Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
and methods
Theorie et methodes
Alberto Melucci
1. The theoretical
impasse
-2
199
200
totalitarian order and the emergence of Stalinism are, it is maintained, not the necessary consequences of Leninism, but certainly
the outgrowth of its presuppositions. Marxist reflection is beginning to become aware of these limitations and to reexamine the
theoretical foundations from which they arise. The debate which
developed in the 1970s within Marxism has shown that the major
source of difficulty on the theoretical level is the separation of
analysis of the system from analysis of the actors. As an analysis of
the mode of capitalist production, Marxism defines the conditions
under which the system enters a state of crisis. As a theory of
revolution, it lacks the analytic instruments required for defining
the actors and political forms of socio-economic transformation.
In order to extricate itself from this theoretical impasse, the
Marxist tradition must, therefore, move from a structural analysis
of class relations and of the logic of the capitalist system towards a
definition, first, of class action, and, then, of political action.
Reflection on social movements is a crucial theoretical issue that
be avoided.
American sociology, for its part, has tackled the subject of social
movements from the point of view of collective behaviour, i.e. of
the whole spectrum of types of behaviour ranging from the panic to
changes in fashion, from crowd behaviour to the revolution. Much
empirical research on the various ways in which people conduct
themselves in groups has gone into the development and support of
theories of this kind. Studies of collective behaviour thus constitute
an obligatory point of reference; but, at the same time, they display
the limitations of an approach which finds the key to the explanation of behaviour in the beliefs of the actors and which, above all,
places on the same level phenomena whose structural significance
varies immensely, for example, a panic and a revolution. The difference between them, according to these theories, lies solely in the
magnitude of the beliefs which mobilize the respective actions. Collective action, therefore, is always considered to be the result of a
strain which disturbs the equilibrium of the social system. It is this
strain which gives rise to the generalized beliefs which are the
source of the different types of collective behaviour and whose goal
is the restoration of equilibrium. In the analysis of the theorists of
collective behaviour, no reference is made to class relations or to
the mode of the production and appropriation of resources. The
whole inquiry turns on adaptive reactions in the mechanisms which
ensure the smooth functioning of the system.
can not
201
In advanced capitalist societies, social movements have challenged the optimistic models which foresaw a gradual modernization
taking place without rupture in the existing political and social
systems. In explaining social movements, however, we can no
longer be satisfied with analyses which are confined either to the
logic of capitalist development or to dysfunctions in the systems
integrative mechanisms. The current debate reveals the necessity
of a sociology of collective action which is capable of linking actors
and system, class relations and incidents of conflict.
The theoretical question raised by the analysis of the social
movements found in advanced capitalist societies is that of determining if we are now confronted with a new series of class conflicts. Beyond the interest one might take in the novelty of the
forms and aims of the collective action under discussion, the central problem of a sociology of social movements remains the definition of the conditions under which a class movement can appear. In
the present essay I shall not attempt to provide a satisfactory
answer to this general question. Instead, I shall try to advance a few
steps in the study of these problems by combining theoretical
reflection with some empirical observations on the new social
movements.
. t , .
=, ..
.~
,
,
&dquo;
2. An analytic definition
... , . ,
,
In order to leave the rather barren and undifferentiated field of collective behaviour, it is necessary, at the start, to distinguish different types of behaviour. There are some kinds that I do not consider as belonging, properly speaking, to the field of collective action and of social movements. These may be termed examples of
crisis behaviour or (as others call it) of aggregative behaviour
(Alberoni, 1977). What we have in mind here are those ways of
behaving in groups which (a) do not involve solidarity among the
actors; (b) in which the phenomenon can be decomposed down to
the limit of the individual without losing its distinguishing
characteristics and properties; and (c) in which, finally, the
behaviour is oriented exclusively toward the exterior and does not
refer to the group itself. Collective phenomena of this kind are the
response to the breakdown of the social system in a given area and
result from the simple aggregation of atomized individuals,
facilitated by the diffusion of a generalized belief, in the sense in
202
pirical object.
It should be noted that the second condition is subordinate to the
first. The dimension of what may be termed behaviour &dquo;breaking
off the limits of the system being considered&dquo; can enter the analysis
only if the first condition, the existence of a conflict, is fulfilled. In
this case only can one speak of a social movement. By contrast, the
mere existence of a conflict is not enough to qualify an action as a
social movement. If the conflict does not go beyond the limits of
the political or organizational system under consideration, then one
is dealing, rather, with political competition or a conflict of interests
within a given normative framework. I believe that the term
conflict-based action best corresponds to this type of behaviour.
On the other hand, the fact that rules are broken or that norms are
203
rejected is not sufficient to identify a social movement; for the latrequires a struggle between two actors seeking the same thing. If
it is solely a question of the breaking of rules, we may speak of deviance, in the proper sense of the word. In deviant types of
ter
behaviour there is a total absence of direct conflict between two acfor the control of some specific resource or value. The actor is
defined by his marginality vis-A-vis a system of norms and reacts to
the control they exercise without challenging their legitimacy, that is
to say, without identifying a social adversary and without indicating what is at stake in his struggle.
The general categories of collective action ought now to be
specified with respect to the different levels of the social structure
Melucci, 1976,
(class relations, political systems, role systems
1977). One may speak of conflict-based organizational action or
conflict-based political action when a conflict occurs within the
limits of a given organization or political system. One may not,
however, speak of a class conflict-based action (in the sense given
here to the term conflict-based action), because, by definition, action undertaken by a class goes beyond the institutional limits of
the system and challenges its fundamental relationships. Since it attacks the foundations of the mode of production, action undertaken by a class always lies, as it were, beyond the norms of the
social organization and the rules of the political game.
As far as social movements are concerned, it is necessary first of
all to consider organizational movements. The types of collective
behaviour found in this case are situated at the level of a given
social organization and are directed against the power governing a
system of norms and roles. The action aims at a different division
of resources, a functional adaptation of the organization, and a
redistribution of roles. But, at the same time, it tends to transgress
the institutional limits of the organization and to go beyond its normative framework. The conflict leaves the organization and moves
toward the political system. Political movements are collective actions which tend to enlarge political participation, and to improve
the relative position of the actor in the societys decision processes.
But political movements do not act strictly within the existing
political system; they seek to surpass the system by opening new
channels for the expression of political demands and by pushing
participation beyond the limits foreseen for it.
The fundamental theoretical problem, however, is that of class
movements. Analytically, I define as collective actions which aim at
tors
204
the appropriation and orientation of social production (Touraine,
1973). The analytic nature of the definition indicates that no concrete social movement can be reduced purely to the demands made
by a given class; for collective action is always situated within a
given political and organizational framework. It is therefore
necessary to consider two theoretical questions, that of the articulation of the types of class behaviour in a system of roles and in a
political system; and that of the empirical criteria appropriate for
identifying class behaviour.
In an organization, the power which imposes the norms, which
assigns the statuses and roles, and which maintains an equilibrium
between the functioning of the internal mechanisms and exchange
with the environment is never a simple functional authority. Power
in an organization is a transcription of class relations and secures
their reproduction. One may therefore speak of a class organizational movement when the collective action within an organization
not only goes beyond the limits of the organization and contests its
norms but also attacks the source itself of power. What is then called into question is the link between the organization and the interests of the dominant class, specifically, the gearing of the
organizations functioning (which is supposedly neutral) in such a
way that it best serves these interests.
In the political system, the existence of class relations is
manifested by the defense of the limits of the political game, which
is not allowed to disturb the bases of domination, as well as by the
hegemonic control granted to the political forces, which act in a
more direct manner in defending the interests of the dominant
class. Class political movements are collective actions which not
only aim at enlarging political participation, but which also directly
challenge the hegemony of the dominant political forces and their
link with class interests.
It seems difficult to speak of class movements in the pure state,
without any mediation by the political system or by the social
organization. All the same, I believe that the present situation offers us a glimpse of transformations which are beginning to occur
without the aid of such mediation, and I shall treat this topic at
greater length below. In societies which are characterized by a low
level of differentiation, and in which the state played a fundamental role in unification and centralization, social movements could
not be expressed without the mediation of a collective action linked
to the social organization or to the political system. The growing
205
differentiation of society and the increased autonomy of the different systems which constitute it tend to bring about the separation of class action from its institutional or organizational mediation. One thus witnesses the appearance of nascent pure movements which raise the problem of the control of collective resources
(nature, the body, interpersonal relations) in directly cultural
terms. The lack of any mediation at all also reveals the weakness of
these movements. Nevertheless, they seem to anticipate, in an embryonic fashion, the possibility of wildcat class movements which
will refuse all mediation within the political or organizational
spheres. (Figure 1 illustrates the dimensions of collective action.)
FIGURE 1
Dimensions of collective action
206
207
(d) It is only at this point that one should consider the way in which
the actors define their action, particularly how they define
themselves as a group and how they identify the adversary and the
stakes involved in the conflict. A class movement tends to describe
the situation, in the language of its cultural system, as a struggle
between he who produces the social resources and he who appropriates them for himself. The stakes in this struggle will always
be, whether directly or indirectly, the control and the distribution
of these resources, that is to say, of the societys mode of production.
One can make the same observations from a different perspective
by analyzing the variations in the dimensions of the conflict
(Oberschall, 1973) as one moves from organizational movements
to political movements, and then on to class movements (see Figure
2). First of all, with respect to the stakes involved in a conflict, one
may assume the existence of an increasing symbolic content and a
decreasing divisibility of the stakes. A class movement fights for
stakes which always directly concern the identity of the actors. Here
it is not simply a matter of material resources or immediate advantages, but also of an orientation of the social production, of a
determination to institute a distribution of the social resources different from the particular one effected by the dominant class. For
this same reason, the more an action turns into a class movement,
the less the stakes are divisible or negotiable. Conflicts within an
organization or within the political system more easily allow the
adoption of partial strategies and partial negotiations. Another
characteristic that should be considered in this connection is the
decreasing reversibility of the conflicts as one moves from
organizational movements to class movements. The resolution of
conflicts becomes all the more difficult as the stakes grow in importance for the groups concerned. Another result is that the
calculability of the situation is diminished. The relationship between costs and benefits is clearer and the calculation of the consequences of the different courses of action is easier when the stakes
are more directly quantifiable and the solutions are predictable.
Finally, the conflict tends toward a zero-sum resolution the nearer
one comes to class movements. In the confrontations between
classes the stakes are not divisible, and the victory of one adversary
means the defeat of the other. This does not happen in organizations and in the political system; for there each party can hope for
208
209
relative im-
With these few remarks I have tried to suggest a method for dealthe subject rather than to develop a systematic scheme.
Within the complexity of empirical behaviour, class action is
always intertwined with other significations and other issues. It is
no accident that the dominant class always tends to deny the existence of class actions and to alter and diminish their meaning
either by labelling them as deviant or by placing them within the
framework of organizational or political problems. Analysis ought,
on the contrary, to treat collective action as a sign and to decipher
its multiple significations.
ing with
4. The
We
origins
of
class movement
movement
210
nature
positive
or
211
212
of labour and in the comof the system reduces this control, the relationship breaks
down and reciprocal recognition disappears. Each party recognizes
its own works but refuses to extend such recognition to the other
party, tending, instead, to identify itself with the totality of the
social field.
Classes are born, therefore, in the form of groups struggling to
appropriate and orient social production. Their antagonism, unbalanced by the relation dominant group-dominated group, sets its
stamp on the structure of the social system and is the source of collective action.
manent. When an increase in the division
plexity
I B
T~
..
.,
change
_, .
~.
~.
-.
213
214
All the same, a concrete society does not coincide with a particular mode of production, nor does it live only synchronously.
Class relations manifest themselves in a political system and in
the forms of social organization. In a real society, synchronic opposition between classes does not give rise to pure types of
behaviour; it must be deciphered in the societys history. As for the
dominant class, its share in synchronic antagonism takes the form
of a systemic action; only rarely manifest in a direct action, it is
much more frequently expressed through the application of the instruments of social integration. The dominant class intervenes
directly only when there exists an explicit threat to the system of
domination. Normally, its action is evident in categories of social
practice, in the control of ideology, and in repressive manipulation.
More important in this connection is the identification of those
forms of behaviour of the dominated classes which indicate the
synchronic presence of conflict. Here I am referring to forms of
action which - before, or indepedently of a collective mobilization
against class domination - are the embryonic testimony of a scission in the society, evidence of the dominant class failure to impose total unity on the society. These forms of resistance, which
215
may appear in the work situation, in an individuals refusal, or in
popular culture and folklore, are what I shall call deviant symptoms of conflict or symbolic elaborations of latent conflict. The deviant character and the flight into the realm of the symbolic are obviously dependent on the much more powerful opposing action of
the apparatus of domination, which constantly impedes, blocks,
and represses all manifest expression of class antagonism. The
presence of these symptoms allows us to assert the synchronic existence of conflict before, and independently of, the appearance
of those forms of behaviour which, through the necessary mediation of the political system and of the organiztion, openly translate
class conflict in a concrete society.
We have now arrived at the central problem. How does one pass
from a structural conflict to diachornic forms of behaviour rooted
in a political system and in an historical society. The necessity of
controlling conflict obliges the system of domination to intervene
constantly at the different levels of the social structure in order to
hold conflict on them within limits compatible with the fundamental class relations. External factors (increase in the volume of exchanges, changes in the environment) are also elements of disequilibrium that must be controlled because of the effects they may
have on the state of the class relations. The action of the exogenous
elements is therefore never direct. Instead, it affects the system to
the degree that it can unbalance the societys class relations. Hence
external factors also provoke actions at the different levels of the
system, actions which are designed to keep the resulting effects
within the respective limits of compatibility at each level. It is thus by
means of adaptation that internal changes in the political system
and/or the social organization are generated, together with a certain modernization of the relations of production. Disturbances in
216
It is necessary at this point to formulate the concept of contradiction more precisely. The significance of structural incompatibility varies according to the level at which it occurs. One may
speak of incompatibility within a given level of society, of incompatibility between levels, and of incompatibility with respect to
class relations. In the first two cases, the contradiction does not
directly affect the class relations. Elements of the political system
and/or of the social organization come into contradiction with
themselves and can mobilize behaviour aimed at reestablishing a
new equilibrium within these systems. In the third case, elements of
the political system and/or of the social organization come into
contradiction with the class relations and mobilize behaviour
originating within these systems which threatens the structure itself
of the class relations. It is in this perspective that the different types
of movements defined at the beginning of this essay must be considered.
We must now turn to the analysis of the relationship between collective action and change. The forms of collective behaviour
originating in certain contradictions come up against a certain state
of the structure (the situation of class relations, the state of the
political system and of the social organization). Collective action
which takes place in these different states can create new contradictions (incompatibilities). There thus exists a second stage in the
response made by the system of domination. This new intervention
can take the form of modernization, of reform, or of repression.
One basic type of response is the development of the forces of production.
At this point, the process may terminate with the absorbtion of
the collective thrust, that is to say, with the introduction of new internal changes. Or else, given the presence of certain determinate
conditions (i.e. of certain structural states), the system may prove
to be incapable of absorbing change. Failure of the political system
to open itself up, a crisis in the social organization, and the formation of new groups linked to a nascent mode of production: these
are factors which can bring about the transition from one structure to another, which is to say that they can cause structural
change. This transition can occur through a sharp break in continuity or in a much smoother fashion, depending on the specific
,
conditions prevailing at the time.
With these few remarks I have merely sketched out a theoretical
approach to the problem. I may conclude by observing that collec-
217
tionship.
6. The
new
social movements
218
taking
root.
I
219
The new social movements are struggling, therefore, not only for
the reappropriation of the material structure of production, but
also for collective control over socio-economic development, i.e.,
for the reappropriation of time, of space, and of relationships in
the individuals daily existence. The new forms of class domination
are identified less and less with real social groups and are starting to
share the impersonal character of the various institutions. The new
conflicts and the new movements are not manifested in the action
of a single class, in the sense of a social group identified by a particular culture and way of life. In mass society, in which cultural
models and ways of life tend to become homogenous, conflicts
mobilize the categories and groups which are most directly affected
by the manipulation of socio-economic development. The absence
of a leading actor, however, does not mean that these conflicts have
lost the character of class struggle.
A certain number of characteristics shared by the recent forms of
collective action (Touraine, 1974, 1975; Pizzorno, 1975) seem to
confirm this hypothesis, which sees in the appropriation of identity
the key to understanding the new movements. There is, first of all,
the end of the separation between public and private spheres. Those
areas which were formerly zones of private exchanges and rewards
(sexual relations, interpersonal relations, biological identity) have
become stakes in various conflict situations and are now the scene
of collective action. At the same time, the field of the public and
political is subjected to the pressure of individual needs and
demands. Birth and death, illness and aging have all become critical
points capable of mobilizing collective action. These subjects have
entered the realm of public conflict and have become,
simultaneously, objects whose reappropriation is claimed by
various groups. Sexuality and the body, leisure, consumer goods,
ones relationship to nature
these are no longer loci of private
rewards but areas of collective resistance, of demands for expression and pleasure which are raised in opposition to the instrumental
rationality of the apparatuses of order.
A second characteristic to be noted is the superposition of deviance and social movements. When domination impinges on daily
life, on the rules of existence, and on ways of life, opposition
necessarily takes the form of marginality and of deviance.Advanced societies are witnessing the proliferation of agencies charged
with handling social demands and needs which might generate
conflict: public intervention tends to absorb strains and reduce con-
220
221
new
movements.
These characteristics are found in various forms in many contemporary movements. I cannot, within the limits of this essay,
undertake an analysis of the specific issues which are essential in
the different movements. I shall restrict myself to indicating two
issues which seem to me to play a fundamental role in several contemporary movements. The first element is the centrality of the
body, for example, in the womens, youth, and homosexual
movements, as well as in the counter-cultural practices which contrast the body to what is often a stereotyped political discourse.
This phenomenon seems to me to possess a multiple significance. In
it we encounter, first of all, the notion of the body as a part of
nature, i.e. the realization that man is a part of nature and
therefore has the possibility of experiencing this body as a basic
dimension of existence and not as a fall; and this implies, at the
same time, the possibility of taking possession of the nature which
he is. Then there is the notion of the body as the seat of desires,i.e.
the acceptance of drives and deep-rooted needs as aspects of daily
existence and not as obscure forces of evil. Finally, there is the notion of the body as the nexus of interpersonal relationships, i.e. the
discovery of communication and of affectivity, which sexuality expresses and manifests. The body in its different significations
becomes the cultural locus of resistance and of desire; it stands opposed to rationalization and it authorizes delirium.
But the body is, at the same time, an object upon which the concerted integrative and manipulative efforts of the system of
domination are focused. A medicalized sexuality entrusted to the
experts, a body which has become a scientific object, an eros
reified in the rules of fashion and in the exigences of industry: advanced capitalism requires the notion of such a body, a body as object, deprived of its libidinal and aggressive charge, of its capacity
for eros and delirium. The body becomes a resource for use in the
production of merchandise and in social reproduction. Its demands
must be satisfied, provided that they are compatible with the exigences of economic and social development and that they do not
impede the advance of controlled rationalization. The body as
libido must be neutralized and deprived of its potential to menace
the system. There is no place for play and for eros, but only for the
regulated pleasure of a sexuality which has become a kind of gymnastic training for orgasm.
_
222
The second element which seems to me to be fundamental in
many movements is the presence of what I shall call a regressive
sociology
of social movements?
223
social raw material, in contrast to a social realm which penetrates
all aspects of life in society. But there can be no doubt that we are
dealing with a cultural definition of needs, and more specifically
with the form given by post-industrial culture to the new demands
created by the new structure of production. The body, desire, the
unconscious, identity: these are modes of social representation of
that domain which, in the individual, resists domination and rationalization. Hence, this recovery of nature is, at the same time,
the realization that the nature which we are belongs to us, that it is
not external to social action. And this means that it can be
employed in a manner contrary to the one preferred by the existing
order and its apparatus of rationalization. This explains the ambiguity of the notion of nature and of needs which is found in the
new movements: it signifies both the rejection of a social realm
manipulated and controlled by the apparatus of the existing order
(the cultural image of the spontaneity and purity of primary needs)
and the assertion of the social realm as the locus of action which
consciously produces mans existence and his relations with other
men (demand concerning the right to life, to pleasure, and to
desire).
Sociology is marked by this same ambivalence. On the one hand,
it creates a conscious awareness of the way a society produces itself
and maintains, against the heritage of metaphysics and of the
philosophies of history, that social action produces social systems.
But, on the other hand, when it is not a mere apology for the existing order, it takes the side of movements for change. It translates
their languages and problems, and it is often engaged in their struggles. I do not intend to enter here upon the debate about the role of
sociology. I shall simply point out two important tasks for
sociological reflection.
A sociology of class relations and of social movements must, in
the first place, seek to develop an understanding of changes in the
mode of production in advanced capitalist societies with a view to
better defining the novelty of the issues raised by these movements.
But it is even more necessary for it to pursue theoretical research on
classes and the conflicts between them. The problem brought up at
the start of the present essay is, I believe, of fundamental importance. If class relations are original features of society, if there exists no analytic space which precedes them, then the theoretical
possibility of raising the question of change in these relations is
eliminated. And in this case, the question of the possibility of a
224
225
sion which in fact belongs to them in a programmed society. In
other words, it is necessary to show that these problems are what
are really at the heart of the new class conflicts.
This task, however, demands a considerable effort on the
theoretical plane, as well as the elaboration of methods of analysis
and of ways of acting directly in the social realm. It is necessary
carefully to scrutinize the various aspects of the movements so as to
distinguish between what pertain to the new class conflicts and
what derives from organizational disputes and political struggles. It
is equally necessary, though, to scrutinize the heritage of the
categories and methods of a number of different disciplines
(sociology, anthropology, psychology, and psychoanalysis) in
order to elaborate suitable ways for the sociologist to intervene in
the ambiguous territory of the new social movements.
References
Aalberoni, F.
1977 Movimentoe istituzione.
Bologna,
11 Mulino.
Davies, J. C.
1962
"Toward
study of revolution
and violence",
Violence
in
America. New
Gurr, T. R.
1970 Why men rebel. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.
Comparative
226
Melucci,
A.
Oberschall,
conflict
and social
movements.
Olson, M.
1968
Pizzorno,
The
logic of collective
action.
A.
(Unplublished paper.)
Smelser, N. J.
1963
1968
Prentice-Hall.
Tilly, C.
Press.
Touraine, A.
1973 Production de la socrete. Paris, Seuil.
1974 Pour la socrologre. Paris, Seuil.
1975 "Les nouveaux conflits sociaux", Sociologie du Travail 1.