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.