Stories of Change: Narrative and Social Movements

10. The Storied Group: Social Movements as “Bundles of Narratives”

TEN The Storied Group Social Movements as “Bundles of Narratives” GARY ALAN FINE One cannot predict when one’s claims will hit a nerve. This book represents a reflex to a casual, if insistent, tap. As a scholar whose work explored the areas of small groups (Fine 1979, 1982), folk narrative (Fine 1992), organizational culture (Fine 1984), and collective behavior (Rosnow and Fine 1976; Fine and Stoecker 1985), I had been interested in the intersection of these largely distinct scholarly realms. The invitation to present a paper to the Workshop of the American Sociological Association ’s Section on Social Movements and Collective Behavior in San Diego in June 1992 provided an opportunity to explore this intellectual nexus. Thinking about what a social psychologist interested in group culture could contribute to such a gathering, I chose to emphasize the reality that in most groups—and in social movements in particular—participants share accounts of their lives and activities within the movement organization. These discursive practices are shaped in light of the goals of the group and the characteristics of members (Boje 1991; Martin et al. 1983; Wilkins 1979). Stories, along with behaviors and material objects, come to characterize the group and constitute the group culture or “idioculture.” I argued that social movements consist of a “bundle of narratives” (Fine 1995: 128). Some scholars even claim that all forms of human communication are essentially “stories” (Fisher 1987: ix). Although it is surely true—as many of these preceding chapters demonstrate—that not all embedded talk is characterized by “emplotment,” many accounts of events are. Narrative is 229 often present explicitly or implicitly, detailed or telegraphed. Talk that is structured by sequence is effective for communication. All ideas have a “life cycle”; it was an unplanned, but welcomed, happenstance that this argument, emphasizing the centrality of group narratives , captured the interest of a set of social movement scholars who, given the concern with the effects of frames of meaning, were ready to incorporate this interest in group culture and narrative in their own projects .1 This argument proved to be well-timed with a sense that the decade of the 1990s represents “narrative’s moment” in the social sciences (Maines 1993). While I cannot claim any priority of innovation for any individual piece of the discussion, the combination proved fruitful, at least as evident in these analyses of social movements. With the publication of this volume, the approach that treats social movements as bundles of stories has entered a broader scholarly discourse . In this volume these ideas and claims are being refined, expanded, and challenged as the understanding of the role of discourse in collective action matures. In time the movement narrative perspective, just now beginning to yield fruit, will be defined as old-fashioned, with the most useful aspects incorporated into other, developing models. Understanding social movements through the stories of participants is not a totalistic attempt to explain all aspects of collective action: “group narrative” does not replace “frame analysis,” “resource mobilization,” “neo-institutionalism,” or “rational choice” as explanations, but stands beside them. Social movements do not consist only of waves of talk, as behavior, cognition, resources, and responses of others matter, but narrative is central to group identity. Talk helps people process the material conditions of their existence and comprehend their place within the social order by creating verbal representations of society (Maynard and Whalen 1995; Goffman 1981). Without shared and communicated culture, sustained collective action is impossible . Discourse shapes identity and action. In emphasizing the power of narrative, I do not deny the reality of organizations or their obdurate, consequential character. One can say whatever one wishes, but consequences exist for these actions, as groups fighting against powerful opponents can attest. As Tom Lehrer once sarcastically sang about the defeat of the Loyalists in the Spanish Civil War: “They won all the battles, but we had all the good songs” (see Eyerman and Jamison 1998). In the short run, bullets have an obdurate character that ballads lack, even if over time, ballads can sometimes tip the balance in sedimented historical memory. As neo-institutionists recognize (Powell 230 FINE and DiMaggio 1991), group structures emerge from interaction, while simultaneously and recursively action is embedded in these social structures . The structure channels the discourse that is seen as appropriate, just as discourse sets the terms for the creation and alteration of structure (Sewell 1992). In this concluding chapter I...