topic.

First, I believe that we have to get away from the ethical boundaries dictating that social

movements research necessarily means activism or political commitment. Social movement researchers

are prone to become simply political tools if we don’t start realizing that engagement does not

necessarily mean understanding. The multiple layers of meaning that anthropologists have successfully

theorized will not be uncovered simply by engaging in activism, let alone letting the movement’s

discourse become our methodological mantra. In my opinion, the analysis of social movements can be

taken at different levels and from different perspectives simultaneously if we let the full experience

contextualize our research. I believe that whatever can be achieved by advocating activist research, as

outlined in Hale (2001), can also be achieved by standard research. If social movement is going to be a

research question, anthropologists must flag any attempts to change the goal of the research from

thoughtful analysis to party line propaganda.

Second, I think we should broaden the spectrum of which forms of political action are

considered research question in social movements’ analysis. For instance, as Edelman (2001, 301-303)

points out, NSMs have avoided the issue of right-wing collective action, partly because of tradition of

identification with typically left-wing actors and a the reluctance to recognize that the same sort of

experiences that generate democratic movements can lead to the exacerbation of racism, violence, and

hate (Stock 1996, 148). In a similar fashion, I think is illusory to make clear distinctions between social

movements and various forms of political activism practiced within established mainstream political
parties. As I have experienced with rural party affiliation in Peru (particularly with the Peruvian

Nationalist party and the now in power Aprista party), the ongoing practice of reforming political

discourse is not an exclusivity of the particular groups of people that scholars have named social

movements. In my view, the social movement research question has to be defined in the analysis of a

form of practice instead of a unified subject of study, including an assortment of political identities that

become integrated in specific scenarios where repression and contestation (material and cultural) play a

particular role in the shaping of the practice. The current alternative, which celebrates the particularity

of certain movements as distinct forms of political action against oppressive regimes, is doomed to

perform sweeping generalizations and capriciously determine what aspects of social action can be

attributed the status of “movement” over simply “politics”.

Lastly, I believe that any future synthesis of social movements research cannot evade the

implications of research in supporting or rejecting policy making in the society that serves as context for

the analysis. While I believe much bias has to be extracted from current research, I also believe that any

serious commitment to academia has to entail a productive relationship with social reality, giving

guidance and advice to the multiple actors in the political drama. This does not mean, of course, that

anthropologists should take ultimate stands or be part of the next hunger strike by Bolivian president

Evo Morales. I do, however, think that anthropologists have the tools and authority to produce useful

material for the betterment of the societies they study. For instance, the necessary creation of reports,

sharing of databases, serving as consultants, etc, could be interesting applications of anthropological

expertise in social movements research

Conclusion

To sum up, social movements have been discussed and conceptualized repeatedly on every field

of the social sciences, making it an incredibly rich and complex field to evaluate. In this paper, I have first
discussed crowd and collective behavior, emphasizing how these psychological and sociological

explanations reflected the dominant themes of their time. Next, I have offered a discussion of resource

mobilization (RM) theory as it is portrayed in the sociological and political science literature. Moreover, I

have discussed new social movements (NSMs), with its emphasis on identity, agency, and culture.

Finally, I have offered some suggestions as to what directions I think social movements should take on

the future.

Most certainly, the writing of this paper has provided me with a great deal of background

information and academic context that will probably take me some time to evaluate completely. While

anthropology has taken most of my brain power in the last year or two, I am glad to see how disciplinary

boundaries are somewhat blurred when the topic is specified, although I do recognize the power of

traditions in the assumptions of research. More importantly, this paper has interested me greatly in the

research of social movements, particularly in its culture-based forms, and I will seriously consider it for

my academic future.

Over all things, I am glad that Anthropology, a discipline understood by few and frowned upon

by many, is in fact a discipline of action and advancement of ideas never meant to stay still, much like

social movements themselves are. I am proud, now more than ever, of what my life calling is.

Bibliography

Alvarez, Sonia, and Arturo Escobar. The Making of Social Movements in Latin America: Identity, Strategy,
and Democracy. Colorado: Westview Press, 1992.

Alvarez, Sonia, Evelina Dagnino, and Arturo Escobar. Cultures of Politics Politics of Cultures. Colorado:
Westview Press, 1998.
Crossley, Nick. Making Sense of Social Movements. Philadelphia: Open Univerisy Press, 2002.

Dixon, Kwane. "Transnational Black Social Movemetns in Latin America: Afro-Colombians and the
Struggle for Human Rights." In Latin American Social Movements in the Twenty-First Century: Resistance,
Power, and Democracy, by Richard Stahler-Sholk, Harry E Vanden and Glen David Kuecker, 181-196. New
York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 2008.

Dorothy, Holland, Fox Gretchen, and Daro Vinci. "Social Movements and Collective Identity: A
Decentered, Dialogic View." Anthropological Quarterly, 2008: 95-126.

Edelman, Marc. "Social Movements: Changing Paradigms and Forms of Politics." Annual Review of
Anthropology, 2001: 285-317.

Foweraker, Joe. Theorizing Social Movements. Colorado: Pluto Press, 1995.

Habermas, Jurgen. The Theory of Communicative Action, vol II: System and Lifeworld. Cambridge: Polity
Press, 1987.

Hadley, C.D, and E. Ladd. Transformations of the American Party System. New York: Norton, 1978.

Hale, Charles. "What is Activist Research?" Social Science Research Council, 2, 2001: 13-15.

Heberle, Rudolf. Social Movements: an Introduction to Political sociology. New York: Appleton-Century-
Crofts, 1951.

Hellman, Judith. "The Riddle of New Social Movements: Who They Are and What They Do." In Capita,
Inequality and Power in Latin America, by Zandor Halebsky and Richard Harris, 152-162. Boulder and
London: Westview, 1995.

Jenkins, Craig. "Resource Mobilization Theory and the Study of Social Movements." Annial Review of
Sociology, 9, 1983: 527-553.

Martell, Luke, and Neil Stammers. "The Study of Solidarity and the Social Theory of Alain Touraine." In
Alain Touraine, by Falmer Sociology Series, 127-144. Falmer Press, 1996.

McCarthy, John, and MN Zald. "Resource Mobilization and Social Movements: A Partial Theory."
American Journal of Sociology, 82, 1977: 12-41.
Melucci, Alberto. Nomads of the Present: Social Movements and Individual Needs in Contemporary
Society. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1989.

Oberschall, Anthony. Social Conflict and Social Movements. New Jersey: Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs,
1973.

Olson, Mancur. The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965.

Park, RE. On Social Control and Collective Behavior: Seleced Papers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1967.

Reed, A. Stirrings in the Jug: Black Politics in the Post-Seggregation Era. Minneapolis : University
Minneapolis Press, 1999.

Rose, Fred. "Toward a Class-Cultural Theory of Social Movements: Reinterpreting New Social
Movements." Sociological Forum, 12, 1997: 461-494.

Slater, David. "Power and Social Movements in the Other Occident." In Latin American Social
Movements in the Twenty-First Century: Resistance, Power, and Democracy, by Richard Stahler-Sholk,
Harry E Vanden and Glen David Kuecker, 21-38. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2008.

Smelser, Neil. Theory of Collective Behaviour. London: Routledge, 1962.

Smith, Anthony. The Concept of Social Change: A Critiue of the Functionalist Theory of Social Change.
Routledge, 1973.

Stock, CM. Rural Radicals: Righteous Rage in the American Grain. New York: Cornell University Press,
1996.

Touraine, Alain. The Voice and the Eye: an Analysis of Social Movements. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1985.

Vanden, Harry E. "Social Movements, Hegemony, and New Forms of Resistance." In Latin American
Social Movements In the Twenty-First Century: Resistance, Power, and Democracy, by Harry E. Vanden,
and Glen David Kuecker Richard Stahler-Sholk, 39-55. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.,
2008.