Social Movement Studies, 2013

Vol. 12, No. 3, 264279, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2012.704174

Bourdieu and Social Movements:

Considering Identity Movements
in Terms of Field, Capital and Habitus
HANNA-MARI HUSU
Department of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of Jyvaskyla, Jyvaskyla, Finland

ABSTRACT This article examines the explanatory capacity of Pierre Bourdieus work in relation to
social movements and, in particular, identity movements. It aims to provide a theoretical framework
drawing on Bourdieus central concepts of field, capital and habitus. These concepts are viewed as
providing a theoretical toolkit that can be applied to convincingly explain aspects of social
movements that social movement theories, such as political process theory, resource mobilization
theory and framing, acknowledge, but are not able to explain within a single theoretical framework.
Identity movements are approached here in a way that relates them to the position agents/movements
occupy in social spaces, resources and cultural competence. This enables us to consider identity
movements from a new perspective that explains, for instance, the interrelatedness of class and
identity movements.
KEY WORDS : Bourdieu, social movements, identity movements, field, capital, habitus

The article investigates the explanatory capacity of Pierre Bourdieus work in relation to
identity movements. It aims to construct a theoretical approach to social movements that
draws upon Bourdieus concepts of field, capital and habitus. The value of Bourdieus
work with regard to social movement research lies in its ability to draw together ideas and
insights that have already been explored by others (Emirbayer & Johnson, 2008, p. 5).
Bourdieu was interested in many of the aspects significant to social movement research
(the relationship between external context and agents, relations and networks, resources
and subjective meanings of agents) and strove to develop a theoretical framework that
would enable him to grasp all of these in a systematic way. Although Bourdieu never dealt
with social movements comprehensively in his writings, his work can be seen as
synthesizing different social movement approaches, such as political process theory
(Eisinger, 1973; Tilly, 1978, 1995; Tarrow, 1998; McAdam, 1999), resource mobilization
theory (Lipsky, 1968; Oberschall, 1973; Gamson, 1975; Tilly, 1975; Tilly et al., 1975;
McCarthy & Zald, 1977) and framing (Gamson et al., 1982; Snow et al., 1986; Snow &
Benford, 1988, 1992), which remain well established in social movement theory.
Correspondence Address: Hanna-Mari Husu, Department of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of
Jyvaskyla, Jyvaskyla FI-40014, Finland. Email: hanna-mari.husu@jyu.fi
q 2013 Taylor & Francis

Bourdieu and Social Movements

265

Bourdieu provides fertile ground for social movement research, as illustrated by several
works such as Horton (2003); Haluza-DeLay (2008) on the concept of habitus in the
environmental movement; Erickson Nepstad and Bob (2006) on capital and leadership in
movements; and Crossley (1999a, 1999b) on mental health movements, as well as works
by Eder (1993), Bloemraad (2001) and Tugal (2009). Other authors draw on Bourdieu to
construct a synthesis between different social movement theories and/or to transcend
dualisms in movement research, such as Crossley (2002, 2003), Goldberg (2003),
Emirbayer and Goldberg (2005) and Emirbayer and Johnson (2008) on organizations. This
article develops these efforts further by applying the concepts of field, capital and habitus
in the context of identity movements. While Bourdieus power-related concepts provide
insights into the analysis of single identity movement organization (Walter, 1990; Husu,
2010), systematic attempts to use his main concepts relationally can offer a new
perspective on identity movement research.
The Bourdieusian framework explains the interrelatedness of the social position,
resources and cultural competence behind the practices of identity movements, making it
possible to overcome dualisms between structural and constructionist, objective and
subjective, and material and cultural accounts of identity movement research. This
approach allows us to take into account several aspects within a comprehensive
framework, such as the possibilities and preconditions for movement action in different
social spaces, the characteristics of movements, the role of resources and representations,
cognitive skills and competence, and so on. As identity movements (excluding here
populist and reactive identity movements) are often connected to new social movements
and middle-class activism (Offe, 1985; Eder, 1993), Bourdieu can also be drawn on to
explain the importance of class with respect to identity movements.
The identity movement concept refers to social movements in which identity,
with respect to gender, ethnicity, sexuality, etc., becomes a political point of departure
(see Woodward, 1997, p. 24). Identity movements can vary significantly, for example, in
their goals and strategies (sameness or difference), modes of presentation and organizing
action, involving both instrumental and expressive logic of action (see Bernstein, 1997;
Goldberg, 2003). For instance, they may aspire to new political rights and equality in law
or to resist cultural devaluation through recognition claims that take place through
symbolic struggles. It is suggested that Bourdieus field, capital and habitus toolkit
provides the possibility to also consider the instrumental and expressive aspects of
different movements.
The first two sections of this article relate to Bourdieus concept of field in political
process theory and suggest different ways of understanding the field concept in terms of
social movements. The next section focuses on the position-taking and strategies of
identity movement agents, and proceeds then to deal with cultural competence in framing
the political aspects of identity. The final section aims to explore symbolic struggles in
terms of specific stakes of struggles and the role of different species of capital used by
identity movements.
The Relationship Between External Context and the Emergence of Movements
Political process theory argues that transformations in external structures and processes
affect the emergence of social movements, their action and possible outcome by creating
opportunities or obstacles for movement activity. These may refer to different factors such

266

H.-M. Husu

as resource availability, bureaucratic constraints, legislation possibilities, the degree of

social control in society or a certain field, elites, opponents, pre-existing organizations in a
field, organizations competing for the same resources, media attention and so on (see
McCarthy & Zald, 1977). Opportunities that facilitate movement mobilization bring about
transformations in the relations between agents or institutions.1
Bourdieu highlights the primacy of social relations in his sociology. The concept of field
implies a set of objective, historical relations between positions (Bourdieu & Wacquant,
1992, p. 16). Fields (i.e. social spaces) can be viewed as structures of differences between
individuals, groups and institutions, while the positions of the agents are based on the
distribution and possession of capital. The most commonly used are economic capital
(money and ownership.) and cultural capital that can be incorporated into dispositions
(taste and lifestyle, for example), objectified (cultural goods own by an agent), or
institutional (for instance, educational qualifications).
Bourdieus concept of field is consistent with the idea of political process theory that
wider societal processes can transform the established structures of power. These wider,
external societal processes, such as demographic changes (urbanization, capitalization,
increase in numbers of certain age groups, growth in education and wealth in society, entry
of women into the labour markets, technological breakthroughs, etc.), have effects on the
structure of the field. Certain types of transformation (such as womens increased higher
education or their entry into labour markets, thus increasing the cultural and economic
capital of women) can shift the balance of power in a field. As a result, agents may become
better resourced to negotiate new arrangements. Similarly, political process theory
understands that these types of processes can cause shifts in political structures, either by
undermining the basis of the political system or by enhancing the strategic position of the
challenger (McAdam, 1999).
Although political process theorists point out that structural openings and grievances
need to be interpreted by agents (Tarrow, 1998; McAdam, 1999), they do not explain the
different aspects of agency.2 The problem is that the openings in the political structure
themselves explain social movements. For Bourdieu, it is the relationship between
structural openings and the position occupied by agents (based on the possession of
capital) and the habitus and trajectory of agents that explain the emergence and
characteristics of and possibilities for social movements. Bourdieus concepts can reveal
how the interpretation of structural openings is preconditioned depending on the structural
position of agents within the field.
Bourdieus concept of habitus explains the interpretation process particularly well.
Habitus stresses that the objective structures, such as institutions, social relations and
resources, become embodied and internalized in the cognitive structure of agents, and that
this is further realized in practice. Habitus is an endless capacity to engender products
thoughtsperceptionsexpressionsactionswhose limits are set by the historically
and socially situated conditions of its production (Bourdieu, 1977, pp. 72, 95). Habitus
explains how the practices and representations of agents are dependent on their structural
position. This is based on Bourdieus belief that the cognitive structures of agents tend to
reflect the structural position of agents in social space, or fields. Agents adapt dispositions
that are the internalization of an objectively selected system of signs, indices, sanctions,
which are nothing but the materialization, within objects, words or conducts, of a
particular kind of objective structure (Bourdieu, 1993, p. 133).

Bourdieu and Social Movements

267

The field and habitus cannot be understood separately. The field can be understood
as a space of possibles linked to chances of access, aspirations and expectations, which
are perceived and appreciated by the habitus (Bourdieu, 1993, p. 64). This may mean
the sense of social direction which orients agents towards a specific strategy
(Bourdieu, 1993, p. 64), based on the practical information concerning, for instance, when
and in what way to approach state agencies or journalists who may be willing to support
the movement, or what type of campaign should be organized and who are its targets. This
implies that activists possess certain dispositions and skills that affect their ability to
protest due to their socialization and social background.
Relating Movements to Fields
The concept of field enables us to consider the ways in which identity movements are
related to their environment, as well as the types of relationships they have with each other
and other agents, groups and institutions, and thus to further clarify the problematic
aspects of political process theory. The field should not be understood in a rigid, static
way, but rather as an analytical tool that can give insight into different types of situations
(see Martin, 2003). Thus, there can be different ways to conceptualize social movements
within the field concept, each of which has its benefits and shortcomings.3
First, Crossley (2002, pp. 178 183) argues that movements themselves act in different
fields depending on their area of expertise. In this sense, if a civil rights organization
specializes in judicial issues, it operates in the judicial field. If the organization is a
media watchdog group, its effects occur in the media field. The benefit of this approach
is that it highlights the importance of the different social spaces in which social
movements operate. With the exception of some authors who have highlighted the role
of cultural or discursive opportunity structures (Gamson & Meyer, 1996; Koopmans &
Statham, 1999), political process theory has paid much attention to political and
institutional structures, neglecting other social and cultural spaces in which struggles
take place (Jasper, 1997, pp. 34 39; Goodwin & Jasper, 2003). The idea of different
fields (e.g. economic, judicial, journalistic and intellectual) enables us to consider
openings and transformations not only in political structures (although the political field
may be the dominant field as its institutions, legislation, alliances, etc., can significantly
influence other fields), but also in other types of social spaces, which may be just as
important to social movements.
Bloemraad (2001, p. 277) draws attention to relational aspects between fields and
habitus, arguing that different social spaces have different effects on the collective action
of a movement. Each field can be understood to have its own logic:
Specific fields will often have their own forms of social control, their own structures
of opportunity and their specific types of resource, and thus the possibility of
movement formation, development and success within them may be quite specific to
them [ . . . ] a campaign which is eminently newsworthy in the media field may be
quite hopeless from a political or legal point of view, and vice versa. (Crossley,
2002, p. 180)
This indicates that each field has different constrains and logics. Movements are required
to play a different game in each of these fields (Crossley, 2002, p. 180).

268

H.-M. Husu

For instance, the economic field may be important to identity movements, as the
movements may aim to take advantage of the economic logic of profit-making.
The movements may aspire to find supporters and sponsors from businesses that are
willing to support, for example gay and lesbian visibility, because these businesses view it
as a marketing strategy. In addition, Bourdieu (2005, p. 41) believes that the journalistic
field is increasingly influential. Having an identity movement or its concerns increasingly
represented in a positive and supportive manner in the newspapers or the media can be
crucial to the success of the movement because these disseminate representations and
definitions of the social world and shape and mold public opinion (see Goldberg, 2003,
pp. 753, 754). Thus, they can be seen as producers of the meaning and value of the
movements efforts, and as defining the movements discourse as being worthy of
discussion (cf. Bourdieu, 1993, p. 35; Johnson, 1993, p. 11). However, if a lesbian, gay,
bisexual and transgender (LGBT) movement aims to appeal to certain businesses in order
to find sponsors for its activities and campaigns, it can hardly be understood as belonging
to the economic field because its reason for existence is not related to economic
profit-making. The movement may (temporarily) use the logic of another field to further its
aspirations, but its real goals are elsewhere, such as struggling for legitimate valuation of
sexual identity, which may also take place in other fields such as the media. In this sense,
movements traverse different fields without being fully determined by the logic of the
specific field within which they operate.
If it is possible to consider social movements as phenomena with their own laws of
functioning, then the next approach is to think of movements themselves as fields (see
Bourdieu, 1993, p. 37, 2005, p. 33; Emirbayer & Johnson, 2008, p. 2). Bourdieu (1993,
2005) refers to the field of cultural production (including artistic, journalistic, and
scientific fields, and so on). Within these fields, the cultural capital possessed tends to
determine the specific logic of the field. However, Bourdieu understands cultural capital as
dominated capital with respect to economic capital and the field of power (second
principle of hierarchy vs. dominant principle of hierarchy), thus making cultural
producers a dominated fraction of the dominant class (see Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992,
pp. 104 105; Bourdieu, 1993, pp. 37 39). Social movements in the public sphere may be
relatively autonomous, but have less power than the state or political and bureaucratic
fields.4
For Bourdieu, fields are arenas of ongoing struggle in which each agent aims to either
improve or conserve his or her own position. The social world is the product and the stake
of cognitive and political symbolic struggles over knowledge and recognition (Bourdieu,
2000, p. 187). Identity movements pursue a symbolic struggle in which they compete to
impose as legitimate the principles of construction of social reality that are most
favourable to their own social being (Bourdieu, 2000, p. 187). This takes place through
establishing new classifications, definitions and names that construct social reality as
much as they express it, are the stake par excellence of political struggle (Bourdieu, 1989,
pp. 21 22). In other words, identity movements can be understood as cultural meaning
producers that create values and new points of view in opposition to imposed modes of
thought that marginalize and devalue certain individuals and groups.5
All agents and mediators that play one role or another in the agenda of an identity
movement should be taken into account in the definition of the field (cf. Emirbayer &
Johnson, 2008, p. 2; see Bourdieu, 1993, pp. 34 35). This includes all agents and
institutions that the movement manages to appeal to, i.e. manages to produce an effect on,

Bourdieu and Social Movements

269

or vice versa, that is, those agents and institutions that the movement needs to take into
account in its practices and strategies. This may include, for instance, state agents,
institutions and counter-movements (such as anti-abortion, anti-gay, right-wing and
religious right movements whose reason for existence is to oppose the goals and values of
the identity movement in question). In some cases, movements have actual and direct links
to elected officials, state agencies, political parties and so on (see Bernstein, 1997, p. 539).
In Bourdieus sense, social capital means resources and networks of more or less
institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition (Bourdieu &
Wacquant, 1992, p. 119; see also Diani, 1997, pp. 130, 133). Social capital and networks
may further increase the influence of the movements, as agents create new linkages
(Diani, 1997). Movements may also appeal to journalists and lay people who are willing to
reconsider their attitudes towards gender, race or sexual orientation. This means that
the entire set of agents needs to be taken into account. The problem with this approach
lies in the difficulty in setting boundaries for the field (the field ceases to exist when its
effects are no longer evident), which can only be approached through empirical
investigation (see Bourdieu, 1996a, p. 132).
For something to be understood as a field requires that its agents are interpersonally
related or orientated towards each other or that they share the same goal (Martin, 2003,
p. 29). Fligstein (2001, p. 108) notes that it is relevant to speak of a field when agents
frame their action vis-a`-vis one another. Bourdieu, however, warns about reducing
these types of relationships between different agents to mere interaction or influence
(see Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p. 97; Emirbayer & Johnson, 2008, p. 9). The concept of
field always entails that a set of agents and institutions functions as a field when they
produce effects upon one another (Bourdieu, 1996a, p. 132). Agents must be linked by
objective relations such that the structure of these (material and symbolic) relations has
effects within each of them (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, pp. 100 101). Thus, it needs to
be asked what it is in the structural effects and relations that makes this type of influence
possible in the first place.
If a movement agenda appeals to journalists, for example, it is likely that it is because of
homologies and similarities with structural positions and relations between these agents.
Bourdieu refers to sets of agents who occupy similar positions and who, being placed in
similar conditions and subjected to similar conditionings, have every likelihood of having
similar dispositions and interests and therefore of producing similar practices and adopting
similar stances (Bourdieu, 1985, p. 725). Therefore, it needs to be considered what these
agents have in common with regard to social positions, volume and composition of capital,
habitus and social trajectory. For instance, Bourdieu (1993, pp. 74 111) draws attention to
the homological positions between the producers of cultural products and their receivers
(clients and readers) in artistic and journalistic fields. It can be suggested that these types
of homologies between different agents also exist for identity movements in the field of
cultural production.
Position and Position-Taking as Explaining the Characteristics and Interests of
Movements
Bourdieus idea of the construction of social space (field positions) and position-taking
provides insights into social movement research. For Bourdieu (1989, p. 17), the positions
of different agents in the overall social space can be grasped when, first, the entire volume

270

H.-M. Husu

of the capital is taken into account (the sum of capital) and, second, when the structure of
the capital is taken into account (the composition of different species of capital). It is
then possible to construct a social space in which movements are located in terms of
their mutual differences. The closer the agents are to each other in a space, the more
common properties they have (1989, p. 16). Bourdieu stresses that the concept of positions
is methodologically inseparable from the field of stances or position-takings, i.e. the
structured systems of practices of agents (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p. 105). Positiontaking reflects the possible choices that are open to the social agents (Bourdieu, 1993,
p. 177). It refers to stances such as practices and expressions (for instance, style of
argumentation and abstraction, campaigns, projects and representations of social
movements) that tend to be consistent with their actual position in a field (Bourdieu &
Wacquant, 1992, p. 105; Bourdieu, 1996b, p. 231; see also Emirbayer & Johnson, 2008).
Rather than approaching movement activities as (conscious) strategies, representations
or performativity, it is possible to regard them as position-takings. The Bourdieusian
approach enables us to link the position-takings of movements to positions occupied in a
field. This provides explanatory capacity not only in terms of the characteristics of specific
movements and how these characteristics are based on various forms and amounts of
capital, but also how to overcome the dualism between structural and constructionist
accounts in social movement research. Attention should be given to positions occupied in
a field that are based on the agents access to resources/capital, as well as the habitus and
trajectories of the movement participants, such as age, social background and how they
came to be members of the movement.
The Bourdieusian framework thus explains the different types of stances and strategies
of different movements in terms of differences in the extent and structure of the capital
they possess. Members of the feminist movement (and its different branches) and LGBT
movement, for example, may possess more capital (cultural or economic) than ethnic
identity groups and so on. Their position-taking may have more influence in fields, as they
are able to mobilize more capital, and therefore have more possibilities to promote their
cause and forge important alliances in fields such as the media.6
For example, civil rights movement activists were often recruited from churches
(Morris, 1984), whereas those activists who highlighted difference and supported
separation, especially organizations such as the Nation of Islam (NOI) (the biggest and
most radical organization of African Americans in the late 1950s), were typically from
ghetto areas, often former convicts and relatively young of age (Lincoln, 1994). In general,
agents aspire to differentiate themselves from other agents so that they exist in fields only
by virtue of difference (Bourdieu, 2005, pp. 39 40). Different movement organizations
differentiate themselves on the basis of the stances they assume in respect to strategy,
goals, and identity (Emirbayer & Jonhson, 2008, p. 14).7 The NOI differentiated itself
in its position-takings from the civil rights movement by accusing moderate leaders
of serving the interest of whites, whereas the civil rights leaders understood the populism
and hate-rhetoric of the NOI as a consequence of societal and economic defects
(Lincoln, 1994, pp. 130 159). When the NOI gained popularity among African
Americans, the white press adopted a more positive attitude towards the civil rights
movement (Ogbar, 2004, p. 42). This indicates that position-taking and symbolic struggles
have real consequences on movements efforts because they create opportunities for
outside influence, such as the ability to form important alliances, or vice versa
(see Goldberg, 2003).

Bourdieu and Social Movements

271

Position-takings become, without conscious calculation, adjusted to the actual

possibilities agents have. The position-taking and strategy of the civil rights movement
to emphasize sameness (rather than difference) may have come about as a result of
increased possession of certain resources and dispositions among its members which, if
racial discrimination were to be abolished, may have extended certain privileges to those
members. Unlike the activist movements in the ghettos, they were not completely
excluded from middle-class ideals. The interests and position-taking of the NOI were
aimed at complete separation from white society because the lack of resources and
dispositions of its members guaranteed their exclusion from American society in any case.
Thus, position-takings are determined by the structure of the field through the
intermediary of the constraints and interests associated with a given position
(Bourdieu, 1992b, p. 184). Different agents, groups and movements have different
opportunities to carry out their strategies and goals, and moreover, they also have their
own specific interests. The examination of position-taking reveals how these interests are
not conscious and calculated goals, but historical, structured and position-dependent.
Resource mobilization theory, which tends to resonate with rational choice theory, has
paid much attention to the concept of interest in social movement studies. The theory
emerged in the 1970s as a response to the collective behaviour and crowd theories of the
1950s and 1960s (Blumer, 1951; Smelser, 1962; Turner & Killian, 1987), which
emphasized disturbances or strains in everyday social routines resulting in spontaneous,
irrational and emotional collective action by the public. Resource mobilization theory,
instead, highlights the rationality of agents (often in terms of cost and rewards), strategy
(towards defined specific goals), institutionalized practices and resource availability
behind (successful) mobilization (see Jenkins, 1983; Cohen, 1985). In other words, the
theory emphasizes that social movements have clearly defined interests and goals that are
then rationally and strategically pursued. Although Bourdieu (1992a, p. 209) notes that all
practices are oriented towards the maximization of material and symbolic profit, for him,
in most cases interest is not purposive, instrumental, intentional or conscious action
towards calculated goals, but rather it is linked to a sense of game and habitus, which tend
to adjust to the necessities and probabilities inscribed in the field (Bourdieu & Wacquant,
1992, pp. 25, 125).
Both Bourdieu and resource mobilization theory highlight the importance of resource
availability for successful action. For Bourdieu, the concept of capital refers to usable
economic, cultural, social and symbolic resources and powers, i.e. capital. Some resource
mobilization theorists acknowledge capital as a more nuanced approach to resources,
while also pointing out that resources vary in form and usability (Edwards & McCarthy,
2007, p. 117). Material, cultural, human, moral, technological and time-related resources
are considered necessary for the formation and impact of social movements (see Edwards
& McCarthy, 2007). Both Bourdieu and resource mobilization theory share the central
idea that resources can be converted to other resourcesmoney enables a social
movement organization to pursue a range of activities, such as education and campaigns,
and to buy material resources, such as office space and technology. However, whereas
resource mobilization theory states that resources have a relatively direct effect on
outcomes, Bourdieu views capital as functioning more as a mediator. The Bourdieusian
framework explains how the success of movements depends not only on the possession
of external and internal resources, but also on the ways in which external and internal
resources are mobilized in the position-takings of the movements.

272

H.-M. Husu

Furthermore, Bourdieu stresses that the effects of possessing capital can be embodied in
the forms of disposition of agents (see Crossley, 2002, p. 174). Although, resource
mobilization theory often counts knowledge, habits and skills as resources (see Edwards &
McCarthy, 2007, p. 126), without explanation of the specific mechanisms behind these
factors (such as Bourdieus field, capital and habitus) this theorization falls short. When
capital is understood as embodied, the question of cultural background and class position
can be taken into account in a way that acknowledges the importance of the cognitive
ability of movement participants (see also Eder, 1993; Crossley, 2002).
Cultural Competence and Understanding of Identity
New social movements are often associated with middle-class participation and the rise of
the New Class due to growth in professional, managerial, administrative and technical
occupations (Gouldner, 1979; Goldthorphe, 1982; Rootes, 1995). Rootes (1995) argues
that the growth of higher education and new professionals has had significant political
implications in terms of new politics and mobilization (see also Inglehart, 1977;
Della Porta & Diani, 2006, pp. 55 62). Bourdieu (1986, p. 426) points out that in political
debates, for example concerning womens liberation and environmental protection,
variations in educational capital are especially important. Bourdieu links social position
and possession of capital to the cognitive aspects of agents, providing mechanisms through
which it can be explained how a middle-class position affects cognitive skills and, thus,
constructive processes.
Taking into account the cognitive and social psychological aspects of agents raises the
question of how certain societal problems need to be cognitively invented, interpreted and
articulated by the movement activist as emphasized by the framing paradigm. Bourdieus
concept of habitus shares significant similarities with framing and the concept of frame.
Frames are interpretative schemata that allow agents to locate, perceive, identify and
label occurrences within their life space and the world at large. In addition, they
function to organize experience and guide action (Snow et al., 1986, p. 464). Habitus can
be distinguished, first, as a perceptual and classifying structure and, second, as a generative
structure of practical action (Lizardo, 2004, p. 379). Habitus and framing are thus similar
concepts, originating from the concept of scheme in cognitive psychology (see Snow &
Benford, 1992, pp. 136 137; Lizardo, 2004).
Habitus and framing stress the constructive role of individuals. Snow and Benford
(1992, p. 136), for instance, understand agents as being creative, and thus they do not
view social movements merely as carriers of extant ideas and meanings that stand in
isomorphic relationship to structural arrangements or unanticipated events, but rather
they see movement organizations and actors as actively engaged in the production and
maintenance of meaning. The difference here, as Bourdieu (1996a, pp. 1 2) points out, is
that the construction process can only be meaningful if it also sets itself the task of
grasping the social genesis of the cognitive structures that agents implement in them.
Thus, habitus structures new experiences in accordance with the structures produced by
past experiences, meaning that early experiences have a particular weight (Bourdieu &
Wacquant, 1992a, p. 60). Although framing touches on the importance of past experiences
in constructing frames, in practice, its interests are in interpreting process of specific
events and conditions in order to mobilize adherents (see Snow, 2007, p. 384). This means
that little attention is paid to the question of the social conditions of the possibility of

Bourdieu and Social Movements

273

framing. Here again, Bourdieu draws attention to how the social space, capital and habitus
positions are interrelated. Bourdieu does not deny emancipation, but suggests that this type
of self-work is determined in part by the original structures of the habitus in question, in
part by the objective conditions under which the awakening of self-consciousness takes
place (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p. 133).
Thus, compared to framing, habitus takes better into account the competence of
individuals and groups to understand the characteristics and different dimensions of
social problems. Social agents occupy different positions in the field of class relations;
they possess certain types of political competence characterized by a greater or lesser
capacity to recognize a political question as political and to treat it as such by
responding to it politically (Bourdieu, 1986, p. 399). The emergence of identitymotivated movements presupposes the transition from the practical knowledge of the
social world to the abstract and theoretical understanding. Agents must understand the
nature of the everyday world as being arbitrary and open to change. They must also
understand the normative character of everyday life, which means that they perceive
and criticize earlier taken-for-granted dimensions such as white, heterosexual, male
privilege and normativity. The capacity to reflect is an acquired skill (Crossley, 2003,
p. 48) and also dependent on special training through which individuals achieve the
specific types of knowledge (theoretical, conceptual, statistical, etc.) and general skills
(argumentation, rhetoric and so on) required (Bourdieu, 1992b, p. 176).8 Bourdieu
(1986, p. 399) also relates political competence to the sense of being competent to
participate, that is, socially recognized as entitled to deal with political affairs, to
express an opinion about them or even modify their course. In other words, it is not
irrelevant that, due to their relatively privileged backgrounds, new social movement
activists and followers are endowed with specific cultural competence (see also
Crossley, 2002, pp. 173 177).

Symbolic Struggle over Legitimate Valuation of Identity

Goldberg (2003) combines resource mobilization with a collective identity approach
through Bourdieus idea of classificatory struggle, illustrating how struggles over
collective identity (between the Workers Alliance and its opponents, and within the
Workers Alliance in the United States from 1935 to 1941) have real social effects on the
mobilization of resources. However, while Goldbergs focus is on the specific effects and
consequences of these struggles, the specific preconditions for effective symbolic struggle
also need to be taken into account. The idea of symbolic struggle in terms of identity
movements raises two questions: first, what is at stake in the symbolic struggle? Second,
what are the specific capitals that are central to the identity movements in the struggle?
What is at stake in the symbolic struggle is the legitimate valuation of specific
identities (who has the right to marry, for example) and the power to determine the
specific rules of the game, i.e. what is the most legitimate way of perceiving and
understanding identity-related issues in general. The former refers to struggles for
recognition and the status of marginalized groups. In this sense, movements can be
related to status politics, which is an effort to control the status of a group by acts which
function to raise, lower, or maintain the status of the acting group vis-a`-vis others
(Gusfield, 1986, p. 19). This can further be viewed as rational political action to

274

H.-M. Husu

influence the allocation and distribution of honor or prestige (Goldberg, 2003, p. 736).
Status is linked to other types of benefits such as material advantage (see Goldberg,
2003, p. 736), but in terms of identity movements, it may also be related to opportunities
for self-expression and formal rights. The latter (the power to impose the legitimate
categories for identity construction), on the other hand, is related to a symbolic struggle
in which the question of how identity should be defined is at stake. For instance, is
identity understood as essential (natural and emerging from the permanent ways of being
and behaviour), or as something that is constructed and negotiated through power
struggles, and thus, flexible and open to change? The understanding of identity as a
social construction rather than a given category may well be the most fundamental effect
of the emergence of identity movements and identity politics.
Because of the lack of formal political power, identity movements power to
influence the social world lies in their capacity to transform categories of perception
and appreciation by providing alternative ways of perceiving and understanding things
and constructing new meanings (see Bourdieu, 1989, pp. 20 21). However, it can be
suggested that the extent to which this is possible is dependent on their possession of
capital. As agents possess different amounts and structures of capital, they have
various degrees of strength and therefore diverse probabilities in a field (Bourdieu &
Wacquant, 1992, p. 102). Capital (economic, cultural, social and symbolic) is viewed
both as a weapon and as a stake of struggle (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p. 98).
This draws attention to the species of capital that are central to identity movements.
First, economic capital is important not only because material resources affect
mobilization, as suggested by resource mobilization theory, but also because economic
capital creates distance from material necessities, which may shift the interest to symbolic
aspects and status (Bourdieu, 1986). Highly resourced individuals and groups are less
ready to accept low status in terms of stigmatized characteristics. In addition, cultural
capital related to the idea of competence facilitates the legitimacy of the position-takings
of movements.
The advantage of Bourdieus work that is absent in earlier approaches is that economic
and cultural capital function as symbolic power and symbolic capital in symbolic
struggles, and are regarded as legitimate competence and authority. Symbolic capital is the
credit, belief or recognition of the value of a person or an object (Bourdieu, 1992b, p. 192).
It can affect the capacity to impose meanings as legitimate (Swartz, 2008, p. 46).
Any form of performance or discourse that efficiently imposes the legitimate vision must
be based on the possession of symbolic capital (which is nothing other than economic and
cultural capital when misrecognized as such) (Bourdieu, 1989, pp. 21, 23). It is the power
granted to those who have obtained sufficient recognition to be in a position to impose
recognition (1989, p. 23).
In the case of identity movements, symbolic capital is based on the possession of
economic and cultural capital, which draws attention to the class position and middleclass status of the members. As each property (a pattern of speech, a way of dressing, a
bodily hexis [ . . . and other indications of middle-class status]) is perceived in its relation
to other properties (Bourdieu, 1990, p. 113), class status can be mobilized to promote
the legitimacy of those characteristics that are related to marginalization. If so, this
suggests that the valuation of different marginalized identities (in terms of gender,
sexuality and ethnicity) may vary according to the possession of capital (material and
symbolic).9

Bourdieu and Social Movements

275

Conclusion
This article constructs a Bourdieusian theoretical framework aimed at providing a coherent
approach to consider certain aspects of different movement theories, such as political process
theory, resource mobilization theory and framing, in terms of identity movements. The field,
capital and habitus toolkit stresses the interconnectedness of the existing opportunities of
fields, how they are taken advantage of, how interests are driven, how successful are the
strategies of the movements, what types of cognitive capacities agents have, and how they
interpret and construct meanings. Bourdieu explains the importance of class and the
competence of social agents in identity-motivated mobilization. Class position tends to
determine how a movements interests can be pursued, the types of strategies that are
available and how successful they will be in the fields to which the movement aims to appeal.
More specifically, the article suggests that the concept of fields takes into account the
existence of many other social spaces (economic, journalistic and so on) that may be
equally as important to social movements as the political field. With regard to openings
and opportunities in a given field, the Bourdieusian framework explains how these are
related to the position agents occupy in the field based on their possession of capital,
habitus and trajectories. Position-taking (stances, argumentation and so on) should also be
understood in terms of field, capital and habitus concepts. This perspective is a relevant
addition to the identity movement research because it illustrates that position-takings
(i.e. presentations of the self and representations of identity movements) should not be
explained in terms of self-presentations and representations itself, but of configurations of
objective relations and habitus. The cultural competence, which arises from the possession
of capital and habitus, enables specific understanding of social problems. To be able to
make visible and change identity-related social problems and to take advantage of the
possibilities that exist in fields, agents need not only to be qualified and able to carry out
certain types of position-taking, but also to have legitimacy based on the possession of
capital and habitus that indicates their class position in the society.
It can be argued that, to a certain extent, capital can be converted to symbolic capital, thus
making claims for recognition in symbolic struggles more effective and credible when the
agents are middle-classed. A high amount of capital can facilitate the acceptance of an identity
movements position-takings. It can give credence to its recognition claims and more
effectively legitimate its marginalized identity. This is not to argue that highly resourced
marginalized individuals and groups do not suffer from inequality, nor to prioritize that class
relations are above gender, race or sexual inequality. Rather, it is claimed that when it comes
to mobilization, class position is central in promoting recognition and equal rights.

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the Finnish Cultural Foundation and Sovako (the Finnish Doctoral Program of Social
Sciences) for funding. I am also grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their insightful and helpful comments.

Notes
1. For instance, McAdam (1999) links the historical processes behind the origins of the civil rights movement
between the years 1876 and 1954 (the decline in cotton farming in the South, the increased resources of
African Americans and mass migration to northern cities from the rural South) to shifts in political structures
facilitating opportunities for successful insurgent action.

276

H.-M. Husu

2. It is easier to mention the role of agents in grievance interpretation than to explain the different aspects of
agency (see Tarrow, 1998; McAdam, 1999). McAdam (1999, p. 51) argues that [b]efore collective protest can
get under way, people must collectively define their situations as unjust and subject to change through group
action. In addition, he suggests that [m]ediating between opportunity and action are people and the subjective
meanings they attach to their situation.
3. Conceptualizing the concept of field with respect to gender, race or sexual orientation can be problematic, as
noted by many gender theorists (Moi, 1991; Adkins, 2004). Difficulties may follow from a tendency to conflate
gender, race, sexuality understood as (doxic) practice with gender, race, and sexuality understood as
symbolic struggle. Identity movements call for the recognition of a certain property, such as gender, race and
sexual orientation; thus, the meanings, values, ideas and ideals that people attach to these properties become a
target of symbolic struggle reflecting the interest of different groups. In this sense, gender, for example, can be
understood as constituting a field. Any agents (individuals, organizations or institutions) that focus interest on
the field are part of the field. If gender is understood as (doxic) practice and related to the field, then the
question is how gendered dispositions affect practice in a field (is it related to the lack of practical mastery in
male-dominated fields?).
4. The state and institutions (as official authorities) can claim monopoly of the legitimate use of symbolic
violence and guarantee certain states of affairs by imposing on someone what his [sic] identity is, but in a way
that both expresses it to him and imposes it on him by expressing it in front of everyone (Bourdieu, 1992b,
p. 121, 1996a, p. 376). This implies the importance of the state as the central target of identity movements
(e.g. with respect to the issue of same-sex marriages).
5. According to the concept of symbolic violence, the categories of perception and appreciation that marginalized
groups use to understand and evaluate the social world, dominants, themselves, etc., are constructed from the
perspective of the dominant (male, white, heterosexual). What follows is that these groups marginalize and
negatively value themselves, which can result in feelings of inferiority, shame and extreme practices such as
skin bleaching. In this sense, Bourdieus power-related concepts resonate with identity movements and the
phrase personal is political, as suggested by Walter (1990). In general, Bourdieu believes that stigmatized
identity (gender, race, ethnicity and sexual orientation) is related to the lack of symbolic capital
(resulting from status subordination) (see Bourdieu, 2001). Although Bourdieu (1986, p. 107) states that
economic and social conditions give form and value to the properties of gender, age and place of residence, he
also remarks that the secondary properties (such as gender and race) often provide the basis for the social
value, i.e. prestige or discredit, of specific capital (such as income and education). Thus, the lack of traits related
to proper gender or social or ethnic origin leads to exclusion and marginalization (1986, pp. 102103). The
interrelatedness of different aspects (gender, race, sexuality and class) in social inequality is scrutinized in the
growing literature on intersectionality (Browne & Misra, 2003; McCall, 2005; Lutz et al., 2011).
6. Nationalist, populist and reactive identity movements (typically possessing less cultural capital, in particular)
may form strategies that differ from those who are endowed with cultural competence, as is characteristic of
middle-class identity movements. They are likely to choose channels of discourse and representation that
create distance from arenas of argumentation and technical competence. For instance, a public march
emphasizing unity and masculine discipline as an illustration of a groups power can be understood as
position-taking.
7. For a Bourdieusian analysis of strategies of distinction among environmentalists, read Horton (2003).
8. Individuals and groups those lack economic, cultural, social and symbolic resources are disadvantageously
equipped and dispositioned to impose and legitimate their vision in the world. Swartz (1997, p. 220) criticizes
Bourdieus theory of symbolic power for underestimating the capacity of nonspecialists to develop in certain
situations appropriate understanding of the true character of power relations. For a Bourdieusian analysis of
how a disadvantaged group that significantly lacks capital understands and resists unequal material and
symbolic power relations, read Husu (2010).
9. It should be noted that symbolic capital functions most efficiently within the boundaries of the field effects.
In addition, movements (even those with a high volume of capital) are likely to have different opportunities in
different fields such as media, journalistic, political or judicial.

References
Adkins, L. (2004) Introduction: Feminism, Bourdieu and after, in: L. Adkins & B. Skeggs (Eds) Feminism after
Bourdieu, pp. 3 18 (Oxford: Blackwell).
Bernstein, M. (1997) Celebration and suppression: The strategic uses of identity by the lesbian and gay
movement, American Journal of Sociology, 103(3), pp. 531565.

Bourdieu and Social Movements

277

Bourdieu, P. (1977) Outline the Theory of Practice (R. Nice, Trans.) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Bourdieu, P. (1985) The social space and the genesis of the group, Theory and Society, 14(6), pp. 723744.
Bourdieu, P. (1986) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste (R. Nice, Trans.)
(London: Routledge).
Bourdieu, P. (1989) Social space and symbolic power, Sociological Theory, 7(1), pp. 14 25.
Bourdieu, P. (1990) In Other Words (M. Adamson, Trans.) (Cambridge: Polity Press).
Bourdieu, P. (1992a) The Logic of Practice (R. Nice, Trans.) (Cambridge: Blackwell).
Bourdieu, P. (1992b) Language and Symbolic Power (new ed.) (G. Raymond & M. Adamson, Trans.)
(Cambridge: Blackwell).
Bourdieu, P. (1993) The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature (Cambridge: Polity Press).
Bourdieu, P. (1996a) State Nobility: Elite Schools in the Field of Power (L. C. Clough, Trans.) (Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press).
Bourdieu, P. (1996b) The Rules of Art (S. Emanuel, Trans.) (Cambridge: Polity Press).
Bourdieu, P. (2000) Pascalian Meditations (R. Nice, Trans.) (Cambridge: Blackwell).
Bourdieu, P. (2001) Masculine Domination (R. Nice, Trans.) (Cambridge: Polity Press).
Bourdieu, P. (2005) The political field, the social science field and the journalistic field, in: R. Benson (Ed.)
Bourdieu and Journalistic Field (Cambridge: Polity Press).
Bourdieu, P. & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992) An Invitation to Reflective Sociology (Oxford: Polity Press).
Bloemraad, I. (2001) Outsiders and insiders: Collective identity and collective action in the Quebec independence
movement, 1995, The Politics of Social Inequality, 9, pp. 271 305.
Blumer, H. (1951) The field of collective behaviour, in: A. M. Lee (Ed.) Principles of Sociology, pp. 67121
(New York: Barnes & Nobles).
Browne, I. & Misra, J. (2003) The intersection of gender and race in the labor market, Annual Review of
Sociology, 29, pp. 487 513.
Cohen, J. L. (1985) Strategy or identity: New theoretical paradigms and contemporary social movements,
Social Research, 52(4), pp. 663716.
Crossley, N. (1999a) Fish, field, habitus and madness: On the first wave mental health users in Britain,
British Journal of Sociology, 50(4), pp. 647670.
Crossley, N. (1999b) Working utopias and social movements: An investigation using case study materials from
radical mental health movements in Britain, Sociology, 33(4), pp. 809830.
Crossley, N. (2002) Making Sense of Social Movements (Buckingham: Open University Press).
Crossley, N. (2003) From reproduction to transformation: Social movement fields and radical habitus,
Theory, Culture and Society, 20, pp. 4368.
Della Porta, D. & Diani, M. (2006) Social Movements: An Introduction, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Blackwell).
Diani, M. (1997) Social movements and social capital: A network perspective on movement outcome,
Mobilization, 2(2), pp. 129 147.
Eder, K. (1993) The New Politics of Class: Social Movements and Cultural Dynamics in Advanced Communities
(London: Sage).
Edwards, B. & McCarthy, J. D. (2007) Resources and social movement mobilization, in: D. A. Snow,
S. A. Soule & H. Kriesi (Eds) Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, pp. 116 153
(Oxford: Blackwell).
Eisinger, P. (1973) The conditions of protest behaviour in American cities, American Political Science Review,
67, pp. 1128.
Emirbayer, M. & Goldberg, C. (2005) Pragmatism, Bourdieu, and collective emotions in contentious politics,
Theory and Society, 32, pp. 469518.
Emirbayer, M. & Johnson, V. (2008) Bourdieu and organizational analysis, Theory and Society, 37, pp. 144.
Erickson Nepstad, S. & Bob, C. (2006) When do leaders matter? Hypothesis on leadership dynamics in social
movements, Mobilization, 11(1), pp. 122.
Fligstein, N. (2001) Social skills and the theory of fields, Sociological Theory, 19, pp. 105 125.
Gamson, W. A. (1975) The Strategy of Social Protest (Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press).
Gamson, W. A., Fireman, B. & Rytina, S. (1982) Encounters with Unjust Authority (Homewood IL:
Dorsey Press).
Gamson, W. A. & Meyer, D. A. (1996) Framing political opportunity, in: D. McAdam, J. D. McCarthy &
M. N. Zald (Eds) Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing
Structure, and Cultural Framings, pp. 275 290 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

278

H.-M. Husu

Goldberg, C. A. (2003) Haunted by the specter of communism: Collective identity and resource mobilization in
the demise of workers alliance of America, Theory and Society, 56, pp. 725773.
Goldthorphe, J. (1982) On the service class: Its formation and future, in: A. Giddens & G. Mackenzie (Eds)
Social Class and the Division of Labour: Essays in Honour of Ilya Neustadt, pp. 162 185
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Goodwin, J. & Jasper, J. M. (2003) Rethinking Social Movements: Structure, Meaning and Emotion
(Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield).
Gouldner, A. W. (1979) The Future of Intellectuals and the Rise of the New Class (London: Macmillan).
Gusfield, J. (1986) Symbolic Crusade: Status Politics and the American Temperance Movement, 2nd ed.
(Baltimore, MD: University of Illinois Press).
Haluza-DeLay, R. (2008) A theory of practice for social movements: Environmentalism and ecological habitus,
Mobilization, 13(2), pp. 205218.
Horton, D. (2003) Green distinctions: The performance of identity among environmental activist,
in: B. Szerszynski, W. Heim & C. Waterton (Eds) Nature Performed: Environment, Culture and
Performance, pp. 6378 (Oxford: Blackwell).
Husu, H. M. (2010) The Nation of Islams efforts to raise black consciousness in 1950s and 1960s USA:
An application of Bourdieus symbolic domination and doxa, International Journal of Contemporary
Sociology, 47(2), pp. 325 347.
Inglehart, R. (1977) The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles Among Western Population
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
Jasper, J. M. (1997) The Art of Moral Protest: Culture, Biography, and Creativity in Social Movements
(Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
Jenkins, R. (1983) Resource mobilization theory and study of social movements, Annual Review of Sociology,
9, pp. 527553.
Johnson, R. (1993) The editors introduction, in: P. Bourdieu (Ed.) The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on
Art and Literature, pp. 1 25 (Cambridge: Polity Press).
Koopmans, R. & Statham, P. (1999) Ethnic and civic conceptions of nationhood and the differential success of the
extreme right in Germany and Italy, in: M. Diani, D. McAdam & C. Tilly (Eds) How Social Movements
Matter, pp. 225 252 (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press).
Lincoln, E. C. (1994) The Black Muslims in America, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans) (Original
work published 1961).
Lipsky, M. (1968) Protest as a political resource, American Political Science Review, 62, pp. 11141158.
Lizardo, O. (2004) The cognitive origins of Bourdieus habitus, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour,
34(4), pp. 375 401.
Lutz, H., Herrera Vivar, M. T. & Supik, L. (2011) Framing Intersectionality: Debates of Multi-faceted Concept in
Gender-Studies (Aldershot: Ashgate).
Martin, J. L. (2003) What is field theory? American Journal of Sociology, 109(1), pp. 1 49.
McAdam, D. (1999) Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency 19301970, 2nd ed.
(Chicago, IL/London: University of Chicago Press) (Original work published 1982).
McCall, L. (2005) The complexity of intersectionality, Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 30(3),
pp. 17711800.
McCarthy, J. D. & Zald, M. N. (1977) The resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory,
American Journal of Sociology, 82, pp. 12121241.
Moi, T. (1991) Appropriating Bourdieu: Feminist theory and Pierre Bourdieus sociology of culture, New Literate
History, 22(4), pp. 10171049.
Morris, A. D. (1984) Origins of the Civil Rights Movement (New York: Free Press).
Oberschall, A. (1973) Social Conflict and Social Movements (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall).
Offe, C. (1985) New social movements: Challenging the boundaries of institutional politics, Social Research,
52(4), pp. 817 868.
Ogbar, J. O. G. (2004) Black Power: Radical Politics and African American Identity (Baltimore, MD:
John Hopkins University Press).
Rootes, C. (1995) A new class? The higher educated and the new politics, in: L. Maheu (Ed.) Social Movements
and Social Classes, pp. 220313 (London/Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).
Smelser, N. (1962) Theory of Collective Behaviour (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul).
Snow, D. A. (2007) Framing processes, ideology, and discursive fields, in: D. A. Snow, S. A. Soule & H. Kriesi
(Eds) Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, pp. 380412 (Oxford: Blackwell).

Bourdieu and Social Movements

279

Snow, D. A., Rochford, E. B., Worden, S. K. & Benford, R. D. (1986) Frame alignment processes,
micromobilization, and movement participation, American Sociological Review, 51, pp. 464481.
Snow, D. A. & Benford, R. D. (1988) Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization,
International Social Movement Research, 1, pp. 197217.
Snow, D. A. & Benford, R. D. (1992) Master frames and cycles of protest, in: A. D. Morris & C. M. Muller (Eds)
Frontiers in Social Movement Theory, pp. 133155 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).
Swartz, D. A. (1997) Culture and Power: Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press).
Swartz, D. (2008) Bringing Bourdieus master concepts into organizational analysis, Theory and Society,
37, pp. 4552.
Tarrow, S. (1998) Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press).
Tilly, C. (1975) The Formation of National States in Europe (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
Tilly, C. (1978) From Mobilization to Revolution (Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley).
Tilly, C. (1995) Popular Contention in Great Britain 17581834 (Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University
Press).
Tilly, C., Tilly, L. & Tilly, R. (1975) The Rebellious Century, 19301930 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press).
Tugal, C. (2009) Transforming everyday life: Islamism and social movement theory, Theory and Society,
3, pp. 423458.
Turner, R. & Killian, L. (1987) Collective Behaviour, 3rd ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall).
Walter, L. (1990) The embodiments of ugliness and the logic of love, Feminist Review, 36, pp. 103126.
Woodward, K. (1997) Concepts of identity and difference, in: K. Woodward (Ed.) Identity and Difference,
pp. 750 (London: Sage).

Copyright of Social Movement Studies is the property of Routledge and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.