1/16/2005

The Interpenetration of System and Lifeworld: Political, Cultural, and Organizational Processes of Social Movement Institutionalization

Edward Walker Department of Sociology Pennsylvania State University University Park, PA 16802 edwalker@psu.edu (814) 865-1691

Abstract Recent literatures have brought renewed attention to the concept of social movement institutionalization, and a growing group of scholars makes the case that Western democracies are increasingly social movement societies in which movement ideas and practices are so commonplace as to represent a routine element of political life. As civil societies and larger institutional systems increasingly interpenetrate, the concept of movement institutionalization becomes particularly significant in understanding the role of the public in democratic politics. In this essay I attempt to clarify the concept of institutionalization as it is employed in social movement analysis, building on insights both from social movement theory and neo-institutionalist analyses of organizations. I argue that in order to adequately specify the dynamics of movement institutionalization, the concept should be decomposed into three constituent elements: the political factors relating to the incorporation of movements into the state; factors regarding movement cultures, framing and tactical repertories, and the cultural effects of movements more broadly; and factors relating to the presence of organizations in movements. Along with each of these frameworks, I identify a series of diffusion processes. Once these three key processes are identified, I consider their interconnections by exploring six ideal-typical scenarios in which one form of institutionalization promotes another, thereby demonstrating the importance of distinguishing between the variety of institutionalization processes faced by modern social movements.

Submitted for presentation at the 101st annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Montral, Quebec. I would like to thank John McCarthy and Alan Sica for insightful comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript. The usual disclaimers apply.

Introduction The fundamental distinction between the crowd and the public, however, is not to be measured by numbers nor by means of communication, but by the form and effects of the interactions. In the public, interaction takes the form of discussion. Individuals tend to act upon one another critically; issues are raised and parties form. Opinions clash and thus modify and moderate one another. The crowd does not discuss and hence it does not reflect. It simply mills. Out of this milling process a collective impulse is formed which dominates all members of the crowd. Crowds, when they act, do so impulsively. - Robert Park (1967 [1924]: 229) Capitalist societies, as complex systems which require active state intervention in order to counterbalance their tendency toward contradiction and crisis (Habermas, 1975; Baran and Sweezy, 1966; Milibrand, 1969), have an interest in cooperating with civil society, or bringing the more oppositional voices of civil society into the normative framework of larger economic and administrative systems. The incorporation of civil society on the part of such social systems may take place in order to promote the popular legitimacy of institutional practices, to neutralize oppositional groups, or even to make civil societies more self-regulating by offloading services (Banaszak, Beckwith and Rucht, 2003). Indeed, the rising popularity of non-governmental organizations as assistants in the policymaking process is only one testament to the increasing reliance of administrative systems on civil societies (e.g. Keck and Sikkink, 1998). As these processes increase through the interpenetration of administrative systems and civil societies (Habermas, 1984; Cohen and Arato, 1992), the question arises as to the specific means by which such interpenetration occurs. A rather direct way to assess the means by which modern states and civil societies interpenetrate with one another, as well as a way to consider how the subaltern counterpublics that social movements represent (Fraser, 1992) relate to larger institutional patterns, is to consider the variety of means by which social movement institutionalization takes place. Actors in the field of social movements (Crossley, 2003) are the key agents making claims which challenge the state, society, and culture; as such, the means by which they are incorporated into these larger institutions represent a key moment in understanding to use Habermass (1984) language the means by which system and lifeworld intertwine. Accordingly, the question arises as to whether Habermas is correct in arguing that the increasing functional differentiation of modern societies encourages protest in response to the disruption of the moral and integrating functions of everyday life: does resistance

indeed emerge at the seam of system and lifeworld?1 That is to say, does protest arise in response to the incursion of larger social systems into everyday life? Or, alternatively, does this very process of colonization of the lifeworld include the incorporation of those very movements that would resist this dynamic? The question of the institutionalization of collective actors in civil society is a perennial one in sociological theory, as analysts treatment of the position of these actors relative to the larger social order implies much broader notions about the role of the public in democratic life. These analyses rely on the distinction as the epigram from Robert Park above suggests between mass society and public sphere theories of public claims-making.2 Park, of course, may be thought of as a proponent of the former position, which he shared with other prominent fin de sicle social theorists such as Gustave Le Bon (1982 [1897]) and Gabriel Tarde (1962 [1903]). Park, Le Bon, and Tarde shared a conceptualization of social movements as existing outside of institutions both in the structural sense of lacking institutional position or role, as well as in the normative sense of existing outside of the regulative constraints and meaning systems of the everyday lifeworld. Or, to use Giddens (1984) language, neither the rules nor the resources which compose the duality of structure would have been applied to movement actors by these theorists. Tellingly, accounts in this tradition including that of Smelser (1962) grouped social movements along with such phenomena as fads, crazes, and other capricious forms of collective action. The rise of the New Left, as it has been well documented (e.g. Morris and Herring, 1988; Crist and McCarthy, 1996), supported a fundamental reorientation in theoretical perspectives on social movements away form this model: the assumed actors shifted from irrational to rational, and from marginal to integrated. Not only did this transition take place on the level of rationality and social integration, but also on the level of formal organization, as the assumed model of public influence in democratic claims-making transformed from unorganized masses to social movement industries of movement professionals (McCarthy and Zald, 1977). The paradigmatic expressions of this reorientation were articulated in the resource mobilization and political process theories of social movements (McCarthy and Zald, 1977; Tilly, 1978; McAdam, 1982). In Parks terms, movement actors made the transition from an impulsive crowd to a critical and organized public, as most analysts began to reject the notion of the mass crowd altogether (see McPhail, 1991 for a summary of this position; see also Ramirez, 1987).
1 2

For a similar argument, see Touraine (1971). See, respectively, Kornhauser (1959) and Habermas (1989) for paradigmatic statements on these perspectives. 3

More recent commentaries have taken this argument one step further, arguing that social movements have become increasingly institutionalized in the time since the era of the New Left (Meyer and Tarrow, 1998). These accounts go beyond the resource mobilization and political process accounts by positing a movement actor that increasingly works within structural and culturally dominant channels, and tends toward relatively structured interactions within the polity and economy. Central to this is the notion of a social movement society in which movement tactics such as protest diffuse to much broader demographic constituencies (Meyer and Tarrow, 1998) or, even movement ideals are translated into a routine element of institutional process (Taylor, 2000). While resource mobilization theories posited an institutionally integrated actor seeking change from the outside looking in, the movement society concept opens up the possibility of a similar actor working for change from the inside out. Indeed, the number of studies of social movements seeking change from within the state and other dominant institutions has multiplied in recent years (Katzenstein, 1998a, 1998b; Banaszak, 2005; Santoro and McGuire, 1997; Raeburn, 2004; see also Zald and Berger, 1978). But, like the contested meaning of the concept of institutionalization throughout sociology (e.g. Douglas, 1986), as well as widespread contention over how best to understand the very concept of a social movement (Diani, 1992; Tilly, 1994), the institutionalization of social movements raises a number of conceptual and theoretical challenges. The purpose of this paper is to re-consider the concept of institutionalization as it relates to social movement theories, in order to draw clearer distinctions between the variety of disparate processes which have been described by analysts as elements of the same process. Each way of conceptualizing institutionalization highlights various structural and/or cultural elements of movements, which would be neglected if a more universal conceptualization were followed. I identify three distinct processes of movement institutionalization, each of which represents a unique means by which system and lifeworld interface: political, cultural, and organizational. I call attention to the conflation of these three concepts in social movement theory, building on insights from the literatures on social movements and neo-institutional studies of organizations. As Burstein (1998) notes, the concept of social movement institutionalization is not at all clearly defined. In this piece, I seek to further the cross-pollination of social movement and neo-institutionalist theory (Lounsbury, 2005) by re-considering the institutionalization processes posited by each framework. A secondary purpose of this paper is to call attention to the differential processes of diffusion that are associated with each of the three institutionalization processes. Because the development of an institution or the incorporation of a group into an institutional practice involves the adoption of 4

new practices for those actors, diffusion is a central process to institutionalization (Fligstein, 1985). Indeed, each of the three forms of institutionalization political, cultural, and organizational uniquely shapes the means by which the diffusion of movement practices and actors can take place. I provide illustrative examples of each type of institutionalization and its concomitant diffusion process. In what follows, I first review the literature on social movement institutionalization, with particular focus on the notion of a social movement society, which suggests that movement activity has also become subject to the colonization of the lifeworld, as movements now tend to operate as a constituent element of democratic politics rather than as an external means of resistance, although a space for insurgent radicalism remains. I then draw attention to relationship between diffusion and institutionalization, with particular emphasis on diffusion processes within and between social movements, building on the growing number of studies that applies the insights of neoinstitutionalism to social movement analysis (McAdam and Scott, 2005; Lounsbury, 2005; Campbell, 2005; see also Raeburn, 2004). Next, I develop my tripartite model of movement institutionalization, and map the diffusion processes associated with each. Along with this framework, I will provide illustrative examples of each diffusion process. Finally, I examine six potential scenarios through which each of these three institutionalization processes relate to one another, thereby demonstrating the importance of separating each process.

Social Movement Institutionalization and the Movement Society In the resource mobilization approach to social movements (McCarthy and Zald, 1977; Jenkins and Perrow, 1977; Jenkins, 1983), attention was drawn away from the once-hegemonic position that social movement actors are located in a marginal social position with little access to institutional networks and resources, and toward the notion that movement actors were well integrated into institutions, and indeed needed to be in order to successfully make change. Over the course of the twentieth century, movement actors shifted from being marginal to dominant actors in both the theory and practice of democratic politics. The development of a more comprehensive political process literature brought institutions even further into social movement analysis, as the state and political culture began to figure more heavily in the formation, mobilization, and outcomes of movement activity. In a sense, the political process model of social movements brought them even further inside institutional processes, in that all of the above listed factors were thought to be shaped by the political context, which some have called political reductionism (Melucci, 1996), and others have put more mildly as structuralist 5

bias (Goodwin and Jasper, 1999). Indeed, political process theorists often posit that the very emergence of social movements is best understood if it is related to political institutions, and to what happens in areas of conventional party and interest group politics (Kriesi et al., 1992). In this sense, movements were being brought inside institutional processes, as an element of the politics by other means notion brought about by Lipsky decades earlier (Lipsky, 1968). People join movements in response to political opportunities which are made available by the fortuitous activities of political institutions. Movements are thereby placed in direct relation to the operations of conventional politics, and are no longer seen as a relatively unpredictable, insurgent force external to those institutions. Some have gone so far as to argue that movement emergence takes place in response to the recognition of a political opportunity (e.g. Gotham, 1999). In recent years, a growing literature has posited an even closer relationship between social movements and institutional politics, emphasizing how social movements and protest tactics have become increasingly routinized, alongside the widespread diffusion of protest tactics to broader constituencies throughout society (Meyer and Tarrow, 1998; Rucht and Niedhardt, 2002; Taylor, 2000; McCarthy and McPhail, 1998). In these analyses, commentators often refer to this condition as characteristic of the development of a social movement society in which social movements and their tactical repertoire move from the margins to the center of democratic politics. As such, analysts claim that social movements are increasingly institutionalized, although a variety of disparate processes are grouped together under this heading. As Burstein (1998) notes, the definition of institutionalization in social movement theory is surprisingly underspecified. At times it is thought of as entry into the state and/or inside forms of influence (e.g. Costain and Costain, 1987), at other times it relates to an organizational practice (e.g. Rucht, 1999), and at yet other times it refers to the spread of a larger cognitive framework throughout society in the form of a tactical repertoire to new institutional spaces (e.g. Katzenstein, 1998b). Although I later discuss these distinctions in greater detail, I first outline the contours of the recent literature on the movement society. In general, the movement society concept has three core elements: (1) protest moves from being an occasional mode of participation in political life to a mainstream component of democratic politics, (2) protest activities are used more often and by more diverse constituencies, representing a wider range of claims, (3) movements become increasingly professionalized and are therefore made more conventional (Meyer and Tarrow, 1998: 4; on the latter concern, see Zald and Ash, 1966). More specifically, these claims suggest that protest tactics will be used by larger numbers of individuals and groups throughout society, that organizations will be more heavily involved in that

protest activity, and that the interaction between protestors and authorities will increasingly adhere to a common script (Soule and Earl, 2005; on the latter point, see McCarthy and McPhail, 1998).3 Central to this concept is the notion that social movements increasingly work inside the state (Costain, 1998; Costain and Lester, 1998; Burstein, 1998), using such insider tactics as lawsuits, press conferences, direct lobbying, and petitioning. Accordingly, the movement society argument holds that social movement organizations have moved toward the organizational repertoire traditionally associated with interest group politics (Meyer and Tarrow, 1998), even to the point that some claim that the conceptual boundary between what analysts term social movement organization and interest group is not tenable (Burstein, 1998). As a widespread understanding of social movements is that they work both outside the state and seek systematic social change (Diani, 1992; Gamson, 1990 [1975], Oberschall, 1972; Tilly, 1978), the movement society notion challenges traditionally held conceptual frameworks in social movements research. This conceptual difficulty becomes particularly acute as interest groups have increasingly taken on movement-like tactics such as community organizing and other grassroots lobbying tactics (on the latter, see Kollmann, 1998; Rubin, 1997; Stauber and Rampton, 1995; Faucheux, 1995; Stone, 1994).4
3

Other accounts which I will not review further here (e.g. Crozat, 1998) build public opinion toward protest tactics into the account of the movement society, building on recent accounts which suggest that such attitudes have become more favorable in the past quarter-century (Dalton, 1996; Van Aelst and Walgrave, 2001). 4 One instance which overlaps the distinction between political and cultural institutionalization comes into question when one considers the boundary between what sociologists and political scientists consider a social movement organization and an interest group. Because the boundary between these two types of groups relies both on the location of the group relative to the state as well as the tactics and cultural toolkits available to movement actors, it may be considered either a case of political or cultural institutionalization (or both), depending on the circumstances. Burstein (1998) discusses a number of ways by which analysts attempt to make this distinction, including (1) that social movements lack formal representation within the state, (2) that social movements work against the status quo, (3) that movements represent those outside the realm of mainstream political influence, and (4) that social movements employ primarily non-institutional forms of political participation such as protest (ibid.: 42; on the latter, see McAdam, Tilly, and Tarrow, 2001: 7-8). is boundary is particularly interesting to examine because it illuminates the distinct but intertwined nature of the political and cultural institutionalization of social movements. So, if we accept that the distinction between social movement organizations and interest groups is that the former employ more radical, non-institutional tactics (Bursteins # 4 above) or work against the status quo for cultural and political change (# 2), then the distinction is one regarding the cultural repertoires the group tends to adopt in order to mobilize their members. However, if the distinction regards formal representation within the state (# 1) or the claims of those underrepresented in the political system (# 3), then the distinction relates to the location of a movement relative to the state, and refers to political institutionalization. While both of these dynamics may correctly be called institutionalization, quite different processes are at work in each type. In this case, the transition 7

Along similar lines, a long-standing discourse in the literature on social movements and social change weighs the relative advantages and disadvantages of taking such an insider strategy. While often justifiably referred to in pejorative terms such as co-optation, scholars have called attention to the mixed meaning insider tactics may have for movements and movement organizations (e.g. Dryzek, 2000; Jenkins, 1977). For example, as Giugni and Passy (1998) have argued, social movements that use predominantly insider tactics and work more closely with the state are more likely to play a subordinate role to the state by offering expertise and even helping to craft public policy. This is especially likely in movements such as environmentalism, which allows movement actors to provide specialized expertise not otherwise available to state actors (ibid.; Gottlieb, 1993). In this situation, the insider strategy offers the benefit of direct access to policymakers, but comes at the cost of the strategic leverage which would be offered by the threat of disruptive activity (Piven and Cloward, 1977). One direct carryover from the resource mobilization perspective to the movement society literature is the notion of professionalization, which refers not only to the increasing presence of formal organizations within a movement, but that those organizations have only a nominal or paper membership, and that they are dependent on the resource contributions of constituents outside the organization for their sustenance (McCarthy and Zald, 1973, 1977; Staggenborg, 1988). It is in this sense that social movements may increasingly rely on the administrative steering media of social systems such as financial capital (Cohen and Arato, 1992: 497ff.). As such, the movement society is one in which the field of social movements,5 although it may be best defined as a sustained challenge to powerholders in the name of a population living under the jurisdiction of those powerholders by means of repeated public displays of that populations numbers, commitment, unity, and worthiness (Tilly, 1994: 7), is dominated by organizations with professional staff, formal bylaws and organizational procedures, and, often, a variety of outside funding sources. Thus, the movement society is not just one dominated by individuals and informal collectives making contentious claims, but one dominated by formal organizations as actors. The presence of organizations may promote a routinized style among movement actors, or a movement becalmed (Zald and Ash, 1966). The argument that the field of social movements has professionalized in the from social movement to interest group (or, from interest group to social movement, see Zald and Useem) may involve either a change in tactical repertoires and organizational forms, acceptance and legitimation within the state, or both. 5 In referring to a field of social movements, I build upon Crossleys (2003) application of the thought of Bourdieu to the realm of collective action as a space assisting in the development of radical habitus. 8

era since the New Left was not without contention, however, as some argued that this was more of a case of movement theorists normalizing protest by neglecting its more disruptive elements (Piven and Cloward, 1992; for a contrasting view, see Gamson and Schmeidler, 1984). Of course, the discourse over the consequences of organization for social movements goes back to the questions raised in Robert Michels classic Political Parties (1962 [1915]) in which the concept of an iron law of oligarchy was introduced. This notion, presaged in the work of Weber, holds that even though political parties are one of the central means by which political institutions become rooted in community, they are always structures struggling for domination [and] are frequently organized in a very strict authoritarian fashion (Weber, 1991 [1946]: 195). Michels study of the German socialist and revolutionary labor parties argued that the requirements of political leadership and organization both in civil society and the state inevitably lead to oligarchical tendencies in parties, regardless of their democratic and/or socialist ideologies. Such organizational problems make it more difficult for the organization to take action, function to divide the leaders from members, and frustrate efforts to attain organizational goals. Although the conclusions of Michels are better conceptualized as a tendency than an iron law (Zald and Ash, 1966; Jenkins, 1977; Clemens and Minkoff, 2004; Voss and Sherman, 2000), a central area of contention in the movement society literature struggles with the same issues that were raised long ago in Political Parties. A third issue related to the development of the movement society is that of routinization, or a condition in which challengers and authorities can both adhere to a common script, recognizing familiar patterns as well as potentially dangerous deviations (Meyer and Tarrow, 1998). Protests increasingly negotiate with police prior to protest events, and police, especially in the U.S. context, have well-established routines for dealing with protestors (McCarthy and McPhail, 1998). And, as a result of the widespread negotiation over the use space between protestors and authorities, there is evidence to suggest that protests are now located further away from their targets than was formerly the case. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the movement society is one in which the repertoire of protest groups becomes a dominant element of democratic politics, and, as Lipsky (1968) noted long ago, becomes taken as a form of politics by other means (see also book by that title). That is to say, protest tactics move beyond both demographic and institutional boundaries, in that groups throughout society come to use protest tactics. Thus, groups having a variety of ideological, racial, and economic backgrounds come to use such tactics, even those who otherwise have routine access to traditional forms of political influence. This makes possible protests orchestrated by well-heeled 9

social actors, such as Verizon providing financial support to those who would protest against their competitor Worldcom (Latour et al., 2003; Stern, 2003). Elites, while they are perhaps not often tactical innovators to the degree that movement actors are (Rao, Morill, and Zald, 2000; see also McAdam, 1983), will use as wide an array of tactics as possible in order to achieve their aims.6 As the previous discussion suggests, the movement society literature claims a wide range of conceptual and empirical territory as its own, and attempts to integrate elements of a variety of disparate movement processes at a number of levels of analysis: societal, institutional, and organizational. However, this discussion should also illustrate that a number of disparate political, cultural, and organizational processes are all labeled under the broad heading of institutionalization. As institutionalization is an under-conceptualized and at the same time widely used concept in social movement theory, greater specification and analytic clarity is required. Diffusion processes assist and in part constitute institutionalization, and also require examination.

Institutionalization and Diffusion The process of diffusion, going back to Tardes The Laws of Imitation (1903), has been central concept throughout social science, although interest in it was long dormant until recent years (see Strang and Soule, 1998 for a review). In earlier collective behavior models such as that of Le Bon (1982[1897]; see also Smelser, 1962; Kornhauser, 1959), collective action itself was conceptualized as a contagion, spreading to individuals in search of social integration through engagement in the larger group. The turn toward resource mobilization theories of social movements and its concomitant notion of social movement sectors and industries promoted the notion of interactions and competition across movements and therefore diffusion between them (see McCarthy and Zald, 1977). In addition, as social network analyses of movements have become prominent in recent decades (Diani and McAdam, 2003), accounts of diffusion in movement processes have also become more common, following a period of relative dormancy. Indeed, in the transition from theories based on anomic to integrated movement actors (Morris and Herring, 1988), a new notion of diffusion was required; it became increasingly recognized that frames, tactics, and ideologies commonly spread directly across organizations and activists (Soule, 2004: 295).7 Social movement

6 7

I would like to thank Frank Baumgartner for suggesting this point to me. Interestingly, in the history of social movement theory since the early collective behavior theorists, the trajectory of diffusion theories has been a pendulum swing from an emphasis on cultural and cognitive theories (i.e. non-relational theories), to contagion or relational theories, and back again to cognitive theories. 10

theorists increasingly focus on diffusion processes, although few accounts have connected diffusion processes with movement institutionalization, and those that have made such a connection have left it somewhat underspecified (e.g. Soule, 2004; Strang and Soule, 1998; Meyer and Tarrow, 1998). Diffusion, in general terms, may best be defined as the spread of something within a social system [which] should be taken viscerally to denote flow or movement from a source to an adopter, paradigmatically via communication and influence (Strang and Soule, 1998: 266). Prominent studies of diffusion have examined the spread of the multidivisional corporate form (Fligstein, 1985), municipal reform (Knoke, 1982), aircraft hijacking (Holden, 1986), and, most commonly, the practices of corporate organizational management (Wejnert, 2002). As such, this process may take place through direct interaction between individuals, groups, or societies, or through more indirect routes such as media, state, or professional knowledge making a practice known throughout the larger culture (Strang and Meyer, 1993). The former model, in which diffusion takes place through some form of face-to-face contact (as in the models of social capital which have become so popular recently), is typically known as relational diffusion, whereas the model in which diffusion happens through indirect or cognitive-cultural means can be thought of as non-relational diffusion (Strang and Soule, 1998; McAdam and Rucht, 1993; Soule, 2004; Strang and Meyer, 1993). The latter does not develop social capital, unless cultural diffusion leads to relational diffusion, as those who theorize/adopt decide to meet to discuss how to improve the process (see Strang and Meyer, 1993). Diffusion may often take place on the basis of a shared identity or reference group, and may take place without any formal interaction between the diffuser and adopter. For example, Chaves (1996) argues that cultural categories in his case similar theological frameworks help to explain the spread of ordaining women promoted diffusion in the absence of much direct contact between diffusers and adopters. With respect to social movements and contentious claims-making in particular, diffusion is a central mechanism, and refers to the transfer in the same or similar shape of forms and claims of contention across space or across sectors and ideological divides (McAdam, Tarrow, and Tilly, 2001: 68). Studies of the diffusion of social movement tactics and practices have become more common in recent years (e.g. Oberschall, 1989; Soule, 1997). Indeed, it has only been in the past two decades that scholars have begun to uncover the mechanisms of movement diffusion (Soule, 2004). Accordingly, diffusion may take place (1) across locations, groups, and organizations in which movements are locations, and (2) can transmit both movement tactical repertoires and cognitive frameworks of action, as well as ideologies and movement frames through this process. The fact that diffusion processes can be somewhat nebulous has caused some realist analysts to be more cautious 11

by arguing for a highly specific set of guidelines for determining that diffusion has taken place. These rules stipulate that it must be clear that (1) a person, group, or organization can be identified that acts as a transmitter, (2) an adopter can be similarly identified, (3) something can be known to be diffused, and (4) channels of diffusion (either persons or media) can be identified (McAdam and Rucht, 1993). The concept of diffusion relates to institutionalization in a number of interesting ways, the most central of which is in that the development of an institution assists in the diffusion of practices, actors, and ideas. Institutionalization entails the establishment of something relatively permanent in a social setting (Hughes, 1936; Zucker, 1977), or the process of attainment of a social order or pattern, which is repetitively activated and comes to reproduce itself in a relatively self-sustaining fashion (Jepperson, 1991: 145). Diffusion and institutionalization, then, map onto the perennial concern in the social sciences over the theory of action (e.g. Sewell, 1992), in that analysts tend to pay attention to the diffusion as social action, against the spread of already-common institutional practice (as social reproduction). This is evident in the very title of Everett Rogers classic The Diffusion of Innovations (1962).8

A New Framework: Three Types of Institutionalization As I have argued in previous sections, the concept of institutionalization in social movement analysis subsumes a variety of differential processes under one heading; this is particularly evident in the recent discussion over the development of a social movement society. As well, institutionalization is not a transition between two dichotomous states, and represents a continuum between action and institution (Jepperson, 1991). I identify three distinct processes of social movement institutionalization and build on theory and research on social movements and organizations in order to develop distinctions between the variety of institutional processes at work in

Although diffusion need not refer to innovation, or that which is socially deviant or otherwise unprecedented recall that diffusion refers only to the spread of something in a social system methodological concerns and analytic interest tends to favor the spread of something unprecedented within a certain field. That is to say, analysts may only find a diffusion process noteworthy when it is innovative in a certain field; that same practice may be well-institutionalized in another field and not worthy of consideration as a diffusion process. In short, the diffusion of a socially reproductive practice is still diffusion, although it would be difficult to identify it as such. As Strang and Soule (1998: 285) argue, analysts should begin to study practices that fail to diffuse. There is a strong selection bias in diffusion research, where investigators choose ultimately popular practices as appropriate candidates for study. Investigation of practices that few adopt would provide a more balanced picture. 12

the field of social movements, and to consider how diffusion processes differ along with each. As modern social movements are both structural and cultural phenomena (dAnjou and Van Male, 1998; Melucci, 1996; Jasper, 1997), it is worthwhile to review how the normative and constitutive elements of social action each shape institutionalization.

Political Institutionalization As in political sociology, the primary institution in discussions of movement institutionalization tends to be the state (on the former, see Clemens and Cook, 1997). In the political process and resource mobilization literatures, the relationship between movements and the state are central (for a review, see Meyer, 2004). Although these relationships may change in a variety of often path-dependent ways (Oliver and Meyers, 1999), one of the primary ways this takes place is through the entry into the state of movement activists and organizations. The degree to which a challenging group is able to become incorporated into the state may even be taken as a direct test of the extent to which a state may be thought of as pluralist rather than elitist (Gamson, 1990 [1975]). Thus, political institutionalization refers to the changing location of social movement actors from a position largely external to the state to one in which movement actors are either recognized members of the state, work in close relationship to the state or assist the state in policy-making, or are directly funded by the state. As the defining characteristic of social movement activity is often taken by analysts to be that they work outside the state (Tilly, 1978; Gamson, 1990 [1975]; Santoro and McGuire, 1997) institutionalization of this type is typically thought of as the act of social movements losing their identity as such. Thus, political institutionalization refers not only to a change in the position of the movement relative to the state, but also to a change away from what analysts even consider a social movement. Interestingly, the pluralist elements of resource mobilization theory fostered the argument that movement actors use protest tactics because they are denied routine access to the polity, thereby suggesting that institutionalization represents the formal recognition of a movement as a legitimate claims-maker by the state (Lipsky, 1968; Gamson, 1990 [1975]; Tilly, 1978). Thus, political institutionalization may represent the success of a social movement in that it becomes a direct participant in policymaking. Tarrow (1998) conceptualizes institutionalization as a temporal element in a cycle of protest, as the later stages of such a cycle tend to polarize a movement between those groups that enter the state and those that become more radical (Koopmans, 1993). As movements increase their degree of political institutionalization, or they may be called upon to carry out co-regulatory roles. For example, in their study of ecological and aid development 13

programs in France and Switzerland, Giugni and Passy (1998) find that because social movements in specialized fields such as environmentalism possess technical knowledge that the state may lack, they are more likely to be called upon by the state to assist in regulation. States and movements are not simply polar adversaries in such cases, and often interact in a state of conflictual cooperation. Under such a condition, movements become institutionalized into the state but remain adversarial; such a relation is likely to develop under weak states which are more inclusive of challenging groups, when the issue is not threatening to state actors, when movements are dominated by professionalized organizations, or when movements use less radical tactics (ibid.). While political institutionalization often represents the incorporation of a challenging group into the state, it may also represent the increased presence or influence of elites in collective action. For example, McCarthy (2005) describes the heavily elite-driven nature of grassroots anti-drug campaigns. Wolfson (2004) provides an account of the strong support and often participation of governmental and public health organizations in the anti-smoking movement. Useem and Zald contend that the pro-nuclear movement both in its community- and industry-based wings transformed from an interest group to a popular movement in response to the threat of grassroots anti-nuclear activism (1982). Accordingly, McAdam argues that movements who have elite allies are more likely to work inside conventional political channels (1996). Going even further, Aguirre finds in his study of popular mobilization in Cuba that that collective action should not be thought of as autonomous from established institutions; collective behavior, of course, can be both part of institutionalized activities as well as goal-oriented and rational (Aguirre, 1984: 545). If elites from dominant institutions are involved in social movements, movement leaders may also make the transition into an elite status of their own, as the increasing influence of a social movement may bring with it celebrity or hero status for certain movement leaders (e.g. Gitlin, 1980; Walker, 2000), or even the full-scale incorporation of movement organizations into the state as political parties (Klandermans, Roefs, and Olivier, 1998). For example, in Taeku Lees study of the influence of Civil Rights Movement activism on public opinion, he draws attention to the capacity of movement elites to become elite elites as the movement gains support in public opinion and among elected officials (2002; see also Schou, 1997). Thus, one consequence of political institutionalization is the changing nature of movement leadership, although even in groups fully institutionalized in such a manner, the rank-and-file membership continues to have agency (see Morris and Staggenborg, 2003). Interestingly, a number of studies recognize a growing degree of political institutionalization by acknowledging that movements often include institutional activists who straddle the boundary 14

between the movement and the state by being members of both (Katzenstein, 1998a; Santoro and McGuire, 1997; Banaszak, 2005; see also Zald and Berger, 1978; Morill, Zald, and Rao, 2003). This is evident in Ruzzas (1997: 113) definition of institutionalization as the condition in which groups of supporters belong to both the movement and to an institution. One instance of this is represented in work by Santoro and McGuire in which they found that institutional activists in the womens movement were influential in gaining comparable worth policies by working for change through conventional channels in the bureaucracy (1997: 514). However, such activists need not take a routine approach merely because of their institutional location, as Katzenstein (1998a) demonstrates in her study of feminism in military and religious organizations that inside activists also face the decision to adopt a more or less contentious tactical repertoire. Increasing political institutionalization throughout the field of social movements makes it more difficult for analysts to draw distinctions between social movements and other forms of political actors, such as interest groups (Meyer and Tarrow, 1998) and political parties (Burstein, 1998); some go so far as to argue that these boundaries are so nebulous as to be untenable (ibid.). An alternative perspective is offered by New Social Movement theorists, who argue that changes in contentious claims-making away from labor and traditional Marxian concerns reflects, in part, the increasing interpenetration of state and society, and, by implication, states and movements (e.g. Pichardo, 1997; Habermas, 1984). That is to say, the increasing reach of the state into civil society is reflected in a greater degree of the political institutionalization of those challenging the state. Regardless, the presence of such a condition suggests that analysts should focus on the interactive dynamics between states and movements (Banaszak, Beckwith, and Rucht, 2003), rather than positing either as a static category (Rucht, 2004). This allows for not just a consideration of how states shape movements, but also for analyses of the means by which movements shape states.

Diffusion Mechanisms of Political Institutionalization In instances of political institutionalization, the primary means by which diffusion takes place is through changes in the structural location of actors relative to the state. While diffusion in social movement and organization research typically examines the spread of structures and behavioral strategies (Strang and Soule, 1998: 268), diffusion may also take place through the spread of actors to new institutional locations. As movements become institutionalized in this sense, movement organizations, activists, and outside conscience constituents (McCarthy and Zald, 1977) are more likely to diffuse into state locations, while at the same time the prominence and public support for a movement may make pre-existing state actors more sympathetic. Under conditions in which political 15

opportunities are favorable to a movements activity, we would expect there to be the greatest likelihood that diffusion of this sort will take place. As McAdam (1996) summarized, such opportunities exist when (1) the political system is relatively open to those challenging it, (2) elite alignments are less stable, (3) the movement has elite allies, or (4) when the state does not actively seek to repress the movement. It also important to note that opportunity structures, of course, vary according to time and location, and are nested such that local opportunities depend on regional and national opportunities (Rothman and Oliver, 1999; Meyer, 2003). Thus, there are a number of diffusion mechanisms which are included under the heading of political institutionalization. First, movement elites may become elites beyond the social networks of the movement, or even develop into large-scale spokespeople for the movement inside the state.9 Especially as movements gain in constituency size, resources, and popular appeal, they are more likely to enter into formal state politics (Gamson, 1990 [1975]). However, the diffusion of a movement inside the state need not mean that the group is dominated by formal organizations or routinized tactics. For example, Wald and Corey (2002) demonstrate that as Christian Right activists achieved an established institutional position within the Florida state politics, they institutionalized politically in the sense of holding an insider position, but maintained an outsider status which limited their capacity for significant policy victories. Thus, although these movement elites had made the transition to being elite elites (Lee, 2002), their institutional position did not dictate their tactical repertoire. Second, movements may institutionalize politically by having a number of key activists who are simultaneously members of the movement and employed or closely affiliated with the state (Santoro and McGuire, 1997). This may take place through one of two means: (1) as the movement gains new membership, those who hold various institutional positions including those inside the state begin to either actively participate in the movement or support its claims, or (2) political elites realize the political advantage in supporting the movement, and become allied with it in order to cultivate such support. Thus, this diffusion process is not just one in which movement actors spread to state institutions, but also when state actors adopt the movements claims.

A somewhat similar process is described by Todd Gitlin (1980) in his well-known study of the interaction of SDS and the mass media. As a movement grows in size and strength, media attention becomes more likely, although the media may distort movement claims (Meyer and Tarrow, 1998; Jasper, 2004). Media presence may also promote an orientation within the movement which focuses more on coverage in the media than other means of making public claims, and turns certain members of the movement into celebrities (Gitlin, 1980). 16

Third, political elites may promote mass collective action for a cause, as Aguirre (1984) suggests in his study of collective action in Cuba. States may do so in order to demonstrate the popular legitimation of a regime, which would make a greater impression than more routine forms of legitimation such as elections. Such an interest, of course, goes back to Lenins theory of the vanguard (1970 [1902]), through which the real interests of the public are expressed through various forms of state-based collective action. These forms of activity are common under party-state systems (Su, 1999). In this case, the diffusion related to political institutionalization flows from topdown, in that elites promote collective action rather than merely responding to it; this notion is inherent in Schattschneiders (1960) discussion of the elite interest in promoting mass political participation.

Cultural Institutionalization Another way analysts have conceptualized institutionalization is through the spread of social movement throughout a wide array of social institutions, such that the ideals and practices of a movement become part of larger institutional practices and taken-for-granted understandings (on the latter, see Meyer and Rowan, 1977; DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). Such understandings often become accepted within a movement as movement cultures, frames, and tactical repertoires (Johnston and Klandermans, 1995; McAdam, 1994), and then spread to larger institutional fields (see, for example, Pollettas (2002) discussion of the prefigurative nature of participatory democratic movements; see also Scott, 2005). This includes increasing public support for a movements claims, the relative acceptance of the legitimacy of a movements strategies and tactics throughout the field of social movements and beyond (Crozat, 1998; Van Aelst and Walgrave, 2001) and a routinized script of how authorities and movements will interact (McCarthy and McPhail, 1998; della Porta, Fillieule, and Reiter, 1998). Accordingly, cultural institutionalization refers to the institutional incorporation or acceptance of movement ideas (ideologies, cultural framings, and issue positions) or practices (tactical repertoires, strategies of action, and discursive and rhetorical styles), both within and beyond the movement. Cultural institutionalization is distinct from its political variant in that the latter refers to the shifting location of actors relative to the state, whereas the former refers to the relative normative acceptance of movement ideas and practices. Cultural institutionalization also refers to both the cognitive and the normative elements of institutional development (cf. Campbell, 2001:160 ff.), in that it represents both understandings of the world as well as moral frameworks which guide that understanding. The cultural institutionalization of social movements attempts in practice what ethnomethodologists have argued in theory: the effort to make the moral into the 17

factual (Zucker, 1977). A near universal dilemma for oppositional movements, of course, is to challenge the state and culture while at the same time seeking to become part of those same institutions (dAnjou and Van Male, 1998). There are two predominant means by which the social movements may institutionalize culturally: through the development of a routinized tactical repertoire or explanatory frame (respectively, Tilly, 1995; Snow and Benford, 1988), or through the development of a movement culture (Johnston and Klandermans, 1995; McAdam, 1994; Jasper, 1997; Roscigno, Danaher, and Summers-Effler, 2002). Although often kept as separate discussions of repertoires and strategic frames (as more instrumental factors) as distinct from cultures (as less instrumental factors such as affective bonds between participants, cognitive boundaries between what is inside vs. outside the movement), these two discussions actually share many similarities; indeed, movement cultures and tactical repertoires shape and reinforce one other.10 In developing strategy as well as coming to understand the role of the movement relative to other movements and the larger society, movements draw upon a cultural elements both within and beyond the movements own culture. Zald (1996: 261 ff.) notes that what movements draw upon a limited cultural stock from both inside and outside the movement in crafting images of injustice. Some of these images may be hegemonic in the larger culture and not necessarily oppositional (e.g. the liberal democratic rights frame of the Civil Rights Movement; see Morris, 1984), while others may directly contradict larger cultural values and ideals (Tarrow, 1998). One instance of the intertwined relationship between movement cultures and movement frames is offered in Epsteins account of direct action anti-nuclear activism (Epstein, 1991). In this account, Epstein argues that the largely anarchist culture of such activism in the late 1970s and early 1980s, along with the movements cultural aversion to discussions of strategy, limited the movements tactical repertoire primarily to civil disobedience. However, Epstein also found the opposite to be true: that the singular focus on non-violent civil disobedience shaped the movements culture by limiting the range of discursive styles participants could employ (ibid.). Other analyses

This is not, however to equate movement culture with the tactical and framing challenges movements face. Indeed, one problem with the frame concept in social movement theory is that it is often employed as a residual category for all cultural elements of movement activity (McAdam, McCarthy, and Zald, 1996- black book). An additional issue in framing theory is that cultural elements are often reduced to merely another component of strategy, as something to be instrumentally manipulated by actors (Polletta, 1997). Instead, frames are best understood as the variety of means by which strategy and ideology are melded by movement actors, largely through symbolic appeals (Westby, 2002: 291 ff.). 18

10

(e.g. Hart, 2001) have noted how particular discursive styles within a movement shape the range of tactics actors may employ. In short, both a movements tactical repertoire and its larger culture represent institutions within a movement that act both to enable and to constrain social action. Indeed, both are elements of movement culture in action (Swidler, 1986), as well as relations that store histories (Tilly, 2000). In part due to the largely structural focus of the political process and resource mobilization theories which dominated the field for the larger part of the past thirty years, movement cultures and their related processes of identity construction have only recently gained widespread recognition in movement analysis (McAdam, 1994; Johnston and Klandermans, 1995; Armstrong, 2002; Rupp and Taylor, 2003; Polletta and Jasper, 2001). One element of the cultural institutionalization of social movements refers to these cultures, in that they provide repositories of cultural materials into which succeeding generations of activists can dip to fashion ideologically similar, but chronologically separate, movements (McAdam, 1994: 43; see also Jasper, 1997: 80ff.). Indeed, the ideological imprint of the civil rights movement is evident not just on the womens movement, but also on the student, antiwar, gay rights, and a variety of other leftist movements in its wake (McAdam, 1994: 42). The construction of broad oppositional identities, such as anarchist or pacifist, may promote the continuation of that identity in the absence of organizations (Polletta and Jasper, 2001: 297; Eyerman and Jamison, 1998). Movements may also create even more extensive alternative or oppositional cultural institutions, which function as movement milleus, through which contentious practices are reproduced (Rucht and Neidhardt, 2002: 19; see also Roscigno, Danaher, and SummersEffler, 2002). Social movement media have also become increasingly common, along with the development of a global network of internet-based Independent Media Centers (Atton, 2003). The development of a movement frame or narrative about a movements history and position within a larger context (e.g. Polletta, 2002; Tilly, 2002) is, then a form of cultural institutionalization, in that frames provide both schemas and resources for movement action (on schemas and resources, see Sewell, 1992; Giddens, 1984; Clemens and Cook, 1999: 447-8).11 In other words, frames are at once well-worn patterns of action within a movement with respect to its internal understanding and the message it seeks to communicate to larger publics (e.g. Snow and Benford, 1988), as well as

11

Sewell (1992: 12) suggests that his language of schemas improves over Giddens (1984) language of rules because the latter term suggests a formally codified proscription on action, which does not accurately capture the means by which social structures channel behavior. The tacit understandings held by social actors often influence action to an even greater extent than formally codified rules (Porpora, 1993; Meyer and Rowan, 1977). 19

cultural frameworks which make social action possible through the meaning it provides (see e.g. Wuthnow, 1987). When sets of schemas and resources reinforce and imply one another over time, as in the case of a movement frame, they can be said to constitute structure (Sewell, 1992: 13). The tactical repertoires, which, in part, constitute a movements frame, may even be conceptualized as movement schemas (Snow and Benford, 1992: 140; Benford and Snow, 2000); framing is one means of introducing a concrete workable form of agency into movement theory, thereby situating the study of movements more convincingly in the broader structure/agency paradigm (Westby, 2002: 287), or a means of bringing strategic action into an institutionalist framework (Oliver, 1991). Frames are also movement institutions in that once frames are developed, they shape future movement action. In this sense they are similar to what Crawford and Ostrom (1995: 583) refer to as an institutional statement: they constitute a shared linguistic constraint or opportunity that prescribes, permits, or advises actions or outcomes for actors. Although the process of creation and elaboration of a frame as a movements institutional statement may be relatively flexible with respect to the internal and external conditions a movement faces, frames limit the number of options thinkable to actors (see Berger and Luckmann, 1966). The condition under which such schemas become part of a routine interaction both within and beyond the movement is best understood as routinization, which is perhaps the most common usage of the concept of institutionalization in social movement theory. Routinization is a condition in which challengers and authorities can both adhere to a common script, recognizing familiar patterns as well as potentially dangerous deviations (Meyer and Tarrow, 1998: 21), or, more simply, when contentious claims-makers begin to move away from radical repertoires toward more conventional ones (Rucht, 1999; Martin, 2004).12 As such, it refers not only to scripted interactions between movements and authorities, but to the background assumptions that the two parties have of the practices of one another. Due largely to the negotiation between protestors and authorities on such topics as which protest march routes will be permitted, which tactics will be utilized by protestors (and how police are expected to respond), and which sorts of spaces protesters will be allowed to occupy, both parties increasingly adhere to a common script (McCarthy and McPhail, 1998). Consequentially, such a routinized interaction may cause radicals to purse extra-institutional

Institutional theory lacks a critical or power-based view of which sorts of movement tactics, cultural and organizational practices, and processes of incorporation movements are likely to adopt or allow (Scully and Creed, 2005). And, as Schneiberg and Soule (2005: 156) argue, diffusion is a highly political and not merely mimetic process in that the adoption patterns are often driven by opposition, argumentation, contestation, and compromise. 20

12

strategies, thereby separating them from moderates, and even weakening the unity of movement coalitions (Meyer and Tarrow, 1998: 21). The routinization of movement practices may entail the transition of a movement into an institution, in the sense that conventional tactics are favored over radical ones, active rank-and-file engagement is replaced by professional staff work, and the constituency of the organization becomes relatively passive (Koopmans, 1993).13 As such, this process represents a temporal stage in a movements trajectory, or as one stage in a protest cycle (Tarrow, 1998). Although more recent stage models are less deterministic and somewhat critical of the Michelsian assumptions behind this process (Rucht, 1999: 153), the finding that participatory democracy and direct participation tends to wane in a movement over time remains common, even if organizational dynamics are less influential in the process than external incentives (McCarthy, Britt, and Wolfson, 1991). The advantage of grouping such diverse phenomena as movement cultures, tactical repertoires, and framing practices into the framework of cultural institutionalization is that all three of these processes represent the development of types of cultural institutions within movements as well as the influence of those institutions in the larger society. Each of these processes operates as an institution in the sense that it both constrains and constitutes social action by providing movement actors with normative sanctions and cultural meaning, or the rules and resources for movement action (see Giddens, 1984).

Diffusion Mechanisms of Cultural Institutionalization Unlike the diffusion mechanisms related to political institutionalization, cultural institutionalization processes involves the spread of practices and ideas rather than the shifting location of states and movements. As movements influence the larger culture and develop cultural institutions of their own in the form of frames, tactical repertoires, and movement (sub)cultures, movement ideas may spread to other parts of the movement within separate geographic locations (McAdam and Rucht, 1993); to other movements which build upon the same master frame as an earlier movement, as in the case of an initiator and spinoff movement (McAdam, 1995); social movement practices may diffuse to widespread demographic constituencies and become culturally

The opposite of routinization is best conceptualized as organizational opportunity, referring to the condition in which organizational leadership becomes more favorable to movement goals or has a decreased capacity to repress those members who pursue such goals (Kurzman, 1998: 25). Alternatively, this may be thought of as deinstitutionalization (Oliver, 1991; Voss and Sherman, 2000). 21

13

institutionalized to such a degree that protest becomes taken as less disruptive (Meyer and Tarrow, 1998); movement tactics may also diffuse to actors outside the traditional field of social movements, and in the case of the rise of grassroots lobbying practices among interest groups, corporations, and political parties (Faucheux, 1995; Stone, 1994; Rubin, 1997; Stauber and Rampton, 1995; Kollman, 1998). I now explore these various forms of diffusion. First, the most common form of this type of diffusion relates to the spread of movement practices to actors in new geographic locations. For example, McAdam and Rucht (1993) call attention to the cross-national diffusion of ideas from New Left activists in the U.S. to those engaged in similar struggles in West Germany. Arguing against Strang and Meyers (1993) notion of nonrelational diffusion, they maintain that the spread of new practices and ideas from one group of actors to another is unlikely in the absence of direct network ties between those groups of actors; nonrelational diffusion is only likely at a second stage, after direct channels are already in place (1993: 71). A counterpoint to their argument is offered in Soules (1997) account of the spread of shantytown protests, which showed that non-relational factors such as the similarity of educational institutions to one another were influential in determining the diffusion of anti-apartheid tactics. However, regardless of whether these practices and ideas spread by direct or indirect means, this diffusion process is one which assists in the development of a cultural institution. Although it may be relatively unsurprising to find that social movement actors borrow from one another in developing their tactical repertoire and cultural frames, it may be less intuitive to note that the widespread diffusion of social movement ideas and practices may have the consequence of making them less effective: if everyone protests, protest itself may be taken as a relatively routine affair which does not merit much attention (Meyer and Tarrow, 1998). That is to say, not only do movements increasingly adopt more inside tactics such as lobbying, litigating, and holding press conferences, but those tactics which were formerly disruptive have become more routine. Thus, as movement practices spread to a wide range of demographic constituencies, the very idea of a social movement and its accompanying repertoire may become culturally institutionalized, as in the notion of a social movement society (ibid.). Such tactics diffuse even more quickly as they become modular (Tarrow, 1998), in the sense that tactics are restricted neither to the claim being made nor the identity of the actor making it (cf. Thompson 1992 [1964]). Finally, an interesting (although less explored) elaboration on the diffusion of protest tactics to new constituencies involves not just the shifting demographic groups that employ such tactics, but the shifting institutional position of protestors. Along with the increasing modularity of protest and its cultural institutionalization, social movement tactics are more and more employed by elites as part 22

of their broader strategy for outside influence (e.g. Deegan, 2001; Wittenberg and Wittenberg, 1990). As the grassroots is a notion which conveys images of populist authenticity, protest to some extent becomes one more means for elites to gain popular influence (see e.g. Goldstone, 2004). In this sense, the institutionalization of social movements throughout western democracies promotes the diffusion of movement practices to those who may be neither outside the state (as in Gamsons (1990 [1975]) influential definition) nor lacking in influence in politics more broadly. The growth of such grassroots lobbying practices suggests that social movement tactics have become taken-forgranted in a neo-institutionalist sense throughout the political field. As Berry (1997: 29) makes clear, as one segment of the interest community grew and began to prosper, it spurred growth in other segments eager to equalize the increasing strength of their adversaries.

Organizational Institutionalization If political institutionalization relates primarily on the structural elements of the interconnections between social movements and institutions, and cultural institutionalization refers to the cultures that movements produce and maintain through their action, the organizational elements of institutionalization lie somewhere in between, as they are at once structural and cultural.14 Although discussions of formal organizations tend to lean heavily toward discussions of structure, a variety of recent analyses point to the influence of cultural factors in shaping the presence and evolution of organizations within movements (see Clemens and Minkoff, 2004). While the political process and resource mobilization literatures favored structural explanations for example, that organizations develop in response to new resources or openings in the political system movement cultures do indeed influence the both the degree of organizational presence and form of movement organizations (Clemens, 1993). Accordingly, organizational institutionalization refers to the process by which movements come to be dominated by the concerns related to organization: the degree of leadership influence and how it compares to the participation of rank-and-file members, the internal administrative structures the organization will adopt, what incentives to offer members for participation, and, perhaps most importantly, the sources from which the organization will locate the resources for its maintenance and survival. Both within-movement cultural understandings, as well as larger institutional processes, shape the presence and evolution of organizations in a movement. As Piven and Cloward (1977)

For a general discussion of the intersection between organizations and social movement research, see Davis, McAdam, Scott, and Zald, 2005. 23

14

demonstrated in their classic analysis, movement actors have good reason to be skeptical of the role of organizations, as they may make challenging groups less threatening to elites and therefore less effective; such sentiments are present in a number of movement cultures (see, for example, Epstein, 1991; Polletta, 2002). In addition, as organizational forms also operate as a medium for the communication of the cultural values of a movement, as well as the structures through which cultural schemas are enacted, they may also be thought of an element of cultural framing (Clemens, 1996). Gary Delgado (1994), for instance, makes the case that the organizers of poor empowerment organizations tend to seek a close match between the values and discursive styles of constituents when determining the form the organization will take. More broadly, movements tend to adopt organizational forms that are familiar and well legitimated throughout the institutional field, and make such decisions on the basis of contingent cultural work, debates about what the most effective form of organization is perceived to be, and the existing or desired ties the group seeks to foster or create (Clemens, 1993: 775). It is worth noting that the classic debate over the role of organization, going back to Michels, also walks the line between cultural and structural concerns. Of course, one element of Michels argument held that regardless of the egalitarian ideologies and cultural values held by movement participants, organization leads to oligarchy, as well as the separation of leadership from the rankand-file. While it seems that Michels let the structural dynamics push the cultural ones aside, contemporary debates have acknowledged the mixed bag of structure and culture in institutionalization processes. McCarthy, Britt, and Wolfson (1991) find that the adoption of nonprofit status by a movement organization represents on element in the tangle of incentives that states offer to movements in order to limit the range of tactics and claims available to movement actors. In this sense, they argue that institutional forces create a strong tendency toward structural uniformity [in] social movement organizations (ibid.: 46). Voss and Sherman (2000) find that bureaucratic organizations may move away from the limitations of rigid structures by taking on more radical tactics and engaging the cultural work of galvanizing their membership base. McCarthy and Walker (2004) find that broad-based organizations of the poor are likely to have a more limited tactical repertoire than more narrowly-focused organizations, because the cultural work of integrating a diverse member base may limit the strategic alternatives available to that group. Taylor (1989) finds that professionalized organizations helped to provide cultural support for activists in periods of movement abeyance. In all of these examples, organizational concerns lie at the boundary of political and cultural institutionalization, in that movement cultural institutions both shape and make available the structural forms they might potentially adopt. 24

The central issue with respect to organizational institutionalization is, of course, the propensity of social movement organizations to become dependent on a few strong ties for funding, and therefore to have their activity channeled toward the professionalized forms of advocacy preferred by funders (Jenkins and Eckert, 1986). However, this process is complicated by the fact that organizations having a variety of funding sources are less likely to disband (Cress and Snow, 1996; Walker and McCarthy, 2005). Taking this argument one step further, Jenkins has found (Jenkins, 1989, 1998; Jenkins and Halcli 1999) that trends in foundation funding have exacerbated this trend, as such external resource providers have preferred to fund professional advocacy organizations rather than less organized grassroots initiatives since the early 1960s. Such professionalized organizations tend to take on more moderate goals, and through more moderate tactics. Thus, the Michelsian concerns over the influence of organization often become clear as those organizationally institutionalized movements are channeled toward more moderate activity.

Diffusion Mechanisms of Organizational Institutionalization Movements may come to be dominated by the concerns of organization through a number of institutional diffusion processes. The dynamics of the overall institutional field (DiMaggio, 1991), or sector (Scott and Meyer, 1991) have become a focus for scholars, as they heavily influence the adoption of organizational forms, as well as the specific practices carried out by these organizations. Thus, a number of institutional influences are at work in this type of diffusion: pressures to develop social movement organizations at all; isomorphic tendencies, which influence actors to prefer certain organizational forms over others; and influences on which practices movement organizations will favor. First, consider the adoption of professional organizations by social movement actors. Resource mobilization accounts have stressed the importance of considering the role of financial and social supports in the development of social movements, especially as that development tends to include formal organizations (McCarthy and Zald, 1977). As new resources become available, formal organizations may begin to displace less formalized networks.15 And, as organizations diffuse throughout a movement, its focal concerns may become the staffing and resource issues that organizations demand, rather than being as directly concerned with challenging the state and culture (Piven and Cloward, 1977).
15

As Aldrich (1999) notes, organizational forms are relatively stable and resistant to change once established. Thus, we would expect the spread of formal organizations within a movement to be more the result of the births and deaths of different types of groups, rather than change within groups. 25

Second, the organizational forms that social movements take also involve a diffusion process related to institutionalization. When faced with uncertainty about the best means to organize as well as how to gain legitimacy among membership and among broader publics, movements, like other organizations, face pressures that lead toward isomorphism (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Meyer and Rowan, 1977). In order to gain greater such support, movements may adopt organizational forms that may not be the most appropriate to achievement of their goals, but are institutionalized as legitimate throughout the organizational field; coercion by the state and normative influence may also play a role in this adoption process. Regardless of which of these three mimetic processes takes precedence, organizational forms and their related practices which are taken as legitimate in the organizational field of social movements are more likely to be adopted than more innovative organizational forms. However, this is not to say that movements are not a source of change in organizational forms within this field and beyond (see Rao, Morill, and Zald, 2000), only that social movement organizations face a similar diffusion process when developing organizations. Third, and finally, the practices in which movement organizations engage also involve diffusion mechanisms which are similar to those described above. As Aldrich (1999) maintains, although organizational analysis tends to conceptualize institutions as environments against organizations as actors, organizations can also be taken as institutions themselves. Therefore, the practices of other organizations constitute an environment of sorts for any given social movement organization, and involves dynamics of relative legitimacy and competition for members and space on the public agenda (Minkoff, 1997). The diffusion process which takes place between the larger organizational environment and the practices of a given social movement organization is not an exact process, as actors often incorporate only those practices that they see fit to their specific environment. For example, Clemens (1996) describes the changes in the U.S. labor movement as one of bricolage in which a variety of institutional contents were selectively employed as conditions merited.

The Interaction of The State, Culture, and Organizations in Institutionalization Processes As mentioned in earlier discussion, movement institutionalization relative to the state, cultural, and organizational fields each involves a distinct process; however, the processes discussed were ideal-typical and largely did not take into account the means by which these three institutionalization processes interact. In what follows, I distill a number of scenarios through which these processes commonly interact. In this discussion it should be evident that (1) analysts have conflated these institutionalization process because they do commonly occur in distinct packages,

26

and (2) those packages are not deterministic. This merits the identification of these distinct mechanisms as well as the consideration of the means by which they overlap and intertwine.

Scenario 1: Cultural institutionalization shapes political institutionalization. In this case, movement repertoires become more conventional and moderate, or their tactics gain broader cultural support, which therefore broadens a movements coalition and makes incorporation into the state more likely. Those who work within culturally routine channels of action are often granted increased access to the state and policy decisions (Meyer and Tarrow, 1998), and movements with a more instrumental rather than countercultural focus are more likely as candidates for institutionalization inside the state (Kriesi, 1996). As well, the increasing acceptance of a movement claims may make political institutionalization more likely, especially as movement elites become political elites (Lee, 2002). Along similar lines, movement cultures and tactical repertoires may (and are indeed likely to) resist the institutionalization of a movement into the state. Interestingly, the interaction between these two forms of institutionalization can only take place under conditions in which the state lacks pluralist channels for the incorporation of challenging groups. If the state functions as it is theoretically supposed to as in such pluralist models or Durkheimian theories of civil society and the state then it would be expected that groups that gain support throughout the broader culture would also gain support inside the state. However, because cultural values and political institutions are often at odds with one another, this relationship is contingent rather than deterministic. While widespread public acceptance of a movement certainly makes its political institutionalization more likely, elites often hold their own agendas which are out of line with that of the public (Peschek, 1987).

Scenario 2: Cultural institutionalization shapes organizational institutionalization. Cultural institutional processes may shape the organizational element in that movement frames develop which limit the range of tactics available to movement actors. Elizabeth Clemens claim that an organizational form is itself a movement frame (1998) is useful in illustrating this process, in that it calls attention to the fact that the organizational form a movement adopts results from the interpretive work of movement actors. In other words, movement cultural institutions (such as frames) limit the range of organizational forms movement actors might adopt. Perhaps the clearest example of movement cultural institutions shaping organizational institutionalization (or a lack thereof) is found in Pollettas (2002) discussion of the participatory democracy in a variety of social movements: civil rights, womens rights, pacifism, community27

based poor peoples movements, and anti-capitalist globalization movements. In each of these cases, the cultural repertoire of participatory democracy although employed in a variety of ways shaped the means by which each movement dealt with the question of organization. Indeed, many of the struggles movements face more broadly involve the clash of cultural and organizational concerns. For example, Polletta illustrates how in the 1964 conflict within the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) between those who favored a top-down organizational form and those who favored a decentralized democratic form, participatory democracy came to be thought of as weak and white, whereas more hierarchical forms were believed to be more militant and confrontational. Thus, the cultural institutions of a movement shape the organizational forms it will take, as the selection of an organizational form necessarily entails a set of cultural understandings.

Scenario 3: Political institutionalization shapes organizational institutionalization. Because states are hierarchically organized and are themselves formal organizations (Laumann and Knoke, 1987), groups working more closely with state actors may be more likely to institutionalize organizationally in order to interface more directly with government. Further, when working with governments, movements may feel pressured to develop formal leadership structures which will represent the group before the state (Dryzek, 2000: 97), as formal organizational structures are taken as more legitimate throughout the broader institutional field. Perhaps most commonly, movements react to perceived support for the movements cause in the broader political field and develop formal organizations to represent this cause. One straightforward example of the overlap between these forms of institutionalization is described in Klandermans, Roefs, and Oliviers (1998) description of the transition of the African National Congress (ANC) from social movement organization to political party. The political institutionalization of this group entailed the movement of thousands of antiapartheid activists into political office, thus changing the form of organization the movement would employ. This particular institutionalization process also had broader consequences, in that the political institutionalization of the ANC led to a relative depoliticization of South African civil society (ibid.: 191). As this challenging group was incorporated into the state, it not only became a formal party organization but also reduced the level of contention throughout society.

Scenario 4: Political institutionalization shapes cultural institutionalization. When movements work in concert or closely coordinate with state institutions, they are likely to employ the tactical repertoire most closely related to their structural location, including such insider tactics as lobbying, 28

litigating, and holding press conferences. Or, if a group receives the tax breaks that are included in nonprofit incorporation, new institutional pressures toward moderation in tactics are likely to follow (McCarthy, Britt, and Wolfson, 1991; Cress, 1997). A clear example of political institutionalization shaping its cultural counterpart is described by Meyer (1990), in which he notes that when politicians allied themselves with the antinuclear movements policy positions, this action had the effect both of publicizing their message but also watering it down. Powerful allies typically demand some moderation in both movement claims and tactics (Jasper, 2004: 8). Further, one of the most powerful findings in social movement analysis is that changing relationships between movements and states shape the repertoires available to collective actors (Tilly, 1995).

Scenario 5: Organizational institutionalization shapes cultural institutionalization. As a movement begins to be dominated by organizations perhaps due to the large size of the movement, or due to the perceived increase in efficacy organizations may offer the tactics of the movement may become more moderate, or at least follow more well-worn repertoires (Staggenborg, 1988). Especially in large-scale organizations involving broad coalitions, the range of tactics available to a group may be reduced to a lowest-common-denominator among constituents (McCarthy and Walker, 2004).16 In this case, the presence of organizations, as Zald and Ash (1966) put it long ago, may lead to a movement becalmed. However, the relationship between the presence or even domination of formal organizations and the cultural repertoires of movements is not deterministic, as professionalized movement organizations sometimes move in the direction of increased radicalism (Jenkins, 1977; Voss and Sherman, 2000).

Scenario 6: Organizational institutionalization shapes political institutionalization. The increasing presence and power of organizations in a movement shapes the degree to which it is perceived as legitimate in larger public and political circles. The perceived legitimacy of the movement may spread to state actors, who may become more sympathetic to the groups concerns and may include it in discussions over policymaking. Indeed, Clifford Bob goes so far as to argue that less professionalized grassroots movements, unversed in international standards of organizational structure and procedure, may appear inept and unqualified to the states, NGOs, foundations, and However, note that this is not the same as Scenario 4, in that the former refers to changes in the structural location of actors relative to the state, not the degree of formal organization in a movement (although they may be related). 29
16

broader publics on which those groups rely for support (2005: 34). However, without the concerns over funding and governance that go hand in hand with the presence of formal organizations, there is likely to be much less of a requirement to appear qualified, and more room becomes available to actors for disruptive action (cf. Piven and Cloward, 1977).

Summary of Institutionalization Scenarios. Each of these scenarios provides something unique in the explanation of the variety of means by which movements and institutions interact, as well as how cultural, political, and organizational contexts constrain certain forms of movement action and enable others. However, while each of these concerns has been referred to as institutionalization by movement scholars, the core processes by which analysts have referred to institutionalization regards the issues in which organizational institutionalization is causally prior (Scenarios 5 and 6). Organizational issues have justifiably been centripetal to movement analysis, as movements face such concerns regardless of the political or cultural context, and they relate directly to the legitimation of movements throughout the cultural and political fields. However, rather than simply referring to all institutionalization processes using that blanket term, the present paper points helps analysts to bring this dynamic into sharper focus, and to avoid conflating it with other types of institutional processes.

Conclusion Through this reworking of the concept of social movement institutionalization, we may come to a clearer understanding of the interaction between the steering systems of society and the civil societies into which they increasingly penetrate. Social movements as the voices of civil society which challenge the state, culture, and other institutional fields represent one element of the lifeworld into which such administrative systems have permeated. In order to examine this dynamic, this paper examined the various means by which social movements and institutions interact; more specifically, concerns were raised as to the specific ways that social movements are both shaped by institutions and help to create them, thereby pointing up the role that movements play as a constituent element of the colonization of the lifeworld by institutional systems. This discussion illustrates not only the presence of incursions into the lifeworld by institutional actors, but the interaction of these institutions among one another. These interactions were discussed in a series of six interactions between the political, cultural, and organizational fields, finding that questions of organization are most central to the dynamics of movement institutionalization.

30

As institutionalization is a central concept in social movement theory, the clarification of this concept was well as the diffusion processes it entails requires significant clarification. This is especially true given that the recent upswing in attention devoted to the notion of a social movement society, in which institutionalization is a centripetal force. By identifying and distinguishing three frameworks for understanding the institutionalization of social movements, this analysis provides an integrating feature for existing literatures on the dynamics and consequences of state incorporation of challenging groups (including pluralist claims regarding the nature of the state), the cultural institutions that movements develop and their effects on external actors, and how the latter concerns are distinct but interrelated to questions of how organizations shape and are shaped by movement processes. These interactions may take place through six broad scenarios; these scenarios illustrate clearly that the myriad dynamics which have been categorically labeled institutionalization in social movement theory are quite distinct of one another, and should be examined separately. Following the call of Clemens and Cook (1997), the present analysis disaggregates institutional processes into their constituent elements in order to institutions down into specific mechanisms, as well as further promotes the cross-pollination of social movement theory and neo-institutionalist analyses of organizations (Lounsbury, 2005; see also McAdam and Scott, 2005; Campbell, 2005). Future research should focus on the broader consequences of these forms of institutionalization, especially the consequences of these institutionalization processes beyond the field of social movements. As earlier discussions have illustrated, political institutionalization relates to the increasing reliance of states upon social movements in developing policy and crafting means of regulation, especially in domains where social movement actors have particular expertise (Giugni and Passy, 1998). In addition, the cultural institutions that movements create (e.g. the movement milleus described by Rucht and Neidhardt, 2002) as well as the effects of social movements on democratic politics more broadly (Meyer and Tarrow, 1998) may make the cultural repertoires available to elites and others in powerful institutional positions; the cultural institutionalization of social movement tactics may make them available to powerful actors not typically conceptualized as being the outsiders that social movements are known to bring into political action (Lipsky, 1968). Thus, the rise of grassroots lobbying practices by corporations, political parties, and interest groups (Kollmann, 1998) should be examined as one possible broader outcome of movement cultural institutionalization in western societies (Walker, 2005). Finally, the outcomes of organizational institutionalization although already part of a voluminous literature (see Clemens and Minkoff, 2004) should be examined further in order to re-evaluate the Michelsian claims over the supposedly inevitable tendency toward oligarchy in movements dominated by organizations. 31

References Aguirre, B. E. 1984. The Conventionalization of Collective Behavior in Cuba. American Journal of Sociology 90: 541-566. Aldrich, Howard E. 1999. Organizations Evolving. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Armstrong, Elizabeth A. 2002. Forging Gay Identities: Organizing Sexuality in San Francisco. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Atton, Chris. 2003. Reshaping Social Movement Media for a New Millennium. Social Movement Studies 2: 3-15. Banaszak, Lee Ann. 2005. Inside and Outside the State: Movement Insider Status, Tactics and Public Policy Achievements. In David S. Meyer, Valerie Jenness and Helen Ingram (eds.), Routing the Opposition: Social Movements, Public Policy, and Democracy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Banaszak, Lee Ann, Karen Beckwith and Dieter Rucht. 2003. When Power Relocates: Interactive Changes in Womens Movements and States. Pp. 1-29 in Lee Ann Banaszak, Karen Beckwith, and Dieter Rucht (eds.), Womens Movements Facing the Reconfigured State. New York: Cambridge University Press. Baran, Paul A. and Paul M. Sweezy. 1966. Monopoly Capital: An Essay on the American Economic and Social Order. New York: Monthly Review Press. Benford, Robert D. and David A. Snow. 2000. Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment. Annual Review of Sociology 26: 11-39. Berger, Peter L. and Thomas Luckmann. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Berry, Jeffrey M. 1997. The Interest Group Society, 3rd ed. New York: Longman. Borland, Elizabeth. 2004. Cultural Opportunity and Tactical Choice in the Argentine and Chilean Reproductive Rights Movements. Mobilization 9: 327-339. Burstein, Paul. 1998. Interest Organizations, Political Parties, and the Study of Democratic Politics. Pp. 39-56 in Anne N. Costain and Andrew S. McFarland (eds.), Social Movements and American Political Institutions. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Campbell, John L. 2001. Institutional Analysis and the Role of Ideas in Political Economy. Pp. 159-189 in John L. Campbell and Ove K. Pedersen (eds.), The Rise of Neoliberalism and Institutional Analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Campbell, John L. 2005. Where Do We Stand? Common Mechanisms in Organizations and Social Movements Research. Pp. 41-68 in Gerald F. Davis, Doug McAdam, W. Richard Scott, and Mayer N. Zald (eds.), Social Movements and Organization Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.

32

Chaves, Mark. 1996. Ordaining Women: The Diffusion of and Organizational Innovation. American Journal of Sociology 101: 840-873. Clemens, Elisabeth S. 1993. Organizational Repertoires and Institutional Change: Womens Groups and the Transformation of U.S. Politics, 1890-1920. American Journal of Sociology 98: 755-798. Clemens, Elisabeth S. 1996. Organizational Form as Frame: Collective Identity and Political Strategy in the American Labor Movement, 1880-1920. Pp. 205-226 in Doug McAdam, John D. McCarthy, and Mayer N. Zald (eds.), Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings. New York: Cambridge University Press. Clemens, Elisabeth S. and James M. Cook. 1999. Politics and Institutionalism: Explaining Durability and Change. Annual Review of Sociology 25: 441-466. Clemens, Elisabeth S. and Debra C. Minkoff. 2004. Beyond the Iron Law: Rethinking the Place of Organizations in Social Movement Research. Pp. 155-170 in The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, eds. David A. Snow, Sarah A. Soule and Hanspeter Kriesi. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Cohen, Jean L. and Andrew Arato. 1992. Civil Society and Political Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Costain, Anne N. 1998. Women Lobby Congress. Pp. 171-184 in Anne N. Costain and Andrew S. McFarland (eds.), Social Movements and American Political Institutions. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Costain, Anne N. and W. Douglas Costain. 1987. Strategy and Tactics of the Women's Movement in the United States: The Role of Political Parties. Pp. 196-214 in Mary Fainsod Katzenstein and Carol McClurg Mueller (eds.), The Womens Movements of the United States and Western Europe: Consciousness, Political Opportunity, and Public Policy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Costain, W. Douglas and James P. Lester. 1998. The Environmental Movement and Congress. Pp. 185-198 in Anne N. Costain and Andrew S. McFarland (eds.), Social Movements and American Political Institutions. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Crawford, Sue E.S., and Elinor Ostrom. 1995. A Grammar of Institutions. American Political Science Review 89: 582-600. Cress, Daniel M. 1997. Nonprofit Incorporation among Movements of the Poor: Pathways and Consequences for Homeless Social Movement Organizations. The Sociological Quarterly 38:34360. Cress, Daniel M. and David A. Snow. 1996. Mobilization at the Margins: Resources, Benefactors, and the Viability of Homeless Social Movement Organizations. American Sociological Review 61: 1089-1109. 33

Crist, John T. and John D. McCarthy. 1996. If I Had a Hammer: The Changing Methodological Repertoire of Collective Behavior and Social Movements Research. Mobilization 1: 87-102. Crossley, Nick. 2003. From Reproduction to Transformation: Social Movement Fields and the Radical Habitus. Theory, Culture and Society 20: 43-68. Crozat, Matthew. 1998. Are the Times A-Changin? Assessing the Acceptance of Protest in Western Democracies. Pp. 59-81 in David S. Meyer and Sidney Tarrow (eds.), The Social Movement Society: Contentious Politics for a New Century. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. d'Anjou, Leo and John Van Male. 1998. Between the Old and the New: Social Movements and Cultural Change. Mobilization 3: 207-226. Dalton, Russell. 1996. Citizen Politics: Public Opinion and Political Parties in Advanced Industrial Democracies, 2nd ed. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House. Davis, Gerald F., Doug McAdam, W. Richard Scott, and Mayer N. Zald (eds.), Social Movements and Organization Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press. Deegan, Denise. 2001. Managing Activism: A Guide to Dealing with Activists and Pressure Groups. London: Institute of Public Relations. Delgado, Gary. 1994. Beyond the Politics of Place: New Directions in Community Organizing in the 1990s. Oakland, CA: Applied Research Center. della Porta, Donatella, Olivier Filleule, and Herbert Reiter. 1998. Policing Protest in France and Italy: From Intimidation to Cooperation? pp. 111-130 in David S. Meyer and Sidney Tarrow (eds.), The Social Movement Society: Contentious Politics for a New Century. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Diani, Mario. 1992. The Concept of Social Movement. The Sociological Review 40(1): 1-25. Diani, Mario and Doug McAdam (eds.) 2003. Social Movements and Networks: Relational Approaches to Collective Action. New York: Oxford University Press. DiMaggio, Paul J. 1991. Constructing an Organizational Field as a Professional Project: U.S. Art Museums, 1920-1940. Pp. 267-292 in Walter W. Powell and Paul J. DiMaggio (eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DiMaggio, Paul J. and Walter W. Powell. 1983. The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review 48: 147-160. Douglas, Mary. 1986. How Institutions Think. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. Dryzek, John S. 2000. Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 34

Earl, Jennifer, Sarah A. Soule and John D. McCarthy. 2003 Protests Under Fire? Explaining Protest Policing. American Sociological Review 69: 581-606. Epstein, Barbara. 1991. Political Protest and Cultural Revolution: Nonviolent Direct Action in the 1970 and 1980s. Berkeley: University of California Press. Eyerman, Ron and Andrew Jamison. 1998. Music and Social Movements: Mobilizing Traditions in the Twentieth Century. New York: Cambridge University Press. Faucheux, Ron. 1995. The Grassroots Explosion. Campaigns & Elections December/January, p. 20 ff. Fligstein, Neil. 1985. The Spread of the Multidivisional Form among Large Firms, 1919-1979. American Sociological Review 50: 377-391. Fraser, Nancy. 1992. Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy. Pp. 109-142 in Craig Calhoun (ed.), Habermas and the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Gamson, William A. 1990 [1975]. The Strategy of Social Protest, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Gamson, William A., and Emilie Schmeidler. 1984. Organizing the Poor: An Argument with Frances Fox Piven and Richard A. Clowards Poor Peoples Movements. Theory and Society 13:4, 56785 Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The Constitution of Society. Berkeley: University of California Press. Giugni, Marco G. and Florence Passy. 1998. Contentious Politics in Complex Societies: New Social Movements between Conflict and Cooperation. Pp. 81-107 in Marco G. Giugni, Doug McAdam, and Charles Tilly (eds.), From Contention to Democracy. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Gitlin, Todd. 1980. The Whole World is Watching: Mass Media in the Making and Unmaking of the New Left. Berkeley: University of California Press. Goldstone, Jack. 2004. More Social Movements or Fewer? Beyond Political Opportunity Structures to Relational Fields. Theory and Society 33: 333-365. Goodwin, Jeff and James M. Jasper. 1999. Caught in a Winding, Snarling Vine: The Structural Bias of Political Process Theory. Sociological Forum 14: 27-54. Gotham, Kevin Fox. 1999. Political Opportunity, Community Identity, and the Emergence of a Local Anti-Expressway Movement. Social Problems 46:332-54. Gottlieb, Robert. 1993. Forcing the Spring: The Transformation of the Environmental Movement. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Habermas, Jrgen. 1975. Legitimation Crisis, trans. Thomas McCarthy. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. 35

Habermas, Jrgen. 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume Two, trans. Thomas McCarthy. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Hart, Stephen. 2001. Cultural Dilemmas of Progressive Politics: Styles of Engagement among Grassroots Activists. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Holden, Robert T. 1986. The Contagiousness of Aircraft Hijacking. American Journal of Sociology 91: 874-904. Hughes, Everett C. 1936. The Ecological Aspect of Institutions. American Sociological Review 1: 180-89. Jasper, James M. 1997. The Art of Moral Protest. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Jasper, James M. 2004. A Strategic Approach to Collective Action: Looking for Agency in Social Movement Choices. Mobilization 9: 1-16. Jenkins, J. Craig. 1977. Radical Transformation of Organizational Goals. Administrative Science Quarterly 22: 568-586. Jenkins, J. Craig. 1983. Resource Mobilization Theory and Social Movements. Annual Review of Sociology 9: 527-553. Jenkins, J. Craig. 1989. Social Movement Philanthropy and American Democracy. Pp. 292314 in Richard Magat (ed.), Philanthropic Giving: Studies in Varieties and Goals, Volume 3. New York: Oxford University Press. Jenkins, J. Craig. 1998. Channeling Social Protest: Foundation Patronage of Contemporary Social Movements. Pp. 206-216 in Walter Powell and Elisabeth Clemens (eds.), Private Action and the Public Good. New Haven: Yale University Press. Jenkins, J. Craig and Craig M. Eckert. 1986. Channeling Black Insurgency: Elite Patronage and Professional Social Movement Organizations in the Development of the Black Movement. American Sociological Review 51: 812-829. Jenkins, J. Craig and Abigail Halcli. 1999. Grassrooting the System? Recent Trends in Social Movement Philanthropy, 1953-1990. Pp. 277-299 in Ellen Condliffe-Lageman (ed.), Studying Philanthropic Foundations: New Scholarship, New Possibilities. Bloomington, IN: University of Indiana Press. Jenkins, J. Craig and Charles Perrow. 1977. Insurgency of the Powerless: Farm Worker Movements (1946-1972). American Sociological Review 42: 249-268. Jepperson, Ronald L. 1991. Institutions, Institutional Effects, and Institutionalism. Pp. 143-163 in Walter W. Powell and Paul J. DiMaggio (eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

36

Johnston, Hank and Bert Klandermans. 1995. The Cultural Analysis of Social Movements. Pp. 3-24 in Hank Johnston and Bert Klandermans (eds.), Social Movements and Culture. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Katzenstein, Mary Fainsod. 1998a. Faithful and Fearless: Moving Feminist Protest inside the Church and Military. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Katzenstein, Mary Fainsod. 1998b. Stepsisters: Feminist Movement Activism in Different Institutional Spaces. Pp. 195-216 in David S. Meyer and Sidney Tarrow (eds.), The Social Movement Society: Contentious Politics for a New Century. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Klandermans, Bert, Marlene Roefs, and Johan Olivier. 1998. A Movement Takes Office. Pp. 173-194 in David S. Meyer and Sidney Tarrow (eds.), The Social Movement Society: Contentious Politics for a New Century. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Knoke, David. 1982. The Spread of Municipal Reform: Temporal, Spatial, and Social Dynamics. American Journal of Sociology 87: 1314-1339. Kollman, Ken. 1998. Outside Lobbying: Public Opinion and Interest Group Strategies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Koopmans, Ruud. 1993. The Dynamics of Protest Waves: West Germany, 1965 to 1989. American Sociological Review 58: 637-58. Kornhauser, William. 1959. The Politics of Mass Society. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Kriesi, Hanspeter, Ruud Koopmans, Jan Wilhem Duyvendak, and Marco G. Giugni. 1992. New Social Movements and Political Opportunities in Western Europe. European Journal of Political Research 22: 219-244 Kriesi, Hanspeter. 1996. The Organizational Structure of New Social Movements in a Political Context. Pp. 152-184 in Doug McAdam, John D. McCarthy, and Mayer N. Zald (eds.), Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings. New York: Cambridge University Press. Kurzman, Charles. 1998. Organizational Opportunity and Social Movement Mobilization: A Comparative Analysis of Four Religious Social Movements. Mobilization 3: 23-49. Latour, Almar, Dennis K. Berman and Yochi J. Dreazen. 2003. Getting Through: How Rivals' Long Campaign Against MCI Gained Traction. The Wall Street Journal, August 1, p. A1. Laumann, Edward O. and David Knoke. 1987. The Organizational State: Social Change in National Policy Domains. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Le Bon, Gustave.1982 [1897]. The Crowd: A Study of Popular Mind, 2nd ed. Marietta, GA: Larlin Corp.

37

Lee, Taeku. 2002. Mobilizing Public Opinion: Black Insurgency and Racial Attitudes in the Civil Rights Era. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lenin, V. I. 1970 [1902]. What is to be Done?, trans. S. V. Utechin and Patricia Utechin. London: Panther Books. Lipsky, Michael. 1968. Protest as a Political Resource. American Political Science Review 62: 1144-1158. Lounsbury, Michael. 2005. Institutional Variation in the Evolution of Social Movements: Competing Logics and the Spread of Recycling Advocacy Groups. Pp. 73-95 in Gerald F. Davis, Doug McAdam, W. Richard Scott, and Mayer N. Zald (eds.), Social Movements and Organization Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press. McAdam, Doug. 1982. Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930-1970. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. McAdam, Doug. 1983. Tactical Innovation and the Pace of Insurgency. American Sociological Review 48: 735-54. McAdam, Doug. 1994. Culture and Social Movements. Pp. 36-57 in Enrique Laraa, Hank Johnston, and Joseph Gusfield (eds.), New Social Movements: From Ideology to Identity. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. McAdam, Doug. 1995. Initiator and Spin-off Movements: Diffusion Processes in Protest Cycles. Pp. 217-239 in Mark Traugott (ed.), Repertoires and Cycles of Collective Action. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. McAdam, Doug. 1996. Conceptual Origins, Current Problems, Future Directions. Pp. 23-40 in Doug McAdam, John D. McCarthy, and Mayer N. Zald (eds.), Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings. New York: Cambridge University Press. McAdam, Doug, John D. McCarthy, and Mayer N. Zald. 1996. Introduction: Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Framing Processes Toward a Synthetic, Comparative Perspective on Social Movements. Pp. 1-20 in Doug McAdam, John D. McCarthy, and Mayer N. Zald (eds.), Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings. New York: Cambridge University Press. McAdam, Doug and Dieter Rucht. 1993. The Cross-National Diffusion of Movement Ideas. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 528: 56-74. McAdam, Doug and W. Richard Scott. 2005. Organizations and Movements. Pp. 4-40 in Gerald F. Davis, Doug McAdam, W. Richard Scott, and Mayer N. Zald (eds.), Social Movements and Organization Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press. McAdam, Doug, Sidney Tarrow, and Charles Tilly. 2001. Dynamics of Contention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 38

McCarthy, John D. 2005. Velcro Triangles: Elite Mobilization of Local Anti-Drug Issue Coalitions. In David S. Meyer, Valerie Jenness and Helen Ingram (eds.), Routing the Opposition: Social Movements, Public Policy, and Democracy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. McCarthy, John D., David W. Britt, and Mark Wolfson. 1991. The Institutional Channeling of Social Movements by the State in the United States. Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change 12: 45-76. McCarthy, John D. and Clark McPhail. 1998. The Institutionalization of Protest in the United States. Pp. 83-110 in Meyer and Tarrow (eds.), The Social Movement Society: Contentious Politics for a New Century. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. McCarthy, John D. and Mayer N. Zald. 1973. The Trend of Social Movements in America: Professionalization and Resource Mobilization. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press. McCarthy, John D. and Edward T. Walker. 2004. Alternative Organizational Repertoires of Poor Peoples Social Movement Organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly Supplement to 33(3): 97S-119S. McCarthy, John D. and Mayer N. Zald. 1977. Resource Mobilization and Social Movements: A Partial Theory. American Journal of Sociology 82: 1212-1241. McPhail, Clark. 1991. The Myth of the Madding Crowd. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Martin, Andrew W. 2004. A Return to Their Social Movement Roots: Union Organizing Efforts in the Late Twentieth Century. Unpublished PhD. Dissertation, Pennsylvania State University. Melucci, Alberto. 1996. Challenging Codes: Collective Action in the Information Age. New York: Cambridge University Press. Meyer, David S. 1990. A Winter of Discontent: The Nuclear Freeze and American Politics. New York: Praeger. Meyer, David S. 2003. Political Opportunity and Nested Institutions. Social Movement Studies 2: 17-35. Meyer, David S. 2004. Protest and Political Opportunities. Annual Review of Sociology 30: 125-145. Meyer, David S. and Sidney Tarrow. 1998. A Movement Society: Contentious Politics for a New Century. Pp. 1-28 in David S. Meyer and Sidney Tarrow (eds.), The Social Movement Society. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Meyer, John W. and Brian Rowan. 1977. Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology 83: 340-363.

39

Michels, Robert. 1962 [1915]. Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Milibrand, Ralph. 1969. The State in Capitalist Society. New York: Basic Books. Minkoff, Debra C. 1997. The Sequencing of Social Movements. American Sociological Review 62: 779-799. Morris, Aldon D. 1984. The Origins of the Civil Rights Movement. New York: Free Press. Morris, Aldon D. and Cedric Herring. 1988. Theory and Research in Social Movements: Critical Review. Annual Review of Political Science 2: 137-198. Morris, Aldon D. and Suzanne Staggenborg. 2004. Leadership in Social Movements. Pp. 171196 in David A. Snow, Sarah A. Soule, and Hanspeter Kriesi (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Oberschall, Anthony. 1972. Social Conflict and Social Movements. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Oberschall, Anthony. 1989. The 1960s Sit-Ins: Protest Diffusion and Movement Take-Off. Research in Social Movements, Conflict and Change 11: 32-53. Oliver, Christine. 1991. Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes. Academy of Management Review 16: 145-179. Oliver, Pamela E. and Daniel J. Myers. The Coevolution of Social Movements. Mobilization 8: 1-25. Park, Robert E. 1967 [1924]. Collective Behavior. Pp. 209-239 in Ralph H. Turner (ed.), Robert E. Park on Social Control and Collective Behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pichardo, Nelson A. 1997. New Social Movements: A Critical Review. Annual Review of Sociology 23: 411-430. Piven, Frances Fox and Richard A. Cloward. 1977. Poor People's Movements: Why They Succeed, How They Fail. New York: Pantheon Books. Piven, Frances Fox and Richard Cloward. 1992. Normalizing Collective Protest. Pp. 301-25 in Aldon Morris and Carol McClurg Mueller (eds.), Frontiers in Social Movement Theory. New Haven: Yale University Press. Polletta, Francesca. 1997. Culture and Its Discontents: Recent Theorizing on Culture and Protest. Sociological Inquiry 67: 431-450 Polletta, Francesca. 2002. Freedom is an Endless Meeting: Democracy in American Social Movements. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

40

Polletta, Francesca and James Jasper. 2001. Collective Identity in Social Movements. Annual Review of Sociology 27: 283-305 Porpora, Douglas V. 1993. Cultural Rules and Material Relations. Sociological Theory 11: 212-229. Raeburn, Nicole C. 2004. Changing Corporate America from Inside Out: Lesbian and Gay Workplace Rights. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Rao, Hayagreeva, Calvin Morrill and Mayer N. Zald. 2000. Power Plays: How Social Movements and Collective Action Create New Organizational Forms. Research in Organizational Behaviour 22: 237-281. Ramirez, Francisco O. 1987. Comparative Social Movements. Pp. 281-296 in George M. Thomas, John W. Meyer, Francisco O. Ramirez, and John Boli (eds.), Institutional Structure: Constituting State, Society, and the Individual. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Rogers, Everett M. 1962. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press. Roscigno, Vincent J., William F. Danaher, and Erika Summers-Effler. 2002. Music, Culture, and Social Movements: The Case of Song and Southern Textile Worker Mobilization. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 3: 141-174 Rothman, Franklin D. and Pamela E. Oliver. 1999. From Local to Global: The Anti-Dam Movement in Southern Brazil, 1979-1992. Mobilization 4: 41-57. Rubin, Barry R. 1997. A Citizens Guide to Politics in America: How the System Works & How to Work the System. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Rucht, Dieter. 1999. Linking Organization And Mobilization: Michels Iron Law of Oligarchy Reconsidered. Mobilization 4: 151-169. Rucht, Dieter. 2004. Movement Allies, Adversaries, and Third Parties. Pp. 197-216 in The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, eds. David A. Snow, Sarah A. Soule and Hanspeter Kriesi. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Rucht, Dieter and Friedhelm Neidhardt. 2002. Towards a Movement Society? On the Possibilities of Institutionalizing Social Movements. Social Movement Studies 1: 7-30. Rupp, Leila J. and Verta A. Taylor. 2003. Drag Queens at the 801 Cabaret. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ruzza, Carlo. 1997. Institutional Actors and the Italian Peace Movement: Specializing and Branching Out. Theory and Society 26: 87-127. Santoro, Wayne A. and Gail M. McGuire. 1997. Social Movement Insiders: The Impact of Institutional Activists on Affirmative Action and Comparable Worth Policies. Social Problems 44: 503-520

41

Schattschneider, E.E. 1960. The Semisovereign People: A Realists View of Democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Schneiberg, Marc and Sarah A. Soule. 2005. Institutionalization as a Contested, Multilevel Process: The Case of Rate Regulation in American Fire Insurance. Pp. 122-160 in Gerald F. Davis, Doug McAdam, W. Richard Scott, and Mayer N. Zald (eds.), Social Movements and Organization Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press. Schou, Arild. 1997. Elite Identification In The Palestinian Intifada. Mobilization 2: 71-86. Scott, Ellen K. 2005. Beyond Tokenism: The Making of Racially Diverse Feminist Organizations. Social Problems 52: 232-254. Scott, W. Richard and John W. Meyer. 1991. The Organization of Societal Sectors: Propositions and Early Evidence. Pp. 108-140 in Walter W. Powell and Paul J. DiMaggio, The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Scully, Maureen A. and W.E. Douglas Creed. 2005. Subverting Our Stories of Subversion. Pp. 310-332 in Gerald F. Davis, Doug McAdam, W. Richard Scott, and Mayer N. Zald (eds.), Social Movements and Organization Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sewell, William H. 1992. A Theory of Structure: Duality, Agency, and Transformation. American Journal of Sociology 98: 1-29. Smelser, Neil J. 1962. Theory of Collective Behavior. New York: Free Press. Snow, David A. and Robert D. Benford. 1988. Ideology, Frame resonance, and Participant Mobilization. International Social Movement Research 1:197-217. Snow, David A. and Robert D. Benford. 1992. Master Frames and Cycles of Protest. Pp. 133155 in Aldon D. Morris and Carol M. Mueller (eds.), Frontiers in Social Movement Theory. New Haven: Yale University Press. Soule, Sarah A. 1997. The Student Divestment Movement in the United States and Tactical Diffusion: The Shantytown Protest. Social Forces 75: 855-883. Soule, Sarah A. 2004. Diffusion Processes within and across Movements. Pp. 294-310 in The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, eds. David A. Snow, Sarah A. Soule, and Hanspeter Kriesi. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Staggenborg, Suzanne. 1988. The Consequences of Professionalization and Formalization in the Pro-Choice Movement. American Sociological Review 53: 585-606. Stauber, John C. and Sheldon Rampton. 1995. Toxic Sludge is Good for You: Lies, Damn Lies, and the Public Relations Industry. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press. Stone, Peter H. 1994. Learning from Nader. National Journal, June 11, p. 1342-44.

42

Strang, David and John W. Meyer. 1993. Institutional Conditions for Diffusion. Theory and Society 22: 487-511. Strang, David and Sarah A. Soule. 1998. Diffusion in Organizations and Social Movements: From Hybrid Corn to Poison Pills. Annual Review of Sociology 24: 265-290. Stern, Christopher. 2003. WorldCom Opponents In Sync; D.C. Firm Helps Organize Protest. The Washington Post, June 20, p. A.01. Su, Yang. 1999. Who Rebels: From Dissented Elite to Movement Cadre. Perspectives: Newsletter of the Overseas Young Chinese Forum. Available http://www.oycf.org/Perspectives/2_110299/society_and_culture_B.htm. Swidler, Ann. 1986. Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies. American Sociological Review 51: 273-286. Tarde, Gabriel de. 1962 [1903]. The Laws of Imitation, trans. Elsie Clews Parsons. Gloucester, MA: P. Smith Tarrow, Sidney. 1998. Power in Movement: Social Movements, Collective Action, and Politics, 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press. Taylor, Verta. 1989. Social Movement Continuity: The Womens Movement in Abeyance. American Sociological Review 54: 761-775. Taylor, Verta. 2000. Mobilizing for Change in a Social Movement Society. Contemporary Sociology 29: 219-230. Thompson, E.P. 1963. The Making of the English Working Class. New York: Pantheon Books. Tilly, Charles. 1978. From Mobilization to Revolution. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Tilly, Charles. 1994. Social Movements as Historically Specific Clusters of Political Performances. Berkeley Journal of Sociology 38: 1-30. Tilly, Charles. 1995. Popular Contention in Great Britain, 1758-1834. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Tilly, Charles. 2000. How Do Relations Store Histories? Annual Review of Sociology 26: 721-723. Tilly, Charles. 2002. Stories, Identities, and Political Change. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Touraine, Alain. 1971. The May Movement: Revolt and Reform. New York: Random House. Useem, Bert and Mayer N. Zald. 1982. From Pressure Group to Social Movement: Organizational Dilemmas of the Effort to Promote Nuclear Power. Social Problems 30: 144-156 43

Voss, Kim and Rachel Sherman. 2000. Breaking the Iron Law of Oligarchy: Union Revitalization in the American Labor Movement. American Journal of Sociology 303-349. Van Aelst, Peter and Stefaan Walgrave. 2001. Who is that (Wo)man in the Street? From the Normalisation of Protest to the Normalisation of the Protester. European Journal of Political Research 39: 481-486. Wald, Kenneth D. and Jeffrey C. Corey. 2002. The Christian Right and Public Policy: Social Movement Elites as Institutional Activists. State Politics and Policy Quarterly 2: 99-125. Walker, Edward T. 2000. The Relevance of Heroes to Narrative and Frame Analytic Perspectives in Social Movements. Presentation at the Annual Meetings of the American Sociological Association, Washington, D.C. Walker, Edward T. 2005. Insurgent Tactics and Institutional Actors: Grassroots Lobbying Firms and their Clients. Presentation at the Annual Meetings of the American Sociological Association, Philadelphia, PA. Walker, Edward T. and John D. McCarthy. 2005. The Influence of Organizational Structure, Membership Composition and Resources on the Survival of Poor Peoples Social Movement Organizations. Presented at the Cornell-SEWA-WIEGO Conference Membership Based Organizations of the Poor: Theory, Experience and Policy. January 17-21, Ahmedabad, India. Weber, Max. 1991 [1946]. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, trans. H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills. New York: Routledge. Wejnert, Barbara. 2002. Integrating Models of Diffusion of Innovations: A Conceptual Framework. Annual Review of Sociology 28: 297-326. Westby, David. 2002. Strategic Imperative, Ideology, and Frame. Mobilization 7: 287-304. Wittenberg, Ernest and Elisabeth Wittenberg. 1990. How to Win in Washington: Very Practical Advice about Lobbying, the Grassroots, and the Media. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell. Wolfson, Mark. 2001. The Fight Against Big Tobacco: The Movement, the State, and the Publics Health. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Wuthnow, Robert. 1987. Meaning and Moral Order: Explorations in Cultural Analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press. Zald, Mayer N. 1996. Culture, Ideology, and Strategic Framing. Pp. 261-274 in Doug McAdam, John D. McCarthy, and Mayer N. Zald (eds.), Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings. New York: Cambridge University Press.

44

Zald, Mayer N. and Roberta Ash. 1966. Social Movement Organizations: Growth, Decay, and Change. Social Forces 44: 327-341. Zald, Mayer N. and Michael A. Berger. 1978. Social Movements in Organizations: Coup dEtat, Insurgency, and Mass Movements. American Journal of Sociology 83: 823-861. Zucker, Lynne G. 1977. The Role of Institutionalization in Cultural Persistence. American Sociological Review 42: 726-743.

45