In his essay, Dieter Rucht discusses the role of social movements in modern societies from the perspective of the 'movement society' thesis. The author characterizes social movements as historical subjects seeking profound social change. The coming into being of modernity itself is marked by the rise of the revolutionary demands of bourgeois liberalism and socialism. The social movements of historical modernity sought a departure from traditional bonds towards a utopian vision of encompassing social renewal. The social movements of the present, to the contrary, are characterized by relatively modest demands. As a consequence, their function no longer lies in the search for revolutionary counterdesigns, but much rather in their reform-oriented, corrective, and enduring interference in institutional politics. In this context, we can witness both a multitude of movement-specific themes, and an increase in movement-like protest forms across all social categories. To investigate the accuracy of the movement society thesis, Rucht distinguishes between an 'early modern' perspective, which sees society as a (malleable) project, and a 'late modern' point of view, which assumes the existence of a multitude of projects in society. According to the author, the function of such projects in a movement society can consist of committing society to a 'reflexive modernity', which must constantly ascertain itself of its own direction and limits of development.

Joachim Raschke: Transfer of power and social movements, FJ NSB 1/98, pp.

Will social movements be able to contribute to surmounting the blockades in the political system of the Federal Republic and to overcoming the intransigence of politics in the election year 1998? To answer this question, Joachim Raschke presents an historic-analytical comparison of the years 1966, 1968, and 1982, each of which saw a transfer of power in the 'old' Federal Republic. An analysis of the potential of social movements in postindustrial societies makes clear that narrow limits are set to the effectiveness of social movements vis-a-vis the party system. The effects of social movements are often paradoxical and may lead to a strengthening of the forces that they struggle against. Moreover, social movements can themselves become part and parcel of a blocked system. At present, there is no evidence of a development of political parties away from the classical membership party towards an organizational structure more open to social movements. At the same time, the new social movements suffer from a 'strategic powerlessness', which results from their undecidedness between power and culture orientations and their ideal of grassroots democracy. Their weakness in addressing economic and social themes is conspicuous in this respect. On the other side of the political spectrum, right-wing movements are at present on the defensive due to countermobilization, state repression, and more general historical and cultural factors. One of the important aspects of asymmetry within the party system lies in the fact that the costs of interaction, communication, and coordination between parties and social movements are much higher on the left than on the right. Finally, the type of reactive movements without a clear political direction seems to be growing in importance. However, it does not play an important role with regard to the question of a transfer of power. The author concludes that bridges between the political system and civil society, which may increase the political weight of progressive movements, are only possible if the boundaries between party and movement are drawn more clearly and their mutual relations are designed more flexibly.

Roland Roth: New social movements and liberal democracy - Challenges, innovations und paradoxical effects, FJ NSB 1/98, pp.

Democracy can be seen as the central theme of the new social movements. However, they have tended to be much more effective in defining themes and problems than in implementing solutions in institutionally effective ways. The author takes stock of the criteria and conditions for a new round of democratization by new social movements in the context of the dangers to, and limits and insufficiences of the Western-liberal project of democracy. He identifies a broad range of challenges, which, however, do not converge on a compact and detailed concept of postliberal democracy. They include conservative reactions to the civil disobedience of civic initiatives ('ungovernability'); the blurring of the boundaries of the political and the redrawing of existing policy domains; the thematization of the limits of the majority principle of democracy; the growing importance of 'unconventional' participation; as well as questions of gendered democracy, ecological democracy, and decentralization and a less prominent role of the state in politics ('Entstaatlichung'). The examples of the Green Party, and of institutional openings and innovations on the local level show that the new social movements have not initiated wide-ranging political-institutional reforms, but have instead contributed to extensions of existing repertoires and additions to the existing institutional framework. Moreover, paradoxical effects can be identified. Thus, the citizenry's claims for democratization have led to the development of a defensive 'fortress mentality' among the political class, while the lacking responsiveness of the political institutions has strengthened political alienation and tendencies towards a spectator democracy. The positive interplay of protest and reform has thus come to a halt and the democratic potential of new social movements remains latent. Unfortunately, the neglect of the 'democratic question' in social movement research has contributed to this tendency. In the future, therefore, social movement researchers should seize the opportunity to offer an innovative contribution to a new round in the discussion on democratization and to the definition of the contours of a postliberal democracy.

Karl Werner Brand: New social movements: 'European' approaches, FJ NSB 1/98, pp.

In his contribution, Karl Werner Brand evaluates European research on new social movements (NSMs) - including the peace, anti-nuclear energy, ecology, Third World solidarity, self help, alternative and women's movements - of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. Brand starts with a brief discussion of the historical predecessors of social movement research, the marxist tradition and 'collective behaviour' (mass psychology, anomie, and relative deprivation) approaches. More than other strands of social movement research, the literature on NSMs has been inspired, or even shaped by these theoretical traditions. Subsequently, Brand focusses on the main theses of the NSM approach, which build on the idea of a crisis of modern societies, on the one hand, and Inglehart's theory of value change, on the other. This is illustrated by a discussion of central authors like Alain Touraine and Alberto Melucci. Finally, the author addresses the question as to the explanatory strengths and limits of the NSM approach. This approach has met with a number of serious criticisms, for instance regarding the unity of the new social movements (can the women's movement be unproblematically subsumed under this heading?), or the problem of empirically operationalizing the concept (how can the abstract, overarching phenomenon be emprically concretized and delimited?). Brand argues, however, that one of the the approach's important merits - and a reason for its continued relevance for international social movement research - lies in the fact that it has drawn attention to the societal 'role' of social movements as indicators of crises.

Myra Marx Ferree and Silke Roth: Collective identity and organizational culture - Theories on new social movements in an american perspective, FJ NSB 1/98, pp.

In their contribution on the American reception of the European NSM debate, Myra Marx Ferree and Silke Roth discuss the reactions and criticisms of American social movemet scholars to this approach. They conclude that the use made by American social movement research of concepts such as collective identity and crisis diagnosis has been primarily instrumental. At the same time, however, it is acknowledgded that the recent interest in, and influence of values, ideology, identity, frames, and culture among American social movement scholars can be traced to the influence of European social movement research. Nevertheless, American scholars have also brought forward important points of critique. Thus, the question has been raised whether 'new nocial movements' really constitute something 'new', which may be related to the fact that the USA never had the kind of 'old' labour movement that served as a point of contrast and reference in the European debate. In addition, marxist conceptual influences and the attempt to place the NSMs within a clear left/right frame of reference have met with skepticism due to the different political culture in the USA. Finally, the NSM approach has been accused of eurocentrism because it tends on the basis of Europe's particular socio-political history (e.g., the welfare state) to draw much more pronounced boundaries between social movements in highly industrialized countries and those in other countries than is the case in the USA. In conclusion, then, Ferree end Roth see from an American perspective- in spite of undeniable merits - a need for reform, if not paradigmatic change in European social movement research.

Towards a east-west german controversy on new social movement research, FJ NSB 1/98, pp.

The double package Pollack/Fehr has its origins in a controversy that was staged for the Political Science Meeting in Bamberg in the Fall of 1997. The discussion focusses on the assessment of the state of research on the citizens' movements of the former GDR. Both authors focus on the role of ideas for the identity and stability of these movements.

Detlef Pollack: How alternative were alternative groups in the GDR? Remarks on their relationship to socialism, democracy, and german union, FJ NSB 1/98, pp.

Detlef Pollack's contribution starts from the observation that the East German citizens' movements have emerged rather negatively from a series of critical investigations. These critiques are centered around the reproach that these movements - measured by the public image they presented - were by no means as antisystemic and oppositional as they wanted us to believe. Against this critique, Pollack argues that evaluations of the East German citizens' movements have often not given political opportunity structures, and the contraints on options these entail, the attention they deserve. Evaluations of the radicalness of the citizens' movements should take the political context much more into consideration in order to allow a more realistic assessment of the actual options and possibilities that were available to them. After all, ideas alone do not define what is possible: a full analysis should additionally include those conditions and constraints pointed at by the concept of political opportunity structures.