21.1: Social Change and Collective Behavior

21.1.1: Social Change

Collective behavior can result in social change through the formation of cohesive social movements.

Learning Objective

Analyze a real-life example, such as the Voting Rights Act, in terms of social change

Key Points

Collective behavior can be distinguished from group behavior, and it is also distinct from deviant and conforming actions.
Collective behavior can be observed in four types of groupings of people: the crowd, the mass, the public, and social movements, although other phenomena, such as fads and rumors, are also considered to be forms of collective behavior.
Studying collective behavior improves our understanding of how to organize social movements to initiate social change.
There are two main reasons for studying collective behavior. First, to reduce the damage caused by events such as natural disasters and riots by understanding how people behave in these situations; second, studying collective behavior improves our understanding of how to organize social movements in order to initiate social change.
A crowd is an assembly of people who come together with a shared purpose or intent, and have an influence over one another. The four type of crowds, as identified by Herbert Blumer, are casual, conventional, expressive and acting. Diffuse crowds are crowds that are scattered across large distances.
Posited by Gustave Lebon in 1896, contagion theory asserts that crowds have a hypnotic influence over their members, which, combined with the anonymity that individuals in a crowd can enjoy, leads to irrational and emotional behavior.
Convergence Theory proposes that crowd behavior is the product of like-minded individuals coming together and is not an inherent characteristic of the crowd itself.
A combination of the theories of convergence and contagion, the emergent-norm theory states that crowd behavior is the product of the convergence of like-minded people, the sense of anonymity in a crowd and shared emotions. Underlying this theory is the symbolic-interactionist perspective.
Understanding crowds as “gatherings,” which are temporary and are formed by an assembling process, allows us to create a distinction between what causes people to gather and what actions they take once they have gathered. Moreover, seeings crowds as gatherings also refutes the idea that crowds can impair judgment.
A panic is a sudden terror which dominates thinking and can affect groups of people. A moral panic is a mass movement that arises when an invidual or group, frequently a minority or subculture, is perceived to be a threat to society.
A riot is a form of civil disorder that is characterized by disorganized groups lashing out and disturbing the peace in a sudden and intense rash of violence, vandalism or other crime. Riots typically reflect grievance or a sense of dissatisfaction with existing conditions. Unlike a mob, a riot is violent crowd behavior without a specific objective.
“Mass hysteria” is a phrase used to describe a large group of people who share a mental state of fear or anxiety.
A fad is a fashion that gains salience quickly in a culture or subculture, and remains popular for a brief period of time before losing its appeal dramatically.
A rumor is an unverified account or explanation of events circulating from person to person and pertaining to an object, event, or issue in public concern.

Key Terms

riot: Wanton or unrestrained behavior; uproar; tumult.
Collective behavior: The expression collective behavior was first used by Robert E. Park, and employed definitively by Herbert Blumer, to refer to social processes and events which do not reflect existing social structure (laws, conventions, and institutions), but which emerge in a “spontaneous” way.

Collective behavior refers to social processes and events that do not reflect existing social structure (laws, conventions, and institutions), as they emerge in a “spontaneous” way. Collective behavior might also be defined as action that is neither conforming (in which actors follow prevailing norms) nor deviant (in which actors violate those norms). Rather, collective behavior, a third form of action, takes place when norms are absent or unclear, or when they contradict each other. Scholars have devoted far less attention to collective behavior than they have to either conformity or deviance.

Examples of collective behavior include: religious revival meetings (like those depicted in the documentary Marjoe), a panic in a burning theater (e.g., the Kentucky Beverly Hills Supper Club fire), a sudden widespread interest in a website (e.g., MySpace) or clothing item (e.g., WristStrong bracelets), a collective social movement to improve the environment (e.g., Greenpeace), or the rapid spread of rumors (e.g., that Barack Obama is Muslim or not a US citizen). These diverse actions fall within the area sociologists call collective behavior.

Collective behavior differs from group behavior in three ways:

Collective behavior involves limited and short-lived social interactions, while groups tend to remain together longer.
Collective behavior has no clear social boundaries; anyone can be a member of the collective, while group membership is usually more discriminating.
Collective behavior generates weak and unconventional norms, while groups tend to have stronger and more conventional norms.

Traditionally in sociology, collective behavior is displayed by four types of groupings of people: the crowd, the public, the mass, and the social movement . While there is debate over what should be included under the label of “collective behavior” among sociologists today, often included are additional behaviors like: rumors, riots, and fads.

Types of Social Movements

The four types of social movements, as described by cultural anthropologist David Aberle

Collective Behavior and Social Change

Collective behavior can actually change elements of society. This is the component of collective behavior known as “social movements. “

On March 7, 1965, African American leaders led a march of 600 people in an attempt to walk the 54 miles (87 km) from Selma to the state capital in Montgomery. Only six blocks into the march, however, state troopers and local law enforcement attacked the peaceful demonstrators with billy clubs, tear gas, rubber tubes wrapped in barbed wire, and bull whips. They drove the marchers back to Selma. The national broadcast showing footage of lawmen attacking unresisting marchers seeking the right to vote provoked a national response. Eight days after the first march, Lyndon Johnson delivered a televised address to garner support for the voting rights bill he had sent to Congress. In it he stated:

But even if we pass this bill, the battle will not be over. What happened in Selma is part of a far larger movement which reaches into every section and state of America. It is the effort of American Negroes to secure for themselves the full blessings of American life. Their cause must be our cause too. Because it is not just Negroes, but really it is all of us, who must overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice. And we shall overcome.

Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 on August 6. The 1965 Act suspended poll taxes, literacy tests, and other subjective voter tests. It authorized Federal supervision of voter registration in states and individual voting districts where such tests were being used. The act had an immediate and positive impact for African Americans. Within months of its passage, 250,000 new black voters had been registered. Within four years, voter registration in the South had more than doubled.

Understanding how to organize a social movement to pursue social change is one of the areas studied by sociologists. The insights gained from these studies can provide movement members the tools they need to succeed .

Stages of Social Movements

The different stages of social movements, as adapted from Blumer (1969), Mauss (1975) and Tilly (1978)

Riots

A riot is a form of civil disorder characterized by disorganized groups lashing out in a sudden and intense rash of violence, vandalism, or other crime. While individuals may attempt to lead or control a riot, riots are typically chaotic and exhibit herd-like behavior. Riots often occur in reaction to a perceived grievance or out of dissent. Historically, riots have occurred due to poor working or living conditions, government oppression, taxation or conscription, conflicts between races or religions, the outcome of a sporting event, or frustration with legal channels through which to air grievances. Riots typically involve vandalism and the destruction of private and public property. Riots, while destructive, have often played a role in social change.

21.2: Sources of Social Change

21.2.1: Sources of Social Change

Social movement theories seek to explain how social movements form and develop.

Learning Objective

Analyze the similarities and differences in the various social movement theories – deprivation, mass-society, structural-strain, resource-mobilization, political process and culture

Key Points

Famous social movement theories include deprivation theory, mass-society theory, structural-strain theory, resource-mobilization theory, political process theory and culture theory.
Deprivation theory posits that social movements emerge among people who believe themselves to be deprived of certain goods or resources.
Mass-society theory posits that social movements are comprised of people who feel marginalized from the rest of society.
Structural-strain theory posits that social movements arise as a result of six factors: structural conduciveness, structural strain, growth and spread of a solution, precipating factors, lack of social control, and mobilization.
Resource-mobilization theory places resources at the center of the emergence and success of social movements. In this case, resources include knowledge, money, media, labor, solidarity, legitimacy, and internal and external support from a powerful elite.
Cultural theory underscores the importance of culture and addresses the free-rider problem. This theory also emphasizes the critical role of injustice in movement formation, stating that successful movements have to create injustice frames to mobilize people.

Key Terms

free rider: The free-rider problem refers to the idea that people will not be motivated to participate in a social movement that will use up their personal resources like time or money if they can still receive the benefits without participating.
injustice frame: An injustice frame is a collection of ideas and symbols that illustrate both how significant the problem the movement is concerned with is as well as what the movement can do to alleviate it.
cultural theory: Cultural theory underscores the importance of culture and addresses the free-rider problem. This theory also emphasizes the critical role of injustice in movement formation, stating that successful movements have to create injustice frames to mobilize people.

A variety of theories have attempted to explain how social movements develop. Some of the better-known approaches include deprivation theory, mass-society theory, structural-strain theory, resource-mobilization theory, political process theory and culture theory. Deprivation theory and resource-mobilization have been discussed in detail in this chapter’s section entitled “Social Movements. “

This particular section will thus pay attention to structural-strain theory and culture theory, while mass-society theory and political process theory will be discussed in greater detail later in “International Sources of Social Change” and “External Sources of Social Change,” respectively.

Structural-Strain Theory

Structural-strain theory proposes six factors that encourage social movement development:

Structural conduciveness: people come to believe their society has problems
Structural strain: people experience deprivation
Growth and spread of a solution: a solution to the problems people are experiencing is proposed and disseminates
Precipitating factors: discontent usually requires a catalyst (often a specific event) to turn it into a social movement
Lack of social control: the entity to be changed must be at least somewhat open to the change; if the social movement is quickly and powerfully repressed, it may never materialize
Mobilization: this is the actual organizing and active component of the movement; people do what needs to be done in order to further their cause.

Here is a case in point to illustrate the example of structural-strain theory. Structural conduciveness would occur when a group of people become disgruntled by a change in society. Structural strain is when these people feel a sense of displeasure due to the change, such as being upset or angry. These people propose a solution, such as a demonstration. Precipitating factors, such as being provoked by a non-protester, prompt a negative reaction (such as yelling or throwing something). If the movement is not strong enough, there will be no change; however, if there is enough influence, change is possible. Mobilization occurs when people work together in order to enact social change, such as meeting with government officials in order to change a law or policy.

This theory is subject to circular reasoning since it claims that social/structural strain is the underlying motivation of social movement activism, even though social movement activism is often the only indication that there was strain or deprivation. This kind of circular reasoning is also evident in deprivation theory (people form movements because they lack a certain good or resource), which structural-strain theory partially incorporates and relies upon.

Culture Theory

Culture theory builds upon both the theories of political process (the existence of political opportunities is crucial for movement development) and resource-mobilization (the mobilization of sufficient resources is central to movement formation and success), but it also extends them in two ways. First, it emphasizes the importance of movement culture. Second, it attempts to address the free-rider problem.

Injustice Frames

Both resource-mobilization theory and political process theory incorporate the concept of injustice into their approaches. Culture theory brings this notion of injustice to the forefront of movement creation, arguing that in order for social movements to successfully mobilize individuals, they must develop an injustice frame. An injustice frame is a collection of ideas and symbols that illustrates how significant the problem is and what the movement can do to alleviate it.

Injustice frames have the following characteristics:

Facts take on their meaning by being embedded in frames, which can render them either relevant and significant or irrelevant and trivial.
People carry around multiple frames in their heads.
Successful reframing involves the ability to enter into the worldview of our adversaries.
All frames contain implicit or explicit appeals to moral principles.

Free-Rider Problem

In emphasizing the injustice frame, culture theory also addresses the free-rider problem. The free-rider problem refers to the idea that people will not be motivated to participate in a social movement that will use up their personal resources (e.g., time, money, etc.) if they can still receive the benefits without participating. In other words, if person X knows that movement Y is working to improve environmental conditions in his neighborhood, he is presented with a choice: to join or not join the movement. If X believes the movement will succeed without her, she can avoid participation in the movement, save her resources, and still reap the benefits—this is free-riding. A significant problem for social movement theory has been to explain why people join movements if they believe the movement can/will succeed without their contribution. Culture theory argues that, in conjunction with social networks being an important contact tool, the injustice frame will provide the motivation for people to contribute to the movement.

Framing processes includes three separate components:

Diagnostic frame: the movement organization frames the problem—what they are critiquing
Prognostic frame: the movement organization frames the desirable solution to the problem
Motivational frame: the movement organization frames a “call to arms” by suggesting and encouraging that people take action

Diagnostic framing of the problem involves an understanding what the problem actually is – what specifically needs to be solved. The prognostic frame is the desired solution – what people think will work to change the situation. Motivational framing is when others are inspired to take action without an actual law or policy in place – such as making a suggestion about how to improve and appealing to people’s morals and values.

21.2.2: External Sources of Social Change

Social change is influenced by random as well as systematic factors, such as government, available resources, and natural environment.

Learning Objective

Discuss the factors that contribute to social change

Key Points

Social change is said to come from two sources: random or unique factors (such as climate, weather, or the presence of specific groups of people) and systematic factors (such as government, available resources, and the social organization of society).
The political-process theory emphasizes the existence of political opportunities as essential to the formation of social movements.
According to this theory, the three vital elements of movement formation are insurgent consciousness (collective sense of injustice), organizational strength (in leadership and resources), and political opportunities (the receptivity or vulnerability of the existing political system).
While this theory has been criticized for not paying enough attention to movement culture, it is also beneficial as it addresses the issue of timing for the emergence of movements.
Political opportunities refer to the receptivity or susceptibility of the existing political system to challenge and change.
Since this theory argues that all three components – insurgent consciousness, organizational strength, and political opportunities – are important for movement formation, it is able to address the issue of timing in the emergence of movements (i.e. why do movements form when they do).
An extension of this theory, known as the political mediation model, considers how the political context facing a movement intersects with the strategic choices that the movement makes.

Key Terms

resource-mobilization theory: Resource-mobilization theory places resources at the center of the emergence and success of social movements. In this case, resources include knowledge, money, media, labor, solidarity, legitimacy, and internal and external support from a powerful elite.
pluralism: A social system based on mutual respect for each other’s cultures among various groups that make up a society, wherein subordinate groups do not have to forsake their lifestyle and traditions but, rather, can express their culture and participate in the larger society free of prejudice.

Basically, social change comes from two sources. One source is random or unique factors such as climate, weather, or the presence of specific groups of people. Another source is systematic factors, such as government, available resources, and the social organization of society. On the whole, social change is usually a combination of systematic factors along with some random or unique factors.

There are many theories of social change. Generally, a theory of change should include elements such as structural aspects of change (like population shifts), processes and mechanisms of social change, and directions of change.

Political Process Theory

Political Process Theory, sometimes also known as the Political Opportunity Theory,is an approach to social movements heavily influenced by political sociology. It argues that the success or failure of social movements is primarily affected by political opportunities. Social theorists Peter Eisinger, Sidney Tarrow, David Meyer, and Doug McAdam are considered among the most prominent supporters of this theory. Political Process Theory is similar to resource mobilization theory (which considers the mobilization of resources to be the key ingredient of a successful movement) in many regards, and emphasizes political opportunities as the social structure that is important for social movement development. Political Process Theory argues that there are three vital components for movement formation: insurgent consciousness, organizational strength, and political opportunities.

“Insurgent consciousness” refers back to the notions of deprivation and grievances. In this case, the idea is that certain members of society feel like they are being mistreated or that somehow the system they are a part of is unjust . The insurgent consciousness is the collective sense of injustice that movement members (or potential movement members) feel and serves as the motivation for movement organization.

Political Process Theory

One of the advantages of the political process theory is that it addresses the issue of timing or emergence of social movements. Photo taken at the 2005 U.S. Presidential inauguration protest.

“Organizational strength” falls in line with resource-mobilization theory, arguing that in order for a social movement to organize it must have strong leadership and sufficient resources.

Finally, “political opportunity” refers to the receptivity or vulnerability of the existing political system to challenge. This vulnerability can be the result of any of the following (or a combination thereof):

growth of political pluralism
decline in effectiveness of repression
elite disunity; the leading factions are internally fragmented
a broadening of access to institutional participation in political processes
support of organized opposition by elites

One of the advantages of the political process theory is that it addresses the issue of timing of the emergence of social movements. Some groups may have the insurgent consciousness and resources to mobilize, but because political opportunities are closed, they will not have any success. The theory, argues that all three of these components are important for the successful creation of a movement.

Critics of the political process theory and resource-mobilization theory point out that neither theory discusses the culture of movements to any great degree. This has presented culture theorists an opportunity to expound on the importance of culture.

21.2.3: The Four Social Revolutions

The Four Social Revolutions refer to the identification of social change through modes of subsistence.

Learning Objective

Analyze the various social revolutions in terms of how each contributes to the development of the next stage, for example, moving from horticulturist to agrarian

Key Points

The development of a society in terms of its primary means of subsistence can be divided into the following stages: hunter-gatherer, pastoral, horticultural, agrarian, industrial, and post-industrial.
For hunter-gatherer societies, the primary means of subsistence are wild plants and animals. Hunter-gatherers are nomadic and non-hierarchical. Archeological data suggests that all humans were hunter gatherers prior to 13,000 BCE.
For pastoral societies, the primary means of subsistence are domesticated livestock. Pastoralists are nomadic. They can develop surplus food, which leads to higher population densities than hunter-gatherers, along with social hierarchies and more complicated divisions of labor.
In horticultural societies, the primary means of subsistence is the cultivation of crops using hand tools.
In agrarian societies, the primary means of subsistence is the cultivation of crops through a combination of human and non-human means, such as animals and/or machinery.
In industrial societies, the primary means of subsistence is industry, which is a system of production based on the mechanized manufacturing of goods. In post-industrial societies, the primary means of subsistence is service-oriented work, rather than agriculture or industry.
For horticultural societies, the primary means of subsistence is the cultivation of crops using hand tools.
For agrarian societies, the primary means of subsistence is the cultivation of crops through a combination of human and non-human means, such as animals and/or machinery.
In industrial societies, the primary means of subsistence is industry, which is a system of production that is based on the manufacturing of goods.
In post-industrial societies, the primary means of subsistence is based on service-oriented work, rather than agriculture or industry.
Changes in the primary means of subsistence can have implications for other aspects of society, leading to developments, such as an increasing degree of specializiation, a greater use of technology and a higher prevalence of inequality.

Key Terms

agriculture: the art or science of cultivating the ground, including the harvesting of crops, and the rearing and management of livestock; tillage; husbandry; farming
Hunter-gatherer: a member of a group of people who live by hunting animals and gathering edible plants for their main food sources, and who do not domesticate animals or farm crops
subsistence: that which furnishes support to animal life; means of support; provisions, or that which produces provisions; livelihood

The Four Social Revolutions

Most societies develop along a similar historical trajectory. Human groups begin as hunter-gatherers, after which they develop pastoralism and/or horticulturalism. After this, an agrarian society typically develops, followed finally by a period of industrialization (sometimes a service industry follows this final stage). Not all societies pass through every stage, and some societies remain at a particular stage for long periods of time, even while others become more complex. Still other societies may jump stages as a result of technological advancements from other societies .

The stages of societal development

The relationship between the stages of societal development (top row) and its implications (bottom row) are complex and interdependent.

Hunter-Gatherers

The hunter-gatherer way of life is based on the consumption of wild plants and wild animals. Consequently, hunter-gatherers are often mobile, and groups of hunter-gatherers tend to have fluid boundaries and compositions. Typically, in hunter-gatherer societies, men hunt wild animals while women gather fruits, nuts, roots, and other vegetation. Women also hunt smaller wild animals.

The majority of hunter-gatherer societies are nomadic. Because the wild resources of a particular region can be quickly depleted, it is difficult for hunter-gatherers to remain rooted in a place for long. Because of their subsistence system, these societies tend to have very low population densities.

Hunter-gatherer societies are characterized by non-hierarchical social structures, though this is not always the case. Given that hunter-gatherers tend to be nomadic, they generally cannot store surplus food. As a result, full-time leaders, bureaucrats, or artisans are almost never supported by hunter-gatherer societies. The egalitarianism in hunter-gatherer societies tends to extend to gender relations as well.

Pastoralism

In a pastoralist society, the primary means of subsistence are domesticated animals (livestock). Like hunter-gatherers, pastoralists are often nomadic, moving seasonally in search of fresh pastures and water for their animals. In a pastoralist society, there is an increased likelihood of surplus food, which, in turn, often results in greater population densities and the development of both social hierarchies and divisions of labor.

Pastoralist societies still exist. For example, in Australia, the vast, semi-arid interior of the country contains huge pastoral runs called sheep stations. These areas may be thousands of square kilometers in size. The number of livestock allowed in these areas is regulated in order to sustain the land and to ensure that livestock have enough access to food and water.

Horticulturalist Societies

In horticulturalist societies, the primary means of subsistence is the cultivation of crops using hand tools. Like pastoral societies, the cultivation of crops increases population densities and, as a result of food surpluses, allows for an even more complex division of labor. Horticulture differs from agriculture in that agriculture employs animals, machinery, or other non-human means to facilitate the cultivation of crops. Horticulture relies solely on human labor for crop cultivation. Horticultural societies were among the first to establish permanent places of residence. This was due to the fact they no longer had to search for food; rather, they cultivated their own.

Agrarian Societies

In agrarian societies, the primary means of subsistence is the cultivation of crops using a mixture of human and non-human means, like animals and machinery. In agriculture, through the cultivation of plants and the raising of domesticated animals, food, feed, fiber and other desired commodities are produced.

In comparison with the previously mentioned societal types, agriculture supports a much greater population density and allows for the accumulation of excess product. This excess product can either be sold for profit or used during winter months. Because in agricultural societies, farmers are able to feed large numbers of people whose daily activity has nothing to do with food production, a number of important developments occur. These include improved methods of food stores, labor specialization, advanced technology, hierarchical social structures, inequality, and standing armies.

Industrialization

In an industrial society, the primary means of subsistence is industry, which is a system of production based on the mechanized manufacture of goods. Like agrarian societies, industrial societies lead to even greater food surpluses, resulting in even more developed social hierarchies and an even more complex division of labor.

The industrial division of labor, one of the most notable characteristics of this societal type, in many cases leads to a restructuring of social relations. Whereas in pre-industrial societies, relationships would typically develop at one’s place of worship, or through kinship and housing, in industrial societies, relationships and friendships can occur at work.

Post-Industrial

In a post-industrial society, the primary means of subsistence is derived from service-oriented work, as opposed to agriculture or industry. Importantly, the term post-industrial is still debated, in part because it is the current state of society. Generally, in social science, it is difficult to accurately name a phenomenon while it is occurring.

Most highly developed countries are now post-industrial. This means the majority of their workforce works in service-oriented industries, like finance, healthcare, education, or sales, rather than in industry or agriculture. This is the case in the United States .

Employment in the US according to industry, 2007

Less than 2% of the US population is employed in agriculture.

21.2.4: Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft

Gemeinschaft describes groups in which the community takes precedence over the individual; gesellschaft prioritizes the individual.

Learning Objective

Examine the similarities and differences between Ferdinand Tonnies’s concepts of gemeinschaft and gesellschaft in relation to human interactions in society

Key Points

Gemeinschaft and gesellschaft, which can be generally translated as “community” and “society” respectively, are two sociological categories introduced by German sociologist Ferdinand Tönnies.
Gemeinschaft describes groups in which the members attach as much, if not more, importance to the groups itself as they do to their own needs. Gemeinschaft can be based on shared space and beliefs, as well as kinship. Gemeinschaft is characterized by ascribed status.
Gesellschaft refers to groups in which associations never take precedence over the interests of the individual.
Gesellschaft, unlike gemeinschaft, places more emphasis on secondary relationships rather than familial or community bonds, and it entails achieved, rather than ascribed, status.
A normal type is a purely conceptual tool that makes use of logic and deduction, as opposed to Max Weber’s ideal type, which is a framework used to understand reality that draws on elements from history and society.

Key Terms

community: A group sharing a common understanding and often the same language, manners, tradition and law. See civilization.
normal type: A normal type is a purely conceptual tool that makes use of logic and deduction, as opposed to Max Weber’s ideal type, which is a framework used to understand reality that draws on elements from history and society.
ideal type: An ideal type is not a particular person or thing that exists in the world, but an extreme form of a concept used by sociologists in theories. For example, although there is not a perfectly “modern” society, the term “modern” is used as an ideal type in certain theories to make large-scale points.

Gemeinschaft and gesellschaft are sociological categories for two normal types of human association introduced by the German sociologist Ferdinand Tönnies. A normal type, as coined by Tönnies, is a purely conceptual tool to be built up logically, whereas an ideal type, as coined by Max Weber, is a concept formed by accentuating main elements of a historic/social process. Tönnies’ 1887 book Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft sparked a major revival of corporatist thinking, including an increase in the support for guild socialism, and caused major changes in the field of sociology.

Gemeinschaft

Gemeinschaft (often translated as community) is a group in which individuals take into account the needs and interests of the group as much as, if not more than, their own self interest. Furthermore, individuals in gemeinschaft are regulated by common mores, or beliefs, about the appropriate behavior and responsibilities of members with respect to each other and to the group at large.

Gemeinschaft is thus marked by “unity of will. ” Tönnies saw the family as the most perfect expression of gemeinschaft; however, he expected that gemeinschaft could be based on shared place and shared belief as well as kinship, and he included globally dispersed religious communities as possible examples of gemeinschaft. Gemeinschaft involves ascribed status, which refers to cases in which an individual is assigned a particular status at birth. For example, an individual born to a farmer will come to occupy the parent’s role for the rest of his or her life.

Gemeinschaften are broadly characterized by a moderate division of labour, strong personal relationships, strong families, and relatively simple social institutions. In such communities there is seldom a need to enforce social control externally, due to a collective sense of loyalty individuals feel for society.

Gesellschaft

In contrast, gesellschaft (often translated as society, civil society or association) describes associations in which, for the individual, the larger association never takes precedence over the individual’s self interest, and these associations lack the same level of shared mores. Gesellschaft is maintained through individuals acting in their own self interest. A modern business is a good example of gesellschaft: the workers, managers, and owners may have very little in terms of shared orientations or beliefs—they may not care deeply for the product they are making—but it is in all their self interest to come to work to make money, and thus the business continues. Gesellschaft society involves achieved status where people reach their status through their education and work.

Unlike gemeinschaften, gesellschaften emphasize secondary relationships rather than familial or community ties, and there is generally less individual loyalty to society. Social cohesion in gesellschaften typically derives from a more elaborate division of labor. An example of gemeinschaft in the world today would be an Amish community. The United States would be considered a gesellschaft society. Such societies are considered more susceptible to class conflict as well as racial and ethnic conflicts. The social upheavals during the Reconstruction era of the United States complicated the sociological category of gemeinschaft because former slaves, whose kinship ties were complicated under slavery, forged new communities that shared aspects of both gemeinschaft and gesellschaft.

Talcott Parsons considered gemeinschaft to represent a community of fate, whose members share both good and bad fortune, as opposed to the pursuit of rational self-interest that characterized gesellschaft.

Eric Hobsbawm has argued that as globalisation turns the entire planet into an increasingly remote kind of gesellschaft, similarly collective identity politics seek a factitious remaking of the qualities of gemeinschaft by reforging artificial group bonds and identities.

Fredric Jameson highlights the ambivalent envy felt by members of gesellschaft for remaining enclaves of gemeinschaft, even as the former inevitably corrode the existence of the latter.

21.2.5: Capitalism, Modernization, and Industrialization

Sociologists Weber, Marx and Durkheim envisioned different impacts the Industrial Revolution would have on both the individual and society.

Learning Objective

Compare the similarities and differences between Weber’s Rationalization, Marx’s Alienation and Durkheim’s Solidarity In relation to the Industrial Revolution

Key Points

Weber imagined that an increasing rationalization of society would lead to man being trapped in a iron cage of rationality and bureaucracy.
Marx believed that capitalism resulted in the alienation of workers from their own labor and from one another, preventing them from achieving self-realization (species being).
Finally, Durkheim believed that industrialization would lead to decreasing social solidarity.
Bureaucracy is a type of organizational or institutional management that is based upon legal-rational authority. Weber believed that industrialization was leading to a growing influence of rational ideas and thought in culture, which, in turn, led to the bureaucratization of society.
Karl Marx understood species being to be the original or intrinsic essence of the species. A simplified understanding of species being is that it is a form of self-realization or self-actualization resulting from fulfilling or meaningful work.
Durkheim imagined that industrialization would lead to a decrease in social solidarity, which can be defined as a sense of community. He referred to this decrease in social solidarity as anomie, a French word for chaos.
Durkheim imagined that industrialization would lead to a decrease in social solidarity, which can be defined as a sense of community.
Durkheim referred to the decrease in social solidarity resulting from industrialization as anomie, a French word for chaos.
Industrializing societies would be characterized by specialization in that individuals would occupy different roles and occupations in a given society. According to Durkheim, specialization would lead to interdependence between the various components of society. He referred to this interdependence as organic solidarity.
Societies exhibit mechanical solidarity when the source of its cohesion is the homogeneity of its individuals in terms of their work, educational and religious training and lifestyles.

Key Terms

species being: Karl Marx understood species being to be the original or intrinsic essence of the species, which is characterized by pluralism and dynamism: all beings possess the tendency and desire to engage in multiple activities to promote their mutual survival, comfort and sense of inter-action. A simplified understanding of species being is that it is a form of self-realization or self-actualization resulting from fulfilling or meaningful work.
anomie: Alienation or social instability caused by erosion of standards and values.
alienation: Emotional isolation or dissociation.

As Western societies transitioned from pre-industrial economies based primarily on agriculture to industrialized societies in the 19^th century, some people worried about the impacts such changes would have on society and individuals. Three early sociologists, Max Weber, Karl Marx, and Emile Durkheim, envisioned different outcomes of the Industrial Revolution on both the individual and society and described these effects in their work.

Weber and Rationalization

Max Weber was particularly concerned about the rationalization of society due to the Industrial Revolution and how this change would affect humanity’s agency and happiness. Weber’s understanding of rationalization was three-fold: firstly, as individual cost-benefit calculations; secondly, as the transformation of society into a bureaucratic entity; lastly, and on a much wider scale, as the opposite of perceiving reality through the lens of mystery and magic (disenchantment). Since Weber viewed rationalization as the driving force of society and given that bureaucracy was the most rational form of institutional governance, Weber believed bureaucracy would spread until it ruled society.

As Weber did not see any alternative to bureaucracy, he believed it would ultimately lead to an iron cage : there would be no way to escape it. Weber viewed this as a bleak outcome that would affect individuals’ happiness as they would be forced to function in a society with rigid rules and norms without the possibility of change.

Related to rationalization is the process of disenchantment , in which the world is becoming more explained and less mystical, moving from polytheistic religions to monotheistic ones and finally to the Godless science of modernity. Those processes affect all of society, removing “sublime values… from public life” and making art less creative.

Marx and Alienation

Karl Marx took a different perspective on the Industrial Revolution. According to Marx, a capitalist system results in the alienation (or estrangement) of people from their “species being.” Species being is a concept that Marx deploys to refer to what he sees as the original or intrinsic essence of the species, which is characterized both by plurality and dynamism: all beings possess the tendency and desire to engage in multiple activities to promote their mutual survival, comfort and sense of inter-connection

In a capitalist society (which co-evolved with the Industrial Revolution), the proletariat, or working class, own only their labor power and not the fruits of their labor (i.e. the results of production). The capitalists, or bourgeoisie, employ the proletariat for a living wage, and, in turn, they keep the products of the labor. A major implication of this system is that workers lose the ability to determine their lives and destinies by being deprived of the right to conceive of themselves as the director of their actions, to determine the character of their actions, to define their relationship to other actors, and to use or own the value of what is produced by their actions. This is what Marx refers to as alienation.

Durkheim and Solidarity

Similar to Weber and Marx, Durkheim also believed that the societal changes brought upon by industrialzation could eventually lead to unhappiness. According to Durkheim, an important component of social life was social solidarity, which can be understood as a sense of community. For example, in his classic study, Suicide, Durkheim argued that one of the root causes of suicide was a decrease in social solidarity, a phenomenon which Durkheim referred to as anomie (French for chaos). Durkheim also argued that the increasing emphasis on individualism in Protestant religions – in contrast to Catholicism – contributed to a corresponding rise in anomie, which resulted in higher suicide rates among Protestants than among Catholics.

According to Durkheim, the types of social solidarity correlate with types of society. Durkheim introduced the terms “mechanical” and “organic solidarity” as part of his theory of the development of societies in The Division of Labour in Society (1893). In a society exhibiting mechanical solidarity, its cohesion and integration comes from the homogeneity of individuals—people feel connected through similar work, educational and religious training, and lifestyle. Mechanical solidarity normally operates in “traditional” and small scale societies. Organic solidarity comes from the interdependence that arises from specialization of work and the complementarities between people—a development which occurs in “modern” and “industrial” societies. Thus, organic solidarity is social cohesion based upon the dependence individuals have on each other in more advanced societies. Although individuals perform different tasks and often have different values and interest, the order and very solidarity of society depends on their reliance on each other to perform their specified tasks.

21.2.6: Cultural Evolution

Over time, the concept of culture has transformed into a more inclusive concept.

Learning Objective

Outline ways the concept of culture has changed over time, from evaluative to inclusive

Key Points

Although biological evolution may have originally resulted in culture, research suggests that culture is not only a supplement to evolution, but can also influence it.
Ultimately, the category of “culture” is, like all classifications, an artificial distinction.
The fact that all human beings have cultures must, at some level, be a consequence of human evolution. However, evolution cannot be used as a way of distinguishing between different cultures, as this is a form of, or can legitimize forms of, racism.
Since culture is dynamic and can be taught and learned, it can facilitate the adaptation of humans to different physical environments and changes in environmental conditions. In this way, culture acts as a supplement to evolution.
Cultural relativism posits that cultures are to be considered as bounded wholes and have to be understood in their own terms. Cultures are not better or worse than each other, just different.
Recent research suggests that culture can influence human evolution.
When studying culture, it is important to bear in mind that the notion of culture can have multiple levels of meaning, or, in other words, levels of abstraction.

Key Terms

evolution: gradual directional change, especially one leading to a more advanced or complex form; growth; development
cultural relativism: Cultural relativism is a principle that was established as axiomatic in anthropological research by Franz Boas in the first few decades of the twentieth century, and later popularized by his students. Boas first articulated the idea in 1887: “…civilization is not something absolute, but … is relative, and … our ideas and conceptions are true only so far as our civilization goes. “
symbol: Any object, typically material, which is meant to represent another (usually abstract), even if there is no meaningful relationship.

During the Romantic Era, scholars in Germany, especially those concerned with nationalism, developed a more inclusive notion of culture as a worldview. That is, each ethnic group is characterized by a distinct and incommensurable worldview. Although more inclusive, this approach to culture still allowes for distinctions between civilized and primitive, or tribal, cultures.

By the late 19^th century, anthropologists changed the concept of culture to include a wider variety of societies. This resulted in the concept of culture as objects and symbols; the meaning given to those objects and symbols; and the norms, values, and beliefs that pervade social life.

This new perspective removed the evaluative element of the concept of culture, and instead proposed distinctions rather than rankings between different cultures. For instance, the high culture of elites is now contrasted with popular or pop culture. In this sense, high culture no longer refers to the idea of being cultured, as all people are cultured. High culture simply refers to the objects, symbols, norms, values, and beliefs of a particular group of people; popular culture refers to the same.

Most social scientists today reject the cultured vs. uncultured concept of culture. Instead, social scientists accept and advocate the definition of culture outlined above as being the “nurture” component of human social life. Social scientists recognize that non-elites are as cultured as elites, and that non-Westerners are just as civilized; they simply have a different culture .

The Developing Idea of Culture

Chinese Opera is a culture tradition quite distinct from European Opera.

The understanding of culture as a symbolic system with adaptive functions that vary from place to place led anthropologists to define different cultures by distinct patterns or structures of enduring, conventional sets of meaning. These took concrete form in a variety of artifacts, both symbolic, such as myths and rituals, and material, including tools, the design of housing, and the planning of villages. Anthropologists distinguish between material culture and symbolic culture, not only because each reflects different kinds of human activity, but also because each constitutes different kinds of data that require different methodologies to study.

Cultural Relativism

This view of culture, which came to dominate anthropology between World War I and World War II, implies that each culture is bounded and has to be understood as a whole, on its own terms. The result is a belief in cultural relativism, which suggests that there are no “better” or “worse” cultures, just different cultures.

Culture as a Product of Biology

Biology and nature are deeply connected and share a complex relationship. Early studies of this relationship revealed that culture is actually a product of biology. More recent research, however, suggests that human culture has reversed this particular causal direction and, culture can actually influence human evolution. One well-known example of this is the rapid spread of a gene that produces a protein that allows humans to digest lactose. This adaptation spread quickly in Europe around 4,000 BCE with the domestication of mammals and the consumption of animal milk by humans. Prior to this adaptation, this gene was switched off after children were weaned. Thus, the change in culture (drinking milk from other mammals) eventually led to changes in human genetics. Genetics, therefore, resulted in culture, which is now affecting genetics.

Another important element in the understanding of culture is level of abstraction. Culture ranges from the concrete, cultural object (e.g., the understanding of a work of art) to micro-level interpersonal interactions (e.g., the socialization of a child by his/her parents) to a macro-level influence on entire societies (e.g., the Puritanical roots of the U.S. that can be used to justify the exportation of democracy, as was the case with the Iraq War). When trying to understand the concept of culture, it is important to remember that the concept can have multiple levels of meaning.

21.2.7: Natural Cycles

Social cycle theories argue that historical events and the different stages of society generally go through recurring cycles.

Learning Objective

Examine the change in social cycle theories throughout history, ranging from ideas of “life cycles” to political-demographic cycles

Key Points

Precursors to social cycle theories can be found in the works of Polybius, Ibn Khaldun, and Giambattista Vico, who all argued that history can be defined as repeating cycles of events..
Classical social cycle theories include the idea that civilizations have “life cycles,” as was proposed by Nikolai Danilewski and Oswald Spengler.
The first true social cycle theory was introduced by Vilfredo Pareto, who divided the elite social class into cunning foxes and violent lions and claimed that power constantly passes from one group to the other.
Classical social cycle theorist, Petrim A. Sorokin, viewed societies as moving between three cultural mentalities: ideational, sensate and idealistic.
An important development in modern social cycle theories is the discovery that political-demographic cycles are a basic feature of the long-term dynamic social processes of complex agrarian systems. Theories of long-term political-demographic cycles take into account social progress.
Thomas Malthus proposed that limited resources will act as a check on population growth among humans. A Malthusian catastrophe (also known by other names) refers to the forced return to subsistence-level conditions when population growth has outstripped agricultural production.
An important development in modern social cycle theories is the discovery that political-demographic cycles are a basic feature of the long-term dynamic social processes of complex agrarian systems. Theories of long-term political-demographic cycles take into account social progress.
Thomas Malthus proposed that limited resources will act as a check on population growth among humans. A Malthusian catastrophe (also known by other names) refers to the forced return to subsistence-level conditions when population growth has outstripped agricultural production.
P.R. Sarkar also accounts for social progress in his Law of Social Cycle by considering human spiritual development. Social stasis and the subsequent collapse of regimes occurs when the ruling class treats other members of society poorly in order to advance its own selfish interests.

Key Terms

Polybius: Polybius was a Greek historian of the Hellenistic Period noted for his work, The Histories, which covered the period of 220–146 BC in detail. The work describes in part the rise of the Roman Republic and its gradual domination over Greece.
political-demographic cycles: One of the most important recent findings in the study of the long-term dynamic social processes was the discovery of the political-demographic cycles as a basic feature of the dynamics of complex agrarian systems.
Malthusian catastrophe: A Malthusian catastrophe (also known as Malthusian check) was originally foreseen to be a forced return to subsistence-level conditions once population growth had outpaced agricultural production.

Social cycle theories are among the earliest social theories in sociology. Unlike the theory of social evolutionism, which views the evolution of society and human history as progressing in some new, unique direction(s), sociological cycle theory argues that events and stages of society and history generally repeat themselves in cycles. Such a theory does not necessarily imply that there cannot be any social progress. In fact, the early theory of Sima Qian, a Chinese historiographer of the Han Dynasty and typically considered to be the father of Chinese historiography, the more recent theories of long-term (“secular”) political-demographic cycles as well as the Varnic theory of P.R. Sarkar all make an explicit accounting of social progress.

Predecessors

The interpretation of history as repeating cycles of Dark and Golden Ages was a common belief among ancient cultures. The more limited cyclical view of history defined as repeating cycles of events was put forward in the academic world in the 19^th century in historiography (the study of the history and methodology of the discipline of history) and is a concept that falls under the category of sociology. However, the precursors to this analysis include Polybius, a Greek historian of the Hellenistic period, Ibn Khaldun, a Muslim historiographer and historian, who saw the rise and fall of Asabiyyah (the sense of community among humans) as the reason behind the emergence and decline of civilizations, and, finally, Giambattista Vico, an Italian philosopher, who argued that civilizations occur in recurring cycles consisting of three ages: the divine, the heroic and the human. The Saeculum, which refers to the period of time during which the renewal of a human population would occur, was identified in Roman times. More recently, P. R. Sarkar in his Social Cycle Theory has used this idea to elaborate his interpretation of history.

Classical Theories

Among the prominent historiosophers, Russian philosopher Nikolai Danilewski (1822–1885) is notable. In Rossiia i Europa (1869), he differentiated between various smaller civilizations (Egyptian, Chinese, Persian, Greek, Roman, German, and Slav, among others) and asserted that each civilization has a life cycle. To illustrate this claim, he pointed out that by the end of the 19^th century the Roman-German civilization was in decline, while the Slav civilization was approaching its Golden Age . A similar theory was put forward by Oswald Spengler (1880–1936) who in his Der Untergang des Abendlandes (1918) predicted that the Western civilization was about to collapse.

The first social cycle theory in sociology was created by Italian sociologist and economist Vilfredo Pareto (1848–1923) in his Trattato di Sociologia Generale (1916). He centered his theory on the concept of an elite social class, which he divided into cunning “foxes” and violent “lions. ” In his view of society, the power constantly passes from the “foxes” to the “lions” and vice versa.

Sociological cycle theory was also developed by Pitirim A. Sorokin (1889–1968) in his Social and Cultural Dynamics (1937, 1943). He classified societies according to their “cultural mentality. ” which can be ideational (reality is spiritual), sensate (reality is material), or idealistic (a synthesis of the two). He interpreted the contemporary West as a sensate civilization dedicated to technological progress and prophesied its fall into decadence and the emergence of a new ideational or idealistic era.

Modern Theories

One of the most important recent findings in the study of the long-term dynamic social processes was the discovery of the political-demographic cycles as a basic feature of the dynamics of complex agrarian systems. The presence of political-demographic cycles in the pre-modern history of Europe and China , and in chiefdom level societies worldwide has been known for quite a long time, and already in the 1980s more or less developed mathematical models of demographic cycles started to be produced.

Recently the most important contributions to the development of the mathematical models of long-term (“secular”) sociodemographic cycles have been made by Sergey Nefedov, Peter Turchin, Andrey Korotayev, and Sergey Malkov. What is important is that on the basis of their models Nefedov, Turchin and Malkov have managed to demonstrate that sociodemographic cycles were a basic feature of complex agrarian systems (and not a specifically Chinese or European phenomenon).

It has become possible to model these dynamics mathematically in a rather effective way. Modern social scientists from different fields have introduced cycle theories to predict civilizational collapses in approaches that apply contemporary methods, which update the approach of Spengler, such as the work of Joseph Tainter suggesting a civilizational life-cycle.

21.2.8: Ogburn’s Theory

William F. Ogburn’s theory suggests that technology is the primary engine of progress.

Learning Objective

Summarize the main points of Ogburn’s theory of social change, in terms of its four main stages

Key Points

Ogburn’s four stages of technical development are invention, accumulation, diffusion and adjustment.
Although his theory is associated with technological determinism, the two are far from perfectly aligned.
Technological determinism is a theory that argues technology is responsible for determining a society’s structure and values.
Cultural lag is the period during which non-material culture strives to adjust to new technology and inventions.
Cultural lag is the period during which non-material culture strives to adjust to new technology and inventions.
Ogburn’s four stages of technical development are invention, accumulation, diffusion and adjustment.
Invention is the process by which new kinds of technology are produced.
Accumulation is the growth of technology as a result of new inventions outpacing the decline of old technology.
Diffusion is the spread of new ideas from one culture to another, or from one field of activity to another, which leads to the convergence of different technologies that then combine to form new inventions.
Adjustment is the process by which non-material aspects of society adjust to new technology.

Key Terms

hard determinism: Hard determinism is the idea that technology governs social structures and activities.
soft determinism: Soft determinism posits that, although technology drives progress, people still may have the chance to make decisions regarding social outcomes.
cultural lag: The term cultural lag refers to the notion that culture takes time to catch up with technological innovations, and that social problems and conflicts are caused by this lag.

William Fielding Ogburn (June 29, 1886 – April 27, 1959) was an American sociologist, statistician, and educator. Perhaps Ogburn’s most enduring intellectual legacy is the theory of social change he offered in 1922. He suggested that technology is the primary engine of progress, but it is also tempered by social responses to it. Thus, his theory is often associated with technological determinism, a reductionist theory that presumes a society’s technology drives the development of its social structure and cultural values.

Hard Determinism versus Soft Determinism

Hard determinists view technology as developing independent from social concerns. They believe that technology creates a set of powerful forces acting to regulate our social activity and its meaning.

Soft determinism, as the name suggests, is a more passive view of the way technology interacts with socio-political situations. Soft determinists still subscribe to the fact that technology is the guiding force in our evolution, but maintain that we have a chance to make decisions regarding the outcomes of a situation. Ogburn, in fact, proposed a slightly different variant of soft determinism, in which society must adjust to the consequences of major inventions, but often does so only after a period of cultural lag. Cultural lag, a term coined by Ogburn, refers to a period of maladjustment, which occurs when the non-material culture is struggling to adapt to new material conditions.

Stages of Technological Development

Ogburn posited four stages of technical development: invention, accumulation, diffusion, and adjustment.

Invention is the process by which new forms of technology are created. Inventions are collective contributions to an existing cultural base that cannot occur unless the society has already gained a certain level of knowledge and expertise in the particular area.

Accumulation is the growth of technology due to the fact that the invention of new things outpaces the process by which old inventions become obsolete or are forgotten—some inventions (such as writing) promote this accumulation process.

Diffusion is the spread of an idea from one cultural group to another, or from one field of activity to another. As diffusion brings inventions together, they combine to form new inventions.

Adjustment is the process by which the non-technical aspects of a culture respond to invention. Any retardation of this adjustment process causes cultural lag.

Expansion of Communications and Information Technology

Ogburn posited four stages of technical development: invention, accumulation, diffusion, and adjustment.

21.3: Social Movements

21.3.1: Social Movements

Social movements are broad alliances of people connected through a shared interest in either stopping or instigating social change.

Learning Objective

Discover the difference between social movements and social movement organizations, as well as the four areas social movements operate within

Key Points

There are both a number of different kinds of social movements, as well as various stages that a social movement can undergo in the course of its development.
Several theories have been proposed to explain the creation of social movements. Each of these theories highlights a different aspect of society (e.g. deprivation, marginalization, culture, etc. ) as being key to the formation of these movements.
Social movements are distinct from social movement organizations (SMOs). An SMO is a formally organized component of a social movement, and as such it may represent only one facet of an entire movement.
According to Anthony Giddens, the four domains of modern society in which social movements are active include the political sphere, the workplace, the environment, and the issue of peace.
Social movements often give rise to counter movements aimed at stopping whatever change the initial social movement is advocating.

Key Terms

social change: an alteration in the structures, institutions and/or practices of a society
social movements: Social movements are a type of group action. They are large informal groupings of individuals or organizations that focus on specific political or social issues. In other words, they carry out, resist or undo a social change.
counter movements: Counter-hegemony refers to attempts to critique or dismantle hegemonic power. In other words, it is a confrontation and/or opposition to the existing status quo and the legitimacy of that status quo in politics. This can also be observed in various other spheres of life, such as history, media, music, etc.
social movement organizations: A social movement organization is an organized component of a social movement. Social movement organizations usually have coordinating roles in social movements, but do not actually employ or direct most of the participants, who are part of a wider social movement community.

Social movements are broad alliances of people who are connected through their shared interest in social change. Social movements can advocate for a particular social change, but they can also organize to oppose a social change that is being advocated by another entity. These movements do not have to be formally organized to be considered social movements. Different alliances can work separately for common causes and still be considered a social movement.

Sociologists draw distinctions between social movements and social movement organizations (SMOs). A social movement organization is a formally organized component of a social movement. Therefore, it may represent only one part of a particular social movement. For instance, PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) advocates for vegan lifestyles along with its other aims. However, PETA is not the only group that advocates for vegan diets and lifestyles; there are numerous other groups actively engaged toward this end. Thus, promoting veganism would be considered the social movement, while PETA would be considered a particular SMO (social movement organization) working within the broader social movement.

Modern social movements became possible through the wide dissemination of literature and the increased mobility of labor, both of which have been caused by the industrialization of societies. Anthony Giddens, a renowned sociologist, has identified four areas in which social movements operate in modern societies:

democratic movements that work for political rights
labor movements that work for control of the workplace
ecological movements that are concerned with the environment
peace movements that work toward peace

It is interesting to note that social movements can spawn counter movements. For instance, the women’s movement of the 1960s and 1970s resulted in a number of counter movements that attempted to block the goals of the women’s movement. In large part, these oppositional groups formed because the women’s movement advocated for reform in conservative religions.

21.3.2: Types of Social Movements

Social movements occur when large groups of individuals or organizations work for or against change in social and/or political matters.

Learning Objective

Discuss the criteria that form the basis of classification of social movements

Key Points

Cultural Anthropologist David F. Aberle identified four kinds of social movements (alternative, redemptive, reformative, and revolutionary) based on two questions: 1) Who is the movement attempting to change? and 2) How much change is being advocated?.
Alternative social movements are at the individual level and advocate for minor change; redemptive social movements are at the individual level and advocate for radical changes.
Reformative social movements occur at a broader group or societal level and advocate for minor changes; revolutionary social movements occur at a broader group or societal level and advocate for radical changes.
Other ways to categorize social movements include the scope (reform or radical), type of change (innovative or conservative), targets (group-focused or individual-focused), methods (violent or non-violent), and range (local or global).
Revolutionary social movements occur at a broader group or societal level and advocate for radical changes.
Other ways to categorize social movements include classifying by scope, type of change, targets, methods, and range.

Key Terms

reformative social movements: A reformative social movement advocates for minor changes instead of radical changes. For example revolutionary movements can scale down their demands and agree to share powers with others, becoming a political party.
revolutionary social movements: Revolutionary movement is a specific type of social movement dedicated to carrying out revolutionary reforms and gain some control of the state. If they do not aim for an exclusive control, they are not revolutionary.
redemptive social movements: A redemptive social movement is radical in scope but focused on the individual.

Social movements are a specific type of group action in which large informal groups of individuals or organizations work for or against change in specific political or social issues.

Cultural Anthropologist David F. Aberle described four types of social movements based upon two fundamental questions: (1) who is the movement attempting to change? (2) how much change is being advocated? Social movements can be aimed at change on an individual level, e.g. Alcoholics Anonymous, which is a support group for recovering alcoholics or change on a broader group or even societal level, e.g. anti-globalization). Social movements can also advocate for minor changes such as tougher restrictions on drunk driving (see MADD) or radical changes like prohibition. The diagram below illustrates how a social movement may either be alternative, redemptive, reformative or revolutionary based on who the movement strives to change and how much change the movement desires to bring about .

Aberle’s Four Types of Social Movements

Based on who a movement is trying to change and how much change a movement is advocating, Aberle identified four types of social movements: redemptive, reformative, revolutionary and alternative.

Other categories have been used to distinguish between types of social movements.

Scope: A movement can be either reform or radical. A reform movement advocates changing some norms or laws while a radical movement is dedicated to changing value systems in some fundamental way. A reform movement might be a trade union seeking to increase workers’ rights while the American Civil Rights movement was a radical movement.
Type of Change: A movement might seek change that is either innovative or conservative. An innovative movement wants to introduce or change norms and values while a conservative movement seeks to preserve existing norms and values.
Targets: Group-focused movements focus on influencing groups or society in general; for example, attempting to change the political system from a monarchy to a democracy. An individual-focused movement seeks to affect individuals.
Methods of Work: Peaceful movements utilize techniques such as nonviolent resistance and civil disobedience. Violent movements resort to violence when seeking social change.
Range: Global movements, such as Communism in the early 20^th century, have transnational objectives. Local movements are focused on local or regional objectives such as preserving an historic building or protecting a natural habitat.

21.3.3: Propaganda and the Mass Media

Mass media can be employed to manipulate populations to further the power elite’s agenda.

Learning Objective

Evaluate the impact of mass media as propaganda, particularly in terms of the “power elite”

Key Points

The propaganda model explains how mass media can be employed to manipulate populations in the interest of ulterior motives.
The propaganda model posits that the way in which news is structured (e.g. through advertising, concentration of media ownership, government sourcing) creates an inherent conflict of interest which acts as propaganda for undemocratic forces.
The “power elite” include leaders of the military, corporate, and political elements of society; they are generally the ones who control and therefore benefit from mass media used as propaganda.

Key Term

propaganda: Propaganda is a form of biased communication, aimed at promoting or demoting certain views, perceptions or agendas.

The propaganda model is a conceptual model in political economy advanced by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky to explain how propaganda and systemic biases function in mass media. The model seeks to explain how populations are manipulated and how consent for economic, social and political policies is “manufactured” in the public mind due to this propaganda.

The theory posits that the way in which news is structured (e.g. through advertising, concentration of media ownership, government sourcing) creates an inherent conflict of interest which acts as propaganda for undemocratic forces.

An example that Herman and Chomsky identified was “anti-communism” during the Cold War. Such anti-ideologies exploit public fear and hatred of groups that pose a potential threat, either real, exaggerated or imagined. Communism once posed the primary threat, and communism and socialism were portrayed by their detractors as endangering freedoms of speech, movement, the press and so forth. They argue that such a portrayal was often used as a means to silence voices critical of elite interests.

Propaganda

An example of Anti-Japanese propaganda, depicting a racist caricature of a Japanese soldier saying “go ahead, please—TAKE DAY OFF!”

The Power Elite is a 1956 book by sociologist C. Wright Mills, in which Mills calls attention to the interwoven interests of the leaders of the military, corporate, and political elements of society and suggests that the ordinary citizen is a relatively powerless subject of manipulation by those entities.

According to Mills, the eponymous “power elite” are those that occupy the dominant positions, in the dominant institutions (military, economic and political) of a dominant country, and their decisions (or lack of decisions) have enormous consequences, not only for the U.S. population but, “the underlying populations of the world.”

These two models—the propaganda and the “power elite” conceptualization—evidence how mass media can be used to reinforce the powerful’s positions of power and interests. For example:

During the Gulf War (1990), the media’s failure to report on Saddam Hussein’s peace offers guided the public to look more favorably on the U.S. government’s actions.
During the Iraq invasion (2003), the media’s failure to report on the legality of the war, despite overwhelming public opinion in favor of only invading Iraq with UN authorization, minimized public awareness and outcry over that illegality. According to the liberal watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting, there was a disproportionate focus on pro-war sources while total anti-war sources only made up 10% of the media (with only 3% of US sources being anti-war).
With regard to global warming, the media (in the interest of those who make a tremendous amount of money from fossil fuels) gives near equal balance to people who deny climate change, despite only “about one percent” of climate scientists taking this view. This allows the “debate” to continue, when in reality there is firm scientific consensus, in turn allowing those corporations to continue profiting off human behavior that in reality harms the environment.

21.3.4: The Stages of Social Movements

Social movements typically follow a process by which they emerge, coalesce, and bureaucratize, leading to their success or failure.

Learning Objective

Discuss the process and purpose of social movements, defined by Blumer, Mauss and Tilly

Key Points

Social movements are a major vehicle for ordinary people’s participation in public politics.
Social movements have a life cycle: they are created, they grow, they achieve successes or failures and eventually, they dissolve and cease to exist.
Blumer, Mauss, and Tilly described how social movements follow a process by which they emerge, coalesce, and bureaucratize, leading to their success or failure.
After bureaucratization occurs, a movement can either succeed, fail, have its leaders become co-opted, have its members be repressed by a larger group (e.g. government), or become accepted into the mainstream.
While a social movement can take a number of different paths, whether or not a movement will ultimately decline varies from movement to movement. Moreover, movement success can often be difficult to define as the goals of a movement may change.

Key Terms

Charles Tilly: (1929 – 2008) An American sociologist, political scientist and historian who wrote about the relationship between politics and society.
Sidney Tarrow: (1938-present) a professor of political science and sociology, known for his research in the areas of comparative politics, social movements, political parties, collective actions and political sociology.
cooptation: A co-opting, or a commandeering, appropriation.

Charles Tilly defines social movements as a series of contentious performances, displays and campaigns by which ordinary people make collective claims on others. For Tilly, social movements are a major vehicle for ordinary people’s participation in public politics. Sidney Tarrow defines a social movement as collective challenges [to elites, authorities, other groups or cultural codes] by people with common purposes and solidarity in sustained interactions with elites, opponents and authorities. He specifically distinguishes social movements from political parties and advocacy groups. The term “social movements” was introduced in 1848 by the German Sociologist Lorenz von Stein in his book Socialist and Communist Movements since the Third French Revolution (1848).

Social movements are not eternal. They have a life cycle: they are created, they grow, they achieve successes or failures and, eventually, they dissolve and cease to exist.

Blumer, Mauss, and Tilly have described the different stages that social movements often pass through (see ). Firstly, movements emerge for a variety of reasons (and there are a number of different sociological theories that address these reasons). They then coalesce and develop a sense of coherence in terms of membership, goals and ideals. In the next stage, movements generally become bureaucratized by establishing their own set of rules and procedures. At this point, social movements can then take any number of paths, ranging from success to failure, the cooptation of leaders, repression by larger groups (e.g., government), or even the establishment of a movement within the mainstream.

Stages of Social Movements

This graph depicts the various stages a social movement can undergo in the course of its development.

Frame analysis, and specifically frame transformation, helps explain why social movements occur in a certain way. The concept dates back to Erving Goffman, and it discuss how new values, new meanings and understandings are required in order to understand and support social movements or changes. In other words, people must transform the way they understand a particular social movement to make it fit with conventional lifestyles and rituals.

Whether or not these paths will result in movement decline varies from movement to movement. In fact, one of the difficulties in studying social movements is that movement success is often ill-defined because the goals of a movement can change. For instance, MoveOn.org, a website founded in the late 1990s, was originally developed to encourage national politicians to move past the Clinton impeachment proceedings. Since that time, the group has developed into a major player in national politics in the U.S. and transformed into a Political Action Committee (PAC). In this instance, the movement may or may not have attained its original goal—encouraging the censure of Clinton and moving on to more pressing issues—but the goals of the movement have changed. This makes the actual stages the movement has passed through difficult to discern.

21.3.5: Relative Deprivation Approach

Social scientists have cited ‘relative deprivation’ as a potential cause of social movements and deviance.

Learning Objective

Discuss the concepts of relative and absolute deprivation as they relate to social movements

Key Points

Relative deprivation is the experience of being deprived of something to which one believes to be entitled. It refers to the discontent people feel when they compare their positions to others and realize that they have less of what they believe themselves to be entitled than those around them.
Some scholars of social movements explain their rise by citing grievances of people who feel deprived of what they perceive as values to which they are entitled. Similarly, individuals engage in deviant behaviors when their means do not match their goals.
Feelings of deprivation are relative, as they come from a comparison to social norms that are not absolute and usually differ from time and place.
Critics of this theory have pointed out that this theory fails to explain why some people who feel discontent fail to take action and join social movements.

Key Terms

deprivation: The act of depriving, dispossessing, or bereaving; the act of deposing or divesting of some dignity.
relative: Connected to or depending on something else; not absolute; comparative.

Example

In 1905 cars were a luxury, hence an individual unable to afford one would not feel or be viewed as deprived. In 2010, when cars are common in most societies, an individual unable to afford one is much more likely to feel deprived.

Relative deprivation is the experience of being deprived of something to which one feels to be entitled. It refers to the discontent that people feel when they compare their positions to those around them and realize that they have less of that which they believe themselves to be entitled. Social scientists, particularly political scientists and sociologists, have cited ‘relative deprivation’ (especially temporal relative deprivation) as a potential cause of social movements and deviance. In extreme situations, it can lead to political violence such as rioting, terrorism, civil wars and other instances of social deviance such as crime.

Some scholars explain the rise of social movements by citing the grievances of people who feel that they have been deprived of values to which they are entitled. Similarly, individuals engage in deviant behaviors when their means do not match their goals.

Feelings of deprivation are relative, as they come from a comparison to social norms that are not absolute and usually differ from time and place. This differentiates relative deprivation from objective deprivation (also known as absolute deprivation or absolute poverty), a condition that applies to all underprivileged people. This leads to an important conclusion: while the objective deprivation (poverty) in the world may change over time, relative deprivation will not, as long as social inequality persists and some humans are better off than others. Relative deprivation may be temporal; that is, it can be experienced by people that experience expansion of rights or wealth, followed by stagnation or reversal of those gains. Such phenomena are also known as unfulfilled rising expectations.

Some sociologists—for instance, Karl Polanyi—have argued that relative differences in economic wealth are more important than absolute deprivation, and that this is a more significant determinate of human quality of life. This debate has important consequences for social policy, particularly on whether poverty can be eliminated simply by raising total wealth or whether egalitarian measures are also needed. A specific form of relative deprivation is relative poverty. A measure of relative poverty defines poverty as being below some relative poverty line, such as households who earn less than 20% of the median income. Notice that if everyone’s real income in an economy increases, but the income distribution stays the same, the number of people living in relative poverty will not change.

Critics of this theory have pointed out that this theory fails to explain why some people who feel discontent fail to take action and join social movements. Counter-arguments include that some people are prone to conflict-avoidance, are short-term-oriented, or that imminent life difficulties may arise since there is no guarantee that life-improvement will result from social action.

Cars as luxury

In 1905 cars were a luxury, hence an individual unable to afford one would not feel or be viewed as deprived.

21.3.6: Resource Mobilization Approach

The resource-mobilization approach is a theory that seeks to explain the emergence of social movements.

Learning Objective

Use the resource-mobilization theory to explain some of the successful social movements in history, such as the Civil Rights Movement

Key Points

The resource-mobilization theory asserts that social movements form when people who share grievances are able to mobilize resources and take action.
This theory places resources at the center of both the emergence and success of social movements.
In this case, resources include knowledge, money, media, labor, solidarity, legitimacy, and internal and external support from a powerful elite.
The centrality of resources to the success of social movements explains why some discontented people are able to form movements while others are not.
This theory has a number of underlying assumptions regarding movement membership, movement organization and broader societal factors that influence movement formation and development.
This theory has been criticized for placing too much emphasis on resources, particularly financial resources, as the success of some movements depends more on the time and labor of members rather than on money.

Key Terms

opportunity structures: Exogenous factors which limit or empower collective actors (social movements).
grievance: A complaint or annoyance; also a formal complaint.
resource: Something that one uses to achieve an objective, e.g. raw materials or personnel.

Resource-Mobilization Theory emphasizes the importance of resources in social movement development and success. Resources are understood here to include: knowledge, money, media, labor, solidarity, legitimacy, and internal and external support from a power elite. The theory argues that social movements develop when individuals with grievances are able to mobilize sufficient resources to take action. The emphasis on resources explains why some discontented/deprived individuals are able to organize while others are not. Resource mobilization theory also divides social movements according to their position among other social movements. This helps sociologists understand them in relation to other social movements; for example, how much influence does one theory or movement have on another?

Some of the assumptions of the theory include:

there will always be grounds for protest in modern, politically pluralistic societies because there is constant discontent (i.e., grievances or deprivation); this de-emphasizes the importance of these factors as it makes them ubiquitous
actors are rational and they are able to weigh the costs and benefits from movement participation
members are recruited through networks; commitment is maintained by building a collective identity and continuing to nurture interpersonal relationships
movement organization is contingent upon the aggregation of resources
social movement organizations require resources and continuity of leadership
social movement entrepreneurs and protest organizations are the catalysts which transform collective discontent into social movements; social movement organizations form the backbone of social movements
the form of the resources shapes the activities of the movement (e.g., access to a TV station will result in the extensive use TV media)
movements develop in contingent opportunity structures, which are external factors that may either limit or bolster the movement, that influence their efforts to mobilize. Examples of opportunity structures may include elements, such as the influence of the state, a movement’s access to political institutions, etc. As each movement’s response to the opportunity structures depends on the movement’s organization and resources, there is no clear pattern of movement development nor are specific movement techniques or methods universal.

Critics of this theory argue that there is too much of an emphasis on resources, especially financial resources. Some movements are effective without an influx of money and are more dependent upon the movement of members for time and labor (e.g., the civil rights movement in the US).

Aberle’s Four Types of Social Movements

Resource-Mobilization Theory emphasizes the importance of resources in social movement development and success.

21.3.7: Gender and Social Movements

The feminist movement refers to a series of campaigns on issues pertaining to women, such as reproductive rights and women’s suffrage.

Learning Objective

Illustrate how the various waves of the feminist movement helped advance women in terms of social status and equality

Key Points

The feminist movement is divided into three distinct waves, beginning in the nineteenth century and continuing through the late twentieth century.
First-wave feminism is a period of feminist activity during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in the UK, USA, Canada, and the Netherlands that focused primarily on women’s suffrage.
Second-wave feminism is a period of feminist activity from the early 1960s through the later 1980s during which time women tied cultural inequalities with political inequalities as a part of their cause.
Beginning in the early 1990s, third-wave feminism was largely a response to the perceived failures of the second wave feminism.
The formation of the United Nations and the work it has done regarding advancing women’s rights in a variety of contexts and places has added a global dimension to the feminist cause.

Key Terms

feminism: a social theory or political movement arguing that legal and social restrictions on females must be removed in order to bring about equality of both sexes in all aspects of public and private life
First Wave Feminism: First-wave feminism refers to a period of feminist activity during the 19th and early twentieth century in the United Kingdom, Canada, the Netherlands and the United States. It focused on de jure (officially mandated) inequalities, primarily on gaining women’s suffrage (the right to vote).
Second-Wave Feminism: Second-wave feminism is a period of feminist activity. In the United States it began during the early 1960s and lasted through the late 1990s. It was a worldwide movement that was strong in Europe and parts of Asia, such as Turkey and Israel, where it began in the 1980s, and it began at other times in other countries.
third-wave feminism: Third-wave feminism is a term identified with several diverse strains of feminist activity and study, whose exact boundaries in the historiography of feminism are a subject of debate, but are often marked as beginning in the 1980s and continuing to the present. The movement arose as a response to the perceived failures of and backlash against initiatives and movements created by Second-Wave feminism during the 1960s to 1980s, and the realization that women are of “many colors, ethnicities, nationalities, religions and cultural backgrounds. “

The feminist movement refers to a series of campaigns for reforms on issues such as reproductive rights, domestic violence, maternity leave, equal pay, women’s suffrage, sexual harassment and sexual violence. The movement’s priorities vary among nations and communities and range from opposition to female genital mutilation in one country or to the glass ceiling (the barrier that prevents minorities and women from advancing in corporate hierarchies) in another.

First-wave feminism refers to a period of feminist activity during the 19^th and early twentieth century in the United Kingdom, Canada, the Netherlands and the United States. It focused on de jure (officially mandated) inequalities, primarily on gaining women’s suffrage (the right to vote).

Second-wave feminism refers to a period of feminist activity beginning in the early 1960s and through the late 1980s. Second Wave Feminism has existed continuously since then, and continues to coexist with what some people call Third Wave Feminism. Second wave feminism saw cultural and political inequalities as inextricably linked. The movement encouraged women to understand aspects of their personal lives as deeply politicized, and reflective of a sexist structure of power. If first-wavers focused on absolute rights such as suffrage, second-wavers were largely concerned with other issues of equality, such as the end to discrimination.

Finally, the third-wave of feminism began in the early 1990s. The movement arose as responses to what young women thought of as perceived failures of the second-wave. It was also a response to the backlash against initiatives and movements created by the second-wave. Third-wave feminism seeks to challenge or avoid what it deems the second wave’s “essentialist ” definitions of femininity , which (according to them) over-emphasized the experiences of upper middle class white women. A post-structuralist interpretation of gender and sexuality is central to much of the third wave’s ideology. Third wave feminists often focus on “micropolitics,” and challenged the second wave’s paradigm as to what is, or is not, good for females.

Global Feminism

Immediately after WWII, a new global dimension was added to the feminist cause through the formation of the United Nations (UN). In 1946 the UN established a Commission on the Status of Women. In 1948 the UN issued its Universal Declaration of Human Rights which protects “the equal rights of men and women”, and addressed both equality and equity issues. Since 1975 the UN has held a series of world conferences on women’s issues, starting with the World Conference of the International Women’s Year in Mexico City, heralding the United Nations Decade for Women (1975–1985). These have brought women together from all over the world and provided considerable opportunities for advancing women’s rights, but also illustrated the deep divisions in attempting to apply principles universally, in successive conferences in Copenhagen (1980) and Nairobi (1985). However by 1985 some convergence was appearing. These divisions among feminists included: First World vs. Third World; the relationship between gender oppression and oppression based on class, race and nationality; defining core common elements of feminism vs. specific political elements; defining feminism, homosexuality, female circumcision, birth and population control; the gulf between researchers and the grass roots; and the extent to which political issues were women’s issues. Emerging from Nairobi was a realization that feminism is not monolithic but “constitutes the political expression of the concerns and interests of women from different regions, classes, nationalities, and ethnic backgrounds. There is and must be a diversity of feminisms, responsive to the different needs and concerns of women, and defined by them for themselves. This diversity builds on a common opposition to gender oppression and hierarchy which, however, is only the first step in articulating and acting upon a political agenda. ” The fourth conference was held in Beijing in 1995. At this conference a the Beijing Platform for Action was signed. This included a commitment to achieve ” gender equality and the empowerment of women”. The most important strategy to achieve this was considered to be “gender mainstreaming ” which incorporates both equity and equality, that is that both women and men should “experience equal conditions for realizing their full human rights, and have the opportunity to contribute and benefit from national, political, economic, social and cultural development. “

International Women’s Day Rally

International Women’s Day rally in Dhaka, Bangladesh, organized by the National Women Workers Trade Union Centre on 8 March 2005.

21.3.8: New Social Movements

New social movements focus on issues related to human rights, rather than on materialistic concerns, such as economic development.

Learning Objective

Evaluate the significance of new social movements (NSMs), which are more concerned with social and cultural issues, and the implications NSMs have on modern-day society

Key Points

New social movements (NSMs) are described by a theory regarding social movements which posits that the advent of the post-industrial economy resulted in a new wave of social movements distinct from those social movements arising during the industrial economy.
In these new social movements, more importance is attached to social and cultural concerns, rather than economic or political considerations.
Actors in NSMs are from a new middle class, instead of from the lower classes, as was typical of social movements of the industrial economy.
NSMs consist of informal, loosely organized social networks of supporters rather than members and tend to be locally-based.
NSMs act as a platform for collective action in civil society or in the cultural domain, rather than as an instrumental tool for the state. As such, new movements are often considered to be anti-authoritarian.
NSMs are normally centered on a single issue, or a limited range of issues which are related to a broader theme, such as the environment.
Critiques of NSM theory include the fact that non-materialistic movements existed in the industrial-era and materialistic movements persist in the post-industrial economy; while there are few traits that are specific to new social movements, differences between old and new movements have already been explained by theories preceding NSM; and the NSM does not take into account right-wing movements.

Key Terms

new middle class: The American middle class, at least those living the lifestyle, has become known around the world for conspicuous consumption. To this day, the professional middle class in the United States holds the world record for having the largest homes, most appliances, and most automobiles.
materialistic: Being overly concerned with material possessions and wealth.
human rights: The basic rights and freedoms that all humans should be guaranteed, such as the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law.

New Social Movements

The term new social movements (NSMs) is a theory of social movements that attempts to explain the plethora of new movements that have come up in various western societies roughly since the mid-1960s (i.e. in a post-industrial economy), which are claimed to depart significantly from the conventional social movement paradigm .

Aberle’s Four Types of Social Movements

There are two central claims of the NSM theory. Firstly, the rise of the post-industrial economy is responsible for a new wave of social movement. Secondly, these movements are significantly different from previous social movements of the industrial economy. The primary difference is in their goals, as the new movements focus not on issues of materialistic qualities such as economic well-being, but on issues related to human rights (such as gay rights or pacifism).

Characteristics

The most noticeable feature of new social movements is that they are primarily social and cultural and only secondarily, if at all, political. Departing from the worker’s movement, which was central to the political aim of gaining access to citizenship and representation for the working class, new social movements concentrate on bringing about social mobilization through cultural innovations, the development of new lifestyles, and the transformation of identities. It is clearly elaborated by Habermas that new social movements are the “new politics” which is about quality of life, individual self-realization, and human rights; whereas the “old politics” focused on economic, political, and military security. The concept of new politics can be exemplified in gay liberation, the focus of which transcends the political issue of gay rights to address the need for a social and cultural acceptance of homosexuality. Hence, new social movements are understood as “new,” because they are first and foremost social, unlike older movements which mostly have an economic basis.

New social movements also emphasize the role of post-material values in contemporary and post-industrial society, as opposed to conflicts over material resources. According to Melucci, one of the leading new social movement theorists, these movements arise not from relations of production and distribution of resources, but within the sphere of reproduction and the life world. Consequently, the concern has shifted from the production of economic resources as a means of survival or for reproduction to cultural production of social relations, symbols, and identities. In other words, the contemporary social movements reject the materialistic orientation of consumerism in capitalist societies by questioning the modern idea that links the pursuit of happiness and success closely to growth, progress, and increased productivity and by instead promoting alternative values and understandings in relation to the social world. As an example, the environmental movement that has appeared since the late 1960s throughout the world, with its strong points in the United States and Northern Europe, has significantly brought about a “dramatic reversal” in the ways we consider the relationship between economy, society, and nature.

Further, new social movements are located in civil society or the cultural sphere as a major arena for collective action rather than instrumental action in the state, which Claus Offe characterizes as “bypass[ing] the state. ” Moreover, since new social movements are not normally concerned with directly challenging the state, they are regarded as anti-authoritarian and as resisting incorporation at the institutional level. They tend to focus on a single issue, or a limited range of issues connected to a single broad theme, such as peace or the environment. New social movements concentrate on the grassroots level with the aim to represent the interests of marginal or excluded groups. Therefore, new collective actions are locally based, centered on small social groups and loosely held together by personal or informational networks such as radios, newspapers, and posters. This “local- and issue-centered” characteristic implies that new movements do not necessarily require a strong ideology or agreement to meet their objectives.

Additionally, if old social movements, namely the worker’s movement, presupposed a working class base and ideology, the new social movements are presumed to draw from a different social class base, i.e., “the new class. ” This is a complex contemporary class structure that Claus Offe identifies as “threefold” in its composition: the new middle class, elements of the old middle class, and peripheral groups outside the labor market. As stated by Offe, the new middle class has evolved in association with the old one in the new social movements because of its high levels of education and its access to information and resources. The groups of people that are marginal in the labor market, such as students, housewives, and the unemployed participate in the collective actions as a consequence of their higher levels of free time, their position of being at the receiving end of bureaucratic control, and their inability to be fully engaged in society specifically in terms of employment and consumption.