THEORIES OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS AND THEIR CURRENT DEVELOPMENT IN SOVIET SOCIETY

Part 1. Theories of social movements

Theories of social movements are closely connected with the general problems of society's development. To analyse social movements separately, in abstraction from the social structure, is to limit the problem by superficial analysis, which is not fruitful and does not allow us to understand the nature of social movements. For that reason all the serious theories of social movements are based on general approaches to the principles of society's development.

The question of classification of the theories of social movements is complicated, as there are many points of view on this question. We consider that four main approaches can be distinguished and that these four approaches are:

1. 1. `collective behaviour' theory,
2. 2. `resource mobilisation' theory,
3. 3. `new social movements' interpretations,
4. 4. `the action-identity' approach.

Let us first consider briefly the characteristic of these four approaches.

`Collective behaviour' accounts are still recognised as an orthodoxy in studies of social movements. Among the followers of this approach we can name such Chicago school sociologists as Ralph Turner and Lewis Killian; Talcott Parsons and his structural functionalism, and Neil Smelser in whose Theory of collective behavior (1962) problems of social movements were clearly distinguished. The supporters of this approach consider social movements as semi-rational responses to abnormal conditions of structural strain between the maior societal institutions; that strain causes malfunctioning of the whole social system. Smelser explained the mechanism of the emergence of social movements. This mechanism includes as the steps of movement articulation:

general structural conduciveness
1. 2 generalised belief
2. 3 structural strain
3. 4 precipitating factors
4. 5 mobilisation of participants
5. 6 mechanisms of social control.

In general, according to the collective behaviour approach, social movements are the symptom and manifestation of a sick society. A healthy society does not have social movements, it has a conditional form of political and social participation.

`Mass society accounts' and `mass deprivation' accounts are close to the approach of `collective behaviour' but there are some differences. In their works Arendt and Kornhauser elaborated the mechanism of the emergence of social movement. According to their position, the normal or healthy society is characterised by strong class and group solidarities, which play the controlling function and prevent the manipulation of the people. But when this class or group solidarity becomes weak under the conditions of industrialisation and urbanisation, the processes of `massification' (`anomie', `atomisation', `rootlessness') begin. These uprooted and atomised masses become vulnerable to direct mobilising appeals by powerful elites and charismatic leaders. Totalitarian movements emerge as a result. The `mass deprivation' accounts (Gurr and others) add to the `collective behaviour' approach that a social movement is a `mild' (aborted, weak, undeveloped) form of revolutionary outbreak or an aspect of revolution.

The second main approach to the problems of social movements is the `resource mobilisation' approach. Among its exponents are Tilly, Zald, Ash, and Kitschelt. The `resource mobilisation' theorists point out that social movements are rational and novel responses to new situations and new opportunities in society. Movements are seen as innovative forms of political participation which create and tap new political resources available in modern democratic societies. They are treated as emerging pressure groups or as embryonic parties. Social movements are no longer seen as symptomatic of social malfunction or pathology. They appear as a part of the political process.

The third main approach is the `new social movements' approach (Habermas, Offe and others), which is similar, to my mind, to the `new values' approach (Cotgrove, Inglehart, and others). The `new social movements' interpretations treat social movements as both symptoms of, and solutions to, the contradictions inherent in the modern super-bureaucratic society. Social movements articulate the tension between the expanding spheres of human autonomy and growing regulation inherent in the logic of postindustrial development. This contradiction is reflected in new conflicts which, according to Habermas, "no longer arise in the areas of material reproduction; they are no longer channeled through parties and organisations...Rather, the new conflicts arise in areas of cultural reproduction, social integration and socialisation." (Habermas 1981: 34)

The main feature of social movements, according to `new social movements' theorists is their anti-state, anti-apparat turn of mind and action. New social movements, in contrast to old social movements, are produced by new contradictions of society, contradictions between individual and state. `New values' theorists also stress that the condition of economic prosperity and political stability experienced by the post-1945 cohorts in the West, allow them to de-emphasise material values and lead them to embrace post-materialist values, reflecting `higher' aesthetic, self-realisation, and creative needs. Inglehart's new values are essentially the anti-state contradictions identified by Habermas. These approaches change class interests (or transform them) into non-class but `universal human' interests.

The fourth and last approach is the `action-identity' paradigm. (The main representatives are Touraine, Castells). Touraine considers that social movements are far from abnormal or pathological. Social movements not only prevent social stagnation, but also promise social emancipation. The established institutional forms and the underlying norms of knowledge (cognitive rules) and investment against which movements erupt are seen as impositions of the ruling classes, that is, of groups that dominate the processes of socio-economic reproduction and shape social norms. All these class-related social forms of domination are challenged by social movements, which are the principal class counter-actors.

The old form of industrial capitalism, according to Touraine, is gradually replaced by a new postindustrial, `programmed' society with a fundamentally different pattern of class relations and class conflicts. In a programmed society the dominant class is the technocracy, and workers cease to be the main challengers of the status quo. The key class conflict is socio-cultural rather then socio-economic; it revolves around the control of knowledge and investment. A social movement is, in Touraine's words, "the organised collective behaviour of a class actor struggling against its class adversary for the social control of its historicity". (Touraine 1981: 77)

The many approaches to the explanation of the phenomenon of social movements suggests that no one of them is able to explain everything. All the approaches may be correct in their local sphere, but they either stress attention to specific types of social movements and consider them as universal or put all the attention on a single aspect of the phenomenon of social movements and ignore others. Different accents give diverse outcomes.

What can we say about the `collective behaviour' approach? It stresses the structural function of society and ignores its developing function. The normal state of society, according to Smelser, is the state where civil society completely correlates to social order. In practice, Smelser considers the situation when civil society does not develop. That is why the proponents of the `collective behaviour' approach assess the situation of society's development as abnormal. That is why the `collective behavior' approach considers social movements irrational and psychopathological. This approach cannot answer the question: `Why do dysfunctions emerge in the society?' But this approach is very successful in describing the mechanism of emergence and functioning of social movements during relatively stable stages of society's development. It is also very successful in describing the different biases in the process of emergence of social movements.

The `resource mobilisation' approach, by contrast, explains the causes of the emergence of a social movement as a reaction of society to new changes. It also explains in a successful way the nature of social movements as an attempt to renew the social order in correspondance with the new changes in society. But the explanation of the causes of the emergence of social movements has only a general character and does not touch the contents of this process. The `resource mobilisation' approach cannot answer the question, why and how do pathological social movements like fascism emerge and why do they lead society to self-destruction. This approach cannot explain the mechanism of emergence of social movements and ignores the principal differences between diverse types of social movements. Lastly, this approach cannot explain the existence of contradictions between social movements and the political system, which can lead to social explosions like revolution, harmful radical social change and the elimination of principal social actors and the old political system.

`New social movements', `new values' and `action-identity' approaches have one mutual foundation: the consideration that types of social movements depend on the stage of society's development. `New social movement' supporters define `old' social movements, which exist in industrial society, and `new' social movements, which exist in post-industrial society. The mechanisms of emergence of social movements according to this approach are:

definite type of society ---> definite type of social contradictions

The position of the `new values' approach does not touch class interests and deals with values. Industrial society has `old' values and post-industrial society has `new' values. When describing post-industrial societies and their social movements this is almost the same position as the `new social movements' approach.

The point of view of the `action-identity' approach is different. It also stresses differences between industrial and post-industrial societies, but does not abandon the framework of the class approach. It considers that classes in post-industrial society are different from those in industrial society, but they remain classes with material interests.

In order to explain the differences in these positions and demonstrate what they mean we must take into consideration that the transition from industrial to post-industrial society takes place over a long period of time, and any actually-existing western society has elements from both industrial and post-industrial societies. If the `action-identity' paradigm exaggerates the elements from industrial societiy and underestimate the elements of post-industrial society, then the position of the `new social movements' and `new values' approaches is reversed. So it is senseless to judge any approach to social movements as wrong or right in general. Each of these approaches can be appropriate to a definite social (and political) situation, to definite social and historical circumstances of society.

Let us draw some conclusions.

Each theory of social movements was developed for the analysis of a quite distinct kind of social movement. The `collective behaviour' approach analyses social movements of totalitarian type - fascist and communist. The `resource mobilisation' approach analyses movements for citizen rights of the 1960s and 1970s, groups of special interests (feminist, anti-nuclear and other movements of semi-integrated minorities). The `action-identity' approach analyses social and political movements of the end of the 1960s and 1970s: anti-nuclear mobilisations, student uprisings, urban protests. `New social movements' and `new value' approaches analyse movements of the 1970s and 1980s - ecological, anti-nuclear, feminist and others. The differences in the outcomes of researches in studying social movements we can explain in that different studies exaggerate some aspects, some peculiarities of these movements.
• 2. Which societies, and what stage of social development, do different approaches consider in their theories? The `collective behaviour' and `resource mobilisation' approaches ignore deep differences in societies in their explanation of social movements. Peculiarities of society are not accounted for. Each of the other three approaches takes into consideration the change between industrial and post-industrial societies, but they do it in a diversity of ways.
• 3. What is the understanding of the normal state of society? The `collective behaviour' approach considers as a normal state of society the stable functioning of an unchanging society. This approach can be very useful during the period when society is unambiguously at a stable stage of its development. The `resource mobilisation' approach considers as normal permanent stable development with constant small social changes but it ignores the possibility that society can be stable at definite stages. The `action-identity', `new social movements' and `new values' approaches in their analysis take into consideration both the moment of development (transition from industrial to post-industrial society) and the moment of stability.
• 4. What is the main cause of the emergence of social movements and what is their essence? The supporters of the `resource mobilisation' approach think that the social movement is the form of adaptation and accommodation of society that is the natural moment of development, as a reaction to changes, of a society without sharp contradictions. The `collective behaviour' approach connects the emergence of social movements with conflicts. When the society is healthy, it has no contradictions and all activity is channeled through conventional forms. The exponents of the `action-identity' approach stress the normal nature of social movements, but sharp contradictions exist always as the expression of different class interests. The `new social movements' and `new values' approaches do not, in any deterministic way, connect the emergence and activity of social movements either with conflicts or with the absence of conflicts. They stress the possibillity of both cases, although the `new social movements' approach is closer to the explanation of conflicts as a manifestation of social contradictions and the `new values' approach is closer to the opposite point of view.

We can put forward several considerations which can help to clarify some matters. Let us start with the consideration that society cannot exist without definite social structures (social order), which make social connections in civil society. Social order normally corresponds with civil society. Civil society and social order mutually affect each other, but the main role civil society plays is as a foundation to this connection.

If there is full correlation between civil society and social order then society realises its interests through conventional forms and there is no need of social movements. But full correlation between civil society and social order is a rare event. As a rule, there is always a small or large degree of discrepancy between civil society and social order. This discrepancy produces new social interests which are not incorporated by social order. And, on such bases, social movements emerge. Social movements emerge, then, as a reaction of society to the discrepancy between civil society and social order. Social movements are not only a reaction, but are also an attempt to change social order in correspondence with civil society.

Thus the nature of social movements and their main cause - the discrepancy between civil society and social order - produces new, unsatisfied social interests. As the social movements are the consequences of new elements of civil society which are not incorporated into the social order, they are always unconventional. Civil society is normally in a state of change, but social structures are stable by their nature or at least have a tendency to stability. That is why social movements almost always exist. If the discrepancy between civil society and social order is large, then social movements are strong and numerous. If the discrepancy is small, then social movements are weak and more conventional.

What is the content of the notion of `discrepancy between civil society and social order'? We think that correlation expresses in an adequate way positions of different social forces (that is groups of people, who have mutual interests and fight for them). Social interests are not necessarily class interests. They may be also national, religious, racial amongst others. The influence of these interests is not equal, it exists also in a changing relationship with the correlation of changes in civil society. Social forces which cannot find adequate expression of their influence in social order produce social movements with the aim of changing social order in their direction.

Thus, the main notion for understanding social movements is that of social interests which are not adequately incorporated into the social order. Different types of interests produce different types of social movements. In principle, one society can produce several different types of social movements, but usually there is one main type of movements corresponding to each type of society.

What are the main social interests in a particular society? It depends on the characteristics of civil society and on the stage of its development. For example, industrial society produces one type of interests, post-industrial another. The hierarchy of interests at different stages of society's development is also different. So, post-industrial society lowers the importance of class interests (as material interests lose their centrality) and increases the importance of other interests. We think that the contribution of the `new social movements' and `new values' approaches to this question is very valuable.

It is neccessary to make two observations. First of all, social interests which are not incorporated into a social order produce a social movement not directly but indirectly. Unsatisfied interests are a cause, base, or foundation for a social movement, but they do not constitute a sufficient condition. For a movement to emerge, groups of people with definite interests must become a social force, they must have a desire and an opportunity to battle for their interests. So, there are two stages in the process of emergence of social movements.

unsatisfied social interest ---> social force ---> social movement

This is only the principle of emergence of a social movement. The content of the mechanism of emergence was stated in a fruitful way by the `collective behaviour' approach. For different purposes the normal process of emergence of a social movement can be identified in one of two stages (above): interest --> force --> movement. Social force, for example, can become transformed into a movement autonomous from group interests. In this case the social movement will have an unpredictable character and large peculiarities. Such a social movement will be under the great influence of the personal characteristics of its leaders and activists. As a result, it can produce tendencies to extreme forms of activity and so on.

Secondly, strong political regimes, which have resources to repress social forces or to produce for people illusory interests which are profitable to the regime, have the ability to break off the process of emergence of social movements and in such cases there will be no social movements. For example, the totalitarian regime produced by Stalin in the USSR did not take into consideration many social interests (class, nationality and so on) but there were no strong movements in that period (mid 1930s to early 1980s). Why? Because first of all there was repression of any attempts to construct a movement. Secondly (and this is the main reason) the consciousness of people was deformed; they changed their real interests to phantoms, fantasies. A good illustration of this is the novel of Stanislav Lem, Futurological congress.

Earlier I argued that different types of movements emerge in, and are dependent upon, different social conditions. But it is possible to differentiate social movements according to the direction of their activity and the strength of their actions (different kinds of social movements). Smelser, for example, suggests differentiating norm-oriented social movements and value-oriented movements. Social movements of the former kind do not want to change the existing values of society (in other words, the basis of social order); they want to change only norms of society (in other words, to preserve the basic features of the society but to change some social mechanisms). Value-oriented social movements, by contrast, desire to create or to defend new values for mutual belief.

I support this position and suggest that the radicalism of movements depends on the degree of descrepancy between civil society and social order. If the discrepancy is small enough, social movements will try only to reform social structures and will not try to destroy them and to exchange them for others because in this case social structures partly satisfy movements and their interests (according to Smelser this is the case of a norm-oriented movement). If the discrepancy between civil society and social order is large enough, social movements will try to destroy social structurers and to change them for others (value-oriented movement according to Smelser).

But an attempt to destroy social structures can touch the interests of those who are satisfied by the existing social order. And, as an answer to the emergence of value-oriented movements, there emerge other value-oriented movements which try to defend the existing social order. Thus, we can speak about three kinds of social movements which are determined not by general peculiarities of society but by the degree of discrepancy between civil society and social order and by the direction of their activity (to destroy or to defend the existing social order):

norm-oriented social movements;
• 2. value-oriented social movements, directed to the creation of new social order and the destruction of existing social order;
• 3. value-oriented social movements, directed to the defence of existing social order (`counter-movements').

That is why to consider all the social movements as anti-system (as, for example, does Jan Pakulski in his book Social movements, 1990: 93) is not quite right, as under definite circumstances there exist movements in defence of social structures, in defence of the system. As examples we can name Edinstvo\fR (Unity) and Objedinenniy front trudjashishsja (United front of workers) movements in the USSR, Escadrons of death in countries with fascist regimes in Latin America.

As a conclusion to the first part we shall put forward a general approach to studying any social movement, which includes the resolution of three tasks:

The definition of the general stage of societal development.
• 2. The definition of social interests, which are not incorporated into the existing social order.
• 3. The definition of the political regime in the country, where we study a social movement and its influence on the process of transforming unsatisfied social interests into social movements.