Suchergebnisse

Social movements can have an impact on institutions by aiming explicitly at institutional change or by pursuing policy goals. In the former situation, their chances of success depends on factors internal and external to the movements. In the latter situation, the contribution of policy-oriented movements to institutional reform can be seen as a by-product of their action. A process of pressure by social movements and adaptation by the political authorities who grant the movements formal concessions makes such impact possible. The latter is usually minor in scope and consists of procedural-administrative changes. The examples of the women's movement, which addresses both the institutions and the public policies, and of the antinuclear movement, which usually challenges the public policies, suggests the existence of a process of pressure and adaptation for both types of movements.

Social movements can have an impact on institutions by aiming explicitly at institutional change or by pursuing policy goals. In the former situation, their chances of success depends on factors internal and external to the movements. In the latter situation, the contribution of policy-oriented movements to institutional reform can be seen as a by-product of their action. A process of pressure by social movements and adaptation by the political authorities who grant the movements formal concessions makes such impact possible. The latter is usually minor in scope and consists of procedural-administrative changes. The examples of the women's movement, which addresses both the institutions and the public policies, and of the antinuclear movement, which usually challenges the public policies, suggests the existence of a process of pressure and adaptation for both types of movements.

"Ausgehend von der Feststellung, daß es wenige Konzepte gibt, welche die Laufbahn von Organisationen beschreiben, versucht unser Text einen Teilspekt dieser Problematik, failure stories von Organisationen, genauer zu untersuchen. Anhand von Beispielen soll die These erläutert werden, daß Bewegungsorganisationen strukturell instabil sind. Wir gehen davon aus, daß diese Instabilität für die Laufbahn von Organisationen verantwortlich ist. Die Instabilität ist doppelt bestimmbar: Einerseits hängt sie vom Netz der Akteure ab, andererseits von der Fähigkeit und Möglichkeit der Organisation, sich in diesem Netz zu stabilisieren. Diese Stabilisierung findet über zeitlich beschränkte 'Verträge' mit dem dominanten oder mit relevanten Akteuren im Netz der Organisationen und Institutionen statt. Im Text wird die Idee vertreten, daß nicht etwa politische Opportunitätsstrukturen die Rahmenbedingungen des Handelns von Bewegungsorganisationen allein bestimmen, sondern vielmehr von den Opportunitäten des Organisationsnetzes, in dem durchaus auch staatliche Stellen eine zentrale Rolle oder oft auch eine determinierende Rolle einnehmen können, auszugehen ist." (Autorenreferat)

Cet article examine l'intervention des mouvements sociaux dans le système politique. Tout en portant l'attention sur le cas où les nouveaux mouvements sociaux sont source de blocage des politiques publiques, il tente de montrer comment cette intervention touche à l'équilibre qui s'établit dans toute société démocratique entre l'efficacité du système et sa légitimité. Les auteurs mettent en évidence que cet équilibre est affecté différemment selon le type d'intervention et, tout particulièrement, selon le type de blocage produit par les mouvements. Quatre types de blocages sont distingués, en fonction de la modalité et du résultat de l'intervention. Ces types de blocage dépendent de deux facteurs principaux, à savoir la structure et le fonctionnement de l'Etat, d'un côté, et la composition des acteurs intervenant dans le système, de l'autre. Le blocage des politiques publiques par les mouvements sociaux engendre une aporie centrale pour les démocraties occidentales, notamment pour la démocratie suisse, aporie qui a également des conséquences sur les mouvements eux-mêmes.

In 'Contentious Minds', Florence Passy and Gian-Andrea Monsch explain how cognitive and relational processes allow activists participate in and sustain their commitment to activism. Based on a wide array of survey and interview data with activists engaged in protest, volunteering and unions, they highlight how a commitment community develop shared values, identities, and meanings through interaction. Why does the mind matter for joint action? Contentious Minds is a comparative study of how cognitive and relational processes allow activists to sustain their commitment. With survey data and narratives of activists engaged in three commitment communities, the minds of activists involved in contentious politics are compared with those devoted to institutional and volunteering action. The book's main argument is that activists of one commitment community have synchronized minds concerning the aim and means of their activism as they perceive common good (aim) and politics (means) through similar cognitive lenses. The book shows the importance of direct conversational contact with individuals in bringing about this synchronization. Assessing the synchronization within communities as well as the variation between them constitutes a major purpose of this book. It shows that activists construct and enact community-specific democratic cultures, thereby entering the public sphere through collective action. The book makes three major contributions. First, it emphasizes the necessity to return the study of the mind to research on activism, Second, it calls for an integrated relational perspective that rests on the structural, instrumental, and interpretative dimensions of social networks. Finally, it advocates a substantial integration of culture in the study of social movements by effectively valuing the role of culture in shaping a person's mind.

Investigates the incorporation of certain kinds of social movements into state structures, drawing on an empirical analysis of case studies of ecology & solidarity movements in France & Switzerland based on 6 interviews, survey data, & a review of government documents. It is suggested that the cooperation between these social movements & the state represents a qualitatively different process of incorporation than the traditional process experienced by labor movements. In particular, the content of the exchange between social movement actors & the state, the construction of shared goals, the place of agency, & the self-reflective character of the interactions suggest that these social movements have undergone a distinctive path toward incorporation. It is unclear whether this new process is temporary, but it is apparent that movements taking this path have made an impact on both state structures & the political process itself. 2 Tables, 2 Figures. D. Ryfe

Many scholars have recently argued that nation-state—centered approaches in comparative sociology and political science are obsolete. In this view, we have entered, or are about to enter, a new "postnational" or "transnational" era characterized by complex and qualitatively new patterns of multilevel governance, in which the nation-state still plays a role, though a drastically reduced one.1 This decline of the nation-state's sovereignty is said to be accompanied by a growing importance of supranational and transnational actors, institutions, legal norms, and discourses, on the one hand, and increased local autonomy from national constraints, on the other. Given the inherently transnational nature of migration, it is not surprising that this critique of national approaches has been particularly prominent in this field of study.

Inspired by spatial theories of political behavior and by work on the impact of immigration on national identity, in this article we propose an explanation of the extreme right's claim making based on the interplay of three factors: national models of citizenship, the dynamics of political alignments and party competition, and the strategic/organizational repertoires of the extreme right, in particular the electoral strength of extreme-right parties. Confronting a number of hypotheses derived from this theoretical framework with original data on the extreme right's claim making in five European countries (the Netherlands, Britain, France, Germany, and Switzerland), we show how political-institutional and cultural-discursive opportunities account for differences in the extent, forms, and content of xenophobic and extreme-right claim making. Our study shows that national configurations of citizenship affect in significant ways the mobilization of the extreme right, both directly and indirectly. More precisely, our two-country comparison confirms the hypothesis that the claim making of the extreme right depends on a specific political opportunity structure formed by the combination of discursive opportunities deriving from the prevailing model of citizenship and by the political space made available by mainstream parties for far-right mobilization.

This article investigates multiculturalism by examining the relation ship between migrants' group demands and liberal states' policies for politically accommodating cultural and religious difference. It focuses especially on Islam. The empirical research compares migrants' claims-making for group demands in countries with different traditions for granting recognition to migrants' cultural difference - Britain, France and the Netherlands. Overall, we find very modest levels of group demands indicating that the challenge of group demands to liberal democracies is quantitatively less than the impression given by much multicultural literature. Group demands turn out to be significant only for Muslims, which holds across different countries. Qualitative analysis reveals problematic relationships between Islam and the state, in the overtly multicultural Dutch approach, within British race relations, and French civic universalism. This implies that there is no easy blueprint for politically accommodating Islam, whose public and religious nature makes it especially resilient to political adaptation.

International audience ; This article investigates multiculturalism by examining the relationship between migrants' group demands and liberal states' policies for politically accommodating cultural and religious difference. It focuses especially on Islam. The empirical research compares migrants' claims-making for group demands in countries with different traditions for granting recognition to migrants' cultural difference – Britain, France and the Netherlands. Overall, we find very modest levels of group demands indicating that the challenge of group demands to liberal democracies is quantitatively less than the impression given by much multicultural literature. Group demands turn out to be significant only for Muslims, which holds across different countries. Qualitative analysis reveals problematic relationships between Islam and the state, in the overtly multicultural Dutch approach, within British race relations, and French civic universalism. This implies that there is no easy blueprint for politically accommodating Islam, whose public and religious nature makes it especially resilient to political adaptation.

Inspired by spatial theories of political behavior and by work on the impact of immigration on national identity, in this article we propose an explanation of the extreme right's claim making based on the interplay of three factors: national models of citizenship, the dynamics of political alignments and party competition, and the strategic/organizational repertoires of the extreme right, in particular the electoral strength of extreme-right parties. Confronting a number of hypotheses derived from this theoretical framework with original data on the extreme right's claim making in five European countries (the Netherlands, Britain, France, Germany, and Switzerland), we show how political-institutional and cultural-discursive opportunities account for differences in the extent, forms, and content of xenophobic and extreme-right claim making. Our study shows that national configurations of citizenship affect in significant ways the mobilization of the extreme right, both directly and indirectly. More precisely, our two-country comparison confirms the hypothesis that the claim making of the extreme right depends on a specific political opportunity structure formed by the combination of discursive opportunities deriving from the prevailing model of citizenship and by the political space made available by mainstream parties for far-right mobilization.

Inspired by spatial theories of political behavior & by work on the impact of immigration on national identity, in this article we propose an explanation of the extreme right's claim making based on the interplay of three factors: national models of citizenship, the dynamics of political alignments & party competition, & the strategic/organizational repertoires of the extreme right, in particular the electoral strength of extreme-right parties. Confronting a number of hypotheses derived from this theoretical framework with original data on the extreme right's claim making in five European countries (the Netherlands, Britain, France, Germany, & Switzerland), we show how political-institutional & cultural-discursive opportunities account for differences in the extent, forms, & content of xenophobic & extreme-right claim making. Our study shows that national configurations of citizenship affect in significant ways the mobilization of the extreme right, both directly & indirectly. More precisely, our two-country comparison confirms the hypothesis that the claim making of the extreme right depends on a specific political opportunity structure formed by the combination of discursive opportunities deriving from the prevailing model of citizenship & by the political space made available by mainstream parties for far-right mobilization. 7 Tables, 2 Figures, 38 References. Adapted from the source document.

This article investigates multiculturalism by examining the relationship between migrants' group demands and liberal states' policies for politically accommodating cultural and religious difference. It focuses especially on Islam. The empirical research compares migrants' claims-making for group demands in countries with different traditions for granting recognition to migrants' cultural difference – Britain, France and the Netherlands. Overall, we find very modest levels of group demands indicating that the challenge of group demands to liberal democracies is quantitatively less than the impression given by much multicultural literature. Group demands turn out to be significant only for Muslims, which holds across different countries. Qualitative analysis reveals problematic relationships between Islam and the state, in the overtly multicultural Dutch approach, within British race relations, and French civic universalism. This implies that there is no easy blueprint for politically accommodating Islam, whose public and religious nature makes it especially resilient to political adaptation.