INTRODUCTION: BRIDGING INSTITUTIONALIZED AND NONINSTITUTIONALIZED POLITICS

Jack Α. Goldstone

193 citations0/0 files storedCambridge University Press eBooks

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Social Movements and Cultural Identity Political Theory and Democracy Political Conflict and Governance

Abstract

Some years ago, Craig Jenkins and Bert Klandermans (1995, p. 3) stated that “Surprisingly little attention has been paid to the interaction between social movements and the state.” If that statement was at all valid then, it certainly is no longer valid now. The last half-decade has seen an enormous outpouring of work on the mutual influences between social movements and the state, ranging over such topics as framing protest issues (Gamson and Meyer 1996), repression (Kurzman 1996; Rasler 1996), movement outcomes (Dalton 1995; Misztal and Jenkins 1995), and, most commonly, political opportunity structures (Kriesi 1995; McAdam, McCarthy, and Zald 1996; Tarrow 1996). Nonetheless, there has been a persistent tendency to see this interaction as distinct from normal institutionalized politics occurring through voting, lobbying, political parties, legislatures, courts, and elected leaders. As Jenkins and Klandermans state this distinction: “[S]ocial movements … constitute a potential rival to the political representation system” (1995, p. 5). This separation of movement politics from institutionalized politics was concretized in Charles Tilly's (1978) enormously influential schema presenting social movements as “challengers” seeking to enter the institutionalized world of “polity members” who have routinized access to the levers of power. It was strongly reinforced by William Gamson's (1990) depiction of social movements as “outsider” groups whose challenges succeed, in one sense, as such groups become recognized actors in institutional politics. As Mary Fainsod Katzenstein (1998, p. 195) expressed this view: “Students of social movements commonly associate institutionalization with demobilization.… Social movements … are necessarily extrainstitutional.”

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 193 citations exist upstream.

References

1973The Strength of Weak Ties 2000Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community 2000Bowling alone 1975Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience.1984Agendas, alternatives, and public policies 1995Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition 1992Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination 1992The End of History and the Last Man

Cited by

2018Protest Movements in Asylum and Deportation 2013Dynamics of Change in Chile: Explaining the Emergence of the 2006PingüinoMovement 2010Toward a Fourth Generation of Revolutionary Theory 2004The Formation of State Actor-Social Movement Coalitions and Favorable Policy Outcomes 2005GLOBALIZATION AND TRANSNATIONAL SOCIAL MOVEMENT ORGANIZATIONS 2014Political Parties and the Sociological Imagination: Past, Present, and Future Directions

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.