Over the last twenty years, resource mobilization theory has become the dominant paradigm for studying collective action in the United States. With its characteristic premises of
rational actors engaged in instrumental action through formal organization to secure resources
and foster mobilization, this paradigm has demonstrated considerable theoretical and empirical merit for understanding social movements (McCarthy and Zald 1977; Tilly 1978). More
recently, however, some have questioned the utility of this perspective for understanding at
least some kinds of movements and constituencies, while others have lodged important criticisms against this approach (Buechler 1993). These developments have created an intellectual
space for complementary or alternative perspectives for analyzing social movements. One
such alternative is social constructionism, which brings a symbolic interactionist approach to
the study of collective action by emphasizing the role of framing activities and cultural
processes in social activism (Snow and Benford 1992; Gamson 1992; Hunt, Benford, and
Snow 1994). This article examines another alternative to the resource mobilization perspective that has come to be known as new social movement theory. In what follows, I describe
this perspective, summarize the work of some of its major theorists, discuss the central debates associated with it, offer a distinction between political and cultural versions of the theory, and provide an assessment of this paradigm for understanding collective action.
New social movement theory is rooted in continental European traditions of social theory
and political philosophy (Cohen 1985; Klandermans 1991; Klandermans and Tarrow 1988;
Larana, Johnston, and Gusfield 1994). This approach emerged in large part as a response to
the inadequacies of classical Marxism for analyzing collective action. For new social movement theorists, two types of reductionism prevented classical Marxism from adequately grasping contemporary forms of collective action. First, Marxism's economic reductionism
presumed that all politically significant social action will derive from the fundamental eco-nomic logic of capitalist production and that all other social logics are secondary at best in
shaping such action. Second, Marxism's class reductionism presumed that the most significant social actors will be defined by class relationships rooted in the process of production and
that all other social identities are secondary at best in constituting collective actors (Canel
1992). These premises led Marxists to privilege proletarian revolution rooted in the sphere of
production and to marginalize any other form of social protest. New social movement theorists, by contrast, have looked to other logics of action based in politics, ideology, and culture
as the root of much collective action, and they have looked to other sources of identity such as
ethnicity, gender and sexuality as the definers of collective identity. The term "new social
movements" thus refers to a diverse array of collective actions that have presumably displaced
the old social movement of proletarian revolution associated with classical Marxism. Even
though new social movement theory is a critical reaction to classical Marxism, some new
social movement theorists seek to update and revise conventional Marxist assumptions while
others seek to displace and transcend them.
Despite the now common usage of the term "new social movement theory," it is a misnomer if it implies widespread agreement among a range of theorists on a number of core premises. It would be more accurate to speak of "new social movement theories," with the
implication that there are many variations on a very general approach to something called new
social movements. As a first approximation to this general approach, however, the following
themes may be identified. First, most strands of new social movement theory underscore
symbolic action in civil society or the cultural sphere as a major arena for collective action
alongside instrumental action in the state or political sphere (Cohen 1985; Melucci 1989).
Second, new social movement theorists stress the importance of processes that promote autonomy and self-determination instead of strategies for maximizing influence and power
(Habermas 1984-1987; Rucht 1988). Third, some new social movement theorists emphasize
the role of postmaterialist values in much contemporary collective action, as opposed to conflicts over material resources (Inglehart 1990; Dalton, Kuechler, and Burklin 1990). Fourth,
new social movement theorists tend to problematize the often fragile process of constructing
collective identities and identifying group interests, instead of assuming that conflict groups
and their interests are structurally determined (Hunt, Benford, and Snow 1994; Johnston,
Larana, and Gusfield 1994; Klandermans 1994; Melucci 1989; Stoecker 1995). Fifth, new
social movement theory also stresses the socially constructed nature of grievances and ideology, rather than assuming that they can be deduced from a group's structural location (Johnston, Larana, and Gusfield 1994; Klandermans 1992). Finally, new social movement theory
recognizes a variety of submerged, latent, and temporary networks that often undergird collective action, rather than assuming that centralized organizational forms are prerequisites for
successful mobilization (Melucci 1989; Gusfield 1994; Mueller 1994). Many of these themes
signify a divergence from both classical Marxism and resource mobilization theory as well as
some points of convergence with social constructionism. But once again, various new social
movement theorists give different emphases to these themes and have diverse relations with
alternative traditions, thereby warranting a language that speaks of new social movement theories (in the plura
l) rather than a singular new social movement theory.
In summary, new social movement theory offers a departure from traditional Marxist and resource mobilization perspectives by emphasizing the importance of cultural, symbolic, and identity-based factors in understanding collective action. It recognizes the diverse and complex nature of contemporary social movements, highlighting the role of autonomy, self-determination, postmaterialist values, and the constructed nature of grievances and ideology. While there is not a single unified approach within new social movement theory, the general themes and perspectives it offers provide a valuable alternative lens for analyzing and understanding collective action in society.