ABSTRACT
Social movements can be regarded as a species of action community engaged in a political division of labor. A political action community is “thinner” than a social community, based on a strong sense of sharing common goals or a common interest. Nor does it reduce to a national community with a “thick” sense of belonging. An action community pursues common projects even though its members may display irreconcilable differences, whether social, cultural, religious, or ethnic. In fact, such differences tend to be regarded as a resource for, more than a barrier to, doing things in common. Identity construction is neither antecedent to movement emergence nor immutable as identities may evolve over time. Movement identities are not properties of individuals. Rather, they enable individual participants to locate themselves in a wider field of political action, indicating the terms on which a collective “we” is functionally established through the delineation of a particular organization of political roles and tasks within a wider field of political contention. The fact that action communities consist of fluid, overlapping, often incompatible or “inconsistent” identities may be the reason why they appear governed by individual action frames more than by collective ones, providing a motivational locus orienting participants and directing activities (Benford & Snow, 2000; Melucci, 1992; Snow & Benford, 1988; Tarrow, 1998). We will argue that an action community is collectively anchored in that which has to be done in-and through-a political division of labor. Furthermore, the “thin” nature of action communities is, in our view, exactly what motivates reflexive individuals to join them and direct their individual action frames toward solving common concerns. Newer movement forms oriented toward the pursuit of common projects will necessarily tend to eschew “thick” originating identities, such as national and social categories, in order to be able to do their job.
