The New Social Movement Approach and the Resource Mobilization Approach are the dominant approaches in social movement research. They focus either on macro-aspects and externalism or on micro-aspects and internalism. This paper suggests that the notion of self-organization is one way of taking into account both internal and external, structural- and action-based aspects of social movements and that it allows a dynamic concept of protest. The emergence of social movements is not determined, but a complex result of crisis, resource mobilization, cognitive mobilization, self-production—searching for singular laws of the emergence of movements is an expression of one-dimensional, linear, and deterministic thinking. Protest and social problems are non-linearly related. Social movements are part of the civil society system, by producing alternative topics and demands, they guarantee the dynamic of the political system. Existing system-theoretic approaches on social movements (Luhmann, Japp, Ahlemeyer, Hellmann) are rather uncritical and ignore the productive relationship between human actors and social structures in processes of social self-organization. Social movements are dynamic communication systems that permanently react to political and societal events with self-organized protest practices and protest communications that result in the emergence and differentiation (production and reproduction) of protest structures (events, oppositional topics, alternative values, regularized patterns of interaction and organization). The dynamic of social movements is based on the permanent emergence and mutual production of protest practices and protest structures. The self-organization of a social movement is a vivid process, it is based on the permanent movement and differentiation of actors and structures that communicate public protest, a social movement is only a movement, as long as it communicates protest and moves itself. In critical phases of protest new social systems of protest emerge whose form, content and effects are not determined, but dependent upon old structures, i.e., old structures enable and constrain new structures. The emergence of new protest issues, methods, identities, structures, and organizational forms starts as singular innovation, if it is widely imitated then it spreads within the protest system and transforms the system as a whole. In terms of Hegelian dialectics this means that novel qualities sublate the old structure of the total system, i.e., the system is transformed, reaches a higher level, incorporates old qualities, and creates new qualities. In critical phases protest can spontaneously and quickly spread and intensify itself. This reflects the idea of complexity thinking that small causes can spontaneously have large effects. The notion of self-organization as the idea of the networked, co-operative, synergetic production of emergent qualities and systems should be employed in order to arrive at a dynamic concept of protest. In order to reflect the increasing complexity of society and the emergence of a stratified knowledge society, a multidimensional model of class that is structurally coupled to the concept of social movements is suggested.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Similarly: Social movements are “actors, opposed to each other by relations of domination and conflict, have the same cultural orientations and are in contention for the social management of this culture and of the activities it produces” (Touraine, 1988, p. 9).
For a detailed discussion of Luhmann's remarks on social movements see Hellmann (1996a, b). In later works Luhmann has argued that social movements produce protest, call for responsibility, want to generate public attention for problems caused by function systems (dysfunctions), are a form of self-description of society, test reality, and communicate alternative realities (cf. Luhmann, 1996, p. 175–200).
Sublation ist he English translation for the German term “Aufhebung” (cf. http://www.hegel.net/en/ sublation.htm) which has three meanings that Hegel has employed: 1. To eliminate, 2. To conserve, 3. To lift something up to a higher level. Sublation is a combination of the terms substitution, lifting, and conservation/preservation. For Hegel the negation of the negation is the the third step in dialectical development (the first and the second one are identity and negation), it involves all three dimensions of “Aufhebung” at once.
REFERENCES
Ahlemeyer, H. W. (1995). Soziale Bewegungen als Kommunikationssysteme, Leske + Budrich, Opladen.
Banathy, B. H. (1996). Designing Social Systems in a Changing World, Plenum Press, New York.
Bausch, K. C. (1997). The Habermas/Luhmann debate and subsequent Habermasian perspectives on systems theory. In Midgley G. (ed.), Systems Thinking Vol. 4, SAGE, London. pp. 154–174.
Blumer, H. (1969). Collective behaviour. In McClung-Lee, A. (ed.), Principles of Sociology, Barnes and Noble, New York.
Böcher, W. (1996). Selbstorganisation. Verantwortung. Gesellschaft. Von subatomaren Strukturen zu politischen Zukunftsvisionen, Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen.
Bühl, W. L. (1991). Politische Grenzen der Autopoiese sozialer Systeme. In Fischer (1993), S. pp. 201–226.
Castells, M. (2000). The Rise of Network Society, (2nd edn.), Blackwell, Oxford/Malden.
Castells, M. (2004). The Power of Identity, (2nd edn.), Blackwell, Oxford/Malden.
Crossley, N. (2002). Making Sense of Social Movements, Open University Press, Buckingham/Philadelphia.
Deleuze, G., and Guattari, F. (1976). Rhizome. Paris. Les Éditions de Minuit.
Diani, M. (1977). Social Movements and Social Capital. Mobilisation 2(2), 129–147.
Diani, M. (1992). The Concept of Social Movement. Sociol. Rev. 40, 1–25.
Diani, M. (2003a). Introduction: Social movements, contentious actions, and social networks: “From metaphor to substance”? In Diani M., and McAdam D. (eds.), Social Movements and Networks. Relational approaches to collective action. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 1–18.
Diani, M. (2003b). Networks and social movements: A research programme. In Diani M., and McAdam D. (eds.), Social Movements and Networks. Relational approaches to collective action. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 299–319.
Diani, M., and McAdam, D. (eds.), (2003). Social Movements and Networks. Relational Approaches to Collective Action, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Eder, K. (1993). New Politics of Class: Social Movements and Cultural Dynamics in Advanced Societies, SAGE, London.
Eisinger, P. K. (1973). The conditions of protest in american cities. Am. Polit Sci. Rev. 67(1), 11–28.
Espejo, R. (2000). Self-construction of desirable social systems. Kybernetes 29(7/8), 949–963.
Eyerman, R., and Jamison, A. (1991). Social Movements. A Cognitive Approach, Polity, Cambridge.
Flood, R. L., and Jackson, M. C. (1991). Total systems intervention: A practical face to critical systems thinking. In Midgley G. (ed.), Systems Thinking Vol. 4, SAGE, London, pp. 93–107.
Fuchs, C. (2002a). Krise und Kritik in der Informationsgesellschaft. Arbeiten über Herbert Marcuse, kapitalistische Entwicklung und Selbstorganisation. Norderstedt. Libri.
Fuchs, C. (2002b). On the Topicality of Selected Aspects of Herbert Marcuse's Works. Online: http://cartoon.iguw.tuwien.ac.at:16080/christian/marcuse/marcuseENG.html
Fuchs, C. (2003a). Structuration Theory and Social Self-Organization. Syst. Pract. Act Res. 16(2), 133–167.
Fuchs, C. (2003b). The Self-Organization of Matter. Nat. Soc. Thought 16(3), 281–313.
Fuchs, C. (2004). The political system as a self-organizing information system. In Trappl, R. (ed.), Cybernetics and Systems 2004, Vol. 1, Austrian Society for Cybernetic Studies, Vienna, pp. 353–358.
Fuchs, C. (2005a). Anti-globalization. In Bevir, M. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Government, SAGE, London (forthcoming, accepted paper).
Fuchs, C. (2005b). Emanzipation! Technik und Politik bei Herbert Marcuse, Shaker, Aachen.
Fuchs, C. (2005c). Herbert Marcuse Interkulturell Gelesen, Bautz, Nordhausen.
Fuchs, C. (2005d). The self-organization of the political system in the age of globalization. In Hofkirchner, W. (ed.), The Self-Organization of the Information Society (forthcoming).
Gamson, W. A., and Meyer, D. S. (1996). Framing political opportunity. In McAdam, D., McCarthy, J., and Zald, M. N. (eds.), Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 275–290.
Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks, International Publishers, New York.
Habermas, J. (1981a). New Social Movements. Telos (49), 33–37.
Habermas, J. (1981b). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns, 2 Volumes, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/Main.
Habermas, J. (1987). The Theory of Communicative Action Vol II: System and Lifeworld, Polity, Cambridge.
Habermas, J., and Luhmann, N. (1971). Theorie der Gesellschaft oder Sozialtechnologie, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/Main.
Hardt, M., and Negri, A. (2005). Multitude. War and Democracy in the Age of the Empire, Hamish Hamilton, New York.
Hellmann, K.-U. (1996a). Einleitung. In: Luhmann (ed.), pp. 7–45.
Hellmann, K.-U. (1996b). Systemtheorie und neue soziale Bewegungen. Identitätsprobleme in der Risikogesellschaft, Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen.
Horkheimer, M. (1937). Traditionelle und kritische Theorie. In Traditionelle und kritische Theorie, Fischer, Frankfurt/Main.
Horkheimer, M., and Adorno, T. W. (1944/88). Dialektik der Aufklärung, Fischer, Frankfurt/Main.
Hörz, H. (1993). Selbstorganisation sozialer Systeme: Ein Verhaltensmodell zum Freiheitsgewinn, LIT, Münster/Hamburg.
Jackson, M. C. (1991). The origins and nature of critical systems thinking. In Midgley, G. (ed.), Systems Thinking Vol. 4, SAGE, London, pp. 77–92.
Japp, K. P. (1984). Selbsterzeugung oder Fremdverschulden. Thesen zum Rationalismus in den Theorien sozialer Bewegungen. In Soziale Welt, pp. 313–329.
Japp, K. P. (1986). Kollektive Akteure als soziale Systeme? In Unverferth, H.-J. (ed.), System und Selbstreproduktion, Lang, Frankfurt/Main, pp. 166–191.
Japp, K. P. (1996). Soziologische Risikotheorie, Juventa, München.
Laclau, E., and Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical and Democratic Politics. London. Verso.
Lévy, P. (1995) Collective Intelligence: Mankind's Emerging World in Cyberspace, Plenum Press, New York.
Luhmann, N. (1984). Soziale Systeme, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/Main.
Luhmann, N. (1986). Ökologische Kommunikation, Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen.
Luhmann, N. (1996). Protest. Systemtheorie und soziale Bewegungen, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/Main.
Marcuse, H. (1937). Philosophie und kritische Theorie. In Schriften Band 3, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/Main, pp. 227–249.
Marcuse, H. (1966). The Individual in the great society. In Collected Papers of Herbert Marcuse Vol. 2: Towards a Critical Theory of Society, Routledge, London/New York, pp. 59–80.
Marcuse, H. (1969). An Essay on Liberation, Beacon Press, Boston.
Marcuse, H. (1972). Counter-Revolution and Revolt, Beacon Press, Boston.
Marx, K. (1844). Einführung in die Kritik der Hegelschen Rechtsphilosophie. In MEW, Vol. 1, Dietz, Berlin, S. pp. 378–391.
McAdam, D. (1982). Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
McAdam, D. (1988). Freedom Summer, Oxford University Press, New York.
McAdam, D. (1996a). Political opportunities: Conceptual origins, current problems, future directions. In McAdam, D., McCarthy, J., Zald, M. N. (eds.), Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 23–40.
McAdam, D. (1996b). The framing function of movement tactics: strategic dramaturgy in the american civil rights movement. In McAdam, D., McCarthy, J., and Zald, M. N. (eds.), Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 338–355.
McAdam, D. (2003). Beyond structural analysis: Towards a more dynamic understanding of social movements. In Diani M. and McAdam D. (eds.), pp. 281–298.
McCarthy, J. (1996). Constraints and opportunities in adopting, adapting, and inventing. In McAdam, D., McCarthy, J., and Zald, M. N. (eds.), Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 141–151.
McCarthy, J. D., and Zald, M. N. (1977). Resource Mobilization and Social Movements. Am. J. Sociol. 82(6), 1212–1241.
Melucci, A. (1985). The symbolic challenge of contemporary movements. Soc. Res. 52(4), 789–815.
Midgley, G. (1996). What is this thing called CST? In Midgley, G. (ed.), Systems Thinking Vol. 4, SAGE, London, pp. 108–122.
Mingers, J. C. (1980). Towards an appropriate social theory for applied systems thinking: Critical theory and soft systems methodology. In Midgley, G. (ed.), Systems Thinking Vol. 4, SAGE, London, pp. 1–13.
Mische, A. (2003). Cross-talk in Movements: Reconceiving the Culture-Network Link. In Diani M. and McAdam D.(eds.), Social Movements and Networks. Relational approaches to collective action. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 258–280.
Oberschall, A. (1973). Social Conflict and Social Movements, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
Offe, C. (1972). Strukturprobleme des kapitalistischen Staates, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/Main.
Offe, C. (1985). New Social Movements: Challenging the Boundaries of Institutional Politics. Soc. Res. 52(4), 817–867.
Rucht, D. (1996). The impact of national contexts on social movement structures. In McAdam, D., McCarthy, J., and Zald, M. N. (eds.), Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 185–204.
Sanders, D., Clarke, H. D., and Stewart, M. C. (2005). Report on the Dynamic of Attitudes Towards Democracy and Participation in Contemporary Britain. In: UK Data Archive. http://www.data-archive.ac.uk/findingData/snDescription.asp?sn=5158&key=Democracy+and+Participation
Schlemm, A. (1999). Dass nichts bleibt, wie es ist… Philosophie der selbstorganisierten Entwicklung. Band II: Möglichkeiten menschlicher Zukünfte. Münster. LIT
Snow, D. A. et al. (1972). Frame Alignment Processes, Micromobilisation and Movement Participation. Am. Sociol. Rev. 37, 736–780.
Tarrow, S. (1998). Power in Movement, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Tilly, C. (1978). From Mobilization to Revolution, Addison-Wesley, Reading.
Tilly, C. (2004). Social Movements, 1768-2004, Paradigm, Boulder/London.
Touraine, A. (1985). An introduction to the study of social movements. Soc. Res. 52(4), 749–787.
Touraine, A. (1988). Return of the Actor, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Touraine, A. (1995). Critique of Modernity, Blackwell, Cambridge.
Turner, R. H., and Killian, L. M.(1987) Collective Behavior, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
Ulrich, W. (1987). Critical heuristics of social systems design. In Midgley, G. (ed.), Systems Thinking Volume IV, SAGE, London, pp. 14–24.
Zald, M. N. (1996). Culture, ideology, and strategic framing. In McAdam, D., McCarthy, J., and Zald, M. N. (eds.), Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 261–274.
Zeyer, A. (1997). Die Kühnheit, trotzdem ja zu sagen, Scherz, Bern/München/Wien.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fuchs, C. The Self-Organization of Social Movements. Syst Pract Act Res 19, 101–137 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-005-9006-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-005-9006-0