Frame theory is often credited with "bringing ideas back in" social movement studies, but frames are not the only useful ideational concepts. The older, more politicized concept of ideology needs to be used in its own right and not recast as a frame. Frame theory is rooted in linguistic studies of interaction, and points to the way shared assumptions and meanings shape the interpretation of events. Ideology is rooted in politics and the study of politics, and points to coherent systems of ideas which provide theories of society coupled with value commitments and normative implications for promoting or resisting social change. Ideologies can function as frames, they can embrace frames, but there is more to ideology than framing. Frame theory offers a relatively shallow conception of the transmission of political ideas as marketing and resonating, while a recognition of the complexity and depth of ideology points to the social construction processes of thinking, reasoning, educating, and socializing. Social movements can only be understood by linking social psychological and political sociology concepts and traditions, not by trying to rename one group in the language of the other.

This report builds upon the dynamics of contention approach to political mobilization by tracing the development of a type of contentious episode common to repressive states, here identified as resistant contention. This form of claim making targets the state but is distinct from the fully public and trangressive challenges against the state that are the focus of the dynamics of contention approach. This report traces how episodes of resistant contention track through two key processes-actor constitution and scale shift-as well as many mechanisms that combine in more public contention. Examples from Eastern Europe, Latin America, the Soviet Caucasus, and Spain are reviewed to trace, first, patterns of contentious speech; namely, "small" claim making and grievance articulation under conditions of risk. I argue that contentious political talk is fundamental to the process of actor constitution in repressive states. Then I trace how contentious speech is patterned in the form of intellectual circles, cultural groups, dissident groups, and official groups and organizations, many of which function publicly but also privately and contentiously. These boundary-spanning groups are the loci of innovation and identity formation in resistant episodes. Scale shift dynamically occurs with the process of actor constitution, typically taking the form of hit-and-run protests, graffiti, clandestine placements, and event seizures. The final stage in resistant contention is the emergence of symbolic mobilizations, which are clearly public and transgressive.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract