Does the New MiddleClass Lead Today’s Social Movements?

JOHN W. CLEVELAND (University College ofthe Cariboo,Canada)

ABSTRACT The conventional wisdomthat today’s movements areled by asection ofthe ‘new middleclass’ is really the oldfunctionalist theory of(post)modernizing elites that denies class analysis. The ‘youngadult nucleus’ thesis is proposedas an alternative theory.The leadingsocial forces in movements in afuent countries areintellectual radicals and‘ advancedelements’ from groupsthat experience some formof exploitation, oppression orcollective hurt.They areGramscian intellectuals as opposed toprofessional intellectuals. They arepeople who took the ‘opportunityduring socialization’ when youngadults to choose what oftenbecame alifelong‘ activist career’for .

Does theNew Middle Class Lead Today’s SocialMovements? Fromthe 1960sprotest wave throughto today’ s anti-globalizationprotests, aseriesof new lefts have replacedthe oldleft ofsocial-democratic and communistparties and unions as the leadersof major left-wing social struggles.This raises key questions.A centralquestion is: What social classor social force leads the newmovements? Ifit is not the working class,what does this mean aboutthe roleof the workingclass in the new movements? Wholeads today’ s socialmovements? The mostcommonly accepted answeris that the “newsocial movements” are led bythe newmiddle

Critical , Volume 29,issue 2 also availableonline Ó 2003Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden www.brill.nl 164 Cleveland ² class,or at least bysome section of it, not by the workingclass. 1 By Jan Willem Duyvendak’s deŽnition, are“ characterized bythe dominationof those parts of the new middle class who pursue post- materialist goals”(1995:19). This idea has achieved the statusof a common sense assumptioneven forsocial movement specialists.Scholars writing fromthe perspectiveof the dominantsocial movement ,Resource Mobilization(RM) theoryas well asNew SocialMovement (NSM) theory have bothaccepted it, albeit with different justiŽ cations detailed below. Reducingthese justiŽcations to a fewwords, the RMjustiŽcation is that only the newmiddle class is competent (has the culturalcapital) to lead today’s movements (McCarthyand Zald 1987)while the NSMjustiŽcation isthatonly the newmiddle class has the postmaterialistor postmodernizing consciousness(Kriesi 1993). The newmiddle class has been deŽned many differentways and the boundariesdelimiting the sectionthat supposedly leads the newmovements have been drawnin various ways. The formulationby Chris Rootes is modal:“ the highly educatedmembers of the newmiddle classes witha particularconcentration coming from those employed in teaching, caring andwelfare professions in the non-marketsector of the economy”(Rootes 1995:225-6).In additionit is widelyagreed that the newmovements are,as ClausOffe put it, ‘ ofandby’ a sectionof the newmiddle class but not ‘ on behalfof’ the materialinterests of thatclass or any otherclass (1985). There aremany deŽnitions of new social movements andnew left. I shall usea widedeŽ nition of both here. By newmovements, Imean all progressive socialmovements since1960 or thereabouts that are outside the oldleft, i.e.that are not led bythe social-democraticor communist parties or by the unionleaders allied with them. By newleft, I mean the left-wingof the newmovements thattypically triesto unite the overall Movement (in coalitionsetc.) and that has tendedto provide the leadershipin most of the majormilitant collective actions. Inthisarticle I challenge whatI shall referto asthe New MiddleClass thesis (NMC thesis) andargue for my ownYoung Adult Nucleus thesis (YANthesis) asa morefruitful approach to the leadershipof contemporary movements. Ishall Žrstgive acapsulesummary of the analysis that underliesmy thesis followedin section three bya presentationof the YANthesis insix points.The NMC thesis isthen presentedin six parallel pointsand it is shown how the twoapproaches are incompatible alternative accounts.In sectionŽ ve, Idemonstratehow relying ona YANinsteadof

1 Forextensive citations of important sourceson the politicalstance and role of the new middleclass see Bagguley (1995:293), della Porta andDiani (1999:47-48) and Rootes (1995:226). MiddleClass andSocial Movements 165 ² an NMC approachleads to very differentanswers to eight questions about the roleof the workingclass in today’ s movements. Iconcludewith a discussionof Žve waysin whichusing the YANthesis insteadof the NMC thesis asa workingassumption might improve predictions and explanations inthe studyof today’ s socialmovements.

II.Analysis Underlying YANThesis Here isacapsulesummary of the analysis thatunderlies the YANthesis. Integration: The newsocial movements arenot the resultof a shiftfrom workingclass goals and leadership to (new) middleclass goals and leadership.They arethe resultof the integrationof the majorityof the masses inall classes andsocial groups in af uent countries into support for the capitalistsocial system andimperialist world system. Mostpeople will notgo beyond economic and cultural militancy to political radicalism, i.e. they willnot challenge the rightto rule of powerholders(the rulingclasses), becausethey areunwilling to risk losing what relative privilegesthey have got.This integration is achieved bya mix ofprivileges, disciplining institutionsand the awesomerepressive capacity of rich country states butthe carrotof relative privilegesis the principalaspect because of two factors.The Žrstfactor is the economicand political success of andits post World War Two, Fordist Social Contract strategy: a welfare statein rich countries and continuous limited war coupled with aggressive policiesof capitalexpansion (modernization and development) inthe Third World.Capitalists created enough new wealth to be able to redistribute sufŽcient income, political and status group privileges to people inrich countries to buy their political support. The secondfactor is the economicand political failure of Marxiststates which greatly weakened the commonsense thatthere couldbe a workablealternative tothe existing system thatwas decidedly better. Rainbowrethinking, renewed movements: The oldleft actively contributedto andaccepted the limitsof the FordistSocial Contract. Consequently new movements anda newpolitical left developedmainly (butnot exclusively) outsidethe oldleft leadershipstructures existing atthe level ofparty andunion. They alsohave developedprimarily outside the conventional (electoraland lobbying) channels ofachieving politicalin uence and governmental power.The oldleft tookthe formof a single central movement (the workersmovement led bysocial democratic or communist parties)and auxiliary movements becauseit was assumed that the auxiliary issues(e.g., women’ s oppression,racism, imperialist colonization) would only beresolved once their structural roots were uprooted by replacing capitalismwith . New movements have overtime taken the form 166 Cleveland ² ofa Rainbowcoalition made up of multiple autonomous movements none ofwhich was the centralone to which the otherswere to be subordinated.Virtually none ofthe newsocial movements isactually newin terms of basic interests and issues. The secondwave women’s movement has foughtagainst patriarchy as did the Žrstwave movement. The contemporaryenvironmental andpeace movements have been against environmental destructionand imperialist war as were earlier versions ofthose movements. What has changedhas been the speciŽcs of the institutionalarrangements affecting the statusof women, environmental destructionand imperialist war and the waysin which movements understoodthe causesof those problems and the speciŽc changes needed tosolve them.For example, male violence againstwomen in the home isnothing new. However, in the secondwave itbecame a salient issue ina contextwhere better birth control and greater involvement inthe paidlabor force gave womenthe leverage tooppose violence asa denial ofequal partner status. I usethe terminologyof class exploitation, status groupoppression and policy-based collective hurtto refer to the three main basesof movements (oftenintermixed in practice). All three basesderive frominequalities of power, wealth and privilege between social groups. Exploitationis rooted in power relations between classes; oppression is rootedin power relations between status groups; collective hurts(like war andenvironmental destruction)are the injuryor disadvantage done to a ‘public’by dominant classes andstatus groups more or less asabyproduct ofthe exercise oftheir class or status group domination. Radical autonomyand new political left tendencies: Withineach ofthe newmove- ments (includingthe workersmovement inthe formof the notionof the ‘worker’s autonomy’philosophy developed most elaborately in the wave inItaly –see Lumley 1990)there developeda “radical”philosophy thatidentiŽ ed the autonomousmechanisms that accounted for the speciŽc “autonomous”oppression of the socialgroup that the movement existed to serve (e.g.,radical , deep ecology, institutionalized racism, Fanon’ s conceptionof colonization of the ThirdWorld). The radicalphilosophy jus- tiŽed the notionof a Rainbowcoalition of autonomousmovements (Bysty- dzienskiand Schacht 2001). The radicalphilosophies were at oneand the same timea moreleft wingcritique in the sense thatthey calledfor a more deep-goingset ofchanges andthe basisfor a kindof narrow and immediate self-interest‘ tradeunion consciousness’ (the ‘my oppressionŽ rst’mentality ofsome forms of identity ) (Scarce 1990; Taylor 1995). There also developedwithin each ofthe newmovements anewpolitical left orsimply ‘newleft’ philosophy and practice. This new political left tendency drew uponthe radicalphilosophy reconceptualizations but took the standthat the differentexploitations, oppressions and hurts, however much grounded MiddleClass andSocial Movements 167 ² inanalytically independentsocial mechanisms, also interacted with one an- otherand were part of a single overall socialand world system. They took the positionthat the autonomousmovements needed tounite in a single overall Movement Žghtingfor a newsocial and world system. Itis this left-wingwithin most social movements thatnot surprisingly has tendedto predominatein actually organizing the coalitionsand actions that bring activistsfrom multiple movements together.It is this left whichhas tended towork to get theirspeciŽ c movement andthe overall Movement tocon- sciouslyseek politicaldecision-making power at all levels includingcontrol ofthe economyand state power. Examples ofthe left tendency aresocialist feminismin the women’s movement, socialecology and the redgreens in the , the Black Pantherversion of inthe U.S. andthe anti-imperialist‘ Victoryto the NLF’trend within the antiVietnam warmovement (KatsiaŽcas 1987; List 1993;Carson 1981; Adamson et al.1988). Long-termpolitical minority: The newmovements have periodicallyachieved impressively largemass mobilizations and have mademajor inroads in changingthe waylarge numbers of peoplethink abouttheir speciŽ c issue. However,they have repeatedlycome up against the same fundamental roadblock:the largemajority of people in all classes andstatus groups areunwilling to go beyond issue-speciŽ c militancyto political radicalism. Asa consequenceboth the radicaland new political left activistsin militantsocial movement organizationsare a self-consciousminority tendingto use the tactics(such as civil disobedience and the development ofcountercultures) of an exemplary vanguard.They actlike whatI call a“nucleus”or seed bedof a futuremovement thatwill achieve the mobilizationof the majority.If and when the integrationof the majority intosupport for the system beginsto break down and the newmovements startto “ take off”as mass radical movements, itis likely thatwe willsee a signiŽcant reorganization of movements andthe overall Movement. Itis at thattime that we will see moreclearly whatrole the differentsocial classes andstatus groups will play inleading the movement fora newsociety. Itis my view thaton balance the workingclass is still moresupportive ofleftward social changes thanthe middleclasses butthe pointis moot. Atpresent no class is leading, certainly not the middleclass, because the majorityof all classes arenon-left and integrated.

III.A ThumbnailSketch of the“ YoungAdult Nucleus” (YAN) Thesis The YANthesis canbe statedin six points: 168 Cleveland ²

(1) Led byintellectual radicals and advanced detachments: New movements are notled bya class.Nor are they led bythe intelligentsia,the knowledge expert professionals,or by its left wing.They areled byintellectuals in the Gramsciansense ofthe word,people who try to educate the masses ofpeople about how to successfully Ž ghttheir oppression (Gramsci 1971). Moreprecisely they areled bytwo groups, “ intellectual radicals”and “advanceddetachments.” The advanceddetachments come to aparticular movement like the women’s movement orVietnam warveterans orradical workingclass movement primarilyon the basisof their experience of oppressionas a memberof the groupwhose exploitation, oppression or hurtis the focusof the movement. The intellectual radicals,many ofwhom areuniversity students or ex-university students,may ormay notbe part of the oppressedgroup in question. They take upradicalpolitics primarily on the basisof an intellectual andmoral process. Those intellectual radicals whocome from the middleclasses orbourgeois class are defecting from the stanceof their class but they arenot doing so as pure altruists. They arealigning their interests with the successof the movements they joinand ofthe oppressedgroups the movement serves. They think that,although they may have togive upprivileges they enjoy inthe presentsociety, they willhave abetterlife personallyin a newsociety which is post-capitalist, feministand so on. Indeed most people in af uent countries who become radicals,including highly exploitedpoor working class people, beneŽ t from variousprivileges which they arewilling to give upin the expectationof having abetterlife overall ina newsociety. (2) ARainbowMovement ofequal and autonomousmovements: Lenin’s Bolshevik partywas made up of a coreof intellectuals andadvanced workers.The socialistintellectuals camefrom outside the workingclass movement. Anadvanced worker was a workerthat was not only militant inparticular struggles (“ astriker”) butalso had qualities to enable them tobe militant leaders of the widerclass and political struggle, to be Gramscianintellectuals. He orshe hadinitiative and daring, capacity forintellectual understandingand leadership recognized by his or her fellowworkers. The newleft isin some ways analogous but different. The mostmilitant activist groups have typically triedto lead by example, usingthe tacticsof a self-consciousminority such as civil disobedience to arousea slumberingmajority which does not yet supportthem intheir radicalism,not even passively. On the otherhand, with the exceptionof the attemptto develop new-style Leninistorganizations by some radicals in the 1960swave (e.g.,the Black PantherParty), most radicals have rejected otherLeninist principles like having ademocraticcentralist hierarchy and discipline.The most important difference is that it is no longer the case thatthe left ismade up ofonecentral movement, the movement ofworkers MiddleClass andSocial Movements 169 ² organizedprimarily in theirworkplaces, with all othermovements auxiliary toit, led bya social-democraticor that aims to achieve socialismby election or . The newleft Movement isa Rainbow Movement inwhich all ofthe movements thatused to be auxiliary are, togetherwith the workersworkplace movement, oneof a set ofautonomous movements thatare regarded as all beingof roughly equal importance. Asa consequence,most of the advanceddetachments are not advanced workersfrom the workersmovement but,whatever class they may bein, advancedelements fromthe groupof oppressed African-Americans, or Vietnam warveterans orgays andlesbians that each ofthe particularnew movements areoriented to serve. (3) Leftwing of movements is sourceof a new political left: Thereis a new politicalleft withinmost movements thatseeks tobuilda unitedMovement seeking anewsocial and world system andto challenge forpolitical decision-makingpower at all levels. Ideologicallythis new political left has tendedtowards opposing the varioussystemic rootsof exploitations andoppressions including capitalism and imperialism. 2 Thishas been true tovarying degreesand in differentways in all three waves since1960 (the 1960sNew Left,the 1980sGreen partiesand New SocialMovements, the

2 Why hasthe left-wing ofnew movements tendedto anti-capitalism even thoughthe RainbowMovement is not asinglecentral workersmovement ledby socialistparties? First, capitalismis a majorcause of status group oppressions and collective hurts. Racismmay predatecapitalism and have autonomous roots but slavery in the U.S.and subsequently legalsegregation was a planter classpolicy serving primarily capitalisteconomic objectives. Maledomination of all societal institutions certainly hasindependent roots and predates capitalismbut a laborforce segmented by gender as well asrace, age and other characteristics hasbeen a capitalistpolicy too. Second, the socialmechanisms underlying variousstatus group oppressions and hurts areimportant determinants ofthe form and content ofcapitalistsocial relations. Slavery andlegal segregation and the gendersegmented laborforce can equallybe understood as racist and sexist policies that were only possible in societieswhere malesas a groupand whites as a groupwere alreadysocially dominant in institutionallyorganized ways. Third, the main powerholders in societyare capitalist businessesand pro-business state leaders. Most claims-makingis directed atthem andthey arethe backboneof anti-left (currently neo-liberal)political movements. Finally,new movements havea practicalmotivation to align themselves with workingclass strugglesand claims since the majorityof people in rich countriesare working class and so arethe majorityof people in the statusgroups and publics that constitutethe potentialmass baseof ‘ non-class’movements. Note: I deŽne workingclass as (1) non-owners ofmeans ofproduction who are forced to sell their labor-powerto an owner or (state)possessor of meansof production for a wageor salary;and (2) persons who produce or help realize surplusvalue for an owner.New middleclass persons do not meet the secondcondition andare not exploitedto the extent that they are(professional or managerial)agents of the capitalistand are thus granted authority over workers and/ orautonomyin their work and arepaid partly outof surplus. 170 Cleveland ² emerging2000s global social justice movement) despitethe cleardifferences inthe politicalenvironment in each wave andhence the differencesin the predominantstrategy-tactics orientation in the three waves. The 1960snew movements developedmainly outsidesocial democratic andcommunist parties and allied union leaderships (although there were newleft tendencies withinthem) andtended to deŽ ne itspolitics in terms ofa seriesof sought-for changes like participatorydemocracy, women’ s liberation,Third World national liberation and the like ratherthan asingle change like socialism.However, while the 1956Kruschov speech (and massexodus from Western communistparties) and 1962 Sino-Soviet split stimulateda strongquestioning of socialism in Marxist states as Stalinist, revisionistetc. the left-wingof the newmovements wasgenerally pro somekind of new-style socialism(new Marxist,new social democratic or newanarchist). The UnitedStates as always appears to be an exception butappearances are deceiving. All signiŽ cant factions within the main U.S.radical student group SDS tookexplicitly socialiststands at its last conferencein 1969 (and most had been moreor less socialistfor several years prior– see Sale 1973).After 1965, the left wingof the mainstudent- basedcivil rights activist group SNCC took a blackpower and socialism positionand eventually mergedwith the Black Pantherparty (Carson 1981).Up to at least 1972the strongestwomen’ s liberationorganizations wereeither socialist feminist or radical feminist (not liberal feminist like NOW) andwere mostly led bywomen that brought their politicswith them fromgroups like SDSand SNCC (Adamson et al.1988; Eisenstein 1978). The 1980sGreen orNew SocialMovements (NSM) wave,strongest inparts of Western Europeand above all West Germany, tookplace ina very differentpolitical environment. The 1960sNew Leftgroups haddissolved. Communist parties were in steep decline andnew Left- Libertarianparties like the West German occupiedthe vacuum tothe left ofthe socialdemocratic parties. The New Righthad begun its restructuringof economiesand states world wide. The issuesstimulating the majormovements (anti-CruiseŽ rststrike, anti nuclear reactor, opposition toU.S. interventionin CentralAmerica and elsewhere, antienvironmental destruction,‘ politicallycorrect’ defenses of1960s cultural and political gainslike afŽrmative action legislation and women’ s studiesdepartments) reveal the left tohave been onthe strategicdefensive againstthe Reagan- ThatcherNew Rightoffensive. The failureof the 1960sNew Leftto constructa lastingnew politics, including a newsocialism, plus the victoryof pro-capitalist forces in China, Pol Pot’ s Kampuchea,the rise ofthe workingclass anti-communist Solidarnosc etc. made the 1980s the heyday ofpostmodernist skepticism stimulated by disillusionment with MiddleClass andSocial Movements 171 ²

Marxistsocialism as the means toa non-capitalistegalitarian society. The newleft washighly fragmentedinto “ newsocial movements” anchored incountercultures accentuating their ‘ radicalautonomist’ (deep ecology, radicalfeminist etc.) visions, new Green electoralparties and direct actionor terrorist groups (KatsiaŽ cas 1997). The 1980scould be treated asa periodof abeyance insteadof a wave andcountercultures might beviewed as abeyance structuresbut this fails to acknowledge the massive mobilizationsof the period(Koopmans 1995; Epstein 1991). That assessment wouldbe as wrong as the oppositeposition taken byAlberto Melucciand other New SocialMovement theorists.They readwhat was a temporarysituation of a left lacking an explicitpolitical project and being onthe strategicdefensive againsta risingNew Rightas meaning thattaking powerin the economyand state was permanently offthe agenda(Melucci 1996).The left ofthe NSMs (notablythe squatterbased Autonomist trend), the directaction and terrorist groups and the redgreens anddeep ecology ‘extra-parliamentaryaction Ž rst’wing of Green partiescontinued to be anti-capitalistand anti-imperialist but they weremostly not ready to present themselves asnew socialists either (della Portaand Rucht 1995). The 1980s werecloser in spirit to the 1930santi-fascist Popular Front wave thanto eitherthe 1910sor 1960s waves. The 2000sglobal social justice movement wave actuallybegan with anti freetrade and anti sweatshop and DIY organizing in the 1990s(e.g., the Zapatistas)but the November30 1999Seattle anti-WTOprotest is treated asits symbolic start (McKay 1998;Klein 2000).If the 1960swave was newsocialist and the 1980swave waspostmodernist the 2000swave might becharacterized as post-Marxist,i.e. as searching for a newanti-capitalist, anti-imperialistetc. political project to replace socialism (Murphy 2002). The slogansthat have predominatedin the seriesof anti-globalization protestsagainst G8, WTO, World Bank etc.meetings have been very explicitly anti-capitalist(e.g., the largestumbrella groups in many protests have hadnames like Anti-CapitalistConvergence). The broad theme thusfarof the 2000sleft isto be “ againstneo-” and “ against corporaterule” (Starr 2000; Cockburn and St. Clair 2000). It is notable thatthere has been amuchhigher self mobilizationby working class and peasantgroups in the ThirdWorld as well asFirst World than inthe 1980s.The Seattle-style civildisobedience protesters are still mostly(white) student,previous wave olderactivist and youth but there aresigns of the twogroups coming together – forexample, the strikesin Italy after Genoa,the 500,000at the EUmeeting protestin Barcelona (Prokosch and Raymond2002). (4) Radicalized when youngadults: Alargeproportion of the leadingpeople innew movements areyoung adults under 30. This applies to both 172 Cleveland ² intellectual radicalsand advanced detachments. It appearsto be more true ofactivists than itis of active supportersor passive supporters. Generally the higherthe commitmentof time and risk of costs the morelikely the personwill be a youngadult. Many areuniversity students or ex universitystudents but many othersare young working or unemployed peoplewho have simply“ droppedout” to varying degreesinto a radical (some are both). The predominanceof young adults in the coreof the leadershipof militant protest groups is undisputed for the 1960s wave (Flacks 1988;Gitlin 1987). For the 1980swave the countercultural communitiesthat provided many forcesto the militantwings of “newsocial movements”were mainly young,i.e. not veterans ofthe 1960swave or older(KatsiaŽ cas 1997). In West Germany the locality-basedmainstream BIecologygroups and many inthe Realo parliamentarywing of the Green partywere typically olderand more likely tobe established in a professionalcareer. But this really supportsmy thesis sincethe oldermore establishedpeople were mostly in the less militantparts of the movement andwere more likely tohave been liberalsthan radicals in the 1960swave (Koopmans1995). The 2000s wave anti-globalizationprotests have been densely documentedby videos, zines, independent media reports, scholarly bookson globalization and anthologies of texts byyoung activists all of whichshow the youthof most of the participantsin civil disobedience (e.g., see This is What DemocracyLooks Like videoon Seattle WTO1999 protest;see zmag.org,counterpunch or indymedia sites and Welton and Wolf2001; Klein 2000;McKay 1998;Prokosch and Raymond 2002). Thepredominance of young adults in each newwave isthe resultof the intersectionof an ‘opportunityfor political socialization’ effect and a periodeffect. The periodeffect is that the numberof peoplewho are newly radicalizedincreases in aperiodwhere there isa highwave ofsalient social injusticeevents andsocial justice struggles. The same personborn ten years lateror ten years earlierwith otherwise identical upbringing circumstances ismuch less likely tobecome an activist.A largerproportion of baby- boomerswho were in the 16to 25 range in the 1960swere stimulated to turnleft andbecome activists and/ orcountercultural than thosewho came ofage inthe 1950sor 1970s. The ‘opportunityfor political socialization’ effectis that people between 16 and25 are maximally opento responding tosalient socialinjustice events andstruggles. This latter effect has stood outin recent decades because the integrationof largemajorities has meant thatolder adults have been relatively farless responsive.If they didnot becomecritical of the system asyoung adults it is harder for them to doso once they have “becomeestablished” – they have morematerial privilegesat stake, they have obligationsto work and family thatlimit theirability to take risksand spend time on and they have been MiddleClass andSocial Movements 173 ² socializedand disciplined longer. Some of the opportunityoccurs when futureactivists are very young– the opportunityof being exposed to adults responsiblefor their socialization who are intellectually ormorally serious, whichhas the effectof encouragingthem tobe“ searchers”, tothink more forthemselves. Atthe timeof the decisionto become active they may bein university and exposed to liberal or radical ideas. Regardless they areat the pointwhere they areforming their adult views ona fullrange ofthings including basic social and political views. Because ofextended highereducation and the trendto later marrying and having childrenthey areless constrainedby work/careerand family until their late 20sat least. The youngadults who become politicized and radicalized, who become activistsin new movements and/orwho drop out of the ‘materialsuccess aboveall’ track into some degree of countercultural lifestyle, aremaking choicesthat frequently set the courseof the restof their life well past theiryouth. The choicethey aremaking is not a choiceabout how to be youthbut how to be an adultthe restof their life. The issuesand events thatthey get involved withas activists are mostly issues facing people of all ages notyouth in particular– war,racism, / productivismand environmental destructionetc : : : Havingsaid that, young adult activists do ofcourse also agitate around speciŽ cally youthissues and understand the waythe worldworks from their particular vantage pointas youth and basedon their particular experience ofthe worldso far. (5) Older adults have had an activist career: The secondlargest group of leadingpeople are older adults who have pursueda life-long“ activist career”since they wereŽ rstpoliticized, radicalized and became activists asyoung adults. 3 They have madesome sacriŽ ces intheir work career (less incomeand career success than they wouldhave otherwisehad) and family(having fewerand/ orlater children). They typically willhave gone throughlong periods where they didlittle activismat all beyonddoing somethingprogressive in their job or union or professional association orlocal community. They usuallycommit less time,are more focused

3 Myclaim that youngadults initially radicalized in oneactivist wave are supplemented in leadershipby older adults who were Žrst radicalizedin earlier wavesis based partly on dataI amcurrently analyzingfrom 471Quebecois and English-Canadian respondents to the 1990-1991Survey ofLeading1960s Activists. There isalsoa signiŽcant literature that showsthat left andleft-liberal politicalviews and activist involvement tend tobe retained overthe lifespan (Alwin et al.1991; McAdam 1988). I alsoknow from my ownactivist experiencethat many peoplefrom the 1960sand 1980s waves ‘ cameback in’ to more activeinvolvement after the SeattleWTO protest. In Canadathis led to a loosemovement ofcity-based groups under the headingof Rebuilding the Leftand there havebeen like groupingsplus mergers ofvarious socialist and left groupsin multiplecountries reported in left media. 174 Cleveland ² onone or so movement organizationsand are less willingand able to riskcosts compared to young adult activists. There are exceptions, such aspeople who Ž nda wayto continue for decades spending virtually all theirfree time outside their paid work (and sometimes in it)being a “full- time”activist, but they arethe exception.There are two points here. Most radicalsdo not become conservative when they areover thirty but remain committedto the cause(although their thinking of course evolves). They areactivist again later in life tothe extent they feel ablewhich is usually ata lowerlevel thanthe youngadult radicals. These factsfurther conŽ rm thatradicalization under conditions of integration has been aperiodeffect. They alsoshow that the majoritymobilization stage has notbeen reached. The newpolitical left todayis made up largely ofpeople Ž rstradicalized asyoung adults in a highwave, a mix ofpeople with a continuingradical commitmentfrom the 1960s,1980s and now 2000s waves.

(6) Gramscian intellectuals are the nucleusof future majoritarian organizations: The intellectual radicalsand advanced elements area largeproportion of those whoare active in an ongoingway in movements. They arethe nucleus ofwhat may eventually bemuch larger and much wider mass movements wherea signiŽcant proportion of the potentialmass base will be mobilized. Itis at this point that one or another will have tocome to the foreas at least oneof the majorsocial groups leading the overall left Movement forpower. New movements areradical activist minorities in this sense. They championthe interestsof the majorityof theirmass base. They areoriented to mobilizing that mass and sometimes mobilize large numbers ofpeople in particular protest actions. They succeedin in uencing the consciousnessof that particular mass base and of the general publicto be morefeminist, anti-racist, gay positive,environmentalist and so on. Some movements have engagedor mobilized a signiŽcant part of their mass constituencyby developing networks and communities around various kindsof service projects(e.g., women’ s shelters, gay AIDScounseling, PantherBreakfast forChildren and health clinics,youth centers) and aroundvarious kinds of community leisure and cultural activities (e.g., Gay Prideand year-round sports events). Despiteall thisno movement, witha fewexceptions like the U.S.civil rights movement, has mobilizedits base ina sustainedway into an organizedmajority movement thatchallenges the powerstructure politically on a left-wingbasis. This is because the majorityof peopleare integrated into support for the socialsystem andits rulersand will not challenge eitherradically for risk of losing the consumer wealthand political liberties and social peace that they have got. MiddleClass andSocial Movements 175 ²

IV:NMCThesis is Incompatiblewith YAN Thesis The New MiddleClass thesis canbe stated in six claimscorresponding tothe claimsjust stated for the YANthesis.In each case the claimsare incompatible.But Ž rstlet uslook at the majortheories used by scholars studyingsocial movements tosee howthey justifythe NMC thesis ina general way.Then wewill mention more speciŽ c justiŽcations as we look ateach ofthe pointsof the NMC thesis. New SocialMovement (NSM) theorywas developed in the aftermath ofthe 1960swave withthe self-consciousobjective of replacing asan accountof radical change fromone system toanother (Touraine 1974).It is grounded in postmodernism and is therefore strongly social constructionist.There are many speciŽc NSMparadigm-basedtheories butthey all sharethe claimthat new movements tryto accomplish radical change bychanging the culturerather than taking over the economy andstate. They all sharethe ideathat this strategy exists becausein postindustrialsocieties there isa struggleto replace modern industrial era values withpostmodern ones and the mainbasis of power in society is ,i.e. knowledge is power (Crook et al.1992). NSM theoristsassert thatthe newmovements areled bynew middle class knowledge experts becausea sectionof that class is moresocially liberal on postmaterialistor postmoderncultural issues than the decliningindustrial (era) workingclass (Duyvendak 1995). ResourceMobilization (RM) theorystarted out with what I shall call an ‘entrepreneurial’version articulated mainly byMcCarthyand Zald (1977). Socialmovement actorspursue their rational self interest.More speciŽ cally movements aremade up of social movement organizations(SMOs) led bypolitical entrepreneurs applying the same cost-beneŽt analysis logicas the capitalistentrepreneurs of neo-classical economic theory do or as the leadersof interest groups of liberal pluralism theory do. The main thing thatmakes SMOsdifferent from classical interest groups is that they use the tacticof pressuring authorities to meet theirinterests by engaging in non-violentbut disruptive protest. This version of RM theorydoes not joinNSM theoristsin seeing newsocial movements asnew and is not addressingthe issueof how a newleft replacedan oldleft. For them today’s movements areessentially acontinuationof liberal pluralist politics withnew style interestgroups. They retainthe ideafrom functionalist modernizationtheory that the middleclass has alwaysplayed the leading rolein pushing liberal capitalist societies to become more fully liberaland modernized(structurally differentiated) which corresponds with becoming amorefully meritocraticand hence moremiddle class society. The key differenceagain is that this liberalizing middle class acts primarily from ‘below’and from ‘ outside’conventional party and interest group channels. 176 Cleveland ²

TheRM theoryof leadership is an elite theorywhere new middle class peopletend to lead in reform initiatives as they have inthe pastbecause they have the requisiteresources and skills ofa counter-eliteto the rulers of society. Theother version of RM theory,Ž rstargued by Charles Tilly (1978), has been variouslylabeled aspolitical process or political opportunity theory.Somewhat confusingly, most RM theoriststoday apply this label to theirown work. Tilly himself has notspoken to the issueof the socialforces leadingnew movements. However,key elements ofhis theory contradict the entrepreneurial,and especially the functionalistmodernization theory, logic.The mostimportant of these ishis very deŽnition of what social movements areand what drives them forward.For Tilly movements are“ contentiouscollective action”by masses ofpeople and “ asustained challenge topower holders” expressed through“ repeatedpublic displays ofthat population’ s worthiness,unity, numbers and commitment” (Tilly 1999:257).They arestruggles between disadvantaged masses (orat least thoseacting in their name andseeking tomobilize them), whathe calls challenger groups,and authorities together with the privilegedgroups that have regularin uence ontheir decisions, what he calls the politymembers. Isee my YANthesis ascompatiblewith Tilly’ s general approach. (1) Typical representatives oftheir liberalizing, (post)modernizing class: The Ž rst pointof the NMC thesis isthat new movement leadersare typical representativesof the newmiddle class (or a sectionof it) which is more sociallyliberal and/ ormore committed to postmaterialist changes than otherclasses. SomeNSM theoristsargue that a sectionof the NMC ismore liberalbecause they aremiddle level bureaucrats/managersor professionals inthe non-proŽt publicservice sector(Offe 1987).They have nomaterial interestin defending a modernistcentralized state (their employers from whichthey seek autonomy)or modernist businesses bent on commodifying everything. Somebase themselves onInglehart’s (1990)theory that people borninto economic and physical security are freed to seek changes in the higher,post-materialist echelon ofthe Maslowhierarchy of needs. RM theoristslike Kriesisuggest that the newmiddle class leads the change from modernto postmodern society in a processanalogous to the transition fromtraditional to modern society (1995). The Ž rstpoint of the YAN thesis differssharply from this idea that the newmiddle class is more liberaland that the consciousnessof new movements derivesfrom the moreliberal consciousness of the NMC politicalentrepreneurs that create andlead them. The YAN thesis pointis that those who become activists areresponding to the conditionand struggle of disadvantaged masses and the consciousnessof movements developsout of the interestsand actions ofthose masses. MiddleClass andSocial Movements 177 ²

(2) SMOsseek the increased autonomyand inuence ofcivil society: The new movements arethe politicalaction wing of an expandingcivil society (deŽned as the sphereof voluntary associations of private individuals ‘outside’the mainstreaminstitutions of society) and their basic strategy is toexpand and its in uence further.They donot seek totake overcontrol of the mainstreamsociety institutions (economy, state or social organizations)or todisplacethe authoritiesand the dominantsocial groups fromdecision-making power like the oldleft did(Cohen and Arato 1992). NSM theoristsview civil society as the realmof free subjectivity, as the sourceof resistance to mainstream institutions that restrict the autonomyof (freely associated)individuals to live accordingto their cultural preferences (collective identities)(Melucci 1996). For RM theoristscivil society is simply the sphereof articulation of interests by interest groups as distinct from the sphereof decision-making by various authorities (McCarthy and Zald 1977).The YANthesis understandsthe ‘autonomous’consciousness of new movements very differently.The radicalphilosophies of the autonomous basesof oppression represent changing understandings about the causesof socialgroup inequality and the waysthey interact.For example, radical andsocialist feminists insist that patriarchy is an analytically separate system ofdominationfrom capitalist class relations. Hence the need foran autonomous(organizationally separate and free ofmale control)women’ s movement. Theirsocial demands for autonomy are demands for an end tomen’ s possessionand control of women’ s bodies,i.e. an endto the subordinationof women as ‘ wives andmother’ s Žrst.’These demands forautonomy are inscribed within wider demands for an endto the inequalitiesof power, wealth and status privilege which accrue to men asa socialcategory or group.This is somethingquite different from saying thatautonomous women’ s movements aremainly autonomousin relation tomainstream society (i.e. are ) or claiming that feminist autonomydemands are liberal individualist philosophy demands for the rightto live accordingto their individual (feminist) cultural preferences (Adamsonet al.1988; Eisenstein 1978). (3) There is nonew political left onlymore militant ormore counterculturalprotesters: Thereis no political left correspondingto the oldleft communistand socialdemocratic parties. Social movement organizationsare not within the same realmas politicalparties and corporate or state authorities (decision- makers) butare conŽ ned to “ civilsociety” (NSM theory)or the new-style interestgroup “ socialmovement sector”(RM theory)as claims-makers. Even revolutionarynew left politicalparties (like the Black PantherParty) orquasi-parties (like LotaContinua) or political structures coordinating campaignsand actions by coalitions (like the New Mobilizationcommittees coordinatingU.S. antiVietnam warprotests or more recent anti Gulf 178 Cleveland ²

Waror anti 9/ 11war coalitions) or city-based political collectives (like the Seattle LiberationFront created by ex-SDSers after 1969) are treated asjust one type ofSMO, as claims-makers that pressure authorities to inuence theirdecisions but do not seek totake politicaldecision-making power(della Portaand Rucht 1995; Tarrow 1989). The left withinsocial movements issimply those who have moreradical cultural ideas or counterculturalpractices or claims or are more militant and/ orviolent in action.NSM theoristMelucci (1996) explains the absenceof a political power-seekingleft asa deŽning characteristic of new movements. For himNSMs arecountercultures, “ submergednetworks” of people changing the worldby changing the culture,who come together occasionally in SMOsto pressure authorities but abjure power-seeking. Other NSM theoristslike Cohenand Arato (1992) or Eyerman andJamison (1991) understandSMOs as producers of new cultural discourses. There is room inRM theory,most certainly in Tilly’ s versionof it, for the notion ofa power-seeking,strategizing, Movement-uniting political left within socialmovements. However,even Tillyites like Tarrow(1989) have thusfar conŽned themselves todiscussing any left assimply those that are more radicalin their claims and especially moremilitant in their actions. This thirdpoint of difference with the YANthesis ispivotal. The YANthesis isthat there isa newpolitical left thathas been amajorleadership force innew movements especially atthe overall Movement level. Itcompetes with‘ moderates’and ‘ radicalautonomists’ and others just as left political partiesand political tendencies didwithin the ‘old’movements. Thisnew left ismade up of people whose basic stand is to uphold the interestsof all exploited,oppressed and hurt groups equally andto build an overall Movement fora newsociety. Scholars have generally been guiltyof failing tomake acleardistinction between the alleged newmiddle class liberal politicsof new movements andthe actualdifferent trends of political leadershipwithin them. (4) Youngadults don’t lead but many are rebels when youngor because ofa generation rebellion: Scholarsendorsing the NMC thesis have noexplanation for the factthat the coreleadership of militantsocial movements have been young adultsin each wave since1960 and have simplynot addressed the issue. What wedohave insteadare theories of why there have been largeyouth orstudent movements supposedlyorganized around “ youth”issues and morevaguely why lotsof youngpeople participate (Flacks 1988).Inglehart assertsa “generationrebellion” cohort effect: that the boomerswere the Žrstcohort of arisingnew middle class and the Žrstbearers of the emergent afuent society’ s postmaterialistvalues (1990).This cannot explain the predominanceof young adult leaders (and the absenceof older adult ones) insubsequent cohorts. Some scholars have alsoinferred an age effect,a MiddleClass andSocial Movements 179 ²

‘radicalwhen youare young’ effect (Pakulski 1990)This might be explained byRM theoristsby the apparentlower costs of engaging in radical protest actionwhen still atschool(free campusresources, more discretionary time, canafford to get arrested,can afford to take afewyears offbefore settling down).But this begs the questionas to why, if it is the liberalismof new middleclass occupations and the professionalmilieu that is stimulating them intonew movement activism(hence costsought to beloweredby the supportiveenvironment), people cease tobe activistleaders the morethey awayfrom school into those occupations. The YANthesis isthat youngadults predominate in leadership, especially inmilitant groups and withinthe newpolitical left, because choosing to be a politicalradical in an afuent society is a choiceto risk the costof losing signiŽ cant relative privilegesin order to achieve even higherperceived beneŽ ts. Young adults areat a stage wherethey aremaking decisions about how they willlive the restof their lives. They aremore open than others to deciding that it is worthseeking the higherbeneŽ ts that come long term with a newsociety andshort term with a lifestyle basedon left values atthe riskof payingthe costsof beinga politicalminority and having less materialsuccess because oftime and energy divertedinto years (andmaybe alifetime) ofactivism. (5) Itis becoming easier for(older) middle classprofessionals to combine activism with their career because protest actionis increasinglylegitimated: Both NSM and RMtheoristssupporting the NMC thesis believe thatnew movements are gainingin numbers of SMOs, numbers of people involved, in uence on decision-makersand legitimacy in the eyes ofthe authorities(although authoritieswill make distinctionsbetween radicals and moderates, even radicalsare responded to more as ‘ rational’protesters and claims-makers thanas ‘ irrational’rioters or terrorists). The newmiddle class is not the workingclass and has nointerest in taking over the economyor state, is nothreat to the capitalistsystem orthe ruleof the rulingclass even ifsome wantto reform both. The NMC only wantsto increase the inuence of “civilsociety” or the “socialmovement sector”on public opinion (what culturalideas have inuence) andon the authorities(decision-makers changinglaws and policies more in response to SMO ideas, claims and pressure).Most of what has been writtenabout this point has been writtenby RM theorists.They stresshow SMOs engaging in non-violent protestare increasingly treated as legitimate new-style interestgroups in a“socialmovement society”where protest is added to lobbying, media campaignsetc. as atechniqueof advocacy (Meyer andTarrow 1998). This rosyview is different from the correspondingYAN thesis pointwhich is: Militantactivism led bythe newpolitical left isbeingtreated by authorities justas negatively asthey treatedleft-wing militancy in the past.The repressionof anti-globalization protesters and the attitudeof authorities 180 Cleveland ² towardopponents of Bush’ s 9/11war suggest that police and authorities continueto make distinctionsbetween left andmoderate protesters. Hence olderactivists that persist in aleft activistcareer are still politicaldeviants. Yesauthorities can afford to tolerate more protest as long as the new politicalleft remainsweak inmass support. But the increasedtolerance forsome protests has notled toa substantivepolicy shift whereby ruling groupsare conceding more left liberalreforms, let alone left-wingones.

(6) The increased legitimacy, size and inuence ofnew movements coincideswith the ever increasing role ofestablished middle classprofessionals as the intellectual leaders ofmovements: RMtheoristsunderstand this idea in terms of the trendto amoreprofessionalized leadership of SMOs (McCarthy and Zald 1987).NSM theoristssee NMC manager/professionalknowledge experts ashaving morepower in a knowledgesociety and see socialmovements as amajorvehicle forthe exercise ofthat knowledge-based discursive power (Eyerman andJamison 1991). The YANthesis pointpredicts the opposite. The roleof middle and bourgeois class knowledge experts asmovement intellectuals isoverstatedto begin with and will decrease to the extent new movements mobilizethe masses.This is the basicGramscian point: the exploited,oppressed and hurt will have realcultural as well asdecision- makingpower to the extent thatthey arethe ‘movement intellectuals’in theirown movements.

V.Implicationsof Working Class Non-Leadership Boththe YANthesis andNMC thesis assertthat the workingclass is notleading new movements. Butthis fact means very differentthings for proponentsof the twoapproaches. Here areeight different questions that startwith the premise“ Ifthe workingclass is not leading new movements, then: : :?”.Using the NMC orYAN theoryabout the leadershipof new movements resultsin clearly differentanswers. The commonthread that runsthrough all the answersis that the NMC thesis leadsaway from any kindof class analysis andsees classes andclass exploitation as of declining importance.The new middle class is understood as a classthat does not seek classinterests and hence really asa liberalizing(counter) elite not aclass.The YANthesis leadsback to class analysis, ormore precisely towhat I call “classplus” analysis. Itasserts the continuingrelevance of classexploitation but in the contextof the integrationof all classes inrich countriesand an evolving Rainbowrethinking of the relationshipbetween exploitations,oppressions and hurts. MiddleClass andSocial Movements 181 ²

#1:What is the basis ofthe left-wing consciousnessdeveloped bythe classor social forcethat leads new movements? NMC:There isanew way tobe left andit is basedon sharing inaliberal(post) modernizingculture notthe clashing interests ofdominant and subordinate social groups(Pakulski 1990). YAN: The new left consciousness is groundedin the materialsituation of exploitedclasses, oppressedsocial groupsand publics affected by collective hurts.

#2:Why donew movements sooften use outside the political system quasi-revolutionaryextra-parliamentary protest tactics? NMC:The new middleclass andnew movements don’t want direct decision- makingpower in the system only inuence fromthe outsideas a“civil society” or“ social movement sector”(Cohen and Arato 1992). YAN: New movements, especially the new politicalleft, want powerto replace the existing state andcorporate power structure.

#3:What is the role ofthe workingclass in new movements? MC:The ‘postmodernist’new middleclass is moresocially liberal.The ‘modernist’working class lags (Kriesi 1993). YAN: The workingclass is still, relative toother classes, the most progressive class butthe majorityin all classes andstatus groupsare integrated.

#4:What is the mass constituencybase ofthe new movements? NMC:The mass baseis all those individualswho share individuallychosen culturalvalues andcollective identities(NSM theory only) (Whittier 1995). YAN: Exploited,oppressed and hurt groups. RM theory doesn’t necessarily disagree.

#5:How do the new movements plan totake powerto build anew society? NMC:The questionis Žnessed bysaying new movements donot seek totake controlof economy orstate. They only seek to“ empowerthemselves” as a civil society orsocial movement sector with expandingin uence in the existing social system (Melucci 1996;Tarrow 1989). YAN: The new left still wants the masses totake powerover the mainstream institutionsof economy,culture andstate. Classic means have beentried (e.g., workers takingover means ofproduction in France in 1968or Italy in 1969 orQuebec in 1972and students occupyingcampuses) butthe left has no clear strategy forpower because there isnonew projectto replace the ideaof socialism as the means toa non-capitalist,non-patriarchal etc. society.

#6:What is the relationship ofthe new movements tothe workingclass struggle against capitalism? NMC:The radicalworking class struggleagainst capitalism is over.It has beenpaciŽ ed by afuence andthe welfare state.Thus there isnorelationship. 182 Cleveland ²

New movements replace the oldstruggles (Pakulski 1990). YAN: There is aleft within the workers movement justas there is in all movements althoughthe moderateleaders dominate.The left in most new movements has tendedtowards anti-capitalism (more weakly in the 1980swave) andto support for worker struggles.The left in the workers movement similarly tends tosupport struggles againstpatriarchy, environmental destruction,imperialism etc.

#7:What is the unifyingthread innew movement demands ifit is notreplacing capitalism with socialism? NMC:There is nounifying thread except the liberalideal of pluralism, the ideathat each particularisticgroup of individuals should have some inuence ondecisions andbe able to live alifestyle accordingto its own cultural preferences (Melucci 1996;Kriesi 1993). YAN: The germof a unifyingthread is the ideaof a new society basedon the endingof all systems ofclass exploitation,status groupoppression and policy-basedcollective hurt.

#8:Why did the new movements and the new left emerge outside the ? NMC:The new movements didnot want toreplace capitalismwith socialism (Pakulski 1990;Duyvendak 1995). YAN: The oldleft was perceivedas having indeŽnitely postponedany politicallyradical Ž ght againstcapitalism just as much as ithad postponed radicalopposition to patriarchy, imperialism or any otheraspect ofthe existing social system.

VI:Improvements inthe Study of Movements The mainreason to set asidethe New MiddleClass thesis andto provisionallymake somethinglike my YANthesis the workingassumption aboutthe leadershipof newmovements isthat it willlead to improvements inthe studyof social movements. Here aresome examples underthe headingsof speciŽc contrastingassumptions: (1) Movements are avant-garde elites vs. Movements are oppressed masses: The NMC thesis has been associatedwith efforts to understand movements intermsof agency andrational choice instead of what was seen asthe mobpsychology ofcollective behavior(functionalist) theory and the economicreductionism andstructural determinism of Marxist theory. The focushas been on activists,hence onthe roleof (counter)elites. The YANapproachleads toa rebalancingwhere equal attention is paid to the masslevel and toseeing masses asagents. So Ž rst,instead of just looking at how the perceptionby activists of political opportunity affects mobilization we can lookat howthe perceptionof masses affectsit too– there isan interaction betweenthe willingnessof activists to mobilize and the willingnessof MiddleClass andSocial Movements 183 ² masses torisk struggle. Second, in the pastŽ fty years newmovements have operatedin rich countries in a contextwhere the overall material conditionsof most people were improving. With somepartial exceptions (e.g.,)movements have been movements ofactivist minorities motivatedmore by a sense ofsocial justice (hence moreby the desire forbeneŽ ts than consideration of costs) and opportunity to apply pressure thanby deteriorating conditions or threat. Theories which examine factors thatbear on the choicesmade by elites workedwell (forexample, more afuence meant moreresources available toelites formobilization). What happensif this changes andlarge numbers of peoplein rich countries start facinglosses offreedom or standard of living orequality?Then weneed to move awayfrom the NMC thesis ideaof movements asvehicles forelite liberalismand look more at factors affecting the level ofmass (willingness to)struggle. Third, the YANargumentpoints to the need fora Rainbow post-Marxistmulti-dimensional “ classplus” analysis whichanalyzes the interactingeffects of the situationof classes, status groups and publics. (2) Powerof ideas vs. Powerof mass action: The NMC thesis suggeststhat wecan separate ideas from action. The qualityof the ideasof expert knowledgeprofessionals is a key tosuccess (and a majorreason why they lead).The YAN thesis workswith the notionof instead. Goodideas are important but change isachieved byimproving praxis, consciouspractice, action by masses andactivists which is in part guided bygood ideas. Hence Žrstwe need toreturn to Tilly’ s deŽnition of the subjectmatter, to the ideathat social movements are“ contentious collective action”and part of a widerŽ eld ofcontentious politics (inter- groupstruggles for power) at all levels. Second,we need tostudy ideas but mainly atthe massand activist (contentious collective) actionlevel, atthe level oftheirin uence onpractice, in the formwhich they actuallytake in practicefor masses andactivists. This means lookingmore at what effects differentissue framings, slogans, propaganda explanations and agitational calls toactionhave onmassmobilization. It means assessing howdiffering implicitor explicit social analyses, programmaticideas, understandings of strategyand tactics etc. affect the choicesmade by different SMOs and differentsets ofactivists within them. We actuallyneed tostudy ideas morethan is typically donenow but as praxis, as shapersof one course of actionrather than another. (3) Workingclass vs. Integrationof all classes: Shiftingto YAN workingassumptions means redirectingenergy awayfrom explaining the conservatismof the workingclass or the liberalismof the newmiddle class(e.g., endless surveys tryingto measure adherence to so-called post- materialistvalues) toassessing the impactof general socialmechanisms whichtend to “ integrate”people from all classes andgroups. There is 184 Cleveland ² an enormouswealth of research by social scientists into these mechanisms (e.g.,Foucault on disciplinary institutions; Marcuse, Reich orLaing on sexual repressionand produced by families; postmodernist insightsinto fragmentation and instability of identities;how race or gender inequalitiesor occupational status privileges divide workers; how class or raceor sexuality inequalitiesdivide women’ s groups).I amsuggestingthat thisvast arrayof concepts be deployed more in social movement analysis fromthe vantage pointof explaining general integrationmechanisms. Note thatthis is notjust a studyof ideologyor .It is mainly a studyof materialinequalities and institutionalized power relations and how they integratepeople into practical acquiescence, how they dividepeople atboth the massand SMO level. (4) Anti-capitalism is overvs. Anti-capitalism continues: Improvedunderstandings ofgeneral processesof disciplining, dividing on the basisof privileges, identityformation and the like willhelp explain obstaclesto mass mobilizationagainst the socialsystem butit is not the key factorin explaining the (lack of)salience ofanti-capitalist struggle. The NMC thesis restson the assumptionthat anti-capitalist struggle is essentially overin rich countriesbecause neither economicdeprivation nor alienated labor are majorconcerns in post-industrial economies. New movements aredriven bypost-materialist concerns for self-development instead.The YANthesis assertsthat the left wingon both the activistand mass level continue tosee capitalismas a majorsource of the problemsin rich societies. However,the appealof anti-capitalist struggle is critically undermined by the commonsense perceptionthat Marxist socialism has failedto produce workablealternatives tocapitalism. The implicationof this is that it isnot the successof capitalism in improving levels ofconsumer wealth etc. that prevents peoplefrom getting enthusiastic about anti-capitalist struggles but the perceivedlack ofviabilityof alternatives.If there wasan anti-capitalist revolutionsomewhere that created a societythat was more free, more democraticand more socially equal (even ifnot yet morerich) than any capitalistsociety it would spark a sea change ininterest in anti-capitalism virtuallyovernight. Accepting this working assumption would lead to moreattention being paid by scholars to the effortsof new movements todevelop viable alternative socialarrangements preŽ guratively, i.e. to practiceembryonic forms of the socialarrangements sought in a new societywithin movements andwithin existing socialinstitutions. Marx showedhow every classthat became a newruling class did so by Ž rst buildingan embryonicnew and social and political institutionswithin the conŽnes ofthe old.In the 1970s,Western Marxists drewon Gramsciand others to Žgureout ways in which the workingclass coulddo the same.What Iamsuggesting is that a YANapproachwould MiddleClass andSocial Movements 185 ² mean makingpreŽ gurative social arrangements a majorfocus of studybut froma Rainbow“ classplus” perspective. (5) New things tochange vs. New waysto change same things: Thereis agrainof truthin the claimthat changing culture, the situationof individuals and the self has becomerelatively moreimportant to people than changing socialstructures, the situationof groups and society. That grain is that weare more likely tothink thatwe can socially construct ourselves (and authoritiesthink they canbe more successful in molding us). However, contraryto what is implied by the NMC thesis,the factthat people have agreatersense oftheir ability to freely willtheir self’ s characteristics andtheir relations to others does not mean thatnew movements no longerwant to get ridof the socialstructures of capitalism, imperialism, patriarchyetc. but only wantto seek moreautonomy to preach and practicenew cultural ideas. The YAN approachstarts from the assertion thatsocial scientists know that the systematicsocial relations of capitalism, imperialism,patriarchy etc. exploit, oppress and hurt people. We knowthat peoplewill tend to try to free themselves fromnegative socialrelationships. Consequentlywhat scholars should concentrate on Žguringout is the new waysin whichpeople are struggling against these “old”systems. We should tryto get athow activists and masses have newunderstandings of what these systems are(e.g., the relative roleof micro, meso and macro level powerrelations; the interactionbetween gender, race, class etc. structures) andnew intuitions about what new social arrangements are needed. Wholead’ s today’s socialmovements? Scholarsand activists who areinterested in developing a forthrightlyleft-wing ‘ class-plus’Rainbow analysis ofcontemporary movements shouldquestion the conventional wisdomthat a newmiddle class liberalizing elite isdoing the leading.

References

ADAMSO N, N., L. BRISKIN AND M. MCPHAIL 1988 Feminist Organizing for Change .Toronto:Oxford University Press. ALWIN,D.F.,R.L.C OHEN AND T.M. NEWCOMB 1991 Political Attitudes Overthe Life Span .Madison:University ofWisconsin Press. ANTI-CAP ITALIST CONVERGENCE “Call forAn Anti-CapitalistConvergence Againstthe WorldEconomic Forumin New York City (January31 - February4).” January 31, 2002. http://www.abolishthebank.org/wef2002.html .ConsultedJune 15 2002. ARRIGHI, G., T.K. HOPKINS AND I. WALLER STEIN 1989 Anti-Systemic Movements. London:Verso. 186 Cleveland ²

BAGGULEY, P. 1995 “Middle-classradicalism revisited.” In Social Changeand the Middle Classes . Tim Butler andMike Savage (eds.). London: UCL Press:293-309. BAR KER, C., A. JOHNSON AND M. LAVALETTE 2001 Leadershipand Social Movements .Manchester:Manchester University Press. BECK, U. 1992 Risk Society .London:Sage. BELL, D. 1973 Thecoming of post-industrial society. New York:Basic Books. BRINT, S. 1984 “‘’and cumulative trend explanationsof the liberalpolitical attitudes ofprofessionals.” AmericanJournal of Sociology 90: 30-71. BYSTYDZIENSKI , J.M. AND S.P. SCHACHT (EDS.) 2001 Forging RadicalAlliances Across Difference .London:Rowman and LittleŽ eld. CARSON, C. 1981 In Struggle: SNCCand the Black Awakening of the1960s .Cambridge:Harvard University Press. CLAR K, T.N. 2001 Review of TheEnd of Class Politics? Geoffrey Evans(ed.). New York:Oxford University Press.In Contemporary Sociology .Vol.30(4): 386-387. COCKBURN, A. AND J. ST. CLAIR 2000 FiveDays thatShook the World .London:Verso. COHEN, J. AND A. ARAT O 1992 CivilSociety andPolitical Theory .Cambridge:MIT Press. CROOK, S., J. PAKULSKI AND M. WATERS 1992 Postmodernization .London:Sage. DELLA PORTA, D. AND M. DIANI 1999 Social Movements .Oxford:Blackwell. DELLA PORTA, D. AND D. RUCHT 1995 “Left-LibertarianMovements in Context: AComparisonof Italy and West Germany, 1965-1990.”In ThePolitics of Social Protest .J.C.Jenkins and B. Klandermans (eds.).Minneapolis: University ofMinnesota Press, pp. 229-272. DICKINSON, T.D. AND R.K. SCHAEFFER 2001 Fast Forward .Lanham:Rowman and LittleŽ eld. DUYVENDAK, J.W. 1995 ThePower of Politics: NewSocial Movementsin France. Boulder:Westview Press. EISENSTEIN, Z. (ED.) 1978 Capitalistpatriarchy and the case for .New York: Press. EPSTEIN, B. 1991 Political Protest andCultural Revolution .Berkeley, Calif.:University ofCalifornia Press. EYERMAN, R. AND A. JAMISON 1991 Social Movements: ACognitive Approach .Cambridge:Polity Press. FLAC KS, R. 1988 MakingHistory: TheAmerican Left and the American Mind .New York:Columbia University Press. GIDDENS, A. 1998 TheThird Way .Cambridge:Polity. MiddleClass andSocial Movements 187 ²

GITLIN, T. 1988 TheSixties: Yearsof Hope, .New York:Bantam Books. GORZ, A. 1982 Farewellto theWorking Class .Translatedby MichaelSonenscher. London:Pluto Press. GRAMSCI, A. 1971 Selections fromthe Prison Notebooks .New York:International Publishers. GUNTZEL, R.P. 1993 TradeUnions andSeparatism in Quebec .Augsburg:AV-Verlag. HEATH, A. AND M. SAV AGE 1995 “Politicalalignments within the middleclasses, 1972-1989.” In andthe Middle Classes .Tim Butler andMike Savage (eds.). London: UCL Press: 275-292. INGLEHART, R. 1990 Culture Shiftin AdvancedIndustrial Society .Princeton: Princeton University Press. KATSIAFICAS, G. 1987 TheImagination of theNew Left .Boston:South End Press. 1997 TheSubversion of Politics .New Jersey:Humanities Press. KITSCHELT, H. 1986 “PoliticalOpportunity Structures andPolitical Protest: Anti-Nuclear Move- ments in FourDemocracies.” British Journal of Political Science 16: 57-85. KLEIN, N. 2000 .Toronto:Alfred A.Knopf. KOOPMANS, R. 1995 Democracy fromBelow .Boulder:Westview Press. KRIESI, H. 1993 Political Mobilization andSocial Change .Aldershot:Avebury, Ashgate Publishing Ltd. LIST , P.C. (ED.) 1993 RadicalEnvironmentalism. Belmont: Wadsworth. LUMLEY, R. 1990 Statesof Emergency: of Revolt in Italy from1968 to 1973 .London:Verso. MCADAM, D. 1988 FreedomSummer .New York:Oxford University Press. MCCARTHY, J.D. AND M.N. ZALD 1977 “ResourceMobilization and Social Movements: A Partial Theory.” American Journal of Sociology 82:1212-1241. 1987 “The Trend ofSocial Movements in America:Professionalization and ResourceMobilization.” In Social Movementsin anOrganizational Society . Mayer N.Zaldand John D.McCarthy (eds.).New Brunswick: Transaction:337-392. MCKAY, G. 1998 DIYCulture: Party andProtest in Nineties Britain .London:Verso. MELU CCI, A. 1984 “AnEndto Social Movements?” . Social ScienceInformation 23: 819-35. 1996 ChallengingCodes. New York:Cambridge University Press. MEYER, D.S. AND S. TARROW 1998 TheSocial MovementSociety. Lanham:Rowman and LittleŽ eld. MURPHY, C. (ED.) 2002 EgalitarianPolitics in theAge of Globalization .London:Palgrave. 188 Cleveland ²

OFFE, C. 1985 “New SocialMovements: Changing Boundariesof the Political.” Social Research 52(4):817-868. 1987 “Challenging the Boundariesof Institutional Politics: Social Movements since the 1960s.”In ChangingBoundaries of thePolitical .C.S.Maier (ed.). Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press. PAKULSK I, J. 1990 Social Movements .Melbourne:Longman. PAR KIN, F. 1968 MiddleClass Radicalism .Manchester:Manchester University Press. PROKOSCH, M. AND L. RAYMO ND (EDS.) 2002 TheGlobal Activist’ s Manual .New York:Thunder’ s MouthPress/ NationBooks. RABINOW, P. (ED.) 1984 TheFoucault Reader .New York:Pantheon Books. ROOTES, C. 1995 “Anew class?The higher educatedand the New Politics.”In Social Movements andSocial Classes .LouisMaheu (ed.). London: Sage. SAL E, K. 1973 SDS.New York:Random House. SCARCE, R. 1990 Eco-Warriors .Chicago:the NoblePress. STARR, A. 2000 Namingthe enemy: Anti-corporate MovementsConfront Globalization. New York:St. Martin’s Press. TAR ROW, S. 1989 Democracy andDisorder. New York:Oxford University Press. TAYLOR , B.R. (ED.) 1995 Ecological Resistance Movements .Albany:SUNY Press. TILLY, C. 1978 From Mobilization to Revolution .Reading:Addison-Wesley. 1999 “Conclusion:From Interactions toOutcomes in SocialMovements.” In How Social MovementsMatter .MarcoGiugni, Doug McAdam and Charles Tilly (eds.).Minneapolis: University ofMinnesota Press. TOURAINE, A. 1974 ThePost-Industrial Society. London:Wildwood House. WEEKS, J. 1990 (1977). Coming Out.London:Quentet Books. WELTON, N. AND L. WOLF (EDS.) 2001 GlobalUprising .GabriolaIsland: New SocietyPublishing. WHITTIER, N. 1995 Feminist Generations. Philadelphia:Temple University Press.