 |
|
|||
|
|
|||
74 (Melucci 1989, 74-75)
(Melucci 1989, 74-75)
Given the changed nature of the ’new’ movements, is it still possible to speak of the efficacy of this type of collective action? If so, how are we to assess its success or failure? The concepts of efficacy or success could be considered, strictly speaking, as unimportant when considering this type of collective action, because the conflicts within the realm of collective action take place principally on symbolic grounds. They challenge and overturn the dominant codes upon which social relationships are founded. These symbolic challenges are a method of unmasking the dominant codes, a different way of perceiving and naming the world.
This certainly does not mean that collective action has no visible effects. Contemporary forms of collective action produce ‘measurable’ effects on at least three levels. First, they initiate institutional change through political reforms or the redefinition of organizational practices. A second effect is the selection of new elites. In many western countries during the 1970s, for example, collective action produced certain changes in the left-wing or progressive political organizations (such as political parties and trade unions). More importantly, collective action resulted in the emergence of a new generation of skilled personnel in the key comunications media, advertising and marketing sector of the ‘information society’. (A survey of young managers within these sectors, especially in metropolitan areas, could throw significant light on the relationship between the new elites and their prior experiences within ‘movements’ or alternative cultures.) The third effect of collective action is cultural innovation. This refers to the development of models of behaviour and social relationships that enter into everyday life and the market. Here changes in language, sexual customs, affective relationships, dress and eating habits modify the functioning of the social order.
Nevertheless, the significance of collective action is not confined to these effects, even though they are often the focus for detcrmining the political efficacy or success of contemporary movements. To limit social analysis to these effects is to overlook a fundamental dimension of contemporary conflicts: the movements no longer operate as characters but as signs, in the sense that they translate their action into symbolic challenges that overturn the dominant cultural codes. Movements also reveal the irrationality and bias of cultural codes by operating at the same levels (of information and communication) as the new forms of technocratic power. [Melucci, Alberto. 1989. Nomads of the Present. London: Hutchinson Radius.]
