Abstract
This paper asks how anti-nuclear activists form collectives that are able to act collectively. It argues that shared interests and collective identities only insufficiently explain the emergence of collective action. Alternatively, the paper investigates meeting talk of German anti-nuclear groups where activists discuss proposals for collective action. Based on audio recordings, a sequential analysis of activists’ deliberations traces the transformation of vague ideas into concrete and collectively agreed to proposals. It is shown how the process by which activists reach a common understanding about a particular protest activity—as something that is being talked about here and now—and the process of becoming an acting collectivity—a group that is ready to carry out this protest activity in the future—are interdependent. Activists make use of “indexicality” (Garfinkel) to introduce specifically vague proposals, enabling others to respond and contribute to the emerging proposal while group agency is suspended. At first, the authorship of proposals is minimized. Step by step, vague proposals are specified by meeting participants until a “change in footing” (Goffman) marks group consensus. While the group emerges as the author and principal of proposals through this process, the paper shows that implementation relies on individual principals again who take responsibility during and after the meeting.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
“Planning” in the context of social movement activism is a way to talk about the future that involves the possibility of political action. As such, planning need not be very elaborate, although it can be. Such planning is ubiquitous in social movements. Even when activists themselves describe their actions as “spontaneous,” this does not necessarily mean “unplanned”. Rather, “spontaneous” can mean acting on local initiative and without bureaucratic procedures (Polletta 1998).
Olson’s argument is logically flawed on its own terms: Selective incentives are incentives that are available only to a sub-collectivity. Yet somebody has to provide the selective incentive and this is also a collective action because the incentive is available for the entire sub-collectivity and not just those who provide it. The provision of selective incentives would therefore also be subject to free riding and require further selective incentives, leading to a regress of incentives (Oliver 1993).
In an analysis of a meeting, Smith (1990) defines deictic terms as follows: “ ‘Now,’ ‘here,’ ‘there,’ ‘then,’ as well as the pronominals, ‘we’. ‘I,’ ‘they,’ ‘you,’ and so forth are deictic terms. They organize socially, as what is present for both speaker and hearer (and writer and reader), time and distance, and the positions and arrangements of persons with reference to the ‘position’ of the speaker. What they refer to can be identified only when the position of the speaker and the context in which they are used is known” (1990: 56).
EXIT is still active today and AANP dissolved in 2014. I describe EXIT and AANP as “informal” groups to distinguish them from formal organizations. These informal groups have no charter, no formal membership credentials, and no formal positions. What they do have is a name, a homepage or a blog, ways of communicating through mailing lists, and regular meetings. Research indicates that the anti-nuclear movement in Germany is largely based on such informal groups. From 1995 to 1997 in the metropolitan area of Berlin, 69% of the groups of the anti-nuclear power movement were informal groups, compared to 51.6% informal groups in the environmental movement in the same area (Rucht and Roose 1999). Importantly, informal groups also exist in small cities and towns, while chapters of national environmental organizations are usually based in larger cities. For more information on data and method, see Pütz (in press).
References
Bergmann, J. (2007). Flüchtigkeit und methodische Fixierung sozialer Wirklichkeit. In H. Hausendorf (Ed.), Gespräch als Prozess (pp. 33–66). Gunter Narr: Tübingen.
Blee, K. M. (2012). Democracy in the making: How activist groups form. New York: Oxford University Press.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clayman, S. E. (1992). Footing in the achievement of neutrality: The case of news interview discourse. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cooren, F. (2010). Action and agency in dialogue. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Du Bois, I. (2012). Grammatical, pragmatic and sociolinguistic aspects of the first person plural pronoun. In N. Baumgarten, I. Du Bois, & J. House (Eds.), Subjectivity in language and in discourse (pp. 319–338). Emerald: Bingley.
Effler, E. S. (2010). Laughing saints and righteous heroes: Emotional rhythms in social movement groups. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.
Gamson, W. (1990). The strategy of social protest. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Ganz, M. (2009). Why David sometimes wins: Leadership, organization, and strategy in the California farm worker movement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). On formal structures of practical actions. In J. C. McKinney & E. A. Tiryakian (Eds.), Theoretical sociology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Gilbert, M. (1989). On social facts. London: Routledge.
Goffman, E. (1979). Footing. Semiotica, 25, 1–29.
Goodwin, C. (1986). Between and within: Alternative sequential treatments of continuers and assessments. Human Studies, 9(2), 205–217.
Graeber, D. (2009). Direct action: An ethnography. Oakland: AK Press.
Hirschauer, S. (2001). Ethnografisches Schreiben und die Schweigsamkeit des Sozialen. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 30(6), 429–451.
Hitzler, S., & Messmer, H. (2010). Group decision-making in child welfare and the pursuit of participation. Qualitative Social Work, 9(2), 205–226.
Huisman, M. (2001). Decision-making in meetings as talk-in-interaction. International Studies of Management & Organization, 31(3), 69–90.
Jasper, J. M. (2004). A strategic approach to collective action: Looking for agency in social-movement choices. Mobilization, 9(1), 1–16.
Klandermans, B. (1988). Union action and the free rider dilemma. Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change, 10, 77–91.
Klandermans, B. (1997). The social psychology of protest. London: Blackwell.
Kotthoff, H. (1993). Disagreement and concession in disputes: On the context sensitivity of preference structures. Language in Society, 22, 193–216.
Lerner, G. H. (1993). Collectivities in action: Establishing the relevance of conjoined participation in conversation. Text, 13(2), 213–245.
Lerner, G. H., & Kitzinger, C. (2007). Extraction and aggregation in the repair of individual and collective self-reference. Discourse Studies, 9(4), 526–557.
Levinson, S. C. (2004). Deixis. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 97–121). Oxford: Blackwell.
Liberman, K. (2012). Semantic drift in conversations. Human Studies, 35(1), 263–277.
Liberman, K. (2013). More studies in ethnomethodology. Albany, NY: SUNY.
Lynch, M. (1993). Scientific practice and ordinary action: Ethnomethodology and social studies of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maney, G. M., Kutz-Flamenbaum, R. V., Rohlinger, D. A., & Goodwin, J. (Eds.). (2012). Strategies for social change. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
McCammon, H. J. (2012). The US women’s jury movements and strategic adaptation: A more just verdict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Melucci, A. (1996). Challenging codes: Collective action in the information age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mische, A. (2009). Partisan publics: Communication and contention across Brazilian youth activist networks. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Oliver, P. E. (1993). Formal models of collective action. Annual Review of Sociology, 19(1), 271–300.
Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Orton, J. D., & Weick, K. E. (1990). Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization. The Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 203–223.
Polletta, F. (1998). “It was like a fever …” Narrative and identity in social protest. Narrative and Identity in Social Protest, Social Problems, 45(2), 137–159.
Polletta, F. (2002). Freedom is an endless meeting: Democracy in American social movements. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Polletta, F., & Jasper, J. (2001). Collective identity and social movements. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 283–305.
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pütz, O. (in press). Talking collective action: A sequential analysis of strategic planning in anti-nuclear groups. London: Routledge.
Roose, J. (2010). Der endlose Streit um die Atomenergie: Konfliktsoziologische Untersuchung einer dauerhaften Auseinandersetzung. In P. H. Feindt & T. Saretzki (Eds.), Umwelt- und Technikkonflikte. Wiesbaden: VS.
Rucht, D., & Roose, J. (1999). The German environmental movement at a crossroads? Environmental Politics, 8, 59–80.
Schegloff, E. A. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ‘uh huh’ and other things that come between sentences. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk (pp. 71–93). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Smith, D. E. (1990). Texts, facts, and femininity. London: Routledge.
Stevanovic, M., & Peräkylä, A. (2012). Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(3), 297–321.
Zifonun, G., Hoffman, L., & Strecker, B. (1997). Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Acknowledgements
I thank Sarah Hitzler and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper, as well as the anti-nuclear activists for allowing me to participate in their activities.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix 1: Transcript Conventions
I agree [yes] that‘s | Brackets denote beginning and ending of overlapping speech. |
Let us (-) maybe | Dashs in parentheses mark estimated pauses, one dash for 0.2–0.5 s, two dashs for 0.5–0.8 s, and three dashs for 0.8–1.1 s. |
(1.2) | Numbers in parentheses mark timed pause in seconds and tenths of a second. |
Okay::: | Colons show that a prior sound is prolonged. The more colons, the longer is the lengthening of the last sound. |
Yes, yes. | Punctuation marks are not used as grammatical symbols, but for intonation. A period marks downward, a question mark upward, and a comma a continuing intonation (i.e., slightly rising). |
bi- bicycles | A hyphen indicates a “cut off” of the prior word or sound. |
big white paper | Underlining displays various forms of emphasis or stress. |
.h / h | A “h” marks audible breathing. A superscripted dot preceding indicates inbreath; no dot denotes outbreath. |
Well ((caughs)) that may be so. | Material in double parentheses indicate difficult-to-transcribe vocal sounds or features of the setting, as well as changes made to the translation to increase intelligibility. |
(we have to) ( ) | Materials in single parenthesse indicate transcribers are not sure about words contained therein. If no words are within the parentheses, this indicates the talk was indecipherable. |
A ↑great game | Arrows mark the onset of a noticeable rise or fall in pitch. |
Appendix 2: German Transcripts and English Translations
Excerpt 1: A leaflet
Excerpt 2A: A stand-up display
Excerpt 2B: A stand-up display (expanded)
Excerpt 3A: A circular letter
Excerpt 3B: A circular letter (II, continued)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pütz, O. Common Understandings of and Consensus About Collective Action: The Transformation of Specifically Vague Proposals as a Collective Achievement. Hum Stud 42, 483–512 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-019-09495-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-019-09495-6