7/28/2019 Giungi 1999.pdf

1/11

Sociological Forum, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1998

Review Essay

Structure and Culture in Social MovementTheoryMarco G. Giugni1,2

Th e Politics of Social Protest. Comparative Perspectives on States andSocial Movements. J. Craig Jenkins and Bert Klandermans, eds.Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1995.

Social Movements and Culture. Hank Johnston an d Bert Klandermans, eds.Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1995.

Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements. Political Opportunities,Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings. Doug McAdam, JohnD. McCarthy, and M a y e r N. Zald, eds. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1996.

Frontiers in Social Movement Theory.Aldon D. Morris and Carol McClurgMueller, eds. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1992.

IScholarly accounts of social movements seem to follow a cyclical pat-

tern. Like a sound wave, they have lower and higher limits, indicating therelative weight of structure and of culture in the explanations offered. Thismetaphor obviously simplifies the diversity of existing work on social move-ments. Yet there is a tension in this literature between explanations thatstress structural constraints and those that stress cultural variables.

1Department of Political Science, University of Geneva, 102, Boulevard Carl-Vogt, 1211Geneve 4, Switzerland; e-mail: marco.giugni@politic.unige.ch.2To whom correspondence should be addressed.365

0884-8971/98/0600-0365S15.00/0 1998 Plenum Publishing Corporation

7/28/2019 Giungi 1999.pdf

2/11

Classical approaches, above all the collective behavior theory, examinesocial movements under the prism of social disorganization and psychologi-cal strain. In reaction to explanations in terms of social disorganization,studies of contentious politics in the 1970s were dominated by resourcemobilization, which underscored almost exclusively structural factors. Socialnetworks and political institutions became the new pivots in the theoriesof social movements.To counteract th e danger of a new determinism, this time a structuralone, new models have brought the wave back to the other side of the range,and an increasing number of studies now pay attention to the role of myths,rites, and s y m bo l s tha t is, cultural fo rmat ionsin social movements.Twenty years after th e "cultural revolution" began with th e fundamentalwork of Clifford Geertz (1973) and by continuing th e culturalist approachin the analysis of revolutions (e.g., Fischer, 1980; Hunt, 1984; Sewell, 1980),many studies of "nonrevolutionary" collective action have underscored therole of cultural variables in the emergence and subsequent development ofsocial movements.

The four edited collections under review clearly testify to this "culturalturn." With one exception (The Politics of Social Movements), they all dealwith the cultural dimension of collective action. Taken together, these booksexamine the relationship between structure and culture in social movementtheory. This relationship has always been difficult, as shown in the viewsof two of the founders of sociology. According to Karl Marx, structures(i.e., economic conditions) determine culture (i.e., ideology), whereas forMax Weber, culture (i.e., the Protestant ethic) comes before structures (i.e.,the modern capitalist system). These four books offers us an opportunityto discuss th e often conflicting relationship between structure an d culturein theories of social movements.

IIAt the risk of simplifying, we may distinguish between tw o conceptionsof structures in contemporary social theory. On the one hand, many recent

works have elaborated on the idea of structures as a frame within whichhuman action takes place. This conception stems from the European so-ciological tradition, in particular from the Marxist theory of social classesand from the Weberian approach to bureaucratic institutions. On the otherhand, American sociology has favored a relational conception of structures,the latter being defined as networks of social relations.

366 Giugni

7/28/2019 Giungi 1999.pdf

3/11

European sociology's structuralist tradition has strongly influenced thestudy of collective action. Unlike rational choice theory, which has mainlyaffected American political science, but has also had an impact on the oldcontinent, the structural approach to social movements maintains and,above all, attempts to demonstrate empirically that individual behaviors arechanneled by a series of structural constraints. Institutions, particularly po-litical institutions, are among of the principal sources of structural con-straints. Recent developments within the neo-institutionalist perspective inseveral social science subfields point in the same direction by trying to situ-ate the actor in her/his context (e.g., Powell and DiMaggio, 1991; Scott,1995; Steinmo et al., 1992). In its broader version, this perspective aims toanalyze all durable or regular aspects of social life; in its narrower version,it looks at the impact of institutionson human action. The political processapproach to social movements, at least in the version which Tarrow (inMcAdam et al., 1996) calls statist, is grounded precisely in this neo-insti-tutionalist view of society. The central place taken by the concept of po-litical opportunity structure in this perspective clearly shows on which sideof th e band is the wave followed by the authors w ho refer to it (see fo rinstance Kitschelt, 1986; Kriesi et al., 1995; Tarrow, 1994). In a similar vein,the "third generation" of students of revolutions that emerged during the1970s has emphasized the role of political and economic structures, espe-cially state structures, while the "second generation" stressed the impactof social strains and of their social-psychological consequences, and the"first generation" dealt with the natural history of revolutions in a ratherdescriptive manner (Goldstone, 1980).

Beside this "outside-in" conception of structures, another view, whichwe may call "inside-out," has largely influenced the study of social move-ments. I am referring to structural analysis in social science that aims toexplain behaviors and institutions by looking at the relations between socialactors and organizations. This approach has its theoretical origin in theworks of authors such as Nadel (1957) and the German sociologist GeorgSimmel. It has recently gained legitimacy as a result of the development,in the 1980s, of methodological tools and statistical techniques that allowfor the empirical application of its theoretical principles. This relationalview of structures that focuses on the links and exchanges between the ele-ments of a given social structure or system has been put forward by authorswho follow resource mobilization theory. Although most existing work doesnot refer explicitly to structural sociology (for exceptions see Diani, 1995;Knoke, 1990; Rosenthal et al., 1985), several authors have stressed the cru-cial role of social networks and, more generally of mobilizing structures,

Structure and Culture 367

7/28/2019 Giungi 1999.pdf

4/11

for the emergence of social m ovem ents as well as for their developmentover time (e.g., Fernandez and McAdam, 1988; McAdam, 1988; Gould,1993, 1995; Snow et al., 1980).3

III

The concept of culture, like that of structure, has different meaningsin the literature on social movements. Notwithstanding the arbitrary natureof all classifications, we can distinguish between three approaches to cul-ture: value-oriented, framing, and social-psychological approaches. Eachperspective rests on a specific definition of culture and is therefore variouslyoperationalized in social movement theory.The value-oriented perspective has its theoretical roots in the We-berian and Durkheimian sociological traditions. Although these two tradi-tions, as Swidler (in Johnston and Klandermans, 1995) remarks, carry twodifferent conceptions of culture, both put forward the idea of "symbolicconfigurations or form ations that co nstrain and enable action by structuringactors' normative commitments and their understandings of the world andof their own possibilities within it" (Emirbayer and Goodwin, 1996:365). IfWeber considered culture as a set of internalized norms and values thatguide individual action, Durkheim was bent on defining ho w collective rep-resentations solidify social solidarities. The mo num ental attempt by lalcottParsons (1937) to forge a synthesis between the two perspectivesin hisvoluntaristic theory of actionresulted in a determ inistic view of culturethe latter of which provides social actors with abstract and general normsof conduct. Explanations of collective action based on this perspective havefound their preferred terrain in Europe. The new social movement ap-proach, in particular, has tended to relate m acrostructural changes in west-ern societies to new cultural orientations in these societies (e.g., Melucci,1996) so that the emergence of new types of social movements over thelast few decades are linked to the emergence of new individual needs, tothe internalization of certain (postmaterialist) values in the course of so-cialization, or to the individuals' identification w ith values carried by certainsocial classes. This traditional conception of culture also underlies the studyof social revolutions (e.g., Fischer, 1980; Hunt, 1984; Sewell,1980). This has

3In addition to the two versions outlined here, we should note the existence of a thirdconception of structure that, however, has not influenced the study of social movements butwhich we find in a great many works in linguistics, cognitive psychology, and structuralanthropology. In this case, it is a matter of identifying and explaining systematic regularitiesin human conscience an d cultural beliefs that brings this types of structuralism as well asTalcott Parsons' structural-functionalism closer to the cultural dimensions of social action.

368 Giugni

7/28/2019 Giungi 1999.pdf

5/11

led Foran (1993) to foresee the birth of a "fourth generation" of historiansof revolutions, a generation that pays more attention to cultural aspects.While the value-oriented approach is located above all at the macroso-ciological level, the framing perspective rests on meso and micro levels.The theoretical origin of this perspective is to be found in the work ofErving Goffman, more specifically in his fundamental Frame Analysis(1974), but also in symbolic interactionism. Thanks first to the w ork of Wil-liam Gamson (above all, Gamson e t al., 1982) and later but more explicitlyto various contributions by David Snow and his collaborators, Goffman'sinsights about "schemes of interpretation" in everyday life have been ap-plied to the study of social movements (see in particular Snow and Benfordin Morris and McClurg Mueller, 1992; Snow et al., 1986). Here the stressis on the links between existing interpretations of objective facts and eventson the one hand and participation in social movement activities on theother handthat is, between collective action frames, or master frames,and protest. This has the advantage of turning ou r attention to the rela-tionship between cultural elements and their transposition into action. Fur-thermore, this perspective has paid much attention to the discursive aspectsof social movements. Though the notion of framing processes has come toinclude an increasingly wide rang e of cultural phenomena, its original defi-nition as McAdam et al. say in the book under review referred to "consciousstrategic e f f o r t s by groups of people to fashion shared understandings of theworld and of themselves that legitimate and motivate collective action" (6 ,emphasis in the original). The strategic action by social movement organi-zations aimed at recruiting new members and formulating problems towhich a solution in the form of collective action is needed is at the heartof this focus on framing processes. While such a narrow definition allowsfor an easier operationalization and empirical test of its theoretical state-ments, it ignores a series of other equally important modalities throughwhich culture influence social movements.The social-psychological perspective focuses on the social constructionof protest primarily at the individual levelthat is, on the modalitiesthrough which social actors are led to act collectively because of feelingsof injustice, individual effectiveness, or sha red identities (G amso n, 1992,and in Johnston and Klandermans, 1995). In this perspective, the cognitiveprocesses throug h w hich individuals become involved in social m ovem entsare at center stage (e.g., Eyerman and Jamison, 1991; Klandermans, 1997).Insofar as these cognitive processes are shaped by social interactions (Gam-son in Morris and McClurg Mueller, 1992), it harks back to Goffman'swork and symbolic interactionism. However, the focus here is primarily onthe individual work of categorization, attribution, and construction of mean-ing that facilitates or impedes participation in collective action. Several re-

Structure and Culture 369

7/28/2019 Giungi 1999.pdf

6/11

cent studies on the role of emotions and sexuality within social movementsalso can be said to follow this third perspective (e.g., Goodwin, 1997; Taylorand Whittier in Morris and McClurg Mueller, 1992). These studies dealwith "all those psychic structures that constrain and enable action by chan-neling flows and investments ('cathexes') of emotional energy" (Emirbayerand Goodwin, 1996:368).

IVIn the light of the above discussion on the diverse conceptions of struc-

ture and culture for the study of collective action, I will now focus moredirectly on the four books under review. They are edited collections, re-cently published, which all deal more or less explicitlywith the role of struc-tural and cultural factors in social movement theory. However, the culturaldimension is taken into account more fully in the volume edited byJohnston and Klandermans and in the collection put together by Morrisand McClurg Mueller. Jenkins and Klandermans' volume, on the otherhand, looks mainly at the structural determinants of protest. Finally, thecollection edited by McAdam et al. aims to integrate structure (in the twomeanings discussed above) and culture.

Morris and McClurg Mueller's Frontiers in Soc ia l Movem ent Theory hashad the great merit to bring the debate on the role of culture back intothe social movement literature and has thus been at the forefront of therecent "cultural turn" in the study of social movements. Other works alsohave dealt with this aspectin particular the studies by Gamson and thoseby Snow and his collaborators mentioned earlierbut unlike previous work,this book offers an explicit critique of resource mobilization and rationalchoice perspectives in the study of social movements, especially their failureto take into account the cultural aspects of such movements. As the prefaceto the volume states, the goaland, I believe, one of the strengthsof thisbook is to focus our attention explicitly on "how social movements generateand are affected by the construction of meaning, consciousness raising, themanipulation of symbols, and collective identities" (ix). In other words, fol-lowing the distinctions I have proposed, it treats culture as a framing proc-ess and looks at the social-psychological mechanisms underlyingparticipation in social movements. More concerned with theoretical issuesthan with research advances, this book suggests several ways to integratestructural and cultural factors. Three elements are seen as essential: recon-ceptualizing the actor as a socially embedded individual, taking into accountthe context of social interaction, and elaborating the concepts of meaning,frames, and identity within the mobilization process. In addition, we are

370 Giugni

7/28/2019 Giungi 1999.pdf

7/11

recalled of the need of relating the cultural and the structural aspects ofsocial movements. Although not all chapters systematically follow thisagenda (a task not easy to accomplish in a collective work), the book as awhole does a good job of combining, if not truly integrating, structure andculture. To be sure, its principal aim is to transcend the opposition of strat-egy and identity, that is, to view them not as being in contradiction, butas related and mutually influencing each other. In pursuing this aim, manyof the authors place culture at center stage. This is illustrated in Myra MarxFerree's contribution to the volume, specifically in her claim that individualsshould be regarded as members of a community whose interests reflect theirstructural locations. Similarly, Debra Friedman and Doug McAdam's at-tempt at a synthesis of resource mobilization and rational choice theoriesuses collective identity as a link between these theories.

Johnston an d Klandermans' Social Movements and Culture puts its fo-cus somewhere between the framing and the social-psychological perspec-tives, between discourse analysis and cognitive processes. This volume isentirely devoted to cultural aspects of social movements. This is clearly evi-dent in the chapters written by Ann Swidler, Michael Billig, and Gary AlanFine, where the concept of culture is at the center of the discussion. Whilethis broader approach sheds a new light on the study of social movements,however, it pushes us away from the search of concepts and theories thatbridge structural and cultural accounts. Ann Swidler's essay is perhaps anexception insofar as she takes into consideration the impact of the largerinstitutional context on the cultural dynamicswithin movements. She defineinstitutions as "well-established, stable sets of purposes and rules backedby sanctions," such as legally structured marriage, employment relationship,and established norms in consumer transactions, that may create both con-traints and opportunities for individuals. In the case of social movements,of course, the most relevant institutions are political ones, such as regimetype and forms of repression. Among the contributions in this volume, Ifound particularly appealing Rick Fantasia and Eric Hirsch's suggestion toshift away from a static view of culture as simply providing opportunitiesand constraints for social action toward a more dynamic perspective thattreats culture as a contested terrain. Their case study of the struggle overthe veil in the Algerian revolution effectively shows the advantages of thisinteractive approach to culture. Unfortunately, only a few of the paperspresent research findings. This weakness notwithstanding, the volume ed-ited by Hank Johnston and Bert Klandermans remains an important pointof reference for all those who are interested in the cultural dimensions ofcollective action.With T he Politics of Social Protest, edited by Jenkins and Klandermans,we leave the cultural dimension of movements for the structural components

Structure and Culture 371

7/28/2019 Giungi 1999.pdf

8/11

of protest. This book gives us a quite representative overview of the struc-tural currents in social movement theorythat is, of structures as relativelystable features of a movement's environment that influence action by shap-ing opportunities. The state as a structure is at the core of this volume, andthe articles explore the relationship between the state, the system of politicalrepresentation, social movements, and the citizens (5). Among the four vol-umes under review, this is the only one consistently devoted to presentingresearch findings. The book's structure is clear and straightforward, its threeparts dealing with the three main stages of protest: origins, development asinfluenced by the political opportunity structure, and outcomes. However,the book also has several weaknesses. First of all, the scheme presented inthe introduction is not followed consistently along the volume. Second,though the editors maintain that little attention has been paid to the inter-actions between social movements and the state (3) and that, therefore, thisbook bridges this gap, in fact a great many works have focused on suchinteractions starting from at least the mid-1980s. The political process ap-proach, in fact, looks precisely at the relation between the state and socialmovements. Finally, the book seems to suffer a certain lack of unity. Besidethe varying quality of the individual chapters, the range of contributions is,perhaps, too heterogeneous. In a time when there is a plethora of editedcollections being published in the field of collective action, I think it is ab-solutely necessary that they center around specific, preferably neglected top-ics, such as the consequences of social movements, the impact ofglobalization on social movements, the policing of protest, and the relationsbetween social movements, revolutions, and contentious politics.

Finally, w e come to McAdam, McCarthy, an d Zald's Comparat ive Per-spectives on Social Movements. This volume makes an explicit attempt tolink the three main sets of variables on which, currently, something of aconsensus exists: political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and framingprocesses. In doing so, this book gets closer than the others under reviewto articulating structural and cultural factors in social movement theory.The result is a good overview of the state of the art in social movementresearch with its blend of programmatic statements, theoretical elabora-tions, and empirical findings. Among the research essays, Donatella dellaPorta's is noteworthy for its anticipation of her comparative study on thepolicing of protest, a field of investigation that promises dramatically toimprove our knowledge of the dynamics of mobilization and repression. Inoffering a sensitizing framework, McAdam, McCarthy, and Zald endeavorto integrate the notion of structure as a frame external to social movements,the notion of structure as social networks and organization internal to socialmovements, and the notion of culture as a process of social constructionof protest objects. Although these three main dimensionspolitical oppor-

372 Giugni

7/28/2019 Giungi 1999.pdf

9/11

tunities, mobilizing structures, and framing processesare not new in theliterature on social movements, this volume succeeds in integrating themin a consistent and systematic manner. Nonetheless, in spite of this effortat synthesis, political opportunities are clearly privileged, and the culturaldimension is limited to its strategic aspects. Hence, structure has the edgeover culture in this book, which m ay simply reflect the present state ofresearch in the field of collective action and social movements.

The comeback of cultural variables in the study of social movementsis more than welcome, particularly since the recently prevailing theorieshave stressed social and political structures at the expense of cultural for-mations. This comeback, however, is not without dangers. It runs the notunfamiliar risk that th e discovery of a new paradigm leads scholars to forgetthe advances made by the former paradigm so that cultural factors are putat the center of the analysis of collective action while the crucial role ofstructures is neglected. In other words, the danger is that cultural deter-minism may replace structural determinism. Perhaps we should acknow-ledge the relational nature of all social phenomena and, accordingly, adopta perspective that derives the consequencespurposive or unintendedofh u m a n action from the interaction structuring all of social life (Tilly, 1996).Hence, it seems that much remains to be done in order to arrive at a trulyrelational conception of both structures an d culture, thereby achieving abetter integration of these tw o fundamental components of human action.

The four books reviewed here, though none principally focuses on thedialectic of these tw o aspects, testify to a prevailing substantialist view ofstructures an d culturethat is, the view that th e fundamental units of allinquiry are substances of various kinds, such as things, beings, or essences(Emirbayer, 1997)in contrast to a relational perspective, according towhich structure an d culture stem from past an d present interactions an dembody them. T o avoid reifying Structure and Culture, we should exploretheir interpenetration in concrete social relations, acknowledging them notas warring entities but as different abstractions from the same observations.

The books reviewed here deserve praise for putting at center of thediscussion tw o sets of factors critical fo r explanations of the emergence, de-velopment, and outcomes of social movements: the constraints and (politi-cal) opportunities that emerge at given moments on the one hand and thesymbolic and discursive context of social movements as well as the roleplayed by movements in the construction of such (cultural) contexts on theother. However, in general w e still are far from a model that integrates al l

Structure and Culture 373

V

7/28/2019 Giungi 1999.pdf

10/11

374 Giugni

of these factors and that shows theoretically as well as empirically how struc-ture^) and culture(s) interact to shape collective action. In the end, exceptfor few exceptions (among the most recent ones, I can mention Banaszak,1996, and Diani, 1996, in addition to some of the papers included in thebooks reviewed), the relationship between structure and culture remainsproblematic in the study of social movements. In this field, Marx and Webercontinue to walk side by side, but their paths still cross only with difficulty.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSI am indebted to Hanspeter Kriesi, Florence Passy, and Charles Tillyfo r their comments and thoughts on a previous draft. A special thanks goes

to Suzanne Keller, whose insightful comments and exceptional editorialskills have improved the essay dramatically.

REFERENCESBanaszak, Ann Lee1996 Why Movements Succeed or Fail. Op-

portunity, Culture, and the Strugglefo r Woman Suffrage. Princeton, HI:Princeton University Press.

Diani, Mario1995 Green Networks. A Structural Analy-sis of the Italian Environmental Move-

ment. Edinburgh: EdinburghUniversity Press.

1996 "Linking mobilization frames and po-litical opportunities: Insights from re -gional populism in Italy." AmericanSociological Review 61:1053-1069.

Emirbayer, Mustafa1997 "Manifesto for a relational sociology."

American Journal of Sociology103:281-317.Emirbayer, Mustafa and Jeff Goodwin

1996 "Symbols, positions, objects: Toward ane w theory of revolutions an d collec-tive action." History and Theory35:358-374.

Eyerman, Ron and Andrew Jamison1991 Social Movements. A Cognitive Ap-proach. University Park: Pennsylvania

State University Press.Fernandez, Roberto M. and Doug McAdam1988 "Social networks and social move-

ments: Multiorganizational fields and

r ec r u i t em ent to Mississippi freedomsummer." Sociological Forum 3:357-382.

Fischer, Michael M. J.1980 Iran. From Religious Dispute to

Revolution. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.Foran, John

1993 "Theories of revolution revisited: To-ward a four th generation?" Sociologi-ca l Theory 11:1-20.Gamson, William A.1992 Talk ing Politics. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.

Gamson, William A. , Bruce Fireman, an dSteven Rytina1982 Encounters w ith Unjust Authority.

Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.Geertz, Clifford1973 The Interpretation of Cultures. NewYork: Basic Books.Goffman, Erving1974 Frame Analysis. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.Goldstone, Jack1980 "Theories of revolution: The third gen-eration." World Politics 23: 425-453.Goodwin, Jeff1997 "The l ibidinal constitution of a high-risk social movement: Affectual ties

7/28/2019 Giungi 1999.pdf

11/11

Structure and Culture 375an d solidarity in the Huk rebellion,1946-1954." American SociologicalReview 62:53-69.Gould, Roger V.1993 "Collective action and network struc-ture." American Sociological Review58:182-196.1995 Insu rgen t Identities. Chicag o: Univ er-sity of Chicago Press.Hunt, Lynn1984 Politics, C ultu re, and Class in theFrench Revolution. Berkeley: Univ er-sity of California Press.Kitschelt, Herbert1986 "Political oppo rtunity struc tures andpolitical protest: Anti-nuclear move-ments in four democracies." BritishJournal of Political Science 16:57-85.

Klandermans, Bert1997 The Socia l Psychology of Protest.Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Knoke, David1990 Org anizing for Collective Action. ThePolitical Economies of American As -sociations. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine deGruyter.Kriesi, Hanspeter, Ruud Koopmans, JanWillem Duyvendak, and Marco Giugni1995 New Social Movem ents in W esternEurope. Minneapol is: University ofMinnesota Press.McAdam, Doug1988 Freedom Sum mer. The Idealists Re-visited. N ew York: Oxford UniversityPress.Melucci, Alberto1996 Challenging Codes. Collective Actionin th e Information Age. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.Nadel, Siegfried Frederick1957 The Theory of Social Structure. Glen-coe, IL: Free Press.Parsons, Talcott1937 The Structure of Social Action. NewYork: Free Press.

Powell, Walter W. and Paul J. DiMagg io, eds.1991 The New Institutionalism in Organiza-tional Analysis. Chicago: University ofChicago Press,Rosenthal, N., M. Fingrutd, M. Ethier, R.Karant, and D. McDonald1985 "Social m o v e m e n t s and n e t w o r kanalysis: A case study of nineteenth-century women's reform in New YorkState." American Journal of Sociology90:1022-1055.Scott, W. Richard1995 Institutions and Organizations. Tho u-sand Oaks, CA: Sage.Sewell, William H., Jr.1980 W ork and Revolution in France. TheLanguage of Labor from the Old Re-gime to 1848. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.Snow, David A., E. Burke Rochford, Jr. ,Steven K. Worden, and Robert D. Benford1986 "Frame a l ignment processes, micro-mobilization, an d movement participa-tion." American Sociological Review51:464-481.Snow, David A., Louis A. Zurcher , an dSheldon Ekland-O lson1980 "Social n e t w o r k s and social move-ments: A microstructural approach todifferent ial recrui tment . " Amer icanSociological Review 45:787-801.Steinmo, Sven, Kathleen Thelen, andFrank Longstreth, eds.1992 Struc turing Politics. Historical Institu-t ional ism in Compara t ive Analys is .C a m b r i d g e : C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t yPress.Tarrow, Sidney1994 Power in Mo vem ent. Social Move-ments, Col lective Action and MassPubl ics in the Modern State. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.Tilly, Charles1996 "Invisible elbow ." Sociological Forum11:589-601.