Alberto Melucci the New Social Movements- a Theoretical Approach

Theory

and methods

Theorie et methodes

Alberto Melucci

The new social movements: A theoretical approach

1. The theoretical

impasse

The theoretical debate about social movements has grown steadily since the 1960s in response to the development of new forms of collective action in advanced capitalist societies, and to the advent of explosive social conflicts in the societies dependent on them. The difficulties confronting theorists in this area are evident from the impasse experienced by two theoretical traditions which, in their different ways, have dealt with the subject of social movements: Marxism and functionalist sociology. The primary concern of classical Marxist analysis has been to define the preconditions of revolution by examining the structural contradictions of the capitalist system. Centering its investigation on the logic of the system, it has underestimated the processes by which collective action ermerges, as well as the internal articulation of social movements (mobilization, organization, leadership, ideology) and the forms through which revolt passes in becoming a class movement. According to this view, the party, as a centralized organization emerges, as well as the internal articulation of social expression of collective action, and the conquest of the apparatus of the state remains the first objective of this action. Every form of action which can not be reduced to the model of the party is thereby diminished in value or considered to be marginal. If the party becomes the state, the new power is by definition the faithful interpretor of collective conflicts and demands. The creation of a

-2 199

200

totalitarian order and the emergence of Stalinism are, it is maintained, not the necessary consequences of Leninism, but certainly the outgrowth of its presuppositions. Marxist reflection is beginning to become aware of these limitations and to reexamine the theoretical foundations from which they arise. The debate which

developed in the 1970s within Marxism has shown that the major source of difficulty on the theoretical level is the separation of analysis of the system from analysis of the actors. As an analysis of the mode of capitalist production, Marxism defines the conditions under which the system enters a state of crisis. As a theory of revolution, it lacks the analytic instruments required for defining the actors and political forms of socio-economic transformation. In order to extricate itself from this theoretical impasse, the Marxist tradition must, therefore, move from a structural analysis of class relations and of the logic of the capitalist system towards a definition, first, of class action, and, then, of political action. Reflection on social movements is a crucial theoretical issue that be avoided. American sociology, for its part, has tackled the subject of social movements from the point of view of collective behaviour, i.e. of the whole spectrum of types of behaviour ranging from the panic to changes in fashion, from crowd behaviour to the revolution. Much empirical research on the various ways in which people conduct themselves in groups has gone into the development and support of theories of this kind. Studies of collective behaviour thus constitute an obligatory point of reference; but, at the same time, they display the limitations of an approach which finds the key to the explanation of behaviour in the beliefs of the actors and which, above all, places on the same level phenomena whose structural significance varies immensely, for example, a panic and a revolution. The difference between them, according to these theories, lies solely in the magnitude of the beliefs which mobilize the respective actions. Collective action, therefore, is always considered to be the result of a strain which disturbs the equilibrium of the social system. It is this strain which gives rise to the generalized beliefs which are the source of the different types of collective behaviour and whose goal is the restoration of equilibrium. In the analysis of the theorists of collective behaviour, no reference is made to class relations or to the mode of the production and appropriation of resources. The whole inquiry turns on adaptive reactions in the mechanisms which ensure the smooth functioning of the system. can not

r

201 In advanced capitalist societies, social movements have challenged the optimistic models which foresaw a gradual modernization taking place without rupture in the existing political and social systems. In explaining social movements, however, we can no longer be satisfied with analyses which are confined either to the logic of capitalist development or to dysfunctions in the system’s integrative mechanisms. The current debate reveals the necessity of a sociology of collective action which is capable of linking actors and system, class relations and incidents of conflict. The theoretical question raised by the analysis of the social movements found in advanced capitalist societies is that of determining if we are now confronted with a new series of class conflicts. Beyond the interest one might take in the novelty of the forms and aims of the collective action under discussion, the central problem of a sociology of social movements remains the definition of the conditions under which a class movement can appear. In the present essay I shall not attempt to provide a satisfactory answer to this general question. Instead, I shall try to advance a few steps in the study of these problems by combining theoretical reflection with some empirical observations on the new social movements. . t’ , .

=, ..

,

,

.~

,

,

_

.

,

.

, ,

,

_

,

,

.

,

&dquo;

2. An analytic definition

’ ’

... , . , ,

In order to leave the rather barren and undifferentiated field of collective behaviour, it is necessary, at the start, to distinguish different types of behaviour. There are some kinds that I do not consider as belonging, properly speaking, to the field of collective action and of social movements. These may be termed examples of crisis behaviour or (as others call it) of aggregative behaviour (Alberoni, 1977). What we have in mind here are those ways of behaving in groups which (a) do not involve solidarity among the actors; (b) in which the phenomenon can be decomposed down to the limit of the individual without losing its distinguishing characteristics and properties; and (c) in which, finally, the behaviour is oriented exclusively toward the exterior and does not refer to the group itself. Collective phenomena of this kind are the response to the breakdown of the social system in a given area and result from the simple aggregation of atomized individuals, facilitated by the diffusion of a generalized belief, in the sense in

202

which Smelser defines this concept (Smelser, 1963). The types of empirical behaviour that may most easily be classed in this category are those that the sociology of collective behaviour has analyzed with the closest attention, that is to say, crowd behaviour, the panic, etc. Yet, what are involved here are empirical objects whose analytic significance can be multiple: beyond the response to crisis, one can discover conflicts about substantive issues. On the other hand, in the social movements such as I will define them below, there are certainly dimensions of collective behaviour in the sense that I have just proposed. The empirical object can never be apprehended as such, and its significance is always the result of the work of analytic decomposition. I define collective action in the strict sense as the ensemble of the various types of conflict-based behaviour in a social svstem . A collective action implies the existence of a struggle between two actors for the appropriation and orientation of social values and resources, each of the actors being characterized by a specific solidarity. This general definition indicates the first level of collective action. To be complete, it requires the addition of a second condition, which also specifies the second level of collective action. Collective action also includes all the types of behaviour which transgress the norms that have been institutionalized in social roles, which go beyond the rules of the political svstem and/or which attack the structure of a society’s class relations. I call conflict-based action collective action which satisfies only the first condition. I call a social movement the type of collective action which fulfills the first and the second condition. In this sense, a social movement is an analytic construct and not an em-

pirical object. It should be noted that the second condition is subordinate to the first. The dimension of what may be termed behaviour &dquo;breaking off the limits of the system being considered&dquo; can enter the analysis only if the first condition, the existence of a conflict, is fulfilled. In this case only can one speak of a social movement. By contrast, the mere existence of a conflict is not enough to qualify an action as a social movement. If the conflict does not go beyond the limits of the political or organizational system under consideration, then one is dealing, rather, with political competition or a conflict of interests within a given normative framework. I believe that the term ’conflict-based action’ best corresponds to this type of behaviour. On the other hand, the fact that rules are broken or that norms are

203

rejected is not sufficient to identify a social movement; for the latrequires a struggle between two actors seeking the same thing. If it is solely a question of the breaking of rules, we may speak of deviance, in the proper sense of the word. In deviant types of ter

behaviour there is a total absence of direct conflict between two acfor the control of some specific resource or value. The actor is defined by his marginality vis-A-vis a system of norms and reacts to the control they exercise without challenging their legitimacy, that is to say, without identifying a social adversary and without indicating what is at stake in his struggle. The general categories of collective action ought now to be specified with respect to the different levels of the social structure Melucci, 1976, (class relations, political systems, role systems 1977). One may speak of conflict-based organizational action or conflict-based political action when a conflict occurs within the limits of a given organization or political system. One may not, however, speak of a ’class’ conflict-based action (in the sense given here to the term ’conflict-based action’), because, by definition, action undertaken by a class goes beyond the institutional limits of the system and challenges its fundamental relationships. Since it attacks the foundations of the mode of production, action undertaken by a class always lies, as it were, beyond the norms of the social organization and the rules of the political game. As far as social movements are concerned, it is necessary first of all to consider organizational movements. The types of collective behaviour found in this case are situated at the level of a given social organization and are directed against the power governing a system of norms and roles. The action aims at a different division of resources, a functional adaptation of the organization, and a redistribution of roles. But, at the same time, it tends to transgress the institutional limits of the organization and to go beyond its normative framework. The conflict leaves the organization and moves toward the political system. Political movements are collective actions which tend to enlarge political participation, and to improve the relative position of the actor in the society’s decision processes. But political movements do not act strictly within the existing political system; they seek to surpass the system by opening new channels for the expression of political demands and by pushing participation beyond the limits foreseen for it. The fundamental theoretical problem, however, is that of class movements. Analytically, I define as ’collective’ actions which aim at tors

-

204 the appropriation and orientation of social production (Touraine, 1973). The analytic nature of the definition indicates that no concrete social movement can be reduced purely to the demands made by a given class; for collective action is always situated within a given political and organizational framework. It is therefore necessary to consider two theoretical questions, that of the articulation of the types of class behaviour in a system of roles and in a political system; and that of the empirical criteria appropriate for identifying class behaviour. In an organization, the power which imposes the norms, which assigns the statuses and roles, and which maintains an equilibrium between the functioning of the internal mechanisms and exchange with the environment is never a simple functional authority. Power in an organization is a transcription of class relations and secures their reproduction. One may therefore speak of a class organizational movement when the collective action within an organization not only goes beyond the limits of the organization and contests its norms but also attacks the source itself of power. What is then called into question is the link between the organization and the interests of the dominant class, specifically, the gearing of the organization’s functioning (which is supposedly ’neutral’) in such a way that it best serves these interests. In the political system, the existence of class relations is manifested by the defense of the limits of the political game, which is not allowed to disturb the bases of domination, as well as by the hegemonic control granted to the political forces, which act in a more direct manner in defending the interests of the dominant class. Class political movements are collective actions which not only aim at enlarging political participation, but which also directly challenge the hegemony of the dominant political forces and their link with class interests. It seems difficult to speak of class movements in the pure state, without any mediation by the political system or by the social organization. All the same, I believe that the present situation offers us a glimpse of transformations which are beginning to occur without the aid of such mediation, and I shall treat this topic at greater length below. In societies which are characterized by a low level of differentiation, and in which the state played a fundamental role in unification and centralization, social movements could not be expressed without the mediation of a collective action linked to the social organization or to the political system. The growing

205 differentiation of society and the increased autonomy of the different systems which constitute it tend to bring about the separation of class action from its institutional or organizational mediation. One thus witnesses the appearance of nascent ’pure’ movements which raise the problem of the control of collective resources (nature, the body, interpersonal relations) in directly cultural terms. The lack of any mediation at all also reveals the weakness of these movements. Nevertheless, they seem to anticipate, in an embryonic fashion, the possibility of ’wildcat’ class movements which will refuse all mediation within the political or organizational spheres. (Figure 1 illustrates the dimensions of collective action.)

FIGURE 1 Dimensions of collective action

206

3. The identification of types of class behaviour Let us return now to the problem of identifying the various types of class behaviour, considering that they always manifest themselves by the mediation of a political system and a social organization in a concrete society. How, then, does one distinguish class movements from organizational movements or political movements? Obviously, the ideology and the views of the actors are indicators that must be treated very cautiously and used only after other conditions have been met. Without claiming to exhaust the range of possible conditions, I shall employ the following empirical criteria: (a) First, it is necessary to analyze the mode of production and the productive structure. It is possible to identify the actors involved with respect to the production and appropriation of resources? Or are they definable in an exclusive manner in terms of the system in which the action occurs (political actors, organizational actors, with definite roles); (b) next, the substance and form of the actions are of great importance. A class movement generates actions which challenge the system of domination. The most significant indicator, in this case, is the non-negotiability of the movement’s objectives and the incompatibility of the forms of its action with the mechanisms sustaining both the hierarchy of power within an organization and the hegemony of the dominant interests in the political system; (c) the adversary’s response. The manner in which the system of domination intervenes through repression and social control is a very important indicator of the significance of collective action. The dominant class reacts in those areas where it sees its interests threatened and where it cannot allow major errors in the interpretation of the meaning of the collective action. When the action puts forward class demands, the adversary’s response is usually displaced to a higher level than the one which is directly effected. A protest action in the organizational sphere which directly attacks the seat of power within an organization provokes the intervention of the political system and of the state’s repressive apparatus. A political movement which goes beyond the limits of participation and menaces the basic interests of the dominant class provokes the direct reaction of that class (a freeze on investments, flight of capital, economic crises, foreign intervention);

207

(d) It is only at this point that one should consider the way in which the actors define their action, particularly how they define themselves as a group and how they identify the adversary and the stakes involved in the conflict. A class movement tends to describe the situation, in the language of its cultural system, as a struggle between he who produces the social resources and he who appropriates them for himself. The stakes in this struggle will always be, whether directly or indirectly, the control and the distribution of these resources, that is to say, of the society’s mode of production. One can make the same observations from a different perspective by analyzing the variations in the dimensions of the conflict (Oberschall, 1973) as one moves from organizational movements to political movements, and then on to class movements (see Figure 2). First of all, with respect to the stakes involved in a conflict, one may assume the existence of an increasing symbolic content and a decreasing divisibility of the stakes. A class movement fights for stakes which always directly concern the identity of the actors. Here it is not simply a matter of material resources or immediate advantages, but also of an orientation of the social production, of a determination to institute a distribution of the social resources different from the particular one effected by the dominant class. For this same reason, the more an action turns into a class movement, the less the stakes are divisible or negotiable. Conflicts within an organization or within the political system more easily allow the adoption of partial strategies and partial negotiations. Another characteristic that should be considered in this connection is the decreasing reversibility of the conflicts as one moves from organizational movements to class movements. The resolution of conflicts becomes all the more difficult as the stakes grow in importance for the groups concerned. Another result is that the calculability of the situation is diminished. The relationship between costs and benefits is clearer and the calculation of the consequences of the different courses of action is easier when the stakes are more directly quantifiable and the solutions are predictable. Finally, the conflict tends toward a zero-sum resolution the nearer one comes to class movements. In the confrontations between classes the stakes are not divisible, and the victory of one adversary means the defeat of the other. This does not happen in organizations and in the political system; for there each party can hope for

208

209

partial advantages, and a victory establishes only balance of losses and gains.

a

relative im-

With these few remarks I have tried to suggest a method for dealthe subject rather than to develop a systematic scheme. Within the complexity of empirical behaviour, class action is always intertwined with other significations and other issues. It is no accident that the dominant class always tends to deny the existence of class actions and to alter and diminish their meaning either by labelling them as deviant or by placing them within the framework of organizational or political problems. Analysis ought, on the contrary, to treat collective action as a sign and to decipher its multiple significations.

ing with

4. The

We

origins

of

a

class movement

the question raised at the start. A class is a movement involved in a conflict over the mode of production and over the appropriation and orientation of social resources. However, if we do not wish, as it were, to ’naturalize’ social relationships, we must provide a foundation for class conflict. In determining what this foundation is, our analysis will, at the same time, indicate the conditions by which new class conflicts can be identified, because it will have established the logic governing the structure of the formation of movements. The starting-point of a sociology of social movement is the assumption that class conflict is a structural, synchronic dimension of any given system. But the existence of structural antagonism must be socially established, if one is to avoid attributing it to a mechanical determinism, or to ’human nature’. Otherwise, class conflict becomes an orginal, metaphysical dimension of society. And, in this case, one must fall back on the so-called necessary contradictions of the system (and where do these come from?), with the result that social relations are reduced to the status of natural relations and thus deprived of their specific meaning. Or else one must turn to some sort of anthropological view, to a philosophy of man, whether this takes a positive form, with the notion of a revolt through which human nature reappropriates its own essence, or a negative form, with the view that homo homini lupus or that there exists a natural inclination to dominate. The opposition between classes is thus traced back to conflicts or to the essence of man, to must now return to

movement

210

of elites and of the masses. Determinism and humanism, negative, are the negations of sociology. It is essential, therefore, to accept that conflict is not an original aspect of social existence, but a fact to be explained in terms of social relations. This is equivalent to saying that it is necessary to construct an analytic space which precedes the notion of class relations and from which these relations can be deduced. I call this space a theory of production or of relationship to an object. Industrial capitalism has accustomed us to link class relations to material production, to the work involved in transforming nature. I believe that we must develop a theory of production conceived as a social relationship to objects and, further, that this theory must be progressively freed from its historical ties to industrial society and made to correspond more closely to the conditions of production prevailing in post-industrial capitalism. With the sole aim of presenting a clearer statement of the problem and of indicating an appropriate way of treating it, I shall proceed to give a more formal definition of this analytic space. I define production as the formation or transformation of objects, within the framework of certain social relations, by the application of certain means to a primary material. The analytic components of production are thus: (a) an action; (b) a raw material; (c) means of production; (d) a social relation. The formation or transformation of objects takes place within a social relation and in accord with a twofold ’non-social’ limitation which marks the anti-idealistic character of the definition; in other words, there exist conditions representing the system of constraints governing the production. The natural milieu of the action (the raw material) and the instrumental basis of the action (the means of production) preclude the view that it is the voluntary product of man’s essence. Social production is a part of nature whose specific feature is that it is, simultaneously, the product of social relations. Production is a natural process, a transformation of the environment, but it is also the production of meaning and of social relations. The relation of man to his works is the affirmation of an identity, that is to say, the recognition of the product as the result of the action of a producer. But the attribution of something to someone is at the same time a social relationship, and it implies the reciprocity of this recognition. Social identity is the attribution of the condition of ’belonging to’; it is a relationship within which one both recognizes and is recognized. Production is the social capacity of recognizing one’s the

nature

positive

or

211

works; it is the will to appropriate and to orient a product. But this orientation is not founded on ’human nature’ or on some sort of original humanism of work; it is already a social relationship. Production is a relationship which implies the reciprocal recognition of the (social and personal) identity of the producers and which permits, on this basis, an exchange to take place. Exchange and, even more so, the gift, are social relationships which attest more directly than does pure production to the existence of a situation in which the producer both recognizes and appropriates his work. Exchange and gift-giving are possible because the producer recognizes his works as his own and because there is a reciprocity in this recognition. Production, recognition, appropriation and orientation are the analytic components of production conceived as a social relationship. To produce also means to determine the orientation of production and of the product on the basis of the reciprocal recognition of the producers. The construction of this analytic level, which is meant to precede the identification of class relations, enables us to reflect on the process by which classes are formed and on their antagonism, as well as on the different forms that conflict between them can take. On the analytic level, the formation of classes can always be traced back to the breakdown of reciprocity of recognition and therefore to the separation between production and recognition, on the one hand, and appropriation and orientation on the other. A knowledge of the various forms that the breakdown takes can come only from historical analysis and from the comparative anthropology of human societies. One may suggest, by way of example, a possible account of the historical formation of class relations without thereby denying that societies display a large variety of evolutionary paths. An increase in the division of labour arises from a change in the relations with the environment, such as the expansion of exchanges, the transformation of the natural conditions of production, the exhaustion or discovery of resources, etc. This change implies a delegation of responsibility in the direction of those activities pertaining to the relations of production; which is to say that it implies the control by one particular group over the orientation of the resources produced. This delegation of authority presupposes reciprocal recognition, between the two groups which thereby emerge. As long as one of them maintains control over the specific delegated function, the fourfold relationship comprising production, recognition, appropriation, and orientation is perown

212

of labour and in the comof the system reduces this control, the relationship breaks down and reciprocal recognition disappears. Each party recognizes its own works but refuses to extend such recognition to the other party, tending, instead, to identify itself with the totality of the social field. Classes are born, therefore, in the form of groups struggling to appropriate and orient social production. Their antagonism, unbalanced by the relation dominant group-dominated group, sets its stamp on the structure of the social system and is the source of collective action. manent. When an increase in the division

plexity

~

I B

.

-

5. Social movements and social

T~

..

.,

change

~

’

_, .

,

~.

~.

Most theories of collective action attribute the birth of social either to the breakdown of the social system or to the formation of new interests or of new forms of solidarity and collective identity (Tilly, 1975). Before entering upon a discussion of this dichotomy, however, we may note a striking fact about the current theories: most of them, either directly or indirectly, presuppose change as a given factor. Whether collective action is ascribed to the breakdown of the system or to the appearance of new interests, there is always a change whose nature and causes are left unexamined by the model. The fact that change is taken for granted seems to me to be the result of a kind of naive historicism which conceives of change as a natural and continuous process in society and which is concerned only with the effects of this process. The theories to which I refer are actually theories of the activation of the factors of collective action, but they tell us nothing about the structural cause of this phenomenon. They tell us how collective action is manifested but not why. Some of them are explicitly theories of the activation of factors; in this case, change is correctly taken as the model’s point of departure, as an input to be used in the construction of an explanation. Consequently, one can not reproach such a theory for not explaining change (Tilly, 1970). But in the majority of cases the authors claim to give a causal and structural explanation of collective action. The link between change and collective action then becomes a device by which to hide the lack of a theory of change. Most of the current theories consider change as a variable which movements

’

-.

213

is external to the explanatory system adopted. This means that when instances of collective behaviour appear in a social system, the change which is supposed to be the source of this behaviour is always assumed to be of external origin (Smelser, 1968; Davies, 1962, 1971; Feierabend et al., 1973; Gurr, 1970; Graham and Gurr (eds), 1969; Olson, 1968). How should one explain, for example, the appearance of strain or of rising expectations, on the one hand, or disequilibrium in the means of responding to such phenomena, on the other hand? Economic progress is often a sort of deus ex machina which is made responsible for many transformations. But it is clear that economic progress, in turn, remains in need fo explanation. There are not many alternatives. Either one appeals exclusively to exogenous causes, reducing change in every case to an external variable, or else one accepts that change, too, has a cause internal to the system. In the former case, it is necessary to deny the growing interdependence of systems and to consider as external, variables which in reality are inherent in the structure of the system under consideration. For example, using this approach it is necessary to maintain that the action of a multinational corporation in a given capitalist country is an external variable simply because the company’s headquarters happen to be located in some other country. While this may be true from the point of view of the political system, it is obviously difficult to consider this kind of intervention as an external variable from the point of view of class relations. In the latter case, one admits to endogenous origin of change and thus is constrained to account for change by means of the same categories used to account for collective action. Otherwise, one will construct a contradictory explanatory system which is incapable of justifying all the variables it introduces. The current theories, therefore, offer only two possibilities. Either they attribute change solely to exogenous causes, thereby flying in the face of reality; or they view change as arising within the system, and then they are contradictory, since they are not capable of explaining change by the same categories used in treating collective action. From a logical point of view, the central nexus of these difficulties lies, I believe, in a failure to distinguish between synchrony and diachrony, between structure and change. The theories in question are located, right from the start, in the realm of change (by presupposing it) and offer a diachronic analysis rather than a structural analysis of the origin of social movements. The same logical

214

difficulty is found in many Marxist analyses which ascribe the origin of collective action to the contradiction between the forces of production and the relations of production. The development of the forces of production is thought to bring to a head, at a given moment, the contradiction between these forces and the existing relations of production. But how does the development of the forces of production come about in the first place? If one is to avoid a naive historicism, it is necessary to establish a link between synchrony and diachrony, between structure and change. Antagonism between classes is a synchronic dimension of a system. The struggle undertaken by the dominated class for the reappropriation of the social production penetrates the social structure itself. This accounts for the necessity of controlling conflict with which the dominant class is permanently confronted. The scission, running throughout the entire social order, can be hidden behind society’s apparent integration and can be denied by the dominant ideology. But the system of domination must constantly come to grips with the reality of the conflict if it wishes to protect the bases of its reproduction. If antagonism is a structural component of class society, the necessity of controlling it is just as much so.

All the same, a concrete society does not coincide with a particular mode of production, nor does it live only synchronously. Class relations manifest themselves in a political system and in the forms of social organization. In a real society, ’synchronic’ opposition between classes does not give rise to ’pure’ types of behaviour; it must be deciphered in the society’s history. As for the dominant class, its share in ’synchronic’ antagonism takes the form of a ’systemic’ action; only rarely manifest in a direct action, it is much more frequently expressed through the application of the instruments of social integration. The dominant class intervenes directly only when there exists an explicit threat to the system of domination. Normally, its action is evident in categories of social practice, in the control of ideology, and in repressive manipulation. More important in this connection is the identification of those forms of behaviour of the dominated classes which indicate the ’synchronic’ presence of conflict. Here I am referring to forms of action which - before, or indepedently of a collective mobilization against class domination - are the embryonic testimony of a scission in the society, evidence of the dominant class’ failure to impose total unity on the society. These forms of resistance, which

215 may appear in the work situation, in an individual’s refusal, or in popular culture and folklore, are what I shall call deviant symptoms of conflict or symbolic elaborations of latent conflict. The deviant character and the flight into the realm of the symbolic are obviously dependent on the much more powerful opposing action of the apparatus of domination, which constantly impedes, blocks, and represses all manifest expression of class antagonism. The presence of these symptoms allows us to assert the synchronic existence of conflict before, and independently of, the appearance of those forms of behaviour which, through the necessary mediation of the political system and of the organiztion, openly translate class conflict in a concrete society. We have now arrived at the central problem. How does one pass from a structural conflict to diachornic forms of behaviour rooted in a political system and in an historical society. The necessity of controlling conflict obliges the system of domination to intervene constantly at the different levels of the social structure in order to hold conflict on them within limits compatible with the fundamental class relations. External factors (increase in the volume of exchanges, changes in the environment) are also elements of disequilibrium that must be controlled because of the effects they may have on the state of the class relations. The action of the exogenous elements is therefore never direct. Instead, it affects the system to the degree that it can unbalance the society’s class relations. Hence external factors also provoke actions at the different levels of the system, actions which are designed to keep the resulting effects within the respective limits of compatibility at each level. It is thus by means of adaptation that internal changes in the political system and/or the social organization are generated, together with a certain modernization of the relations of production. Disturbances in

the internal equilibrium at each level affected by the changes may produce contradictions. I define a contradiction as an incompatibility between elements or levels of a structure. The actions required to control structural conflict can create contradictions if the change thereby introduced is incompatible with other elements or levels of the system. The contradiction functions like a catalyst on the latent structural antagonism. It sets in motion (diachronic) forms of collective behaviour which react to the contradiction and, at the same time, address themselves to the structural conflict. Collective action and social movements are the expression of class conflict in a concrete political system and/or social organization.

216

It is necessary at this point to formulate the concept of contradiction more precisely. The significance of structural incompatibility varies according to the level at which it occurs. One may speak of incompatibility within a given level of society, of incompatibility between levels, and of incompatibility with respect to class relations. In the first two cases, the contradiction does not directly affect the class relations. Elements of the political system and/or of the social organization come into contradiction with themselves and can mobilize behaviour aimed at reestablishing a new equilibrium within these systems. In the third case, elements of the political system and/or of the social organization come into contradiction with the class relations and mobilize behaviour originating within these systems which threatens the structure itself of the class relations. It is in this perspective that the different types of movements defined at the beginning of this essay must be considered. We must now turn to the analysis of the relationship between collective action and change. The forms of collective behaviour originating in certain contradictions come up against a certain state of the structure (the situation of class relations, the state of the political system and of the social organization). Collective action which takes place in these different states can create new contradictions (incompatibilities). There thus exists a second stage in the response made by the system of domination. This new intervention can take the form of modernization, of reform, or of repression. One basic type of response is the development of the forces of production. At this point, the process may terminate with the absorbtion of the collective thrust, that is to say, with the introduction of new internal changes. Or else, given the presence of certain determinate conditions (i.e. of certain ’structural states’), the system may prove to be incapable of absorbing change. Failure of the political system to open itself up, a crisis in the social organization, and the formation of new groups linked to a nascent mode of production: these are factors which can bring about the transition from one structure to another, which is to say that they can cause structural change. This transition can occur through a sharp break in continuity or in a much smoother fashion, depending on the specific , conditions prevailing at the time. With these few remarks I have merely sketched out a theoretical approach to the problem. I may conclude by observing that collec-

217

tive action is, in reality, both a cause and an effect of change, though in distinct ’logical’ times or stages and on different analytic levels. It is a cause, on the synchronic level, because the presence of a conflict which is manifest in deviant and symbolic forms of resistance, cultural revolt and individual refusal must be monitored constantly and obliges the system to make continuous adaptations. It is an effect, in a logically distinct time, because the adaptations made by the system disequilibrate it and create contradictions which, in their turn, generate diachronic forms of conduct in the political system and in the social organization. It is, finally, once again a cause, in a third logically distinct time, inasmuch as the thrust of the collective action obliges the system to adapt its organization accordingly, to reform the political system, and to modernize the productive structure. Otherwise, in the extreme case, change causes the system to burst asunder, thereby bringing about the transition to a new structure. Everything I have said so far shows that the alternative between breakdown and solidarity, between collective action which arises from disintegration and action which is born of solidarity, is, in reality, a false problem. The forms of class behaviour are, in fact, rooted in structural conflict, but they are activated by contradictions, which are always ruptures of, or at least states of disequilibrium in, the social order. In social movements there always exists a link between contradiction and conflict, since these movements are located at the intersection of structure and change. The principal theoretical problem thus remains that of distinguishing these two levels of analysis (and the concepts appropriate to each of them) and, then, of establishing their interrela-

tionship. 6. The

new

social movements

Returning to the question raised at the beginning, we may now ask what changes in the system of production allow us to speak of new class conflicts. In comparison with the industrial phase of capitalism, the production characteristic of advanced societies requires that control reach beyond the productive structure into the areas of consumption, services, and social relations. The mechanisms of accumulation are no longer fed by the simple exploitation of the labour force, but rather by the manipulation of

218

complex organizational systems, by control over information and over the processes and institutions of symbol-formation, and by intervention in interpersonal relations. The role of science and of information systems is growing in advanced capitalism, but one sees, at the same time, the development of a capacity for intervention and transformation which extends beyond the natural environment and exerts an influence on the social systems, on interpersonal relations, and on the very structure of the individual (personality, the unconscious, biological identity). Faced with these changes in the structure of production, one must try to determine the significance of the new social movements. More and more, production no longer consists solely in the transformation of the natural environment into a technical environment. It is also becoming the production of social relations and social systems; indeed, it is even becoming the production of the individual’s biological and interpersonal identity. This production, which continues, however, to be controlled by a dominant class, changes the form of the expropriation of social resources. The movement for reappropriation which claims control over the resources produced by society is therefore carrying its fight into new territory. The personal and social identity of individuals is increasingly perceived as a product of social action, and therefore as that which is at stake in a conflict between the exigences of the various agencies of social manipulation and the desire of individuals to reappropriate society’s resources. Defense of the identity, continuity, and predictability of personal existence is beginning to constitute the substance of the new conflicts. In a structure in which ownership of the means of production is becoming more and more socialized, while at the same time remaining under the control of particular groups, what individuals are claiming collectively is the right to realize their own identity: the possibility of disposing of their personal creativity, their affective life, and their biological and interpersonal existence. The control and manipulation of the centers of technocratic domination are increasingly penetrating everyday life, encroaching upon the individual’s possibility of disposing of his time, his space, and his relationships. Personal that is to say, the possibility, on the biological, identity psychological, and interpersonal levels, of being recognized as an individual is the property which is now being claimed and defended ; this is the ground in which individual and collective resistance is -

-

taking

root. I

_

219 The new social movements are struggling, therefore, not only for the reappropriation of the material structure of production, but also for collective control over socio-economic development, i.e., for the reappropriation of time, of space, and of relationships in the individual’s daily existence. The new forms of class domination are identified less and less with real social groups and are starting to share the impersonal character of the various institutions. The new conflicts and the new movements are not manifested in the action of a single class, in the sense of a social group identified by a particular culture and way of life. In mass society, in which cultural models and ways of life tend to become homogenous, conflicts mobilize the categories and groups which are most directly affected by the manipulation of socio-economic development. The absence of a leading actor, however, does not mean that these conflicts have lost the character of class struggle. A certain number of characteristics shared by the recent forms of collective action (Touraine, 1974, 1975; Pizzorno, 1975) seem to confirm this hypothesis, which sees in the appropriation of identity the key to understanding the new movements. There is, first of all, the end of the separation between public and private spheres. Those areas which were formerly zones of private exchanges and rewards (sexual relations, interpersonal relations, biological identity) have become stakes in various conflict situations and are now the scene of collective action. At the same time, the field of the public and political is subjected to the pressure of individual needs and demands. Birth and death, illness and aging have all become critical points capable of mobilizing collective action. These subjects have entered the realm of ’public’ conflict and have become, simultaneously, objects whose reappropriation is claimed by various groups. Sexuality and the body, leisure, consumer goods, one’s relationship to nature these are no longer loci of private rewards but areas of collective resistance, of demands for expression and pleasure which are raised in opposition to the instrumental rationality of the apparatuses of order. A second characteristic to be noted is the superposition of deviance and social movements. When domination impinges on daily life, on the rules of existence, and on ways of life, opposition necessarily takes the form of marginality and of deviance.Advanced societies are witnessing the proliferation of agencies charged with ’handling’ social demands and needs which might generate conflict: public intervention tends to absorb strains and reduce con-

220

flicts to the status of pathology by subjecting all those who do no conform to the norms to preventive therapies or to ’rehabilitation’. In this situation, social revolt which threatens the mode of production and the orientation of resources easily tends to merge with marginality and deviance. This is so because such revolts are often the work of minorities; because they tend to reject the regulated mediation of the political system and become violent; or, finally, because the power structure’s control over the dissemination of information enables it to stigmatize all conflict-based behaviour as deviant. Another important characteristic of the new social movements is that thev are not focused on the political system. Essentially, they are not oriented toward the conquest of political power or of the state apparatus, but rather toward the control of a field of autonomy or of independence vis-A-vis the system. The new movements have often been reproached for insisting upon the immediate satisfaction of their demands and for their lack of an overall stragety. But these traits manifest, in my opinion, the specificity of the new forms of collective action. The reappropriation of individual and group identity is achieved through the refusal to accept any political mediation. This obviously raises a crucial problem for practice and for the development of the movements. Particularism is the specific form of resistance to a power which it itself generalized. Solidarity as an objective is another characteristic of the new social movements. The struggle centres around the issue of group identity; there is a return to the criterion of ascriptive membership (sex, race, age, locality) which is the form taken by revolt against change directed from above. The movements also have instrumental objectives and seek advantages within the political system, but this dimension is secondary in comparison to the search for solidarity and in comparison to the expressive nature of the relations found in them. We should mention, finally, direct participation and the rejection of representation. Since what is at stake is the reappropriation of identity, all mediation is rejected as likely to reproduce the mechanisms of control and manipulation against which the struggle is directed in the first place. Hence the importance of direct action and of direct participation, in other words, of the spontaneous, anti-authoritarian, and anti-hierarchical nature of the protests originating in these movements. Hence, also, the risk of discon-

221

tinuity and of fragmentation which constantly threatens the

new

movements.

These characteristics are found in various forms in many contemporary movements. I cannot, within the limits of this essay, undertake an analysis of the specific issues which are essential in the different movements. I shall restrict myself to indicating two issues which seem to me to play a fundamental role in several contemporary movements. The first element is the centrality of the body, for example, in the women’s, youth, and homosexual movements, as well as in the counter-cultural practices which contrast the body to what is often a stereotyped political ’discourse’. This phenomenon seems to me to possess a multiple significance. In it we encounter, first of all, the notion of the body as a part of nature, i.e. the realization that man is a part of nature and therefore has the possibility of experiencing this body as a basic dimension of existence and not as a ’fall’; and this implies, at the same time, the possibility of taking possession of the ’nature’ which he is. Then there is the notion of the body as the seat of desires,i.e. the acceptance of drives and deep-rooted needs as aspects of daily existence and not as obscure forces of evil. Finally, there is the notion of the body as the nexus of interpersonal relationships, i.e. the discovery of communication and of affectivity, which sexuality expresses and manifests. The body in its different significations becomes the cultural locus of resistance and of desire; it stands opposed to rationalization and it authorizes delirium. But the body is, at the same time, an object upon which the concerted integrative and manipulative efforts of the system of domination are focused. A ’medicalized’ sexuality entrusted to the experts, a body which has become a ’scientific’ object, an eros reified in the rules of fashion and in the exigences of industry: advanced capitalism requires the notion of such a body, a body as object, deprived of its libidinal and aggressive charge, of its capacity for eros and delirium. The body becomes a resource for use in the production of merchandise and in social reproduction. Its demands must be satisfied, provided that they are compatible with the exigences of economic and social development and that they do not impede the advance of controlled rationalization. The body as libido must be neutralized and deprived of its potential to menace the system. There is no place for play and for eros, but only for the regulated pleasure of a sexuality which has become a kind of gymnastic training for orgasm. _

.

,

222 The second element which seems to me to be fundamental in many movements is the presence of what I shall call a regressive

utopia with a strong religious component. This phenomenon is, on the one hand, a constant factor in the origin of movements. In the formative phase, the group defines its identity by referring to a past, to a global myth of a renaissance which is often of a religious kind. But, on the other hand, the phenomenon possesses a specificity which seems to me to be closely linked with the new social movements. The demands they make regarding identity and daily life are becoming increasingly less ’political’. Moreover, the growing secularization of society means that the legitimation of the established order is not of a sacred type, but is linked more and more with instrumental rationalization. In this situation, the appeal of religion, freed from the ritual and organizational apparatus of the churches, becomes one of the possible components of the new movements. The religious component, functioning as a global myth capable of providing a foundation for the construction of an identity, can become the cultural form of resistance to the instrumental rationality of the apparatus of domination. The desire for total integration, which I call integralism, is the essential characteristic of regressive utopias, and it can be seen at work in the reduction of reality to the unity of a global principle, in the abolition of the different levels and of the appropriate instruments of analysis, and in the identification of the entire society with the sacred solidarity of the group. There exist several versions of regressive utopia: communal integralism, politico-religious integralism, and mysticoascetic integralism. What is common to all of them is the fact that the basic concerns of the movement (which revolve around the reappropriation of identity) are transcribed in the symbolic language of a global myth of renaissance. As a result of the regressive and evasive aspects of these concerns, the movements in which the religious component predominates are more easily manipulated by the power structure, and their protest tends to dissolve into individual flight and into myth. 7. Towards

a

sociology

of social movements?

The notion of nature has been reintroduced in advanced capitalism as a cultural definition of needs, which are presented as escaping the grasp of the power structure. Nature becomes a sort of ’non-

223 social’ raw material, in contrast to a ’social’ realm which penetrates all aspects of life in society. But there can be no doubt that we are dealing with a cultural definition of needs, and more specifically with the form given by post-industrial culture to the new demands created by the new structure of production. The body, desire, the unconscious, identity: these are modes of social representation of that domain which, in the individual, resists domination and rationalization. Hence, this recovery of nature is, at the same time, the realization that the ’nature’ which we are belongs to us, that it is not external to social action. And this means that it can be employed in a manner contrary to the one preferred by the existing order and its apparatus of rationalization. This explains the ambiguity of the notion of nature and of needs which is found in the new movements: it signifies both the rejection of a social realm manipulated and controlled by the apparatus of the existing order (the cultural image of the spontaneity and purity of primary needs) and the assertion of the social realm as the locus of action which consciously produces man’s existence and his relations with other men (demand concerning the right to life, to pleasure, and to

desire). Sociology is marked by this same ambivalence. On the one hand, it creates a conscious awareness of the way a society produces itself and maintains, against the heritage of metaphysics and of the philosophies of history, that social action produces social systems. But, on the other hand, when it is not a mere apology for the existing order, it takes the side of movements for change. It translates their languages and problems, and it is often engaged in their struggles. I do not intend to enter here upon the debate about the role of sociology. I shall simply point out two important tasks for sociological reflection. A sociology of class relations and of social movements must, in the first place, seek to develop an understanding of changes in the mode of production in advanced capitalist societies with a view to better defining the novelty of the issues raised by these movements. But it is even more necessary for it to pursue theoretical research on classes and the conflicts between them. The problem brought up at the start of the present essay is, I believe, of fundamental importance. If class relations are original features of society, if there exists no analytic space which precedes them, then the theoretical possibility of raising the question of change in these relations is eliminated. And in this case, the question of the possibility of a

224

conscious intervention in the mechanisms of class formation and reproduction (and not of the advent of a mythical classless society) is not one that can be raised within the limits of scientific discourse. I believe, on the contrary, that this question has a scientific status and that the very fact of bringing it up for discussion ought to have an influence on the institutional organization and the role of sociology. There exists a task of scientific anticipation that a sociology of social movements can not evade. If sociology is not to be the prophet of defeat or of the institutionalization of the new movements, it must tackle, in a scientific manner, the problem of change in class relations and of control over the mechanisms of the formation and reproduction of classes, i.e. of the actors in this kind of transformation. Between longing for a utopian, conflict-free classless society, pacified and fully responsive to individual and group demands, on the one hand, and simply describing the reproduction of the class system, on the other hand, there is perhaps room for discussing, scientifically, the possibility of a society which acts on its class relations in such a way as to reduce their ascendancy and control their reproduction. The second question concerns the effects of the new social movements on the methods and practice of sociology. The new demands pertain more and more to the individual to his innermost being, his needs, his unconscious. Sociology ought to integrate in its analysis (and adapt its methods to) problems which have traditionally been thought to lie in the domain of psychology and psychoanalysis. The problems of the individual and of the unconscious have become collective problems because they are linked either with the manipulation of power or with the cultural form that the new movements are assuming. Sociology should take these new dimensions of analysis into account and develop appropriate methods for handling them, within the framework of its own language and categories. The situation is admittedly a difficult one, because the dominant class is already carrying out a converse ideological manoeuver. There is an increasing trend toward nondifferentiation and the reduction of problems to the level of the individual. In other words, the dominant class is attempting to ’psychologize’ and ’medicalize’ the social realm in order to drain all potential for conflict and collective action stemming from problems of identity. It is necessary, therefore, to counteract this tendency by ’sociologizing’ the individual, by giving to the problems of daily life, of relations, and of the unconscious the dimen-

225 sion which in fact belongs to them in a programmed society. In other words, it is necessary to show that these problems are what are really at the heart of the new class conflicts. This task, however, demands a considerable effort on the theoretical plane, as well as the elaboration of methods of analysis and of ways of acting directly in the social realm. It is necessary carefully to scrutinize the various aspects of the movements so as to distinguish between what pertain to the new class conflicts and what derives from organizational disputes and political struggles. It is equally necessary, though, to scrutinize the heritage of the categories and methods of a number of different disciplines (sociology, anthropology, psychology, and psychoanalysis) in order to elaborate suitable ways for the sociologist to intervene in the ambiguous territory of the new social movements.

Alberto Melucci (born 1943) is Associate Professor of Political Sociology at the University of Milan. He is engaged in research on new social movements and collective violence in Italy. Recent publications: "Dieci ipotesi per I’analisi del nuovi movimenti" ("Ten hypotheses for the analysis of new social movements"), Quaderni Pracentini 65-66 (1978); "Appunti su movimenti, terrorisrimo, societa italiana" ("Notes on movements, terrorism, italian society"), Il Mulino 256 (1978). Author’s address: Institute of Sociology, Faculty of Political Sciences, University of Milan, Via Conservatorio 7, Milan, Italy.

References

Aalberoni, F. 1977 Movimentoe istituzione.

Bologna,

11 Mulino.

Davies, J. C. 1962

"Toward

a

theory of revolution", American Sociological Review 27.

Feierabend, 1. K.; Feierabend, R. L.; Nesvold, B. A. 1973 "The comparative Politics (April).

study of revolution

and violence",

Graham, H. D.; Gurr, T. R. (eds) 1969

Violence

in

America. New

York, Bantam Books.

Gurr, T. R. 1970 Why men rebel. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.

Comparative

226 Melucci,

A.

1976 Movinienti di rivolta. Milan, Etas Libri. 1977 Sistema politico, partiti e tnovinienti sociali. Milan, Feltrinelli. A. 1973 Social Hall.

Oberschall,

conflict

and social

movements.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice

Olson, M. 1968

Pizzorno,

The

logic of collective

action.

New York, Schocken Books.

A.

1975 Marche, démocratie, action collective. Paris, Institut d’Etudes Politiques.

(Unplublished paper.) Smelser, N. J. 1963 1968

Theory of collective behavior. New York, MacMillan. Essays in sociological explanation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ,

Prentice-Hall.

Tilly, C.

changing place of collective violence", in: M. Richter (ed.). Essays theory and history. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press. 1975 The rebellious century 1830-1930. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University 1970 "The in

Press.

Touraine, A. 1973 Production de la socrete. Paris, Seuil. 1974 Pour la socrologre. Paris, Seuil. 1975 "Les nouveaux conflits sociaux", Sociologie du Travail 1.