Identity

The characteristics of various movements were different, and so was political and cultural context in which they developed. They all appear representative, in their own ways, of the relationship between collective and individual experience in social movements. In particular they tell us about the intersection of collective involvement and personal engagement which characterizes so much collective action (Melucci 1989). On the one hand, these stories are about personal change: they testify to the new sense of empowerment, and to the strengthening of the self, which originate from collective action. On the other hand, these stories are about the continuity in one’s life that a sense of collective belonging provides. Identity means not an autonomous object, nor to a property of social actors; we mean, rather, the process by which social actors recognize themselves- and are recognized by other actors – as part of broader groupings, and develop emotional attachments to them (Melucci 1989). These “groupings” need not be defined in reference to specific social traits such as class, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or the like, nor in reference to specific organizations. Collective identities may also based on shared orientations, values, attitudes, world views and lifestyles, as well as on shared experiences of action (e.g., individuals may feel close to people holding similar post materialist views, or similarly approving of direct action, without expressing any strong sense of class, ethnic, or gender proximity). At times, identities may be exclusive, and rule out other possible forms of identification (as in the case of religious sect expressing a wholesale rejection of the mundane world). Other times, they may be inclusive and multiple, as individuals may feel close to several types of collectivities at the same time.

How does identity work?

Identity construction should not be regarded simply as a precondition for collective action. It is certainly true that social actors’ identities in a given period guide their subsequent conduct. Action occurs, in fact, when actors develop the ability define themselves, other social actors, and the “enjeu” (stake) of their mutual relationship (Touraine 1981). At the same time, however identity is not an immutable characteristic, preexisting action. On the contrary, it is through act that certain feelings of belonging come to be either reinforced or weakened. In other words, the evolution of collective action produces and encourages continuous redefinition of identity (Johnston 1995). Collective action cannot occur in the absence of a “we” characterized by common traits and a specific solidarity. Equally indispensable is the identification of the “other” defined as responsible for the actor’s condition and against which the mobilization is called (Gamson 1992). The construction of identity therefore implies both a positive definition of those participating in a certain group, and a negative identification of those who are not only excluded but actively opposed (Touraine 1981). It also includes relationship with those who find themselves in a natural position. It is with reference to “protagonists, antagonists, and audiences” (Reger, Myers and Ejnwohner 2008) that movement identities are formed and come to life.

The presence of feelings of identity and of collective solidarity makes it easier to face the risks and uncertainties relative to collective action. In the case of workers’ movement, close proximity of workplaces and living spaces facilitated the activation and the reproduction of solidarity. Socialist subcultures constructed “areas of equalities” where participants recognized themselves as equal, and felt they belonged in a common destiny. Collective actors are now less likely than in the past to identify themselves in reference to locality. Collective identity is less dependent on direct, face-to-face interactions which develop in the local community and everyday spaces. Phenomena of this type had already signaled the shift from pre-modernity to modernity, and the emergence of public opinion integrated via the printed word. But they have undergone a further acceleration with the expansion of the media system and the electronic revolution. Collective identity connects and assigns some common meaning to experiences of collective action dislocated over time and space. At times this takes the form of linking together events associated with a specific struggle in order to show the continuity of the effort behind the current instances of collective action. The issue of continuity over time is also important because social movements characteristically alternate between “visible” and “latent” phases (Melucci 1989). In the former, the public dimension of action prevails, in the forms of demonstrations, public initiatives, media interventions and, so on, with high levels of cooperation and interaction among the various mobilized actors. In the latter action within the organizations and cultural production dominate. Contacts between organizations and militant groups are, on the whole, limited to inter personal, informal relationships, or to inter organizational relationships which do not generally produce the capacity for mass mobilization. In these cases, collective solidarity and the sense of belonging to a cause are not as obvious as they are in periods of intense mobilization. Identity is nurtured by the hidden actions of a limited numbers of actors. And it is precisely the ability of these small groups to produce certain representations and models of solidarity over time which creates the conditions for the revival of collective action and allows those concerned to trace the origins of new waves of public action to preceding mobilizations (Melucci 1989).