Social Movements As Historically Specific Clusters of Political Performances Author(S): Charles Tilly Source: Berkeley Journal of Sociology, Vol

Home , Charles Tilly

Social Movements as Historically Specific Clusters of Political Performances Author(s): Charles Tilly Source: Berkeley Journal of Sociology, Vol. 38 (1993-1994), pp. 1-30 Published by: Regents of the University of California Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41035464 . Accessed: 22/07/2013 09:19

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Regents of the University of California is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Berkeley Journal of Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 66.194.72.152 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:19:39 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Social Movementsas HistoricallySpecific Clustersof Political Performances1

CharlesTilly

Social Movementsand Democratization

The Soviet Union's collapse and subsequent talk of democratizationin Eastern Europe have aroused hope that social movementscould play a majorpart in democraticreconstruction there. Althoughthe idea has manyvariants, in generalit runssomething like this:

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS -> -+ -> PUBLIC SPACE

i i i i

TRANSFEROF POWER -> -> -> DEMOCRACY

In thisconception, social movements contribute to thecreation of public - space social settings,separate both fromgoverning institutions and fromorganizations devoted to productionor reproduction,in which consequentialdeliberation over public affairstakes place- as well as sometimescontributing to transfersof power over states.Public space and transfersof power thensupposedly promote democracy, at least undersome conditions.

1Anearly draft of this paper,under the same title,circulated as WorkingPaper 162, Centerfor Studies of Social Change, New School for Social Research, June 1993. The criticismof Jan Willem Duyvendak,Ruud Koopmans, Sidney Tarrow, and Viviana Zelizer forcedme to make major changes in that draft. The necessary repairs roughly doubled the paper's bulk. The National Science Foundation supportedthe researchon GreatBritain from which the paper draws some material.

This content downloaded from 66.194.72.152 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:19:39 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 2 BERKELEY JOURNALOF SOCIOLOGY

Some authorswould also runa causalarrow straight from social movementsto democracyon the groundthat movementsprovide models of democraticpractice, experience in directdemocracy, and programsof democratization.Many, furthermore, take as theirmodels not the "old" social movementsof organizedlabor or welfarerights, withtheir presumed concentration on self-interestand statepower, but the "new" social movementsof peace, environment,and sexual preference,with their presumed concentration on autonomy,identity, and self-directeddemocracy. In linewith this renewed enthusiasm, many politicalanalysts are now catalogingsocial movements,reconstructing the historiesof particularmovements, or writingprescriptions for democratizationvia the organizationof new socialmovements (Boggs, 1986; Cohenand Arato, 1992; Kitschelt,1993; Sedaitisand Butterfield, 1991).

The rather populist social-movement approach to democratizationconstitutes a sortof intellectualsocial movement in its own right:a challengeto the predominantview of democratization, whichthese days argues that compacts among elites, craned transitions fromnon-democratic regimes, top-down creation of political institutions and/orformation of a capitalistinfrastructure open the way to democracy,while popular mobilization actually carries the threatof a new authoritarianism(see, e.g., Karl, 1990; O'Donnelland Schmitter, 1986, Schmitterand Karl 1991). The showdownbetween populists and elitistshas not yet arrived,but snipersare alreadyshooting from both sides(see Burstein,1981, 1988; Diamondand Marks,1992; Di Palma, 1990; Dahl, 1989; Etzioni-Halevy,1990; Held, 1987; Korzeniewiczand Awbrey,1992; Lehmann, 1992; Putnam, 1993;Rueschemeyer, Stephens and Stephens,1992; Sartori,1987; Stephens,1989; Tilly,1992c).

In anothercontext, I would challengeboth the populist and the elitistlines of argumentwith the historian'sritual reply, "It depends"; whethera benigncycle or some othercausal sequenceactually occurs dependson whichmovement in which context; after all, the Nazi seizure ofpower resulted at leastin part from a vast socialmovement. Whether movementsoriented to peace, environment,and sexualpreference look like a distinctlynew speciesor moreof the same old thingdepends on which featureswe single out. Here, however,I want to grab the spotlightprovided by the renewed interest in socialmovements to place themin conceptual,theoretical, and historical perspective, and onlythen to drawconclusions about possible links between social movements and democracy.

This content downloaded from 66.194.72.152 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:19:39 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TDLLY: CLUSTERS OF POLITICAL PERFORMANCES 3

As befitssuch a ground-clearingexercise, my discussion is long on assertionand shorton evidence.It drawsespecially on studiesof changingforms of popularcollective action in westernEurope, notably in Franceand GreatBritain. It illustratesits pointsalmost exclusively fromGreat Britain between 1750 and 1840, the currentfocus of my own research.It is liableto errorin themeasure that 1) I have misread westernEuropean experience and/or 2) social movementsand popular collectiveaction have taken different courses elsewhere.

Immenseconfusion has arisenin sociologicaltreatments of social movementsbecause of two mistakenpresumptions grounded in the phenomenonitself. The firstpresumption is thatthe socialmovement is a group,albeit a group of a peculiarsort, rather than a clusterof performances.The secondis thatsocial movements have continuouslife historiessuch that one can thinkof them as forming,flourishing, evolving,and dying in sequences that recur from movementto movementbecause of their intrinsicinternal dynamics. These presumptionsseduce historians the more easily precisely because social movementactivists, as partof theirwork, seek to persuadeothers that thepresumptions apply to them,if not to theirrivals or their opponents.

RudolfHeberle's classic Social Movements(1951) bearssome of the responsibilityfor the widespreadsociological conception of social movementsas peculiarsorts of groupsas well as the notionof their undergoingstandard life histories. We can senseHeberle's unease in the crucialpassage thatwrenches the social movementfrom interactive processto quasi-group:

They are groupsof a peculiarstructure, not easy to grasp.Although containingamong theirmembers certain groups that are formally organized,the movementsas such are not organizedgroups. On the otherhand, theyare, as a rule, large enoughto continuetheir existenceeven if thereshould be a change in the compositionof the membership.Such groups we shall call "social collectives" (Tönnies). Social movementsthen are conceptuallydefined as a kind of social collective.This definitionmay cause some difficulty forthose who are accustomedto thinkof movementsin social life as processesrather than groups (Heberle, 1951: 8; see also Heberle and Gusfield,1968).

Quite right:Heberle's own analysiswavered between this murky definitionand a clearsense of socialmovements as processes,as linked challenges.

This content downloaded from 66.194.72.152 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:19:39 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 4 BERKELEY JOURNALOF SOCIOLOGY

Writinga dozenyears later, Neil Smelsersimilarly placed social movementson theboundary between actions and groups;he labeledhis lower-levelforms of collectivebehavior panic, craze, and hostile outburst,none of which is verygroup-like, while naming his higher-level formsnorm-oriented movement and value-orientedmovement. Smelser definedmovements in terms of their challenges to establishednorms and values, but then imputedto them a distinctlygroupish character. Speakingof value-oriented movements, for example, he wrote:

we should not lose sightof the factthat no matterwhat the origin of a value-orientedmovement - whetherit be sect, community experiment, political revolutionaryparty - it must adapt to practical and organizationalexigencies. In the communitarian experimentsof the early nineteenthcentury in the United States, persistence or lack of persistence depended largely on how effectivelythese communities adapted to the exigencies of economic management, political regulation, recruitment,and educationof theyoung.

In the political sphere, a revolutionarymovement which seizes power mustundergo a similarprocess of routinization.Because it is now responsiblefor the politicalintegration of a society- rather thanthe overthrowof a politicalsystem - it mustbe accommodated to a multitudeof exigencies(Smelser, 1963: 361).

Whatis adaptinghere? Not a collectivebelief or an attemptto change social life,but some set of people. Smelserhas driftedunwittingly into speakingof the social movementas a group,thence to assigningit a continuouslife resembling the natural history of an organism.

Despite theircommendable focus on the "cognitivepraxis" of social movements,even Ron Eyermanand AndrewJamison end up talkingas thoughthe cognitionsbelonged to somethingelse - some group-likeentity - ratherthan constituting the movement."In its early phases,"they say,

a buddingsocial movementmust constitute itself through more or less traditional means of mobilization, by creating its own organizationsand its own networksin orderto create a sense of collectivityand to insure its continuityover time and place . . . Here the articulatingrole of the classical movementintellectual and the informationfacilitating role of its modernvariant are central. In mobilizing a sense of collective will, as well as in articulating felt needs, the classical movement intellectual thematizesin speeches,tracts, articles, and books the rudimentsof

This content downloaded from 66.194.72.152 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:19:39 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TILLY: CLUSTERS OF POLITICAL PERFORMANCES 5

a new collectiveidentity. Central to this process of self-formation is the constitutionof an Other against which the budding movementwill interact(Eyerman and Jamison,1991: 101).

The actorin thispassage is not cognitivepraxis, but a collectionof people. Tryas theymay, social movement theorists find grouptalk hard to avoid.

What Are Social Movements?

Drawing on essentiallythe same work thathas inspiredthis article,Mario Diani comesup witha superiordefinition:

A social movementis a networkof informalinteractions between a pluralityof individuals,groups and/or organizations, engaged in a political or culturalconflict, on the basis of a shared collective identity(Diani, 1992: 13).

Diani almostescapes from the group fallacy, at thecost of includingan enormousrange of phenomenamost analysts want to distinguishfrom social movements:revolutions, tribal or anti-colonialrebellions, religiousrevivals, nationalist wars, intercommunal rivalries, and much more.The emphasison interactionnevertheless usefully refocuses the discussion.

A social movementis not a group,a quasi-group,or a group- like composite,but a complexform of social interaction.It is logically parallel to a loosely-choreographeddance, a fund-raisingpancake breakfast,a quiltingbee, a street-cornerdebate, a jam session with changingplayers, a pickupbasketball game, or a city-widefestival; all of thesephenomena have well-defined structures and histories, but not one of themis ipso facto a group,or even the actionof a singlegroup. Social movementsbecame standardmeans of politicalaction in close conjunctionwith two othercomplex performances that were not groups either: electoral campaigns and special-interestpolitics. Social movements,electoral campaigns, and special-interestpolitics commonly rely heavilyon existingor createdgroups- voluntary associations, parties,committees, federations, fronts, and more. As Marwell and Oliver,McAdam, Melucci, and Tarrowhave insisted,they draw then- participantsand support disproportionatelyfrom existing social networkswithout simply consisting of those networks.Some groups specialize,furthermore, inpromoting social movements, so muchso that MayerZald andhis associateshave made the study of Social Movement Organizations(SMOs) centralto contemporaryanalyses of social

This content downloaded from 66.194.72.152 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:19:39 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 6 BERKELEY JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY movements.But SMOs do not constitutesocial movementsany more than music schools constitutethe world of classical music or galleries the world of painting.

Nor do social movementsundergo naturalhistories in the same sense that individuals, organizations, and even beliefs have self- reproducingnatural histories through which theyform, flourish, change, and disappear. Most descriptions of social movements, especially descriptionsby their advocates, suggest that they resemble dragons livingcontinuously somewhere in the social underground,but emerging recurrentlyfrom their labyrinthsto stomp around roaring. That idea stems from several common featuresof social movementssince 1800: theirbunching in time and space, their leaders' deliberate assertion of links to previous challenges with respect to similar issues and populations,the political advantages of claimingto constitutea durable political actor, and the fact that they recruit their personnel disproportionatelyfrom settings in which people maintain strong connections outside of the challenges that constitute the social movement.In fact, they cannot have self-reproducingnatural histories because they consist of intermittentinteractions among challengers, powerholders, audiences, and oftenmany other parties such as rivals, enemies,repressive forces, reporters, and opportunists.

This does not mean in the least that social movements lack coherent histories. Many forms of strategic interaction,from chess matches to wars, have cumulative,explicable histories.Those histories emerge from durable constraints on the interaction,incrementally changing distributionsof resources, accumulations of advantages or disadvantages,alterations of sharedunderstandings, and entriesor exits of actors. To the extent that a relativelyconnected set of political entrepreneurscoordinates a campaign of mobilization and collective action, consistentlypublicizes a program, and influencesthe routine practices of supporters,observers, authorities,rivals, or enemies, the history becomes more coherent. Similarly, to the extent that powerholdersor thirdparties anticipate,define, and react to a series of challenges by treatingthem as successive manifestationsof the same phenomenon,the series acquires coherence. Cycles of social movements likewise follow coherent patterns in which supporters of different movementscompete, interact, and change relationswith authorities(see Kitschelt, 1993; Tarrow, 1989a, forthcoming).But let me insist: the coherence is that of wars, not that of individuallives. The experienceof a single soldier or a single armynever exhausts a war's history.In the natureof the phenomenon,it cannot.

This content downloaded from 66.194.72.152 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:19:39 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TILLY: CLUSTERS OF POLITICAL PERFORMANCES 7

A social movementconsists of a sustained challenge to powerholdersin thename of a populationliving under the jurisdiction of thosepowerholders by means of repeatedpublic displaysof that population'snumbers, commitment, unity, and worthiness.A social movementembodies contentious interaction; it involvesmutual claim- makingbetween challengersand powerholders.The claim-making, furthermore,often engages third parties: other powerholders, repressive forces,rivals, allies, citizensat large. The definitionexcludes many formsof struggle:feuds, civil wars, electoral competition, insurrections. Althoughmovement activists sometimes take direct action against authorities,rivals, or opponents,in generalsocial movements center on indirectforms of action:actions that display will and capacity,but that would not in themselvesaccomplish the objectiveson behalfof which theymake claims.Social movementscall insteadfor powerholders to take the crucialactions. While obviously applicable to campaignsfor civil rights,women's suffrage,or peace, this indirectnessalso characterizesmovements for environmentalaction, Third World solidarity,abortion rights, or sexualpreference; they organize around the demandthat powerholders recognize, protect, endorse, forward, or evenimpose a givenprogram.

In their19th and 20thcentury European versions, at least,the characteristicdisplays include creation of special-purposeassociations, lobbying of officials,public meetings,demonstrations, marches, petitions,pamphlets, statements in mass media,posting or wearingof identifyingsigns, and adoptionof distinctiveslogans; althoughtheir relativeweight has variedconsiderably from movement to movement, theseelements have coexistedsince the early 19th century. One can still make a case for some earlierstruggles - for example,the Protestant Reformation'sbottom-up phases - as socialmovements in thiscategory. By sucha definition,nevertheless, the vast majority of the world's social movementshave occurredwithin the last centuryor so, chieflywithin polities incorporatingrelatively effective representative institutions. Despiteconsiderable variation and changein theirforms, programs, and socialbases, socialmovements thus defined constitute a coherentsocial phenomenonabout which scholars have somehope ofgeneralizing.

Let us distinguishbetween the definingfeatures of social movementsand the ensembleof activitiesin whichtheir participants sometimesengage. On occasion,social-movement activists put major effortsinto struggles with rivals, mobilization of supporters,building of sharedidentities, mutual aid, solicitationof resources,and a wide range

This content downloaded from 66.194.72.152 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:19:39 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 8 BERKELEY JOURNALOF SOCIOLOGY of othersustaining activities. But these activitiesdo not distinguish social movementsfrom electoral campaigns, economic competition among firms,wars, religiousproselytization, or the formationof revolutionaryconspiracies. The distinguishing,defining features of social movementslie in theirsustained challenges by meansof public displaysof numbers,commitment, unity, and worthiness.Numbers, commitment,unity, and worthinessmatter because theyindicate that supportfor the movement'sclaims will endure,enlist support from others,and affectthe behavior of adherentswell outsidethe movement's owncollective activities. A convincingdisplay of numbers, commitment, unity,and worthinesssuggests, for example,that the movement programwill affect people's votes in comingelections.

Seen as distinctive,specific forms of social actionin the long view ofpolitical history, social movements are latecomers.As a cluster of standardpolitical practices available to a wide rangeof actorsthe socialmovement came intobeing less thantwo centuriesago. It made itsappearance in conjunctionwith consolidated states, nationalism, mass electoralpolitics, broad militaryconscription, proactive policing, and special-interestassociations. It feeds on relativelycentralized and effectiveauthorities, especially state authorities,who can respond vigorously,visibly, and viably to publicly-articulateddemands and grievances.

As withmany forms of collectivecontention, we can compare socialmovements at multiplelevels:

1. the individualaction or interaction,such as display of a labeledbanner or signatureof a petition

2. the sequence of actions and interactionsthat makes up a distinguishableperformance, such as a demonstration,a statementto journalists, or a battlewith rivals

3. the clusterof performancesthat constitutesa particular campaign, such as all the meetings,processions, public appearances,addresses, replies, and other performances that occurred (1820-21) in support of Caroline of Brunswick'spopularly-supported claim to become queen of England at the accessionto the crownof her estranged husbandGeorge IV

4. the set of campaigns;- past, present,and future- that observers or activists incorporate into their shared narrativeof the movementat a given time, such as the competinghistories of working-class demands for political

This content downloaded from 66.194.72.152 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:19:39 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TILLY: CLUSTERS OF POLITICAL PERFORMANCES 9

rights offeredby Francis Place and William Cobbett duringthe reformcampaign of 1830-1832

5. the repertoireof all contentiousmeans available to claim- makersat a giventime, regardless of whetherthey actually appear in social movements;for villagers in southern England of the 1760s, forexample, these means included seizure of hoarded grain, invasion of enclosed fields, a range of mocking actions known collectivelyas Rough Music, the rangeof humiliatingpunishments for renegade workersknown collectively as donkeying,and on through a verylong list

6. the array of all repertoiresever available within given limitsof time and space, for example all repertoiresthat prevailedanywhere in Great Britainat any time between 1760 and 1830

Item4, the sharednarrative, breaks the continuumof generality,since social movementnarratives sometimes claim to embracethe whole of humanhistory, seen as a storyof liberation or oppression.Thus the self- createdhistories of movementsfor peace, theenvironment, or women's rights become recitationsof age-old struggles.Such narratives, however,ordinarily entail teleologies tying them irrevocably to hereand now: thepresent moment, in theirconstruction, culminates a long,long directionalprocess.

Each of these levels takes priorityin some analysesof social movements.If we want to distinguishamong the strategiesof competingmovements, for example,we will usuallyhave to work chieflyat levels 1 and 2, notingdifferences in theindividual actions and performancesthat prevail within each ofthem if, on theother hand, we wantto characterizewhole countriesor eras,we willhave littlechoice but to concentrateon levels 5 and 6. Most of my own research connects levels 1 and 2 - individualactions, interactions,and performances- to levels5 and 6, repertoiresand arraysof repertoires; it examineshow small-scaleinnovations cumulate into large-scale alterationof contentiousmeans, and how existingrepertoires constrain collectivecontention. The ContentiousFrench, for example, sought to clarifythe relationshipsamong a) broadtransformations of the French polityand economy,b) particularpolitical struggles, large or small,and c) cumulativealterations in the availablemeans of claim-making- in repertoiresof contention.Here, however, I am aimingespecially at level 3, the cluster of performancesconstituting a campaign.For the emergence of a new, and previouslyunacceptable, cluster of

This content downloaded from 66.194.72.152 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:19:39 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 10 BERKELEY JOURNALOF SOCIOLOGY performancesmarked the definitiveappearance of the socialmovement as an availablemeans of contention.

Inventionof the Social Movement

How did thathappen? In the crucialcase of GreatBritain, we can trace the creationand establishmentof social movementsas standardmeans of claim-makingat a nationalscale betweenthe 1760s and the 1820s. As of the 1760s, whenJohn Wilkes1 supporters were assemblingand marchingto insist on theirhero's rightto enter parliamentand broadcasthis criticismof the crown,only energetic adumbrationismwould allowus to recognizethe lineaments of a social movement anywhere in Britain; autonomously-convokedpublic meetings,planned demonstrations, mass-membership associations, and nationalpetition drives were all unknown.Authorities, moreover, prosecutedtheir closest approximations when they occurred. Despite theresistance to royaldemands and the supportfor Wilkes as a symbol of oppositionto arbitraryrule that were then generalizingin the Americancolonies, Benjamin Franklin, living in Londonas an American spokesman,found both the contentand formof the Wilkites'clearly innovativeperformances shocking (Franklin, 1972: 98-129).

By the 1820s, on the other hand, anti-slaveryactivists, supportersof Queen Caroline'sclaims to the Britishthrone, advocates ofpolitical rights for Catholics, promoters of parliamentary reform, and many other politicallyinvolved people were deliberatelymounting sustainedchallenges to establishedstate authoritiesin the name of disadvantagedpopulations living under the jurisdictionof those powerholdersby means of repeated public displays of theirpopulation's numbers,commitment, unity, and worthiness;they were organizing mass meetings,mass-membership associations, intergroup coalitions, marches,petition drives, public statements,newspaper coverage, lobbying,confrontations, and private consultations with powerful people to press parliamentand the crownto adopt theirprograms. By the 1820s, the social movementhad appearedas a standardstrategy of collectiveaction in GreatBritain.

The overlapbetween activists and claimedbeneficiaries varied enormously;very few slaves or Indian widows joined the British campaignsto abolishslavery or Lidianwidow-burning, while drives for workers'rights drew overwhelmingly on workersthemselves. In either case, however,social movementwork consistedof displayingthe numbers,commitment, unity, and worthinessof both supportersand

This content downloaded from 66.194.72.152 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:19:39 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TILLY: CLUSTERS OF POLITICAL PERFORMANCES 1 1 claimed beneficiaries. In either case, furthermore,social movement specialists played a crucial part. By the 1820s, political entrepreneurs such as William Cobbett, Francis Place, and Henry Hunt were allying, fighting,communicating, and vyingfor public supportin lives organized to an importantdegree around the promotion and control of social movementactivity. Although reformers sometimes veered into advocacy of direct action and made alliances with revolutionaries who had committedthemselves to physical attacks on public authority,on the whole these entrepreneurssought to mobilize great displaysof numbers, - commitment,unity, and worthiness the word of the time was "respectability"- on behalfof democraticends.

In between the 1760s and the 1820s, British political entrepreneurs, activists, officials, property-holders,workers, and journalistsstruggled over issues such as parliamentaryreform in a series of confrontationsfrom which the social movement emerged as a by- product, an outcome of incessant maneuvers, ripostes, inventions, repressive efforts,bargains, and compromises. 18th century British authorities generally resisted, for example, the formation of mass- membership associations devoted explicitlyto political ends on the groundthat they usurped parliament'sprerogatives. In the 1790s, during the great French wars and revolutionarychallenges in Ireland, the government actually repressed a wide range of politically-oriented associations. But fromJohn Wilkes1 Society of Supportersof the Bill of Rights to Daniel O'ConnelTs Catholic Association, a long, irregular series of contested organizationalinnovations opened a space for such associations that had not previously existed. One can trace similar historiesof strugglefor the public meeting,the mass march,the national petitiondrive, and all the otherinstruments of social movementactivists.

All this constituted a remarkable alteration of claim-making repertoires,from direct to indirectaction, fromlocal to national scope, fromrelatively private toward broadlypublic relationsamong claimants and objects of claims, from acceptance to challenge of political inequality.To that extent,the move toward social movementsembodied a program of popular sovereignty,of democratization,but also of parliamentarypower. For the newer forms of action implicitlyargued thatparliament should have the power to change political arrangements on a nation-wide scale, and that in doing so parliamentshould respond to the demands of a mobilizedpeople.

As the social movement acquired political standing in Great Britain, it generated a series of auxiliary activities: the deliberate

This content downloaded from 66.194.72.152 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:19:39 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 12 BERKELEY JOURNALOF SOCIOLOGY formationof special-purposeassociations with the dual ends of recruitingmovement activists and publicizingthe movementprogram; the organizationof colter-movementsby opponentsof claimsthat were beginningto receivea hearing;the reinforcementof solidarity withinmovements by means of slogans,symbols, badges, costumes, colors,banners, and otheridentifying devices; proselytization by means of lectures, pamphlets,broadsides, specialized newspapers, and pageants.The campaignfor Catholic Emancipation provided a dramatic earlymodel. The proposalto ease politicalrestrictions on Catholics becamea frequentcomplement to callsfor parliamentary reform as early as the 1780s. But the demandtook on the lineamentsof a social movementin the 1820s,when Daniel O'Connellled a seriesof newly- formedmass-membership associations into action in Ireland,supporters sprangup in England,Wales, and Scotland,and the government proved unableto checkthe movement's expansion. As thegovernment wavered towardconcessions in 1828, opponentsof Catholicrights organized theirown special-purposeassociations (notably in the formof fiercely monarchistand AnglicanBrunswick Clubs) to carryon marches, demonstrations,meetings, and petitionsagainst concessions. The governmentof Wellingtonand Peel resolvedthe crisisin 1829 by grantingCatholics limited rights to hold officewhile passing laws to inhibitfuture popular mobilizations. But even the limitedconcessions confirmedthe presence of movement and counter-movementas more or less establishedforms of claim-making.

As thepreferred name for these forms of action,the label "social movement"took some timeto crystallize.At firstthe idea of a single Movement- die Sozialbewegung,built around the collectiveaction of progressiveworkers - prevailed.Then, in the20th century, sociologists who had theirdoubts about the unityand inevitabilityof the popular movementmultiplied the referents,treating the drivesfor women's suffrage,abolition of alcoholicbeverages, school reform,and other recurrentobjectives of popularcollective action as so manydifferent movements,possibly linked but certainlydistinguishable. The labor movementcontinued to supplythe fundamentalmodel, implicitor explicit,for the depictionof social movementsin general,but relations to and differencesfrom the labor movement came to preoccupysocial movementanalysts. This reasoning, as standardizedby such authorsas RudolfHeberle, strongly reflected the self-presentationsof movement activists.As a result, social movementsentered the sociological literaturein a mixtureof historicalsophistication, concreteness, and mythology.The effortto generalize across social movements perpetuatedthe erroneousidea of social movementsas groupshaving

This content downloaded from 66.194.72.152 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:19:39 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TILLY: CLUSTERS OF POLITICAL PERFORMANCES 13 continuouslife histories. The confusionhas notyet disappeared.

Why?Adopting the vocabularyof social movementsimplies a certainsympathy to theirclaims, a certaintolerance for their strategies; even today, true opponents of social movement demands characteristicallyadopt insteadthe 19th centuryconception of mass actionas unreasoned,immediate, ineffectual response to the stressesof socialchange or temporary hardship. That empathy for social movement ends makesit easierto acceptboth their chosen means and theirself- representations;indeed, much social-movementsociology consists of lending academic voices to people and programs who lack representationin the existingliterature. I have myselfwritten some analysesin this explicate-and-justify vein (e.g. Tilly1969).

Hereis theproblem: social movements took shapeas established formsof actionin a paraelectoraland paraparliamentary setting, and still bearthe marks ofthat setting. As theirinventors half-understood, social movementactions and socialconstructions countered the objections that rulingclasses and authoritiescommonly made to inconvenientdemands from relativelypowerless people: that they were a handful of malcontents,that the bulk of the people in theircategory disagreed with them,that they had adequatelegal meansof redress,that their actions threatenedpublic order, that unscrupulouspowerseekers were manipulatingthem, that they were askingfor impossible or destructive concessions.The morethe vehiclesof suchjudgments were national officials,the more numerous their rivals who mightally themselves with challengerson theenemy-of-my-enemy principle, and the more members of the audiencewho themselveshad an investmentin the rightto challengeand be heard,the more crucial and effectivethe public rebuttal ofthose negative judgments.

Unlikesacking an official'shouse or hanginga ministerin effigy, socialmovement tactics answered the charges eloquently: * we are many; * we (or theobjects of our solicitude)are worthy; * we agree amongourselves and withthe objectsof our solicitude; * we are determined,disciplined, and legal.

Like thearrival of many partisan and vociferous non-voters at contested parliamentaryelections, the displayof disciplinednumbers challenged the claim of the rulingclasses thatthey adequately represented the nation,the displayconveyed an implicitthreat of retaliationagainst

This content downloaded from 66.194.72.152 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:19:39 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 14 BERKELEY JOURNALOF SOCIOLOGY violators of the popular will. The display of unity,commitment, discipline,and legalityreinforced the challengeby declaringthe dissidentsa forceto be reckonedwith, a forceat the disposalof its collectivewill, a forcethat would remain within legal channelsso long as authoritieswere prepared to bargain,but could well turnto creation of antiparliamentarymeans, direct action against individual malefactors, or even open insurrection.Hence the tenacitywith which authorities soughtto checkparticular social movementsand the means of their action.

Scorecardsand Players

Out of thisrecurrent confrontation emerged a kindof scorecard for social movementcampaigns: activists, observers, opponents, and objects of claims began to agree willy-nillythat social movements requiredpublic attention as a functionof a multiple:

NUMBERS x COMMITMENT x UNITY x WORTHINESS

As any of the fourelements fell toward zero, the movementlost its standingas a politicalforce. Each elementacquired its own formsof evidence: numbersby the size of demonstrationsor petitions, commitmentby thereadiness of supportersto sacrificeor fightfor the cause, unityby the sharingof symbolsand slogans,worthiness by decorumand storiesof suffering,and muchmore. A crediblehistory of long duration,moreover, could enhanceany of the elements:many supporterswho had sustainedtheir commitment, unity, and worthiness for years of strugglecounted more than an equivalentnumber who showed up for the firsttime. Hence additionalincentives to claim affinitywith long-dormant social movements and theirearlier triumphs. One elementcould compensatefor another:a movementwith small numberscould displayimmense determination and unity,while a few innocentvictims of repression could elevate the worthiness value, hence the overall impact,of an otherwiseweak movement.The implicit scorecardstill works today, terrorism and ostentatiousself-destruction beingthe characteristicstrategy of smallsegments within fragmented movementsand brief huge assemblies or publicstatements the preferred strategiesof numerouschallengers whose membershave uncertain commitmentand unity.

Let us sort out the relevantpopulations with care. No social movementoperates without reference to at leastthree populations:

This content downloaded from 66.194.72.152 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:19:39 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TILLY: CLUSTERS OF POLITICAL PERFORMANCES 15

1. powerholderswho are the objectsof claims,the minimum claim beingto toleratethe movement'sexistence

2. activistswho range from minor contributorsto leaders and are often connected by Social Movement Organizations

3 . a subjectpopulation on whose behalfactivists are making or supportingclaims

Otherpopulations often play a part: rivalpowerholders, rival social movementactivists, repressive forces, members of the generalpublic who mightbecome activists or enemies,and so on.

Activistsdo not necessarilycome fromthe subjectpopulation; theymay be richpeople actingon behalfof poor people or adultsacting on behalfof children,not to mentionactivists who makeclaims for aid to victimsof eventsquite outside their own countries.Occasionally, on the otherhand, powerholders do come fromthe subjectpopulation, as whenethnic activists put pressureon successfulmembers of theirown categoryto aid theless successful.

It is also possiblefor powerholders to becomeactivists in some degree,as when a populistpresident calls up popularmovements to impresshis rivalsor a sympatheticofficial invites a displayof demands to convincehis colleaguesthat he is makingconcessions under pressure. Finally,in somemovements activists spend a majorpart of theirenergy makingclaims not on powerholdersbut on themselvesor membersof thesubject population, for example by engagingin mutualaid, joining in rituals,or organizingthe masses; they still qualify as social movements to the extent that activists also actively demand tolerance or collaborationfrom powerholders in their efforts.

Recognizingthat the three populationsoverlap to varying degrees,nevertheless, we can see thelogic of socialmovements played out in the interactionamong them.The work of social movement activistsis to establishthemselves as validinterlocutors for the subject population,to maximizetheir own evidenceof numbers,commitment, and unity,then to demonstratethe joint worthinessof activistsand subjectpopulation. To the degreethat powerholders are unwillingor unable to grantthe claims in question,they work to repressthe movementaction, demobilize its activists,discredit the evidenceof numbers,commitment, unity, and worthiness.Hence frequentpublic disputesover the size of demonstrationsand the representativenessof

This content downloaded from 66.194.72.152 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:19:39 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 16 BERKELEY JOURNALOF SOCIOLOGY movementleaders. Hence repeatedattempts by movementactivists to portraythemselves as a solidarygroup with a long sharedexperience and a powerfulcollective memory. Hence freneticwork behindthe scenes forging coalitions, inventinggroup names, patching up disagreements,working out the demands and complaintsto be airedon a particularoccasion, planning strategies and symbols.

It is no great mystery,then, that popular images of social movements- especiallysympathetic ones - considerthem to be solidary groupshaving coherent natural histories. The illusionof the social movementas a grouparises from the very effort of movementactivists to portrayit as numerous,committed, unitary, and worthy.The natural historymisconception of social movementsarises from their activities' bunchingin timeand space,from their drawing on sharedreferences to previousmobilizations and challenges,and fromtheir recruitment of activistsdisproportionately in settingsthrough which people are continuouslyconnected outside of socialmovements. The onlymystery is thatso manysociological analysts of social movements,themselves frequentlyveterans and virtuosi of behind-the-scenes maneuvering, have alien victimto theirown mystification.

Whence the Social Movement?

In the case of Great Britain,why did the social movement become a standardform of politicalaction in the 19thcentury? The wholestory amounts to an analysisof British political history over half a century.Schematizing, however, we can dividethe story into two parts: externaland internal.Externally, a set of structuraltransformations in whichpopular collective action played only a smallpart alteredthe viabilityof differentways of makingclaims: the expansionof the state, the increasingcentraHty of parliamentvis à vis both regional powerholdersand the crown, proletarianizationof the general population,and growingconcentration of capital(all of themresulting to some degreefrom the greatwars in whichGreat Britain engaged between the 1750s and 1815) reduced the effectivenessof many establishedforms of claim-making(for example, humble appeals to local patronsand direct physical attacks on violatorsof public morality) while providingopportunities for new forms of influence on nationaldecision- making.

Internally,popular collective action produced its own history throughcumulative innovations and bargainsin the courseof struggles withauthorities, rivals, and enemies.Not onlydid these struggles shape

This content downloaded from 66.194.72.152 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:19:39 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TILLY: CLUSTERS OF POLITICAL PERFORMANCES 17 the social movementbut also theyenlarged the participationof non- votersin electioncampaigns, fostered attempts to createantiparliaments or paraparliamentssuch as the National Conventionadvocated by admirersof the French Revolution, and encouragedill-fated innovations like the multipleinsurrectionary workers1 marches of 1816-1820. Of course,cumulative processes need not be linear;the jagged linearitythat appearedin the historyof popularcollective action resulted not from some immanentlogic or visionof politicaladvancement but fromthe relativelyone-way transformation of threats and opportunities,of state andcapital, under the influence of war and industrial expansion.

It is temptingbut wrong to invoke general efficiencyor modernizationexplanations: that the social movementswept aside earlierforms of contentionbecause it was inherentlymore efficient, or because the increasingscale and complexityof social life somehow madeit inevitable.In theircontexts, Rough Music and relatedforms of actiondid their work of shamingand discipliningwith great economy of means.In its own context,the socialmovement offered a set of actions that worked well enough to survive,but no more than that. By comparisonwith its 18th centurypredecessors, perhaps the most distinctivefeature of the social movement was its adaptabilityto a wide varietyof settings,populations, and programs. As SidneyTarrow (1993, forthcoming)puts it, the 19thcentury forms were relatively modular.

Actionswithin the 18thcentury repertoire differentiated greatly accordingto thetask at hand and the setting;one donkeyeda weaver who workedfor less thanthe locally-agreed rate, gave RoughMusic to a wife-beater,wrecked the house of an unscrupulousbaker, and the exact routinesfor performingeach of these vengeancesvaried from regionto region.19th century Britons had farfewer choices, but applied themto a muchwider range of problems.To decidewhich repertoire was more "efficient"or "modern"raises manyof the same sorts of questionsthat arise in thedebate over the 19thand 20thcentury rise of the corporation,as comparedwith small, flexible,task-specialized shops;the answersare not obvious(Chandler, 1990, 1992; Hirstand Zeitlin,1991; Sabel andZeitlin, 1985).

Varietiesof Social Movement

At the scale of two centuries,subsequent innovations in the forms(as opposed to the politicalcontexts and objectives)of social movementsseem minor. Writtensigns appeared, activistsadded versionsof the strike, the boycott, and the occupation of public space to

This content downloaded from 66.194.72.152 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:19:39 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 18 BERKELEY JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY theirrepertoires, publicity changed significantlywith alterationsin the mass media, paid fund-raisersand publicistseventually created social- movementcareers for themselves,but the basic configurationremained fairlyconstant. We must not confuse normal variation or short-term experimentationwith long-term transformation;from early on, for example, some social movementactivists (Robert Owen comes to mind) sought to build whole communitiesthrough self-improvementrather than concentratingon concessions fromgovernment, while others (Sir Francis Burdett illustratesthe point) subordinated social movement activityto much more general attemptsto wield influencein national affairs.

Once it existed as an effectivepolitical form,to be sure, the social movementarticulated with forms of social organizationand action that were not intrinsicto its operation. Just as electoral campaigns, pickup basketball games, and recurrent jam sessions generate solidarities,form identities, connect with existingfriendship networks, and promote the formation of special-purpose associations, social movementsboth feed on and nurturea wide range of social relations and shared understandings.In our own time, as studentsand advocates of recent social movementshave repeatedlyinsisted, movements vary greatlywith respect to continuity,specialization, and richnessof social life. Schematically,we can imaginethree points of a triangle:

1. professional, the continuous,specialized, and sparse social movement conducted by professional SMOs using funds suppliedby a weaklycommitted set of supporters,a genre well describedby McCarthyand Zald;

2. ad hoc: the temporary,specialized, and relatively rich mobilizationby membersof a connectedcommunity against a specificthreat, such as the earlyreactions to ThreeMile Island's disasteras portrayedby EdwardWalsh;

3. communitarian:the continuous,unspecialized movementthat gives rise to a new communityof the faithful,a community whose sustenancebecomes a major preoccupationof movement supporters, as in Alberto Melucci's characterization of committedfeminists.

All qualifyas social movementsto the extentthat they make sustained claims on powerholders in the name of an interestedpopulation, but their styles, strategies, and outcomes differenormously; hence the indignantrejection of McCarthyand Zald's analysisand the insistenceon differencefrom, say, bureaucratizedlabor movementsby advocates and

This content downloaded from 66.194.72.152 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:19:39 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TILLY: CLUSTERS OF POLITICAL PERFORMANCES 19 interpretersof communitariansocial movements.These differences matter.Nevertheless, the greathistorical change occurred in the very creationof the social movement as a standardmeans of contention.

Withinsocial movements, repertoires, campaigns, performances, and individualactions or interactionsvary as a functionof fourmain clustersof factors:1) the claimsaround which they organize, 2) the politicalopportunity structure - the multiplicityof independentcenters ofpower within the polity, the openness of the polity to new actors,the instabilityof currentpolitical alignments,and the availabilityof influentialallies or supporters- within which activistsare making claims, 3) the sharedunderstandings participants have adopted or created,4) the social structuresof the populationsfrom which the movementdraws participants and supporters.The concreteexplanation of particularsocial movementsconsists largely of causes drawnfrom thesefour clusters. Until recently, social-movement analysts commonly underestimatedthe importance of politicalopportunity structure, which makes movementswithin a particularnational or regional setting resembleeach other much more greatlythan their claims, shared understandings,or social bases would lead an observerto expect (Duyvendak,1992; Giugniand Kriesi,1990; Koopmans,1992; Kriesi, 1993; Tarrow,forthcoming).

Back to Democracy

Havingunderstood social movements properly, then, under what conditionsmight we expectthe proliferationof social movementsto promote democracy? Not all conditions,certainly: mass society theoristsmade manymistakes, but theyrightly saw the authoritarian potentialof strongman-worshippingpopulist movements.European fascistsand some of theircousins overseas came to power on the shouldersof vigoroussocial movements.As the experienceof many counter-revolutionsin 1848 and laterindicates, not even democratic movementsinevitably promote democracy. To employanother favorite sayingof historians, it's obviously more complicated.

Let us thinkabout the characterof democracy.Although these days all definitionsof democracylend themselvesto controversy,we can cut across a wide rangeof conceptionsby adoptinga definition lyingbetween purely institutional criteria (elections, courts, et cetera) andpurely substantive criteria (justice, equal opportunity,and so forth). Let us call a politydemocratic in so faras it establishesclear rights and obligationsof citizens,rights and obligations which:

This content downloaded from 66.194.72.152 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:19:39 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 20 BERKELEY JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY

1. cover a large share of persons under the state's jurisdiction;

2. distributewith relative equality among citizens;

3 . providefor binding consultation of citizenswith respect to the state'spersonnel and policies;

4. offercitizens, including members of minorities,protection fromarbitrary action by the state'sagents.

The criteriaare obviously relative; by these criteria,no polity in the world has ever been fullydemocratic; indeed, there could be intrinsic limitsto democracysuch that,for example, above a very small scale the breadth of citizenship limits the bindingness of consultation. Nevertheless,the criteriado allow us to arraypolities by theirdegree of democracyand to distinguishdemocracy from other systemsof rule. It would, forinstance, be reasonable to caÙ a polityqualifying on points 2, 3, and 4 but grantingcitizenship to only a small share of its subjects a patriciate, one with broad, equal citizenship but little binding consultation or protection a dictatorship,one qualifyingon none of these pointspatrimonial.

Democratization, then, includes any significantmove from a polity's present configurationtoward broad, equal citizenship with binding consultationand extensiveprotection. By such criteria,Great Britain certainly democratized between the 1750s and the 1830s. Despite extensivelocally-guaranteed rights and libertiesas well as a few state-sanctionedclaims such as Poor Laws and controls over the food supply, at the middle of the 18th centurymost Britishresidents lived underthe authorityof highlyautonomous nobles and gentry,had no say in the naming of national officials,enjoyed little protection against arbitrarystate action,in factlacked citizenshipin any strongsense of the word. By the 1830s, the suffragehad broadened somewhat, religious exclusions frompublic officehad dramaticallydeclined, the principleof representationaccording to population had begun to supersede that of charteredright, freedoms to associate and act collectivelyat a national scale had acquired considerable force, and defenses against arbitrary state action had broadened slightly.All this amountedto an incomplete democratization of the British polity. In these changes, social movements such as the drives for Catholic Emancipation and parliamentaryreform played significantparts.

This content downloaded from 66.194.72.152 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:19:39 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TILLY: CLUSTERS OF POLITICAL PERFORMANCES 2 1

In thisconceptualization of democracy,we have somereason to expect at least a correlationbetween democratizationand the proliferationof social movementsin many countries.To be more precise,we mightexpect a curvilinearrelationship: rising demands for inclusion,consultation, and protection from those still disadvantaged as thepossibility of inclusion increases, then declining demands as thepool ofthose who are stillexcluded, disadvantaged, and mobilizableshrinks. Furthermore,we couldreasonably expect the exact shape of the social- movementscurve to differdepending on the polity's previous configuration:less accelerationwhere citizenship was alreadyrelatively broad and equal but consultationand protectionminimal (as in a populistdictatorship), more acceleration where citizenship was narrow and unequal but withinthat range consultationfairly extensive and protectionavailable to some(as in an oligarchy).

The correlation,however, carries no implicationthat social movementscause democratization.What causal links mightexist? None is certain.I offertwo conjecturesand a caution.Conjecture #1: obviously,yet not necessarily, movements that explicitly demand one or moreof the four facets of democracy, if successful, promote democracy. The connectionis notnecessary because accordingto RobertoMichels* Iron Law of Oligarchyself-seeking and compromisingleaderships of successfulmovements of any kind tend to subvertdemocracy, and because a high volume of successali demands could (as Samuel Huntingtonsanalysis of politicalmodernization suggests) swamp a state'scapacity to delivercollective goods, includingprotection and evenbinding consultation.

Conjecture#2: the greater the variety of movements and claims, themore likely an increasein the breadth of citizenshipand the extent of consultation.My reasoningruns on two tracks,supposing both that heterogeneousmovements and claims are more likelyto findnon- competingniches withinthe polity and that the experienceof accommodatinga wide varietyof claimantsbends the state toward institutionsthat further facilitate broader definitions of citizenship,more bindingconsultation, and more extensiveprotection against arbitrary action,if not necessarilygreater equality. Here, too, overloadcould occur:where groups already having effective claims on the statewould visiblylose resourcesor advantageswith the next inclusion, we might expect anti-inclusioncoalitions to formthat would eithercheck or reversedemocratization.

Caution:Even these arguments are fragile,since they rest on the

This content downloaded from 66.194.72.152 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:19:39 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 22 BERKELEYJOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY assumptionsthat 1) a state'scapacity to deliveron its commitmentsto citizensrises at leastas fastas its commitments,2) at no pointdo rising breadth and equality necessarilymean falling consultationand protection.Critics of democracyhave perenniallyargued against those two assumptions,claiming that a do-allstate becomes a do-nothingstate andthat an inclusivestate becomes unresponsive and arbitrary.

As a workinghypothesis, let me suggestthat at best the proliferationof social movementsonly promotesdemocracy under limitedconditions: it onlyoccurs when movements organize around a widevariety of claimsincluding explicit demands for democracy and the stategains capacity to realizesuch claims at least as fastas the claims increase.But theconditions for these conditions are problematic as well. Indeed, democratictheorists have alwaysposed preciselythese two questions:under what conditionsordinary people actuallydemand democracy,under what conditions state capacity grows to meetthese demands.Perhaps we can take somecomfort from the observation that the analysis of relationshipsbetween social movements and democratizationleads us straightto major unresolvedproblems of democratictheory.

References

Benford,Robert D. and ScottA. Hunt 1992 "Dramaturgy and Social Movements: The Social Construction and Communicationof Power," Sociological Inquiry62: 35-55.

Boggs, Carl 1986 Social Movementsand Political Power. EmergingForms of Radicalism in the West.Philadelphia: Temple UniversityPress.

Bright,Charles and Susan Harding 1984 Statemakingand Social Movements.Ann Arbor: Universityof Michigan Press.

Burke,Edmund III 1988 Global Crises and Social Movements.Artisans, Peasants, Populists,and the WorldEconomy. Boulder, Colorado: Westview.

Burstein,Paul 1981 "The Sociologyof DemocraticPolitics and Government,"Annual Review of Sociology 7: 291-319.

1988 "PoliticalSociology," in Edgar Borgattaand Karen Cook, ed., The Futureof Sociology.Newbury Park: Sage.

This content downloaded from 66.194.72.152 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:19:39 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TILLY: CLUSTERS OF POLITICAL PERFORMANCES 23

Cardoso,Fernando Henrique, Bernardo Sorj and MauricioFont 1985 Econmie e ovimentossociais na America Latina. São Paulo: Editora Brasilense.

Chandler,Alfred 1990 Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism. Cambridge: Belknap/HarvardUniversity Press.

1992 "OrganizationalCapabilities and the Economic Historyof the Industrial Enterprise,"Journal of Economic Perspectives 6: 79-100.

Clemens,Elisabeth S. 1993 "OrganizationalRepertoires and InstitutionalChange: Women's Groups and the Transformationof U.S. Politics, 1890-1920,"American Journal of Sociology 98: 755-798.

Cohen,Jean 1985 "Strategyor Identity:New TheoreticalParadigms and ContemporarySocial Movements,"Social Research 52: 663-716.

Cohen, JeanL. and AndrewArato 1992 Civil Societyand Political Theory.Cambridge: MIT Press.

Conell, Carol and Kim Voss 1990 "FormalOrganization and the Fate of Social Movements:Craft Association and Class Alliance in theKnights of Labor,"American Sociological Review 55: 255-269.

Dahl, RobertA. 1989 Democracyand its Critics.New Haven: Yale UniversityPress.

Diamond, Larryand GaryMarks 1992 "ComparativePerspectives on Democracy: Essays in Honor of Seymour MartinLipset," special issue oí AmericanBehavioral Scientist35: 352-629.

Diani, Mario 1988 Isole nell'arcipelago.Il movimentoecologista in Italia. Bologna: II Mulino.

1990 "The NetworkStructure of the Italian Ecology Movement,"Social Science Information29: 5-31.

1992 "The conceptof social movement,"The Sociological Review 1992: 1-25.

Di Palma, Giuseppe 1990 To Craft Democracies. An Essay on Democratic Transitions.Berkeley: Universityof CaliforniaPress.

This content downloaded from 66.194.72.152 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:19:39 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 24 BERKELEY JOURNALOF SOCIOLOGY

Duyvendak,Jan Willem 1992 "The Power of Politics. New Social Movementsin an Old Polity.France 1965-1989," unpublisheddoctoral dissertation in sociology,University of Amsterdam.Revised version forthcoming from Cornell University Press.

Esherick,Joseph W. and JeffreyN. Wasserstrom 1990 "ActingOut Democracy:Political Theater in Modern China," Journal of Asian Studies49: 835-865.

Etzioni-Halevy,Eva 1990 "Democratic-EliteTheory. Stabilization versus Breakdown of Democracy," Archiveseuropéennes de sociologie 31: 317-350.

Eyerman,Ron and AndrewJamison 1991 Social Movements:A CognitiveApproach. UniversityPark: Pennsylvania StateUniversity Press.

Favre,Pierre 1990 La Manifestation.Paris: Presses de la FondationNationale des Sciences Politiques.

Fernandez,Roberto and Doug Me Adam 1988 "Social Networksand Social Movements:Multiorganizational Fields and Recruitmentto MississippiFreedom Summer," Sociological Forum 3: 357- 382.

Franklin,Benjamin 1972 The Papers of Benjamin Franklin. Volume 14: January 1 through December 31, 1768. New Haven: Yale UniversityPress.

Fuentes,Marta and AndréGunder Frank 1989 "Ten Theses on Social Movements,"World Development 17: 179-192.

Gamson,William A. 1987 "Introduction"in Mayer N. Zald and John D. McCarthy, ed., Social Movementsin an OrganizationalSociety. New Brunswick:Transaction.

1990 The Strategyof Social Protest.Belmont, California: Wadsworth. 2d edn. Firstpublished in 1975.

Giugni,Marco G. and HanspeterKriesi 1990 "Nouveaux mouvements sociaux dans les années '80: Evolution et perspectives,"Annuaire suisse de science politique 30: 79-100.

Heberle,Rudolf 1951 Social Movements:An Introductionto Political Sociology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

This content downloaded from 66.194.72.152 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:19:39 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TILLY: CLUSTERS OF POLITICAL PERFORMANCES 25

Heberle,Rudolf and JosephR. Gusfield 1968 "Social Movements", vol. 14, pp. 438-452 in David L. Sills, ed., InternationalEncyclopedia of the Social Sciences. New York: Macmillan and Free Press.

Held, David 1987 Models ofDemocracy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Hirsch,Eric L. 1990 "Sacrificefor the Cause: Group Processes,Recruitment, and Commitment in a StudentSocial Movement,"American Sociological Review 55: 243- 254.

Hirst,Paul and JonathanZeitlin 1991 "Flexible Specializationversus post-Fordism: Theory, Evidence and Policy Implications,"Economy and Society20: 1-56.

Huntington,Samuel 1968 Political Orderin ChangingSocieties. New Haven: Yale UniversityPress.

Inkeles,Alex 1991 On Measuring Democracy, its Consequences and Concomitants.New Brunswick:Transaction.

Karl, TerryLynn 1990 "Dilemmas of Democratizationin Latin America," ComparativePolitics 23: 1-21.

Kitschelt,Herbert 1993 "Social Movements,Political Parties,and DemocraticTheory," Annals of theAmerican Academy of Political and Social Science, 528: 13-29.

Klandermans,Bert 1984 "Mobilization and Participation: Social-Psychological Expansions of Resource Mobilization Theory,"American Sociological Review 49: 583- 600.

1989 Organizingfor Change: Social MovementOrganizations in Europe and the United States. Greenwich,Connecticut: JAI Press. InternationalSocial MovementResearch, vol. II.

Klausen, KurtKlaudi 1988 Konflikter, Kollektive Aktioner og Protestbevaegelser i Danmark. Copenhagen:Samfunds Fagsnyt.

This content downloaded from 66.194.72.152 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:19:39 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 26 BERKELEYJOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY

Koopmans,Ruud 1992 "Democracyfrom Below. New Social Movementsand the Political System in West Germany," unpublished doctoral dissertation in sociology, Universityof Amsterdam.Revised version forthcomingfrom Cornell UniversityPress.

Korzeniewicz,Roberto P. and KimberleyAwbrey 1992 "DemocraticTransitions and the Semiperipheryof the World-Economy," Sociological Forum7: 609-640.

Kriesi,Hanspeter 1993 Political Mobilizationand Social Change. The Dutch Case in Comparative Perspective.Aldershot: Avebury.

Lehmann,David 1992 Democracy and Developmentin Latin America. Economics, Politics and Religion in thePost-war Period. Philadelphia:Temple UniversityPress.

Lowe, Philip D. and WolfgangRüdig 1986 "PoliticalEcology and the Social Sciences- The State of the Art,"British Journalof Political Science 16: 513-550.

Mansbridge,Jane J. 1990 "Organizingfor the ERA: Cracks in the Facade of Unity,"in Louise A. Tilly and Patricia Gurin,eds., Women,Politics and Change. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Marwell,Gerald and Pamela Oliver 1984 "CollectiveAction Theoryand Social MovementsResearch," Research in Social Movements,Conflict and Change 7: 1-27.

1988 "Social Networksand Collective Action: A Theory of the Critical Mass. Ill," AmericanJournal of Sociology 3: 502-534.

Mayer,Margit 1991 "Social Movement Research and Social Movement Practice: The U.S. Pattern,"in DieterRucht, ed., Research on Social Movements:The State of the Art in WesternEurope and the USA. Frankfurtand Boulder: Campus/Westview.

McAdam, Doug, JohnD. McCarthyand MayerN. Zald 1988 "Social Movements,"in Neil J. Smelser, ed., Handbook of Sociology. NewburyPark: Sage, 1988.

McCarthy,John D., David W. Brittand Mark Wolfson 1991 "The InstitutionalChanneling of Social Movementsby the State in the United States,"Research in Social Movements,Conflicts and Change 13: 45-76.

This content downloaded from 66.194.72.152 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:19:39 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TILLY: CLUSTERS OF POLITICAL PERFORMANCES 27

McPhail, Clark 1991 TheMyth of theMadding Crowd.New York: AldineDe Gruyter.

Melucci, Alberto 1985 "The SymbolicChallenge of ContemporaryMovements," Social Research 52: 789-816.

1989 Nomads of the Present: Social Movements and Individual Need in ContemporarySociety. Philadelphia: Temple UniversityPress.

Morris,Aldon and CedricHerring 1987 "Theoryand Research in Social Movements:A Critical Review,"Annual Reviewof Political Science 2: 137-195.

Morris,Aldon D. and Carol McClurgMueller 1992 Frontiersin Social MovementTheory. New Haven: Yale UniversityPress.

Nicolas, Jean 1985 Mouvementspopulaires et conscience sociale, XVIe-XIXe siècles. Paris: Maloine.

Oberschall,Anthony 1973 Social Conflictand Social Movements.Englewood-Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

1993 Social Movements.New Brunswick:Transaction.

O'Donnell, Guillermoand PhilippeC. Schmitter 1986 Transitionsfrom Authoritarian Rule. Prospectsfor Democracy. Baltimore: JohnsHopkins University Press.

Peattie,Lisa and MartinRein 1983 Women'sClaims. A Studyin Political Economy.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Prak,Maarten 1991 "Citizen Radicalism and Democracy in the Dutch Republic: The Patriot Movementof the 1780s," Theoryand Society20: 73-102.

Putnam,Robert D. 1993 Making Democracy Work.Civic Traditionsin Modern Italy. Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Quadagno, Jill 1992 "Social Movementsand State Transformation:Labor Unions and Racial Conflictin the War on Poverty,"American Sociological Review 57: 616- 634.

Rosenfeld,Rachel A. and KathrynB. Ward 1991 "The ContemporaryU.S. Women's Movement:An Empirical Example of CompetitionTheory," Sociological Forum6: 471-500.

This content downloaded from 66.194.72.152 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:19:39 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 28 BERKELEY JOURNALOF SOCIOLOGY

Rueschemeyer,Dietrich, Evelyne Huber Stephens and JohnD. Stephens 1992 Capitalist Developmentand Democracy. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.

Rule, James 1988 Theoriesof Civil Violence.Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress.

Sabel, CharlesF. and JonathanZeitlin 1985 "Historical Alternatives to Mass Production: Politics, Markets and Technology in Nineteenth-CenturyIndustrialization," Past and Present 108: 133-176.

Sartori,Giovanni 1987 The Theoryof Democracy Revisited. Chatham,N.J.: Chatham House. 2 vols.

Schmitter,Philippe C. and TerryLynn Karl 1991 "WhatDemocracy Is ... and Is Not,"Journal of Democracy 2: 77-88.

Sedaitis,Judith B. and JimButterfield 1991 Perestroikafrom Below: Social Movementsin the Soviet Union. Boulder: Westview.

Smelser,Neil J. 1963 Theoryof CollectiveBehavior. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.

Somers,Margaret R. 1992 "Narrativity,Narrative Identity, and Social Action: RethinkingEnglish Working-ClassFormation," Social Science History16: 591-630.

Stephens,John D. 1989 "DemocraticTransition and Breakdownin WesternEurope, 1870-1939: A Test ofthe Moore Thesis,"American Journal of Sociology 94: 1019-1077.

Tarrow,Sidney 1988 "National Politics and Collective Action: Recent Theoryand Research in WesternEurope and the United States,"Annual Review of Sociology: 421- 440.

1989a Struggle,Politics, and Reform:Collective Action, Social Movements,and Cycles of Protest. Ithaca: Center for InternationalStudies, Cornell University.Western Societies Program, Occasional Paper No. 21.

1989b Democracyand Disorder: Social Conflict,Political Protestand Democracy in Italy, 1966-1973. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

1993 "ModularCollective Action and the Rise of the Social Movement:Why the FrenchRevolution Was Not Enough,"Politics and Society21: 69-90.

This content downloaded from 66.194.72.152 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:19:39 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TILLY: CLUSTERS OF POLITICAL PERFORMANCES 29

Power in Movement.Social Movements,Collective Action and Revolution in theModem World.(Cambridge University Press, Forthcoming)

Tilly,Charles 1969 "CollectiveViolence in EuropeanPerspective" in Hugh D. Grahamand Ted R. Gurr, eds., Violence in America. Vol. /._Washington, D.C.: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office.

1982 "Britain Creates the Social Movement,"in James Cronin and Jonathan Schneer,ed., Social Conflictand the Political Order in Modern Britain. London: CroomHelm.

1983 "Speaking Your Mind WithoutElections, Surveys,or Social Movements," Public OpinionQuarterly 47: 461-478.

1986 The ContentiousFrench. Cambridge:Belknap.

1988 "Social Movements,Old and New," in Louis Kriesberg,Bronislaw Misztal and JanuszMucha, eds., Social Movementsas a Factor of Change in the ContemporaryWorld. Greenwich,Connecticut: JAI Press. Research in Social Movements,Conflicts and Change,vol. 10.

1992a "ContentiousRepertoires in Great Britain, 1758-1834," CSSC [Centerfor Studiesof Social Change, New School forSocial Research] WorkingPaper 141.

1992b "How to Detect, Describe, and Explain Repertoiresof Contention,"CSSC WorkingPaper 150.

1992c "Of Oilfields,Lakes, and Democracy,"CSSC WorkingPaper 152; revised version (under the title "Democracyis a Lake") forthcomingin Herrick Chapman and Reid Andrews,eds., The Social Constructionof Democracy (New York: New York UniversityPress).

Touraine,Alain 1981 The Voice and the Eye. An Analysis of Social Movements.Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

1985 "An Introductionto the Studyof Social Movements,"Social Research 52: 749-788.

Trossbach,Werner 1987 Soziale Bewegung und politische Erfahrung. Bäuerliche Protest in hessischenTerritorien 1648-1806. Weingarten:Drumlin.

Walker,Jack L. 1991 Mobilizing InterestGroups in America. Patrons, Professions,and Social Movements.Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press.

This content downloaded from 66.194.72.152 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:19:39 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 30 BERKELEY JOURNALOF SOCIOLOGY

Walsh,Edward J. 1988 Democracyin the Shadows.Citizen Mobilization in the Wakeof the Accidentat ThreeMile Island. New York: Greenwood.

Zald, MayerN. and JohnD. McCarthy 1979 The Dynamicsof Social Movements.Resource Mobilization, Social Control,and Tactics.Cambridge, Massachusetts: Winthrop.

1987 Social Movementsin an OrganizationalSociety. New Brunswick: Transaction.

The Downfalland Futureof Socialism by Hans Heinz Holz paper $5, cloth 28.95

An influentialGerman philosopher outlines a theoreticalbasis for continuingthe traditionof revolutionaryMarxism in developed capitalistcountries in the wake ofthe collapse ofthe USSR and socialismin Europe. Publishedas a special issue of Nature,Society, and Thought, vol. 5, no. 3 (1992) and in hardcoveredition as vol. 30 of the MEP book series Studies in Marxism.You may also obtainthis importantwork by subscribingto NST: Nature,Society, and Thought,a quarterlyinterdisciplinary journal of dialecticaland historical materialism,beginning with this issue. NST Subscriptions (four issues a year): Individuals$15 (1 year), $28 (2 years); institutions$28 (1 year); add $4 per year for outsideU.S. Orderfrom: MEP Publications, Universityof Minnesota,116 Church Street S.E., Minneapolis, MN 55455. Tel. (612) 922- 7993. For single copies, add $1.50 shipping (foreign $2). Request freecatalog. __

This content downloaded from 66.194.72.152 on Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:19:39 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions