MELUCCI’S NEW SOCIAL MOVEMENT THEORY AND CLASS ACTION

IN THE 21ST CENTURY

By

SERGIO OSORIO

Undergraduate Thesis Presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts in Sociology

University of Florida Gainesville, FL

December 2019

Approved by: Dr. Charles Gattone Department of Sociology and Criminology & Law

Introduction

In this paper, I review Alberto Melucci’s theory of social movements as outlined in his

1980 paper “The New Social Movements: A Theoretical Approach,” which was influential in founding “new social movement theory.” As a part of this review, I evaluate his position with respect to some of the common objections he has faced about the possibility of identity-based class movements, such as their lack of a clear strategy or failure to emphasize material concessions from the dominant class.

Melucci’s Thesis

In the paper mentioned above, Melucci argued that, since the 1960s, new forms of collective action have emerged that existing theories concerned with social movements fail to seriously consider or explain, such as Marxism and Functionalism. Melucci believed that these new collective actions constitute a new form for class movements that have adapted to the relations of production in late capitalism and have changed their demands and character accordingly (Melucci 1980).

Failure of Marxism and Functionalism

Melucci’s concern with classical Marxist analysis is that, because it focuses on the structural contradictions in the capitalist system and the preconditions of revolution, it underestimates the role of agency in the way that collective action emerges and shapes its articulation. This leads to the marginalization of all collective action that does not take the form of the centralized party that is striving to seize the apparatus of the state. Classical Marxists consider this type of movement as the only kind of genuine class movement. Historically, this has led to the mistaken belief that whatever the party does after it seizes control is an accurate interpretation of the will of the people. This mindset has facilitated the excesses of Stalinism and authoritarian leftist states (Melucci 1980). To move past this theoretical blind-spot, Melucci argued that Marxists must move from a strictly structural analysis of class relation and logic of capitalist system, to a definition of class action, and then of political action using an expanded repertoire of analytical concepts to account for agents striving for socio-economic transformation.

American sociologists who subscribe to Functionalist theory, on the other hand, tend to see social movements as any other form of collective behavior, in the same category as a panic or mob behavior, with the only difference being the magnitude of the belief that motivated the action. Social analysts subscribing to this theory tend to claim that all collective action rises out of strain that disturbs the equilibrium of the social system, which the system strives to, and ought to, place back into equilibrium.

Melucci argued that the limits of this theory are that it focuses too much on bringing the system back to equilibrium, as well as omitting salient concepts such as class relations, modes of production, and the appropriation of resources (1980). To address the need for additional concepts in both Marxist and functionalist theory, Melucci began by trying to create a definition of class movements.

Definition of Collective action and Class movements

According to Melucci, a class movement is a type of collective action that aims at the appropriation and orientation of social production. This is to say that class movements are those best positioned to cause socioeconomic transformation, especially with respect to class relations.

Collective action, more broadly, is any conflict-based behaviors in a system between two actors for appropriation and orientation of social values and resources. This definition excludes behavior where the actors have no awareness of themselves as a group, so the behavior of the group can be reduced to the actions of the individuals without losing any understanding of the phenomenon, which Melucci calls aggregative behavior. Instead, the actors in collective action must have solidarity between themselves and directed at another actor within that social field that they are trying to gain a concession from (Melucci 1980).

However, Melucci did not give all forms of collective action the moniker of a social movement, since he defined social movements as collective action that also transgresses the norms institutionalized into social roles, allowing it to challenge the power structure that lies outside of the field from which it originally emerged. There are three analytical levels of most importance to Melucci when analyzing collective behavior: the organizational level, the political level, and the class level. A social movement that takes place at the organizational level and challenges the relation of power in that system by transgressing its norms would provoke a response from the state’s repressive apparatus at the political level (Melucci 1980). Similarly, a social movement that takes place at the political level, such as by trying to expand the level of participation in the system, would invoke a direct response from the dominant class, such as in the flight of capital or the freezing of assets (Melucci 1980). However, it is hard to conceive of a social movement stemming solely on the level of class without mediation of a social organization or political system, so Melucci did not develop the concept. For Melucci, a class movement is a kind of social movement that meets some criteria, which he attempts to define and explain how it is able to address class relations.

Criteria for a Class Movement

First, Melucci provides four different empirical criteria for class movements. Class movements, for instance, are collective behaviors where the actors are often involved in trying to change the production and appropriation of resources in ways that are not exclusively definable in the terms of the system where action occurs. This is to reiterate and further explain that class movements are social movements. Also, actors in a class movement often challenge the system of domination with non-negotiable demands and methods of action incompatible with how power is maintained and consolidated in the system. (Melucci 1980)

Another feature of class movements is the characteristic way that its adversaries respond to it with the apparatuses of repression and social control stemming from a higher structural strata than what is currently affected. Least importantly within Melucci’s criteria, as it is neither a necessary nor sufficient feature of a class movement, is that class movements have actors that often frame their actions as a struggle between the producer of social resources and those who appropriate it for themselves (Melucci 1980).

Melucci also provides a comparative criterion where features of class movements are compared to those of political and organizational movements. Of the three, class movements have the least divisibility of stakes, tending towards zero-sum resolutions, and are much harder for the actors to calculate the benefits and risks associated with its demands. This is to say that the stakes are much higher in a class movement than any other social movement since a gain for a particular actor means a loss for the other, and an uncertain degree of loss at that. Meanwhile, the stakes in an organizational or political movement are easier to calculate, since both of these fit into a predictable and familiar framework and are thus easier to negotiate between the actors with half-measures that keep existing class relations unchallenged (Melucci 1980).

Origin of Class Movements

However, a theory of class movements should also be able to give an account of a momement’s emergence, otherwise the theory fails to be a theory of structure and change and instead becomes the narrow analysis of the effects of a presumed social change that occurs outside of the framework of the theory. Class movements are a response to class conflict, which can be explained by what Melucci calls a “theory of social relations of production,” conceived as a social relationship to objects (1980). Production is the formation and transformation of objects within a particular social system by “the application of certain means to primary material”

(Melucci 1980). Melucci viewed production as more than just a natural process of an actor acting on a raw material with a particular means of production, as it also includes a parallel social process that serves to affirm the identity of the producer (1980).

When production is considered as a social process, one can see that there is a recognition that the product is the result of the actions of the producer, which is reciprocal in the sense that the producer both recognizes this fact and is recognized for it. This allows the producer to recognize their own work as theirs in an act of appropriation, allowing for the orientation of the product to be used in an exchange, such as gift-giving, where the people involved all recognize that the product is the result of the producer’s actions (Melucci 1980). Class emerges precisely from the breakdown of reciprocity of recognition and the decoupling of production and recognition on the one hand, and appropriation and orientation on the other. Historically, this is caused when the division of labor makes one group in charge of appropriation and orientation.

The struggle to appropriate and orient social production is what produces class (Melucci 1980).

This antagonism between classes shapes the social system, creating the sources for collective action in the form of structural contradictions. These contradictions, to Melucci, are incompatibilities between elements or levels of the social structure. This can happen within or between the organizational and political systems without directly affecting class relations, so

Melucci is only concerned with those that specifically affect class relations. These contradictions stem from the system’s constant need to adapt to environmental changes and challenges from within. Inevitably, the system adapts in a maladaptive way that results in a contradiction.

New Social Movements

Since class conflict stems from different actors trying to control the appropriation and orientation of resources, these new forms of collective action are a response to changes in the system of production. These changes in the system of production of advanced capitalism, compared to the industrial phase of capitalism, involve the system controlling more than just the

“productive structure,” but also the areas of consumption, services, and social relations (Melucci

1980). The mechanisms of accumulation have also changed in the sense that they are no longer fed only by the exploitation of the labor force, but also from the manipulation of organizational systems, information, symbol-formation, and intervention into interpersonal relationships

(Melucci 1980).

These changes in the system of production are relevant to the emergence of new social movements in three significant ways. First, they change the form of re-appropriation of social resources since production is no longer just the transformation of the natural environment, but also the production of social relations and social systems, as well as an individual’s identity.

Hence, the way new social movements strive for re-appropriation is via personal and social identity since it is now perceived as the product of social action.

Another significant influence of the mode of production is in the increased need to reclaim one’s identity and relationships due to the technocratic domination encroaching into everyday life, such as how one uses their time, space, and relationships. For instance, workplaces in advanced capitalism include mandatory “socials” meant to help foster a “team-spirit,” but often result in increased control of what the worker does on their supposed free time and who they associate with.

Lastly, new forms of class domination identify less with real social groups with different cultures and ways of life due to the homogenizing effects of a mass society on cultural modes and ways of life. This means that conflicts mobilize categories and groups that are most directly affected by the oppressive elements of the system of control.

Thus, the key to understanding new social movements is the appropriation of identity. If this is understood, then it becomes clear why new social movements eschew a focus on the political system, or the separation between public and private life. It also makes it clear why they emphasize solidarity and direct participation as ends unto themselves, or why there is often the superposition of “deviance” with social movements.

Critique

It is unclear whether Melucci’s theory, which stops short of explicitly endorsing new social movements, would satisfy his classical Marxist detractors. From a classical Marxist perspective, for instance, one could argue that while new social movements constitute class movements, there can be better and worse class movements. Movements that more directly and explicitly try to seize political power and acquire material concessions, such as classic party- based movements that classical Marxists advocate for, are preferable to the seemingly immaterial nature of the stakes of new social movements. Melucci mentions that a common critique that detractors of new social movements make is that they lack concrete strategies to achieve their demands (1980).

Another potential critique of Melucci is that the system has shown, in hindsight, to be perfectly capable of incorporating many of the identity-based demands he mentioned into the system without its total transformation. For instance, the gay and lesbian movements of the late

80s and early 90s led to the legalization of gay marriage and the incorporation of homosexuality into heteronormative frameworks, as well as the co-optation of the movement’s aesthetics and cultural signifiers. The concept of homosexuality fitting into heteronormativity is called

“homonormativity,” and is a testament to the flexibility of neoliberal capitalism with respect to identity-based movements. The commodification of queer aesthetics (e.g., RuPaul’s Drag Race,

Queer Eye, “meterosexuality”) is another example of the system encroaching upon the formerly deviant realm of LGBTQ peoples’ patterns of consumption. From here, one could argue that the stakes in these movements are not “indivisible” enough to constitute the stakes of a class movement. Defense

In response to the value claim on the efficacy of party-based movements, one could argue that both types of movements are necessary for a healthy class movement “ecology.” It is often the case that actors who are more embedded into the normative frameworks of social organizations and the political system are able to take part in activities that actors on the margins of these systems cannot. For instance, a loose collective of students fighting for racial justice on campus are able to participate in “deviant” behaviors more readily since their loose organizational style provides a buffer from the systems of repression of the university.

Meanwhile, a more established, and possibly incorporated, group such as a campus NAACP chapter can mobilize money and human capital more effectively but is ultimately more constrained by the organizational framework of the university. Both campus movements could potentially collaborate in a symbiotic relationship where both organizations make up for the shortcomings of the other. There is no reason to expect the relationship between identity-based social movements and party-based social movements to be incompatible.

On the topic of the flexibility of neoliberal capitalism, what seems like total incorporation and resolution to the contradictions of identity-based movements is actually an incomplete incorporation that leaves the contradictions intact. For instance, in the example of the gay and lesbian movement, the neoliberal system took what fit into its framework (i.e.,

“homonormativity”) but left the concept of ‘queerness’ as a completely marginal identity. It may even be possible to say that certain identities, such as ‘queerness,’ are by their nature ambiguous in a way that does not mesh with the rationalizing process of incorporation and co-optation. In other words, queerness and the queer movement maintain their power to reveal the contradictions in the system, such as by showing how the personal is political, or how the body and its desires are central to, and are the product of, political processes. This emancipatory power is not found in the “rainbow capitalism” pushed by the neoliberal culture industry, and in this way the system is failing to smooth out this contradiction. There is no reason to imagine that this is any different than other identity-based movements, such as the black liberation movement, the feminist movement, or the anti-colonial movements. In this way, identity, even if it is partially incorporated, cannot be wholly incorporated because neoliberal capitalism must leave out the parts of the identity that do not allow the dominant class to maintain its hegemonic hold, especially the parts of the identity that help reveal and understand contradictions. So, the demand for the appropriation of these identities is indivisible in the sense that the system cannot stand to incorporate them whole cloth.

Conclusion

Melucci makes a good case for the class character of new social movements. He acutely identifies the process of technocratic rationalization, how it stems from the mode of production, and how this change in the mode of production is creating a change in the behavior of actors in social movements. However, a significant portion of the theory here is in need for elaboration, as

Melucci mentions himself several times. One object of further study could be a framework for understanding how class movements, the state, and counter-movements interact with each other in a system. Future theoretical analysis is needed on the ways the State negotiates social movements to ultimately try and maintain control for the dominant class.

References

Melucci, Alberto. 1980. “The New Social Movements: A Theoretical Approach.” Social Science

Information 19:199-226. doi: 10.1177/053901848001900201