Advertisement

Systemic Practice and Action Research

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 101–137 | Cite as

The Self-Organization of Social Movements

  • Christian Fuchs
Original Article

The New Social Movement Approach and the Resource Mobilization Approach are the dominant approaches in social movement research. They focus either on macro-aspects and externalism or on micro-aspects and internalism. This paper suggests that the notion of self-organization is one way of taking into account both internal and external, structural- and action-based aspects of social movements and that it allows a dynamic concept of protest. The emergence of social movements is not determined, but a complex result of crisis, resource mobilization, cognitive mobilization, self-production—searching for singular laws of the emergence of movements is an expression of one-dimensional, linear, and deterministic thinking. Protest and social problems are non-linearly related. Social movements are part of the civil society system, by producing alternative topics and demands, they guarantee the dynamic of the political system. Existing system-theoretic approaches on social movements (Luhmann, Japp, Ahlemeyer, Hellmann) are rather uncritical and ignore the productive relationship between human actors and social structures in processes of social self-organization. Social movements are dynamic communication systems that permanently react to political and societal events with self-organized protest practices and protest communications that result in the emergence and differentiation (production and reproduction) of protest structures (events, oppositional topics, alternative values, regularized patterns of interaction and organization). The dynamic of social movements is based on the permanent emergence and mutual production of protest practices and protest structures. The self-organization of a social movement is a vivid process, it is based on the permanent movement and differentiation of actors and structures that communicate public protest, a social movement is only a movement, as long as it communicates protest and moves itself. In critical phases of protest new social systems of protest emerge whose form, content and effects are not determined, but dependent upon old structures, i.e., old structures enable and constrain new structures. The emergence of new protest issues, methods, identities, structures, and organizational forms starts as singular innovation, if it is widely imitated then it spreads within the protest system and transforms the system as a whole. In terms of Hegelian dialectics this means that novel qualities sublate the old structure of the total system, i.e., the system is transformed, reaches a higher level, incorporates old qualities, and creates new qualities. In critical phases protest can spontaneously and quickly spread and intensify itself. This reflects the idea of complexity thinking that small causes can spontaneously have large effects. The notion of self-organization as the idea of the networked, co-operative, synergetic production of emergent qualities and systems should be employed in order to arrive at a dynamic concept of protest. In order to reflect the increasing complexity of society and the emergence of a stratified knowledge society, a multidimensional model of class that is structurally coupled to the concept of social movements is suggested.

KEYWORDS

social movement self-organization protest social system 

REFERENCES

  1. Ahlemeyer, H. W. (1995). Soziale Bewegungen als Kommunikationssysteme, Leske + Budrich, Opladen.Google Scholar
  2. Banathy, B. H. (1996). Designing Social Systems in a Changing World, Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  3. Bausch, K. C. (1997). The Habermas/Luhmann debate and subsequent Habermasian perspectives on systems theory. In Midgley G. (ed.), Systems Thinking Vol. 4, SAGE, London. pp. 154–174.Google Scholar
  4. Blumer, H. (1969). Collective behaviour. In McClung-Lee, A. (ed.), Principles of Sociology, Barnes and Noble, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Böcher, W. (1996). Selbstorganisation. Verantwortung. Gesellschaft. Von subatomaren Strukturen zu politischen Zukunftsvisionen, Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen.Google Scholar
  6. Bühl, W. L. (1991). Politische Grenzen der Autopoiese sozialer Systeme. In Fischer (1993), S. pp. 201–226.Google Scholar
  7. Castells, M. (2000). The Rise of Network Society, (2nd edn.), Blackwell, Oxford/Malden.Google Scholar
  8. Castells, M. (2004). The Power of Identity, (2nd edn.), Blackwell, Oxford/Malden.Google Scholar
  9. Crossley, N. (2002). Making Sense of Social Movements, Open University Press, Buckingham/Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  10. Deleuze, G., and Guattari, F. (1976). Rhizome. Paris. Les Éditions de Minuit.Google Scholar
  11. Diani, M. (1977). Social Movements and Social Capital. Mobilisation 2(2), 129–147.Google Scholar
  12. Diani, M. (1992). The Concept of Social Movement. Sociol. Rev. 40, 1–25.Google Scholar
  13. Diani, M. (2003a). Introduction: Social movements, contentious actions, and social networks: “From metaphor to substance”? In Diani M., and McAdam D. (eds.), Social Movements and Networks. Relational approaches to collective action. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 1–18.Google Scholar
  14. Diani, M. (2003b). Networks and social movements: A research programme. In Diani M., and McAdam D. (eds.), Social Movements and Networks. Relational approaches to collective action. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 299–319.Google Scholar
  15. Diani, M., and McAdam, D. (eds.), (2003). Social Movements and Networks. Relational Approaches to Collective Action, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  16. Eder, K. (1993). New Politics of Class: Social Movements and Cultural Dynamics in Advanced Societies, SAGE, London.Google Scholar
  17. Eisinger, P. K. (1973). The conditions of protest in american cities. Am. Polit Sci. Rev. 67(1), 11–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Espejo, R. (2000). Self-construction of desirable social systems. Kybernetes 29(7/8), 949–963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eyerman, R., and Jamison, A. (1991). Social Movements. A Cognitive Approach, Polity, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  20. Flood, R. L., and Jackson, M. C. (1991). Total systems intervention: A practical face to critical systems thinking. In Midgley G. (ed.), Systems Thinking Vol. 4, SAGE, London, pp. 93–107.Google Scholar
  21. Fuchs, C. (2002a). Krise und Kritik in der Informationsgesellschaft. Arbeiten über Herbert Marcuse, kapitalistische Entwicklung und Selbstorganisation. Norderstedt. Libri.Google Scholar
  22. Fuchs, C. (2002b). On the Topicality of Selected Aspects of Herbert Marcuse's Works. Online: http://cartoon.iguw.tuwien.ac.at:16080/christian/marcuse/marcuseENG.htmlGoogle Scholar
  23. Fuchs, C. (2003a). Structuration Theory and Social Self-Organization. Syst. Pract. Act Res. 16(2), 133–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fuchs, C. (2003b). The Self-Organization of Matter. Nat. Soc. Thought 16(3), 281–313.Google Scholar
  25. Fuchs, C. (2004). The political system as a self-organizing information system. In Trappl, R. (ed.), Cybernetics and Systems 2004, Vol. 1, Austrian Society for Cybernetic Studies, Vienna, pp. 353–358.Google Scholar
  26. Fuchs, C. (2005a). Anti-globalization. In Bevir, M. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Government, SAGE, London (forthcoming, accepted paper).Google Scholar
  27. Fuchs, C. (2005b). Emanzipation! Technik und Politik bei Herbert Marcuse, Shaker, Aachen.Google Scholar
  28. Fuchs, C. (2005c). Herbert Marcuse Interkulturell Gelesen, Bautz, Nordhausen.Google Scholar
  29. Fuchs, C. (2005d). The self-organization of the political system in the age of globalization. In Hofkirchner, W. (ed.), The Self-Organization of the Information Society (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  30. Gamson, W. A., and Meyer, D. S. (1996). Framing political opportunity. In McAdam, D., McCarthy, J., and Zald, M. N. (eds.), Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 275–290.Google Scholar
  31. Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society, Polity Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  32. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks, International Publishers, New York.Google Scholar
  33. Habermas, J. (1981a). New Social Movements. Telos (49), 33–37.Google Scholar
  34. Habermas, J. (1981b). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns, 2 Volumes, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/Main.Google Scholar
  35. Habermas, J. (1987). The Theory of Communicative Action Vol II: System and Lifeworld, Polity, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  36. Habermas, J., and Luhmann, N. (1971). Theorie der Gesellschaft oder Sozialtechnologie, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/Main.Google Scholar
  37. Hardt, M., and Negri, A. (2005). Multitude. War and Democracy in the Age of the Empire, Hamish Hamilton, New York.Google Scholar
  38. Hellmann, K.-U. (1996a). Einleitung. In: Luhmann (ed.), pp. 7–45.Google Scholar
  39. Hellmann, K.-U. (1996b). Systemtheorie und neue soziale Bewegungen. Identitätsprobleme in der Risikogesellschaft, Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen.Google Scholar
  40. Horkheimer, M. (1937). Traditionelle und kritische Theorie. In Traditionelle und kritische Theorie, Fischer, Frankfurt/Main.Google Scholar
  41. Horkheimer, M., and Adorno, T. W. (1944/88). Dialektik der Aufklärung, Fischer, Frankfurt/Main.Google Scholar
  42. Hörz, H. (1993). Selbstorganisation sozialer Systeme: Ein Verhaltensmodell zum Freiheitsgewinn, LIT, Münster/Hamburg.Google Scholar
  43. Jackson, M. C. (1991). The origins and nature of critical systems thinking. In Midgley, G. (ed.), Systems Thinking Vol. 4, SAGE, London, pp. 77–92.Google Scholar
  44. Japp, K. P. (1984). Selbsterzeugung oder Fremdverschulden. Thesen zum Rationalismus in den Theorien sozialer Bewegungen. In Soziale Welt, pp. 313–329.Google Scholar
  45. Japp, K. P. (1986). Kollektive Akteure als soziale Systeme? In Unverferth, H.-J. (ed.), System und Selbstreproduktion, Lang, Frankfurt/Main, pp. 166–191.Google Scholar
  46. Japp, K. P. (1996). Soziologische Risikotheorie, Juventa, München.Google Scholar
  47. Laclau, E., and Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical and Democratic Politics. London. Verso.Google Scholar
  48. Lévy, P. (1995) Collective Intelligence: Mankind's Emerging World in Cyberspace, Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  49. Luhmann, N. (1984). Soziale Systeme, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/Main.Google Scholar
  50. Luhmann, N. (1986). Ökologische Kommunikation, Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen.Google Scholar
  51. Luhmann, N. (1996). Protest. Systemtheorie und soziale Bewegungen, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/Main.Google Scholar
  52. Marcuse, H. (1937). Philosophie und kritische Theorie. In Schriften Band 3, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/Main, pp. 227–249.Google Scholar
  53. Marcuse, H. (1966). The Individual in the great society. In Collected Papers of Herbert Marcuse Vol. 2: Towards a Critical Theory of Society, Routledge, London/New York, pp. 59–80.Google Scholar
  54. Marcuse, H. (1969). An Essay on Liberation, Beacon Press, Boston.Google Scholar
  55. Marcuse, H. (1972). Counter-Revolution and Revolt, Beacon Press, Boston.Google Scholar
  56. Marx, K. (1844). Einführung in die Kritik der Hegelschen Rechtsphilosophie. In MEW, Vol. 1, Dietz, Berlin, S. pp. 378–391.Google Scholar
  57. McAdam, D. (1982). Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  58. McAdam, D. (1988). Freedom Summer, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  59. McAdam, D. (1996a). Political opportunities: Conceptual origins, current problems, future directions. In McAdam, D., McCarthy, J., Zald, M. N. (eds.), Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 23–40.Google Scholar
  60. McAdam, D. (1996b). The framing function of movement tactics: strategic dramaturgy in the american civil rights movement. In McAdam, D., McCarthy, J., and Zald, M. N. (eds.), Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 338–355.Google Scholar
  61. McAdam, D. (2003). Beyond structural analysis: Towards a more dynamic understanding of social movements. In Diani M. and McAdam D. (eds.), pp. 281–298.Google Scholar
  62. McCarthy, J. (1996). Constraints and opportunities in adopting, adapting, and inventing. In McAdam, D., McCarthy, J., and Zald, M. N. (eds.), Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 141–151.Google Scholar
  63. McCarthy, J. D., and Zald, M. N. (1977). Resource Mobilization and Social Movements. Am. J. Sociol. 82(6), 1212–1241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Melucci, A. (1985). The symbolic challenge of contemporary movements. Soc. Res. 52(4), 789–815.Google Scholar
  65. Midgley, G. (1996). What is this thing called CST? In Midgley, G. (ed.), Systems Thinking Vol. 4, SAGE, London, pp. 108–122.Google Scholar
  66. Mingers, J. C. (1980). Towards an appropriate social theory for applied systems thinking: Critical theory and soft systems methodology. In Midgley, G. (ed.), Systems Thinking Vol. 4, SAGE, London, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
  67. Mische, A. (2003). Cross-talk in Movements: Reconceiving the Culture-Network Link. In Diani M. and McAdam D.(eds.), Social Movements and Networks. Relational approaches to collective action. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 258–280.Google Scholar
  68. Oberschall, A. (1973). Social Conflict and Social Movements, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.Google Scholar
  69. Offe, C. (1972). Strukturprobleme des kapitalistischen Staates, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/Main.Google Scholar
  70. Offe, C. (1985). New Social Movements: Challenging the Boundaries of Institutional Politics. Soc. Res. 52(4), 817–867.Google Scholar
  71. Rucht, D. (1996). The impact of national contexts on social movement structures. In McAdam, D., McCarthy, J., and Zald, M. N. (eds.), Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 185–204.Google Scholar
  72. Sanders, D., Clarke, H. D., and Stewart, M. C. (2005). Report on the Dynamic of Attitudes Towards Democracy and Participation in Contemporary Britain. In: UK Data Archive. http://www.data-archive.ac.uk/findingData/snDescription.asp?sn=5158&key=Democracy+and+ParticipationGoogle Scholar
  73. Schlemm, A. (1999). Dass nichts bleibt, wie es ist… Philosophie der selbstorganisierten Entwicklung. Band II: Möglichkeiten menschlicher Zukünfte. Münster. LITGoogle Scholar
  74. Snow, D. A. et al. (1972). Frame Alignment Processes, Micromobilisation and Movement Participation. Am. Sociol. Rev. 37, 736–780.Google Scholar
  75. Tarrow, S. (1998). Power in Movement, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  76. Tilly, C. (1978). From Mobilization to Revolution, Addison-Wesley, Reading.Google Scholar
  77. Tilly, C. (2004). Social Movements, 1768-2004, Paradigm, Boulder/London.Google Scholar
  78. Touraine, A. (1985). An introduction to the study of social movements. Soc. Res. 52(4), 749–787.Google Scholar
  79. Touraine, A. (1988). Return of the Actor, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
  80. Touraine, A. (1995). Critique of Modernity, Blackwell, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  81. Turner, R. H., and Killian, L. M.(1987) Collective Behavior, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.Google Scholar
  82. Ulrich, W. (1987). Critical heuristics of social systems design. In Midgley, G. (ed.), Systems Thinking Volume IV, SAGE, London, pp. 14–24.Google Scholar
  83. Zald, M. N. (1996). Culture, ideology, and strategic framing. In McAdam, D., McCarthy, J., and Zald, M. N. (eds.), Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 261–274.Google Scholar
  84. Zeyer, A. (1997). Die Kühnheit, trotzdem ja zu sagen, Scherz, Bern/München/Wien.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ICT&S Center—Advanced Studies and Research in Information and Communication Technologies & SocietyUniversity of SalzburgSalzburgAustria

Personalised recommendations