Social Movements: The Structure of Collective Action by Paul Almeida (review)

Social scientists—mainly sociologists—have produced a vast literature on social movements over the past five decades. Several handbooks and encyclopedias have appeared in recent years which attempt to distill this research. And several sociologists—including Buechler, Jasper, Snow and Soule, and Staggenborg—have written primers that are meant to introduce wider audiences to the social movements field. Paul Almeida's fine new book is an important contribution to this genre. Advanced undergraduates, graduate students, general readers, and scholars who want to know more about social movement research will learn a lot from this helpful and concise introduction.

Before outlining the various methods and theoretical frameworks social scientists have used to study social movements, Almeida presents an interesting typology of "social movement activity," which ranges from the micro- to more macro-levels: (1) everyday forms of resistance, (2) local grassroots movements, (3) national social movements, (4) waves of protest involving multiple movements, (5) revolutionary movements, and (6) transnational social movements. While Almeida suggests that all of these forms of contentious politics are important, his book focuses mainly on national and transnational movements. He says fairly little about everyday forms of resistance, for example, and does not attempt to review the fairly extensive literature on revolutions. So this book really is—as advertised—an introduction to social movements, not to contentious politics more generally. Some might see this as a weakness, but the relatively tight focus of the book is also a strength.

After reviewing the main general theoretical perspectives on movements (chapter 3)—mainly political process theory—Almeida discusses the literature on the emergence of social movements (chapter 4), framing processes (5), recruitment and participation (6), movement outcomes (7), and movements in the Global South, mainly movements in authoritarian political settings (8). Each of these chapters provides a helpful 20 to 25-page summary and/or synthesis of the extant literature. Most of the chapters end with a short list of recommended readings for those who wish to dig deeper into the literature.

There are some unexpected delights in this book. One highlight is Almeida's discussion of the framing work done by popular music and songs. Another is a smart little section on the "Fight for $15" minimum-wage campaign of 2016–17. And still another is Almeida's discussion of movements against neoliberalism in the Global South, which draws on his own research. The book is well written and should be accessible to most readers new to the social movements field; Almeida is adept at explaining the sometimes confusing jargon that pervades the academic literature on movements. An added bonus is the book's extensive bibliography, which runs over 30 pages.

While Almeida's is a thoroughly useful and informative book, one can quibble here and there. I was disappointed, for example, that Almeida did not say more about the emotional dimensions of movements—including what Jasper calls the "affective and moral commitments" of protesters—about which there is now considerable research. Almeida devotes just one long paragraph to this topic. Surprisingly, Almeida also skips over the contentious politics or dynamics of contention (DOC) perspective on movements and contentious politics more broadly; this perspective grew out of, but is also critical of, political process theory, for which Almeida has only praise. Almeida is also rather uncritical of framing theory, failing to note any of the major criticisms of this perspective, including those leveled in Robert Benford's important "insider's critique" (Benford 1997).

Primers of the type Almeida has written, however useful they may be, necessarily reproduce the problems and limitations of the academic fields they are summarizing. I suspect anyone who has followed social movement studies for almost any length of time will have disagreements and frustrations with this field, or at least with its mainstream. My own consternation with social movement studies has to do with its strange neglect of political economy and class relations. Most movement scholars seem to regard the capitalist nature of modernity as...