Taking Part. Social Movements INGOs and Global Change - Eschle e Stammers

Taking Part: Social Movements, INGOs, and Global Change
Author(s): Catherine Eschle and Neil Stammers

Source: Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, Vol. 29, No. 3 (June-July 2004), pp. 333-372
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40645120 .
Accessed: 22/06/2014 07:12
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Alternatives:
Global, Local, Political.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 07:12:09 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Alternatives
29 (2004),333-372
TakingPart:
SocialMovements,INGOs,
and GlobalChange
CatherineEschleand Neil Stammers*
Can social movements makea difference in global politics?That

questionis,ultimately,one thatonlythehistorical practiceoftrans-
nationalsocial movements willanswer.But is thatanswerlikelyto
be heardor understoodbyanalysts, evenifitwereto ringin theair
aroundthem?We thinknot,unlessthereis a fundamental shiftin
thewaythe transformative agencyof social movements is concep-
tualized.In thisarticlewe tryto substantiate thisclaimthrougha
critiqueofexistingapproachesto thestudyof transnational social
movements.We argue thatthe attentiongivento transnational
socialmovements acrossseveraldifferent academicdisciplineshas
failed to generate the intellectualand disciplinarysynthesis
needed to understandtheirpotential.On thecontrary, thelimita-
tionsofeach disciplinehavesimplybeen replicatedbyothers,leav-
ingthefieldcluttered withincommensurable or overlapping analy-
ses,concepts,andjargon.
Investigation of the relationshipbetweensocial movements
and global changeis relatively new.Onlyin the lastdecade or so
has a distinctliteratureon thistopicemerged.Debatesin thethe-
oryof international relationsabout the role of nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs) and movements haveclusteredaroundthe
notionsofglobalcivilsocietyand globalgovernance.At the same
time,a moreunifiedbodyofworkhas emergedfrompoliticsand
sociologythatattemptsto globalizeexistingapproachesto social
movements. These twobranchesof enquiryfrequently focuson
similarkindsof movementactivismand organization.Theyhave
"'Catherine
Eschle,Department ofGovernment, ofStrathclyde,
University Gl
Glasgow,
Neil Stammers,
1XQ, Scotland,UK. E-mail:catherine.eschle@strath.ac.uk; Inter-
of
and PoliticsSubjectGroup,SchoolofSocialSciences,University
nationalRelations
Sussex,Falmer,BrightonBN19SN,UK. E-mail:n.stammers@sussex.ac.uk
333

334 Social andGlobal
INGOs,
Movements, Change
bothbeen influencedbyarguments aboutglobalizationand been

givenincreasingimpetus in the last few yearsbythewaveof high-
profile activism to
opposed processes and institutions associated
withneoliberalaspects of economic globalization.
For themostpart,cross-disciplinary engagementon globaliza-
tionand social movements remainslimited.Yetsome of the most
significant problemswithexistingacademicworktraverses discipli-
narydivides.These problemsinclude a simplifiedand simplistic
conceptualization ofmovements and organizations; theprivileging
of eitherinstrumentalor expressivedimensionsof movement
activism;an assumptionof a hierarchicalrelationshipbetween
globaland local domainsofpolitics;an underdeveloped awareness
of the dangersof bureaucratization and oligarchyin movement
organizationand, conversely, of the potentialities of movement-
based contributions to democraticpraxis.In respondingto these
problems,theultimateaim ofthisarticleis to pointtowarda more
holistic,complexand criticalunderstanding ofmovement activism
and itspotentially transformative role in globalpolitics.
Thereare certainthingsthatthisarticle - constructed as itis as
a critiqueofcontemporary academicliterature in IR, politics,and
sociology - does not tryto do. It offersneitheran empiricalcase-
study of movement activism nora detailedinterrogation ofactivist
representations of the movements of which they are a part.This is
notbecausewe see such analysesas unimportant. We drawbriefly
on some activisttextsand depictionsof movements to help make
our argumentand, indeed,believethatactivistrepresentations of
themselves and theworldare a vitalsourceof knowledgethatcan
haveconstitutive power.However,whatwe offerhere is an imma-
nentcritiqueof theconceptsused in academicliterature. Further,
much of our discussionis concernedwithhow to conceptualize
social-movement activismin termsof geographicalspace, and we
do not attend to the historical,diachronicdimensionof such
activism.Again,thisis notbecausewe deemitunimportant. AsAle-
jandro Colas argues, movement agency needs to be evaluated in
the contextof "changesand continuitiesin the structuresand
processesof social lifethrough time."1 However^ourfocushere on
contemporary literature, and itsdifficulties in conceptualizing move-
mentorganization acrossborders,encouragesa largelysynchronie
analysis. a majorpreoccupation
Finally, in theexisting literature is a
focuson activism judged to have the potential to foster "progres-
sive"socialchange.We replicatethispattern,partlybecauseofour
objectofstudyin thisarticlebutpartlybecausewe also havea nor-
mativecommitment to exploringsuchpotentials. Thatsaid,we rec-
the of
ognize importance developing analytic an framework capable

EschleandStammers 335
ofanalyzing"regressive"movements. Atleastsomeelementsofour
for
proposals analytical reconstructionare indeed relevantto the
studyof social movements in general.
Our argument willbe elaboratedin threemainparts.The first
willreviewtheexistingacademicliterature,outliningthedistinctive
disciplinary of debate beforecuttingacrossthe disci-
trajectories
plinesto delineatepragmatic, and transformationalist
structuralist,
approaches.The secondpartwillanalyzekeyproblemswitheach of
thesethreeapproachesand detail theirdifferent manifestations.
The thirdpartwillprovidesuggestions foranalytical
reconstruction.
An Overview
The relationshipbetweenmovementactivismand global change

has long been neglectedbecause of theseparationof the studyof
socialand politicalinteractionswithinstatesfromthestudyofrela-
tionsbetweenthem.Mostapproachesto socialmovements in soci-
ology and politics have had "a national bias and a tendencyto
or
ignoreglobal world-systemic developments," even when com-
paring activism in differentcountries.2 The disciplineof inter-
nationalrelationswas purposelyestablishedto study"global or
world-systemic developments"conceived narrowlyas interstate
relations.Fromthedominantview,onlystatesare capable ofeffec-
tiveagencyin global politics;activitiesinsidestatesand nonstate
actorsare largelyseen as irrelevant.Togetherthesedisciplinary
biaseshavehelpedto obscurethepossibility thatsocialmovements
might be affectedby, and effect, of
processes globalchange.
However,the last fewdecades have seen an increasingchal-
lengeto thesefoundational ontologicalassumptions and thedisci-
plinary divisionof labor associatedwith them. In IR, forexample,
we finda markedgrowthin literatureon nonstateactorsin the
contextof a sustainedassaulton realisthegemony.There have
been twomainwavesof argumenthere,thefirstemergingin the
1970s and early1980s in the formof liberaltheorizingof inter-
dependenceor transnationalism. Thisapproachpointedto empir-
ical evidencethatstateswerebeinglockedintoa web of coopera-
tiveas well as conflictualrelations.A range of actorsoperating
insideand acrossstatesbecame the legitimatefocusof enquiry.3
This approachis currently undergoinga revival,4 coincidingwith
a secondwaveof interestin nonstateor transstate actorsthathas
been highlyinfluencedbypostpositivist interventions into inter-
nationalrelationsand by the developmentof the literatureon
globalization.Liberalsfeaturestrongly here,too, alongsidemore

336 Social
Movements, andGlobal
INGOs, Change
radicalvoices.Thissecondwavehas a commonconcernwithNGOs
and/or social movements, frequently locatingthese actorsin a
newlyemergent realm of global civilsociety,and grantingthem
a key,ifcontested, role in processes global change,the opera-
of
tionsof internationalorganizations,and/or processesof global
governance.5
Althoughthesearguments in international relationsdraweclec-
upon a rangeofarguments
tically fromsocialand politicalthought,
therehas been onlylimitedattention paid to social-movement the-
oryas it has developedin sociologyand politics.It is evenrarerto
findawarenessof therecentefforts ofa fewsocial-movement theo-
riststo overcometheirnationalbiasand extendtheirframeworks to
thegloballevel.6
Thislattertrancheofworkhaslargely soughttoextendthecom-
passofresource-mobilization theory, thepolitical-opportunitystruc-
turesapproach,and associatedarguments aboutrepertoires ofcon-
tentionand framing.Resource-mobilization theoryexaminesthe
of
availability social resources and the capacityof entrepreneurial
movementorganizersto access these. The political-opportunity
structures approachadds a concernwithchangesin the political
context, particularlyshiftsin patterns ofaccess,realignments within
the polity,divisionswithinexistingelites,and lessonsmovements
learnfromone anotheras evidentin the spreadof repertoires of
action.More recently, attentionhas been paid to theframesacti-
vistsdevelopto mobilizesupporters and thatmayaimultimately to
challenge dominant in
paradigms society.7 Most efforts
to globalize
thesesocial-movement theoriesare closelyalignedwithliberalper-
spectivesin internationalrelations,but theyuse a different lan-
guage.They talkprimarily of transnational social-movement orga-
nizations(hereinafter, TSMOs), transnational advocacynetworks,
and the involvement of both in processesof transnationalcon-
tentionthat take advantageof the new politicalopportunities
madeavailablebyinternational organizations and regimesand that
involvethe developmentof transnational framesand multilevel
actionrepertoires.8
The difference in languagebetweenliberal-oriented approaches
in thedifferent disciplinesmayhavefunctionedto obscurecross-
disciplinaryaffinities, althougha fewsocial movementtheorists
have recentlyrecognizedoverlapswithdebates in international
relations.9Further,it should be noted thatanalysesof framing,
withtheiremphasison ideas,ideology,and culture,mayexplicitly
movebeyonda liberalframework.10
Somelimitedattention hasalso been givenbysociologists to the
globalapplicability of new social-movement theory.This approach

positsthatdeep structural changein the natureof modernity has

produced movements that are diffuse in form,broadly culturalin
and
orientation, aiming to constrain state and economic power
ratherthanto gain controloverit.Whiletheseargumentsdevel-
oped withinand abouta specifically Europeancontext,it has also
been argued thatstructuralchange has occurredglobally,that
movementsexhibitingthesedistinctive traitsare foundin other
partsoftheworld,and thattheycan stretchacrossstateborders.11
As we will show below,such an approach appears to have had
extensive, butlargelyunacknowledged, influenceon recentwriting
in IR.
In what follows,we group the contemporaryliteratureon
social movements and globalchangeintothreemainperspectives
thatcut across disciplinarydivisions.It should be stressedthat
theseare ideal-type categorizations, pitchedat a levelofgenerality
thatwillnot capturethe nuancesof individualtheorists. The first
is
approach pragmatic in itsorientation. This is work that buildson
a broadlyliberaland/orsocial democraticoutlookand on an em-
piricistepistemology. Pragmatists tendto emphasizeformalorga-
nizationand to see theinterfacebetweenstateand nonstateorga-
nizationsas the basis of politicallife:the appropriatearena for
democracy and thesourceofsocialchangethroughtheshapingof
state policy.Conditionsof globalizationare understoodto be
embeddingstatesinto networksof cooperationwitheach other
and withINGOs or TSMOs. Perhapstwomainversionsofpragma-
tismcan be discerned.One is moreanalytical:exploringthe role
playedby NGOs/TSMOswithininternationalorganizationsand
changingglobalstructures withan eye to assessingmovementori-
gins,impact, and effectiveness and withtheultimateaim of devel-
oping betterconcepts and better understanding withinacademia.
The otheris moreovertly normative and politicalin itsorientation.
concernedwiththeneed to restructure
It is particularly and democ-
ratizeinternational organizations and thus to improveprocessesof
globalgovernance. INGOs or TSMOs are valued fortheircapacity
to renderinterstate negotiations more inclusive and transparent.12
The secondapproachcouldbe labeledstructuralist. Oftendraw-
ing from Marxist traditions, it also connects to some ecologistand
poststructuralistarguments. It is characterized an
by assumption that
theemergence, orientation, and outcomes ofmovement activismare
fundamentally shaped or determined bydeeper social structures,
processes,and institutions. Consequently, thisapproachtendsto
focusprimarily on thosestructures, processes,and institutions as
sourcesofchangeand on thelarge-scale trendsin movement devel-
opmentto whichtheygiverise,payingmuchless attentionto the

338 INGOs,andGlobalChange
SocialMovements,
detailsofspecificmovement activism and to questionsoforganiza-

tionand strategy. Again, two strands of thisapproachcan be dis-
tinguished. The firstis in
optimistic outlook,emphasizingthat
structuralchangesin capitalismand the statesystemassociated
withglobalizationhaveinduceda shiftin movement formand ori-
entation:No longernationaland statist, movements are nowtrans-
national and "anti-systemic," withthe capacityto enhance the
propensity of thesystem to crisisand collapse.The secondversion
of structuralism is more pessimisticin its predictionsformove-
ments,tendingto emphasizetheadaptability of the capitalistand
statesystemand the factthattransnational dimensionsof move-
mentorganizingare likelyto be fragmented or co-optedintothat
system. Some pessimists turnto movement activism in a nationalor
local contextas themorelikelysourceofresistance.Bydefinition,
such activismis likelyto be nonuniversalizable. Thus more pes-
simisticversionsof the structuralist approach conclude thatthe
possibilities for radical transformation on a global scale are ex-
tremely limited.13
The thirdapproachcutsacrosswhatis beginningto resemblea
familiar polarization betweenreformist engagement withthesystem
and revolutionary challenge or withdrawal. Thisapproachcould be
labeledtransformationalist. Adherents drawon a rangeoftraditions,
includingliberalismand neo-Gramscianism, but also anarchism,
ecology, feminism, poststructuralism, and social-movement theory.
Transformationalists emphasizetheemancipatory potentialofsocial
movements and theirorganizations globally,drawingattentionto
thewaysin whichmovements may combine materialistand institu-
tionaliststrategieswith the and
reshaping enacting of alternativecul-
turalnorms,values,and lifestyles. Thislatterformofactivism maybe
aimed primarily at changingattitudesand practiceswithinglobal
civilsocietyor an equivalent, butitis also perceivedto be centralto
whatmovements are about and to havepotentially transformative
and democratizing effectson international institutions.
Again,twostrandsto thisapproachcan be identified. Muchof
thetransformationalist literature has a ratherUtopianbent,insofar
as it tendsto depictmovementsand INGOs as beyondpower,as
organizedin similarways,and as pursuingessentially progressive
goals.However, a morecriticaltransformationalist approachis also
emerging, whichis moresensitiveto thesubstantive and organiza-
tionaldifferences withinand betweenmovements and to problems
ofpowerand oligarchy.14 We hope to havecontributed to suchan
approach in thisarticle.
It mustbe stressedthatthe boundariesbetweenpragmatism,
structuralism, and transformationalism are fluidand shifting. It

can be particularly
difficult
to distinguishbetweennormative prag-
matistsand Utopiantransformationalists, withboth talkingof the
democratizing potentialof NGOs and withsome prominenttrans-
formationalists
shifting
recently towarda moreconventionallyliberal
acceptanceof theneed forinstitutional cooperationwiththestate
and marketsystems.15Therehas also been somemovement recently
witha shiftfrompessimism
amongstructuralists, to optimismin the
lightof the increasingprominenceof movementactivismagainst
neoliberalelementsofeconomicglobalization and theconsequent
hope that a more and
generalizable, genuinelyanticapitalist move-
ment,maybe emerging.16 So we stressagain thatour categories
shouldbe understood as simplified intendedto highlight
ideal-types,
the cross-disciplinary
ways in which certainproblemsin the theo-
rizationofmovements and globalchangemanifest themselves.The
nextpartofthisarticlediscussesfoursuchproblems.
Key Problems
SocialMovementsand TSMOs
Transnational
The firstproblemcenterson theopaque and confusedconceptual-
izationsof transnational movements and theorganizations associ-
atedwiththem.The taskofdisentangling theseconceptualizations
is complicatedbyinconsistent or contradictory terminology.17
Forexample,politicalscientists and sociologists tendto use the
labels "transnational social movements"or "global social move-
ments," whileIR theorists tendto invokea variety ofwhatcould be
called stand-inconcepts,including"networks of global civilsoci-
ety,""themultitude," and "socialforces."18 Furthermore, whereas
severalpolitical scientistsand sociologistsuse the term TSMOs,
theoristsin international relationshave talkedratherof interest
groups,pressuregroups,and transnational activistgroups.How-
ever,latelythereappearsto be considerablecross-disciplinary con-
vergence around theconcept of NGOs and/or INGOs.19 Of course
INGOs and TSMOs are not necessarily thesame kindof organiza-
tionalentity, and indeed,thereare manyINGOs thathaveno orga-
nizationalor substantive linksto movements. the
It is specifically
TSMO subsetthatis the mainfocusof interestformostpolitical
scientistsand sociologists attempting to globalizesocial-movement
theory. It is also the focus of much international relationsworkin
thisarea. So, notwithstanding these terminologicaldifferences,
generalizations can be made about thewaysin whichmovements
and theirorganizations are misconceptualized.

340 INGOs, and GlobalChange
SocialMovements,
The main problem with pragmatistapproaches is that move-

ments are reduced or subordinated to the formal organizations
associated with them. TSMOs/INGOs are frequentlythe exclusive
focus of studyto the neglect of less formal,extra-institutionalkinds
of movement activism or indeed to the consideration of move-
ments themselves.This can be seen, for example, in the work of
interdependence theoristPeter Willetts,which has moved froman
emphasis on "promotional pressure groups" to a focus on "cam-
paigning" NGOs.20 Both of these categories could be seen as sub-
stitutelabels forTSMOs. However,Willettsdoes not investigatethe
relationship between these organizations and wider social move-
ments. Rather,the main thrustof analysis remains the impact of
groups on state policy making and on interstateinstitutions.21 A
similardynamicis evidentin theworkof MargaretKeck and Kathryn
Sikkink,which focuses on the integrationof NGOs, state agencies,
and internationalinstitutionsin "transnationaladvocacy networks"
(a particular kind of networkdistinguished by "the centralityof
principled ideas or values motivatingtheirformation").22
Again, the NGOs under discussion are clearly organizations
closelyassociated to social movements.Keck and Sikkinkclaim that
examining the role of NGOs in transnational advocacy networks
"helps both to distinguishNGOs from,and to see their connec-
tions with,social movements."23Yet, in fact,their studymakes no
attemptto explore this relationship.Even in pragmatistworkwith
a declared focus on movements,as in the volume edited byJackie
Smith et al., entitled TransnationalSocial Movements, we find an
overwhelming focus on TSMOs and theirrelation to other formally
structuredorganizations.24
In contrast,Utopian transformationaliststend to neglect the
distinctivecharacteristicsof TSMOs/INGOs and to describe such
groups in terms more usually reserved for less formal kinds of
movementactivism.More specifically,it is the so-called new social
movements that provide the template for understanding TSMOs
and INGOs. For example, an influentialearly article by Richard
Falk surveysgroups ranging from Greenpeace to the Sanctuary
movementand concludes theyare convergingon a "new politics,"
involving
repudiationof war and technologiesof violenceas inevitable

instruments of social conflict;adoptionof identity patternsand
affinities
thatarisefromsharedcommitments; . . . coalitionsand
supportactivitiesin transnational arenasand networks; a refusal
to regardaccess to statepoweras the primestakeof political
... ; an emergentawarenessthatthe decisivepolitical
activity

Eschleand Stammers 341
battlegroundfor the remainder of this centuryis associated with

an activationof culturalenergies.25
One result of assuming such a convergence is that both formal

and informal kinds of movement activism are depicted as sharing
the same kind of structural characteristics and as operating in the
same kind of way. Now, while some TSMOs and INGOs may be
structured according to the nonhierarchical network principles
supposedly characteristic of new social movements (a point dis-
cussed at more length below) , in our view some analytical distinc-
tion must be maintained between formal organizations and less
formal moments of activism. Further, as we have already pointed
out, many INGOs are entirely unconnected to social movements.
Indeed, John Boli and colleagues insist that most INGOs are eco-
nomic or technical in character and tend to support and diffuse
dominant cultural norms. They point out that only a relatively
small group are associated with the "social movement sector" and
attempt to challenge dominant cultural values in the ways sug-
gested by new social-movement theory.26 In sum, there are signifi-
cant distinctions between different kinds of INGOs, and between
INGOs and less formal kinds of activism, that are lost by the over-
enthusiastic application of new social-movement categories by
Utopian transformationalists.
Like transformationalists, structuralists acknowledge a role for
both INGOs/TSMOs and less formal, more socially embedded,
forms of activism. However, they are rightlycritical of the Utopian
tendency to perceive the two as equivalent phenomena. Indeed,
many structuralists appear skeptical of the possibility that the two
might be connected in any way. A preference for the use of the ter-
minology of (I) NGOs, rather than TSMOs, enables institutional-
ized, technical associations to be taken as paradigmatic, and then
all such groups to be criticized for reproducing extant relations
and structures of power. As Craig Murphy puts it:
Our own period is also characterizedby non-governmentalorga-

nizations (NGOs) playinga furtheressential role in international
governance. Increasingly,as a consequence of neoliberal marke-
tization,the servicesonce provided by public intergovernmental
organizations are now contracted to private,non-governmental,
often "social movement"-style,organizations. . . . [This] has
allowed donor aid budgets to remain stagnant or even fall
throughoutthe post-Cold War era.27
Murphy offers an important reminder of the contribution of

many NGOs to the diffusion of neoliberal norms and practices, but

SocialMovements,
to drawanydistinction
he does so byrefusing betweenNGOs and
TSMOs or whathe calls "social movement "-styleorganizations.
Murphy's thattrans-
quotationmarksare indicativeofa skepticism
nationalorganizationscan retainanyauthentic,grassroots-move-
ment connections.Murphyand other pessimisticstructuralists
tendto map theseformsofpoliticalagencyon to differentlevelsof
analysis.
BetweenGlobaland Local
TheRelationship
This bringsus to a second keyproblem:a simplifiedand hierar-
chical conceptualizationof the relationshipbetweenglobal and
local. The interpretation of globalizationin the literatureunder
reviewis significant here.Globalizationtendsto be understoodas
primarily economic,technological,and/orpoliticalin itsorigins
and character,in contrastto the approach more widespreadin
sociologythatemphasizesculturalshiftsand the restructuring of
space and time.28
In the literatureunderreview,we findthatthe growinginte-
grationand liberalizationof worldwidemarketrelationsreceives
particularemphasis,along withthe developmentof communica-
tionsand transporttechnologiesand the rapid growthof global
governanceinstitutions aboveand beyondthestate.These dimen-
sions of globalization,particularly the lattertwo,are stressedby
theoristsdrawingon resource-mobilization theoryand the po-
litical-opportunity structuresapproach, creatingnewenabling
as
conditionsand sources of grievancethat underpin the trans-
nationalization In contrast,
of activism.29 tendto see
structuralists
technological and institutional
developments as reflective
ofa shift
in themorefundamental structuresofcapitalismand itsclassrela-
tions,pointingto continuities as wellas changes,and disagreeing
overwhetherresistanceis newlyenabledor constrained.30
Whateverthe emphasis,theseapproachessharea tendencyto
characterizeglobalizationas centripetaland homogenizing, suck-
ing economic and politicalforms "upward." This means thatglob-
alizationmaybe perceivedas functioning to eradicateculturaldif-
ferenceslocated at the local or national level, although the
theoristsexaminedhere disagreeoverthe extentto whichthisis
occurring.31
One resultis the tendencyto assume that the less formal,
sociallyembeddedaspectsof movementsare local or nationalin
character, and thatonlythemoreformally structured,institution-
allyoriented NGOs or TSMOs are activein globalpolitics.Thisten-
dency can be found among both structuralists and pragmatists,

albeitwithratherdifferent readingsof itsanalyticaland political

implications. The pessimistic structuralist characterization of eco-
nomicglobalizationas overwhelmingly totalizingand destructive
leads themto locateanypossibility of resistanceat the local level.
As notedabove,INGOs are interpreted as supportingand repro-
ducingextantglobal power.Pragmatists have a more optimistic
viewofINGO/TSMO capacity.The globallevelis privilegedas the
sourceofprogressive change,reinforcing thetendencyto focuson
INGOs/TSMOs,ratherthanless formal,moresociallyembedded
aspectsofmovements.
This hierarchy of levelshas been perhapsmostclearlyelabo-
ratedbySidneyTarrow, a keyexponentofthepolitical-opportunity
structures approach. Tarrow rightlydistinguishes betweentrans-
nationalsocialmovements and "thelargeruniverseofinternational
nongovernmental organizationsand elite transnationalactivist
networks" (theseare the transnational advocacynetworks of Keck
and Sikkink).However,he does so by insistingthatsocial move-
mentsdepend upon interpersonal "socialnetworks" embeddedin
everyday life and "domestic" (national) societies, which help to
generate collectiveidentities.32 Interestingly,there is a strongpar-
allel here withnew social-movement theoristAlbertoMelucci's
emphasison "subterranean networks" - less visible,oftenlatent,
connectionslinkingactivistsin their everydaylives- as a key
dimensionofmovement construction.33
Tarrowinsiststhatsuch networksare verydifficult to trans-
nationalize.Thus, mostmovementinvolvement in "contentious
politics"is likelyto remainat the nationallevel.The adoptionof
thegoals,tactics,and identities originating in movements in other
contextsshould not be mistakenforthe transnationalization of
movementnetworks, but is insteadevidenceof the existenceof
cross-border processeslike "diffusion"throughwhich national
movements learnfromeach other.34 It is onlythroughTSMOs in
transnationaladvocacynetworksthat movementsare likelyto
becomecross-border in formand participants in processesoftrans-
nationalcontention.35
This viewcontrasts withthatpropoundedbyoptimistic struc-
turalistsand transformationalists, who insiston a broaderunder-
standingofwhatconstitutes a transnational or global movement,
one thatis moreinclusiveoflocalized,grassroots activism.Foropti-
misticstructuralists,thecontradictions inherentin globalizedcap-
italismare keyhere,relocatingresistancefromnationalist, statist,
and proletarian movements to poststatist,networked movements of
all oppressedand exploitedpeoples. MichaelHardtand Antonio
Negri,forexample,insistthatsome of the mostimportant recent

344 Social
INGOs, Change
struggles,fromthe intifadato the Zapatistas,maybe "focusedon

theinternational relationsownlocal and immediatecircumstances
[but]they all nonetheless [have]posed problemsofsupranational
relevance. . . [they]leap verticallyand touchimmediately on the
global level."36Othershave emphasizedthe connectionsof such
local strugglesto transnationalmobilizations.Writingfroma
Utopiantransformationalist perspective, Leslie Paul Thiele offers
thefollowing definitionalcriteria:
A socialmovement maybe consideredtransnational in two

senses:first
ifithas [a] multinational and
membership organiza-
tionalstructure:andsecond,ifitsconcerns andallegiancesare
globalratherthansolelynationalor local.. . . Many
explicitly
smaller peaceand environmental groupsexemplifythesecond
senseoftransnational. . . . [They]shareinformation,
tactics
and
a cultureofart,music,literature andactivities
withtheirinter-
nationalcounterparts [as wellas an] orientation
to globalciti-
zenship andstewardship.37
This is to moveawayfroman insistencethatit is cross-border

organizationthatdefinesa movementas transnational or global.
Thiele is insistingthatorientation, identification, and activism are
also keyto evaluatingwhether"social"or "subterranean" networks
embeddedin everyday lifeand specificlocalitiescan stillbe con-
sideredpartof processesof global contention.Further, he claims
thatsuch activismcan have a global impact.In contrastto Hardt
and Negri's structuralist emphasison problemsposed by local
groups for the "newfigureofimperialcapitalist regulation," Thiele
points to the potential of such movements to induce long-term
changesin "theworldviews and life-styles of thegeneralpublicas
muchas influencing policymakers. . . . The politicalsignificance of
thissocialosmosisshouldnotbe ignored."38
ScottTurnermakesa similarargument whenhe definesglobal
civilsocietyin termsof small-scalemovementactivity thatis ori-
ented "towardgeneral transformation of public consciousness,
whichin turnaffects theparameters oflegitimacy withinwhichtra-
ditionalinstitutions mustoperate."39Turner'sexamplesof such
activityfocus on Third Worldprotestsagainstlogging,ranging
fromFilipinofarmers"fasting fortrees"to Buddhistmonkswrap-
ping trees in theirorder's saffron robes.40
These are important acknowledgments of the contribution of
lessconventional, morelocalizedmomentsofmovement activism to
globalpolitics. However, they are marred in their structuralistfor-
mulationsbya lackof concretedetailand, notunrelatedly, bythe
to
tendency analyze activism in terms of an underlying functionalist

logic. More significant forour analysishere is the problemwith

Utopianformulations, whichare notablefordownplaying theenor-
mous diversity of organizationalforms,strategies,and goals of
movements worldwide.
Thereisa strong tendency todepictall movements andTSMOsas
pursuinga settled,progressive globalagenda,one closelylinkedfor
Utopiantransformationalists to claimsof thenewsocial-movement
type. Such claims are frequently temperedbybriefasides on the
differencesbetweenmovements, withsomerecognition ofthemore
conventionally materialist,instrumentalist, development-oriented,
and occasionallymilitaristic strategies of somegroups,particularly
thosefromthe South.41Nonetheless,such differences are largely
seenas appropriate contextualizations ofnewsocialmovement pol-
itics,ratherthan a deviationfromthem.Indeed, some Utopian
transformationalists ultimately representdiversegroupsas con-
a
stituting single, unified movement of the new social movement
variety.42
The uncritical universalizationofassumptions fromnewsocial-
movement is
theory compoundedby the accompanying interpreta-
tionofglobalization as homogenization/integration,withtheconse-
quentneglectofculturaldifferences and ofparticularist,
reactionary
movement tendencies.In effect, Utopiantransformationalists carve
out a roleforthelessformalized, morelocalized,aspectsof move-
mentactivity at a globallevelthrough makingthehighly contentious
assumption that the supposed new social-movement form and its
associatedemphasison culturalorientationis now applicableto
movements worldwide.
and ExpressiveDimensionsofMovementActivism
Instrumental
The thirdproblemwe wishto identify is closelyrelated:It is the
tendencyto privilege either the instrumental or the expressive
dimensionof movementactivismand to ignorethe relationship
betweenthe two.The instrumental dimensioninvolvesthe articu-
lation of concrete strategies and demands,frequently aimed at
powerful institutions and intended to produce specificmaterial
effects upon socialrelations. The expressive dimensionis oriented
toward the construction and reconstruction of norms,values,iden-
and
tities, lifestyles inside a movement and in thewidersocialand
culturalmilieu.43
It is clearthatthefocusofpragmatists on TSMOs bothfeedsoff
and reinforcesan emphasison the instrumental dimensionof
movement activism. Insofaras TSMOs are directly engagedin activ-
ityof the pressure-group -
type campaigning, lobbying, negotiating,

346 Social
INGOs, Change
and so on- theywillbe pursuingconcretedemandsthroughinter-

stateorganizations. The narrowconceptualization ofglobalization
as primarily economic,institutional, technologicalin nature
and
also mitigates againstrecognition oftheimplications ofexpressive
movement activism. Tarrow's extension of the political-opportunity
structuresapproachdemonstrates thesetendenciesclearly.His def-
initionofa transnational socialmovement involves"sustainedcon-
tentiousinteraction withpowerholders in whichat leastone stateis
eithera targetor a participant," and he is principally concerned
withthe opportunity structures affordedby states,international
organizations, and "international institutions."44 Thus,theinstru-
mentalaspectsofmovements are privileged.
Thisis notto saythatpragmatists entirely ignoretheexpressive
dimension.For example,the Commissionon Global Governance
sees NGOs in global civilsocietyas helpingto disseminatea new
"civicethic"encompassinguniversalvaluesmeantto encouragea
morecooperativemode ofpolitics.45 Tarrowrecognizesexpressive
activismas a key"internal"dynamicnecessaryto help a TSMO
mobilizeresourcesor take advantageof a political-opportunity
structure.He is also increasingly incorporating an analysisofmove-
ment-framing strategies, which chimes with an emphasisin other
recent pragmatisteffortsto globalize the political-opportunity
structures approach.The focushere is on how and whyactivists
succeedin framing issuesin waysthatmobilizeothers,createcoali-
tions,and challengedominantculturalunderstandings.46
Arguably,most frame analysis provides a rather limited
approachto culture,reducingit to anotherinstrumental strategy
of movements. Some pragmatists havefocusedexplicitly on "non-
institutionalefforts to change social beliefs,valuesor practices,"
hinting that the relationshipbetweenTSMOs and transnational
social movementsmustbe significant on thispointand thatthe
of
"deeppolitics shaping individual thinking and action. . . clearly
occupies much, ifnot most, social movement energies."47 Yetthe
bulk of pragmatistanalysispayslittleattentionto the detail or
meaningofthiskindofmovement activism or to howit mayeffect
change on a global scale.
There is a noteworthy convergenceamongsome pragmatists
and Utopiantransformationalists in termsof therole ofculturein
globalizationprocesses. There seems to be a sharedviewthatcul-
ture,in the sense of valuesand lifestyles, willlargelyfolloweco-
nomic, institutional, and technologicalprocesses and become
increasingly homogenizedworldwide.48 Amongpragmatists, this
escapes close study, but is surely to be considered a good thing,
reflecting"framealignment"amongTSMOs and INGO elites.In

contrast, Utopiantransformationalists implya sharpdividebetween

whattheydepictas the technocraticvalues and cultureof inter-
nationalpoliticaland economicinstitutions and theprogressive or
emancipatory values and culture assumed to be articulated within
and byglobalcivilsociety.Thisviewis probablyreinforced bythe
importing ofassumptions fromnewsocial-movement theory.Thus
it is not surprisingthat Utopiantransformationalists like Falk,
Thiele,and Turnershouldpaysignificant attentionto theexpres-
sivedimensionof movements, as evidentin the excerptsquoted
above.The problemwiththeiranalysisis thatit downplays thesig-
nificant culturaldifferences betweenmovements worldwide. What
is more,the instrumental strategiespursuedby movements(in-
cludingso-callednewmovements)and theinstrumental and tech-
nocraticorientationof manynonmovementINGOs tend to dis-
appearfromview.
Pessimisticstructuralists,on theotherhand,interpret thecul-
turaldimensionsofglobalizationin termsofa processof imposed
Westernization inwhichINGOs are implicated."Authentic" cultural
life remainslocated in local communitieswhere it maybe de-
fendedby social movements.It is onlyhere thatthe expressive
dimensionofactivism mayraiseinterest. Forexample,StephenGill
characterizes "thenewcounter-movements" evidentat Seattleand
beyond as "seek[ing] preserveecologicaland culturaldiversity
to
against what theysee as theencroachment of political,social,and
ecological mono-cultures associated withthe supremacy of corpo-
rate rule."49This is certainlyan orientationof some groupsin-
volvedin activism againstneoliberalelementsofeconomicglobal-
ization,but is not true of all of them,and it downplaysthe
possibility, noted by more optimisticstructuralists and Utopian
transformationalists, ofcultural-ideological affinities
thatmaybind
diverse"antiglobalization" activists together.50
Of course,structuralists of all varietieshave a stronginclina-
tion towardprivileging the materialdimensionsof globalization
and thusthe instrumental demandsand strategiesof resistance
movements.This is hardlysurprisinggiventhe Marxianunder-
pinningsoftheirframework. For example,in a recentshifttoward
optimism, Robert Cox gives accountof "growth
an in civilsociety
coming about as a reaction to the impact globalization."The
of
movements he citesmap closelyon to thosestruggles identified by
Hardtand Negrias themostimportant ofrecenttimes,and all are
depictedas centeringon materialinterests:strikesin Franceand
SouthKorea;riotsprovokedbyrisingfoodand transport pricesin
the Philippines;the Zapatistas'armedrevoltagainstthe Mexican
state; and self-help,self-reliancecommunityorganizationsin

SocialMovements,
The expressivedimensionof movementactivismand its

Africa.51
potentialto contributeto global change has again disappeared
fromview.
Democraticand OligarchicDynamics
The fourthand finalproblemwe wishto highlightconcernsthe
lackofattention to thedynamics ofoligarchicand democraticpos-
sibilitiesin movementorganizationand activism.Althoughthis
maybe expectedfromstructuralists, it is a startlingomissionfrom
theworkof normativepragmatists and Utopiantransformational-
ists,withitsheavyemphasison the democraticcharacterand role
ofsocialmovement activism and TSMOs/INGOs.
Normativepragmatists supportcurrentmovesto enable an
enhancedrole forNGOs withinthe UnitedNations,and in inter-
nationalfinancialinstitutions, on thebasis thatNGOs makesuch
institutions more democratic.Theybroaden representation and
renderinterstate negotiations more accountable, as well as more
functionally effective.52 However,mostpragmatists are working
withinthe liberal pluralistmodel of democracyin which it is
assumedthatgroupscompetein an open system to gain influence
overpolicy,thushelpingto aggregateinterests and dispersepower.
This model has been heavilycriticizedin the contextof national
politics,withcriticspointingto theimperfect natureofsuchcom-
petitiongiven the structural of
advantage powerful economicinter-
ests.Moregenerally, liberaldemocracy has longbeen criticized for
itslimited,proceduralcharacterand the extentto whichformal
politicalequalityobscuresasymmetries ofpowerin thewidersocial
context.It is notat all clearthattheextensionofliberaldemocracy
intostructures ofglobalgovernance wouldtacklesuchproblems.It
is also important to recognizethatthespace allocatedto INGOs in
pragmatist schemesforextendingdemocracyis frequently rather
limited.For example,theCommissionon Global Governancerec-
ommendstheestablishment ofa ForumforCivilSocietywithinthe
UN structure, but thisturnsout to be a discussionbodywithno
legislativepowersand no formalinputintotherestof the United
Nations.53
Utopiantransformationalists are awareofthelimitations offor-
mal, representative democracy and of an exclusive focus on the
incorporation ofINGOs intointernational institutions.
They want to
allowa rolefornonformal movement activism and formorepartici-
patoryelementsofdemocracy. Dianne Ottomakesthisclearin her
accountof a "postliberal conceptionof cosmopolitandemocracy."
This would involve"theformationof regionaland international

democraticassembliesand crossnationalreferenda";localized
social movementresistancesto the concentration of power;"net-
working, whichoperateshorizontally and co-operatively,[as] an
alternativeto hierarchicalinstitutional structures";and mecha-
nismswithintheUnitedNations"whichare inclusiveofa diversity
of formaland informalNGO formations, whichencourage the
buildingofglobalperspectives fromlocal participation, and which
fosteropen debate and criticism."54 Otto's is one of the more
developedtransformationalist formulations of democracy.None-
theless,it paysonlysuperficialattentionto the extensivetheoreti-
cal literatureon participatorydemocracy, and the preciserole of
movements and theirorganizations remainssketchy.
Perhapsmostimportantly, in our view,therehas been little
attentionpaid byeitherpragmatists or transformationaliststo the
of
question oligarchic and democratic dynamics within movements
and theirorganizations. Particularly importanthere is the extent
to whichINGOs/TSMOs necessarilyencounterproblemsof oli-
garchyand bureaucratization. Initiallyidentifiedby Max Weber
and RobertoMichels,thesearewidelyrecognizedas commonorga-
nizationaltrajectories,if not exactlyiron cages or laws. Dieter
RuchtoutlinestheirconsequencesforTSMOs:
[A] decliningperformance in relationto organizationalre-

sources, anda lossofinitiative
andemphasis particularly
among
therankandfile.. . . [C]hangesin structuretendtobe accom-
in . . . some
paniedbychanges ideology [whereby] organizations
. . . becomemoreinterested in theinternational
relations
own
maintenance andgrowth thanintheoriginal goalforwhichthey
weresetup. A relatedaspectofthisis thethreatofan instru-
mentalizationandcommercialization ofthemovements'aims. . .
[andthepossibility of]co-option andderadicalization.55
A trendin thisdirectionfindsconfirmation in parallelclaims

about movements being "NGO-ized" and INGOs/TSMOsbecom-
ingprofessionalized and Wewouldsuggestthat
institutionalized.56
thistrendis a seriousconstraint upon the democraticpotentialof
INGOs/TSMOs. Indeed, oughtit to be considered whether the
incorporation of formal democratic procedures within INGOs/
TSMOs,officially requiredas a precondition ofbeinggrantedcon-
sultativestatusat the UnitedNations,actuallyfunctionsto legiti-
mateoligarchy and to help itworkmoreeffectively.
It has been pointedout thatan oligopolyofINGOs is currently
emerging: A handfulof"operational" INGOs havebecome"market
leaders,"dominating interactionswith the United Nations and
functioning to stifle as
diversity other NGOs are forcedto adopt

SocialMovements,
similarpracticesand management stylesiftheyare to survive.57 In

sum,thereseemsto be a stronglikelihoodthatINGOs and TSMOs
willbecome increasingly integratedintoelitestructures of power
overtime,detachedfromthe controlof theirmemberships and
frompotentially broadermovement constituencies.
One challengeto theaboveargument is foundin references to
the proliferation of networkformsof organization.Normative
pragmatists and Utopiantransformationalists frequently assume
that both social-movement type mobilizationand INGOs are
increasingly takinga network form.58 Assumptions fromnewsocial-
movementtheorymaybe at playagain here,alongwiththeinflu-
ence ofmoregeneralclaimsabout theascendancyof thenetwork
formas a keyorganizationalfeatureof globalizationin the con-
temporary era.59The network forminvolvesan apparentflattening
ofhierarchies so thatauthority and legitimacy flowsmorehorizon-
tally and interactively,rather than vertically in a pyramidical com-
mandstructure. Further,itis suggestedthatnetworks are "lighter,"
less bureaucratic, moreflexibleand mobilethantraditional orga-
nizationalforms.Thereare also stronghintsthatthenetwork form
is inherently moreegalitarianand democratic.60
However,thereis also a good deal ofconfusion.The notionof
network as invokedbyKeckand Sikkinkdescribespatternedinter-
actionsbetweenINGOs, stateagencies,and international institu-
tions,and thereis no necessaryimplication herethatINGOs them-
selveswill be organizedaccordingto networkprinciples.When
othersdescribeINGOs as networks theyare oftenreferring to the
emergence of coalitionor umbrella groups of national NGOs that
do not have a singlecenterdictatingpolicy.61 Lack of hierarchy
betweenassociatednational organizationsdoes not necessarily
implya lack of hierarchy withinthoseorganizations.Further,as
PeterWaterman points out,networks can includeverticalas wellas
horizontalrelationshipsamong "unequals and unalikes.""Net-
worksalso havedifferent architectures, suchas thestar,thewheel
and the web . . . implyingdifferential influenceand control."62
There is littledetailin thisliterature of the typeof networkform
thatINGOs/TSMOsare adoptingand littleconcreteevidencethat
we are seeing the disseminationof more horizontaland equal
formsoforganization. Thus it is fartoo soon to concludethatthe
bureaucraticand oligarchicaltendenciesidentifiedabove are dis-
appearing.
Perhapsthemostimportant lacunain theliterature we are dis-
cussing is the lack of attention to the possibility of networks be-
tweenmore formallystructuredorganizationsand less formal
dimensionsof movementactivism.We suggestbelow that the

democraticconstruction of such networksmightmilitateagainst

tendencies
oligarchic in TSMOs. However,althoughwe thinkthat
democratizing of thenetwork
possibilities formneed to be investi-
it shouldbe notedthatnetworkrelationsdo not of
gatedfurther,
themselvesguarantee any equality of power and influence.
ChristophGorgandJoachimHirsch,who are closelyalignedwith
thepessimistic
structuralist
approach,makethispoint:
Presentdiscussions surrounding network and governance ...

reducedemocracy to itsfunctional achievementsin increasing
the'nationalcompetitive ... In thissense,'political
ability'. par-
hasrelatively
ticipation' littletodo withemancipation orplural
control
ofpower. . . [but]isbasicallyunderstoodas aneconomic
resource.63
efficiency
Certainly,muchofthecurrentpraiseofsupposedly democratic
network relationswithinand betweenINGOs is expressedin terms
of theirfunctional forservicedelivery,
utility and thisneeds to be
understoodin the contextof neoliberalpoliciesof cuttingback
statecapacity.Recognitionof the waysin whichINGOs are thus
compromisedhas led manypessimistic to rejectthe
structuralists
of
possibility there beinganysignificant democratizing potentialin
global movement However,
organizations. Gorg and Hirsch insist
on the need forINGOs to striveforautonomyfromstatestruc-
tures.Whatis particularly is theirsuggestionthat"the
interesting
democraticsignificanceof NGOs depends on the existenceand
development of social movements,"particularlydemocraticmove-
mentsat thenationaland regionallevel,seen as necessaryto pre-
ventINGOs "fromevolvingintoelitist-bureaucratic and quasi-state
formations."64 We disagreewiththe hierarchyof levels implied
here,butagreethattheconceptualdistinction betweenNGOs and
movements, and the characterof the relationshipbetweenthem,
are crucialforassessingglobal democraticpossibilities. The next
sectionof thisarticlebeginswithan effortto establishthiscon-
ceptualdistinction moreprecisely.
TowardReconstruction
Transnational
SocialMovementsand TSMOs
As we have seen, the conceptsof social movementand TSMOs
deployedin the existingliteratureare frequently
impressionistic
and ungroundedin social-movement theory.Those commentators

352 SocialMovements,
INGOs,andGlobalChange
who drawon existingliteratureto offermoreprecisedefinitions

do so in a rathernarrowand limitedwaywhensetagainstthewider
rangeofpossibilities withinthefieldofsocial-movement studies.
There is extensivedebate but littleconsensusin this field
aboutwhatsocialmovements mightbe. As MarioDiani pointsout,
"evenan implicit,'empirical'agreementof the use of the termis
largelymissing."65 Diani has developed a syntheticconcept of
socialmovement thatshedssomelighton theproblemsdoggingits
global application.For Diani, a social movementis definedas "a
network ofinformal interactions betweena plurality ofindividuals,
groupsand/or organizations,engaged in a politicalor cultural
conflict, on thebasisofa sharedcollectiveidentity."66
The firstpoint to note here is Diani's insistencethat"social
movements are not organizations, not even of a peculiarkind."67
Thus a clearanalytical distinction needsto be maintainedbetween
organizations and thenetwork ofinformal interactions thatconsti-
tutesa socialmovement. Evenifan organization adoptsa network
structure internally,thisdoes notmeanitcan be seen as equivalent
to a socialmovement. Of course,as Dianimakesclear,organizations
maywellbe partof a movement.Indeed, he arguesthat"bureau-
craticinterest groupsand evenpoliticalparties"can be socialmove-
mentorganizations.68 But he also insiststhata social movement
need not give rise to anyformalorganizationsat all. This is an
important corrective to theversionofresource-mobilization theory,
in
prevalent globalizedaccounts,thatseesmovements as largelycre-
atedbyand dependentupon formalorganizations.
More problematically, in our view,Diani's definitionalso im-
plies that a social-movement network could comprisea network of
interactions linkingonly formal organizations. We take the view
thatsocial movementnetworks mustnecessarily encompassinfor-
mal groupsand extrainstitutional activism.Althoughthe signifi-
cance of thesemayvaryin different movements, or at different
phases in the lifeof a movement, the of
implication our argument
is that when symbolicactivity,lifestyleinnovations,informal
groups,noninstitutional articulationsof collectiveidentity, and
popular protests have disappeared, then a movement no longer
exists.Thus an informalnetworkof interactions linkingonlyfor-
mal organizationswithoutsignificant grassrootsparticipationin
processes of contention is not a social movement. It is moreclosely
aligned to Keck and Sikkink's notion of a transnational advocacy
network.
This indicatesthe need forprecisionin the different waysin
whichthe termnetwork is being deployed.We are distinguishing
herebetween

Eschle
andStammers353
1. a networkof informalinteractionslinkingformalorganiza-
tions (a transnationaladvocacy network);
2. the flatteningof hierarchieswithinorganizationsthatnone-
theless remain formallyconstituted (a network organiza-
tion); and
3. a networkof informalinteractionsthat ties together infor-
mal groups and individuals, and sometimes formal organi-
zations, in struggles for social change on the basis of a
shared identity(a social movement).
The networkrelations involved in the constitutionof a social-

movementcourse throughand link togetherthe nonformal,extra-
institutionalactivismof diverse individuals and groups, and they
may also connect such activism to the institutionallyoriented
activismof formallystructuredorganizations.
The keyquestion here is whetherand how such networkscan be
considered transnationalor global. The definitionabove implies
thatthereis no necessarydistinctionin organizationalformbetween
social movementsin general and transnationalsocial movements.
There may,however,be a question of organizational reach, with
transnationalnetworksstretchingacross borders to link activistsin
differentstates. We see no particular reason why such networks
should be so much more difficultto forge than national networks,
particularlyif Tarrow's apparentlya priori assumption of national
culturalcohesion isjettisoned.Afterall, even national networkscan-
not relyon face-to-facerelationshipsbut must, to adopt a phrase
fromBenedict Anderson,be "imagined."The globalizationof com-
municationsand transporttechnologyhas made it increasinglyeasy
forpeople fromdifferentgeographical locations to meet up, com-
municate,and "imagine"or constructcommonalitiesand identities
across borders.Problemsof differential access and influencedue to
economic, political, and cultural disparitiesare hardlyunique to
transnationalrelationsalthough theymaywell be more acute.
In thiscontext,it is interestingto note thatTarrow'ssharp dis-
tinctionbetween domestic social networksand transnationaladvo-
cacy networksis refuted by Keck and Sikkink. They insist that
INGOs operating withintransnationaladvocacy networksare fre-
quentlyunderpinned by diffuseinterpersonalconnections,forged
throughprocessesof exile and exchange and throughinternational
conferences.69In other words, Keck and Sikkinkbelieve that net-
worksof informalinteractioncan "upscale," stretchingacross state
borders. The extent to which such networkstherebyretain a sub-
terranean, socially embedded quality remains open to dispute.
What is clear is that the studyof transnationalsocial movements

354 Social andGlobal
INGOs,
Movements, Change
and TSMOs needsto paymuchcloserattention thanithas thusfar

to thenetworks linkingtogether in
activists different
geographical
kindsofgroups.
locationsand in different
BetweenGlobaland Local
TheRelationship
The theorizationof social movementsin a global contextcan be
further fleshedout bya richerand morecomplexunderstanding
of the ambiguitiesof globalization.More specifically, we wantto
argue in favorof a multidimensional, multicausal,and "inter-
sectional"understanding ofglobalization. Such an approachinsists
on theintertwining of economic,political,technological, and cul-
turalrelationsofpoweron a globalscale.These multipleprocesses
are likelyto intersectwitheach otherin complex,context-specific,
highlyuneven,stratified, and unpredictable ways:thusthereis no
singleunderlying motoror directionto globalization.Attention is
focusedon the risingdensityand stretchingof social relations
acrosstheglobe; thereshapingof space and time;and therole of
consciousness, and agency.70
reflexivity,
One implicationof thisapproachis thatthe analysisof trans-
nationalopportunity structures shouldnotbe limitedto a focuson
the narrowly politicalrealm of interstate
institutions,but should
encompass broader shifts in other kinds of social relationsand
structures.71 Anotherimplicationis the need forsensitivity to the
tensionbetweenhomogenizingand fragmenting tendenciesand
theemergenceofdiversehybridculturalforms.
Most importantly for our purposes, the multidimensional
modelofglobalization impliesa complexand open-endedrelation-
ship between localized activismand global processes.We should
stressat thispointthatwe are verymuchawarethatvastasymme-
triesof relationsand structures of powersuffusethe global and
local, ensuringthatsome global institutions and ideologies are
enormously preponderant in influencein manycontexts.However,
we are seekingan analyticformulation oftherelationship between
the global and local thatdoes not make an a prioriassumption
aboutthetotality and impactofsuchpower.
Two insightsseem significant here.The firstis the argument
thatthelocal and theglobalcan be seen as mutually constitutive,
withlocalitiesplayingan activerole in shapingthe impactand
receptionofglobalprocessesas wellas beingshapedbythem.This
has been describedby Roland Robertsonas "glocalization"and
receives particularattentionin anthropologicaland feminist
accounts.72 The second is an extrapolationofAnthonyGiddens's
arguments about accelerating"time-spacedistanciation," which

impliesthe disembeddingof social relationsfromtheirfamiliar

local contextsand theirreembedding in alteredformsin newcon-
texts,bringingpreviously separatedtraditionsand activitiesinto
newproximity.73
Allthisenablesus to go beyondKeckand Sikkink's recognition
thatglobalizationenables movementnetworksto extend across
stateborders.The idea ofglocalization impliesthatlocallysituated,
territoriallyboundedmovements are potentially bothobjectsand
subjectsofglobalprocesses.The long-standing slogan"Thinkglob-
ally,act locally"goes somewaytowardcapturingthenatureof the
involvement of thesekindsof movementsin global politics,but
does so by separatingabstractconsciousnessof the global from
concreteactionthatremainslocallyexpressed.The approachto
globalizationadvocatedhere impliesthatlocallysituatedactors
may not only thinkgloballybut act globally,because global
processesare manifested in local spaces and can be, at leastpar-
tially,
shaped and redirected there.It shouldbe added thata global
consciousness is highlylikelyto be accompaniedbyefforts to forge
relationships with activists
elsewhere, so thatmanyapparently local-
ized movementsmay actuallybe connected to broader,trans-
nationalmovement networks.74
The notion of disembeddingcomplicatesthingsfurther.It
meansthatthe "diffusion" of movementidentities, goals,and tac-
tics maynot be due simplyto theirdetachmentfromdomestic
movementnetworksand mimicryelsewhere,but to the trans-
nationalization ofnetworks themselves. Further, it is notsufficient
to assume that networksstretchonly across neighboringstate
boundariesor followin thewakeofthephysicalmovement ofpeo-
ple, as Keck and Sikkink imply. There be
may sharpspatial discon-
tinuityapparent as networksreemergein disparatelocations,
bringingphysically distantpeople intonewrelationsofaffinity.
Littledetailedstudyhas as yetbeen paid to suchdiscontinuous
networks, to ourknowledge.Butthereis suggestive evidencepoint-
ing in thisdirection emerging from literatureby and aboutactivists
in theso-calledantiglobalization movement.75 The keyroleoflarge
gatherings receivesmuchemphasisin thisliterature, in thewakeof
Seattleand subsequentdemonstrations and conferencesheld in
diversegeographicallocations:fromPragueto PortoAlegre.The
impressiongivenis thatsuch eventsare keylocationsforoften-
disparateactiviststo recognizecommonalitiesand participatein
processesofcollectiveidentity and goal formation, whichare then
diffusedto new nationallocationswhenactivistsreturnhome.76
Commonalities mayalso be reinforced whenlargegatherings are
held simultaneously in severallocationsthroughout theworld,in

SocialMovements,
designated global days of protest.The key role of the internetin

helping to coordinate such protestsand in constructingnetworks
of transnationalsolidaritythat do not relyon face-to-facecontact
has been much remarked upon - along with the exclusions that
thismaybringwithit.77Further,recent commentaryon the move-
ment has criticized the emphasis on large-scale protestsas func-
tioningto privilegeyoung,white,rootless,middle-classactivistsand
has argued instead for the need to recognize and strengthena
more pluralized and socially embedded identityin termsof links
between,diverse,local communitystruggles.78
In sum, there appear to be complex, contested, stratified,ter-
ritoriallydiscontinuous, socially embedded movement networks
underpinningthismovement.
and ExpressiveDimensionsofMovementActivism
Instrumental
Analysesof the relationshipbetweenthe global and local with

regardto socialmovements is furthercomplicatedbytheneed to
acknowledge both the instrumental and expressivemodes of
activism.We believethat,to adapt theworkofJeanCohen and
AndrewArato,movements havedual facesand adopt a
typically
dualisticstrategy. Cohen and Aratoelaboratethismodel with
regardstoWestern feminist activism:Feministmovements contest
thenormsand structures ofmaledominancepervadingcivilsoci-
ety,but theyalso challengethewaysin whichtheseinformthe
structuration of the subsystems in generaland social policyin
.
particular. . . The dual logic feminist
of politicsthusinvolvesa
communicative, discursive politicsof identityand influencethat
targetsciviland politicalsocietyand an organized,strategically
rationalpoliticsofinclusionand reformthatis aimedat political
and economicinstitutions.79
Cohen and Arato insist that the legislative and judicial suc-
cesses that have resulted would have been impossible or much
more limitedwithoutthe accompanyingstruggleto reconstructthe
norms and practicesin societymore generally.Further,theyargue
thata dualisticstrategymaps to some extenton to a dualistic orga-
nizational logic. In termsof second-wavefeminism,thismeant that
"two branches" of the movement emerged, with instrumental
strategiespursued by longer-standinginterestgroups and expres-
sive strategiesemphasized by "younger"grassrootsgroups. How-
ever, Cohen and Arato are keen to emphasize the complexityof
the relationshipbetween the twobranches of feminismand, in par-
ticular,to critique the widespread notion that such movements

becomeincreasingly formalized, and instrumental

institutionalized,
in characterovertime.Theyinsistthatactivistshave crossedthe
organizational dividein bothdirections."Norhas learningon the
partof activists entaileda one-directional shiftfromexpressiveto
instrumental rationality . . . learninghas occurredon both sides
and in bothdirections."80
This can be mappedonto our understanding of transnational
social movements outlinedabove.We have distinguished between
the informal,grassrootsgroups/subterranean networksthatare
intrinsic to anymovement and theformalorganizations or TSMOs
thatmayor maynot be associatedwiththem.Cohen and Arato's
analysisimplies that TSMOs typicallyface national and inter-
nationalinstitutional structures and tendto pursueinstrumental
strategies, while informal grassroots groups/ subterranean networks
are typically embeddedin morelocalizedand everyday socialrela-
tionships and tendto pursueexpressive However,
strategies. we can
also expectto see some combinationof instrumental and expres-
sivestrategies pursuedbybothbranchesof a movement. Continu-
ityand feedback between these dimensions of the two branches is
likely to be providedby the communicative, interpersonal, and
informationallinkages of a transnationalmovementnetwork
withinwhichbothformaland informal groupsare embedded.Fur-
ther,itmaybe thecase thattheinstrumental demandsofinformal
are
groupings potentially "thickened" by the movementnetwork
and activities oftheinternational relationsofTSMOs, in thesense
thattheyare thuslikelyto havea moredirectand effective impact
upon international institutions. Conversely, theexpressivedimen-
sionsofTSMO activismcould be potentially "thickened"bytheir
articulationoutwardthroughthe movementnetworkand into
informal, grassroots modesofactivism, becausetheyare thusenter-
ing deep into the noninstitutionalized worldof everydaysocial
relationsand tappinginto more diffuse,long-termprocessesof
change.
Thisargument remainsgeneraland abstract. However, itoffers
a necessaryanalyticcorrectiveto the pragmatist focuson TSMOs
and theirinstrumental strategiesand the pessimistic structuralist
dismissalof such strategies.It also enables a more complexren-
deringof the transformationalist insistenceon the importanceof
grassroots, expressive activism. There is clearlya need formore
concretestudiesof thecomplexnetworkrelationships linkingthe
twobranchesof transnational social movements and the strategic
use in both of instrumental and expressivestrategiesforglobal
change.

358 Social
INGOs, Change
Democraticand OligarchicDynamics
The characterand dynamicsof network relationshipsare also cru-
cial forconsideringthepotentialof movements to contribute to a
shifttowarda moredemocraticworldorder.The argumentabove
indicatesthat TSMO instrumentalstrategiesare likelyto con-
tributemosteffectively to sucha shiftwhentheyremainconnected
via social movementnetworksto informalgrassrootsgroupsand
theirtypically more expressivestrategies.However,we have also
argued thatTSMOs, and morebroadlyINGOs, remainsubjectto
tendenciestowardbureaucratization, oligarchy, and assimilation.
This highlights thelimitations of pragmatist proposalsfordemoc-
ratizingglobal governance that simplyargue formore extensive
institutionalinvolvement forINGOs.
Atthesametime,thereneedsto be attention paid to theinter-
nal constitution of INGOs. Here normative pragmatist arguments
aboutchangesin formalvotingproceduresmayprovidea startbut
do not go anywherenear farenough.We wouldsuggestthatit is
also essentialto constructand maintaindemocraticrelationships
between the differentorganizationalformsof movementsif
TSMOs are to be "inoculated"againstthedangersofoligarchy. As
Cohen and Aratoput it,the "answerto the Michelsiandilemma"
lies in a recognitionof the pluralityof different kindsof groups
withincivilsociety"andin thepossibility ofa newtypeofrelation-
shipbetweenthem. . . involving]a critiqueofdemocraticfunda-
mentalism typicalofcollectiveactorsbasedin civilsocietyand a cri-
tique of democraticelitismtypicalof those based in political
society."81To translatethisinto the languageused in thisarticle,
thereneeds to be a reconceptualization of thekindsofdemocracy
possiblewithinand betweenthe formalorganizations,informal
groups,and subterranean networks involvedin transnationalsocial
movements.
We can provideonlypointershere to such a reconceptualiza-
tion.We wouldstartbyinsistingthatgrassroots modesof democ-
racyshouldnotbe too hastilydismissedas "fundamentalist." After
all, theyhave as yetreceivedonlyfleetingattentionin the global
literature,in the formof some rathersweepinggeneralizations
fromUtopiantransformationalists. Indeed,thereseemsto us to be
an urgentneed fora more systematic recoveryof participatory,
informal,group-basedmodes of democracyand a more critical
attemptto applythemto globalpolitics.As wellas a bodyofwork
in politicaltheorythatcould be usefulhere,82thereis a literature
generatedby movementactivists.Currentmobilizationsagainst
neoliberalelementsof globalizationoffersome examples,witha

strongnormative emphasison the need forenrichingand global-

izingdemocracyapparentlytakingtwomainforms:campaignsto
maketheworkingsof the global economy,and particularly inter-
nationalfinancialinstitutions, less secretiveand exclusionary; and
efforts to structurethe movementon a devolvedand consensual
basis,in partinvolvingthe adaptationof anarchistmodesof self-
organization.83 Arguably, these twodemocraticprojectsand the
linksbetweenthemare stillbeingworkedout.
The lessonsofsecond-wave, Westernfeminism maybe instruc-
tivehere.The influenceofanarchismis againevident,feedinginto
moreradicalstrandsoffeminism throughtheirlinkswiththeNew
Leftand givena specifically feminist spinon thegroundsthatfor-
mal, representative modes of democracyhad functionedhistori-
callyto delegatewomen'svoice to men and to evacuatewomen
fromthepublicsphere.Thusthewidespreadpracticedevelopedin
the 1970sand 1980soforganizingin nonhierarchical groups,with
activitiesdividedequallybetweenparticipants and decisionstaken
throughinclusivedialoguethatwas expectedultimately to gener-
ate consensus.Thismovement modelofdemocracy wassometimes
advocatedin "fundamentalist" waysand has been the subjectof
muchcriticism among feminists.Indeed,itappearsto haveencour-
aged a turn among some feminists towardmoreconventional rep-
resentative, institutionalmodelsofdemocracyand theinclusionof
womenwithinthese.It is interesting to note,however, thatmanyof
thesefeminist representative schemes a
incorporate participatory
element.Forexample,theymayinsiston theinclusionofwomen's
caucuses in representative institutions or call fora more active,
engaged version of citizenship.84 Further,other feministshave
retainedan insistenceon the need for a participatory basis to
movementorganizationand havesoughtto developa morework-
able and inclusiveparticipatory model,mostnotablythroughaban-
the
doning requirement oftotalconsensus, specifyingtheconditions
of inclusivedialogue and acceptingsome votingand delegatory
mechanisms.85 In otherwords,just as the feminist movementhas
strategically combined instrumental and expressive so it
strategies,
has soughtto balance representative and participatory modes of
democracy.
Thesefeminist debateshavealso been extendedto globalmove-
mentrelationships. Increasedawarenessof the global scope and
multidimensional character ofrelationsand structures ofpowerhas
the
encouraged proliferation of transnational feministmovement
networks and TSMOs and the redoublingof efforts to construct
thesein a democraticform,enablingdifferent groupsof women
worldwideto havea voice.It is in thiscontextthatcommentators

360 Social
INGOs, Change
haveemphasizedtheemergenceof a distinctively nonhierarchical

network formoffeminist TSMO.86Further, thereis a growingfem-
inistliteratureon thenotionof "transversal politics."This is a ver-
sionofcoalitionbuildingbased on therecognition thatall partici-
pantsspeakfroma specific material location,giving them a distinct
but alwayspartialperspective.Different perspectives need not be
lostor renouncedin theprocessof seekingagreementon specific
politicalissues,butshould,rather, be respected, voiced,and heard.
Hence, agreementshould be soughtthrougha processof open,
participatory,and empatheticdialogue.A notableexampleof this
strategy can be foundin the efforts of feministpeace activiststo
build strategicsolidaritiesbetweenwomenon different sides of
ethnicconflicts.87
Anotherrelevantdevelopmentis the increasedawarenessin
manysectorsof feminismof the racialized,class, national,and
geopoliticalhierarchiesthatstratify the movementon a global
scale and thathave distortedagenda setting.Proactiveefforts to
tacklesuchhierarchies can be seen in feminist mobilization against
theNorthAmericanFree Trade Association(NAFTA)and associ-
ated economic processes.This involvedthe organizationof tri-
nationalmeetingsin Mexicoand thepublicationof newsletters in
Spanish and English, while Canadian the
groupssponsored partic-
ipationof Mexicanwomenactivists in a joint tourto oppose free
tradeand recruitedmorewomenof color to theirmemberships
and executives.88 The keychallengeforsuch activists nowmaylie
in theconstruction ofmoredemocraticrelationships betweenfem-
inist activismand the newlycrystallized, worldwidemovement
against the neoliberal dimensions of globalization.89
It seemsto us thattheseongoingefforts pointto an emergent
modelofdemocracy emphasizing importanceofopen and par-
the
ticipatorydialogue and of accompanyingeffortsto counterthe
multiple forms of coerciveand hierarchical powerbywhichsucha
dialoguemay be constrained. This model has implications beyond
feminismand resistancesto economicglobalization.It provides
lessonsforthewaysin whichTSMOs and transnational movement
networks ofa widerangeoforientations could be constructed on a
more democraticbasis. Further,it offersan important,if as yet
underdeveloped, alternative to the dominanceof formalized, lib-
eral,representative modelsofdemocracy in arguments aboutglobal
governance.
Withoutimplyingthatsuch formalmodels should be aban-
doned altogether, wewantto stresstheirprofoundlimitations, par-
ticularly given thattheyare based on a viewof politicsas limited
to state,and at bestinterstate,institutions and do littleto constrain

eliterule.Our sketchy
oligarchic, ofthe
conceptualreconstruction
relationshipbetweensocial movementsand global change,then,
has far-reaching
ultimately implications. social
Takingtransnational
movementsseriouslyrequiresand enables the developmentof
moreexpansiveand imaginative understandings ofwhattransfor-
mativepoliticsmightlook likein a globalizedworld.
* * *
This articlehas soughtto illuminatethe relationshipbetween

social-movement agencyand globalchange.It has drawnattention
to theemergenceofa distinct bodyofworkon transnational social
movements and INGOs. It has identified threemainapproachesin
thisliterature(pragmatic,structuralist, and transformationalist)
and exploredproblemsin thewaysthateach ofthesedeal withthe
core conceptsoftransnational socialmovements and TSMOs; with
therelationship betweentheglobaland thelocal; withinstrumen-
taland expressive dimensionsofactivism; and withthedemocratic
and oligarchicpotentialsofmovements and theirorganizations.
In thefinalsectionof the article,we put forwardsome tenta-
tiveproposalsforconceptualreconstruction. First,we arguedfor
a network concept of social movement, one stressing thecentrality
of informalmodes of activismin the everydayand the need to
maintainan analyticaldistinctionbetweenthisand moreformal
social-movement organizations.Second, we claimed thatsocial-
movementnetworkscan be conceivedas transnational in scope
and globalin orientationifa multidimensional of
analysis global-
izationis adopted,alongwitha recognition ofthemutually consti-
tutiverelationship betweenthelocal and theglobaland theimpact
of processesof disembedding.Third,we insistedthatthe formal
organizationsand grassrootsactivisminvolvedin transnational
social movements are likelyto combineinstrumental and expres-
sivestrategiesin complexwaysin theirpursuitof global change.
Finally,we urgedrecognitionof the oligarchictendenciesfacing
TSMOs and identified mitigating in theformofefforts
strategies to
construct thenetwork relationshipbetween TSMOs and lessformal
dimensionsof movementactivismon a more democraticbasis.
Such strategiesalso indicatewaysin whichglobal politicsmore
generally could be made moreinclusiveand participatory.
These efforts at conceptualreconstruction of therelationship
betweensocialmovements, INGOs, and globalchangefitbestwith
whatwasdescribedearlieras a criticaltransformationalist approach.
We believethatmovements do have thepotentialto contribute to
emancipatory in
change globalpolitics because of their distinctive

SocialMovements,
capacityto combinetransnational networks withsociallyembedded

grassrootsactivism as well as instrumental and expressive strategies
forchange.However,we wouldstressthatnot all movementslive
up to this potential:They face pressurestowardoligarchyand
assimilationand theyare suffusedinternallyby the vast global
asymmetries of powerthatalso shape the worldmore generally.
Further, the significant substantiveand organizational differences
withinand betweenmovements need to be acknowledged, partic-
ularlyon a worldwidescale. Much researchstillneeds to be done
on identifying and assessingthose elementswithinand among
movementsthatcan contributemostto progressive processesof
globalchange.
Thisarticlehas been concernedlargelywithexistingacademic
literatureon movements, but we believethatfurthertheoretical
insightis morelikelyto be gainedfromstudyofthefertileground
of movementpraxis.Indeed, it seemsto us thatthe criticaltrans-
formationalist approach mustbe rooted in praxis,ratherthan
abstraction.
Conversely, such an approachraisesissuesforactivistsabout
appropriatestrategy and organization. This articlehas particularly
urged the need for the construction of democraticrelationships
betweenformaland informalmodes of activismin transnational
movementnetworks. Such relationships are likelyto be crucialif
theworldis to be changedforthebetterand ifmovements are to
a
play positive role in that change.
Notes
1. Alejandro Colas, International

CivilSociety:
Social Movements
in World
Politics U.K.:Polity,
(Cambridge, 2002),p. 18.Fora generaldiscussion
ofthe
diachronicdimensionof movementactivism, see Neil Stammers,"Social
Movements and theChallengeto Power,"in MartinShaw,ed., Politics
and
Globalisation: Ethics,and Agreña(London: Routledee, 1999).
Knowledge,
2. ValentineMoghadam,'TransnationalFeministNetworks: Collective
Actionin an EraofGlobalization,"
International 15,no. 1 (1995): 57.
Soäology
3. For example,RobertKeohane and JosephS. Nye, Transnational
Relationsand WorldPolitics(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversity Press,
1972); RichardW. Mansbach,Yale H. Ferguson,and Donald E. Lampert,
The WebofWorldPolitics:Non-State
Actorsin theGlobalSystem
(Upper Saddle
River,N.J.:PrenticeHall, 1976); PeterWilletts,
ed., Pressure in the
Groups
GlobalSystem(London:Pinter,1982).
4. For example,Thomas Risse-Kappan,ed., Bringing Transnational
RelationsBack In: Non-State
Actors:DomesticStructures
and International
Insti-
tutions(Cambridge,U.K.: CambridgeUniversity
Press,1995).
5. For example,MarliesGlasius,MaryKaldor,and HelmutAnheier,
eds., GlobalCivilSociety 2002 (Oxford:OxfordUniversity
Yearbook Press,

2002); Commissionon Global Governance,Our GlobalNeighbourhood

(Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press,1995); RonnieD. Lipschutz,"Recon-
structing WorldPolitics:The Emergenceof Global CivilSociety,"Millen-
nium21, no. 3 (1992): 389-420;RogerCoate et al., "The UnitedNations
and CivilSociety:CreativePartnerships forSustainableDevelopment,"
Alternatives,21, no. 1 (1996): 93-122;CraigMurphy, "GlobalGovernance:
PoorlyDone and PoorlyUnderstood,"International Affairs 76, no. 4
(2000): 789-803.Althoughitwasnotproducedin thedisciplinary location
of internationalrelations,see also Michael Hardt and AntonioNegri,
Empire (Cambridge, Mass.:HarvardUniversity Press,2000) fora distinctive
takeon similarthemes,one thathas been muchdiscussedbyIR scholars.
For a similardepictionof twostagesof debatein international relations,
moreparticularly withregardto NGOs, see Paul K. Wapner,Environmen-
talActivism and World CivicPolitics(Albany:StateUniversity of NewYork
Press,1996),pp. 11-12.Colas offers overlapping categorizations, focusing
morecentrally on civilsociety, in Colas,note 1, pp. 10-15,140-147.
6. Thereis somediscussionofnonglobalsocial-movement theoriesin
MatthiasFinger,"NGOs and Transformation: BeyondSocial Movement
Theory,"in Thomas Princenand MatthiasFinger,eds., Environmental
NGOsin World Politics:
Linking theLocalandtheGlobal(London:Routledge,
1994); MartinShaw,"CivilSocietyand Global Politics:Beyonda Social
MovementsApproach,"Millennium 23, no. 3 (1994): 650-654; R. B. J.
Walker,"SocialMovements/World Politics,"Millennium 23, no. 3 (1994):
669-700;Christine ChinandJamesH. Mittleman, "Conceptualizing Resis-
tanceto Globalization," in BarryK. Gills,ed., Globalization and thePolitics
ofResistance (Basingstoke, U.K.:Palgrave,2002),pp. 35-36.Thereis a brief
examination of recentefforts to globalizepolitical-opportunity structures
theoryin Colas, note 1, pp. 77-78,and in CraigMurphy'sconclusionto
hiseditedvolumeEgalitarian Politics
in theAgeofGlobalization (Basingstoke,
U.K.: Palgrave,2002), pp. 208-209.
7. Takentogether, theseapproachesare oftencharacterized as consti-
tutinga NorthAmericansocial-movement tradition.For a classic,early
statementof resource-mobilization theory,see John D. McCarthyand
MayerN. Zald, "ResourceMobilizationand Social Movements: A Partial
Theory," American Journal ofSociology82, no. 6 (1977): 1212-1241.Perhaps
themostinfluential exponentofpolitical-opportunity structures theoryis
SidneyTarrow, in Powerin Movement: SocialMovements and Contentious Poli-
tics,2d ed. (Cambridge,U.K.: CambridgeUniversity Press,1998). For an
earlydevelopment offrametheory, see DavidA. Snowet al., "FrameAlign-
mentProcesses,Micromobilization, and MovementParticipation," Ameri-
canSociological Review b' (1986): 464-481.
8. Forexample,JackieSmithet al., Transnational SocialMovements and
GlobalPolitics:Solidarity Beyond theState(Syracuse, N.Y.:SyracuseUniversity
Press,1997);JackieSmithand HankJohnston, eds., GlobalizationandResis-
tance:Transnational Dimensions ofSocialMovements (Lanham,Md.: Rowman
& Littlefield, 2002); MargaretKeckand Kathryn Sikkink,Activists Beyond
Borders: Advocacy Networks in InternationalPolitics(Ithaca,N.Y.:CornellUni-
versity Press,1998);DonatelladellaPortaand HanspeterKriesi,eds.,Social
Movements in a Globalizing World (Basingstoke, U.K.: Macmillan,1999).
9. Della Portaand Kriesibriefly namecheckIR authorsassociatedwith
transnationalism, globalgovernance, and globalcivil-society perspectivesin
theirintroduction to dellaPortaand Kriesi,note8, p. 14. See also Tarrow's

SocialMovements,
theoryin "FromLumpingto Splitting:

discussionof global civil-society
SpecifyingGlobalizationand Resistance,"in Smithand Johnston,eds.,
note8.
10. This is evident,forexample,in the introductory
discussionin
JohnA. Guidry,MichaelD. Kennedy,and MayerN. Zald, eds., Globaliza-
tionsand SocialMovements:
Culture,Powerand theTransnationalPublicSphere
(AnnArbor:University ofMichiganPress,2000).
11. An oft-citedclassicnewsocial-movement-theorycollectionis the
winter1985issueof SocialResearch
52,witharticlesbymanykeyexponents.
See also Alberto Melucci, NomadsofthePresent:Social Movements
and Indi-
vidualNeedsin Contemporary (London:Radius,1989). Meluccitakes
Society
on boardtheimpactofglobalizationto someextentin boththistextand
his later ChallengingCodes: CollectiveActionin theInformation
Age (Cam-
bridge,U.K.: CambridgeUniversity Press,1996). New social-movement
debatesare explored,althoughnotendorsed,in RobinCohen and Shirin
M. Rai, "GlobalSocial Movements: Towardsa CosmopolitanPolitics,"in
theiredited volume GlobalSocial Movements (London: AthlonePress,
2000), pp. 4-7.
12. Of course,analyticalpragmatists, too, tendto have a normative
interestin thesuccessofthemovements theystudyand to be imbuedwith
valuesof pluralismand participation. Nonetheless,theytend not to be
overtlynormative in termsof thedeclaredfocusof theIR research.See,
forexample,Keohaneand Nye,eds.,note3; Risse-Kappan, note4; Tarrow,
note7; Keckand Sikkink, note8; della Portaand Kriesi,note8; Leon Gor-
denkerand Thomas Weiss,"PluralizingGlobal Governance:Analytical
Approachesand Dimensions,"in Gordenkerand Weiss,eds., NGOs,the
UN,and GlobalGovernance (Boulder,Colo.: LynneRienner,1996), 17-47;
Willetts,introduction and conclusionto Willetts,note3; and also Willetts,
"Transnational Actorsand InternationalOrganizations," in JohnBaylis
and SteveSmith,eds., TheGlobalization ofWorld 2d ed. (Oxford:
Politics,
OxfordUniversity Press,2001),pp. 356-383.Willetts movestowarda more
explicitlynormativeconcernwiththe capacityfor democratization in
"FromConsultative Arrangements to Partnership: The ChangingStatusof
NGOs in Diplomacyat the UN," GlobalGovernance 6, no. 2 (2000): 191-
212. Normative pragmatist elementscan also be foundin Commission on
Global Governance,OurGlobalNeighbourhood; in severalof the essaysin
Smithet al., eds.,note8; and in BarbaraAdams,"The People's Organisa-
tions and the UN- NGOs in InternationalCivil Society,"in Erskine
Childers, Challengesto theUnitedNations:Buildinga SaferWorld(London:
CatholicInstitute
forInternationalRelations,1995),pp. 176-187.Perhaps
thestrongest statementof normativepragmatism can be foundin Eliza-
beth Riddell-Dixon,"Social Movementsand the UnitedNations,"Inter-
nationalSodaiSäenceJournal144 (1995): 289-303.
13.Weuse thestructuralistlabelwithsomemisgiving, giventhatsome
authorsincludedherehaverelatively complexunderstandings oftherela-
tionshipbetweenstructure and agencythatgrantmovements some con-
stitutive
power.Nevertheless, thelabel accuratelyconveystheoverriding
focuson contextand/or"underlying" forces.The moreoptimisticversion
of thisapproachcan be foundin theworkof world-systems as
theorists,
withGiovanniArrighiet al., Anti-Systemic Movements (London: Verso,
1989); and Samuel Amin et al., Transforming
theRevolution:
SocialMovements
andtheWorld
System(NewYork:MonthlyReviewPress,1990).See also Hardt
and Negri,note 5. The more pessimisticversionof the structuralist

approachincludesmuch neo-Gramscian IR writing;mostprominently,

RobertCox,Production, Power, andWorld Order (NewYork:ColumbiaUniver-
sityPress,1987),pp. 368-395,and "Democracy in Hard Times:Economic
Globalization and theLimitsofDemocracy," in Anthony McGrew, ed., The
Transformation ofDemocracy? (Cambridge:PolityPress,1997), pp. 64-66;
and StephenGill, "Globalisation,MarketCivilisation, and Disciplinary
Neo-Liberalism," Millennium 24, no. 3 (1995): 404-410- reprinted in Gill,
Powerand Resistance in theNewWorldOrder(Basingstoke,U.K.: Palgrave,
2003). Other examplesof pessimisticstructuralism include Christoph
Gorg and Joachim Hirsch, "Is International DemocracyPossible?"Review
ofInternationalPolitical
Economy 5, no. 3 (1998): 585-615;MustaphaKamal
Pasha and David L. Blaney,"ElusiveParadise:The Promiseand Perilof
GlobalCivilSociety," Alternatives 23, no. 4 (1998): 417-450;and Murphy,
note 6. There also seem to be elementsof pessimistanalysisin Cecelia
Lynch,"SocialMovements and theProblemof Globalization," Alternatives
23, no. 2 (1998): 149-173.
14. Utopiantransformationalists includeRichardFalk,"The Global
PromiseofSocial Movements: Explorations at theEdge ofTime,"Alterna-
tives12, no. 2 (1987): 173-196;Lipschutz,note 5; Dianne Otto, "Non-
governmental Organizations and theUnitedNationsSystem: The Emerging
Role of InternationalCivil Society,"HumanRightsQuarterly 18 (1996):
107-141;LesliePaul Thiele,"MakingDemocracy SafefortheWorld:Social
Movements and GlobalPolitics." Alternatives 8, no. 3 (1993): 273-305;Wap-
ner,note 5. Utopiantransformationalist elementsare evidentin R. B. J.
Walker'sOneWorld/Many Worlds: Struggles fora JustWorld Peace(Boulder:
LynneRienner,1988),and in ManuelCastells'streatment ofsocialmove-
mentsin Castells,TheInformation Age,vol. 2: ThePowerofIdentity (Oxford:
Blackwell, 1997). However, theworkofCastellsand Walkeralso has a criti-
cal dimension, includinga sensitivity to thedifferences betweenand within
movements. Twootherworksthatbridgeour categoriesare Colas,note 1,
and LeslieSklair,Globalization:Capitalism andItsAlternatives (Oxford:Oxford
University Press,2002). The formerhas a critical-transformationalist insis-
tenceon the powerrelationsstratifying social-movement activism, their
interconnections withthe stateand capitalistsystem, and theirdemon-
stratedtransformative capacityin particularcontexts.The latterdrawson
sourcesrangingfrompolitical-opportunity structures theoryto human-
rightsdiscourses in order to sketch out the complexstrategies, constraints,
and possibilitiesforcountermovements to globalization.Yetbothhavea
limitedviewof culturally orientedactivism and an overriding concernto
outlinethe potentialities forsocialismin the contextof the underlying
forcesof globalizedcapitalism, whichpointsto affinities withoptimistic
structuralists.
PeterWaterman, whopaysclose attentionto thedifficulties
and potentialities of constructing solidarity acrossborders,and between
movements, fitsmorecomfortably intothecritical-transformationalist cat-
egory. See, for example, his Globalization, Social Movements, and the New
Internationalism,2d ed. (NewYork:Continuum,2002). The introductory
of
chapter Guidry, Kennedy, and Zald,note 10, 1-32,withitsemphasison
the interrelations of power,culture,and the global/localrelationship,
pushestheNorthAmericansocial-movement-theory traditionin a critical-
transformationalist direction.
15. RichardFalk,in Predatory Globalization (Cambridge:PolityPress,
1999),has movedtowardan explicitendorsement ofa marketsystem and
fortheneed to reclaimthestate,esp. in hischaps.8, 9. RonnieLipschutz

SocialMovements,
is a contributor to Coateet al., note5, whichhas a moreinstitutional

focus
thanhis previouswork.However,note also themarkedturntowardpes-
simistic structuralismin Lipschutz'spaper"GlobalCivilSocietyand Global
Governmentality: Or,The SearchforPoliticsand theStateamidsttheCap-
illariesofPower,"presentedat "ThePoliticsofProtestin theAge ofGlob-
alisation"conference, University ofSussex,September26-27,2002.
16. For example,StephenGill,"Towarda PostmodernPrince?The
Battlein Seattleas a Momentin theNewPoliticsofGlobalization," Millen-
nium29, no. 1 (2000): 131-140,reprintedin Gill,note 13. For crossover
activist/ academictextsaimedat strengthening theantisystemic,
anticapi-
talistdimensionofactivism see EmmaBir-
againstneoliberalglobalization,
A Guideto theMovement,
cham and John Charlton,eds., Anti-Capitalism: 2d
ed. (London: Bookmark,2001);JohnHolloway,ChangetheWorld
Without
TakingPower:TheMeaningofRevolutionToday(London: Pluto, 2002); Alex
Callinicos,AnAnti-CapitalistManifesto (Cambridge:Polity, 2003).
17.We notein passingtheincreasing use oftheterminology of "resis-
tance"in literatureon global activism.Found mostfrequently in struc-
turalist texts(suchas Gill,note 13; Gill,note6; and in chapter3.3, "Resis-
tance, Crisis,and Transformation" in Hardt and Negri,note 5), this
terminology has also founditswayintothehigh-profile pragmatisttextof
Smithand Johnston,eds., note 8. Clearlyan acknowledgment of the
impactof oppositionalactivismagainstneoliberalaspectsof the global
economy,the use of thisterminology raisessignificantquestionsabout
conceptualgenealogyand political implicationsthat are beyond the
purviewof thisarticle.Usefulinvestigations are offeredin Chin and Mit-
tleman,note6, and Guidry, Kennedy, and Zald,note 10,pp. 17-19.
18. For obviousexamplesof social-movement terminology, see Smith
et al., eds.,note8, and Cohenand Rai,note11. NoteColás'sinsistence on
in International
ratherthan globalor transnational,
international, CivilSociety,
note 1, pp. 75-83. The termnetworks is in Lipschutz,
in globalcivilsociety
"Reconstructing WorldPolitics,"note5, p. 393; thephrasethemultitude is
is in BarryK. Gills,"Globalization
in Hardtand Negri,note5; socialforces
introduction
and thePoliticsofResistance," to Gills,note6, p. 8.
19. The abbreviationTSMOs is used in Smithet al., Transnational
Social Movements, note 8; Smith and Johnston,eds., Globalizationand Resis-
tance,note 8; della Porta and Kriesi,SocialMovementsin a GlobalizingWorld,
note8; Tarrow, "BeyondGlobalization," in Tarrow, note7. The phraseinter-
estgroups is used in Keohaneand Nye,eds.,note3; pressure groupsis in Wil-
letts,note 3; activistgroupsis in Wapner,note 5. INGOsis used in more
recentworkbyWapnerand Willetts as wellas in thatbyotherpragmatists
suchas Keckand Sikkink, dellaPortaand Kriesi,andWeissand Gordenker;
transformationalists such as Otto; and structuralistssuch as Gorg and
Hisch,Hardt,and Negri,Murphy, and Pashaand Blaney.Thisconvergence
in terminology maybe partly explainedbythefactthattheUnitedNations
uses the conceptof (I) NGOs and has playeda much-remarked role as a
focusand sponsorofNGO activity and ofresearchon thistopic.
20. See Willetts,"PressureGroupsas Transnational Actors,"in Willetts,
note3; also pp. 299,302,307 of "Transnational Actors,"Willetts,note 12,
and NGO examplesused throughout "FromConsultative Arrangements to
Partnership," note 12.
21. Thislastpointis perhapscontroversial, giventhatmanyliberalsin
IR, includingWilletts, havebeen highlycriticalofstatism in international
relations.Indeed, theirworkhas been attackedbyrealistcriticson the

groundsthatitfocuseson socialinteractions and neglectsthestate.How-

ever,itseemsto us thatthisdistinction betweenstatist(realist)and society-
centered(liberal)approacheswas alwaysoverdrawn. The impactof non-
stateactorsupon the stateand internationalorganizationsremaineda
centralconclusionof muchliberalwork,includingthatof Willetts, and
has been strongly restatedin recentinterdependence work;fordifferent
judgmentson thisissue,see Wapner,note5, pp. 11-12;and Risse-Kappan,
note4, pp. 5, 14-15.
22. Keckand Sikkink, note8, p. 1.
23. Ibid.,p. 6.
24. It is worthnotingthatthe conceptof "transnational mobilising
structures" used in thevolumebydella Portaand Kriesi,eds.,note8 (see
esp. pp. 17-21,206-215) appearsto be a broadeningof terminology, but
stillinvolvesa focuson thegrowing webofTSMOs,therelationsbetween
them,and theresourcestheywield.A morepromising shiftis signaledin
Smithand Johnston,note 8, whichincludesanalysesof localized move-
ments,massprotestssuch as thatat Seattlein November1999,and "the
dynamicsof transnationalcontention."These analysesstillfrequently
emphasizetheroleofformalorganization and itsrelationto thepolitical
system, buttheyalso involveattentionto therelationship of suchorgani-
zationto movementconstituencies; the role of networked, extra-institu-
tionalgroups;and the theorizationof movementactivismin termsof
dynamicprocessesand interactions.
25. Falk,note 14,p. 191.
26.JohnBoli and GeorgeM. Thomas,"INGOsand theOrganization
of World Culture,"in theiredited volume, ConstructingWorldCulture:Inter-
nationalNongovernmental OrganizationsSince 1875 (Stanford, Calif.: Stan-
fordUniversity Press,1999),esp. pp. 34-46. Falkand otherUtopiantrans-
formationalists insistbriefly thatit is specifically emancipatory movement
actorstheyare interestedin; however,no theoreticalspace is made for
otherkindsofmovements and thedistinction is lostin theensuinggener-
alizationsaboutmovements, NGOs,and globalcivilsociety.
27. Murphy, note5, pp. 795-796.
28. Thisargument is developedat morelengthin Eschle,"Globalising
CivilSociety?SocialMovements and GlobalPoliticsfromBelow,"in Pierre
Hamelet al.,eds.,Globalizing SocialMovements (Basingstoke, U.K.:Palgrave,
2001). For examplesof thiseconomic-political emphasis from the struc-
turalists,see Gill,note 13,or,morebriefly, Lynch,"SocialMovements and
theProblemof Globalization," p. 150. For an example from the pragma-
tists,see Tarrow'suse oftheterminterdependence in his "BeyondGlobaliza-
tion,"note 19, p. 2. For an examplefromthe transformationalists, see
Falk,note 15, chap. 8. There are some exceptions,where,forexample,
attentionis paid to the role of cultureand particularly to the spreadof
consumerism, suchas Sklair,note 14,or to thehomogenization ofvalues
and lifestyles.We returnto thispointlater.
29. For example,Tarrow,note 19, pp. 8-9; Smithet al., eds.,note 8,
esp. pp. 10-13,56-69; della Portaand Kriesi,introduction to della Porta
and Kriesi,note8; Guidryet al., note 10,pp. 1-3.
30. Forexample,Gorgand Hirsch,note 13,pp. 587-593;Colas,note
1, p. 149;Hardtand Negri,note5.
31. See,forexample,therejectionofa "strong" globalizationthesisthat
globalsocialand politicalinteractions are alreadysignificantly integrated
and thatthecontinuanceof thisprocessis inevitable, in Tarrow,note 19,

368 SocialMovements,
INGOs, and GlobalChange
pp. 1-2,and Keckand Sikkink, note8, p. 213.Notealso Hardtand Negri's

insistencethatempirehas no centerbut is ratherbased on networked
formsofpowerand authority.
32. Tarrow, note 19. o. 5. and Tarrow.note7. dd. 184-189.
33. Melucci,note 11,chap. 3.
34. Formoreon cross-border diffusion,see DavidSnowand RobertD.
Benford,"Alternative Typesof Cross National Diffusionin the Social
Movement Arena,"in della Portaand Kriesi,note8, pp. 23-39; MarcoG.
Guigni, "ExplainingCross-NationalSimilaritiesAmong Social Move-
ments,"in Smithand Johnston, note8, pp. 13-29.
35. Tarrow, note 19,pp. 6-10; Tarrow, note7, chap. 11. Tarrow'sposi-
tionon thismaybe softening. In Tarrow,note9, he arguesthatconcepts
like social networks, just like politicalopportunities, are not "inherently
domestic"(p. 238). While he stillinsiststhat "muchof transnational
activism is rootedin domestic. . . networks," arguablya stronger kindof
relationship betweenthetwois impliedbythe"dynamic, interactiveframe-
work"developedhere.Further, he also arguesformoreattentionto the
"socialappropriation of domesticinstitutions and organizations fortrans-
nationalpurposes"and assessesmovement"framing" of theglobalization
issue(pp. 243-244),thuspointingtowaysin whichdomesticnetworks may
stillbe consideredas participating in processesoftransnational contention.
36. Hardtand Negri,note5, pp. 54-55.Theirclaimis thatsuchmove-
mentsare nonuniversalizable, "incommunicable" acrossborders,so not
transnational in formbut nonethelessgloballyconstituted and constitu-
tive.In contrast, Sklair'sanalysisin Sklair,note 14,chap. 10,pointsto the
complexwaysin whichlocal strugglesmake"transnational connections"
(p. 280). The commonthreadin optimistic structuralist accountsis that
theantisystemic potentialresidinghistorically in socialistinternationalism
is beingdrastically reshapedto includenewconstituencies in diverselocal-
ities.Cf.Colas,note 1.
37. Thiele,note 14,p. 280.
38. Ibid.,p. 281; Hardtand Negri,note5, p. 55.
39. ScottTurner,"Global Civil Society,Anarchy,and Governance:
Assessing an Emerging Paradigm," Journal ofPeaceResearch 35,no. 1 (1998):
29-30.
40. Ibid.,pp. 35-36.
41. See, forexample,Falk,note 14, p. 174; Turner,note 39, pp. 33,
35-36.
42. See, forexample,theinfluential articlebyMarcNerfìn,"Neither
PrincenorMerchant:Citizen.An Introduction to theThirdSystem,' IFDA
Dossier 56 (1986): 14.
43. Forfurther discussionof thesecategories, see Stammers, note 1.
44. Tarrow, note 19,pp. 3, 5, 8-9.
45. Commission on GlobalGovernance, note5, pp. 41-75.
46. Tarrow,note 9, pp. 243-244. Framingis also discussedin Smith
andJohnston, note8; and in Guidry, Kennedy, and Zald,note 10.
47. Smithet al., "SocialMovementsand WorldPolitics,"in Smithet
al., note8, pp. 70-73.
48. See briefmentionsin Cohen and Rai, note 11, pp. 8-9; and Lip-
schutz,note5, pp. 398-399;and lengthier analysisin theCommission on
GlobalGovernance, note5, pp. 46-75.
49. Gill,note 13,p. 133.
50. See, forexample,AmoryStarr,NamingtheEnemy: Anti-Corporate
Movements ConfrontGlobalization(London:Zed Books,2000). Starridentifies

threemainstrands in themovement: thoseseekingcontestation and reform

(whichincludesuniversalist humanrightsand peace groups); thosepursu-
ingglobalizationfrombelow(in whichshe placessocialistinternationalists
and thenewkindofinternationalism pursuedbytheZapatistas) ; and those
seekingdelinking, relocalization, and sovereignty (whichincludesgroups
rangingfromanarchists, to smallbusinesses, . It is
to religiousnationalists)
thelaststrandthatStarrfavors as offering themosteffective ideologicalpos-
forresistance,
sibilities butitis noteworthy thatotherstrandsincludepro-
ponentsof avowedlyWesternized, universalist frameworks. Starrherself
downplays the role of expressive activism againstcorporatepowerand
neoliberalism,relegatingcultureand identity to a strategicresourcefor
thosemoreconcernedwithfundamental economicissuesand insisting that
culturalresistancesare mostlikelyto be constructed withintradi-
effectively
tionalcultures(pp. 160-170). Her eclecticattemptto reworka Marxist
accountofcorporate globalizationis avowedly butherattention
structuralist,
to theempiricaldetailofmovement and to questionsofstrategy,
activities
organization,and goalsmovesherworkbeyonda structuralist approach.
51. RobertCox, "CivilSocietyat theTurn of the Millennium:Pros-
pectsforan Alternative WorldOrder,"Review ofInternational
Studies25,no.
1 (1999): 13-25; Hardtand Negri,note 5, p. 54. The depictionof resis-
tancesto neoliberalglobalizationgivenin theseaccountsis notablynar-
rowerthanthatgivenbyStarr.It mapscloselyon to crossover activist/aca-
demictextsalignedwitha moreorthodoxMarxistperspective.See, for
example,Birchamand Charlton,note 16.
52. For example,Adams,note 12, pp. 178, 184-185;Commissionon
GlobalGovernance,note 5, pp. 32-37, 254-260;Riddell-Dixon, note 12,
p. 291.
53. Commission on GlobalGovernance, note5, pp. 32-35.
54. Otto,note 14,pp. 134-135.
55. Dieter Rucht,"The Transnationalization of Social Movements:
Trends,Causes,Problems,"in della Portaand Kriesi,note 8, p. 218; see
also Hans Gerthand C. WrightMills,FromMax Weber: Essaysin Sociology
(London:Routledge& KeganPaul,1970); R. Michels,Political Parties(New
York:Free Press. 1962Ì.
Feminism:The Latin
56. For example,Sonia E. Alvarez,"Advocating
JournalofPolitics1,
Feminist
AmericanFeministNGO 'Boom,'" International
no. 2 (1999): 181-209;David S. Meyerand SidneyTarrow,"A Movement
Society:ContentiousPoliticsfora New Century," in Meyerand Tarrow,
Politicsfora New Century(Lan-
Society:Contentious
eds., TheSocial Movement
ham,Md.: Rowman& Littlefield, 1998),p. 20.
57. AntonioDonini,"The Bureaucracyand theFree Spirits:Stagna-
tionand Innovationin theRelationshipBetweentheUN and NGOs,"in
Weissand Gordenker, eds.,note 12,pp. 88-92.
58. Wehaveseen abovethatTarrowrefersto socialnetworks and that
Keckand Sikkinktalkabouttransnational advocacy networks, whileMarc
Nerfininsiststhatnetworking "reflectsbetterthe natureand goals" of
whathe calls "thirdsystem associationsand movements," a claimechoed
in RonnieLipschutz'sdescription of "networks in globalcivilsociety."
Age,vol. 1: TheRiseoftheNet-
59. For example, Castells, TheInformation
work 2d ed. (Oxford:Blackwell,2000), and Hardtand Negri,note
Society,
5. However,notethereminderfromPeterWatermanthat"networking is
boththeoldestand themostcommonformofhumansocialrelationship,"
in his "SocialMovements, Local Places,and GlobalizedSpaces: Implica-
tionsfor'GlobalizationfromBelow,'"in Gills,note6, p. 143.

SocialMovements,
60. Keck and Sikkink,note 8, p. 8; Moghadam,note 2, pp. 78-79;

Nerfin,note42, p. 18; Otto,note 14,p. 135.
61. It is in thissense thatthe conceptof networkis used withinthe
United Nations:see Gordenkerand Weiss,"PluralizingGlobal Gover-
nance,"pp. 23, 25-28; and it is the predominantsense of the termin
Moghadam,note2.
62. Waterman, note 59, pp. 144. Similarconcernsare articulatedby
Jeremy Brecheret al. Globalization fromBelow,2d ed. (Cambridge,Mass.:
SouthEnd Press,2002), pp. 86-90,thistimefroma moreconcretepreoc-
cupationwiththestrategy ofthemovement againsttheneoliberalelements
of globalization.Brecheret al. pointto the reproduction of inequalities
withinNorth-South networks and to organizational difficulties
in social-
movementactionswitha networkform,as wellas to the problemof co-
optedNGOs. However,suchconcernsdo notlead theseauthorsto aban-
don the networkform.Watermanurges the replacementof "network
babble"with"network and Brecheret al. arguethatactivists
analysis," need
to developa moreopen, transparent, and democraticnetworkinvolving
stronger linksbetweenNGOs and grassroots activists.
Botharguments res-
onatewithour proposalsbelow.
63. Gorgand Hirsch,note 13,p. 596.
64. Ibid..d. 607.
65. MarioDiani, "The Conceptof Social Movement," in Kate Nash,
ed., Readingsin Contemporary
PoliticalSociology(Oxford: Basil Blackwell,
2000), p. 155.
66. Ibid.,p. 165 (emph.in orig.).
67. Ibid.,p. 166.
68. Ibid.,pp. 165,167.
69. Keckand Sikkink, "Transnational
Advocacy Networks in theMove-
mentSociety," in Meyerand Tarrow,note56, pp. 219-221.
70. Widelycitedformulations of thisapproachin politicsand sociol-
ogyincludeDavid Held et al., GlobalTransformations(Cambridge:Polity
Press,1999), esp. theintroduction;
Held, Democracy and theGlobalOrder:
FromtheModernStateto Cosmopolitan
Governance
(Stanford,Calif.: Stanford
UniversityPress,1995); and Anthony Giddens,TheConsequences ofModer-
nity(Cambridge:PolityPress,1990). These can fruitfully
be read in con-
junctionwitha growing feminist
literature
giving"intersectional"
accounts
of globalization,such as MarianneMarchandand Anne SissonRunyan,
eds., Genderand GlobalRestructuring:
Sightings,Sites,and Resistances(Lon-
don: Routledge,2000); Signs26, no. 4, specialissue (2001); and Feminist
Review70, specialissue (2002). Feministaccountshavea distinctive focus
on pervasivetransnationalized racialand genderhierarchies. Theirgen-
eralemphasison powerrelationsis an important corrective to a discourse
thattendsto characterizethe multipledimensionsof globalizationin
morepluralisttermsas socialrealmsor fields.
71. Thereis somesignof thisbroadeningof thepolitical-opportunity
structuresapproach,in termsof attentionto recentshiftsin the macro-
economiccontext.See, forexample,GregoryF. Maney,"Transnational
Structuresand Protest:LinkingTheoriesand Assessing Evidence,"andJef-
freyAyres,"Transnational PoliticalProcessesand ContentionAgainstthe
GlobalEconomy," bothin SmithandJohnston, note 8, at pp. 31-50 and
191-205,respectively.However, notethatthisadds an interest in economic
structuresto an existingfocuson politicalinstitutions:
Thisapproachthus
remainslockedwithin thenarrower viewofglobalization.
economic-political

72. RolandRobertson, "Glocalization: Time-Spaceand Homogeneity/

Heterogeneity," in Michael Featherstoneet al., eds., GlobalModernities
(London:Sage, 1995). Feminist accountsstrongly favorstudying theoper-
ationsofglobalization in specificlocal contextsbecauseoftheirnormative
commitment to exposinghowapparently abstract,gender-neutral processes
are embeddedwithinmaterial, genderedsocialrelationships. It is through
an emphasison embodiedagencywithinparticularlocalitiesthatwomen
are made visibleas sitesand sourcesof globalization.See, forexample,
SaskiaSassen,"Towarda Feminist Analytics of theGlobalEconomy," Indi-
anaJournal of GlobalLegal Studies4, no. 1 (1996): 7-41; Carla Freeman, "Is
Local: Globalas Feminine:Masculine?Rethinking theGenderof Global-
ization,"SignsZß,no. 4 (2001): 1007-1037.
73. Giddens,note 70, pp. 21-29. Giddenslimitshis discussionto
moneyand expertsystems, buthis argumentcan be extendedto include
otherdisembedding mechanisms.
74. The implications ofthemutualconstitution ofthelocal and global
fortheorizing movements aredevelopedin Guidryet al.,note10,pp. 7-16.
Waterman reformulates "Thinkglobally, actlocally"differently, arguingfor
a new slogan: "Thinkglobally,act locally;thinklocally,act globally.To
whichI wouldlike to add: 'Thinkdialectically; act self-reflexively.'"See
Waterman, note59, p. 148.
75. Manysuchactivists rejecttheantiglobalization label,insisting that
it falselydefinesthe movementas local and/or protectionist. In other
words,it impliesa global/localdichotomy, where"theenemy"is global
and resistanceis local. It has been argued insteadthatthe movement
involvesthe construction of an alternativekindof globalization,"from
below"- one thatis based on morehumane,just,and democraticinter-
connections betweenpeopleon a worldwide scale.See, forexample,David
Graeber,"The NewAnarchists," NewLeftReview 113 (Jan.-Feb.2002): 63;
Naomi Klein, Fencesand Windows:DispatchesfromtheFrontLines oftheGlob-
Debate(London:Flamingo,2002), pp. 77-78; KevinDanaherand
alization
introduction
RobertBurbach,"MakingHistory," to Danaherand Burbach,
eds., GlobalizeThis! TheBattleAgainsttheWorldTradeOrganizationand Cor-
porateRule(Monroe,Me.: CommonCouragePress,2000), pp. 7-11.
76. Largemobilizationeventsare emphasized,forexample,inJohn
Charlton,"Action!"in Birchamand Charlton,note 16, pp. 342-385;and
in AlexanderCockburn, St. Clair,and AllanSekula,FiveDaysThat
Jeffrey
ShooktheWorld:Seattleand Beyond(London: Verso, 2000).
77. For example,Starr,note 50, p. xiii;KathleenStaudt,ShirinRai,
andJaneL. Parpart,"Protesting WorldTrade Rules:Can We TalkAbout
Empowerment?" Signs26, no. 4 (2001): 1251-1257;Klein,note 75, pp.
16-18.
78. Forexample,ChrisDixon,"FindingHope afterSeattle:Rethinking
and Buildinga Movement":
RadicalActivism www.zmag.org/dixonseattle.
htm(no dategiven;visitedFebruary1, 2001).
79. Jean L. Cohen and AndrewArato, Civil Societyand PoliticalTheory
(Cambridge:MIT Press,1992),pp. 549-550.
80. Ibid.,p. 558.
81. Ibid.,p. 561.
82. Some diverseexamplesofrelevanttheoryincludeErnestoLaclau
and Chantai Mouffe,Hegemony Towarda RadicalDemoc-
and SocialistStrategy:
racy(London: Verso, 1985); Paul Hirst,Associative NewFormsof
Democracy:
Economicand Social Governance(Cambridge: PolityPress, 1994); Benjamin

SocialMovements,
Barber, StrongDemocracy: Politicsfora NewAge (Berkeley: Uni-

Participatory
ofCaliforniaPress,1984).
versity
83. For example,Danaher and Burbach,note 75; Graeber,note 75,
pp. 70-72; Brecher,et al., Globalization
fromBelow,note 62, pp. xi, 71-72,
84-90.See also WorldSocialForum,"WorldSocialForumCharterofPrin-
ciples"(2002), www.forumsocialmundial.org.br/ main.asp?id_menu=4&cd_
language=2(visitedDecember15,2002).
84. Fora survey ofrecentdevelopments in feministdemocratic theory
thatmakethispointabouttheincorporation of participatorymodes,see
JudithSquires,Gender in PoliticalTheory
(Cambridge:PolityPress,1999),
chaps.6, 7; see also CatherineEschle,GlobalDemocracy, SocialMovements,
andFeminism (Boulder,CO): Westview Press,2001), chap. 3.
85.Thisanalysis is developedat morelengthin Eschle,note84,chap.4.
86. Moghadam,note2.
87. Nira Yuval-Davis, Gender and Nation(London: Sage, 1997), pp.
129-130;Cynthia Cockburn"TheWomen'sMovement: BoundaryCrossing
on Terrainsof Conflict," in Cohen and Rai,eds.,note 11,pp. 51-58; and
Patricia Hill Collins, BlackFeministThought:Knowledge,Consciousness,
and
Empowerment, 2d ed. (London:Routledge,2000), pp. 245-249.
88. ChristinaGabrieland Laura Macdonald,"NAFTA,Women,and
Organizingin Canada and Mexico:Forginga FeministInternationality,"
Millennium 23, no. 3 (1994): 549-554,558-562.
89. Eschle,"'SkeletonWomen':Feminismand theAnti-Globalization
Movement," Signs,forthcoming winter2004/2005.


Taking Part. Social Movements INGOs and Global Change - Eschle e Stammers

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Taking Part. Social Movements INGOs and Global Change - Eschle e Stammers

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Taking Part: Social Movements, INGOs, and Global Change

Author(s): Catherine Eschle and Neil Stammers

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 07:12:09 AM

CatherineEschleand Neil Stammers*

Can social movements makea difference in global politics?That

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 07:12:09 AM

bothbeen influencedbyarguments aboutglobalizationand been

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 07:12:09 AM

The relationshipbetweenmovementactivismand global change

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 07:12:09 AM

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 07:12:09 AM

positsthatdeep structural changein the natureof modernity has

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 07:12:09 AM

detailsofspecificmovement activism and to questionsoforganiza-

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 07:12:09 AM

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 07:12:09 AM

The main problem with pragmatistapproaches is that move-

repudiationof war and technologiesof violenceas inevitable

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 07:12:09 AM

battlegroundfor the remainder of this centuryis associated with

One result of assuming such a convergence is that both formal

Our own period is also characterizedby non-governmentalorga-

Murphy offers an important reminder of the contribution of

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 07:12:09 AM

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 07:12:09 AM

albeitwithratherdifferent readingsof itsanalyticaland political

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 07:12:09 AM

struggles,fromthe intifadato the Zapatistas,maybe "focusedon

A socialmovement maybe consideredtransnational in two

This is to moveawayfroman insistencethatit is cross-border

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 07:12:09 AM

logic. More significant forour analysishere is the problemwith

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 07:12:09 AM

and so on- theywillbe pursuingconcretedemandsthroughinter-

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 07:12:09 AM

contrast, Utopiantransformationalists implya sharpdividebetween

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 07:12:09 AM

The expressivedimensionof movementactivismand its

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 07:12:09 AM

[A] decliningperformance in relationto organizationalre-

A trendin thisdirectionfindsconfirmation in parallelclaims

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 07:12:09 AM

similarpracticesand management stylesiftheyare to survive.57 In

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 07:12:09 AM

democraticconstruction of such networksmightmilitateagainst

Presentdiscussions surrounding network and governance ...

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 07:12:09 AM

who drawon existingliteratureto offermoreprecisedefinitions

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 07:12:09 AM

The networkrelations involved in the constitutionof a social-

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 07:12:09 AM

and TSMOs needsto paymuchcloserattention thanithas thusfar

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 07:12:09 AM

impliesthe disembeddingof social relationsfromtheirfamiliar

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 07:12:09 AM

designated global days of protest.The key role of the internetin

Analysesof the relationshipbetweenthe global and local with

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 07:12:09 AM

becomeincreasingly formalized, and instrumental

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 07:12:09 AM

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 07:12:09 AM

strongnormative emphasison the need forenrichingand global-

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 07:12:09 AM

haveemphasizedtheemergenceof a distinctively nonhierarchical