Geography and Social Movements: Comparing Anti-Nuclear Activism in the Boston Area (review)

Geography and Social Movements: Comparing Anti-Nuclear Activism in the Boston Area. By Byron A. Miller. University of Minnesota Press, 2000. 215 pp. Paper, $21.95.

For quite some time American sociologists have drawn on geographic insights in subfields as diverse as demography, organizational ecology, urban ecology, economic sociology, environmental sociology, and international development. However the study of social movements, argues Byron A. Miller, lacks an explicitly geographic focus and would benefit from geographic insights as well. Drawing on geographically informed social theorists such as Castells, Harvey, Giddens, and especially Lefebvre, Byron A. Miller argues for more geographically sensitive accounts of social movements.

After convincingly arguing in chapter 1 (with Deborah G. Martin) that most social movement scholarship is aspatial, Miller provides us with exemplary literature reviews of social movement theories from a geographically informed perspective in chapter 2. The author synthesizes elements of resource mobilization, political process, and new social movement theories, infuses them with the geographical imagination, and proposes a geographic model of social movements. The model draws on Lefebvre to reconceptualize Habermas's abstract theory of social movements into more concrete terms.

In chapters 3 to 6, Miller presents empirical chapters on the arms race-focused branch of antinuclear activism in three Boston suburbs during the 1980s: Lexington, Waltham, and Cambridge. In particular, four social movement organizations are analyzed: Lexington Committee for a Nuclear Weapons Freeze, Waltham Concerned Citizens, Cambridge SANE/Freeze, and Boston Mobilization for Survival (Cambridge members). Miller applies his geographic perspective to explain variations in the organization, mobilization, strategies, and impacts of antinuclear activity in the Boston area. In addition to secondary sources, the author draws on archival records, survey data, and in-depth interviewing of movement participants.

The three central orienting concepts of the study are space, place, and scale. Miller attempts to demonstrate how social movement processes are constituted through space, place, and scale, and how that affects how they interact, articulate, and play out. Space is used in the Habermasian sense of material space (system) and symbolic space (lifeworld). Place refers to how discrete settings influence social activity and thought. Scale refers to both different levels (from local to global) and to how social processes are represented as being a function of a given level. In his analysis, Miller shows how these concepts both influence and shed light on social movement dynamics.

With regard to space, Miller maintains that a fundamental problem for social movements is the disjuncture between the geographies of system and lifeworld spaces. In Cambridge, for example, the nuclear freeze movement did not adequately consider material relations, thus the campaign to pass a binding referendum to stop all nuclear weapon-related activity was defeated by a coalition of defense industry actors. With regard to place, for example, the author illustrates how the framing of peace issues was more diverse in working-class Waltham, taking up issues with a broad working-class appeal such as housing. By contrast, in upper-middle class Lexington, the framing of issues was based in symbolic lifeworld terms, with less consideration of material relations. With regard to scale, for example, the author rightly claims that the overwhelming focus of research on political opportunities has been on the national scale, with relatively little consideration of local, state, or international opportunities. Miller illustrates how local political opportunities varied across the three cities, ranging from most favorable in Cambridge to unfavorable in Waltham. Moreover, Miller indicates how scale variations in political opportunities may lead movements to 'jump scales', whereby their focus is shifted from one level to another (e.g., from national to local).

While not a criticism of Miller, who defines space, place, and scale, and uses them consistently throughout his study, there are potential problems with the collective use of these concepts given their diverse use and meaning. In fact, Miller points to these problems stating, "A definitive contemporary definition of 'space' is virtually impossible." The same...