 |
|
|||
|
|
|||
70 (Melucci 1989, 34-35)
(Melucci 1989, 34-35)
The proponents of RMT [resource mobilization theory] correctly emphasize that expectations are constructed by evaluating the possibilities and constraints provided by the environment of action. In this way RMT reveals the importance of an intermediate level of action which is completely ignored by the models that assume a direct relationship between discontent and mobilization. But RMT is marked by the same limitations as the theories it criticizes. In fact, its key concepts, such as ’discretional resources’ and a ’structure of opportunities’, do not refer to ’objective’ realities but imply the capacity of actors to perceive, evaluate, and determine the possibilities and limits afforded by their environ ment. RMT thus postulates a process of actors’ construction of their identity, without, however, examining this process. RMT and the models based on expectations all presuppose a theory of identity. Expectations are constructed and compared with reality only by actors who are capable of defining themselves and the field of their action. The result of this process of constructing an action system I call collective identity.
Collective identity is an interactive and shared defnition produced by several interacting individuals who are concerned with the orientations of their action as well as the field of opportunities and constraints in which their action takes place. The process of constructing, maintaining and altering a collective identity provides the basis for actors to shape dheir expectations and calculate the costs and benefits of their action. Collective identity formation is a delicate process and requires continual investments. As it comes to resemble more institutionalized forms of social action, collective identity may crystallize into organizational forms, a system of formal rules, and patterns of leadership. In less institutionalized forms of action its character more closely resembles a process which must be continually activated in order for action to be possible.
Considered as a process, collective identity involves at least three fundamental dimensions which are in reality closely interwoven: first, formulating cognitive frameworks concerning the goals, means and environment of action; second, activating relationships among the actors, who communicate, negotiate, and make decisions; and third, making emotional investments, which enable individuals to recognize themselves in each other.
Collective identity is thus a process in which actors produce dhe common cognitive frameworks that enable them to assess their environment and to calculate the costs and benefits of their action. The definitions which they formulate are in part the result of negotiated interactions and of relationships of influence and in part the fruit of emotional recognition. In this sense collective action is never based solely on cost-benefit calculations and a collective identity is never entirely negotiable.
