Political consciousness and new social movement theory: the case of Fuerza Unida.

• Date: 22 March 2003
• Author: Zugman, Kara
• Published date: 22 March 2003
• Author: Zugman, Kara

Introduction

THE GOAL OF THIS ARTICLE IS TO ASSESS NEW SOCIAL MOVEMENT THEORY'S treatment of race, gender, and social class with respect to contemporary social movements. In this article, I develop an alternative framework that will address some limitations of new social movement theory by using theoretical concepts derived from discourse theory. New social movement theory addresses limitations in resource mobilization theory, but its post-industrial bias does not adequately account for social inequality (especially in terms of racial, national, gender, and class inequality) in identity formation. Moreover, its evasion of ideology makes it difficult to theorize the operation of power in identity formation. The post-Marxist bent of many (though not all) strands of new social movement theory also fails to take seriously the relationship between social class and identity formation. Finally, new social movement theory models are insufficient in terms of explaining the political action of non-Western actors. This article applies theoretical concepts derived from discourse theory to the case of Fuerza Unida, (1) a Mexican/Mexican-American social movement of former garment workers. In discussing this case, I will compare the explanatory power of new social movement theory and discourse theory. In addition, it will be argued that focusing on language and culture is not only important for sociologists, but also for union and social movement organizers. In sum, the goal of this essay is to assess the extent to which discourse theory can be of use to scholars of social movements who aim to theorize the connections between identity, discourse, and political economy.

New Social Movement Theory and Its Historical Context

In post-World War II America, sociological theories of political action and protest were based on a deviance model (Buechler, 1993). During the 1960s and 1970s, academics sympathetic to the era's large-scale protest movements developed "resource mobilization theory" (Ibid.), which challenged the deviance models of social protest by proclaiming that social movements were not "deviant" but "rational." According to Buechler, resource mobilization theorists argued that social movements consisted of rational actors and were just an extension of traditional politics.

Beginning in the early 1980s, scholars (mostly European) began to discuss "new social movements" (Laclau and Mouffe, 1988; Melucci, 1995; McAdam, 1994).2 New social movements refer to movements and organizations that deal primarily with issues of identity and meaning, in contrast to traditional class-based organizations such as unions or political parties. New social movements that began to form in the post-1968 era, such as the feminist, environmental, and gay and lesbian rights movements, are "new" because of their concern with post-material goals such as creating shared meanings around collective identities and alternative lifestyles.

New social movement theory is distinguished by its emphasis on shared meanings and identity politics over the politics of distribution. Its theorists study "postindustrial societies" and the subject of such theories is, generally speaking, the middle-class actor. The middle-class Western actor no longer worries about the politics of distribution. His concerns now are about identity, meaning, and culture (Buechler, 1995). Although some new social movement theorists have been influenced by neo-Marxism (Castells, 1997), the bulk of the literature focuses on identity and meaning rather than structural issues.

Challenging resource mobilization theory, Johnston, Larana, and Gusfield (1994) stress the importance of the symbolic in collective and individual identity formation within the context of a postindustrial society. In the view of Larana, McAdam, and Gusfield, social justice struggles, whether for national liberation or economic equality, are old struggles that have been displaced by new struggles for identity and meaning. This break with traditional social movement theory has been important because it leads us away from a singular view of identity. However, this achievement has been won at the expense of the categories of social class and asymmetrical race and gender relations.

New social movement theory also tends to focus on Western countries, Europe and the United States in particular. Even when non-Western social movements are discussed, the result is often a benevolent Eurocentrism. Keck and Sikkink's (1998) work focuses on social actors in transnational issue networks from the First World who are involved in struggles against slavery in the U.S., foot binding in China, and female genital mutilation in Africa. In these cases, the social actors responsible for the positive changes are largely Western missionaries or other actors from the First World, rather than Third World.

New social movement theory has made important contributions to theorizing the political actor, despite the ethnocentric views that often pervade it. First, Laclau and Mouffe (1988: 52) recognized the plurality of the political subject. For example, workers are not only workers, but also women and/or students. They argue that one facet of identity (class) should not be privileged in terms of understanding how social change is made. Moreover, there is no "necessary" logic between "class identity" and "class position." Attempting to avoid class reductionism, Laclau and Mouffe argue that the mode of production does not determine the "interests" of the political actors. Therefore, political actors presumably play a more conscious and active role in their identity formation, constructing their identities around whatever individuals recognize their "interests" to be at any given moment. Laclau and Mouffe ostensibly restore agency to political actors, but their focus on discourse and articulation leads to its own kind of reductionism, one that is unable to account for the roles of historical and structural forces that affect the formation of identity (Eagleton, 1990). Instead of attempting to locate agency as struggling with structural forces, Laclau and Mouffe offer the concept of "articulation." Actors "articulate" social elements to create identity and meaning as they attempt to implement a political project.

Laclau and Mouffe abandoned the concept of ideology because of its association with orthodox Marxist "reflection theory," in which consciousness merely reflects class position. Without the concept of ideology, it is difficult to understand how power operates in the formation of identity (Laclau and Mouffe, 1988: 65). Moreover, identities, discourse, and language become neutral. More nuanced approaches to the concept of ideology and hegemony (Hall, 1996a; Matron, 1995) theorize the connection between language, consciousness, and material reality without reducing one to the other. Even Laclau's (1979) earlier work falls into that category.

By applying discourse theory to the case of Fuerza Unida, I will show that language and discourse are critical, not peripheral, sites of struggle over meaning between groups and within individuals. It is both possible and necessary to theorize culture, identity, and language alongside the larger structural political-economic forces that help to shape these processes.

Laclau and Mouffe's (1988) notion of "articulation" highlights the importance of the power of language and discourse in the construction of identity. Although this is a critical insight into identity construction, discourse becomes reified because it is completely divorced from the material reality of social life and history. Three aspects of Laclau and Mouffe's formulation are problematic for the study of social movements. One is that all identities are regarded as equal in weight; there is no historic specificity as to why one identity might take precedence over another. Second, their post-industrial bias excludes a large number of collective and individual subjects, with the exception of white middle-class people living in postindustrial societies (Escobar, 1992). Asymmetrical race and class relations are glossed over in the U.S. and Europe. Political subjects that do not fit their model, namely Third World and minority subjects, fall into a category of "other," against whom Western political actors can define themselves (Said, 1993). Third, there is an overemphasis on agency in identity formation. This ability to create and live out multiple identities is a gift that only people in "postindustrial" democracies have. Scholars of Latin American social movements and critics of development theory have pioneered new approaches to the study of social movements, especially regarding women's organizing (Escobar and Alvarez, 1992; Lind, 1992; Stephen, 1997; Carrillo, 1990; Jelin, 1990). These scholars have challenged the boundaries of the public and the private. They have developed a fluid and flexible theorizing that calls into question assumptions about "what counts as political" (Alvarez, Dagnino, and Escobar, 1998). As we move into an era marked by increased flows of people and capital through economic restructuring, I believe their approaches could be useful to scholars of social movements in the U.S. The "working class" is becoming increasingly racially diverse and feminized (Sassen, 1998). Therefore, our ideas about who is an actor and our theoretical approach to their social movements should reflect these socio-historical changes.

According to Laclau and Mouffe (1988: 131), there are democratic subject positions (read European) and popular subject positions (read Third World). Popular subjects lack the ability to have multiple identities because the societies in which they live are considered undemocratic in comparison to Europe (Escobar, 1992). For Laclau and Mouffe, the popular subject is still mainly concerned with the distribution of economic resources, with "less developed" types of consciousness such as nationalism. So...