Analysis of New Social Movement Theory

Analysis of New Social Movement Theory

Works Cited Not Included

In Johnston, Laraña, and Gusfield’s discussion of New Social Movement (NSM) theory, they identify the concept as a “double-edged sword,” in that is has both related itself to the changing shape of society but also overemphasized the newness of its model, almost divorcing itself from previous social movement theories instead of acknowledging and assessing the similarities between them and integrating what is useful from theories of the past. As its basic framework asserts that social movements now are not as linked to class as they were in the time of the emergence of Marxism and at the height of industrialist society (as Resource Mobilization Theory might stress), new social movement theory succeeds in fitting itself to post-modern and post-industrialist social structure while it fails to explain the situations and changes that it describes. It makes the important point that a new and different society incites new and different movements. However, the language of the theory has a “tendency to ‘ontologize,’” as it tries to claim “more explanatory power than it empirically warranted,” which occasionally makes it an obstacle rather than a tool to analyze the modern face of social movements (Buechler & Cylke 276).

Johnston, Laraña, and Gusfield proceed to break down social movements and attribute to them eight characteristics which help clarify what defines a “new social movement.” The first of these characteristics is the frequently discussed observation that social movements are no longer homogenous in the category of social class, which Johnston, et al. describe as an NSM not bearing a “clear relation to the structural roles of its participants” (Buechler &...

... middle of paper ...

...on in the Leninist model,” according to Johnston, Laraña, and Gusfield (Buechler & Cylke 278).

Overall, New Social Movements are defined by their particular reflections of individualist, post-industrialism, though the basic premises for the formation of movements remain. Individuals have grievances which affect their choices of action and organization. Though collective action is acted out in different ways and reflects a less unified identity formation process, NSM’s bring to bear their effects on society by the sum of the actions of its members, whether those actions are personal or collective, and whether or not ideology is broadly shared. In this way, it may be detrimental to call New Social Movements “new.” Their context has changed, and so they have changed. The evolution of social movements reflects both their current environment and their roots.