Social Movements and (All Sorts of) Other Political Interactions -- Local, National, and International Including Identities: Several Divagations from a Common Path, Beginning with British Struggles over Catholic Emancipation, 1780-1829, and Ending with Contemporary Nationalism

Charles Tilly

Center for Studies of Social Change

January, 1995

Catholic Citizens and Social Movements

In May 1828 the United Kingdom's House of Commons voted by a narrow margin to consider dissolution of 14-year-old legal barriers against Catholics' participation in national politics. On 10 June, however, the House of Lords blocked any such move by a majority of 48. Four days later, the British Catholic Association therefore met in London's Freemasons Tavern to discuss strategy. Debate turned to whether Catholics, like the Protestant Dissenters who had in April seen their own interdiction from national politics removed, should offer collective securities for good behavior. Mr. Therry rose to oppose any such proposal:

It has been asked what securities should we offer to Government? My answer is --our attachment to that Constitution -- our love of country -- a contribution of a portion of the fruits of our industry to the State -- the employment of whatever wisdom and talents we may possess, and even the shedding of our blood, as before it has been shed, for the service of the State [applause] (Morning Chronicle 16 June 1828, p.2)

In the view vigorously applauded by Therry's auditors, British Catholics were already fulfilling the obligations of good citizens, including military service under the British flag, yet were being denied the privileges good citizens deserved. The long war with France, now thirteen years past, had proven Catholics to be reliable supporters of the nation's causes. Yet arbitrary religious distinctions continued to deny them their rights. Their call for Catholic Emancipation (as they called it) insisted not on their special character as Roman Catholics but on their general character as citizens.

Members of the Catholic Association and their allies were demanding rights of citizenship by means of strategies that later generations came to recognize as social-movement politics. In 1828, however, the forms of action we know as social movements were still contested political novelties. This paper draws on current ideas concerning social movements first to examine what happened in the struggle for Catholic Emancipation, then to think out loud about analogies between social movements and other political processes at an international scale, especially assertions of nationalism. Hence the paper's self-flagellating title.

The study of social movements has passed through three main phases since the 1960s (Cohen 1985, Giugni & Knesi 1990, Jenkins 1983, Mayer 1991, McAdam, McCarthy & Zald 1988, McPhail 1991, Morris & Herring 1987, Rule 1988). As social-movement activity rose in Western Europe and North America during that decade, analysts drew at first on two venerable theoretical traditions: 1) treatments of collective behavior as uninstitutionalized action driven by mass psychology, which had acquired a psychoanalytic edge in analyses of fascism, 2) natural-history conceptions of social movements modeled especially on the history of organized labor, but extended to other emancipatory movements such as suffrage and feminism. Neither one proved adequate, logically or ideologically, for dealing with civil rights activism, student protests, and other new forms of contention -- the more so because so many specialists came to the subject as sympathizers, advocates, or direct participants in the struggles they were interpreting, with a consequent investment in defending the new challengers against widespread accusations of impulsiveness, self-indulgence, and incoherence. Out of that ferment emerged overlapping perspectives known variously as political-process, rational-action, and resource-mobilization models of collective action and/or social movements. Differing considerably from one another, they nevertheless converged on the imputation of coherent understandings and intentions to social-movement actors as well as on the grounding of their action in durable social organization and interests.

In addition to their mutual criticism, these new orthodoxies eventually generated dissent from several quarters, notably from interpreters of so-called New Social Movements, recent mobilizations oriented to environment, peace, sexual preference, communitarianism, and related issues. Critics complained variously that the stress on social organization, interests, resources, and strategic action

exaggerated the instrumental character of these social movements (or perhaps of all social movements) while underestimating the importance of self-expression and collective experience
underestimated the contingency, plasticity, and willful self-transformation of the identities deployed in social movements (or at least in new social movements)
assumed that all movements sought power within existing polities rather than alterations in social and political life as a whole, and
missed the significance of shared beliefs in social-movement activity

Collapse of socialist regimes in Eastern Europe heightened the controversy, as many critics of state socialism and advocates of democracy came to argue that social movements in the newer style could help constitute civil society and thereby forward democratic transformation.

The burgeoning of nationalisms, ethnicities, and religiously-defined political differences in the ruins of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union reinforced analysts' concern about identity and belief in social movements and related phenomena. The spread of postmodern skepticism likewise led many students of collective struggle to treat it as a social construction, a set of expressive acts with dubious grounding in interests and social structure. Even short of postmodern epistemological despair, followers of the linguistic turn stepped up their interest in the discursive side of collective action: frames, narratives, and story-telling reconstructions of events.

Responding to these challenges, realists among students of social movements took the beliefs, identities, and symbolic work involved much more seriously than they or their predecessors had in the heyday of rational-choice, resource-mobilization, and political-process models. At the same time, realists invested a great deal of energy in examining how the characteristics and trajectories of social movements vary as a function of the political opportunity structures in which they operate -- establishing, for example, differences between the forms taken by movement organizations in relatively centralized polities such as the Netherlands or France and relatively segmented polities such as Switzerland (Giugni & Passy 1993, Knesi 1993). Although no single view has emerged unquestioned from all this exploration, on the whole social-movement analysts have ended up thinking that movements depend intimately on the social networks in which their participants are already embedded, that the identities deployed in collective contention are contingent but crucial, that movements operate within frames set by a historical accumulation of shared understandings, that political opportunity structure significantly constrains the histories of individual social movements, but that movement struggles and outcomes also transform political opportunity structures (Boggs 1986, Duyvendak 1994, Eyerman & Jamison 1991, Kitschelt 1993, Melucci 1992, Oberschall 1993, Ohlemacher 1993).

Imperceptibly but powerfully, the same reorientations have moved many social-movement analysts from an individualistic toward an interactional view of their subject. Three brands of individualism long prevailed in social-movement studies: methodological individualism, with its imputations of interests and resources to one unitary actor (collective or individual) at a time; phenomenological individualism, with its effort to penetrate the consciousness of each actor (again collective or individual, but presumed unitary); groupist individualism, a deliberate oxymoron designating the presumption that social movements as such are unitary actors possessing standard orientations, behaviors, and life histories. In place of any individualism, social-movement analysts have made a net shift toward an interactional way of thinking we might summarize in the following concepts:

actor: any set of living bodies (including a single individual) to which human observers attribute coherent consciousness and intention

category: a set of actors distinguished by a single criterion, simple or complex

transaction: a bounded communication between one actor and another

tie: a continuing series of transactions to which participants attach shared understandings, memories, forecasts, rights, and obligations

role: a bundle of ties attached to a single actor

network: a more or less homogeneous set of ties among three or more actors

group: coincidence of a category and a network

organization: group in which at least one actor has the right to speak authoritatively for the whole

identity: an actor's experience of a category, tie, role, network, group, or organization, coupled with a public representation of that experience; the public representation often takes the form of a shared story, a narrative

The shift in orientation leads to an understanding of social movements as strongly-patterned transactions within interlocking networks. The networks always include actors, ties, and identities, often include roles, groups, and organizations, but never sum up to a single solidary group. Analysts adopting this view, to the consternation of all three varieties of individualist, identity social movements by looking for claim-making interactions between challengers and powerholders. Such a view is yielding important returns for the study of all sorts of social movements.

Only timidly, however, have the same analysts sought analogies and connections between social movements stricto sensu and other political processes likewise involving contingent identities, historically-constructed frames of shared understanding, and variable political opportunity structure -- phenomena such as nationalism, revolution, ethnic conflict, and creation of transnational institutions. Because it straddles national and international contexts, study of struggles over religious inclusion and exclusion with respect to citizenship opens a bridge to preliminary analysis of important analogies and connections.

In Great Britain (England, Wales, Scotland), in Ireland, and elsewhere, the histories of religious exclusions from political rights and of general their dissolution during the 19th century illustrate four points of great importance for political analysis in general.

First, those histories reveal powerful analogies between the processes driving social movements within national polities and a range of other processes, both "national" and "international", to which analysts of social movements have paid little attention; they therefore rectify common conceptions of social movements as sui generis.

Second, the identities people deploy in political claim-making (including identities of religious affiliation, nationality, and citizenship) consist of contingent relationships with other people rather than inbuilt personal traits; they therefore alter as political networks, opportunities, and strategies shift.

Third, the histories show us incessant interaction between political processes observers commonly distinguish as "domestic" and "international", processes analysts frequently conceive of as quite independent one from the other.

Fourth, once we shift from conventional individualistic conceptions to transactional analyses of political processes these three points become almost self-evident.

The history of Catholic exclusion and inclusion in the 18th and 19th century British polity provides dramatic evidence for all four points. The final success of Catholic Emancipation in 1829 resulted largely from the dynamics of a social movement, indeed from one of the first social movements ever to form anywhere at a national scale. The political processes observable in that movement for Catholic Emancipation we can also see operating today in the play of identities, mobilizations, political opportunities, and collective contention at local, national, and international levels; although social movements occupy distinctive niches within national polities, they also share properties with revolutions, nationalisms, ethnoreligious struggles, and a variety of other processes involving collective claim-making. Like many other divisions within national polities, the ostensibly domestic issue of Catholic Emancipation intersected over and over with Britain's international relations, including questions of war and peace. Recognition of the identities, claims, and settlements involved in the struggle over Emancipation as transactions rather than expressions of individual proclivities greatly clarifies how they worked.

Catholic Emancipation alone cannot, of course, establish four enormous principles. But a clearly-focused case in point will clarify what is at issue, as well as how the issues connect. Let us wander for a while among relevant British experience, reflections on social movements as distinctive political phenomena, and general discussions of interactions and analogies between national-level social movements and political processes at other scales.

Religion and Citizenship in Great Britain

Ties between religious identity and political privilege have fluctuated enormously over the long run of European history. During the last millennium, Europe has seen everything from the Ottoman empire's ready (if unequal) absorption of Christians and Jews to the Nazis' programmed annihilation of those Jews they could track down. Broadly speaking, political exclusion on the basis of religious identity increased with widespread persecution of Muslims, Jews, and Christian heretics during the 15th century, reached the state of war through much of Central and Western Europe during the 16th century, stabilized in the same regions from 1648 to 1789 with the Westphalian doctrine of cujus regio ejus religio, then receded irregularly from the French Revolution onward through much of the continent. Although religious prejudice and unofficial discrimination have persisted, sometimes even flourished as in 19th century pogroms and the Dreyfus Case, categorical exclusions from political rights such as those practiced by fascists became rare by the 20th century. Until recently, at least; whether the sharpening of state-identified religious divisions in the former Soviet Union, in disintegrated Yugoslavia, and potentially in France constitutes a reversal or a momentary aberration remains to be seen.

In Great Britain, the political program that eventually won the name Catholic Emancipation originated in wars, both civil and international. The struggles of 1688-89 toppled Roman Catholic James II from the British throne, established Protestant William of Orange as king, and restored a Protestant ruling class in colonized Ireland. The Glorious Revolution of 1689 barred Catholics from public office, capping their exclusion with an officeholder's oath that denied tenets of the Catholic religion and (in the case of MPs) explicitly rejected the pope's authority: elsewhere in Europe, but barred from British military service by the required anti-Catholic oath.

Militarily-inspired exemptions of Catholic soldiers from oathtaking during the later 1770s raised strident objections among defenders of Anglican supremacy. The exemptions directly incited formation of a nationwide Protestant Association to petition, agitate, and resist. Scottish Member of Parliament Lord George Gordon, whose vociferous opposition to Catholic claims made him head of the Association in 1780, led an anti-Catholic campaign that concentrated on meetings and parliamentary petitions, but during June 1780 ramified into attacks on Catholic persons and (especially) property in London. A full 275 people died during those bloody struggles, chiefly at the hands of troops who were retaking control over London's streets. Among Britain's ruling classes, those so-called Gordon Riots gave popular anti-Catholicism an aura of violent unreason. By negation, advocacy of Catholics' political rights acquired the cachet of enlightenment.

From that time onward an important fusion occurred. Catholic Emancipation became a standard (although by no means universal) demand of reformers and radicals who campaigned for parliamentary reform. By "reform" its advocates generally meant something like elimination of parliamentary seats controlled by patrons, more uniform qualifications for voting across the country, enlargement of the electorate, and frequent parliamentary elections. (Demands for universal suffrage, for manhood suffrage, or even for equal individual-by-individual representation among the pr6pertied rarely gained much of a following before well into the 19th century.) Catholic Emancipation dovetailed neatly with such proposals, since it likewise called for granting a more equal and effective voice in public affairs to currently-excluded people.

Both parliamentary reform and Catholic Emancipation surged, then collapsed as national political issues in Great Britain several times between the 1780s and the 1820s. But Emancipation became more urgent during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars, when William Pitt the Younger sought to still the Irish revolutionary movement that was undermining the British state's titanic war effort against France. Pitt helped create a (dubiously) United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801, which meant dissolving the separate Irish parliament and incorporating 100 Irish Protestant members into what had been Britain's parliament. In the process, Pitt half-promised major political concessions to Catholics. King George III's hostility to compromising the Anglican establishment (and thereby a crown that was already suffering from the war-driven rise of parliamentary power) made that commitment impossible to keep. Pitt's consequent resignation by no means stifled Catholic demands. On the contrary, from 1801 to 1829 Catholic Emancipation remained one of the United Kingdom's thorniest political issues The 1807 wartime resignation of the coalition "Ministry of All the Talents", for example, pivoted on the king's refusal to endorse admission of Catholics to high military ranks.

Much more than a king's attachment to Anglican privilege, however, made the issue contentious. Anti-Catholicism continued to enjoy wide popular appeal in Great Britain, the more so as Irish immigration (responding to industrial expansion in Britain and consequent industrial contraction in Ireland) accelerated. On the other side, Irish Catholic elites resisted the even greater separation from great decisions affecting their island's fate that had resulted from the transfer of the old Dublin parliament's powers -- however Protestant it had been -- to an English-dominated parliament in distant Westminster. Repeatedly during the 1820s two movements coincided: an increasingly popular campaign for Catholic political rights led by lawyers, priests, and other elites in Ireland, a coalition of radicals, reformers, and organized Catholics in support of Emancipation within Great Britain. Eventually a countermovement of Protestant resistance to Catholic claims mobilized as well.

Catholic Emancipation as a Social Movement

The interweaving movements reached their denouement in 1829. During the previous six years Irish Catholic barrister Daniel O'Connell and his allies had organized successive versions of a mass-membership Catholic Association in Ireland, with some following in Great Britain. They perfected a form of organization (drawn initially and ironically from Methodist models) with which radicals and reformers had experimented during the great mobilizations of 1816 to 1819. The Association collected a monthly penny -- the "Catholic rent" -- from thousands of peasants and workers. With the proceeds it conducted an incessant, effective campaign of propaganda, coalition-formation, lobbying, and public claim-making. Each time the British government outlawed their Association, O'Connell and friends fashioned a slightly reorganized (and renamed) successor to replace it.

Efforts by Protestant supporters of Emancipation to get a bill through parliament failed in 1812, repeatedly from 1816 to 1822, and again in 1825. But in 1828 a related campaign to expand political rights of Protestant Dissenters (e.g. Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians) by repealing the 17th century Test and Corporation Acts gained parliamentary and royal assent. Although it had the effect of removing important allies from the same side of the barrier, on balance such an opening made the moment auspicious for Catholic Emancipation. The regime that had defended Anglican supremacy by excluding non-Anglicans from office in principle (despite frequent exceptions in practice for Dissenters) lost some of its rationale for excluding Catholics.

The House of Lords and the king presented larger obstacles than the Commons, which by the 1820s had on the whole reconciled itself to some expansion of Catholic rights. The Lords included, of course, not only peers of the realm but also bishops of the Anglican church, most of whom would not lightly sacrifice their organization's privileged political position. At their coronations, furthermore, British monarchs swore to defend Anglican primacy; in 1828, king George IV still feared that to approve Catholic Emancipation would violate his coronation oath. When the House of Lords again forestalled Emancipation in 1828, both Irish organizers and their British allies redoubled the Emancipation campaign, not only expanding the Catholic Association but also staging massive meetings, marches, and petition drives. The technically illegal election of Catholic O'Connell to parliament from a seat in County Clare during the fall of 1828 directly challenged national authorities, especially when O'Connell proposed to take his place in Westminster at the new parliament's opening early in 1829.

This formidable mobilization, in turn, stimulated a large counter-mobilization by defenders of the Protestant Constitution, as they called it. In Great Britain and to a lesser extent in Ireland itself they organized Brunswick Clubs to produce meetings, marches, petitions, propaganda, and solidarity on behalf of the royal house of Brunswick. That the Commons, the Lords, and the king finally conceded major political rights -- although far from perfect equality -- to Catholics during the spring of 1829 resulted from an otherwise unresolvable crisis in both Ireland and Great Britain. It by no means represented a general conversion of Britons to religious toleration. Jews, for example, did not receive similar concessions until 1858. Nor did unofficial discrimination against Jews or Irish Catholics ever disappear from British life. We are speaking here of legal exclusion from political rights on the basis of religious identity.

British authorities played a double game, dealing with a predominantly anti-Catholic political mobilization in Great Britain and a massive, near-insurrectionary pro-Catholic mobilization in Ireland. A catalog of "contentious gatherings" (CGs: occasions on which ten or more people assembled publicly and somehow made collective claims) reported in one or more of seven British periodicals during March 1829 provides evidence on the British side although, alas, it does not tell us the comparable story for Ireland (Tilly 1993, 1995a). During that turbulent month, the Commons finally passed its Emancipation bills and sent them on to the Lords. Altogether the month's catalog yields 153 CGs explicitly centering on support for or opposition to Catholic rights, plus another half-dozen in which public responses to officials clearly resulted from the positions they had taken on Catholic Emancipation. (Because many reports come from parliamentary debates in which MPs reporting petition meetings took pains to mention places but neglected dates, some events in the March catalog surely happened in February, but they just as certainly belonged to the same wave of mobilization.)

A selection of about a tenth of all events from the month's catalog imparts its contentious flavor:

London: The minister and congregation of Crown Street Chapel assembled to sign a petition declaring, among other things, that "the engine of Romanism, with all its machinery, is still preserved entire, and ready to be brought into action as soon as opportunity and policy shall concur to set it in motion, and should the barriers of our happy Constitution, which now restrain its operation, be once removed, its influence would gradually increase, and from the nature of the very principle it imbibes and inculcates, its overbearing progress must terminate in the complete subjugation of Protestant liberties .. . "(Votes and Proceedings of Parliament, 2 March 1829, pp.336-337).

Arbroath, Dundee: The burgh's dean, guild, councillors, and brethren resolved that "all political disabilities, on account of religious opinions, are impolitic, unjust, and contrary to the spirit of Christianity" (Mirror of Parliament 3 March 1829, p.349).

Coventry: A public meeting issued an anti-Catholic petition signed by 3915 persons, which generated a pro-Catholic counter-petition signed by 905 others (Hansards 3 March 1829, p. 699).

Glasgow: After one group sent a large anti-Catholic petition to parliament, another set out a pro-Catholic petition for signing. A man stood at the premises' door "calling out to the people not to sign in favour of the Roman Catholics," a crowd gathered to hoot at all signers and knocked down one of them, police dispersed the crowd but arrested the victim rather than the perpetrator. For two more days crowds assembled and attacked people who came to sign the petition (Mirror of Parliament 6 March 1829, p.445).

Rothsay: After speeches emphasizing the Catholic threat, a meeting in Mr. M'Bryde's chapel dispersed, "some of the most unruly of them, thinking they would best show their admiration of the opinions of their pastor by a persecution of Catholics, proceeded to the house of the only Irishman in the place (a poor itinerant dealer in earthenware) and demolished every article on his premises" (Times 10 March 1829, p.4).

London: "A gang of pickpockets assembled yesterday evening in front of the entrance to the House of Lords, and shouted 'No Popery' as the Peers were retiring. Several gentlemen felt the effects of accidental contact with these light-fingered gentry as they passed through the avenues, which were occupied for nearly an hour by these miscreants" (Times 10 March 1829, p.3).

Cranbrook: In reaction to an anti-Catholic petition signed by "the lowest descriptions of persons, and of boys", "the Dissenters and other friends of civil and religious liberty" held a public meeting to support Catholic rights (Mirror of Parliament 12 March 1829, p.535).

Rye: Through his brother (the mayor) the borough's patron (an Anglican clergyman) called a meeting to launch an anti-Catholic petition, but "although the whole body of the select (members of the corporation) ranged themselves under the orders of their chief, and, although several paupers were also pressed into the service, the motion for a petition was lost by a majority against it of four to one" (Times 12 March 1829, p.3).

Inverness: A number of "boys and disorderly lads" burned an effigy representing Popery, paraded through town hoisting another effigy, then broke doors and windows at both the Catholic chapel and the police office (Times 17 March 1829, p.3).

Edinburgh: At a public meeting called in reaction to a pro-Catholic assembly, the provost and inhabitants started an anti-Catholic petition that eventually acquired 13,000 signatures (Times, 19 March 1829, p.1).

Bothwell: The local minister ran a meeting in which he threatened hellfire for those who refused to sign a petition against concessions to Catholics (Times 19 March 1829, p.1314).

London: After the Commons' second-reading debate on Emancipation, supporters unhitched the horses from the hackney-coach into which Daniel O'Connell had retreated and attempted to draw him in triumph, but he forced his way out, and walked to his lodgings in the midst of thousands "shouting all the way 'Huzza for O'Connell, the man of the people, the champion of religious liberty;' 'George the Fourth for ever;' 'The Duke of Wellington, and long life to him;' 'Mr. Peel and the Parliament"' (Times 19 March 1829, p.4).

London: Two days later, several hundred people surrounded the duke of Wellington as he left the House of Lords, "and assailed him with the most opprobrious epithets, and every sort of discordant yelling" (Times 21 March 1829, p.2).

East Looe: Free burgesses and inhabitants held a meeting to oppose any further concessions to Roman Catholics, initiating a petition eventually signed "by every person in the place" (Mirror of Parliament 24 March 1829, p.790).

Chesterfield: An Anti-Catholic public meeting resulted in a petition signed by 4000 people, which stimulated a counter-petition signed by 500 supporters of Catholic claims, "amongst whom were the whole of the magistrates resident in the district" (Hansards 25 March 1829, pp.1444-1445).

Pembroke: a county meeting concerning Emancipation divided sharply, with the Earl of Cawdor defending the measure and an Anglican clergyman exhorting the crowd against Catholics; after the county sheriff broke up the meeting, participants "broke the windows of those who were known to be favourable to the Catholics, and threw fire into the house of one person" (Morning Chronicle 31 March 1829, p.1)

Although such actions as effigy-burning and unhitching a hero's carriage to draw it through the streets conformed to well-established 18th century antecedents, on the whole these events followed the newly-emerging logic of social movements. Meanwhile, priests and patriots connected by the Catholic Association were organizing similar social-movement actions -'- but overwhelmingly on behalf of Emancipation -- through much of Ireland.

what Is A Social Movement?

A social movement is a kind of campaign, parallel in many respects to an electoral campaign. This sort of campaign, however, demands righting of a wrong, most often a wrong suffered by a well-specified population. The population in question can range from a single individual to all humans, or even all living creatures. Whereas an electoral campaign pays off chiefly in the votes that finally result from it, a social movement pays off in the effective transmission of the message that its program's supporters are 1) worthy, 2) unified, 3) numerous, and 4) committed. The elements compensate one another to some degree, for example with a high value on worthiness ("respectability" in the language of 1829) making up for small numbers. Yet a visibly low value on any one of them (a public demonstration of unworthiness, division, small numbers, and/or defection) discredits the whole movement.

Seen as means-end action, such a campaign has a peculiar diffuseness; as compared with striking, voting, smashing the loom of a non-striking weaver, or running a miscreant out of town, its actions remain essentially symbolic, cumulative, and indirect, with almost no hope that any single event will achieve its stated objective of ending an injustice or persuading authorities to enact a needed law. Social-movement mobilization gains its strength from an implicit threat to act in adjacent arenas: to withdraw support from public authorities, to provide sustenance to a regime's enemies, to move toward direct action or even rebellion. Skilled social movement organizers draw tacitly on such threats to bargain with the objects of their demands.

Social movements take place as conversations: not as solo performances but as interactions among parties. The most elementary set of parties consists of a claim-making actor, an object of the actor's claims, and an audience having a stake in the fate of at least one of them. But allies, competitors, enemies, authorities, and multiple audiences also frequently play parts in movement interactions. Therein lies the complexity of social movement organizing, not to mention of responses by authorities and objects of claims; third parties always complicate the interaction.

Examined from the viewpoint of challengers, social movement success depends in part on two varieties of mystification. First, beyond some minimum, worthiness, unity, numbers, and commitment almost necessarily contradict each other; to gain numbers, for example, generally requires compromise on worthiness, unity, and/or commitment. The actual work of organizers consists recurrently of patching together provisional coalitions, negotiating which of the multiple agendas participants bring with them will find public voice in their collective action, suppressing risky tactics, and above all hiding backstage struggle from public view.

Second, movement activists seek to present themselves and (if different) the objects of their solicitude as a solidary group, preferably as a group with a long history and with coherent existence outside the world of public claim-making. Thus feminists identify themselves with women's age-old struggles for rights in the streets and in everyday existence, while environmentalists present most of humankind as their eternal community. Organizers of the Catholic Emancipation campaign, including Daniel O'Connell, spent much of their energy striving to create a united public front and portraying their constituents as a long-suffering solidary population who had waited far too long for justice.

The two varieties of mystification address several different audiences. They encourage activists and supporters to make high estimates of the probability that fellow adherents will take risks and incur costs for the cause, hence that their own contributions will bear fruit.

They warn authorities, objects of claims, opponents, rivals, and bystanders to take the movement seriously as a force that can affect their fates. Movements differ significantly in the relative attention they give to these various audiences, from the self-absorbed tests of daring organized by small clusters of terrorists to the signature of petitions by transient participants who wish some authority to know their opinion. These orientations frequently vary in the course of a given social movement, for example in transitions from x) internal building to y) ostentatious action to z) fighting off competitors and enemies.

Neither in the case of Catholic Emancipation nor in general does mystification mean utter falsehood. Activists and constituents of social movements vary considerably in the extent to which they actually embody worthiness, unity, numbers, and commitment, in the degree to which they spring from a single solidary group with collective life outside the world of public politics. To the extent that the two varieties of mystification contain elements of truth, furthermore, social movements generally mobilize more effectively; a segregated ethnic community threatened by outside attack, on the average, mobilizes more readily than do all those who suffer from attacks on civil liberties. But the process whereby social movement activists achieve recognition as valid interlocutors for unjustly deprived populations does not resemble the fact-finding inquiries of novelists, social scientists, or investigative reporters. It resembles a court proceeding, in which those who make such claims, however self-evident to them, must establish themselves in the eyes of others -- authorities, competitors, enemies, and relevant audiences -- as voices that require attention, and must commonly establish themselves in the face of vigorous opposition. They must prove that they qualify. Almost all such proofs entail suppression of some evidence and exaggeration of other evidence concerning the claimants' worthiness, unity, numbers, commitment, and grounding in a durable, coherent, solidary, deprived population.

Analysts of collective action, especially those who entertain sympathy for the actions they are studying, often insist on these mystified elements as intrinsic to social movements: the presence of solidarity, the construction of shared identities, the sense of grievance, the creation of sustaining organizations, and more; without such features, analysts say, we have nothing but ordinary politics. Sometimes the myths fulfill themselves, building up the lineaments of durable connection among core participants. But most social movements remain far more contingent and volatile than their mystifications allow; these other elements do not define the social movement as a distinctive political phenomenon.

What does? Social movements involve collective claims on authorities. A social movement consists of a sustained challenge to powerholders in the name of a population living under the jurisdiction of those powerholders by means of repeated public displays of that population's numbers, commitment, unity, and worthiness (Diani 1992, Tarrow 1994, Tilly 1993-1994). As they developed in Great Britain and other West European countries during the early 19th century, the characteristic displays included creation of special-purpose associations, lobbying of officials, public meetings, demonstrations, marches, petitions, pamphlets, statements in mass media, posting or wearing of identifying signs, and deliberate adoption of distinctive slogans; while their relative weight varied considerably from movement to movement, these elements have coexisted since the early 19th century. Although the advocates and opponents of Catholic Emancipation had by no means mastered this full array of techniques in 1828 and 1829, they tried them all. They were, indeed, inventing the social movement as they went along.

Let me stress the fact of invention. For all its contentiousness, most of human history has proceeded without social movements, without sustained challenges to powerholders in the names of populations living under the jurisdiction of those powerholders by means of repeated public displays of those populations' numbers, commitment, unity, and worthiness. Rebellions, revolutions, avenging actions, rough justice, and many other forms of popular collective action have abounded, but not the associating, meeting, marching, petitioning, propagandizlng, sloganeering, and brandishing of symbols that mark social movements. With some 18th century precedents, this complex of interactions emerge as a way of doing political business in Western Europe during the 19th century; however we finally sort out the priorities, Britain shares credit for the invention. In Great Britain, the actual inventors were political entrepreneurs such as John Wilkes, Lord George Gordon, William Cobbett, and Francis Place. They, their collaborators, and their followers bargained out space for new forms of political action, bargained it out with local and national authorities, with rivals, with enemies, with the objects of their claims. The tales of contention over Catholic Emancipation in March 1829 provide glimpses of that bargaining.

Movement and Counter-movement

From the beginning, movements often bred counter-movements on the part of others whose advantages success for the movement's claims would threaten. British aristocrats had formed Brunswick Clubs, for example, explicitly to counter the Catholic Association's enormous success. They had then sought to build a popular anti-Catholic base. Notice the report from Edinburgh. Sir R.H. Inglis, who presented Edinburgh's anti-Catholic petition to parliament, reported that the local authorities' original plan had been to hold a sort of referendum, a public meeting at which people could vote for or against Catholic relief and "if no public meeting of those favourable to concession was held, none would be convened of those opposed to it" (Times 19 March 1829, p.1). But since pro-Catholic forces (no doubt aware that by sheer numbers Edinburgh's anti-Catholic legions would carry any general public assembly) had broken the agreement, held a meeting, and sent parliament a petition, the anti-Catholic organizers insisted on having their own say.

Supporters of Emancipation put it differently: at a meeting of the Friends of Religious Liberty, "Brunswickers" had attempted to break up the proceedings. If the anti-Catholics had collected 13,000 signatures on their Edinburgh petition, Sir J. Macintosh reported on presenting the pro-Catholic petition to parliament that its 8,000 signatures began with an unprecedentedly large meeting involving four-fifths or even nine-tenths

of what, until such a levelling spirit seized the Honourable Gentlemen on the Bench below me, used without objection or exception to be called the respectable classes of the community in the ancient capital of the most Protestant part of this Protestant Empire, which, in my opinion, will perform one of the noblest duties of its high office of guardian to the Protestant interest of Europe by passing this Bill into a law (Morning Chronicle 27 March 1829, p.2).

Macintosh echoed the ingenious arguments of several speakers at the Edinburgh meeting. They claimed that political disabilities segregated Catholics, drove them to defend their identities, and therefore made them less susceptible to cool reason. Full membership in the polity and full engagement in public discussion would, if permitted, eventually make them more skeptical of Catholic doctrine and papal authority. Macintosh went on to impugn Edinburgh Brunswickers for having padded their petition with non-residents, for having circulated libelous tracts, and by implication for having appealed to the city's plebeians. Thus he challenged their numbers, unity, and worthiness, if not their commitment to the anti-Catholic cause.

Both advocates and opponents of the Catholic cause in 1829 used a wide variety of techniques to forward their programs, but the central mechanism connected local political action directly to parliament. By the thousands, organizers drafted petitions, held local public meetings to publicize them, collected signatures, validated those signatures as best they could, and arranged for MPs to present them during parliamentary sessions. As the intensity of parliamentary debate increased, meetings and petitions multiplied. Each side tried to discredit the other's tactics and support, not only decrying false signatures (e.g. of women, boys, non-residents, and other persons outside the political arena) but also complaining about "inflammatory placards" and incendiary speeches. If Britons had enjoyed a limited right to petition for centuries, if Britain's 17th century revolutions set a precedent of widespread popular mobilization, and if such 18th century political entrepreneurs as John Wilkes and George Gordon had used public meetings, marches, and petitions quite effectively, never before had the full panoply of social-movement organization, complete with mass-membership associations, come into play at a national scale (Tilly 1982). While recognizing 18th century revolutions as possible challengers for the title and understanding that in Great Britain itself the distinctive elements of social-movement practice came together in fits and starts from the time of Lord George Gordon's Protestant Association onward, we might even be able to call the Catholic Emancipation campaign the world's first national social movement.

By my counts of CGs and of parliamentary petitions, the scorecards over 1828 and 1829 as a whole ran like this:

CGs 1828 petitions 1828 CGs 1829 petitions 1829

for Emancipation 16 732 99 1001

against Emancipation 21 333 141 2169

divided 4 0 2 0

The figures refer to Great Britain (England, Scotland, and Wales) alone. if these had been binding votes and Great Britain the only relevant arena of political action, Catholic Emancipation would clearly have failed as a political program. Comparable information from Ireland, on the other hand, would show overwhelming support for the Catholic cause (O'Ferrall 1985: 18&257). Only the virtual ungovernability of Ireland itself under the impact of Catholic Association mobilization moved the duke of Wellington and Robert Peel, reluctant parliamentary midwives of Emancipation, to persuade an even more reluctant king that he had to keep the peace by making concessions.

Concessions, not capitulations. The very settlement reveals the sort of mixed bargain Emancipation entailed. While removing most barriers to Catholic officeholding in the United Kingdom, it included the following restrictions:

No Catholic could serve as Regent, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Lord Chancellor of England or Ireland, or hold any position in Anglican church establishments, ecclesiastical courts, universities, or public schools.
Officeholding Catholics had to swear a new oath of loyalty to the king and the Hanoverian succession, denying the right of foreign princes including the Pope to exercise civil jurisdiction within the United Kingdom, denying any intention to subvert the Anglican establishment or the Protestant religion.
Forty-shilling freeholders (owners of property whose annual rent would be worth at least two pounds per year, who had previously voted in Ireland, and who had provided strong support for O'Connell) lost their franchise in favor of a ten-pound minimum with stronger guarantees against inflation of estimated property values.
The government dissolved the Catholic Association and barred successors from forming.

Cautious concession describes the bargain better than Catholic conquest or liberal largesse.

Consequences

In conjunction with the earlier and less turbulent campaign over repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, the partially-successful social movement for Catholic Emancipation left a large dent in national politics. Those two rounds of legislation broke the hold of Anglicans over public office and parliament (Clark 1985). The Catholic Association made ordinary Irish people a formidable presence in British politics. Despite all the restrictions on Irish mobilization laid down by Wellington and Peel, their settlement ratified the legitimacy of mass-membership political associations and social-movement tactics. Almost immediately advocates of parliamentary reform self-consciously took up the model and precedent to organize political unions and to initiate a campaign of meetings and petitions. This time, after more than half a century of striving, reformers gained a substantial victory; if the Reform Act of 1832 still excluded the majority of adult males (to say nothing of females) from suffrage, it enfranchised the commercial bourgeoisie, gave MPs to fast-growing industrial towns, eliminated parliamentary seats that had lain within the gift of a single patron, and forwarded the principle of representation according to (propertied) numbers rather than chartered privilege (Brock 1974, Cannon 1973, Phillips 1992, Phillips & Wetherell 1991). Catholic Emancipation did not cause the Reform Act, but it facilitated and channeled the political mobilization that led to Reform.

Emancipation thus forwarded citizenship and democracy in Great Britain, directly through its dissolution of barriers to political participation, indirectly through its impact on parliamentary reform. Citizenship refers to a certain kind of tie: a continuing series of transactions between persons and agents of a given state in which each has enforceable rights and obligations uniquely by virtue of the persons' membership in an exclusive category, the native-born plus the naturalized (Tilly 1995b). To the extent that the British state dissolved particular ties to its subject population based on local history and/or membership in locally-implanted social categories while installing generalized classifications on the basis of political performance, it gave increasing weight to citizenship. Reducing barriers to the political participation of Dissenters and Catholics clearly moved in that direction.

Not all advances of citizenship promote democracy; in our own time, authoritarian regimes have often stressed a variety of citizenship in which most people qualify as citizens, but citizens' obligations are very extensive, greatly outweighing their rights. Democracy combines broad, relatively equal citizenship with a) binding consultation of citizens with respect to governmental personnel and policies, b) protection of citizens, including members of minorities, from arbitrary state action (Tilly 1995c; this definition stands in a middle ground between formal criteria such as elections, legislatures, and constitutions, on the one hand, and substantive criteria such as solidarity, justice, and welfare, on the other). By such a definition, Emancipation democratized primarily by broadening and equalizing political rights, without significantly increasing the consultation of those who qualified as citizens or the protection of citizens against arbitrary action; simultaneous restrictions on voting and associational life in Ireland, indeed, attenuated the net movement toward democracy. Through direct and indirect effects, nevertheless, Britain's reduction of religious restrictions on citizenship in 1828 and 1829 marked an important moment for democratization.

In addition to its significance for British history, the Emancipation campaign takes us back to the more general points that motivate this paper: analogies between social-movement dynamics and politics at other scales, negotiated contingency of political identities in movements and elsewhere, interactions between ostensibly "domestic" and "international" political processes, value of transactional rather than individualistic conceptions of political processes. In order to avoid endless elaboration, let us confine discussion to analogies between social movements and the politics of nationalism.

The Analogy or Nationalism

As a doctrine, nationalism asserts a series of propositions that had little currency two centuries ago, but came to seem like political common sense during the 19th century:

The whole world's population divides into nations, each of which shares a common origin, culture, and sense of destiny.
Each nation deserves its own state.
Each state has the right to create its own nation.
Given a nation's existence, its members have strong obligations to serve it and the state that embodies it. Those obligations override the claims of religion, family, and self-interest.

As propositions about how the world works, of course, each of these encounters enormous empirical and normative objections (Anderson 1991, Armstrong 1982, Bjorn, Grant & Stringer 1994, Brubaker 1993, Comaroff 1991, Fullbrook 1993, Graubard 1993, Greenfeld 1992, Haas 1986, Hobsbawm 1990, 1994, Lerner 1991, Motyl 1992, Noiriel 1991, 1993, Qstergard 1991, 1992, Shell 1993, Smith 1990, Topalov 1991). But as justifications for social action, they all gained considerable currency in the western world after 1789, then acquired worldwide scope with the dismantling of empires.

To be more precise and to focus on Europe, nationalist doctrines and practices took a zigzag course from 1492 to our own time. From 1492 to 1648, schematically, we witness a period in which Western and Central European powers struggled over the alignment between religion and state power, with outcomes varying among the establishment of state-dominated Protestant churches in Scandinavia, England, and parts of Germany, uneasy and unequal coexistence of multiple religions in Switzerland and the Dutch republic, expulsion and forced conversion of Jews and Muslims in Iberia, and decreasing toleration of a chartered Protestant minority in a France that kept its distance from the pope. From 1648 to the 1790s, the European state system maintained a rough alignment of official religion with state identity but the papacy continued to lose secular power, even within nominally Catholic states. The French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars started the severing of religion from national identity, with non-religious or even anti-religious definitions of citizenship coming to predominate. It is as if rulers discovered that religion usually encouraged international ties, which in turn subverted their programs of national hegemony. Religion bedded uncomfortably with nationalism.

As political process, nationalism consists of claim-making in the name of these doctrines. It takes two forms: state-led and state-seeking. State-led nationalism involves claims by agents of an existing state and their political allies, claims on presumed members of the nation identified with that state. State-led nationalism includes the creation and imposition of a dominant language, origin myth, symbols, rituals, memberships, educational routines, and obligations by means of histories, literatures, curricula, museums, monuments, public assemblies, electoral procedures, state ceremonies, festivals, military service, and intervention in mass media. It entalls the subordination or elimination of competing institutions and practices, at the extreme the exercise of control over wide ranges of resources and social life by state agents in the name of the nation's interest. State-led nationalism has been rare in human history; over the roughly 10,000 years that states have existed somewhere in the world, most rulers have settled for assigning priority within their domains to their own cultural definitions and readings of their own interests, but coexisting more or less comfortably with composite subject populations having distinctive charters, cultures, and social routines. Although China stands as an important partial exception, state-led nationalism only became widely available, or even technically feasible, in most of the world's states during the 19th and 20th centuries (Schram 1985, 1987, Shue 1988, Skinner 1964, 1985, Whitney 1970, Will 1994).

A fortiori for state-seeking nationalism, the mounting of demands for political autonomy and recognition by self-identified representatives of a coherent nation that lacks its own state. Historically, state-seeking nationalism has arisen chiefly in three circumstances: 1) when agents of an empire have sought to impose military, fiscal, or (especially) religious obligations on a previously-protected minority, 2) when adjacent powers have attempted to undermine an empire by supporting the rebellion of peripheral populations within the empire, 3) when rulers of expanding states have undertaken thoroughgoing state-led nationalism in the presence of well-connected populations possessing distinctive cultural, political, and economic institutions. The first two have rarely stimulated strong assertions of national identity, especially with claims to separate statehood. The third -- the encounter of state-led nationalism with well-connected minorities -- has frequently done so. As a result, state-seeking nationalism surged during the 19th and 20th centuries.

International relations played a significant part in both varieties of nationalism. Whether initiated by a state's agents or by an antistate minority, the claim to represent a nation could only succeed in relation to other powerholders, especially the rulers of major outside states. At least from the treaty of Cateau-Cambresis (1559), settlements of large-scale European wars featured representation of multiple powers, a muster of those who had valid claims to rule, hence an implicit enumeration of those who lacked such claims. By the treaty of Westphalia (1648) the ruler's validated claim to represent a nation, at least as connected by a common religious tradition, came to figure among the criteria for recognition by the community of nations; one reason France and Sweden were able to keep Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand III from representing all his domains as a single power at Westphalia was precisely the religious diversity of those scattered territories. Nevertheless, by the settlement of the Napoleonic Wars, shared religion had lost much of its force as a national political credential, while the concert of nations presumed more than ever before to decide collectively which states enjoyed sovereignty and who was qualified to rule them.

After World War I the League of Nations (boycotted by the United States) inherited some of the victorious powers' authority to certify nations. In the aftermath of World War II, the great powers delegated even more certifying power to the United Nations, practically ceding the work of credentialing to that body once massive decolonization began during the 1960s. The disintegration of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia both provoked and then fed upon disruption of the credentialing apparatus, as quick but disputed recognitions of some fragments (e.g. Slovenia, Croatia, and Ukraine) but not others incited military action on the parts of those who stood to lose political power, livelihood, or even lives as a function of outsiders' confirmation of others as their rightful rulers. Increasingly, then, the recognition of who constituted a valid nation a) entered the process of state formation, b) became the collective business of some concert of already-recognized nation-states, however heterogeneous their actual social composition, c) generated international agencies specializing in recognition and its denial, d) had enormous consequences for the relative power of different factions within constituted states.

As this account suggests, both state-led and state-seeking nationalisms share interesting properties with social movements. Like the claims social movement activists make on behalf of themselves and their ostensible constituencies, claims to nationhood always include a measure of mystification with respect to the relevant population's tenure, coherence, and solidarity with its self-identified spokespersons. They almost always incite counterclaims by rivals, enemies, and threatened powerholders. The identities they assert consist crucially of differences from and relations to others rather than actual internal solidarity. Their success rests as least as much on outside recognition as on internal consensus. And disciplined, stereotyped public demonstrations of "nationness", which typically require great internal coordination and repression, play a large part in that recognition. In this case, to be sure, the sheer ability to wield armed force effectively looms much larger than it does in most social movements.

Where Now?

Nationalist performances are not simply social movements writ large, but they involve parallel political processes. To repeat:

First, the histories in question reveal powerful analogies between the processes driving social movements within national polities and a range of other processes, both "national" and "international", to which analysts of social movements have paid little attention; they therefore rectify common conceptions of social movements as sui generis.

Second, the identities people deploy in political claim-making (including identities of religious affiliation, nationality, and citizenship) consist of contingent relationships with other people rather than inbuilt personal traits; they therefore alter as political networks, opportunities, and strategies shift.

Third, the histories show us incessant interaction between political processes observers commonly distinguish as "domestic" and "international", processes analysts frequently conceive of as quite independent one from the other.

Fourth, once we shift from conventional individualistic conceptions to transactional analyses of political processes these three points become almost self-evident.

We could undertake similar reviews of other ostensibly local or international political processes, such as ethnic conflict, the creation of citizenship, militarization, democratization, dependent state formation, revolution, and war. Perhaps by now, however, the main point is obvious, tedious, even otiose: the endemic individualism of history and social science have long kept analysts from recognizing parallels and connections among political processes, parallels and connections that transcend geographic boundaries and scales. Perhaps Catholic Emancipation can direct us along the path of intellectual emancipation.

References

NOTE: I have stuffed this bibliography with items not cited in the text, hoping thereby to characterize the literature on which the paper's general reflections draw without encumbering the paper's already erratic flow.

Alker, Hayward (1992): "The Humanistic Moment in International Studies: Reflections on Machiavelli and las Casas," International Studies Quarterly 36: 347-372.

Anderson, Benedict (1991): Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: VERSO. Revised edition of book first published in 1983.

Armstrong, John A. (1982): Nations before Nationalism. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Ashmore, Malcolm, Robin Wooffitt & Stella Harding (1994): eds., "Humans and Others. The Concept of 'Agency' and Its Attribution," special issue of American Behavioral Scientist vol.37.

Aya, Rod (1990): Rethinking Revolutions and Collective Violence. Studies on Concept. Theory. and Method. Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis.

Barbalet, J.M. (1988): Citizenship. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Barkey, Karen (1994): Bandits and Bureaucrats Centralization. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Barnett, Michael & Alexander Wendt (1992): "The Systemic Sources of Dependent Militarization," in Brian L. Job, ed., The Insecurity Dilemma. National Security of Third World States. Boulder: Lynne Rienner. (1993): "Dependent State Formation and Third World Militarization," Review of International Studies 19: 321-347.

Baron, James N. & Michael T. Hannan (1994): "The Impact of Economics on Contemporary Sociology," Journal of Economic Literature 32: 1111-1146

Bearman, Peter S. & Glenn Deane (1992): "The Structure of opportunity: Middle-Class Mobility in England, 1548-1689," American Journal of Sociology 98: 30-66.

Benford, Robert D. & Scott A. Hunt (1992): "Dramaturgy and Social Movements: The Social Construction and Communication of Power," Sociological Inquiry 62: 35-55.

Berejikian, Jeffrey (1992): "Revolutionary Collective Action and the Agent-Structure Problem," American Political Science Review 86: 647-657.

Alker, Hayward (1992): "The Humanistic Mome

Berlanstein, Lenard R. (1993): ed., Rethinking Labor History. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Best, G.F.A. (1958): "The Protestant Constitution and its Supporters, 1800-1829," Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 5th series, 8: 105-127. (1967): "Popular Protestantism in Victorian Britain," in Robert Robson, ed., Ideas and Institutions of Victorian Britain. London: G. Bell & Sons.

Bhargava, Rajeev (1992): Individualism in Social Science. Forms and Limits of a Methodology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Birkbeck, Christopher (1991): "Latin American Banditry as Peasant Resistance: A Dead-End Trail?", Latin American Research Review 26:155-160.

Birmbaum, Pierre (1988): States and Collective Action: The European Experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (1993): "La France aux Francais" Histoire des haines nationalistes. Paris: Seuji.

Bjorn, Claus, Alexander Grant & Keith J. Stringer (1994): eds., Nations. Nationalism and Patriotism in the European Past. Copenhagen: Academic Press.

Blondel, Jean et al. (1994): "Ou' en est la politique comparee?" Revue Internationale de Politique Comparee 1: 3-132.

Boggs, Carl (1986): Social Movements and Political Power. Emerging Forms of Radicalism in the West. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Booth, John A. & Mitchell Seligson (1983): "Peasants as Activists: A Reevaluation of Political Participation in the Countryside", Comparative Political Studies 12: 29-59.

Brady, Thomas Al Jr. (1985): Turning Swiss. Cities and Empire. 1450-1550. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brass, Tom (1991): "Moral Economists, Subalterns, New Social Movements, and the (Re-) Emergence of a (Post-)Modernized (Middle) Peasant", Journal of Peasant Studies 18:173- 205.

Bratton, Michael (1989): "Beyond the State: Civil Society and Associational Life in Africa," World Politics 41: 407-430.

Bright, Charles & Susan Harding (1984): ed., Statemaking and Social Movements. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Brock, Michael (1974): The Great Reform Act. New York: Humanities Press.

Brubaker, Rogers (1992): Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. (1993): "East European, Soviet, and Post-Soviet Nationalisms: A Framework for Analysis," Research on Democracy and Society 1: 353-378.

Bruckmueller, Ernst (1990): "Ein 'deutsches' Burgertum? Zu Fragen nationaler Differenzierung der burgerlichen Schichten in der Habsburgermonarchie vom vormarz bis urn 1860," Geschichte und Gesellschaft 16: 343-354.

Brewer, John (1976): Party Ideology and Popular Politics at the Accession of George 111. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (1979-80): "Theater and Counter-Theater in Georgian Politics: The Mock Elections at Garrat," Radical History Review 22: 7-40. (1980): 'The Wilkites and the law, 1763-74: a study of radical notions of governance," in John Brewer & John Styles, eds., An Ungovernable People. The English and Their Law in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. (1989): The Sinews of Power. War. Money and the English State. 1688-1783. New York: Knopf.

Burke, Edmund 111(1988): ed., Global Crises and Social Movements. Artisans. Peasants. Populists. and the World Economy. Boulder, Colorado: Westview.

Burke, Peter (1992): History and Social Theory. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. (1993): The Art of Conversation. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Calhoun, Craig (1991): "The Problem of Identity in Collective Action" in Joan Huber, ed., Macro-Micro Linkages in Sociology. Newbury Park: Sage. (1993a): "Nationalism and Ethnicity," Annual Review of Sociology 19: 211-239. (1993b): "'New Social Movements' of the Early Nineteenth Century," Social Science History 17: 385-428.

Cannon, John (1973): Parliamentary Reform. 1640-1832. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Castells, Manuel (1983): The City and the Grassroots. A Cross-Cultural Theory of Urban Social Movements. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Cattacin, Sandro & Florence Passy (1993): "Der Niedergang von Bewegungsorganisationen. Zur Analyse von organisatorischen Laufbahnen," Kolner Zeitschrift fur Soziolo6e un Sozialpsychologie 45: 419-438.

Chazel, Francois (1993): ed., Action collective et mouvements sociaux. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Chirot, Daniel & Karen Barkey (1983): "States in Search of Legitimacy. Was There Nationalism in the Balkans of the Early Nineteenth Century?" International Journal of Comparative Sociology 24: 30-45.

Clark, J.C.D. (1985): English Society 1688-1832. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (1986): Revolution and Rebellion. State and Society in England in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (1989): "English History's Forgotten Context: Scotland, Ireland, Wales," Historical Journal 32: 211-228. (1990): "Revolution in the English Atlantic Empire, 166O61800," in E.E. Rice, ed., Revolution and Counter-Revolution. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. (1991): "Sovereignty: the British Experience," Times Literary Supplement 29 November 1991:15-16. (1994): The Language of Liberty 1660-1832. Political Discourse and Social Dynamics in the Anglo-American World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Clark, S.D. (1959): Movements of Social Protest in Canada. 1640-1840. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Clemens, Elisabeth 5. (1993): "Organizational Repertoires and Institutional Change: Women's Groups and the Transformation of U.S. Politics, 1890-1920," American Journal of Sociology 98: 755-798.

Cohen, Anthony Paul (1985): The Symbolic Construction of Community. Chichester: Ellis Horwood.

Cohen, David William (1994): The Combing of History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Cohen, Jean (1985): "Strategy or Identity: New Theoretical Paradigms and Contemporary Social Movements," Social Research 52: 663-716.

Cohen, Jean L. & Andrew Arato (1992): Civil Society and Political Theory. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Comaroff, John (1991): "Humanity, Ethnicity, Nationality: Conceptual and Comparative Perspectives on the U.S.S.R.," Theory and Society 20: 661-688.

Conell, Carol & Kim Voss (1990): "Formal Organization and the Fate of Social Movements: Craft Association and Class Alliance in the Knights of Labor," American Sociological Review 55: 255-269.

Connor, Walker (1987): "Ethnonationalism" in Myron Weiner & Samuel P. Huntington, eds., Understanding Political Development. Boston: Little, Brown.

Cooper, Frederick (1994): "Conflict and Connection: Rethinking Colonial African History," American Historical Review 99: 151&1545.

Cronin, James E. (1993): "Neither Exceptional nor Peculiar: Towards the Comparative Study of Labor in Advanced Society," International Review of Social History 38, part 1: 59-75.

Cuzan, Alfred (1991): "Resource Mobilization and Political Opportunity in the Nicaraguan Revolution: The Praxis", American Journal of Economics and Sociology 50:71-83.

Dahies, H. & A Trouwborst (1993): "Visies op de Staat. Beschouwingen naar Aanleiding van een interdisciplinaire Studiedag," AntroDologische Verkenningen 12, special issue.

Dalton, Russell J. (1993): ed., "Citizens, Protest, and Democracy," July 1993 issue of The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.

Dann, Otto & John Dinwiddy (1988): Nationalism in the Age of the French Revolution. London: Hambledon.

Davis, John (1992): Exchange. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Davis, Richard W. (1966): "The Strategy of 'Dissent' in the Repeal Campaign, 1820-1828," Journal of Modern History 38: 374-406. (1971): Dissent in Politics 1780-1830. The Political Life of William Smith MP. London: Epworth Press.

Deneckere, Gita (1990): "Norm en deviantie. Een bijdrage over diagnoses van collectieve populaire actie in de Nieuwste Geschiedenis," Tiidschrift voor Sociale Geschiedenis 16:105- 127.

Diani, Mario (1988): Isole nell'arcipelago. Ii movimento ecologista in Italia. Bologna: Ii Mulino. (1990): "The Network Structure of the Italian Ecology Movement," Social Science Information 29: 5-31. (1992): "The concept of social movement," The Sociological Review 1992: 1-25.

Ditchfield, G.M. (1978): "Dissent and Toleration: Lord Stanhope's Bill of 1789," Journal of Ecclesiastical History 29: 51-73.

Druckman, Daniel (1994): "Nationalism, Patriotism, and Group Loyalty: Psychological Perspective," Mershon International Studies Review 38: 43-68.

Duyvendak, Jan Willem (1994): Le poids du politigue. Nouveaux mouvements sociaux en France. Paris: L'Harmattan.

Duyvendak, Jan Willem, Hem-Anton van der Heijden, Ruud Koopmans & Luuk Wijmans (1992): eds., Tussen Verbeelding en Macht. 25 jaar nieuwe social bewegingen in Nederland. Amsterdam: Sua.

Emirbayer, Mustafa & Jeff Goodwin (1994): "Network Analysis, Culture, and the Problem of Agency," American Journal of Sociology 99:1411-1454.

Ennis, James G. (1987): "Fields of Action: Structure in Movements' Tactical Repertoires," SociologicaI Forum 2: 520-533.

Esherick, Joseph W. & Jeffrey N. Wasserstrom (1990): "Acting Out Democracy: Political Theater in Modern China," Journal of Asian Studies 49: 835-865.

Etzioni, Amitai (1968): The Active Society. New York: Free Press.

Eyerman, Ron & Andrew Jamison (1991): Social Movements. A Cognitive Approach. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Fatton, Robert (1992): Predatory Rule: State and Civil Society in Africa. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.

Fernandez, Roberto & Doug McAdam (1988): "Social Networks and Social Movements: Multiorganizational Fields and Recruitment to Mississippi Freedom Summer," Sociological Forum 3: 357-382.

Feuer, Lewis 5. (1969): The Conflict of Generations: The Character and Significance of Student Movements. New York: Basic Books.

Fuentes, Marta & Andre' Gunder Frank (1989): "Ten Theses on Social Movements," World Development 17:179-192.

Fullbrook, Mary (1993): National Histories and European History. Boulder: Westview.

Gal, Susan (1987): "Codeswitching and Consciousness in the European Periphery," American Ethnologist 14: 637-653. (1989): "Language and Political Economy," Annual Review of Anthropology 18: 345-369.

Gallant, Thomas W. (1994): "Turning the Horns: Cultural Metaphors, Material Conditions, and the Peasant Language of Resistance in lonian Islands (Greece) during the Nineteenth Century," Comparative Studies in Society and History 36: 702-719.

Gamson, William A (1968): Power and Discontent. Homewood: Dorsey. (Revised edition: Dorsey, 1989.) (1990): The Strategy of Social Protest. Belmont, California: Wadsworth. 2d edn. First published in 1975. (1992): Talking Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gamson, William A, Bruce Fireman & Steven Rytina (1982): Encounters with Unjust Authority. Homewood: Dorsey.

Garfinkel, Michelle R. (1994): "Domestic Politics and International Conflict," American Economic Review 84:1294-1309.

Gellner, Ernest (1992): Reason and Culture. The Historic Role of Rationality and Rationalism. Oxford: Blackwell. (1994): Conditions of Liberty. Civil Society and its Rivals. London:Allen Lane The Penguin Press.

George, Alexander L (1991): "The Transition in US-Soviet Relations, 1985-1990: An Interpretation from the Perspectives of International Relations Theory and Political Psychology," Political Psychology 12: 469-486.

Gerstenberger, Heide (1990): Die subiektlose Gewalt. Theorie der Entstehung burgerlicher Staatsgewalt. Munster: Westfalisches Dampfboot.

Giugni, Marco G. & Hanspeter Kriesi (1990): "Nouveaux mouvements sociaux dans les anne'es '80: Evolution et perspectives," Annuaire suisse de science politigue 30: 79-100.

Giugni, Marco G. & Florence Passy (1993): "Etat et nouveaux mouvements sociaux, comparaison de deux cas contraste's: la France et la Suisse," Revue Suisse de Sociologie 19: 545-570.

Goodwin, Jeff (1994a): "Old Regimes and Revolutions in the Second and Third Worlds: A Comparative Perspective," Social Science History 18: 575-604. (1994b): "Toward A New Sociology of Revolution," Theory and Society 23: 731-766, plus "Rejoinder", pp.795-797.

Gorski, Philip 5. (1993): "The Protestant Ethic Revisited: Disciplinary Revolution and State Formation in Holland and Prussia," American Journal of Sociology 99: 265-316.

Graubard, Stephen (1993): ed., "Reconstructing Nations and States," Daedalus 122, entire issue.

Greenfeld, Liah (1992): Nationalism. Five Roads to Modernity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Guardino, Peter (1994): "Identity and Nationalism in Mexico: Guerrero, 1780-1840," Journal of Historical Sociology 7: 314-342.

Gurr, Ted Robert (1992): "The Internationalization of Protracted Communal Conflicts since 1945: Which Groups, Where, and How," in Manus I. Midlarsky, ed., The Internationalization of Communal Conflict. London: Routledge. (1993): "Why Minorities Rebel: A Global Analysis of Communal Mobilization and Conflict since 1945," International Political Science Review 14: 157-197. (1994): "Peoples Against States: Ethnopolitical Conflict and the Changing World System," International Studies Quarterly 38: 347-377.

Gusterson, Hugh (1993): "Realism and the International Order after the Cold War," Social Research 60: 279-300.

Haas, Ernst (1986): "What is Nationalism and Why Should We Study It?" International Organization 40: 707-744.

Hanagan, Michael P. (1994): "New Perspectives on Class Formation: Culture, Reproduction, and Agency," Social Science History 18: 77-94.

Hardin, Russell (1983): Collective Action. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press for Resources for the Future.

Heberle, Rudolf (1951): Social Movements. An Introduction to Political Sociology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Hernes, Helga (1988): "Scandinavian Citizenship," Acta Sociologica 31: 199-215.

Hibbert, Christopher (1958): King Mob. The Story of Lord George Gordon and the London Riots of 1780. Cleveland: World.

Hinde, Wendy (1992): Catholic Emancipation. A Shake to Men's Minds. Oxford: Blackwell.

Hirsch, Eric L. (1990): "Sacrifice for the Cause: Group Processes, Recruitment, and Commitment in a Student Social Movement," American Sociological Review 55: 243-254.

Hobsbawm, E.J. (1990): Nations and Nationalism since 1789. Programme, Myth, Reality.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (1994): "What Is Ethnic Conflict And How Does It Differ from Other Conflicts?" in Anthony McDermott, ed., Ethnic Conflict and International Security. Oslo: Norwegian Institute of International Affairs.

Horowitz, Donald (1985): Ethnic Groups in Conflict. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Jenkins, J. Craig (1983) "Resource Mobilization Theory and the Study of Social Movements," Annual Review of Sociology 9: 527-553. (1985): The Politics of Insurgency. The Farm Worker Movement in the 1960s. New York: Columbia University Press.

Jenkins, J. Craig & Kurt Schock (1992): "Global Structures and Political Processes in the Study of Domestic Political Conflict," Annual Review of Sociology 18:161-185.

Joppke, Christian (1991): "Social Movements during Cycles of Issue Attention: The Decline of the Anti-Nuclear Energy Movements in West Germany and the USA," British Journal of Sociology 42: 43-60.

Kalb, Don (1993): "Frameworks of Culture and Class in Historical Research," Theory and Society 22: 513-537.

Kaplan, Temma (1992): Red City, Blue Period. Social Movements in Picasso's Barcelona. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Karpat, Kemal H. (1993): "Gli stati balcanici e ii nazionalismo: l'immagine e la realta'," Quaderni Storici 84: 679-718.

Kearney, Michael (1991): "Borders and Boundaries of State and Self at the End of Empire," Journal of Historical Sociology 4: 52-72.

Kerbo, Harold R. (1982): "Movements of 'Crisis' and Movements of 'Affluence'. A Critique of Deprivation and Resource Mobilization Theories," Journal of Conflict Resolution 26: 645- 663.

Kitschelt, Herbert (1993): "Social Movements, Political Parties, and Democratic Theory," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 528:13-29.

Klandermans, Bert (1989): ed., Organizing for Change: Social Movement Organizations in Europe and the United States. Greenwich, Connecticut: JM Press. International Social Movement Research, vol.11. (1993): "A Theoretical Framework for Comparisons of Social Movement Participation," Sociological Forum 8: 383-402.

Klandermans, Bert, Hanspeter Kriesi & Sidney Tarrow (1988): eds., From Structure to Action: Comparing Social Movement Research Across Cultures. Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press. International Social Movement Research, vol. I.

Klausen, Kurt Klaudi (1988): Konflikter, Kollektive Aktioner og Protestbevaegelser Danmark. Copenhagen: Samfunds Fagsnyt.

Kontopoulos, Kyriakos M. (1993): The Logics of Social Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Koopmans, Ruud (1993): "The Dynamics of Protest Waves: West Germany, 1965 to 1989," American Sociological Review 58: 637-658.

Kriesi, Hanspeter (1993): Political Mobilization and Social Change. The Dutch Case in Comparative Perspective. Aldershot: Avebury.

Kristeva, Julia (1993): Nations without Nationalism. New York: Columbia University Press.

Latin, David D. (1991): "The National Uprisings in the Soviet Union," World Politics 44: 139-177

Lerner, Adam J. (1991): ed., "Reimagining the Nation," Millennium 20, entire issue.

Lloyd, Christopher (1993): The Structures of History. Oxford: Blackwell.

Machin, G.I.T. (1963): "The No-Popery Movement in Britain in 1828-9," Historical Journal 6: 193-211. (1964): The Catholic Question in English Politics 1820 to 1830. Oxford: Clarendon Press. (1979): "Resistance to Repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, 1828," Historical Journal 22:115-139.

Macy, Michael W. (1990): "Learning Theory and the Logic of Critical Mass," American Sociological Review 55: 809-826.

Margadant, Ted (1992): Urban Rivalries in the French Revolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Marini, Margaret Mooney (1992): "The Role 9f Models of Purposive Action in Sociology," in James S. Coleman & Thomas J. Fararo, eds., Rational Choice Theory: Advocacy and Critique. Newbury Park, California: Sage.

Marini, Margaret Mooney & Burton Singer (1988): "Causality in the Social Sciences," Sociological Methodology 1988 347-409.

Marwell, Gerald & Pamela Oliver (1993): The Critical Mass in Collective Action. A Micro-Social Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mastnak, Tomaz (1990): "Civil Society in Slovenia: From Opposition to Power," Studies in Comparative Communism 23: 305-317.

Mayer, Margit (1991): "Social Movement Research and Social Movement Practice: The U.S. Pattern," in Dieter Rucht, ed., Research on Social Movements: The State of the Art in Western Europe and the USA. Frankfurt & Boulder: Campus/Westview.

McAdam, Doug, John D. McCarthy and Mayer N. Zald (1988): "Social Movements," in Neil J. Smelser, ed., Handbook of Sociology. Newbury Park: Sage, 1988.

McCarthy, John D., David W. Britt & Mark Wolfson (1991): "The Institutional Channeling of Social Movements by the State in the United States," Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change 13: 45-76.

McPhail, Clark (1991): The Myth of the Madding Crowd. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

McWilliams, Wayne C. & Harry Piotrowski (1990): The World since 1945. A History of International Relations. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.

Melucci, Alberto (1989): Nomads of the Present. Social Movements and Individual Need in Contemporary Society. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. (1992): "Liberation or Meaning? Social Movements, Culture and Democracy," Development and Change 23: 43-77.

Meyer, David S. (1993a): "Institutionalizing Dissent: The United States Structure of Political Opportunity and the End of the Nuclear Freeze Movement," Sociological Forum 8:157-179. (1993b): "Protest Cycles and Political Process: American Peace Movements in the Nuclear Age," Political Research Quarterly 47: 451-479. (1994): "Political Opportunity After the Cold War," Peace & Change 19: 116140.

Meyer, David S. & Douglas R. Imig (1993): "Political Opportunity and the Rise and Decline of Interest Group Sectors," Social Science Journal 30: 253-270.

Meyer, David S. & Nancy Whittier (1994): "Social Movement Spillover," Social Problems 41: 277-298.

Morawska, Ewa & Willfried Spohn (1994): "'Cultural Pluralism' in Historical Sociology: Recent Theoretical Directions," in Diana Crane, ed., The Sociology of Culture. Emerging Theoretical Perspectives. Oxford: Blackwell.

Morris, Aldon D. (1984): The Origins of the Civil Rights Movement. Black Communities Organizing for Change. New York: Free Press. (1993): "Birmingham Confrontation Reconsidered: An Analysis of the Dynamics and Tactics of Mobilization," American Sociological Review 58: 621-636.

Morris, Aldon & Cedric Herring (1987): "Theory and Research in Social Movements: A Critical Review," Annual Review of Political Science 2:137-195.

Morris, Aldon D. & Carol McClurg Mueller (1992): eds., Frontiers in Social Movement Theory. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Motyl, Alexander J. (1992a): ed., Thinking Theoretically About Soviet Nationalities. History and Comparison in the Stud of the USSR. New York: Columbia University Press. (1992b): "From Imperial Decay to Imperial Collapse: The Fall of the Soviet Empire in Comparative Perspective," in Richard J. Rudolph & David F. Good, eds., Nationalism and Empire. The Habsburg Empire and the Soviet Union. New York: St. Martin's

Nagi, Saad Z. (1992): "Ethnic Identification and Nationalist Movements," Human Organization 51: 307-317.

Noiriel, Gerard (1991): La tyrannie du National. Le droit d'asile en Europe 1793-1993. Paris: Calmann-Levy. (1993): "L'identification des citoyens. Naissance de l'e'tat civil republicain," Geneses 13: 3-28.

North, Robert C. (1990): War. Peace. Survival. Global Politics and Conceptual Synthesis. Boulder: Westview.

Oberschall, Anthony (1973): Social Conflict and Social Movements. Englewood-Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. (1993): Social Movements. New Brunswick: Transaction.

Oegema, Dirk & Bert Klandermans (1994): "Why Social Movement Sympathizers Don't Participate: Erosion and Nonconversion of Support," American Sociological Review 59: 703-722.

O'Ferrall, Fergus (1985): Catholic Emancipation. Daniel O'Connell and the Birth of Irish Democracy 1820-30. Dublin: Gill & Macmillan.

Ohlemacher, Thomas (1993): Brucken der Mobilisierung. Soziale Relais und personliche Netzwerke in Burgerinitiativen gegen militarischen Tiefflug. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitats Verlag.

Oliver, Pamela E. (1993): "Formal Models of Collective Action," Annual Review of Sociology 271-300.

Olson, Mancur, Jr. (1965): The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Opp, Karl-Dieter (1989): The Rationality of Political Protest. A comparative Analysis of Rational Choice Theory. Boulder: Westview.

Opp, Karl-Dieter & Christiane Gern (1993): "Dissident Groups, Personal Networks, and Spontaneous Cooperation: The East German Revolution of 1989," American Sociological Review 58: 659-680.

Orloff, Ann Shola (1993): "Gender and the Social Rights of Citizenship: The Comparative Analysis of Gender Relations and Welfare States," American Sociological Review 58: 303- 328.

Ostergard, Uffe (1991): "'Denationalizing' National History. The Comparative Study of Nation-States," Culture and History 9/10: 9-41. (1992): "Peasants and Danes: The Danish National Identity and Political Culture," Comparative Studies in Society and History 34: 3-27.

Peattie, Lisa & Martin Rein (1983): Women's Claims. A Study in Political Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Peled, Yoav (1992): "Ethnic Democracy and the Legal Construction of Citizenship: Arab Citizens of the Jewish State," American Political Science Review 86: 432-443.

Phillips, John A. (1992): The Great Reform Bill in the Boroughs. English Electoral Behaviour, 1818-1841. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Phillips, John A. & Charles Wetherell (1991): "The Great Reform Bill of 1832 and the Rise of Partisanship," Journal of Modern History 63: 621-646.

Piven, Frances Fox & Richard A. Cloward (1991): "Collective Protest: A Critique of Resource Mobilization Theory," International Journal of Politics. Culture and Society 4: 435-45&

Prak, Maarten (1991): "Citizen Radicalism and Democracy in the Dutch Republic: The Patriot Movement of the 1780s," Theory and Society 20: 73-102.

Pred, Allan (1990): Making Histories and Constructing Human Geographies. The Local Transformation of Practice. Power Relations. and Consciousness. Boulder: Westview.

Quadagno, Jill (1992): "Social Movements and State Transformation: Labor Unions and Racial Conflict in the War on Poverty," American Sociological Review 57: 616-634.

Ragin, Charles C. & Howard S. Becker (1992): eds., What is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ranciere, Jacques (1992): Les mots de l'histoire. Essai de poe' tigue du savoir. Paris: Seuil.

Rokkan, Stein (1969): "Models and Methods in the Comparative Study of Nation Building," Acta Sociologica 12: 52-73.

Roy, Beth (1994): Some Trouble with Cows. Making Sense of Social Conflict. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Ruggie, John Gerard (1993): "Territoriality and Beyond: Problematizing Modernity in International Relations," International Organization 47: 139-174.

Rule, James (1988): Theories of Civil Violence. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Sahlins, Peter (1989): Boundaries. The Making 6f France and Spain in the Pyrenees. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Schneider, Mark Al (1993): Culture and Enchantment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Schram, Stuart (1985): ed., The Scope of State Power in China. (1987): ed., Foundations and Limits of State Power in China. Both volumes published for European Science

Foundation by School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London and the Chinese University Press of Hong Kong.

Scott, James C. (1990): Domination and the Arts of Resistance. Hidden Transcripts. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Searle, John R. (1993): "Rationality and Realism, What is at Stake?" Daedalus 122: 55-84.

Sedaitis, Judith B. & Jim Butterfield (1991): eds., Perestroika from Below. Social Movements in the Soviet Union. Boulder: Westview.

Seligman, Adam (1992): The Idea of Civil Society. New York: Free Press.

Sen, Amartya K. (1977): "Rational Fools: A Critique of the Behavioral Foundations of Economic Theory," Philosophy and Public Affairs 6: 317-344.

Sewell, William H., Jr. (1992): "A Theory of Structure: Duality, Transformation," American Journal of Sociology 98: 1-29.

Shell, Marc (1993): Children of the Earth. Literature, Politics and Nationhood. New York: Oxford University Press.

Shue, Vivienne (1988): The Reach of the State. Sketches of the Chinese Body Politic. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Simon, Herbert A. (1993): "Altruism and Economics," American Economic Review. Papers and Proceeding 83: 156-161.

Skinner, G. William (1964): "Marketing and Social Structure in Rural China," Journal of Asian Studies 24: 3-43. (1985): "The Structure of Chinese History," Journal of Asian Studies 44: 271-292.

Smelser, Neil J. (1963): Theory of Collective Behavior. New York: Free Press.

Smith, Anthony D. (1981): The Ethnic Revival. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (1990): "The Supersession of Nationalism?" International Journal of Comparative Sociology 31:1-31.

Smith, Dennis (1991): The Rise of Historical Sociology. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Smith, Michael Peter (1991): ed., Breaking Chains. Social Movements and Collective Action. New Brunswick: Transaction. Comparative Urban and Community Research, vol.3.

Snow, David A. et al. (1986) "Frame Alignment and Mobilization," American Sociological Review 51: 464-481.

Somers, Margaret R. (1992): "Narrativity, Narrative Identity, and Social Action: Rethinking English Working-Class Formation," Social Science History 16: 591-630. (1993): "Citizenship and the Place of the Public Sphere: Law, Community, and Political Culture in the Transition to Democracy," American Sociological Review 58: 587-620.

Starr, Harvey (1994): "Revolution and War: Rethinking the Linkage Between Internal and External Conflict," Political Research Quarterly 47: 481-507.

Steinberg, Marc (1993): "New Canons or Loose Cannons? The Post-Marxist Challenge to Neo-Marxism as Represented in the Work of Calhoun and Reddy," Political Power and Social Theory 8: 221-270.

Stevenson, John (1992): Popular Disturbances in England, 1700-1832. London: Longman. 2d edn.

Tarrow, Sidney (1988): "National Politics and Collective Action: Recent Theory and Research in Western Europe and the United States," Annual Review of Sociology: 421-440. (1989a): Struggle. Politics. and Reform: Collective Action, Social Movements, and Cycles of Protest. Ithaca: Center for International Studies, Cornell University. Western Societies Program, Occasional Paper No.21. (1989b): Democracy and Disorder: Social Conflict. Political Protest and Democracy in Italy. 1966-1973. New York: Oxford University Press. (1993a): "La mondialisation des conflits: encore un siecle de rebellion?" Etudes Internationales 24: 513-532. (1993b): "Modular Collective Action and the Rise of the Social Movement: Why the French Revolution Was Not Enough," Politics and Society 21: 69-90. (1994): Power in Movement. Social Movements, Collective Action and Revolution in the Modern World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Thomas, Robert J. (1985): Citizenship. Gender. and Work. Social Organization of Industrial Agriculture. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Thompson, Richard H. (1989): Theories of Ethnicity. A Critical Appraisal. New York: Greenwood.

Tilly, Charles (1982): "Britain Creates the Social Movement," in James Cronin and Jonathan Schneer, ed., Social Conflict and the Political Order in Modern Britain. London: Croom Helm. (1983): "Speaking Your Mind Without Elections, Surveys, or Social Movements," Public Opinion Quarterly 47: 461-478. (1993): "Contentious Repertoires in Great Britain, 1758-1834," Social Science History 17: 253-280; (1993-1994): "Social Movements as Historically Specific Clusters of Political Performances," Berkeley Journal of Sociology 38: 1-30; (1994): "States and Nationalism in Europe 1492-1992," Theory and Society 23:131-146. (1995a): Popular Contention in Great Britain. 1758-1834. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. (1995b): "Citizenship, Identity, and Social History," forthcoming in International Review of Social History. (1995c): "Democracy is a Lake," forthcoming in Herrick Chapman and Reid Andrews, eds., The Social Construction of Democracy (New York: New York University Press).

Topalov, Christian (1991): "Patriotismes et citoyennetes," Geneses 3:162-176.

Touraine, Alain (1981): The Voice and the Eye. An Analysis of Social Movements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (1985): "An Introduction to the Study of Social Movements," Social Research 52: 749-788.

Traugott, Mark (1993): "Barricades as Repertoire: Continuities and Discontinuities in the History of French Contention," Social Science History 17: 309-323.

Turner, Bryan 5. (1990): "Outline of a Theory of Citizenship," Sociology 24: 189-218.

Vail, Leroy (1989): ed., The Creation of Tribalism in Africa. London: James Curry; Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Ward, Bernard (1912): The Eve of Catholic Emancipation, 1803-1829. London: Longmans.

Wendt, Alexander E. (1987): "The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory," International Organization 41: 335-370. (1994): "Collective Identity Formation and the International State," American Political Science Review 88: 384-398.

White, Harrison (1992): Identity and Control. A Structural Theory of Social Action. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Whitney, Joseph B.R. (1970): China: Area, Administration, and Nation Building. Chicago: Department of Geography, University of Chicago. Research Paper 123.

Will, Pierre-Etienne (1994): "Chine moderne et sinologie," Annales: Histoire. Sciences Sociales 49: 7-26.

Williams, Robin (1994): "The Sociology of Ethnic Conflicts: Comparative International Perspectives," Annual Review of Sociology 20: 49-79.

Woloch, Isser (1994): The New Regime. Transformations of the French Civic Order, 1789-1820s. New York: Norton.

Zald, Mayer N. & John D. McCarthy (1979): ed., The Dynamics of Social Movements. Resource Mobilization, Social Control. and Tactics. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Winthrop. (1987): eds., Social Movements in an Organizational Society. New Brunswick: Transaction.

Zaslavsky, Victor (1992): "Nationalism and Democratic Transition in Postcommunist Societies," Daedalus 121, no.2: 97-122.

Zdravom'islova, E.A. (1993): Paradigm'i Zapadnoi Sotsio1ogii obschestvenn'ix dvizhenii.. St. Petersburg: Nauka.

	CGs 1828	petitions 1828	CGs 1829	petitions 1829

for Emancipation	16	732	99	1001

against Emancipation	21	333	141	2169

divided	4	0	2	0