Master of Arts Thesis
Euroculture
University of GroningenUniversity of Deusto
Submitted: 31/05/2016
Title of Master Thesis
Areas of Tension in the European Refugee Crisis – A (Post-)Modern
Theoretical Exploration of Contemporary Social Movements
Figure 1: Pegida demonstration Figure 2: Refugees Welcome demonstration
MA Programme Euroculture Declaration
I, Lea-Katharina Rzadtki hereby declare that this thesis, entitled “Areas of Tension in the European Refugee Crisis – A (Post-)Modern Theoretical Exploration of
Contemporary Social Movements”, submitted as partial requirement for the MA
Programme Euroculture, is my own original work and expressed in my own words. Any use made within this text of works of other authors in any form (e.g. ideas, figures, texts, tables, etc.) are properly acknowledged in the text as well as in the bibliography.
I hereby also acknowledge that I was informed about the regulations pertaining to the assessment of the MA thesis Euroculture and about the general completion rules for the Master of Arts Programme Euroculture.
Signed
Table of Contents
Introduction... 1
Theoretical Framework...8
Where are we now?... 8
Social Movement Theory Between Modernity and Post-Modernity...14
Areas of Tension instead of Binaries... 18
Aims...20 Ideology... 22 Social base... 25 Orientation... 27 Organization... 29 Power... 30 Context...33
A (Post-)Modern Perspective on Contemporary Social Movements...35
Case Study – Societal Reactions to Increased Refugee Flow in Germany between August 2015 and January 2016... 39
Methodology...40
Data Collection... 40
Data Analysis...43
Pegida... 45
RW Karo Initiative...50
Discussion: Populist and Welcoming Movements = NSMs?...56
Analytical Integration... 62
Spannungsfelder in the German Refugee Crisis...63
Discussion: Between Welcoming Culture and Cultural Protectionism...73
Critical Reflection...79
Conclusion... 81
Bibliography... 88
List of Figures...96
Appendix A: List of Sources Data Collection Pegida... 97
Introduction
During the summer of 2015 there was barely a topic that received as much attention as the continuously increasing flow of refugees entering or trying to enter the European Union (EU). Germany became one of the centers of the discussion that emerged around the more and more urgent matter of how to deal with the situation. Apart from its central economic position within the EU, Angela Merkel changed the course of that debate in August 2015. She allowed Syrian refugees to apply for asylum in Germany, even if they had entered the EU through another country. However, for a long time institutional politics did not seem to find more than words concerning the worsening situation and living conditions of the refugees. People fleeing war, crossing seas, being trapped in camps and train stations, walking kilometers over kilometers to reach yet another re-established and -enforced national border, and yet other camps. The public critique of the political dealing with what has frequently been termed refugee crisis or migration
crisis had become loud everywhere by the time Merkel took action.
But especially in Germany the societal reaction seemed to have split in two— both sides unhappy with the situation, both discontent with institutional politics, but completely divergent in their thematic opinion and evaluation of immigration and asylum. On the one hand, Pegida, a right-wing populist movement that had formed in Germany the year before. It gained new strength through calling for stricter asylum regulation in order to protect the Western identity. On the other hand, there were many people who decided to help with practical support where refugees were arriving and living in increasingly bad circumstances, starting to form a Refugees Welcome (RW) movement. Interestingly, in an Amnesty International Report recently published, Germany scores second world wide in the presented Refugees Welcome Index (cf. Amnesty International, 2016), which seems to ignore the presence or the impact of the opposing right-wing position.
democracies. While traditionally citizens' means of participation mainly regarded their voting behavior, social movements include a bigger variety of conventional and unconventional means of political participation (cf. Della Porta & Diani, 2006, p. 170). In the current asylum and immigration debate in Europe, the two mentioned movements among others certainly had at least some impact on politicians taking action. What Colin Crouch discussed as political apathy back in 2004 under the realm of post-democracy, has since been discussed widely and controversially. A bit more differentiated Wolfgang Merkel and Werner Krause examine that rather than democracy generally being in a crisis, it is rather that the institutions of representative democracies are increasingly losing the trust of their citizens (cf. 2015, p. 58). Moreover, Sonia Alonso points out that in particular the trust in the EU institutions has in the past years been dropping most significantly (cf. 2015, p. 265f.). This could be one aspects why the EU is sometimes discussed by scholars as having a democratic deficit (cf. e.g. Borja, 2000, p. 47; Della Porta & Diani, 2006, p. 162; Rumford, 2003, p. 35) . These processes could arguably be part of a more general process of disenchantment with traditional institutional politics. However, Brian Loader et al. importantly differentiate here, pointing out that
the scepticism expressed by young people towards those who represent them rather than being taken as a measure of apathy could instead be seen as a perfectly legitimate democratic attitude of reflexively engaged citizens conscious of their personal circumstances. (Loader, Vromen, & Xenos, 2014, p. 148)
movements of the 1990s she is referring to. But the crucial point here is that while apparently citizens' understanding of participation and politics has changed, the political system itself has not done so extensively (cf. e.g. Buechler, 2000, p. 182).
Referring more specifically to social movements, it has been observed that contemporary movements differ from previous movements (cf. e.g. Castells, 2015; Farro & Lustiger-Thaler, 2014) which led to some scholars calling for new theoretical conceptualizations for social movements (cf. Crossley, 2003; Day, 2004; McDonald, 2002; Ulrich, 2015). Yet, contemporary movements are generally still analyzed through the traditional theoretical frameworks. In the European context at least the New Social Movement (NSM) paradigm is the dominant theoretical scheme for analyzing social movements. It is also the theoretical framework from social movement studies that is inherently based on another debate that emerged in the social sciences in the late 20th
century. It understands new social movements as an expression of post-modernity which are mainly developed in opposition to the old social movements representing modernity. Even though social movement studies is an established field of studies, social movements are not always clearly defined. The terms used and differentiated range from
movements, over protest, activism, networks to civil society in general. As the main aim
discussion.
Since the 1970s post-modern perspectives have started to challenge and criticize inherently modern concepts, such as rationality, objectivity, and orientation towards the nation-state. Further, this approach rejects the universality of ideas and values, progress and linear history (cf. Natoli & Hutcheon, 1993). As some might argue, post-modern proponents, like Zygmunt Bauman or Jean-Francois Lyotard, mainly counter all of the modern ideas. They instead emphasize uncertainty, the inadequacy of grand narratives or universal values, and accept fragmentation and continuous change (cf. Poldervaart, 2001, p. 154). Indeed, post-modernists have been mostly criticized for drifting into complete relativity (cf. e.g. Mouzelis, 2008, p. 146f).
It has now been pointed out that social movements are certainly one of the societal realities that are showing a development. Furthermore, as key actors of change, they should be central in the theoretical debates about changing social realities more in general. However, it is surprising that the link between the discussions around modernity and post-modernity—inherently concerned with societal change—and social movement studies is not very defined. NSM theory takes a clear stance in the debate by presupposing that contemporary social movements are new and thus post-modern. Other paradigms do not question this or reflect the discussion explicitly at all. And very few scholars make an attempt to integrate the two through a more in-depth exploration.
Poldervaart offers a more reflected perspective by explicitly calling for more attention to the post-modern in the social movements debate. Still, she also does not engage in a more balanced perspective between the two sides. That is important because it is quite clear that both modern and post-modern perspectives have their potentials but also their flaws. Therefore, attempts such as Nicos Mouzelis' bridging the two through constructing a synthesis seem highly promising. His idea is that both perspectives share the belief that the social reality is currently changing. Of course, then they differ in assessing what exactly that is and regarding the implications these changes will have.
will be to move beyond NSM theory in particular by engaging with the (post-)modern debate without over-emphasizing one side.
This research project will therefore explore the use of the totality of the (post-)modern debate—not the plain rejection of one side for the other but an integrated view questioning and relating both. Further it aims at exploring the relevance of such a perspective for theoretical social movement conceptualizations beyond NSM theory. This thesis is thus a theoretical analysis to develop an understanding of the contribution the (post-)modern debate can make to overcome the gaps of contemporary social movement studies. Hence, the proposal is an exploration that will firstly rely on an inventory of the existing social movement literature and propose a development of the (post-)modern dimensions relevant in this context. This theoretical proposition will be complemented through a case study to gain initial insights from the field. This research project is of academic relevance as in social movement studies there have been calls for new conceptualizations. Moreover, the (post-)modern debate has only been involved regarding New Social Movements, whose newness is being challenged today (cf. Crossley, 2003; Day, 2004). It can furthermore be of social significance as the role of social movements in political processes points to important shifts in contemporary societies that are still to be taken more into account by institutional politics.
Research Questions
The described set of issues and propositions will be explored through the following research questions that are divided into a general one and three sub-questions covering different aspects of the main question:
- How can the (post-)modern ontological debate inform the understanding of contemporary social movements?
• What are the relevant modern and post-modern dimensions regarding social movement theorizing? Based on these dimensions, why are the traditional social movement theories (particularly NSM theory) not up-to-date anymore? What is missing in the current debate?
• How can the two movements of the European refugee crisis be grasped and conceptualized through a (post-)modern social movements debate, particularly regarding dimensions like organization, ideology and orientation?
and the right-wing populism currently observed in the European refugee crisis, beyond their different position regarding refugees per se? And how do the two through their similarities and differences challenge traditional concepts of contemporary social movement studies?
The addressing of these research questions and thus the main aim of this thesis will in the first place be theory development. It will include the theoretical analysis of social movement conceptualizations and the proposition of an analytical typology. That includes a critique of traditional social movements studies, particularly the NSM paradigm. But more importantly, it will consist in the integration with the (post-)modern theoretical debate as a promising new perspective on contemporary social movements. As an initial step the thesis will use a small and media-based case study as an empirical case. That will be purposefully selected and is mainly exploratory in its aim. The case study will thus combine deductive—(post-)modern theoretical frame—and inductive elements—concepts emerging from the case study data.
Both of the movements will be explored in terms of the theoretically developed dimensions. This will shed light on the constitution, the differences but also similarities of these two movements. Furthermore, it will be an initial case for the further development of the proposed (post-)modern conceptualization of social movements. The theoretical development will be two-fold. On the one hand, the research project will construct a (post-)modern approach, not falling into dichotomous distinctions but emphasizing the strengths of a more balanced perspective. On the other hand, the thesis will explore how useful that approach can be in the context of social movement studies conceptually and empirically.
will thus present the final results from the case study embedded in the theoretical framework in order to start answering the last of the presented research questions. The
Conclusion is the last section where I will summarize the main findings and arguments
Theoretical Framework
The social sciences have from their emergence been concerned with the exploration and explanation of societal change. Classical thinkers like Max Weber, Émile Durkheim and Karl Marx have conceptually established the shift from a pre-modern, or pre-industrial society to the modern one (cf. Joseph, 2004; Lemert, 2007). In particular in the 1970s in the arts and in academia there was a heated debate about the state of the present time. This debate was mainly dominated by those theorists arguing that contemporary times were still part of modernity, and the post-modern proponents who suggested that a major shift was taking or had indeed already taken place. In social movement studies this debate is most clearly present in the emergence of the NSM paradigm. It explicitly distinguishes between old and new movements, which, though not always directly reflected, is taken by many to mean modern or post-modern movements (cf. Blackledge, 2013, p. 259). This chapter will therefore focus on the delineation of the theoretical framework of this thesis from these two main stances. It will present the preliminary operationalization of the different concepts in use. Furthermore, the aim is to lay out a concise overview of the relevant starting points. That includes the current debate in the social sciences about (post-)modernity and the exposition of social movements within this debate. Finally, it concludes with the proposition of a conceptual typology.
Where are we now?
This question is one that in the context of this chapter is central for various reasons. On the one hand, it refers to the core of the social sciences' debate about how the present
time is to be conceptualized. In that sense, the dealing with this question means being
concerned with the ever-changing nature of the social environment. Social theory then develops conceptual constructs grasping that change. On the other hand, where are we
now refers to the state of the modern and post-modern debate in 2016, when arguably
the peak of it is long past.
Anthony Giddens presents his view on the debate in Consequences of
Modernity. An important notion that he presents thereby is that in order to be able to
offers a good summary of a starting point concerning modernity:
'Modernity' refers to modes of social life or organisation which emerged in Europe from about the seventeenth century onwards and which subsequently became more or less worldwide in their influence. This associates modernity with a time period and with an initial geographical location, but for the moment leaves its major characteristics safely stowed away in a black box. (Giddens, 1990, p. 1)
Simon Susen opens this black box in identifying the following key dimensions as crucial to modernity: industrialization, rationalization, ideologization, bureaucratization, individualization, emancipation (cf. Susen, 2015, pp. 13–16). Others, for example like Jürgen Habermas, link it more explicitly to the Enlightenment and the ideas and values emerging from it: rationality, objectivity, economic progress, grand narratives and the nation-state (cf. Natoli & Hutcheon, 1993, pp. viii–ix; Poldervaart, 2001, p. 157; Sim, 2010, p. 11). In fact, from a contemporary perspective Habermas still discusses modernity as an unfinished project (cf. Habermas & Ben-Habib, 1981, p. 11). This leads to the central point of the first dimension of the title question. Namely, the identification of a classification for the changing contemporary time and the positioning of the scholarly literature with regards to it. In turn, that opens up the debate, which over the past decades has been evolving around the ideas of modernity, modernity, and post-post-modernity which will be introduced here.
The center of attention will be the analytical concepts of modernity and post-modernity. However, the aim of the thesis is to construct a non-binary perspective on this discussion instead of following the usual distinction. That means that while discussing the two different analytical concepts, it will argue for an integrated as opposed to a dichotomous presentation. The analytical discussion about the theoretical concepts of and around modernity and post-modernity will here be referred to as the
()modern debate. That is to avoid reproducing the schism of modern vs post-modern or favoring an alternative such as late post-modern. The terminological choice thus
reflects the more integrated and mutually informed discussion of the different ways of answering and even approaching the questions concerning contemporary positions of the literature.
new perspectives that would not emerge in a binary scheme and that take a critical stance on the established positions. As Kellner, among others, points out, “a more dialectical optic will analyze both the continuities and discontinuities of the present moment” (1999, p. 644). According to him this is often ignored by modern and post-modern approaches alike (Kellner, 1999, p. 644). In this context it could be helpful to explore the continuities and discontinuities of contemporary movements with older ones. What he calls the dialectical optic would thereby uncover the logic of historical sequence embraced by the strict old/new distinction.
In order to start exploring this approach, a special emphasis is given to the more moderate theorists adding positions like late modernity to the debate (cf. Beck, Giddens, & Lash, 2007) and to scholars trying to construct a synthesis between the two sides (cf. Mouzelis, 2008). Of course this also results in breaking down both the modern and the post-modern perspective to some basic dimensions particularly relevant in the context of social movements. Such a procedure might be seen critically because both perspectives are highly complex and far from clearly delineated or agreed upon. However, it should not lead to a shallow representation of the debate. It is rather an attempt to avoid a radicalization that particularly in this debate otherwise easily ends up undebatable. The proposed approach is furthermore reasonable as the aim here is not to deepen the divide between the modern and post-modern. On the contrary, it is to explore if the shared concepts used by this debate could not be used as a tool in its totality instead of its binarisms. Because there are in fact a number of key concepts that are central to both modern and post-modern theories. Subsequently they certainly take divergent perspectives on them. Still, understanding them in their totality would mean not to solely take into account these differences (binarism) of a particular concept when discussing it but also the shared ground.
defining (cf. Beck et al., 2007). They are their main focus when conceptualizing
reflexive modernity. Giddens distinguishes there perspective from the post-modern one
by arguing that it does not contain the aporias inherent in post-modern discourses (cf. 2007, p. 107). At the same time, they still respond to a theoretical debate that is torn between two defining sets of arguments and that is indeed far from resolved. There continue to be publications and reprints dealing with or at least picking up on (post-)modern argumentations explicitly (cf. e.g Hardt & Negri, 2004; Irvine, 2013; Mouzelis, 2008; Poldervaart, 2001; Sim, 2010; Susen, 2015). The modern guiding dimensions have already been addressed, while the post-modern is often even more vague and arguably mainly challenges the same modern concepts.
Indeed, post-modern claims are frequently discussed as developing in opposition t o typically modern ideas and pointing to a changing world that moves beyond modernity. However, already the terminology can and certainly has been a source of confusion, which is why it should be briefly clarified here. As Martin Irvine, among others, points out, the post is and can be interpreted in different ways here. He mentions usages as a developmental after, as a discursive contra, as an indicator of change in progress in terms of late or as a proper new epoch. Further, he argues that it is deployed as a mainly artistic development breaking with modern styles, and finally as an all-encompassing denominator of globalization (cf. Irvine, 2013).
In another respect, Susen offers a concise discussion involving different levels of analysis and discussion. He defines (post-)modernity as the respective “epochal shift or break from” (Susen, 2015, p. 38) either traditional or modern society. It thus refers to the condition of the world. The conceptualizations of this level are the center of attention of the analysis presented here. (Post-)modernism by contrast is presented by Susen as “any discursive – notably, aesthetic, cultural, political, or academic – efforts to attach meaning” (2015, p. 38) to modernity or post-modernity. This means that it is more concerned with the ways through which people artistically, culturally, or academically make sense of the world. Finally, (post-)modernization for Susen represents the “social and discursive processes that shape both the constitution and the awareness of the historical condition” (2015, p. 38) in both cases. In other words, it refers to the development towards whatever is coming next.
of the level of analysis that is addressed. Here, I will mostly focus on (post-)modernity as my aim is not to conceptualize the current state of the society but to develop the existent academic debate about it. Still, it should be kept in mind that the different levels of analysis are intertwined. That means that it is impossible to discuss the discourse about (post-)modernity without at all reflecting about what the subject of that discourse is. This ambiguity will be accepted as the main interest here is to approach the debate through a non-binary perspective which is equally relevant for the different levels involved.
An exemplification of the variety that sometimes starts with terminology and that can start contradicting itself or prevent being understood is offered by Jean-Francois Lyotard when he claims that:
the postmodern would be that which, in the modern, puts forward the unpresentable in the presentation itself […] that which searches for new presentations, not in order to enjoy them but in order to impart a stronger sense of the unpresentable. (Lyotard, 2005, p. 81)
Similarly, Pauline Rosenau describes post-modernists as refocusing on “the forgotten, the irrational, the insignificant, the repressed, the borderline, the classical, the sacred, the traditional, the eccentric, the sublimated, the subjugated, the rejected, the nonessential, the marginal, the parsed, the disqualified, the deferred, the disjointed” (Rosenau, 1992, p. 8). Post-modernists, like Lyotard, Bauman, or Rosenau, thus in the first place express a strong rejection of modern ways of doing and reasoning. At the same time, they develop different ways of approaching things through opening up for unconventional perspectives. Sometimes that can even lead to encompassing new topics that would not necessarily be addressed in a modern setting. That puts emphasis on the fact that post-modernists do not merely live off opposing modern positions. In fact, there are a number of aspects where, even though the starting point might be a critique of modern ways of doing, the post-modern concepts move beyond criticizing.
claims for reasons of anything (cf. Mouzelis, 2008, p. 167). Simultaneously, just as is the case with modern perspectives, there are variations between moderate and more radical post-modernists. In fact, this can change the whole understanding one has of post-modernity.
It thus is clear that both sides of the debate are not distinctly delineated each by itself. Furthermore, it should be emphasized that, as Natoli and Hutcheon point out in their reader, “the lines drawn in the modern/postmodern battle are no clear ones; they do not easily break down into the comfortable political binaries of left versus right, radical versus neoconservative” (1993, p. 7). While they then emphasize that according to them the debate is not solvable altogether (cf. Natoli & Hutcheon, 1993, p. 8), others differentiate to what mainly impedes the debate from moving on further. Rengger, for example, argues that the essence of the discussion is not even the problem. According to him that is rather the way the debate is argued (cf. Rengger, 1995). In his book
Political Theory, Modernity, and Postmodernity, he points out “that the structure of the
so-called 'debate' itself has generated more heat than light” (Rengger, 1995, p. 78). He thereby refers to the excessive use of straw man views of the other sides' perspectives, meaning that both sides tend to over-simplify the other's arguments.
This is where Beck, Giddens, and Lash, although even they feel the need to align themselves with one side over the other, transcend the original debate by introducing new options. By putting the emphasis on the reflexive nature of contemporary society, they avoid the binary distinction between modern and post-modern. They develop a number of patterns characteristic for contemporary society and discuss it as reflexive or late modernity (Beck et al., 2007, p. cf.). Similarly, there are by now stances emerging that try to move even further beyond this split by introducing a post-post-modern dimension. As Irvine puts it,
The post-postmodern viewpoint [...] seems to be taking the "postmodern condition" (postmodernity) as a given and creating new remixed works disassociated from the modern-postmodern arguments and oppositions. The post-postmodern takes the "always already" mixed condition of sources, identities, and new works as a given, not a question or problem. (2013)
successfully move on either. Moreover, as both these alternatives are still concerned with the question of where are we now, it seems important to not get rid of the (post-)modern debate altogether and discharge it as outdated. Mouzelis' book Modern
and Postmodern Theorizing: Bridging the Divide risks a more direct attempt of
addressing this. In meticulous detail he explores social theory before and around the emergence of the modern/post-modern divide. He thereby identifies main challenges through which he tries to connect both perspectives. For example, in order to stay with the notion of objectivity he proposes a re-definition of it in non-positivist terms. The positivistic understanding of objectivity according to him is impossible in the first place. The non-positivistic understanding would be based on a researcher's self-discipline and reflexivity (cf. Mouzelis, 2008, pp. 176–177). Similarly, he proceeds with various relativisms. The way he understands bridging is extremely valuable to the approach taken here:
Boundaries between paradigms are neither abolished (as in post-structuralism) nor transcended (as in Giddens/Bourdieu). The internal logic of each theoretical tradition is respected, but its claim that it represents 'the whole truth' is seen to be unfounded. (Mouzelis, 2008, p. 130)
In summary, the proposed approach will in the following be further developed and answers this section's title question by calling for a rejection of binarisms. The question can only be answered one-sidedly when relying on a dichotomous distinction. A non-binary approach will try to develop a more integrated perspective on the (post-)modern debate, taking into account both sides.
Social Movement Theory Between Modernity and Post-Modernity
is, as will be shown, a one-sided perspective. Additionally, there have been calls for new conceptualizations of social movements. While some are more based on practical remarks regarding a changing reality (cf. Castells, 2015; Della Porta, 2015), others explicitly refer to gaps at the theoretical level (cf. Day, 2004; McDonald, 2002). Introducing a non-binary (post-)modern perspective will therefore enhance social movement studies in that it might be able to overcome some of the elements NSM theory is not able to grasp.
In most of the cases where (post-)modern discussions are explicitly related to social movement studies, that is done from a NSM perspective. It then equates the modern/post-modern distinction with the one between old and new social movements. Indeed, the peak of the post-modern perspective coincides approximately with the emergence of the NSM paradigm. In the social movement tradition it directly follows to behavioralist and rationalist perspectives. However, it mostly defines itself through its distinction from the Marxist idea of social movements. For Karl Marx, movements were inherently linked with the class society and especially the revolutionary class struggle of the workers (cf. Marx & Milligan, 1988, p. 243). A distinctive feature of this concept of social movements is explained by Cox. He argues that “the Marxist account is one of movements as class struggle: not something that pre-existing classes go out and do, but the conflict where classes are formed” (Cox, 2013, p. 141). This and the mainly economic conceptualization are the characteristics that distinguish the traditional Marxist perspective both from later social movements and conceptualizations of them. As Buechler points out, the newness of NSMs refers exactly to this shift away from the class as a defining social entity. Instead NSMs create or at least emphasize new kinds of social identities. According to Buechler, the NSM perspective has in that way much in common with post-modernists in their revelation of the social constructedness of identities (cf. Buechler, 2011, pp. 158–159).
Buechler, 2011, pp. 288–289). Additionally, scholars have identified the following defining characteristics as distinctive of NSMs: less leadership, transnational, collective identity, diverse groups but specific concerns (cf. Buechler, 2000, pp. 46–48; Della Porta, 2015, p. 215; Gill, 2000, p. 138). On the one hand these can be directly linked to the movements from the 1960s and 1970s, like for instance the women's movement, the environmental movement or the LGBT movement (cf. Buechler, 2011, pp. 158–159; Della Porta & Diani, 2006, p. 6). On the other hand, the characteristics underline the parallels between post-modern ideas and NSMs (cf. also Blackledge, 2013, p. 259). Handler encapsulates this claim when stating: “The new social movements can be considered the archetypical form of postmodern politics” (1992, p. 719). It should therefore be underlined here that contemporary movements analyzed through the NSM framework are automatically presupposed as post-modern.
theoretical level of calling for a Zwischenraum between the modern and the post-modern conceptualizations of a subject. But it could also be referred to a more empirical critique in it not taking into account the in-between nature of specific social movements. The latter would switch the level of analysis addressed here but it is important to include in the reflection as the practical level is highly important for social movement studies. In particular with the emergence of ever more transnational politics and activism and technological innovations, like the Internet, the NSM paradigm has found its newness being increasingly challenged on that level. While sometimes that mainly refers to the sharp old/new distinction emphasized through the terminology, others go further in questioning the newness itself. For example, Richard Day argues that the shifts performed by NSMs were not as fundamental as they have been generally discussed by NSM theory. More importantly, and in fact theoretically relevant, he sees commonalities between old and new social movements, for instance in their orientation towards the state, and underlines:
I would argue that the dominant stream of the new social movements remains within a hegemonic conception of the political, and is only marginally and nascently aware of the possibilities inherent in actions oriented neither to achieving state power nor to ameliorating its effects. (Day, 2004, p. 723)
Here, some (post-)modern notions are touched upon but clearly not named as such as NSMs are broadly discussed as representing the post-modern. Furthermore, a conceptual critique not only of NSMs but also of the dichotomous (post-)modern debate, makes it most promising to move towards a perspective departing from the discussed binaries modern/post-modern and old/new. Rather than staying in the two-dimensional distinction of the two sides of the debate, I propose to focus on a perspective that will be referred to as Spannungsfelder2. These will be conceptualized
and represent tensions that are touched upon by both modern and post-modern, old and new social movement perspectives and that are indeed central to both. This will provide a more integrated perspective pointing to a common area with differing peculiarities rather than assuming strict dividing lines. Therefore in the following I will discuss seven
Spannungsfelder that will show (post-)modern relevance and will be linked to social
organization, power, context.
Areas of Tension instead of Binaries
The seven dimensions that will be discussed here as Spannungsfelder are being borrowed from Simon Susen's very recent and insightful publication The Post-Modern
Turn in the Social Sciences (cf. 2015, pp. 186–188). In fact, he associates this turn with
a number of other turns that have had considerable impact on certain parts of or the social sciences as a whole. Throughout the seven chapters of the book he addresses definitions and understandings of the modern and the post-modern and links them with various shifts regarding epistemology, methodology, history and politics. The most relevant part for this thesis is the latter, denominated “the autonomous turn” and concerned with different understandings of politics (cf. Susen, 2015, pp. 171–229).
In this context he introduces various tensions concerning this autonomous turn, including, for example, the one of equality vs. difference, or of clarity vs. ambiguity. But the one explicitly linked to social movements is the tension between
society-as-a-project and society-as-a-projects-in-society. He uses this last tension as an umbrella classification for
the shift from modern to post-modern social movements that according to him equals the one from old to new movements. The key distinction between the two for Susen can be seen in the inherent top-down or bottom-up nature in the respective construction of society. He explains this two-sided understanding as follows:
One of the most ambitious undertakings attached to the condition of modernity has always been the goal-oriented – and, ultimately, evolutionary – development of society. [...] The condition of postmodernity, on the other hand, does not exist as a unified endeavour – not even for those who seek to defend its historical significance. Rather, its eclectic discourses are constituted by a multiplicity of concerns and ventures, as reflected in the notion of projects-in-society. (Susen, 2015, p. 176)
in turn means that he groups NSMs and contemporary movements together. In that way he uses quite a different point of departure than the one this thesis takes. While for him the shift has happened, the observation here is that there is no agreement about the current condition of society somewhere in or in between (post-)modernity. Furthermore, the point of interest is the social sciences' analytical preoccupation with modern and post-modern conceptualizations which seems equally torn. This difference of course has further consequences on the use of the model. Because of his idea of a shift Susen constructs the model in a binary way. He presents the modern peculiarities of a tension as opposed to the post-modern ones. As has been indicated, the proposition here is to develop a non-binary model.
I will therefore use Susen's typology of tensions regarding social movements, but substantially alter some basic assumptions. The decision to use an originally binary model might seem contradictory. However, it indeed represents some main characteristics of social movements that are important in the field in general. Secondly, using his model while moving beyond it will show that the same subjects can in fact be approached in a non-binary way too. It is hence crucial to also explain the re-definition of his dimensions or tensions into Spannungsfelder. The German notion of field or area in this case is to indicate the moving away from a two-sided tension. What is embraced instead, are dimensions of central importance to both extremes that express tension in a more varied and multi-layered understanding. The Spannungsfelder, as opposed to his dual tensions, are receptive and attentive towards both continuities and discontinuities, similarities and differences among the different subjects of analysis. Furthermore, it opens ip the Zwischenraum of the Spannungsfelder, starting to fill the in-between. In this way the typology of Spannungsfelder adopted here strongly differs from Susen's original model. His position represents the general stance of NSM theory which is the point of reference used here for the argumentation for a new conceptual model.
That means that to construct Susen's dimensions as Spannungsfelder, I will first establish the relevance of the dimensions for both a modern and a post-modern perspectives. Subsequently, I will also contextualize the dimensions in the social movement studies. Finally, I will focus on the Zwischenräume that emerge through a non-binary approach.
Aims
Starting with Susen's general understanding of this dimension, it is mostly concerned with the overall vision social movements have for society. It is the distinction that he also used as the umbrella category for distinguishing old and new social movements in general. According to him, old movements see society itself as the main challenge, while new movements are rather concerned with specific issues within society:
‘Old social movements’ tend to be oriented towards the transformation of social order, thereby conceiving of society as a project. In this sense, they are concerned with having a transformative impact on society as a whole, rather than on particular elements or spheres of reality. ‘New social movements’, by contrast, tend to be oriented towards the alteration of social values, thereby endorsing specific projects in society. (Susen, 2015, p. 186)
This vision, however, lacks the reflection of an in-between. By approaching a movement as either the one or the other it necessarily disregards aspects of the respective other. The questions that a non-binary view asks are: Can any movement realize projects-in-society without having an objective for society as a whole? Is not society-as-a-project necessarily based on multiple projects addressing a variety of issues contained in society? Before starting to answer these questions, it is important to establish the relevance of this Spannungsfeld with regards to the theoretical framework.
Aims is clearly linked to a core point of debate between modernists and
(2000, p. 22). Meanwhile modernist views on change and the future are more linear, as Crook and his colleagues point out: “Implicit in many arguments about modernization is the notion that its trends can be projected into an infinite future” (Crook, Pakulski, & Waters, 1992, p. 1). Aims accordingly entails discussions about the role and potential of change as well as visions for the future.
More directly linked to social movement conceptualizations, Aims can be related to the various ways movements' objectives have been understood. The traditional Marxist perspective understands movements as primarily economic actors emphasizing class struggle as the main theme (cf. Barker, Cox, Krinsky, & Nilsen, 2013). Resource Mobilization Theory (RMT) or Political Process Models (PPM) instead underline their political role and position political participation at the core (cf. McAdam, Tarrow, & Tilly, 2003). Finally, NSM theory is more concerned with the cultural dimension of social movements, arguing for daily life issues and non-material values being put on society's agenda (cf. Buechler, 2011, pp. 160–161). These core attributes certainly affect the conceptual angle that is employed. Furthermore, the way social movement activities are discussed is important in this context. For instance, the aims can be viewed as simply corresponding to cycles of protest that subject all social movements to their rhythm (Cf. Della Porta & Diani, 2006, p. 188; Tarrow, 2011, pp. 197–99).
Through the activities a social movement engages in they can also be grouped on a continuum between conventional and non-conventional or illegal forms of participation (cf. Della Porta & Diani, 2006, p. 170). Yet, as Jeffrey Juris points out, the activities but eventually also the aims can vary according to different visions of democracy, which impacts the relationship between social movements, society, and political institutions (cf. 2008, p. 119). This is an argument that is being addressed in populism studies too. Here it is discussed whether populist movements or parties which for many people pose a threat to democracy itself, should still be understood as a legitimate expression of democratic freedom of speech (cf. e.g. Pollock, Brock, & Ellison, 2015, p. 143).
(post-)modern view on it is consequently more encompassing. It is understood as a central dimension of contemporary social movements and reflects their objectives, activities and visions regarding society. It can be argued that most social movements have a societal vision but for instance for practical reasons mainly focus their activity on specific issues or values. Instead of dividing old and new movements through Aims, the
Zwischenraum of this Spannungsfeld hence establishes societal projects as a central
expression of social movements. The understanding then is that the projects in society change society and that changing society includes projects of change.
A classical example of this distinction could be the workers' movement on the one hand. It was aiming at a transformation of the whole of society, as envisioned by Marx. On the other hand, the women's movement is typically discussed from a NSM perspective as focused on the change of certain values within society. Nonetheless, this distinction is based on the binary perspective on modern and post-modern. Workers' movements address very particular values around their rights as a group, and women movements when considered socially certainly address society as a whole and not just their most practical rights. Looking at some contemporary movements might take this
Zwischenraum even further. Lifestyle movements for instance move into even more
small-scale and individualized dimensions regarding activities, while still addressing society as a whole in their main vision (cf. e.g. Haenfler, Johnson, & Jones, 2012). Others, like Occupy, might arguably blur these lines of distinction even more as their aims do not just concern certain specific values (cf. Castells, 2015, p. 139; Farro, 2014, p. 26).
Ideology
This Spannungsfeld refers to the underlying sense-making basis referred to or used by movements. Susen talks about old movements' universal meta-narratives, “[capturing] […] the big picture” (2015, p. 186), as opposed to new movements' micro-narratives. This distinction however oversees the embeddedness of meta-narratives. Equally, it disregards the possibility of linking multiple micro-narratives and constructing something new through that. The notion of glocalitzation, coined by Roland Robertson (cf. e.g. 1998), is still frequently referred to and could not be grasped by this binary perspective on narratives.
narratives have been at the heart of their divide. They are therefore a defining notion for both modern and post-modern perspectives. When “[s]implifying to the extreme”, Lyotard would go as far as defining the post-modern as “incredulity towards metanarratives” (2005, p. xxiv). In fact, the classical thinkers of modern social theory, like Marx, Weber, and Durkheim, to just mention the most prominent ones, all sought to establish grand narratives explaining the shift from pre-industrial to modern society. While they represent the modern aim of making sense of the world, post-modernists see narratives as an impossible pretext for universality that they reject altogether (cf. Mouzelis, 2008, p. 219). The only possibility of valid narratives in post-modernity are multiple, locally contextualized ones with no claim for truth (cf. Rosenau, 1992, pp. xii– xiii).
Yet, narratives do not necessarily have to be discussed through these binaries. Instead, they can also be viewed from a more critical perspective in order to satisfy different claims. Mouzelis, for example, argues that it is possible to (re-)construct “context-sensitive” forms of narratives (2008, p. 217). Similarly, Sim calls for more “socially responsible” ones (2010, p. 176). They both critically respond to the idea of
grand or meta-narratives. Anyhow, instead of rejecting them directly they explore new
approaches in order to make them more acceptable.
too. As Tucker shows, theorists like Giddens “agree with postmodernists that progressive social change cannot rely on traditional liberal-centered state programs“. They still also criticize post-modernists “for equating rationality, universalism, and illegitimate power, without sufficiently differentiating types of rational discourse” (Tucker, 1998, p. 127).
Also in the realm of social movement studies Ideology is of course a central dimension. On the one hand, it is again, like Aims, strongly linked to the general categorization through which movements are grouped. Depending on the theme attributed to them, the ideological orientation will be discussed differently. On the other hand, the ideology of social movements is expressed to some extent in their communication. From a social constructionist perspective, communication then can be seen both internally and externally as constructing meaning and framing specific issues or the world more in general in a certain way (cf. Goffman, 1986; Snow & Benford, 1992, p. 136). Through the use of symbols and rituals but also the way arguments are used and constructed, social movements are concerned with putting together narratives that strengthen their ideological basis (cf. Della Porta & Diani, 2006, pp. 109, 220). Keck even goes so far as to define networks through their communication, stating that they are “forms of organization characterized by voluntary, reciprocal, and horizontal patterns of communication and exchange” (Keck, 1998, p. 8). Ideology is thus a defining dimension when it comes to the theoretical conceptualization of social movements but also their own self-understanding.
sense-making. This in turn means that the definition as meta- or micro-narratives is a theoretical simplification that overlooks important in-between notions.
Social base
For Susen Social Base represents a quite straight-forward dimension. According to him, old movements “tend to be homogeneous and monolithic” and have collective interests (2015, p. 187). In contrast, he sees the new ones as rather “heterogeneous and hybrid” with more socially diverse actors involved (Susen, 2015, p. 187). Approaching it as a
Spannungsfeld, Social Base is more relevant in its general linking of collectivity and
individuality. It questions the possibility of clearly distinguishing between heterogeneous and homogenous groups. That does not mean that it rejects the possibility of differences regarding the constitution of movements. Rather, the (post-)modern non-binary perspective emphasizes the importance of the subject in question. Furthermore, it underlines the intertwined nature of the two theoretical extremes.
In terms of social movement studies, Social Base can mainly be related to roughly two sets of issues discussed throughout the field, namely identity and mobilization. Collective identity has been discussed as crucial to social movements across different theoretical paradigms. Social constructionist and NSM perspectives both underline the identity construction by social movements. For them it is defining for differentiating a movement from other actors as well as establishing solidarity internally (cf. Tarrow, 2011, p. 151). Della Porta and Diani summarize it as
the process through which individual and/or collective actors, in interaction with other social actors, attribute a specific meaning to their traits, their life occurrences, and the systems of social relations in which they are embedded. (2006, p. 92)
recurrent dynamic of ebb and flow in collective mobilization” (2006, p. 189). This view points to the fact that social movements depend on their participants and their resources.
Linking Social Base to the (post-)modern debate involves referring back to the role and texture of narratives as well as the attributed values. The different views on fragmentation and universality represent a central point of discussion between modernists and post-modernists (cf. Joseph, 2004, p. 201). Regarding social movements, the kind of narratives that are preferred, in fact to some extent affect the
construction of a social base and are in turn affected by it. In this context Kevin
McDonald offers an interesting perspective that might offer a good example to further solidify this Spannungsfeld. He suggests that contemporary movements do not have a collective identity nor are they more individualized and socially diverse in the first place. Instead he proposes to take into account a concept that he calls fluidarity. This breaks up the relationship between individuals and groups so that these become inextricably linked. Individuals are not just becoming the group and the group is not just made up by individualized participants. Rather, McDonald talks about the “public experience of the self” (McDonald, 2002, p. 125).
Constructed as a Spannungsfeld, Social Base plays a role in the different consistencies of identity and mobilized groups that show in social movements. The
Zwischenraum makes it possible to include concepts like McDonald's and thus gain a
more differentiated understanding of the constitution of social movements.
Orientation
For Susen Orientation can be mainly defined through the dichotomy of state-oriented (top-down) versus society-oriented (bottom-up) change (2015, p. 187). It is closely related to the previous distinction between society-as-a-project and projects-in-society. And just as in that case the dimension can be developed into a Spannungsfeld based on criticizing the gaps that a binary discussion of it leaves. It touches upon the ever-emerging difference between reform and revolution which certainly represents two extremes of social action. Thereufore, it is clear that there are realities in-between that should also be conceptualized. Social movements are by nature generally understood as groups taking social or political action to change things. But this change can target society and might still be top-down implemented. It can also focus on targeting the state from a genuinely bottom-up take. States are strongly intertwined with societies so it is important to understand Orientation as a Spannungsfeld, able to reflect different expressions of this dimension while not establishing two binary possibilities.
Orientation represents quite a natural overlap with the governance levels that social movement studies have been increasingly referring to through the intensification of globalization. That means that social movements are increasingly researched with attention to their local, national, or transnational orientations. For some theorists, post-modern approaches can be paralleled with a moving beyond the nation-state, or, more explicitly, with globalization (cf. Beck et al., 2007, p. 34; Gill, 2000, p. 138). The general emphasis on globalization in the contemporary context is also importantly related to increasing migration (cf. Eggert & Giugni, 2015, p. 160f; Fadaee, 2015, p. 733). Other scholars take a more prudent stance towards the decreasing importance of the nation-state. Mouzelis suggests that even though today there might be different orientations, that does not necessarily result in structural changes:
later modernity does resemble the local-national dialectic of early modernity. (2008, p. 161)
Social movements will thus rather be concerned with acting at multiple governance levels. Keck importantly refers to the “increasingly artificial divide between international and national realms” (Keck, 1998, p. 2). She thus emphasizes the relevance of both levels in their interaction rather than their distinction. Similarly, even though the modern and post-modern perspectives might differ in the emphasis on a level, they still address various levels of action. Additionally, contemporary movements are observed to often address multiple targets. Orientation can also be linked to the underlying idea of change. Even if the envisioned social change was distinguished as either top-down, reform-oriented, or bottom-up, aiming at revolution, it does not necessarily adhere to the binary distinction. It is central because it will affect basic features of how social movements are discussed. But it is not convincing to identify old movements as always state-oriented and new movements as inherently grassroots driven. There are grassroots movements, like very local environmental initiatives, that still orient themselves to institutional actors.
Organization
According to Susen, between old and new movements there has been a shift from organizing in “formal, bureaucratic, and vertical ways” to “loose, flexible and horizontal” ones (2015, pp. 187–188). Organization has indeed always been a central concept for analyzing social movements and thus appears in various theoretical frameworks. It includes components such as leadership, hierarchies, networks and decision-making. Furthermore it can be related to durability both in terms of time and levels of participation as traditionally organization has been more associated with the more constituted forms of movements. However, the dichotomous presentation of organization assumes a linear temporal development from traditionally to alternatively organized movements. As has been pointed out, a view on these dimensions as
Spannungsfelder basically questions such a clear historical development. Furthermore,
in contemporary movements there can be seen different forms of organization so that a theoretical distinction does not seem expedient.
In (post-)modern terms Organization is also relevant as it can be aligned with the notions of narratives and values that have already been addressed. Furthermore, it introduces the balancing of putting more emphasis on the whole or the fragments which does not only imply an orientation but indeed also ideas on structure. Organization itself could be seen as something impossible to achieve in the chaotic, post-modern world understanding unless it is understood in its more encompassing dimension of (non-)organization as well.
Finally, these are indeed the differentiations that a binary discussion overlooks in its tendency to be biased towards traditionally organized or unorganized. Deleuze and Guattari developed another very post-modern image that nonetheless can be useful here in discussing the Zwischenraum o f Organization. Their idea of the rhizome suggests that relations are organized as the roots of a tree, not as the external part of the tree we see (cf. Deleuze & Guattari, 1987, p. 21). Applied to this Spannungsfeld that means that the various parts involved in the organization of a movement are connected in all directions. There are so many factors that organization consists of that it would be limiting to merely base its identification on one (e.g. existence of leaders) and then assume the constitution of another one from that (e.g. formal membership).
Power
Susen distinguishes between two possible expressions concerning power. Power-affirmation expressed through the “sharing or seizing” of power, or power-skepticism avoiding or even rejecting power altogether (2015, p. 188). This is very interesting in the sense that very often in the realm of social movements it seems to be an indirect assumption that it is always the re-distribution of power that is aimed for. But after all to make a binary theoretical distinction between two attitudes towards power limits this just opened-up new perspective. It takes into account that power could possibly not be a goal at all. But it does not take into account that there might be different layers in-between complete rejection and embracing. That disregards that power becomes an issue in different contexts concerning social movements. Therefore, constructing Power as a Spannungsfeld will add conceptual differentiations that informs the theoretical reflection of power in the social movement realm.
movements being discussed as a struggle for power (cf. Buechler, 2011, p. 130; Castells, 2015, pp. 5–6; Keck, 1998). The notion that some movements might not seek power at all is rarely reflected explicitly. One of the few who does it is Antimo Farro when exploring very recent movements like Alterglobal, 15M and Occupy. He observes:
Such actors do not, however, aim to gain political power, but to establish institutional systems of direct democracy through which all citizens can be engaged in decision-making. They have also begun to experiment with direct forms of democracy through the organization of their movement, which is rooted in equal access to engagement for all, achieved primarily through face-to-face meetings between participants and online contact, through a refusal to create or recognize a leader, and through the development of participatory decision-making techniques. (Farro, 2014, pp. 20–21)
This also points to a differentiation that is disregarded by Susen's depiction. Power can be analyzed in its external as well as its internal dimension. It should hence be critically reflected to what extent new movements as opposed to old ones are always power-sceptical instead of power-affirmative. Certainly the Marxist workers movement seems a classic example of seeking power. Anyhow, the manifestation seems more dependent on circumstances. It has been analyzed thoroughly that the life cycle of social movements often leads them to a point where institutionalization and radicalization are the two departing paths (cf. Della Porta & Diani, 2006, p. 150). This in turn indicates that both positions can be contained in one movement.
looking closely, at least in the moderate discussions, it is mainly the lack of reflection about the power dynamics involved. Hutcheon offers a post-modern yet very differentiated discussion of this:
History is not made obsolete; it is, however, being rethought—as a human construct. And, in arguing that history does not exist except as text, it does not stupidly and 'gleefully' deny that the past existed, but only that its accessibility to us now is entirely conditioned by textuality. We cannot know the past except through its texts (Hutcheon, 1993, p. 256)
Relating this back to social movements, it implies that these can also challenge power by challenging a certain view of history. This could for example be seen in movements reacting to dictatorships in Latin America, like Las Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo in Argentina. An example of contemporary movements can be found once again in Fadaee's account of power differences not being identified promptly enough within movements themselves (cf. 2015). This clearly lifts this Spannungsfeld to a whole different level of discussion.POWERdoes not only play a role when it comes to seizing
power with other socio-political actors, like for instance other interest groups or institutional politics. Rather there is also the internal dimension where different ways of handling power dynamics do not necessarily reflect the external attitude. Yet another interesting perspective underlining the relevance of power is offered by Timothy Luchies who calls for a new set of principles among activists but also researchers of social movements. His scope mainly being to uncover hidden power structures that affect theoretical conceptualizations as well as social movement struggles (cf. Luchies, 2015, pp. 529–31).
Context
This dimension for Susen himself mostly reflects the epoch that the respective movements belong to. He naturally identifies them as either early modernity for the old movements or late or post-modernity for the new ones. He emphasizes that both of these movements in their context work as “both products and producers” of that time and society (Susen, 2015, p. 188). This in fact reflects his notion of a historical shift having taken place, by seeing the movements as not merely reacting to the circumstances but also constituting these. Especially given the controversy of the debates around modernity and post-modernity with defined definitions and blurry time periods such a position seems questionable. Discussing Context as a Spannungsfeld means showing awareness about the ambivalence of the discourse. It is the dimension that exemplifies that proposition of this thesis of using (post-)modern perspectives in their unity for social movement studies. Instead of aligning movements according to these theoretical categories, it enables the researcher to thoroughly explore the context of a movement. Therefore, this approach can reflect on a movement's contribution in constructing a context beyond the identification of whether it is taking place in modernity or post-modernity.
The relevance for the (post-)modern is then evident. Contextrefers back to the question of where are we now used here to introduce the debate to begin with. While post-modernists claim that modernity “[has] exhausted itself” (Sim, 2010, p. 6), modernists clearly challenge this (cf. Seidman, 1994, p. 1). Many observers, however, see a discrepancy between post-modern theoretical ideas and the real-life context. For instance, Handler underlines that the post-modern idea of grand narratives is not reflected in the ideological dominance of liberal capitalism, religious fundamentalism, but also newly rising nationalism that can be observed all over the world: “The postmodernists defend their position with the claim, 'But there are no Grand Narratives.' However, the opposition is not playing that game. […] When we look around, everyone else is operating as if there were Grand Narratives.” (Handler, 1992, p. 726). Similarly, Poldervaart observes that “[t]here is a difference between postmodern theories and the dominant modern practices” (2001, pp. 153–54).
post-modern. Because all these arguments are not of further interest as the proposition developed here is concerned with the analytical concepts of (post-)modernity. The
Zwischenraum of Contextis exemplary of the key argument. The context of a movement is crucial whatever era it might be grouped into. It is therefore more expedient to pick up the notion that contexts and environments are necessarily constructed by the actors involved in them. Additionally, when doing that, the Spannungsfelder approach implies that in particular in periods of change the constitution of contexts is complex. It might include ambiguities that cannot be identified when only focusing on labeling it.
Means of online communication and organization are an example of developments that contribute substantially to change. They should be taken into account with regards to studying social movements (as indeed is being done) and used as a contextualizing factor (cf. e.g. Dolata & Schrape, 2016; Earl, Hunt, Garrett, & Dal, 2015). It does not by itself have to be indicative of only ruptures with past movements which did not have that technological means yet. Once again, one can also consider level of analysis regarding Context. T h e Spannungsfeld is concerned with the circumstances social movements are confronted with. But it could also explore the difference between their own contextualization and the theoretical one attributed to them. Different kinds of social movements have been identified through and throughout the different theoretical perspectives. Discussing social movements as class, political movements, SMO, grassroots or network, just to mention a few, does make a difference. The self-understanding and defining character of a movement will impact on its targets as well as its position to other actors it is encountering in its arena of action.
Another example for the Zwischenraum established here could be the approach Barker et al. (cf. 2013) take when attempting to bring Marxist perspectives back into social movements studies. In one of the chapters, Hetland and Goodwin analyze the
Strange Disappearance of Capitalism from Social Movement Studies. They do that
used reflectively.
A (Post-)Modern Perspective on Contemporary Social Movements
The previous set of binary tensions developed into Spannungsfelder presents the multi-layered attempt at the heart of this thesis. Firstly, to take a less dichotomous perspective on the discussions around (post-)modernity. Secondly, to link such a perspective to current debates in social movement studies. It has been pointed out that this connection is relevant for various reasons.
On the one hand, modern and post-modern arguments continue to be exchanged and counterposed with only few exceptions offering alternative paths when it comes to discussing the current situation of presentness. Tulea and Krausz, still from the peak of post-modern claims, argue that “[t]here is a need for fundamentally new conceptualizations to explain the dynamic and changing, yet continuing, flow of human societal life” (1993, p. 218). This call is still valid, as the fluidity and dynamic of human
societal life has not decreased. Moreover, apart from marginal attempts at establishing a post-post-modern condition, no convincing theoretical frameworks have been presented.
At the same time, social movement studies have had their share of post-modern theorizing with the emergence of the NSM paradigm. Still, that paradigm does not reflect the ambiguities of the post-modern debate and thus reinforces the divide. In addition, there are increasing voices questioning not only the newness of NSMs but also the ability of the traditional theoretical conceptualizations to grasp contemporary developments. All of these approaches, like behavioralist, RMT, PPM and NSMs, take different perspectives regarding the level of analysis or the elements of movements taken as most central. But they have all been extensively used in analyzing social movements. Still, this is not to say that social movement conceptualizations stayed the same over the past 20 years and were not adapted at all.
