This article focuses on the singularity or singularities presented by the social movements that emerged in the 1960s and 1970s, which are defined as new social movements.
According to Hirschman, politics develops through phases of mobilization and phases of demobilization; from this cyclical viewpoint of social phenomena, the emergence of the so-called "new social movements" must be understood as the product of the "mobilization cycle of previous decades" and as a legacy for new forms of action and ideology in times to comeThus, social movement theories, in their attempt to explain the genesis and articulation of collective action, must explain the relationships between individual motives and collective action, that is, what leads an individual to take part in an action that transcends their own individuality
When speaking of "new" social movements, the uniqueness of this type of movement becomes evident in relation to previous forms of political-social mobilization.
Dalton and Kuechler (1992) systematize these differences:
• A new ideological orientation that moves in different dimensions from the old class formulations, which focused on material well-being. New social movements deal with cultural aspects, quality of life, participation in decision-making, or cooperative forms of social organization…. Their ideological orientation differs from the traditional class division. This is partly due to the emergence of new ideologies in the 1970s.
• A potentially broad and undefined support base: new social movements do not target specific groups to try to represent their interests. They draw their support from diffuse social groups.
• Participation is not motivated by particular interests, but by the pursuit of collective goods that cannot be considered exclusive to specific groups or individuals. In this way, new social movements "violate" Olson's logic of collective action.
• A preference for open, decentralized, and democratic organizational structures à it is an organized but open and democratic structure.
• A political style that leads them to consciously avoid conventional means of participation and institutional spheres of expression. Their extra-institutional nature leads them to adopt protest as a form of organized political action and expression, making mass media not only their natural allies but also a means of mobilizing public opinion.
Pizzorno's Theory versus Mancur Olson's Theory
These new movements break with the cost-benefit relationship that characterized previous interpretations, making it necessary to offer new interpretations of the actors' motives for participation
Pizzorno (1993) introduces the concept of "solidarity incentives," as reasons that lead individuals to participate in collective action.
According to Pizzorno, in contrast to Olson's logic, collective action is constructed as a process of identification through which different levels of recognition are accessed (I recognize myself and I am recognized), which make possible the disappearance of uncertainty and the stability of values that serve to construct my preferences, thus constructing personal identity through collective action.
A. Touraine's Theory: Cultural Values
On the other hand, A. Touraine (1992) understands social movements as sets of normatively oriented interactions between adversaries, with conflicting interpretations and opposing social models in a shared cultural field, taking into account the value system pursued by those who integrate the social movement.Touraine argues that a social movement is "collective action oriented towards the implementation of cultural values against the interests and influences of an enemy defined in terms of power relations," "a social movement is a combination of social conflicts and cultural participation."
Cultural orientations and social relationships form the core of the analysis of movements, which become the instruments of an expanding civil society, in which they defend a concrete model of society. This is, therefore, a sociological explanation of social movements as opposed to the political explanations of Tilly, Tarrow, or Pizzorno.
Melucci's Theory: What is a Social Movement?
Melucci (1982) explains that, in order to understand social movements, one must distinguish the various planes and meanings of collective action. Melucci maintains that, when speaking of new social movements, we are talking about a collective phenomenon that presents a certain external unity, but which internally has very differentiated meanings, forms of action, and modes of organization.
This author, Melucci, distinguishes six principles of collective action analysis:
• A social movement is not the answer to a crisis, but the expression of a conflict.
• A social movement is a collective action whose orientation involves solidarity, manifests a conflict, and implies the rupture of the compatibility limits of the system to which the action refers.
• The analytical field of a social movement's action depends on the system of relations in which it is situated and to which the collective action refers.
• Every concrete movement always has a plurality of analytical meanings.
• Every movement is a system of action.
• The analysis focuses on collective action as a fact and not as a process.
The problem with the study of social movements, for Melucci, lies in the construction of collective action. The problem is that rationality does not allow us to understand social movements.
McAdam's Theory: The Challenges of Social Movements
Social movements must go a long way and overcome many challenges before becoming drivers of social change (or counter-change).
As McAdam explains, a social movement must overcome its crucial tasks for its purposes to have an impact on society:
• Recruit new members.
• Maintain the morale and commitment level of existing members.
• Obtain media coverage, ideally (though not essential) favorable to their point of view.
• Mobilize support from external groups.
• Limit social control options that could be exercised by their adversaries.
• Influence politicians and get the Administration (institutions) to act; the ultimate goal is for that cause to be recognized.