"New Social Movements"of the Early NineteenthCentury CRAIG CALHOUN

SOMETIMEAFTER I968, analysts and participants began to speak of "new social movements" that worked outside formal institu- tional channels and emphasized lifestyle, ethical, or "identity" concerns ratherthan narrowlyeconomic goals. A variety of ex- amples informed the conceptualization.Alberto Melucci (I988: 247), for instance, cited feminism, the ecology movement or "greens," the peace movement, and the youth movement.Others added the gay movement, the animal rights movement, and the antiabortionand prochoice movements. These movements were allegedly new in issues, tactics, and constituencies. Above all, they were new by contrastto the labor movement,which was the paradigmatic"old" social movement,and to Marxismand social- ism, which assertedthat class was the centralissue in politics and that a single political economic transformationwould solve the whole rangeof social ills. They were new even by comparisonwith conventional liberalism with its assumptionof fixed individual

Craig Calhounis Professorof Sociology and History at the Universityof North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Earlierversions of this paper were presentedin 1991 to the Social Science History Association, the Departmentof Sociology at the University of Oslo, and the Programin ComparativeStudy of Social Trans- formationsat the Universityof Michigan. The authoris gratefulfor comments from members of each audience and also for research assistance from Cindy Hahamovitch. Social Science History 17:3 (Fall I993) Copyright? I993 by the Social Science History Association. ccc oi45-5532/93/$I.50. 386 SOCIAL SCIENCE HISTORY identities and interests. The new social movements thus chal- lenged the conventionaldivision of politics into left and right and broadenedthe definitionof politics to includeissues thathad been consideredoutside the domainof political action (Scott 1990). These new social movements(NSMs) grewpartly from the New Left and related studentmovements of the I96os. The conceptu- alization of their novelty was part of the movementsthemselves as well as of the academic analyses that (primarilyin Europe) took debateon these movementsas an occasion to reformor reject Marxist theory and social democraticpolitics. The emphasis on novelty was extendedto claims of epochalchange when the NSMs were taken as signs of postindustrialor postmoder society. In this paper,however, I arguethat the historicalclaim implicitin the idea of new social movements(as in the ideas of postmodernism andpostindustrialism) is specious. I explorethe majordistinguish- ing characteristicsattributed to NSMs in the recent literatureand show that these fit very well the many movementsthat flourished in the late eighteenth and especially early nineteenthcenturies. My point is not just negative, however;I do not suggest that we abandonthe notion thatNSMs are distinctiveto the late twentieth century. Abandoningthe false historicalclaim enables us to understand better the whole modem historyof social movements. This is so in three senses. First, as Tarrow(I989) has suggested, many of the characteristicsdescribed in the flourishingmovements of the I96os and after may stem from the newness of each movement ratherthan from novel featuresof the whole wave of movements. In other words, all movementsin theirnascent period-including the labor movement and social democracy-tend to fit certain aspects of the NSM model. Second, we are better preparedto analyze all social movementsif we pay attentionto the inherent plurality of their forms, contents, social bases, and meaning to participantsand do not attemptto graspthem in terms of a single model definedby laboror revolutionarymovements, or a single set of instrumentalquestions about mobilization. Within any historical period, at least in the modem era, we can identifya whole field of social movementsshaped by their relationshipsto each other and appealingto different,though overlapping, potential participants. Of the variousmovements in such a field, we can fruitfullyask the kinds of questions pioneeredby new social movement theory- New Social Movements 387 about identity politics, the possibility of thinkingof movements as ends in themselves, and so forth-and not just those of re- source mobilizationor Marxism. Third, if we abandonboth the developmentalismthat treats early nineteenth-centurymovements as either precursorsto the laterconsolidation of labor and social- ism or else as historicalsidetracks, and the oppositerefusal to look for macrohistoricalpatterns, we can begin to explorewhat factors determinewhether (in specific settings)periods are characterized by proliferationor consolidationor expansionor contractionin the social movementfield as a whole. Social movement fields include many differentkinds of move- ments; this diversity and the interrelationshipsamong different movements are obscured by overly narrowdefinitions of social movements. Tilly, for example, approachesmovements in terms of an analysis of collective action with "five big components: interest, organization, mobilization, opportunity,and collective action itself" (I978: 7); this leaves out self-understandingand emphasizes instrumentalpursuits. Similarly, Tarrow,Tilly, and others have built the idea of conflict and opposition to "estab- lished authorities"into their approachesto social movements- as part of "protest"in Tarrow's(I988) case and "contention"in Tilly's (1978, 1986).1 This focuses their attention on movements with strong economic and political agendasand away from more "cultural"ones. Touraine'sdefinition goes nearlyto the opposite extreme: social movements are normativelyoriented interactions between adversarieswith conflictinginterpretations and opposed models of a shared cultural field; in his view NSMs contended with other groups in civil society ratherthan with the state (I98I: 31-32).2 This is a helpful corrective, but we should not prejudge the questionof orientationto the state. Forone thing, this is a two- way street. Statesare institutionallyorganized in ways thatprovide recognitionfor some identities and arenasfor some conflicts and freeze others out. States themselvesthus shape the orientationsof NSMs as well as the field of social movementsmore generally. The key point is that it is misleadingto compartmentalizereli- gious movements, for example, apartfrom more stereotypically social or political ones. Religious movements may have politi- cal and economic agendas-particularly when politics is not seen as exclusively a matterof relationsto the state. More basically, as E. P. Thompson (I968) showed clearly, religious and labor 388 SOCIAL SCIENCE HISTORY movementscan influenceeach other, compete for adherents,and complementeach other in the lives of some participants;in short, they can be part of the same social movement field.3 Part of the problem is that much of the traditionalanalysis of social movements (and collective action more generally)has ignored or explicitly set aside questions of culture or the interpretationof meaning. This tends to deflect attentionaway from those move- ments concernedlargely with values, norms, language,identities, and collective understandings-includingthose of movementpar- ticipantsthemselves-and towardthose that focus instrumentally on changing political or economic institutions.Social movement analystshave also often avoidedaddressing emotions, perhapsfor fear of associationwith discreditedaccounts of mass psychology. For present purposes, it is better to see social movementsas in- cluding all attemptsto influencepatterns of culture, social action, and relationshipsin ways thatdepend on the participationof large numbers of people in concerted and self-organized (as distinct from state-directedor institutionallymandated) collective action. Both the wide rangeof recent social movementsand the litera- ture labeling them NSMs encouragesuch a broaderview. Rather than dismissing NSM theory because of its historical misrepre- sentation, we should see the importanceof the issues it raises for understandingsocial movementsgenerally. "Identity politics" and similar concerns were never quite so much absent from the field of social movementactivity-even in the heydaysof liberalparty politics or organizedtrade union struggle-as they were obscured from conventionalacademic observation. Particularly after I848, just as socialism became more "scientific,"so social scientistslost sight of the traditionsof directaction, fluid and shiftingcollective identities, and communitarianand otherattempts to overcomethe means/ends divisionof moreinstrumental movement organization (Calhoun 1989). The secularism of academics particularlyand post-Enlightenmentintellectuals generally may have made collec- tive actionbased on religiousand othermore spiritualorientations appear of a differentorder from the "real" social movement of trade-union-basedsocialism or from liberal democracy.Nation- alism was often treated as a regressive deviation rather than a moder form of social movement and identity formation.Early feminism attractedrelatively little scholarly attentionuntil later feminism promptedits rediscovery. New Social Movements 389

In short, one kind of movement-formally organized, in- strumentalaction aimed at economic or institutionallypolitical goals-was relativelynew and ascendantthrough much of the late nineteenth and the twentieth centuries and has often been mis- identified as simply a progressivetendency, the rationalfuture of politics, or even insurgentpolitics. This patternwas particularly pronouncedin Europe duringthe ascendancyof labor and social democracy, and it is what made America look exceptional. But nowhere were movementpolitics ever limited to this form. While America had relatively weak trade unions and socialist politics, it nurtureda relatively strong and open proliferationof the other sort of social movement, new social movements. This has been true throughoutAmerican history, and it is very markedin the early nineteenth-centuryperiod on which this paperfocuses. The floweringof movementsin this periodwas, however,international (as I will illustratewith brief examples from Franceand Britain). Indeed, the social movement field of the early nineteenth cen- tury was inherentlyinternational, linking participantsin different countries not only by communicationsbut by a patternof migra- tion in which people literallymoved from one countryto another without leaving their movementcontexts. RememberMarx's ties to Germanradicals in Londonand his writingfor theirnewspaper in New York and recall the emigre intellectualferment of Paris between I830 and 1848 (KramerI988). Migrationto America- to join a socialist communeor to establisha religiouscommunity, for example-was a prominentfeature of the era and often tied to movementparticipation. We have only to recall the travelsof Tom Paine, however, to remind ourselves that the Atlantic crossing could be reversed.

THE IDEA OF NEW SOCIAL MOVEMENTS The idea of new social movementshas been broughtinto academic currencyby several authorswith variousconceptual frameworks.4 In all cases, the concept is defined througha crucial counterex- ample: the nineteenth-and early twentieth-centuryworking-class or labor movement. This is understoodprimarily in the singular (while new social movementsare plural). The backdropto the idea of NSMs, thus, is the notion that labor struggleshad an implicit telos and were potentially transformativefor the whole society. 390 SOCIAL SCIENCE HISTORY

This was conceptualizedsometimes in largelyeconomic terms as the transcendenceof capitalismand other times in more political terms as the social democratictransformation of modem states. In eithercase, a single movementprotagonist was generallyassumed to have posed the social question. At one time, thus, it was com- mon to speak of the social movementthat would bring about the course of social change. NSM theoristshold thatthis is no longer plausible, if it ever was. In varyingdegrees they emphasizepost- industrialsociety (Touraine1971), the optionsopened by relative affluenceand a growingmiddle class (Offe I985), the turnto indi- vidually defined needs afterthe commondenominator of material sustenance had been satisfied (Melucci I989; Inglehart I990), and expansionof the welfarestate (Offe 1985). Theirpositive examples come from the wide range of movements that began to engage people in the I96os and 1970s after the apparent conservative quiescence of the I950s. For Touraine (1988), a key question is whetherthese new movementscould evercoalesce in orderto em- body some of the decisive potentialfor social transformationonce attributedto the labormovement and socialism. Habermas(1984) suggests not, theorizingNSMs in termsof a broaderpost-Marxist account of why movementscan no longer hold the potential for fundamentalsocial transformationin a society wherethe lifeworld is colonized by economic and administrativesystems and large- scale state and capitalist structuresare inescapable. He sees the movements as partof the resistanceof lifeworldto system. Simi- larly, Cohen and Arato (I992) and Touraine (I985) treat NSMs as part of the struggle for civil society to maintainautonomy from state and economy and as a source of reformand the introduction of new concerns into political agendas. For Melucci (198I, I989), NSMs must be seen simply as ends in themselves. Melucci (I989) also employs the commonpostmodernist trope of arguing against the "metanarrative"of socialist liberation (Lyotard1984). With others, he sees the labor movement'sclaim to be the main or exclusive source of progressivechange or rep- resentative for those disadvantagedby the established order as intrinsicallyrepressive, not just historicallyobsolete. In order to mount their challenge to that "old" social movement, however, these NSM theoristshave exaggeratedthe extent to which it ever was a unifiedhistorical actor with a single narrativeand a disciplin- ing institutionalstructure. They have reifiedand hypostatizedthe New Social Movements 391 labor movement, setting up the most simplistic Marxistaccounts as their straw men. In fact, the nineteenth-and early twentieth- centuryworking-class movement (if it even can be describedmore than tendentiouslyas a single movement)was multidimensional, only provisionallyand partiallyunified, and not univocal (Katz- nelson and Zolberg 1987). It did not constitutejust one collective actorin a single social drama.There was mobilizationover wages, to be sure, but also over women and childrenworking, commu- nity life, the status of immigrants,education, access to public services, and so forth. Movementactivity constantlyoverflowed the boundsof the label labor. Similarly,the categoriesof class and class struggle have been used far from the Marxianideal type of wage laborersin industrialcapitalist factories. Artisansand agri- cultural workers, white collar and service employees, and even small proprietors(not to mentionspouses and children of all these) havejoined in the strugglesor been groupedin the categoryof the working class. Throughoutthe history of labor and class move- ments, there has been contentionover who should be included in them and how both common and differentidentities should be established. Indeed, ironically,by leading to researchon the pro- tests of women, people of color, and other marginalizedpeople, the recent growth of NSMs has helped to explode the myth that the narrowlywhite, male labor movement, against which NSMs were defined, was completelypredominant. OtherNSM theoristsnot only exaggeratelabor's one-time hege- mony over the social movementfield; they tie it to a metanarrative of their own. Inglehartthus treats a move from "materialist"or economistic orientationsto "postmaterialism"as a simple linear developmentbased on achievementof higher materialstandards of living and greatereconomic security.He explicitly claims that "in the takeoff phase of industrialrevolution, economic growth was the central problem. Postmaterialistshave become increas- ingly numerousin recentdecades and they place less emphasison economic growthand more emphasison the noneconomicquality of life" (I990: 373). Inglehartoffers no evidence, however,for the assumptionthat economic orientationspredominated during the early yearsof industrializationor thatnonmaterialism appears only late in the story.The followingpages show thatthe beginningyears of industrializationwere particularlyfertile for the proliferationof nonmaterialistmovements; if these were ever really in abeyance 392 SOCIAL SCIENCE HISTORY for long, it was in the more industrializedlater nineteenth and early to mid-twentiethcenturies.

DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS OF NEW SOCIAL MOVEMENTS Throughoutthe early nineteenthcentury, communitarianism, tem- perance, and various dietary and lifestyle movements attracted hundredsof thousandsof adherentsin both Europeand America. Religious awakening,revitalization, and proliferationwere major themes, as were anticlericalismand freethinking.Antislavery or abolitionistmovements were often closely linked to religion but were autonomous from any particularreligious organizations. Populareducation was the objectof struggle,with early success in America. Even aftermid-century, the divergencebetween Europe and Americashould not be exaggerated.The nationalistdiscourse of the (northern)Union before and afterthe Civil War-including even "manifestdestiny"-was not altogetherdifferent from the nationalistdiscourse of GiuseppeMazzini and Young Europe or of Giuseppe Garibaldi.Nativism was recurrentthroughout the nine- teenth century, from the Know-Nothingsthrough populism, and the racial, ethnic, and religioushostilities takento an extreme by the Ku Klux Klan were not altogetherdifferent from the xenopho- bic side of nationalism.Ethnic and nationalistmovements, more- over, were never as fully suppressedby class as Melucci (I989: 89-92) suggests but have ebbed and flowed throughoutmoder- nity.Women's and temperancemovements renewed mobilizations dating from the eighteenthcentury. The earlynineteenth century was fertileground for social move- ments as perhaps no other period was until the I96os.5 Indeed, direct ancestorsof severalof the movementsthat sparkedthe new social movement conceptualization in the I960s and I970S were part of the early nineteenth-centuryefflorescence. In the early nineteenthcentury too, the labormovement itself was a new social movementand not clearlyfirst among equals, let alonehegemonic; the idea that a class-based movementmight claim to be all en- compassing was not widespread.If we ignore the claim that they apply distinctivelyto the late twentiethcentury, the core ideas of NSM theory offer a useful lens for looking at early nineteenth- century social movements. Specifically, I turn now to a list of New Social Movements 393 the most widely cited distinguishingfeatures of late twentieth- century NSMs.6 Relying for the most part on brief examples, I show that each was a prominentconcern or feature of early nineteenth-centurysocial movements.

Identity, Autonomy and Self-realization Compared with the largely instrumentaland economistic goals of both the institutionalizedlabor movement and the European social democraticparties, NSMs have been cruciallyfocused on "identity politics" (AronowitzI992). Many of these movements themselves, however, have roots in the late eighteenthand early nineteenthcenturies: moder feminist ideology is often traced to Mary Wollstonecraft,and the broaderwomen's movementto the substantialconcern with sexual equalityand redefinition of gender in Owenite socialism (Taylor1983) andto the disproportionatepar- ticipationof women in abolitionist,temperance, and other "moral crusades"of the early nineteenthcentury. The tracingof roots, however,is not necessarilythe identifica- tion of a linear, unidirectionalprocess of development.Claiming an autonomousidentity and a moral voice for women often took a differentform in the early nineteenthcentury than in succeeding years. Indeed, Rendall has argued that the very assumptionsof twentieth-centuryfeminists about equality make it hard"to under- standthat the assertionof an 'equalityin difference'could mean a radical step forward .... Stress on the latent moral superiority of women could bring with it the basis for a new confidence, a new energy, a new assertionof women's potentialpower" (I985a: 3). This is more easily recognized in the frame of reference estab- lished by the NSMs (andmuch recent poststructuralist and feminist theory) than in that of the classical liberalism or universalism informing the assumptionsto which Rendall refers. The words of the Owenite CatherineBarmby, "Woman and man are two in variety and one in equality" (quoted in Rendall I985b: 308), no longer sound so unfamiliar.Early nineteenth-centurywomen ar- gued from a claim to morally-and publicly-relevant difference not again so clearly formulateduntil the final quarterof the twen- tieth century. "As it is the Divine Will that the two sexes together shall constitutehumanity, so I believe it to be the Divine intention that the influence and exertion of the two sexes combinedshall 394 SOCIAL SCIENCE HISTORY be necessaryto the complete success of any humaninstitution, or any branchof such institution"(Agnes Davis Pochin 1855, quoted in Rendall I985: 312). Not only was there a claim that the dif- ferent qualities of men and women were complementary(as the broaderculture also asserted, though with more bias); there was a claim to moral authoritygrounded within the domestic sphere, which was in the early nineteenthcentury becoming increasingly separatedfrom the public sphere. "Withinthat primarilydomes- tic world, women could and did create a culturewhich was not entirely an imposed one, which containedwithin it the possibili- ties of assertion. . . . That assertion could become the assertion of autonomy"(Rendall I985a: 3). The very claim to distinct and possibly autonomous identity in the domestic sphere ironically became the basis for public claims. As Mary Ryan (I990, 1992) has shown, from I830 to I860 there was a rapid increase in the public life of the Americancitizenry. This was not just a matterof one public growing more active, but of a proliferationof multiple publics. Some of these were autonomouslyfemale and constituted themselves in terms of distinct claims to identity not altogether unrelatedto those by which the male-dominatedpublic spheres sought to exclude women. Not only was moral authorityclaimed for distinctive female identities; gender relationswere directly a focus of concern. By no means all of the social movementsof the early nineteenthcen- tury oriented their action to the public sphere, and still less to organizedpolitics. Withdrawalfrom mainstreamsociety in order to reconstitutehuman relationswas a centraltheme of the com- munitarianmovements of the era and of the often millenarian religious movementswith which they sometimesoverlapped (see below). RobertOwen's communitarianvision may have turnedon a Lockean vision of essential human sameness and malleability, but this was certainlynot so for CharlesFourier's notion of phal- ansteries composed of I,620 individualsin orderto representall possible combinationsof the essential and distinctivepassions of each sex. Genderrelations were also an importantconcern of the New England transcendentalists,innovatively treated as a social movement by Anne Rose. "Alienatedby a culturebuilt of fear," she writes, "the Transcendentaliststook steps to establish social relations allowing freedom, growth, justice, and love" (I98I: 93). Communitarianexperiments like Brook Farmwere designed New Social Movements 395 simultaneouslyto foster individualself-fulfillment and equitable, nurturantsocial relationships. In a very differentvein, what was the focus of early nineteenth- century nationalismif not identity? "Nations are individualities with particulartalents," wrote Fichte (quotedby Meinecke I970: 89). At least through the "springtimeof nations" that collided with the mid-centurycrisis, nationalismwas conceived substan- tially as a liberal and inclusive doctrine, not as the reactionary, exclusionaryone it would in manycases become. This "nationalist internationalism"(Walicki I982) of figures like Mazzini main- tained that all true nationalitieshad rights to autonomousself- expressionand indeed cast itself as the defenderof libertyagainst empire (a theme that has never entirelydisappeared). Not unlike more recent movementsthat focused on the legitimationof iden- tities, nationalismgrew in partbecause of the rise of the moder state and the ideology of rights that became a crucial part of its legitimation apparatusand a continual opening for new claims. Nationality,despite nationalism'sown ideology, was never simply a given identity, inheritedunproblematically from the past, but always a constructionand a claim within a field of identities. Not only did nationalistmovements claim autonomyfor specific peoples against others (for example, for Hungariansagainst the Austrian-dominatedempire, or briefly for Texans against both Mexico and the United States) they also claimed a primacy for national identity over class, region, dialect, gender, and other subsidiaryidentities. Last but not least in this connection,we need to recognize how profoundlyearly workers'movements were engaged in a politics of identity.Marx and numerousactivists offered the claim thatthe common identityof workershould take primacy over a diversityof craft, region, ethnic, and other identities. Yet this strongversion of the claim to working-class identity was seldom if ever real- ized, and certainlynot in the early nineteenthcentury. What were achieved were more mediatedversions of working-classsolidarity in which primaryidentification with a craftor local groupbecame the means of forging a discourseor movementbased on national (or international)class identities. This mediatedunderstanding of class membershipis quite differentfrom the categoricalMarxist notion of individualsequivalently constituted as membersof the working class. Yet it is the fluidity of possible workers' identi- 396 SOCIAL SCIENCE HISTORY ties that stands out in the historiographyof the early nineteenth century.7

DefenseRather Than Offense The "old social movement"was utopianand soughtto remakethe whole of society throughovercoming existing relations of domina- tion and exploitation,theorists claim. NSMs, in contrast,defend specific spheres of life; their demandsare more limited in scope but are also less negotiable. Here NSM theory points valuably to the importance of the defense of specific lifeworlds and its link to nonnegotiabledemands, but througha sharplymisleading historicalopposition. The underlyingidea is thatsocialism was a comprehensiveuto- pian project. This is what some of Marxism'spoststructuralist de- tractorsdecry in attackingthe dominationimplicit in any claim to orderthe whole of society (or criticalthought). It is also implicitin Habermas's (1984, I988) account of how conflicts moved outside the range of distributiveissues that welfarestates were developed to manage. In this view, the state embodied the utopiandrive of labor and social democratic movements but faced crises as the systems of money and power grew to dominateso much of social life thatcultural reproduction could no longerprovide people with the motivationfor either ordinaryparticipation or transformative rebellion.8New social movementsarose out of this "exhaustion of utopian energies" and embodied a too-often neoconservative focus on defense of endangeredways of life (HabermasI990: chap. 2). But this seems exactly backward.The labor movement has been as defensive in much of its struggle as any NSM and has hardlyalways been committedto a thoroughrestructuring of society. For most of its history the traditionalleft was normally suspicious of utopianenergies, thoughthese occasionallyerupted anyway.The "traditionalleft," indeed, was formedin the consoli- dation and institutionalizationof a "post-utopian"movement in the late nineteenthcentury; this replacedthe earlierefflorescence of more utopianmovements and earnedthe appellationtraditional by resistingthe challengeof new movementsnot just in the I96os but in the early twentiethcentury and recurrently.Indeed, much of the new left (like the NSMs more generally)can be understood as an attempt to recover the utopian energies of the early nine- New Social Movements 397 teenth century.9Rooted in the attachmentsof everyday life and specific communities, these movements were often radical and even utopianin what they sought. What else, for example, could the perfectionismof the Second Great Awakeningmean, if not that people must impose extreme and nonnegotiable demands on themselves and their societies? This might have been the "shopkeepers'millenium" (Johnson I978), not Marx's, but it was certainlyutopian. At the same time, it was fueled in partby local communityresistance to the impact of centralizingpolitics and economics. Thus Habermas'sidea that NSMs form largely to defend lifeworldspaces against the "colo- nization" of large-scale political and economic systems grasps importantaspects of crucialnineteenth-century social movements, but this cannotbe opposed to utopianism.A similarperfectionism made the utopian socialists utopian, in Marx's and Engels's con- temptuousview. Think, forexample, of Engels'scomplaint that St. Simon, Fourier,and Owen claimedto emancipate"all humanityat once," ratherthan "a particularclass to begin with" (1978 [1892]: 701). Indeed, it is crucial to the very radicalismof some early nineteenth-centurysocial movements(as of manyothers) that they mounted an unyielding and nonnegotiabledefense of traditional ways of life thatwere threatenedby social change(including espe- cially capitalistchange). Artisansdefending traditional crafts and communities against capitalist industrializationcould not settle for better wages, working conditions, or health care. It was this defense of their lifeworlds, however, that made their demands radically incompatiblewith the expansionof capitalismand that set them apartfrom most industrialworkers who, howeverviolent their anger at any point in time, could potentiallybe pacified by meliorativemeasures (Calhoun I982, I983a, I983b). A differentkind of defensive orientationwas involved in the withdrawalof various religious groups from intercoursewith a corruptingworldly society. This was, indeed, one of the goals of many of the Germanreligious migrantsto the United States, from the Amish to the Bruderhoff (Hostetler I980; Kanter I972; Zablocki I970). As Marty (I984: I9I) writes of the religious colo- nists, "most believed in naturalhuman innocence and thought that new social arrangementswould end corruption."A defensive orientationwas more common among the earlier pietists than it was among the new wave of communitiesof the I84os. The tran- 398 SOCIAL SCIENCE HISTORY scendentalistsat Brook Farmcertainly aspired to reach a broader publicwith theirexample and their written message, andtheir pro- gram was explicitly forwardlooking. Similarly,the members of the Hopedalecommunity in Milford,Massachusetts, were regular participantsin a varietyof extracommunalsocial movements,con- ceiving of their communityas a base for such broaderreforming activities (Walters 1978: 49-51). Just as the common saying suggests that "the best defense is a good offense," so it is hardto distinguishdefensive from offensive momentsin the nineteenth-centurycommunal movement. Indeed, these often appearas two sides of the same utopianideology. Uto- pian visions were often rooted in (or derivedpart of their appeal from) religious traditionsand/or images of the recently vanished golden age of craftsmenand small farmers.At the same time, they stood in tension or confrontationwith manyof the tendenciesand characteristicsof contemporarysociety. The line was not sharply drawnbetween withdrawingfrom this worldto preparefor the next or to protecta purerlife, and withdrawingin orderto constitutean example that might transformsocial relationsmore generally.It is importantto see the ways in which earlynineteenth-century social movementswere rooted in problemsand attachmentsof everyday life and the defense of valued ways of life; it is crucial not to imagine that this made them intrinsicallyconservative or deprived them of utopianenergies. Roots made many movementsradical, even when they did not offer comprehensiveplans for societal restructuring.

Politicization of Everyday Life Centralto the importanceof identitypolitics and defensive orien- tations is the argumentthat NSMs are distinctivein politicizing everyday life ratherthan focusing on the large-scale systems of state and economy. Where the postwar consensus consecrated overall economic growth, distributivegains, and variousforms of legal protectionsas the basic social issues thatthe politicalprocess was to address (Offe 1985: 824), the NSMs brought forward a varietyof otherissues groundedin aspectsof personalor everyday life: sexuality, abuse of women, studentrights, protectionof the environment. These were notjust new issues of familiarkinds, but a challenge New Social Movements 399 to the extant division between public and private spheres, state and civil society. The collapsing of divisions between state and economy paved the way (Galbraith 1967; Habermas I962, I967). Giant corporationsassumed statelike functions in the putatively privateeconomic sphere, while the welfarestate was called to de- fend a growing variety of civil rights and to interveneregularly in the economy. Several explanationsfor why this gave rise to NSMs contendthat a hierarchyof needs notionsuggests that afflu- ence made it feasible to stop worryingabout the old economic issues and take up these new concerns (Melucci I989; Inglehart I990). A political opportunityargument says thatthe transformed state creatednew opportunitiesfor the pursuitof grievances(Tar- row 1989). Habermas's (I988) notion of the colonization of the lifeworldproposes thatthe erosionof the boundariesbetween life- world and economic and political system was itself experienced as threatening. Comparedwith the postwarconsensus, a politicizationof every- day life certainlybegan in the I960s, but this was not a reversal of long-standingconsensus about the proper boundariesof the political. On the contrary,the moder era is shaped by a certain oscillationbetween politicizationand depoliticizationof everyday life. In the late nineteenthand early twentiethcenturies, as well as in the early nineteenth century, social movements brought a range of new phenomenainto the public (if not always the politi- cal) realm. Indeed, the early labor movementsthemselves aimed crucially to politicize aspects of everyday life formerly (and by their opponents) not consideredproperly political. Temperance, abolitionism,campaigns for populareducation, and perhaps above all early women's movementssought public recognitionor action with regardto grievancestheir detractorsconsidered clearly out- side the realm of legitimate state action (Evans and Boyte I986: chap. 3). They were moral crusades in almost exactly the same way as the NSMs are in KlausEder's (1985) description.For parts of the women's movementthis was sometimesa source of contra- diction: women had to protest in public and thereby politicize the issue of protecting the female sphere of the private house- hold (RendallI985a; see also Ryan1992). The contradictionshave reappearedin the currentperiod, as, for example, when Phyllis Schlafley simultaneouslymaintained that a woman's proper(and ideally protected)place is in the home but suggestedthat she her- 400 SOCIAL SCIENCE HISTORY self ought to be appointedto the SupremeCourt. In the case of women's movements,the struggleto politicize aspectsof everyday life-and the contradictionsaround it-continued right through the nineteenthand early twentiethcenturies. It recurredalso in the temperance/prohibitionand civil rights movements. The latter, indeed, is almosta quintessentialcase, with the proprietorsof seg- regatedrestaurants, for example, arguingthat their decisions about whom to serve were purelyprivate matters, beyond the legitimate reach of the state. Though there was often great political turmoil-over social- ism, for example, and over female suffrage-a fairly consistent set of issues was the center of contentionduring the second half of the nineteenthand the firsthalf of the twentiethcenturies. The main legitimate questions of domestic politics focused on elec- toral democracy(the full extensionof the franchise,the efficacyof political parties, and the preventionof corruptionamong elected officials) and political economy(the properrole of the state in pro- viding for those individualscapitalism harmed or failed to help, in mediating strugglesbetween workersand employers, or in regu- lating the flow of workersinto labor markets).'0Populism was a step outside the political normsin some respects (for example, in largely defensive use of direct action, as in attemptsby farmers to eliminate middlemenby some combinationof new cooperative institutionsand intimidation;see Goodwyn I976) but it stuck for the most part to manifestlypolitical and economic issues. When other issues were raised, they commonly had a very hard time attractingserious attentionin the public sphere;the voices of au- thority consistently outweighed those of dissent. The one great victoryof women in this period, thus, was on the issue of suffrage, not on any of the other genderconcerns that women voiced."

Non-Class or Middle-ClassMobilization A central link between NSM theory and the notion of a post- industrialor postmodernsociety is the idea thatpolitical economic identitieshave lost their salience and are being replacedby a mix- ture of ascriptive identities (like race or gender) and personally chosen or expressive identities (like sexual orientationor identi- fication with variouslifestyle communities).NSMs, accordingly, neitherappeal to nor mobilize predominantlyon class lines. New Social Movements 401

Offe (1985) suggests thatmembers of the new middle class and "decommodified"persons-that is, those with no stable labor market position or identity-are disproportionatelyinvolved in NSMs. Though Offe approachesthese groupsin economic terms, they are in fact hardto assimilateinto schemes of class analysis. The decommodifiedare obviously outside class categoriesto the extent thatthese dependon stablepositions in the relationsof pro- duction. The new middle class is usuallydefined in terms of high levels of education and technical skill combined with employee status ratherthan ownershipof capital. This too is anomalous.'2 More generally, middle-class affluence may facilitate movement activity, but class membershipis not the identity that determines choice of NSM. If Offe is right about the new middle class and the decommodified,however, this is a reasonto anticipategrowth in NSMs: these are both growing segments of the population. Offe even remarksthat this makesNSMs similarto the early labor movement, when the numbers of industrialworkers were still growing.13 Offe is perceptiveto note the similarityto the early labormove- ment, with its internaldiversity and only graduallystabilizing con- ception of a common labor-marketposition and class identity.Of course, the labormovement remained internally diverse-rent, for example, by divisions between skilled craftsmenand laborers- and nowhere more so than in America (with, for example, the epic strugglesbetween the AmericanFederation of Laborand the Congress of IndustrialOrganizations coming close for a time to resembling a civil war within the putativelyunitary movement). Where class was offered as a partof political ideology, it did not appeal solely to workers. Socialist parties, unlike trade unions, have mobilized throughouttheir history across class lines. If class bases were ever central determinantsof mobilization patterns, it was in late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Europe. Before that, class was seldomthe self-appliedlabel or the basis even of workers'mobilization. Was Chartismstrictly a class movement? Though its ideology increasinglyfocused on class, its demands included issues with appeal to most of the range of people excluded from suffrageand effective citizenship rights in early nineteenth-centuryBritain (D. Thompson1986; Jones 1984). Indeed, its admixtureof membersof the industrialworking class with artisans, outworkers,and others presagedthe fault lines of 402 SOCIAL SCIENCE HISTORY its eventual demise. Similarly,it has been shown fairly conclu- sively that class-based analyses fail to explain who manned and who attacked barricades in Paris in 1848 (Traugott I985). Even more basically,it has been arguedthat republicanism was the cen- tral ideological focus of the early nineteenth-centurystruggles in France and that class bases matteredmainly as the underpinnings of differentvisions of the republic(Aminzade forthcoming). The point is not that class was irrelevantbut that the early nineteenth- century strugglesmost often takenas paradigmaticof class-based political movements-Chartism, the revolutionof 1848-were political movementsinternally differentiated by the appealof their ideology to differentgroups of workers,shopkeepers, and others. In America, too, republicanismwas a centralrhetoric of politi- cal andeven economic struggle.In his studyof Cincinnatiworkers, Ross (1985) sees an effort to forge and preserve a "republican world" only giving way to an alternative,more economicallyand class based form of strugglesin the I840s. This was only partly because Cincinnati was more egalitarianand socially integrated than East Coast cities. Wilentz's study of New York also shows the centralityof republicanvisions into the I820S. Even after the crucial shifts of I828-29, the Working Men's movement involved an attempt to push Jacksoniandemocracy further than the well- connected attorney'sand party functionariesof TammanyHall. The new radicalswere shapedby old Adamsitepolitical visions and by new social movements like Owenite socialism and a mixture of feminism, deism, and Jacobinismbrought forward by Frances Wright(Wilentz 1984: chap. 5). These radicalswere journeyman artisans and small master mechanics but also disaffectedelites; their appeals were as apt to be agrarianas focused on the trans- formationof urban classes. In the words of Thomas Skidmore, the programwas to end social oppressionand political force "till there shall be no lenders, no borrowers;no landlords,no tenants; no masters,no journeymen;no Wealth,no Want"(quoted in ibid.: 187). This was a vision that would appealless, no doubt, to elites than to those they oppressedor exploited, but it was not a vision narrowlyfocused on any specificclass (see Evansand Boyte I986: chap. 4). The communitarianvisions thatpredominated in the movements of the era generallyminimized class divisions. They offereda new kind of social relations-egalitarian and cooperative-to replace the old; they expected the beneficiariesof the old system to resist New Social Movements 403 most, but they arguedthat the benefitof the new orderwould flow to everyone. Class variationfigured as a sourceof variablediscon- tent and interest; class-specific patternsof association (working together, living in the same neighborhoods,intermarrying) led to mobilizationpartly on class lines, but this did not makethese class movements. This was, after all, precisely the complaintof Marx and Engels about Owenism;they could praiseits communitarian- ism (particularlywhere family was concerned)but had to attack its neglect-or denial-of class struggle(see, for example, 1976 [I848]: pt. 3). If we turn our attentionfrom the self-understandingof move- ments-or the nature of their ideological appeal-to the class characterof their adherents,we find nineteenth-centuryNSMs in which members of the middle class predominateand others in which workers predominate.Sometimes these are differentver- sions of relatedmovement formations-as, forexample, in the dif- ferent class characteristicsof AmericanProtestant denominations and religious mobilizations.The shopkeepers'millennium of the Second GreatAwakening may have been predominantlya middle- class affairand extended to workerswith an agenda of "taming" them suitably for industrialoccupations (as Johnson 1978 sug- gests), thoughit is not clear thatthis is the whole story.The Great Awakeningwas also in significantpart a ruralphenomenon, giving birthto circuit-ridingministers and radically populist sects like the Campbellites (later the Disciples of Christ). Transcendentalism was almost entirelymiddle class (thoughBrook Farmdid admit a large numberof workingpeople in I844), but it was diametrically opposed to the evangelicalawakening not only in its theology but in its social vision; it was in many ways an oppositionalmove- ment despite the elite status of many of its protagonists(Rose I98I). Abolitionismhas long been interpretedas an elite and/or middle-classmovement, but recentstudies have begun to alterthat image, holding that it did indeed mobilize significantpockets of working-class support(Drescher I987; Fladeland1984). Class is a significantvariable for use in our analyses, but these were not class movementsas such.

Self-exemplification One of the most strikingfeatures of the paradigmaticNSMs has been their insistence that the organizationalforms and styles of 404 SOCIAL SCIENCE HISTORY movementpractice must exemplify the values the movementseeks to promulgate.This means, at the same time, thatthe movements are ends in themselves. Relatedly, many NSMs are committed to direct democracyand a nonhierarchicalstructure, substantially lacking in role differentiation,and resistant to involvement of professionalmovement staff. Many versions of the modem women's movementthus eschew complete identificationwith instrumentalgoals-changing legis- lation, achievingequal job opportunity,and otherconcerns. They focus also on constructingthe movement itself as a nurturant, protectedspace for women. The emphasison self-exemplification and noninstrumentalityis indeed a contrastto much of the history of the organized labor movement. Many socialist and especially communistparties have institutionalizedinternal hierarchies and decision-making structuresdeeply at odds with their professed pursuit of nonhierarchical,nonoppressive social arrangements. But what could be a betterexample of making a "work-object" (in Melucci's I989 phrase) of a social movement'sown organi- zational forms than the communal movement(s) of the I84os? CharlesLane, influencedby Fourier,was a veteranof severalcom- munal experimentsfrom the anarchistFruitlands to the Shakers; he praisedcelibacy and like values in 1843: The humanbeings in whom the EternalSpirit has ascended from low animaldelights or merehuman affections, to a state of spiritualchastity and intuition,are in themselvesa divine atmosphere, they are superiorcircumstances, and are con- stant in endeavoringto create, as well as to modify, all other conditions, so that these also shall more and more conduce to the like consciousnessin others. Hence our perseverance in efforts to attain simplicity in diet, plain garments, pure bathing, unsullieddwellings, open conduct, gentle behavior, kindly sympathies, serene minds. These and several other particularsneedful to the true end of man's residence on earth, may be designated Family Life. . . . The Family, in its highest, divinest sense, is thereforeour true position, our sacred earthly destiny. [quoted by Rose I98I: 20I] End and means are very much the same. Communal groups were not an isolated aspect of early nineteenth-centurysociety; they were closely linkedto prominent New Social Movements 405 religious currents, leading philosophies, and the working-class movement. They were, nonetheless, distinctive in the extremes to which they took antihierarchicalideology. Most other move- ments of the period admittedof clearerleadership structures. Still, direct democracy was a regulativenorm for many, includingsev- eral branchesof the workers'movement, radical republicans, and socialists. Marxhimself joined in the advocacyof immediaterights of recall over legislatorswho voted againstthe wishes of theircon- stituents-a key issue in the relationsof the 1848 Paris political clubs to the assembly(Amann I975)-and proposedlimited terms and other measures designed to minimize the developmentof a leadershiptoo autonomousfrom the masses.

Unconventional Means New social movements depart from conventionalparliamentary and electoral politics, taking recourseto direct action and novel tactics. As Tarrow(I989) has remarked,however, this description confuses two senses of new: the characteristicsof all movements when they are new, and the characteristicsof a putativelynew sort of movement. It is indeed generallytrue that any movementof or on behalf of those excluded from conventionalpolitics startsout with a need to attractattention; movement activity is not just an instrumental attemptto achieve movement goals, but a means of recruitment and continuingmobilization of participants.Each new movement may also experimentwith new ways to outwit authoritieseither in getting its message across or in causing enough disruptionto extract concessions or gain power. In this way, each movement may add to a repertoireof collective action(in Tilly's I978 phrase) that is availableto subsequentmovements. In anothersense, unconventionalis definednot by noveltyper se but by movement outside the normal routines of politics. All forms of direct action thus are unconventional,even when-like barricadefighting in Paris-they have 200 years of traditionbe- hind them. What defines unconventionalaction in the political realm is mainly the attemptto circumventthe routinesof elections and lobbying, whetherby marchingon Washington,occupying an office, or bombingthe primeminister's residence. Unconventional means in this sense areparticularly likely in a movementof people 406 SOCIAL SCIENCE HISTORY who have few resourcesother than their public actions. One of the key developmentsof late nineteenth-and early twentieth-century democratic politics in Europe and societies of Europeansettle- ment was the institutionalizationof strongnorms of conventional politics, organizedprimarily through political parties. This drew more than one branchof the socialist movementinto the orbit of conventionalpolitics. Direct action was, by contrast,central to the social movements of the early to mid-nineteenthcentury. Revolution still seemed to be a possibility in most Europeancountries, which gave an addedpunch to all formsof publicprotest and threatenedreal civil disturbance.In the French revolutionof 1848, the predominant radical factions espoused a red republicanismthat traced its an- cestry to the 1789 revolutionand called on the direct action of the people as its main means. Pierre-JosephProudhon was the theorist of this politics, and its defeat in 1848 helped to discredit it in academiccircles. Thoughpartially sidelined, it hardlyceased to move activists, however, as the subsequenthistories of syn- dicalism and anarchismreveal. With Georges-EugeneSorel as a bridgingtheorist, this traditionof directaction also influencedfas- cism (CalhounI988).14 Without comparably revolutionary aims, a varietyof early (and later) laboractivists chose direct action both to dramatizeand immediatelyto achievetheir ends. The Luddites of early nineteenth-centuryEngland are only the most famous. Of course, restrictionson the franchisedenied most of them access to the parliamentarysystem. If Ludditesmade a virtueof necessity by directaction, Owenite socialism-and utopian socialists and communitariansgener- ally-rejected conventionalpolitics on principle.E. P. Thompson complains that "Owen simply had a vacant place in his mind where most men have political responses"(I968: 786). This may be, and it is also true that RobertOwen identifiedwith elites and was not shy about approachingthose in politicalpower and trying to persuadethem of the meritsof his social system. Nonetheless, many of his followershad deep convictionsagainst organizing for the pursuitof political poweror the disruptionof the political sys- tem. They attemptedto teach by exampleand expositionand tried to create theirown self-organizingsphere of life (HarrisonI969). The recurrenthalf-aesthetic, half-politicalromantic movements from Blake and Shelley to Ruskin, Morris,and the arts and crafts New Social Movements 407 movement similarlydisdained conventional politics and were de- terminedto carryon theirwork outside thattawdry sphere. Henry David Thoreau'sadvocacy of civil disobediencetypified the em- phasis on purityof conscience. His celebratedessay on the subject stemmedfrom his individualopposition to the draft,but the theme of direct actionby the morallyresponsible individual tied together Thoreau's retreatto Walden and early effort to teach by striking example and his later more manifestlypolitical and even violent common cause with John Brown (McWilliams 1973: 290-300). Purity and freedom from corruptionwere not the only reasons for direct action. At least as importantwas the sense that orga- nized politics and public discourse were resistantor too slow to respond. Sheerpractical expedient led abolitioniststo providema- terial assistanceto runawayslaves, for example.While most early protemperanceministers stuck to lectures and essay contests, a direct action wing eventuallytook to saloon smashing(Rorabaugh I979). In both cases, tensions between advocatesof direct action (who also generally demandeda more complete abolitionor ab- stinence) and adherentsof more conventionalpolitics helped to split the movements. In both cases also, the disproportionateand publicly prominentparticipation of women was in itself an un- conventionalmeans of action (as was even more true of women's suffragecampaigns).

Partial and Overlapping Commitments The claim of old social movements-the laborand socialist move- ments-was to be able, at least potentially,to handleall the public needs of their constituents. It was not necessary to belong to a variety of special issue groups, for example, if one belonged to a trade union and, either throughit or directly, to the labor party. One might strugglewithin a social democraticparty, or within a union, to see thatone's specific interestswere well attendedto, but one made a primarycommitment to that organizationor at least that movement. The NSMs, by contrast, do not make the same claims on their members or offer the same potential to resolve a range of issues at once.'5 They are not political parties or other organizationsthat accept the charge of prioritizingthe range of issues that compete for public attention.They are affinitygroups knit together not by superordinatelogic but by a web of overlap- 408 SOCIAL SCIENCE HISTORY ping memberships,rather like the crosscuttingsocial circles Georg Simmel (1903) thought essential to modem identity and social organization.One may thus combinefeminism with pacifismand not be much moved by environmentalconcerns, and no organi- zation will divert one's feminist and pacifist dollars or envelope licking to environmentalistuses. This is describedsometimes as a consumeristorientation to political involvement,with a variety of movement products to choose from. The various movements are knit together into a field but not a superordinateumbrella organization.16 So it was in the early nineteenthcentury: temperance, national- ism, craft struggle, communitarianism, abolitionism, free- thinking, and camp-meeting religion coexisted and sometimes sharedadherents without ever joining undera commonumbrella. Neither socialism nor liberalismwere hegemonic movementsbe- fore mid-century.Educational reform perhaps came close to being a commondenominator in the earlyAmerican movements (Walters I978: 20o), but it linked others rather than encompassing them. Thoughthere was no overallumbrella, early nineteenth-century movements nonetheless combined to create a field of activity. Movement activists were joined into networks that crisscrossed specific movements, and the broaderpublic recognizedthat there were many possible movements to consider. Sometimes these movements demandednear total devotion (as did, for example, most communal settlements, at least while one remained resi- dent in the commune). On the other hand, multiplemembership, either simultaneousor serial, was common. It has been argued, for example, that modem feminism was born from the activism of women in abolitionand temperancemovements. In the former case, the very large numberof female activistswere marginalized; women like Elizabeth Cady Stantonand LucretiaMott were de- nied voting status and were relegated to a curtainedbalcony at the WorldAnti-Slavery Convention of I840. After the Civil War, women made the temperancemovement their own and gained experience that would translatecrucially into suffragecampaigns (Evans and Boyte I986: 80-95). Similarly, the Second Great Awakeninghelped to spark the militant abolitionistmovement, transcendentalistswere influencedby othercommunalists (and an- tagonisticto evangelicals), feministswere drawnto severalof the New Social Movements 409 communitariangroups, some Chartistspromoted temperance, and Wesleyanpreachers found occasions to preachsomething like what would laterbe called the social gospel fartoo often for the comfort of the church hierarchyand sometimes wound up as trade-union leaders.17 Sometimesthe personalnetworks of movementactivists quickly expanded to touch a range of others. ConsiderMary Wollstone- craft (the pioneeringfeminist) and WilliamGodwin (the anarchist political philosopher). Godwin claimed credit for "converting" RobertOwen from factory managementto the task of developing his social system; they met on numerousoccasions. The daughter of Wollstonecraftand Godwin, Mary, eloped with Percy Bysshe Shelley (a fan of her father's)and, while living with him and Lord Byron, wrote the story of Dr. Frankenstein'smonster. Byron of course died during his Romantic flirtationwith Greek national- ism. Feminism, Owenite socialism, anarchism,nationalism, and Romanticismwere thus linkedin an intimatenetwork. The connections were not just intimate, though, but included public events and opportunitiesfor those less involvedto enterthe movementfield, learnits discourse,and choose amongits protago- nists. In April 1829, for example, in the midst of the Second Great Awakening,Robert Owen, the genius of New Lanark,journeyed to Cincinnati, Ohio, to debate a prominentevangelical clergy- man, AlexanderCampbell of Bethany,Virginia. The focus of the debate was on religion, with Owen out to demonstratethe superi- ority of rationalunbelief and Campbelltaking equally rationalist groundsto argue the merits of biblical Christianity.Interestingly, Owen was pushed to defend his doctrine of environmentalde- terminationagainst attacks by Campbell, who saw free will as essential to Christianity(a theme thatwas contradictoryto predes- tinationand that would become centralto the evangelicalupsurge of two years later). Thousandsof people attendedthe eight days of lengthy and abstrusedebate, shoppingamong millennialvisions. Both visions were tied to movements;indeed, one of Campbell's challenges to Owen was thatif Owen were a self-consistentdeter- minist, he would not bother so much with organizingcampaigns and communitiesbut would allow environmentalpressures to do their work.'8In Campbell's view, God's work requiredthe self- conscious struggle of Christiansendowed with free agency. Both 410 SOCIAL SCIENCE HISTORY men agreed, moreover,that their movements were aboutthe radi- cal restructuringof society at large and of personalrelations; they were not debatingmatters of passive belief. We are accustomed to conceptualizingOwenite socialism as a truly social movement, but it is worth affirmingthe same of Campbell'srevivalist religion. It was Campbell,for example, who raisedthe issue of gender.Pagan religions had madewoman "little else than a slave to the passion and tyrannyof man. The Jews ratherexile her from the synagogue, as altogetheranimal in her nature." By contrast, Campbell argued, "whereverChristianity has found its way, the female sex has been emancipatedfrom ig- norance, bondage, and obscurity .... Christianity has made you not the inferiorbut the companionand equal of man (Owen and Campbell 1829, 2: I23-24). Likewise, Campbell was clear that his "New Constitution"was no mere "civil religion";patriotism was not to be confused with Christianvirtue (ibid., 2: 117). As to Owen's utilitarianconception of the end of humanlife as happi- ness based on materialabundance, Campbell all but attackedthe Protestantethic itself, mocking an accountin which morality "is just a due regard to utility. Bees are moral as well as men; and he is the most moralbee which createsthe most honey and consumes the least of it" (ibid., I: I8). This debate was a majorevent in its day, attractingwidespread attention. A transcript(taken down in stenographyby a former residentof New Harmonyby then drawnto Christianity)was pub- lished with both debaters'approval and sold widely. Yet the event is hardlymentioned in accountsof eitherOwenite or Campbellite movements (nor in Ross's 1985 historyof Cincinnatiworkers). It is as though later ideas about the relationshipbetween socialism and religion, particularlyevangelical protestant religion, have ren- dered the connection invisible by placing the two movements in separatefields. One figures as a precursorto modem socialism, the otherto a mainlineprotestant sect andless directlyto Mormon- ism. What could be more different?Yet, in the early nineteenth century,especially in America, such new social movementswere not only numerousbut occupied a vital common space and were often linked. New Social Movements 411

WHY DID NEW SOCIAL MOVEMENTS HAVE TO BE REDISCOVERED?

In both early nineteenth-and late twentieth-centuryAmerica and Europe a lively range of social movementsemerged, differentin form, content, social bases, and meaning to their participants. These were linked in social movementfields of considerablesimi- larity. The similaritiesgo beyond those noted above throughthe lens of new social movementtheory. They include, for example, a lively involvementwith aestheticproduction and reception.The I960s student and kindredmovements are all but inconceivable without folk and especially rock music;they also nurturedan aes- theticizing of the self and a wide variety of engagements with aesthetic criteriafor judging personalactivity and social arrange- ments. Feminism has been distinctive for the extent to which aesthetic productionof various sorts-literature, drama, music, graphicarts-has been tied into the movement.Part of the impe- tus behind the ecology movementis an aestheticjudgment about nature and about appropriatelifestyles that should not be col- lapsed into an altogetherinstrumental concern for saving the earth or ourselves from extinction. This reminds us of the Romantic view of nature,and Romanticismwas both an aspect of many late eighteenth-and early nineteenth-centurysocial movementsand is in a sense one of those movements.A similaruse of aestheticcri- teria in judgmentsabout the practicalaffairs of life was important to the communalmovement of the early nineteenthcentury and to the Transcendentalists. Of course aestheticsentered prominently into the social move- ment field at variousother times-for example, in the era of high modernism. Nonetheless, mentionof aestheticspoints us toward part of the answer to a crucial question:why have the similari- ties between the social movement fields of the early nineteenth and late twentiethcenturies not been more generallyapparent to social theorists? An easy bit of the answer is simply that many social theoristsknow little history.It is also true thatthe concerns of both academic social theory and Marxismwere shapedby the prominence of labor and socialist movements in the period of their origins. Variantsof liberalismand conservatismdominated universitieswhile Marxismbecame the dominantextra-academic radicaltheory, eclipsing the variousutopian socialists, proponents 412 SOCIAL SCIENCE HISTORY of direct action, and other alternativesocial visions of the early nineteenthcentury. Thus, both in and out of academia,thus, most theoretical orientationsoffered little insight into and attributed little contemporarysignificance to religious movements, nation- alism, identity politics, gender difference, sexuality, and other concerns.19This is so largely because they operatewith a highly rationalizedconception of humanlife and a relativelyfixed notion of interests.20Thus aestheticactivity and inquiryand the range of issues raisedby the NSMs were typicallyset apartfrom the "seri- ous" issues that shaped theorists' largely instrumentalinquiries into social movements. Indeed, even socialism itself was given a one-sidedly econo- mistic definition in classical social theory (and most of its suc- cessor traditions). If socialism was about the struggle between capital and labor, as BarbaraTaylor has noted, what was one to do with Robert Owen and his followersfor whom "socialism repre- sented a struggleto achieve 'perfectequality and perfectfreedom' at every level of social existence; a strugglewhich extended be- yond the economic and political reforms necessary to create a classless society into the emotional and culturaltransformations necessary to constructa sexual democracy?"(Taylor 1983: xiv). Socialism-and political action generally-made sense in classi- cal social theory to the extent that it was instrumentallyfocused on tangible, material goals. Social movements that were not so oriented were necessarilyrelegated to the marginsof theoretical relevance. The late nineteenth-centuryinstitutionalization of the labor/ socialist movements and the response to them crystallized the notion of a division between sorts of movements. There was the social movementthat was tied into the overallprocess of industri- alizationand social change, andthere was the varietyof false starts and shortcircuits that expressed human dreams and frustrations but had little to do with the overallcourse of social change. Ratherthan treatingthe differentsorts of movementstogether, late nineteenth- and early twentieth-centurysocial scientists compartmentalized them. The very field of social movementstudies shows traces of this. Its roots lie on the one handin sociopsychologicalstudies of collective behavior (generally interpretedas deviant) and on the other in studies of the labor movement(analyzed broadly in lib- eral/Weberianor Marxianterms). This contributedto a tendency New Social Movements 413 to conduct argumentas thoughthe joint activityof large numbers of people must either be shown to be instrumentallyrational or be deemed irrationaland explicableon sociopsychologicalcriteria (see, for example, the argumentsamong Smelser I962; Smelser 1970; Currie and Skolnick I970; Berk 1974; and Marx I970; and the review in McAdam et al. I988). This patternwas overdeter- mined by the relativepaucity of historicalstudies among American sociologists; few looked back at major formativemovements- all but inescapable to students of Americanhistory-which did not fit the prevailingdivisions. The GreatAwakenings, abolition, temperance-these clearly shapedAmerican history, but they did not fit very neatly the alternativesof liberal or left, instrumental or psychologicallydeviant.21 Social movement researchalso developed in a surprisingdis- connectionfrom political analysis.This workedin both directions. Sociologists studying social movements(and even more "collec- tive behavior") tended for many years to focus on movements not manifestly political or to neglect the political dimensions of those they studied (TarrowI989: 25). Thus an academic cam- paign could be launchedin the I970s to "bringthe state back in" to the study of social movements and related sociological phe- nomena (Evans et al. I985). In this context CharlesTilly (I978, 1982, I986), in some of the most importantand influentialwork in the field, tied the study of social movements closely to state making and economic issues. An advanceon collective behavior psychologism, this produced a kind of mirrorimage in which only directly political-economic, nationallyintegrated, and state- orientedmovements received full attention. Conversely,democratic theory long treatedmovements as ex- ceptions to normal institutional political processes and often mainly as disruptionsrather than central dimensions of public dis- course and political agenda setting (see discussionin Cohen and Arato I992: chap. io). Only parts of the Marxist traditioncon- sistently presentedsocial movementsas politicallycentral rather than epiphenomenal.Marxists concentrated, however, not on the role of movements in ordinarydemocratic politics but ratherin the transformationof capitalist society (and bourgeois democ- racy) into something else that would putativelynot requiresuch movements. Even in the wake of the social movementsof the last thirty-some years, democratic theory has remained remarkably 414 SOCIAL SCIENCE HISTORY focused on institutionalizedpolitics (Pateman'sI970 challengeto this still applies). When pluralistthinkers looked to the role of di- verse segmentsof the population,they conceptualized this in terms of interestgroups rather than movements(see, for example, Dahl 1956; Dahl I96I; Held 1987). Even when more critical thinkers addressedissues of directdemocratic participation, their attention turnedto forms of everydaycitizen decision-making-that is, to an alternativeset of stable, perhapscommunity-based routines, not to movements (for example, Barber1984). SeymourMartin Lipset went so far as to assert that "political apathymay reflect the health of a democracy" (1963: 32). Normativedemocratic theory remainsfocused on the conceptualizationof ideal routines ratherthan forcefullyincluding a role for movementsas continual sources of innovation. The field of social movement research was transformedby the attempt to comprehendthe civil rights movement and the antiwar and student movements of the I96os (Oberschall 1973; Tilly I978; Zald and McCarthy I979; McAdam et al. I988). The range of movementsstudied and the perspectivesemployed were broadened, and emphasis was shifted from micropsychological to macrostructuraland/or rationalchoice accounts. Leading ap- proachesreproduced, however, the basic division between liberal (utilitarian,rational choice, and resourcemobilization) and Marx- ist perspectives. Most theories saw movements either as chal- lengers for state power or as contentiousgroups pursuingsome other set of instrumentalobjectives. There was little recognition of how "the personal is political" or of how importantpoliti- cal (or more generally macrostructural)results may stem from actions thatare not explicitlypolitical or instrumentalin theirself- understanding.22Such theoriesovercame the divisionof collective behaviorfrom real politics, but they did not bringculture-or any rich understandingof democraticprocesses and civil society-to the foreground.This was done primarilyby NSM theory. NSM theory not only brought culture to the fore but chal- lenged the sharp division between micro and macro, processual and structuralaccounts. In Cohen and Arato's words, "Contem- porary collective actors see that the creationof identity involves social conflict aroundthe reinterpretationof norms, the creation of new meanings, and a challengeto the social constructionof the very boundariesbetween public, private,and political domainsof New Social Movements 415 action" (1992: 51). It is as importantnot to prejudge whether to apply a political process model of instrumentallyrational inter- action (Tilly 1978; McAdam 1982) as to avoid an assumptionthat collective behaviorstems from psychologicalbreakdown.

CONCLUSION: MODERNITY AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS For at least 200 years, under one label or another, the public has been opposed to the private;the economic to the aesthetic; the rationalistto the romantic;secularization to revival;and insti- tutionalizationto nascent movements intent on breaking free. These tensions lie behind recurrentebbs and flows in movement organization, changing forms of movement activity, and recur- rent proliferationsof movementsbeyond any single narrativeof a developing labor movement, socialism, or even democracy.This essay does not trace a longernarrative or attemptto graphthe ebbs and flows of differentstyles of movement.Its main contributions are limited to (a) showing how prominentnew social movements were in the early nineteenthcentury and (b) suggestingthat atten- tion should be focused not simply on a supposedtransition from old to new forms of movement, but on the interplayof different sorts of movementsin a social movementfield thatwas and is not only basic to modernitybut internallydiverse and international. By not confoundingthe varietyof movementcharacteristics with a presumedunidirectional narrative we can betterdiscern the vari- ables that distinguishmovements of varyingage in terms of their extent and forms of organization,their relative emphasis on iden- tity politics, their social bases, and orientationsto action. These are themes to which we should be alert in the study of all social movements, and we should seek to explain their absence as well as their presence. Attunedto the richnessof the social movementfield in the early nineteenth and late twentieth centuries, we may see on further investigationthat the late nineteenthand early twentiethcenturies were not so completelydominated by economisticorganization as is commonly thought. Tradeunions and social democracycom- peted with the SalvationArmy and xenophobicnationalists nearly everywhere and with revivalist preachersin America and anti- Semites in much of Europe. Academicsocial scientists, however, 416 SOCIAL SCIENCE HISTORY failed to grant such other forms of movement attentionpropor- tionate to their popularappeal, while tendingto expect the labor movement and mainstreamparty politics to grow ever stronger and more institutionalized. If, however,it is also true, as I suggest, thatthe earlynineteenth- century social movementfield is in certainrespects more similar to the late twentieth century than to the interveningyears, we are faced with an interestingproblem of historical explanation. The standardaccount of movementcycles proposed by Hirsch- man (1982) and Tarrow(I989) focuses primarilyon shorterterm phenomena:the way specific mobilizationsexhaust participants' energies within a few monthsor years. But the mid-centuryshift in social movementactivity was more thanthis. The strugglesof manydifferent varieties of people aboutthe conditionsand rewards of theirwork were increasinglyjoined in a single labormovement; their diverse ideologies were transformed,at least in part, into a continuumof more or less radicallabor values from strongsocial- ism to elitist unionism. Similarly,the so-called utopiansocialisms faded in the face of Marxism, Fabianism,and other reformpro- grams and social democracy.As Taylor(1983) has noted, this had strikingimplications for women, who had been includedcentrally, if asymmetrically,in Owenismbut who foundthemselves margin- alized in Marxistsocialism, tradeunionism, and social democratic parties. Underlyingthis specific instance was a general redefini- tion of private and public life that removednot only women but the concerns most closely identifiedwith women-family, for ex- ample-from the public sphere, transformingpolitical questions into merely personal concerns. It was this historically specific change-not some eternaltendency of patriarchy-that feminists later challengedwith the slogan "the personalis political." Phases of state and capitalistdevelopment were probablysig- nificant in all this (Hirsch I988; Tarrow I989). State elites may have become more unifiedand thus both betterable to respondto movements and less likely to split between supportand opposi- tion. Certainlystates developedbetter mechanismsfor managing discontent(though these werehardly proof againstthe new, largely middle-class mobilizations of the I96os). Not least of all, the franchisewas extended, and in its wake electoralpolitics offered the chance to trade votes for various kinds of largely economic distributionalbenefits. At the same time, the institutionaldevelop- New Social Movements 417 ment of states createdmechanisms for continualnegotiation over some issues-notably labor and welfare concerns. This brought certain movement concerns permanentlyinto the political arena while leaving others out. The concentrationof large parts of the population in indus- trial work may also have played a role, offering unions a fertile organizingbase. Perhapsmore basically,workers within capitalist productionwere in a position (unlike most of their predecessors) to bargain for increased shares of capitalistgrowth. They were not asking for the protection of old crafts or the communities attachedto them. There was, thus, an increasingreturn to invest- ment in economistic movementorganizations once workerswere asking for somethingthat capitalists could give in monetaryterms. Matureindustrial capitalism also posed organizationalchallenges to the labor movementthat pushed it towardlarge-scale, formally organized, institutionalstructures. Of course, the labormovement dominatedin the movementfield because of its success; its domi- nancewas an achievementof struggle,not just an inheritancefrom backgroundvariables. Finally, we should not fail to consider the impact of delimitedevents as well as trendsin underlyingfactors. The repressionof the revolutionsof 1848 and the AmericanCivil War most visibly helped to bring the early nineteenth-century burgeoning of social movements to a close. The demographic effects of both-increased migrationas well as massive killing- also may have reducedthe probabilityof movementformation and proliferationand increasedpopular preference for institutionalized ratherthan riskierforms of collective action. I will not try to offer even a similar ad hoc list of possible factors worth exploring in the attemptto explain the reopening of the social movement field in the I96os (or at the turn of the century). Argumentsabout the shift from mass-productioncapi- talism to smaller scale, more dispersed patternsof work; about the role of new media; and aboutthe role of the state only scratch the surface of contendingpositions. Perhapsdemographics were again crucial;perhaps rapid social change createda sense of new possibilities. Most basically, we need to consider the possibility thatproliferation of NSMs is normalto modernityand not in need of special explanationbecause it violates the oppositions of left and right, cultural and social, public and private, aesthetic and instrumentalthat organize so much of our thought.The challenge 4I8 SOCIAL SCIENCE HISTORY may be to explain the relativepaucity of NSMs in some periods or places. While rebellions,reforms, and otherkinds of collective actionshave certainlyoccurred throughout history, the modem era is in general distinctivelycharacterized by a rich efflorescenceof social movements. This is in partbecause it providesopportuni- ties and capacities for mobilizationlacking in many otherepochs and settings. A pronenessto various sorts of social movements, indeed, seems to be one of the features that links the distinc- tive history of Westernmodernity to the novel modernitiesbeing pioneered on the Indian subcontinent,in China, in Africa, and elsewhere. It is a mistake thus to equate the mid-nineteenth-to mid- twentieth-centurypattern simply with modernity. This helps, among other things, to nourishillusions about what it could mean to pass into postmodernity.The relativepredominance of a single cluster of movements duringthis period is not necessarilyeither more typicalthan the proliferationof differentmovements both be- fore and afterit; indeed, it maybe less so. The seemingdominance of labor and social democracy-whether in Europeanactuality or only in the minds of social scientists-is historicallyspecific and contingent. There never was the social movementof modernity. Rather,modernity was internallysplit and contestedfrom the be- ginning-or perhapsI shouldsay was "alwaysalready" the object of contendingmovements. We need to constituteour theoreticalnotion of modernitynot as a masternarrative but in a way thatreflects both its heterogeneity and contestationand thattakes full accountof the centralplace of social movementswithin it. If we areto discerna postmodernity,a change of tendency,or a trend,we need moreclearly to know what we may be moving beyond. State power and capitalismhave not been transcended;neither has competitive individualismpassed awaynor the worldof merelyinstrumental relations become inher- ently more spiritual.Many of the grievancesand dissatisfactions that drove the movementsof the early nineteenthcentury remain. Likewise, the proliferationof new social movementsshould not be takentoo quickly to spell the end of tradeunion activism or main- streampolitical and economic concernsas movementthemes. The cycle may continue. In any case, modernityremains visible, in part, precisely in the shape of the movementschallenging it and asking for more from it. New Social Movements 419

NOTES

I Tilly (see also I982) focuses overwhelminglyon contentiousaction chal- lenging the growing state. He finds the social movement to be invented in Britain only with Chartismand the rise of a movementintegrated on a nationalscale, addressingthe state as the centralsocietal actorand voicing contentious, largely economic demands. He is concerned to distinguish "proactive,"modern movementsfrom "reactive"or defensive ones. This echoes the way Karl Marx and other late nineteenth-centuryreformers and radicalsdistinguished their mobilizationsand programsfrom those of their predecessors and more old-fashioned contemporaries.This definition of whatreally counts as a serioussocial movementshaped nearly all subsequent attentionto the matter, including studies of the early nineteenthcentury. It is in part from this definitionthat E. P. Thompson (I968) struggled to escape (while remainingin the Marxist-radicalfold) with his account of "class as happening"and his inclusiveattention to a rangeof unconventional movements. At some points, Tilly focuses less on the overall "moderniza- tion" process and comes closer to Thompson'sposition (though he never fully sorts out his position on culture and "voluntarism"):The "long-run reshaping of solidarities, ratherthan the immediate productionof stress and strain, constitutedthe most importantimpact of structuralchange on political conduct" (Tilly et al. 1974: 86). 2 As Cohen andArato (I992: 5 o) note, a still moreextreme view is Pizzoro's (1978 and I985) "pureidentity" model. 3 Political sociologists have consistentlytended to work with an idea of what counts as properlypolitical thatmarginalizes religion, even where it seems obviously central to the phenomenaunder study. As Matthews(I969: 26- 27) remarkedof Lipset's The First New Nation, "What is surprisingand not a little distressingabout Lipset's study of a changingand growing new nation is that he neverexplained how it got to be so religious." 4 Touraine (1971, 1977, 1981, 1985, and I988), Melucci (I980, 1981, 1988, and I989), Habermas(1984 and I988), Offe (I985), Eder (I985), Pizzorno (1978 and I985), and Cohen (I985; Cohen and Arato 1992) are among the more prominent.In addition, Hirsch (I988) has adapteda version of neo- Marxistregulation theory to an accountof NSMs; the concept is central to Laclauand Mouffe's(I985) rethinkingof "hegemonyand socialist strategy" and to the broader reconceptualizationsof social movements by Tarrow (I989) and his colleagues (Klandermanset al. I988). Inglehart(1990) links NSMs to "postmaterialism"and the "cognitive mobilization"wrought by highereducation levels, greatermedia involvement,etc. 5 In focusing on the early nineteenthcentury, I do not wish to argue that NSMs ceased to be prominentin the second half of the nineteenthcentury or the first half of the twentieth.On the contrary,some of the same NSMs maintained or returned to prominence-as, for example, the Women's ChristianTemperance Union of the I87os and I88os succeeded the Ameri- can TemperanceUnion of the I83os and I84os. The followers of W. K. Kellogg, promoterof abstinenceand cold cerealsin the early twentiethcen- 420 SOCIAL SCIENCE HISTORY

tury, were not so differentfrom those of SylvesterGraham, the "peristaltic persuader"and inventorof the Grahamcracker in the I83os (Nissenbaum I980). Many manifestationsof antimodernismin late nineteenth-and early twentieth-centuryintellectual circles involve NSM activity (Lears I98I). There is no ready index for assessing when movementactivity is greateror lesser, so my impressionisticcomparative judgment is open to challenge, thoughI thinkthere can be little doubtthat the early nineteenthcentury was particularlyactive. 6 This account is indebted to discussions with George Steinmetz; see also Steinmetz 1990. 7 See, for example, Sean Wilentz'svery qualifiedtracing of the episodic ap- pearance of some form of class consciousness among New York workers involvedin a varietyof otheridentities and never quite reducible to proletari- ans: "BetweenI829-the annusmirabilis of New Yorkartisan radicalism- and I850, both a processand a strainof consciousnessemerged in numerous ways from the swirl of popularpolitics, in which people came at various points to interpretsocial disorderand the decline of the Republic at least partly in terms of class divisions between capitalist employers and em- ployees" (I984: I6-17). Like E. P. Thompson'sThe Makingof the English WorkingClass (I968), Wilentz's ChantsDemocratic suggests in its subtitle a rise of the Americanworking class that implies a strongerunity than is revealedin its rich accountof diversity,particularly between an earlierarti- san and Republicanpolitics and a later (but less examined)working-class politics and trade-unionorganization. 8 "In the past decade or two, conflicts have developedin advancedWestern societies thatdeviate in variousways from the welfare-statepattern of insti- tutionalizedconflict over distribution.They no longer flare up in domains of materialreproduction; they are no longerchanneled through parties and associations;and they can no longerbe allayedby compensations.Rather, these new conflicts arisein domainsof culturalreproduction, social integra- tion, and socialization;they are carriedout in subinstitutional-or at least extraparliamentary-formsof protest;and the underlyingdeficits reflect a reificationof communicativelystructured domains of action that will not respond to the media of money and power. The issue is not primarilyone of compensationsthat the welfare state can provide, but of defending and restoringendangered ways of life" (HabermasI988: 392). See the similar argument in Bell (I982). 9 Part of the confusion comes from failing to distinguishtwo senses of uto- pian. The programsof neocorporatistsocial democraticparties may be all encompassingand in that sense utopian, but they are eminentlynegotiable and not necessarily radical. Feminist calls for an end to all violence and discriminationagainst women are in a sense defensive but are also both radicaland nonnegotiable,and in thatsense utopian.In differentways, each utopiangoal may be unreachablein the worldas we know it, a sharedsense of the term. IO I focus here mainly on America, but this generalizationseems to hold in considerabledegree for Britain,France, the low countries,and Scandinavia. There were of course local variations,like the extent to which linguistic New Social Movements 421

standardizationor religious establishmentwere major political issues. In central, eastern, and southernEurope, the generalizationis more problem- atic, both in timetable and in content. The issue of national unification of course transformedGerman politics; that of the reorganizationand/or breakupof empire was critical in Austria-Hungaryand its successor states. Indeed, one can see some consistencybetween the extent of this domestic normalizationof politics and internationalalliances in this period, but I do not want to push thatline very far. It shouldalso be notedthat national unifi- cation of other sorts was a centraltheme in Americanpolitics of the second half of the nineteenth and first part of the twentiethcentury. Not just the definingconflict of the Civil War,but the recurrentquestion of the incorpo- rationof westernterritories kept the nationaldefinition of the Union on the agenda. 11 Despite the opposition of such feminists as there were, in 1873 the United States made distributionof birth control devices or advice illegal, indeed criminal (Gordon1990: 94). The feministmovement of the I84os did have successors (like the free-love movementof the I870s), but these have been obscured until recently from historicalwriting just as they were repressed (and partlybecause they wererepressed) by contemporarypolitical morality. As Gordon (I990: 24) notes, "Religious and political leaders denounced sexual immoralityincreasingly after mid-century." 12 In a different,less Marxistclass scheme one could look for disproportionate NSM mobilizationamong the "dominatedfraction of the dominantclass" and others who have more culturalthan economic capital(Bourdieu 1984). 13 He somewhatmisleadingly identifies this with the early nineteenthcentury, when the numbersof industrialworkers were certainlygrowing but (a) re- mained very small and (b) did not constitutethe core of the nascent labor movement that was rooted more in artisansand protoindustrialworks like outworkers(see variousessays in Katznelsonand Zolberg I987). 14 Tucker(I99I) has, however,convincingly addressed French syndicalism as a new social movement, suggesting the limits to any reading of the late nineteenthand early twentiethcenturies as unproblematicallythe era of the "old" labor and social democraticmovements. 15 Cohen and Arato (1992: 493) termthis "self-limitingradicalism," but they unnecessarilyassume that action not focused on the stateis not deeply radical in some senses and that its adherentsaccept existing political and economic arrangements:"Our presupposition is thatthe contemporarymovements are in some significantrespects 'new.' What we have in mind, above all, is a self-understandingthat abandonsrevolutionary dreams in favor of radical reform that is not necessarilyand primarilyoriented to the state. We shall label as 'self-limitingradicalism' projects for the defense and democratiza- tion of civil society that accept structuraldifferentiation and acknowledge the integrityof political and economic systems." I6 This does not mean that all potential identities enter such a field with equal chances of becoming the basis of action or commitment.As Cohen and Arato (1992: 51 ) summarizeTouraine's view, "thevarious institutional potentials of the sharedcultural field, and not simply the particularidentity of a particulargroup, comprisethe stakesof struggle"(original emphasis). 422 SOCIAL SCIENCE HISTORY

Projects of identity formationbecome identity politics largely by making demands-for example, at a minimum, for recognition-on the cultural field as such. I7 Individualsand groups could unite many of the widespreadthemes. Adin Ballou, the founderof the Hopedale community,for example, described it as a "missionarytemperance, antislavery,peace, charitable, woman's rights, and educationalsociety" (WaltersI978: 49). While guiding Hope- dale, he was a lecturer for temperance and the American Anti-Slavery Society, and presidentof the pacifist and Christiananarchist New England Non-ResistanceSociety. 18 Moreover, Campbell asked why Owen's views differed so from those of other men raised under similarcircumstances (Owen and Campbell 1829, 1:236). I9 Weberof course made a varietyof contributionsto the analysis of cultural movements and their relationshipto politics and economics, but these are noteworthypartly because of their atypicality.They do not, in any case, overcomehis tendencyto analyzecontemporary phenomena largely in terms of instrumentalpursuit of interests-including culturallyconstituted inter- ests like status. Durkheimand Mauss each thoughtnationalism important after World War I (which did not take startlingperspicacity), but neither wrote a majorwork on it or, indeed, on social movementsgenerally. 20 This is linked not just to the issues thematizedin this paper,but also to the relativeneglect of emotionsas a theme in social movementanalysis (except as partof accountsof psychosocialdeviance) and untilrecently in sociology generally. 21 It is perhapsno accidentthat one of the few classic social movementstudies to breakout of these dualismswas JosephGusfield's (1963) historicalstudy of the temperancemovement (which treatsit largelyin termsof the "status politics" by which new or upwardlymobile social groups affirmedtheir distinctiveidentity and place in the social order). 22 Trying to make sense of the New Left, Alvin Gouldner(1970: vii) con- templated the song "Light My Fire," recordedby Jim Morrisonand the Doors. He saw it in two guises: "anode to urbanconflagration" sung during the Detroit riots, and a singing commercial for a Detroit carmaker.The question, in other words, was between political resistance and economic hegemony.What Gouldnermissed, apparently,was the centralityof sex to the New Left as to so much of the rest of the new social movementferment of the era (as of the early nineteenthcentury).

REFERENCES

Amann, Peter (1975) Revolutionand Mass Democracy:The Paris Club Move- ment in 1848. Princeton:Princeton University Press. Aminzade, Ronald (forthcoming)Ballots and Barricades.Princeton, NJ: Prince- ton UniversityPress. Aronowitz, Stanley (I992) IdentityPolitics. London:Routledge. New Social Movements 423

Barber, Benjamin (1984) Strong Democracy:Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkeley:University of CaliforniaPress. Bell, Daniel (1982) The Cultural Contradictionsof Capitalism. New York: Basic Books. Berk, RichardA. (I974) Collective Behavior.Dubuque, IA: W. C. Brown. Bourdieu, Pierre(I984) Distinction.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Calhoun, Craig (I982) The Questionof Class Struggle.Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press. (I983a) "The radicalismof tradition:Community strength or vener- able disguise and borrowedlanguage?" American Journal of Sociology 88: 886-914. (I983b) "Industrializationand social radicalism:British and French workers' movements and the mid-nineteenthcentury crisis." Theory and Society I2: 485-504. (I988) "Populistpolitics, communicationsmedia, and large scale social integration."Sociological Theory 6: 219-4I. (I989) "Classical social theory and the French revolutionof 1848." Sociological Theory 7: 2IO-25. (I993) "Postmodernismas pseudohistory."Theory, Culture and Society: 10: 75-96. Cohen, Jean (1985) "Strategy or identity: New theoretical paradigms and contemporarysocial movements."Social Research52: 663-716. Cohen, Jean, and Andrew Arato (I992) Civil Society and Political Theory. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press. Currie, Eliott, and Jerome H. Skolnick (1970) "A critical note on conceptions of collective behavior."Annals of the AmericanAcademy of Political and Social Science 391: 34-45. Dahl, RobertA. (1956) A Prefaceto DemocraticTheory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (I961) Who Governs?Democracy and Powerin an AmericanCity. New Haven, CT:Yale UniversityPress. Drescher, Seymour (1987) Capitalismand Antislavery.New York:Oxford Uni- versity Press. Eder, Klaus (I985) "The 'new social movements': Moral crusades, political pressuregroups, or social movements?"Social Research52: 869-901. Engels, Friedrich(1978 [1892]) "Socialism: Utopian and scientific," in R. C. Tucker(ed.) The Marx-EngelsReader. 2d ed. New York:Norton: 683-7I7. Evans, Peter B., Dietrich Rueschemeyer, and Theda Skocpol, eds. (1985) Bringingthe State Back In. New York:Cambridge University Press. Evans, SaraM., and HarryC. Boyte (I986) Free Spaces. Chicago:University of Chicago Press. Fladeland, Betty (I984) Abolitionistsand Working-ClassProblems in the Age of Industrialization.Baton Rouge:Louisiana State UniversityPress. Galbraith,John K. (I967) The New IndustrialState. Boston:Houghton-Mifflin. Goodwyn, Lawrence (I976) Democratic Promise:The Populist Movement in America. New York:Oxford. Gordon,Linda (1990) Woman'sBody, Woman's Right: Birth Control in America. Baltimore:Penguin. 424 SOCIAL SCIENCE HISTORY

Gouldner, Alvin (I970) The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology. Boston: Beacon. Gusfield, Joseph (1963) Symbolic Crusade:Status Politics and the American TemperanceMovement. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Habermas,Jurgen (I962) The StructuralTransformation of the Public Sphere. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press. (1967) LegitimationCrisis. Boston:Beacon. (1984) The Theory of CommunicativeAction. Vol. I, Reason and the Rationalizationof Society. Boston:Beacon. (I988) The Theory of CommunicativeAction. Vol. 2, Lifeworld and System:A Critiqueof FunctionalistReason. Boston:Beacon. (I990) The New Conservatism:Cultural Criticism and the Historians' Debate. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press. Harrison,John F. C. (1969) Quest for the New Moral World:Robert Owen and the Owenites in Britainand America. New York:Scribners. Held, David (1987) Models of Democracy. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univer- sity Press. Hirsch, Joachim (1988) "The crisis of Fordism, transformationsof the 'Key- nesian' security state, and new social movements." Research in Social Movements,Conflict and ChangeIO: 43-55. Hirschman, Albert (I982) Shifting Involvements.Princeton: Princeton Univer- sity Press. Hostetler, John A. (I980) Amish Society. 3d ed. Baltimore:Johns Hopkins UniversityPress. Inglehart,Ronald (1990) CultureShift in AdvancedIndustrial Society. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press. Johnson, Richard (1978) A Shopkeepers'Millenium: Society and Revivals in Rochester,New York, I8I5-I837. New York:Hill and Wang. Jones, Gareth Stedman (1984) Languages of Class. Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress. Kanter, Rosabeth Moss (1972) Commitmentand Community:Communes and Utopias in Sociological Perspective. Cambridge, MA:Harvard Univer- sity Press. Katznelson, Ira, and Ari Zolberg, eds. (1987) Working-ClassFormation: Nineteenth-CenturyPatterns in Western Europe and the United States. Princeton,NJ: Princeton University Press. Klandermans,B., H. Kriesi, and S. Tarrow,eds. (1988) From Structureto Action: ComparingMovement Participationacross Cultures.Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Kramer, L. (I988) Threshold of a New World: Intellectuals and the Exile Experiencein Paris, 1830-I848. Ithaca,NY: Cornell University Press. Laclau, Ernesto, and ChantalMouffe (I985) Hegemonyand Socialist Strategy. London:Verso. Lears, Jackson(I98I) No Place of Grace:Antimodernism and the Transformation of American Culture, I880-1920. New York: Pantheon. Lipset, SeymourMartin (1963) PoliticalMan. New York:Doubleday. Lyotard, J.-F. (1984) The PostmodernCondition. Minneapolis:University of MinnesotaPress. New Social Movements 425

McAdam, Doug (I982) Political Process and the Developmentof Black Insur- gency, I930-I970. Chicago:University of Chicago Press. McAdam, Doug, John D. McCarthy,and Mayer Zald (1988) "Social move- ments," in N. J. Smelser(ed.) Handbookof Sociology. NewburyPark, CA: Sage: 695-737. McWilliams,Wilson Carey (I973) The Idea of Fraternityin America. Berkeley: Universityof CaliforniaPress. Marty,Martin (1984) Pilgrimsin TheirOwn Land. New York:Penguin. Marx, Gary (I970) "Issueless riots." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 391: 21-23. Marx, Karl, and FriedrichEngels (1976 [I848]) Manifesto of the Communist Party, in Karl Marx/FrederickEngels: Collected Works, vol. 6. London: Lawrence and Wishart: 477-519. Matthews, Donald (I969) "The Second Great Awakeningas an Organizing Process, I780-I830: An Hypothesis,"American Quarterly 2I: 21-43. Meinecke, Friedrich(1970) Cosmopolitanismand the NationalState. Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press, I970. Melucci, Alberto (1980) "The new social movements:A theoreticalapproach." Social Science Information I9: 199-226. (1981) "Tenhypotheses for the analysisof new movements,"in D. Pinto (ed.) ContemporaryItalian Sociology. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press: I73-94. (1988) "Social movementsand the democratizationof everydaylife," in J. Keane (ed.) Civil Society and the State. London:Verso: 245-60. (I989) Nomads of the Present:Social Movementsand IndividualNeeds in ContemporarySociety. Philadelphia:Temple University Press. Nissenbaum, Stephen (1980) Sex, Diet, and Debility in JacksonianAmerica. Greenwich, CT:Greenwood. Oberschall, Anthony(1973) Social Conflictand Social Movements.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Offe, Claus (1985) "New social movements: Challenging the boundaries of institutionalpolitics." Social Research52: 817-68. (I990) "Reflectionson the institutionalself-transformation of movement politics: A tentative stage model," in R. Dalton and M. Kuchler (eds.) Challenging the Political Order:New Social and Political Movements in WesternDemocracies. Oxford:Oxford University Press: 232-50. Owen, Robert, and Alexander Campbell (1829) Debate on the Evidences of ChristianityContaining an Examinationof the "Social System" and of All the Systems of Scepticismof Ancient and Moder Times. 2 vols. Bethany, VA:Alexander Campbell. Pateman,Carole (1970) Participationand DemocraticTheory. Cambridge: Cam- bridge UniversityPress. Pizzoro, Allessandro (I978) "Political exchange and collective identity in industrialconflict," in C. Crouchand A. Pizzoro (eds.) The Resurgenceof Class Conflict in WesternEurope since I968, vol. 2. London:Macmillan: 277-98. (1985) "On the rationalityof democraticchoices." Telos I8 (63): 41-69. Rendall, Jane (I985a) The Origins of Modern Feminism:Women in Britain, 426 SOCIAL SCIENCE HISTORY

Franceand the United States, I780-I860. Chicago:Lyceum. , ed. (I985b) Equalor Different:Women's Politics, 1800-1914. Oxford: Blackwell. Rorabaugh,W. J. (I979) The Alcoholic Republic:An AmericanTradition. New York:Oxford University Press. Rose, Anne (I98I) Transcendentalismas a Social Movement,1830-1850. New Haven, CT:Yale UniversityPress. Ross, StevenJ. (I985) Workerson the Edge:Work, Leisure and Politics in Indus- trializingCincinnati, I788-1890. New York:Columbia University Press. Ryan, Mary (1990) Womenin Public:Between Bannersand Ballots. Baltimore: JohnsHopkins University Press. (I992) "Genderand public access: Women's politics in Igth century America,"in C. Calhoun(ed.) Habermasand the PublicSphere. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press: 259-88. Scott, Alan (1990) Ideology and the New Social Movements. London:Unwin Hyman. Simmel, G. (1903) "The metropolis and mental life," in D. N. Levine (ed.) Georg Simmel on Individualityand Social Forms. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press: 324-39. Smelser, Neil (1962) Theoryof Collective Behavior.New York:Free Press. (1970) "Two critics in search of a bias: A response to Currie and Skolnick."Annals of the AmericanAcademy of Politicaland Social Science 391: 46-55. Steinmetz, George (1990) "Beyondsubjectivist and objectivisttheories of con- flict: Marxism, post-Marxism, and the new social movements." Wilder House WorkingPaper #2, Universityof Chicago. Tarrow,Sidney (1988) "Nationalpolitics and collective action: Recent theory and researchin WesternEurope and the United States." AnnualReview of Sociology 14: 42I-40. (1989) Struggle, Politics and Reform:Collective Action, Social Move- ments and Cycles of Protest. Ithaca,NY: CornellUniversity Press (Western Societies Papersno. 21). Taylor,Barbara (1983) Eve and the New Jerusalem.New York:Pantheon. Thompson, Dorothy(1986) Chartism.New York:Pantheon. Thompson, E. P. (1968) The Making of the English WorkingClass. Rev. ed. Harmondsworth:Penguin. Tilly, Charles (I978) From Mobilizationto Revolution.Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley. (I982) "Britain creates the social movement," in J.E. Cronin and J. Schneer(eds.) Social Conflictand the PoliticalOrder in ModernBritain. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press: 21-51. (1986) The Contentious French. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer- sity Press. Tilly, Charles, RichardTilly, and Louise Tilly (I974) The RebelliousCentury. Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversity Press. Touraine,A. (1971) Post-IndustrialSociety. London:Wildwood House. (1977) The Self-Productionof Society. Chicago: University of Chi- cago Press. New Social Movements 427

(1981) The Voice and the Eye. New York:Cambridge University Press. (1985) "An introductionto the study of social movements." Social Research52: 749-88. (1988) The Return of the Actor. Minneapolis:University of Minne- sota Press. Traugott,Mark (1985) Armies of the Poor:Determinants of Working-ClassPar- ticipationin the ParisianInsurrection of June1848. Princeton,NJ: Princeton UniversityPress. Tucker,Kenneth H. (1991) "How new are the new social movements."Theory, Cultureand Society 8: 75-98. Walicki, Andrzej (1982) Philosophy and RomanticNationalism: The Case of Poland. Oxford:Clarendon. Walters, Ronald G. (I978) American Reformers, I815-i86o. New York: Hill and Wang. Wilentz, Sean (I984) Chants Democratic:New York City and the Rise of the AmericanWorking Class, 1788-1850. New York:Oxford. Zablocki, Benjamin(I970) The JoyfulCommunity. Baltimore: Penguin. Zald, Mayer N., and John D. McCarthy,eds. (I979) The Dynamics of Social Movements.Cambridge: Winthrop.