The Blackwell Companion to Sociology (69 page)

izational forms ± both formal and informal ± is thus critical for movement

stability and innovation.

Social Movement Politics and Organization

291

Continuity in movement organizations can also function as an `àbeyance

structure'' (Taylor, 1989) that maintains movement ideology when political

conditions become restrictive. For example, the contemporary US women's

movement benefited from the feminist commitment and activist identities main-

tained by a small group of women involved in the National Women's Party in the

1940s and 1950s (Taylor, 1989). Available social networks, provided by tradi-

tional women's associations, and relationships among younger feminists forged

in the civil rights and new left student movements, were also critical in promoting ideological continuity and movement emergence. Although informal net-

works can also function as abeyance structures, formal movement organizations,

to the extent that they establish a resource niche, may be less vulnerable to

political downturns, so that even as protest declines they can survive as a locus for future activism (Minkoff, 1997b).

I want to draw attention to two additional functions of formal SMOs

that have not received much attention, largely because they shade over

into discussions of culture and collective identity. And, as I noted earlier, collective identity approaches tend to overlook the importance of formal organization.

As I have argued elsewhere with respect to the USA (Minkoff, 1997b), the

intentional visibility of national social movement organizations and their

efforts at publicizing movement goals and activities are conducive to the

formation of a mediated form of collective identity among otherwise isolated

individuals. Contemporary social movements are more likely to represent groups

with ``weak infrastructures,'' such as women, the elderly, lesbians and gay men, the disabled, and peace or environmental activists. These groups are not necessarily constituted by, for example, shared patterns of daily life or even the

opportunity for face-to-face interactions through which to build solidarity or

shared cultures. In their absence, individuals are tied together by common

symbols and shared ideologies. That is, their relationship to each other is

mediated by the organizations and movements with which they affiliate (and

in which they may or may not participate). Importantly, national SMOs act as

carriers of these collective definitions and play a role in disseminating them more widely.

A final function is the role formal SMOs play in shaping and expanding the

public sphere by promoting debate on issues of concern to their constituencies.

In the process, these movement organizations raise questions about what con-

stitutes the public good and promote the diffusion of new ideas. So, for example, the activities of national civil rights organizations, public conflict between pro-choice and pro-life organizations, and efforts by environmental organizations

have put a diversity of issues onto the public stage, challenging the assumptions guiding social and material relations and, in some cases, even influencing legislative and policy change. The visibility of national organizations may also

contribute to the formation of ``counterpublic spheres'' in which subordinate

groups are able to debate and construct alternative analyses, collective identities, and agendas for action (Fraser, 1992). Even less directly active members have

access to these debates through a variety of media forms, such as movement-

affiliated newspapers and, increasingly, Internet resources such as web sites and 292

Debra C. Minkoff

``chatrooms,'' that can ground the kind of symbolic affiliation discussed briefly above.

Social Movement Organization, Politics, and Culture

The last two points about collective identity and the public sphere can be read as a step by a neo-resource mobilization analyst onto the terrain of culture and

identity. I want to suggest some additional ways in which analyses of movement

organization and institutionalization can benefit from increased attention to

questions raised by cultural approaches (broadly defined) and vice versa. To

date, synthetic efforts have emphasized the framing function of social movement

organizations (McAdam et al., 1996a), but we need more research on how

organizational structures and processes reproduce or enable conceptions of

legitimate action, the formation and maintenance of collective identities, and

innovations in broader cultural understandings about social movement politics.

Clemens's work on the cultural meanings embedded in, and conveyed by,

organizational forms represents one important direction for future research. If

the professional SMO form has, in fact, become so widespread and legitimate ±

i.e. acceptable for use by almost everyone ± what are the sources of further

innovation in both organizational and collective action repertoires? Do social

groups without the necessary resources to adopt this dominant model organize

nonetheless ± combining less familiar practices under the rubric of `òrganiza-

tion'' and, in the process, changing conceptions of what it means to participate in politics and civil society? These questions raise the need for more attention to how movement organizational forms become more conventional and widespread. Following Clemens, answers to these questions have potentially import-

ant consequences for the practices of social movements and institutional life

more generally.

A second line of inquiry builds on the question of how ideological commit-

ments delimit the choice of available organizational models and define how

groups understand the very purposes of strategy and organization. The accepted

view is that a radical social change orientation lines up with the use of informal, participatory organizational structures and that reform movements are more

likely to adopt the standard SMO model because they are motivated instrument-

ally rather than ideologically. However, as Francesca Polletta (1997) argues,

styles of decision-making havè`powerful symbolic connotations'' and what is

seen as the best way to organize is open to continual redefinition. It is not

sufficient, then, to simply posit a one-to-one relationship between organizational choices and ideological commitments without further research.

We also know much less than we should about how internal debates over

goals, strategies, and identities ± as well as their representations to a wider public

± are shaped by the structure of movement organizations in terms of governance,

administration, and the exigencies of resource procurement. We need to look at

internal organizational processes with the understanding that cultural practices and collective identities are not free-floating, but develop within structural

Social Movement Politics and Organization

293

parameters that prescribe patterns of interaction and modes of power. However,

there has been only limited attention by social movement researchers to the

organization±identity nexus and how this shapes activist identities and organizational projects (but see Gamson, 1996).

Finally, there is the question of the broader cultural significance of movement

organization and institutionalization. In arguing for the relevance of the growth and differentiation of movement-related organizations (a category that includes

formal SMOs and affiliated service or cultural organizations, self-help groups,

and other voluntary associations that serve the movement base), Meyer and

Tarrow (1998, p. 20) point out that organizational diffusion ``suggests ways in

which movement-originated identities, goals, and personnel may be blending

into the structures of civil society without necessarily producing a higher visible level of protest, violence or contention.'' That social movements and movement

organizations are more institutionalized does not ipso facto mean that political dissent is contained or that activism is not taking place outside of conventional political structures. We just need to know where to look for it, whether on the

more cultural terrain of civil society or in the organizational structures of thè`social movement society.''

Movement Organization in à`Global''

``Global'' World

In the account of movement organization and politics that I have presented here, organizations are discretely bounded and identifiable social units that mobilize (more or less) discretely bounded and identifiable social groups and target their activities toward (somewhat less) discretely bounded or identifiable targets. Yet, as recent scholarship suggests, social movements have become increasingly

transnational in scope, presenting unique conditions for resource mobilization

and the mobilization of protest (McAdam et al., 1996b). Thus, at the same time

that movements have become more institutionalized within national polities,

they have also begun to transcend national boundaries in ways that challenge the very concepts that have animated social movement research in the past three

decades ± organization, opportunities, and collective identity.

In considering the transnational dimensions of social movements, there is a

particular need to be clear about the object of study, which doesn't necessarily conform to our understanding of ``social movements.'' Constituencies are harder

to specify, as are targets and tactics that distinguish them as ``social movements,''

as opposed to, for example, advocacy campaigns or networks. If we are inter-

ested in something called à`transnational SMO,'' do we look for an

international SMO with national affiliates, an interorganizational network of

international non-governmental organizations (NGOs), or local movement

groups supported by international NGOs of some sort? A companion issue

is how we conceptualize the targets of transnational challenges ± are they

national states, transnational authorities, or global conventions? What kinds of organizational forms and strategies make sense given the nature and mix of

targets?

294

Debra C. Minkoff

We also need to rethink the meaning and role of collective identity and

cultural-institutional constraints. My earlier discussion of the way that formal movement organizations influence collective identity processes implies the

hypothesis that there are correspondingly new forms of mediated collective

identities that bridge interested individuals across political and social space.

But if what gives social movements their distinctive character is the presence of interpersonal bonds of some sort (McAdam et al., 1996b), we need to understand the ability of movements to build such connections in a sustainable way.

And if ``logics of appropriateness'' determine which groups can legitimately

deploy specific organizational forms, what are the sources of such conventions

and how do they influence transnational movement activists as they try to

establish organizations both locally and across national domains?

Social movement scholars have recently begun to address the theoretical and

practical complexities of organizing in a transnational context, as well as the

difficulties inherent in challenging political systems where modes of dissent have become less spontaneous and more institutionalized. It is clear that we need

additional research ± that which takes movement organization seriously and that

which takes up the meaning of `òrganization'' as both a structural and cultural

phenomenon. Perhaps less obvious is the need for such research to be more

explicitly interdisciplinary, both within sociology and across the social sciences and humanities. Such a suggestion is certainly not novel, but it has been recently muted by debates within the social movement field over the relative importance

of culture (identity, emotions) versus structure (political opportunities, organizations) (see the exchange following Goodwin and Jasper, 1999). But just as

tactical and organizational innovation come from mixing familiar forms with

unfamiliar actors, future social movement research is likely to benefit from work that mixes the accepted wisdom about resources, opportunities, and identities

with concepts and theories located in less familiar disciplines and subdisciplines.

Despite the professional constraints posed by disciplinary organization, intellectual spontaneity is nonetheless possible.

Part VI

Structures: Stratification,

Networks, and Firms

21

Occupations, Stratification, and

Mobility

Donald J. Treiman

Introduction

Social stratification refers to the unequal distribution of the rewards society has to offer and the resources individuals and families use to obtain such rewards.

Conceptually we can summarize both the rewards and resources under the

rubrics of power, privilege, and prestige; but, in practice, most research on social stratification is concerned with the distribution of, and relations among, education, occupational status, and income, both between generations and over the

life course of individuals. There are two reasons for this. First, it is difficult to directly study power, privilege, and prestige. Power is difficult to measure and its measurement is seldom attempted. The prestige of individuals depends on a

combination of personal characteristics and ``deference entitlements'' (objective status characteristics), but personal characteristics are salient only in the context of interpersonal relations; there is, however, a well developed tradition of