Della Porta and Diani (2006), Social Movements: An Introduction. Citation: Della Porta, Donatella and Diani, Mario (2006) Social Movements: An Introduction, Second Edition, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Della Porta and Diani (2006:19): Argues that four core questions facing social movement research are not necessarily unique to the topic, but instead that “in many cases it makes more – or at least as much – sense to talk about collective action at large, rather than social movements. Collective action broadly refers to individuals sharing resources in pursuit of collective goals – i.e. goals that cannot be privatized to any of the members of the collectivity on behalf of which collective action has taken place.” [A logical extension of this argument that the questions are not unique is that the mechanisms for answering them do not need to be unique either].
Della Porta and Diani (2006:20): Cites Diani (1992a, 2003a, 2004a) and Diani and Bison (2004), who argue that “social movements are a distinct social process, consisting of the mechanisms through which actors engage in collective action: • are involved in conflictual relations with clearly identified opponents; • are linked by dense informal networks; • share a distinct collective identity.”
Della Porta and Diani (2006:21): Conflict not necessarily violent, but “an oppositional relationship between actors who seek control of the same stake – be it political, economic, or cultural power – and in the process make negative claims on each other – i.e. demands which, if realized, would damage the interests of other actors (Tilly, 1978; Touraine, 1981:80-4).
Della Porta and Diani (2006:21): On dense informal networks: “A social movement process is in place to the extent that both individual and organized actors, while keeping their autonomy and independence, engage in sustained exchanges of resources in pursuit of common goals. The coordination of specific initiatives, the regulation of individual actors’ conduct, and the definition of strategies all depend on permanent negotiations between the individuals and the organizations involved in collective action. No single organized actor, no matter how powerful, can claim to represent the movement as a whole.” [It is arguably on the point of dense informal networks that the designation of the Caucasus Emirate as a social movement would be most vulnerable. The answer to the question largely depends on the degree of coordination and control one sees as existing within the movement. Is there an insurgency broader than the Caucasus Emirate? Clearly, in the case of the split with IS, the answer to this becomes yes. Do individual and organized actors keep their autonomy and independence? This is more challenging to answer: Certainly groups operate autonomously, but can they pursue independent goals irrespective of the position of the leadership? The problem arises that most of the command and control network is not visible, but this does not mean it does not exist. Also, there are formal networks, to the extent that any networks within clandestine groups can be said to be formal]
Della Porta and Diani (2006:21): On collective identity: “membership criteria are extremely unstable and ultimately dependent on mutual recognition between actors.”
Della Porta and Diani (2006:25): Social movements “are not organizations, not even of a peculiar kind (Tilly 1988; Oliver 1989). They are networks which may either include formal organizations or not, depending on shifting circumstances. As a consequence, a single organization, whatever its dominant traits, is not a social movement.”
Della Porta and Diani (2006:25): Cites Oliver (1989:4) as arguing that concepts from organisational theory – strategy, tactics, leadership, membership, recruitment, etc. – that denote a coherent decision-making entity should not be applied uncritically to social movements.
Della Porta and Diani (2006:26): “Strictly speaking, social movements do not have members, but participants.”
Della Porta and Diani (2006:27): “It goes without saying that stressing the peculiarity of movements as informal networks does not imply ruling out of social movement analysts’ remit the analysis of specific organizations, as some critics have suggested (e.g. Pickvance 1995:46). Instead, it forces analysts to explicitly recognize, by elaborating specific concepts, the distinction between social movement processes and organizational processes.” Can, for example, look at the Nazi party and the Nazi movement.
Della Porta and Diani (2006:66): “Social movements not only aim at specific policy changes or the replacement of specific political elites, but at broader transformations in societal priorities, in the basic mechanism through which society operates.”
Della Porta and Diani (2006:66-67): “Social actors act in the context of structural constraints, which not only have to do with material resources but also with cultural ones. Actors’ interpretations of their situation, their preconceptions, their implicit assumptions about social life and its guiding principles, about what is worthy or unworthy, all drastically constrain their capacity to at and the range of their options. At the same time, through action, agents also try – and sometimes succeed – in modifying the cultural structures in which they are embedded.”
Della Porta and Diani (2006): Uses Benford and Snow’s (1988) method of dividing into diagnostic, prognostic and motivational elements.
Della Porta and Diani (2006:74): Diagnostic element: “Social problems do in fact exist only to the extent that certain phenomena are interpreted as such by people.”
Della Porta and Diani (2006:75): Diagnostic element: “Diagnosing a problem always entails identifying the actors who are entitled to have opinions on it. This is always a highly contentious process.”
Della Porta and Diani (2006:75): Diagnostic element: “Another crucial step in the social construction of a problem consists of the identification of those responsible for the situation in which the aggrieved population finds itself.”
Della Porta and Diani (2006:76): Diagnostic element: “The identification of social problems and those responsible for them is, inevitably, highly selective. The highlighting of one particular problem leads to the neglect of other potential sources of protest or mobilization which appear not to fit the interpretation of reality adopted.”
Della Porta and Diani (2006:77): Prognostic element: “The action of interpreting the world goes beyond identifying problems, however. It involves seeking solutions, hypothesizing new social patterns, new ways of regulating relationships between groups, new articulations of consensus and of the exercise of power. There is often a strong utopian dimension present in this endeavour.”
Della Porta and Diani (2006:79): Motivational element: “symbolic elaboration is essential in order to produce the motivation and the incentives needed for action. The unknowable outcomes and the costs associated with collective action can be overcome only if the actors are convinced (intuitively even before rationally) of the opportunity for mobilizing and of the practicability and the legitimacy of the action.”
Della Porta and Diani (2006:79): “Framing is more flexible a cultural product than ideology, at the same time more specific and more generic than the latter. It does not require a whole coherent set of integrated principles and assumptions but provides instead a key to make sense of the world. In many cases, frames originate from ideologies […]. In other case, however, frames can affect ideologies.”
Della Porta and Diani (2006:79): “Differences between ideologies and frames do not prevent us from thinking of frames as capable of delivering broad interpretations of reality. This is particularly true of master frames.”
Della Porta and Diani (2006:81): Frames should be credible in content, credible according to the actor, salient, and resonate, both with individual actors and broader cultural structures.
Della Porta and Diani (2006:82): Argue that, at their most basic, “the basic precondition for success is that the processes of ‘frame alignment’ take place between movement activists and the populations they intend to mobilize.” Frame bridging and frame extension are both forms of frame alignment.
Della Porta and Diani (2006:91): Use identity to refer to “the process by which social actors recognize themselves — and are recognized by other actors — as part of broader groupings, and develop emotional attachments to them.”
Della Porta and Diani (2006:92): “identity production is an essential component of collective action, through the identification of actors involved in conflict, the facilitation of trusting relationships among them, and the establishment of connections linking events from different periods.”
Della Porta and Diani (2006:92): do not consider identity as “a thing one can own, nor a property of actors, but as the process through which individual and/or collective actors, in interaction with other social actors, attribue a specific meaning to their traits, their life occurrences, and the systems of social relations in which they are embedded.”
Della Porta and Diani (2006:92): “Social identification is simultaneously static and dynamic. On the one hand, reference to identity evokes the continuity and the solidity of allegiances over time. On the other, identity is also open to constant redefinitions.”
Della Porta and Diani (2006:93): Argues against simply considering identity construction as a precondition for collective action, highlighting the role that collective action itself can play in reinforcing or weakening identity.
Della Porta and Diani (2006:94): “Collective action cannot occur in the absence of a ’we’characterized by common traits and a specific solidarity.” It also requires a negative identification of the opponent.
Della Porta and Diani (2006:96): “Speaking of continuity over time [in militancy] does not necessarily mean assuming that identity persists, let alone that it is fixed. Reference to the past is, in fact, always selective. ‘Continuity’ in this case means rather the active re-elaboration of elements of one’s own biography and their reorganization in a new context.”
Della Porta and Diani (2006:98): “Identifying with a movement does not necessarily mean sharing a systematic and coherent vision of the world; nor does it prevent similar feelings being directed to other groups and movements as well.” [How does this fit with understandings of ideology, which arguably may require a degree of coherence? Need to clearly delineate the concepts]
Della Porta and Diani (2006:98): “Tensions among various types of identification have to do, first, with the fact that the motivations and expectations behind individuals participating in social movements are, in fact, much richer and more diversified than the public images of those movements, as produced by their leaders, would suggest.”
Della Porta and Diani (2006:99): “organizations aim to affirm their own specific formulation of their collective identity as the global identity of the movement.” Organizational identity, however, also differentiates the organization from the rest of the movement.
Della Porta and Diani (2006:105-106): View identity as a social process and emerging from self-representation and external recognition, both of which are continually renegotiated. Actors seek both to differentiate themselves and be recognised by others.
Della Porta and Diani (2006:117): “Available evidence suggests that the more costly and dangerous the collective action, the stronger and more numerous the ties required for individuals to participate.”
Della Porta and Diani (2006:118): “Embededness in social networks not only matters for recruitment, it also works as an antidote to leaving, and as a support to continued participation.”
Della Porta and Diani (2006:119): Social networks affect decisions to participate in several ways: by providing a group they can feel part of and rendering actions meaningful and issues relevant and worthy; by providing opportunities to those with a predisposition to an ideology; and by allowing participation in group decisions – “individuals do not make decisions in isolation but in the context of what other people do”
Della Porta and Diani (2006:122): Argues that it is important to be able to say which networks explain what and the conditions under which certain networks become relevant, rather than formulating generic rules for networks. “At times, it is the position one occupies within a network which matters, rather than the mere fact of being involved in some kind of network.” Context also important.
Della Porta and Diani (2006:126): “the importance of social networks for collective action in movements goes beyond their support of individual activism. On the contrary, by participating in the life of a movement and, in particular, in that of various organizations, activists create new channels of communication among them and increase the scope for promoting common campaigns. Links founded on multiple allegiances are also important as they create channels of communication between movements and their environment. There are, of course, exclusive allegiances in which a single organization monopolizes the commitment and the affective investment of his individual members; but the inclusive model is more common.”