seejps

Coordinated by Andreea ZAMFIRA

Social Movements through Music and Culture.

An Overview

 

Victoria SPAU

University of Southampton

 

 

Abstract: The author seeks out to offer an overview of the main theories of social movements in the last decade, emphasizing the importance of culture in producing collective action. In the past, Old Social Movements (OSM) theory defined movements through the lenses of political process, rational actor or resource mobilization theories. This paper centers more on New Social Movements (NSM) theories which focus rather on a cultural approach to social movements and stress the importance of collective identity, framing and networks in understanding the mobilization and participation of movements. The author shows that all these interrelated processes discussed by NSM theories are important for the achievement of collective action.

 

Keywords: social movements, collective action, music, culture, networks, framing.

 

 

1. INTRODUCTION

 

New Social Movements (NSM) theories shifted attention towards a cultural approach of social movements emphasizing the importance of collective identity[1], framing[2] and networks[3]in understanding movements mobilization and participation (collective action). NSM oppose the rationalist approaches, such as resource mobilization theory[4] which consider collective movements as rational, with specific goals and organised action and political process theories[5] which consider collective action as reliant on specific political opportunities. However, current studies on culture and social movements have emphasized the importance of music in the construction of collective identities which facilitates the mobilization of social movements[6]. The aim of this article is to offer an overview on the role of music and culture in social movements.

 

 

2. OVERVIEW

 

In the last two decades, a developing interest has been noticed in the analysis of culture as an important element in understanding the emergence of social movements[7]. In the past, movements were seen as a response to a destabilised system, whereas mobilization process theorists were mainly concerned with understanding “the structural shifts that gave collective actors the resources to act collectively on longstanding grievances” and considered the state as central to people’s concern with actions[8]. The rise of social movements such as “animal rights movements”, “gay and lesbian movements” or “the psychiatric movement” from the ‘60s raised new questions regarding the people’s motives to engage in a movement[9].

However, before the rise of New Social Movements (NSM), movements were defined mainly through the lenses of political process, rational actor or resource mobilization theories[10]. The cultural approach to social movements emphasizes the importance of collective identity[11], framing[12], networks[13] and collective action in understanding movements’ mobilization and participation.

2.1. Collective Identity

 

Mobilization and resource theories emphasize the structures which gave resources to collective actors to mobilize over common grievances and stressed the importance of the rational and strategic components of action explaining how people mobilize, but failed to answer “why”. In turn, scholars of New Social Movements focused on collective identity to explain why people engage in social movements.

The development of communications facilitated a flow of information which increased the creation of symbols and cultural models necessary for the construction of individual and collective identities[14]. As Durkheim long ago suggested, the creation of symbols is essential in making the “life of a group palpable” for its members[15]. Furthermore, the post-industrial era gave birth to the “programmed society”, as Touraine called it, which oriented actors to the “production of symbolic goods which model or transform our representation of human nature and the external world”[16]. Touraine argues that in the industrial society the main conflict was one of social classes, whereas now, the control over information has generated new types of social conflicts between groups with contrasting ideas concerning the utilisation of cognitive and symbolic resources. Once with this “programmed society” we can talk about a shift in people’s goals from the materialistic perspective of “old movements” theory to that of solidarity, shared values, aspirations and common traits emphasized by NSM theorists.

In order to construct collective action, the set of common values needs to be transformed into a collective identity. Collective identity is shaped by culture as a “repertoire” or ‘tool kit’ of habits, skills and styles from which actors construct “strategies of action”[17]. However, we have to mention that collective identity is not necessarily a “pre-existing” condition for action. It is argued that collective identity is “reinforced” or “weakened” through means for action[18]. Thus, collective identity shapes the means for action, but at the same time it is itself a subject of transformation during action, becoming an essential constituent of collective action, together forming an interrelated process. However, according to Klandermans, if a group fails to cultivate a collective identity, collective action cannot be achieved.

The next question that should be addressed is how actors construct a collective identity and the means for action. For Melucci, collective identity is developed through: cognitive definitions, by which “actors construct the ends, means and field of action […] incorporated in a given set of rituals, practices and cultural artifacts”; a network where actors “interact, communicate, influence each other, negotiate and make decisions”; and emotional investment “which enables individuals to feel like part of a common unity”[19]. For Melucci, “collective action is a producer of symbolic orientation and meanings that people are able to recognize”[20]. Thus, at the same time, collective action is also symbolic action.

Eyerman and Jamison[21] add to Melucci’s symbolic action the concept of exemplary action of cognitive praxis (seen here as the process of identity formation) which is “more” than just symbolic. For them, art and music, as cultural representations, are more than symbolic producers because “music and art are lived as well as thought: they are cognitive, but they also draw on more emotive aspects of human consciousness”. As Eyerman and Jamison argue, ”as a cognitive praxis, music and other forms of cultural activity contribute to the ideas that movements offer and create in opposition to the existing social and cultural order”[22]. The role of these cultural practices, such as rituals or music, is seen here as an “apparatus” through which the collective actors express their emotions.

Rituals evoke emotions such as fear, passion, anger, love, hate, faith etc. (Mellucci), and are the “glue of solidarity” (Collins). Solidarity, as Touraine argues, sustains the conflict which is essential for the presence of a “we”. In order to motivate the “we” to take action, the symbolic elaboration is crucial[23]. Rituals have symbolic components such as song, testimonials, chants[24]. For example, as Eyerman and Jamison states, “music, in particular, embodies traditions through the ritual of performance. It can empower, help create collective identity and a sense of movement in an emotional and almost physical way”. In the context of rituals, songs reunite and remind participants of their scope within a movement and “locate them within a long-standing tradition of struggle and protest”[25].

In his analysis of music and identity, Firth is concerned with how music constructs an experience from which identities are developed[26]. He argues that “music, like identity, is both performance and stories, describes the social in the individual and the individual in the social, the mind in the body and the body in the mind; identity like music is a matter of both ethics and aesthetics”[27]. Cristiana Olcese argues that through art, social movements not only communicate within the larger society, but also internally[28]. She sees art as a master trope which “enables people to make up their own meanings and objectives” helping people to “achieve personal liberation and redemption”[29]. Through arts, the individuals who form the collective can express their emotions and feelings. Besides rituals, the symbolic expression of emotions is built through objects (identifiers, iconic persons, key artifacts, central events and symbolic places, stories, occasions, persona and roles[30]. Lofland divides the category of roles between creators or “knowledge creators” (intellectuals, artists and scholars) in charge with the production of culture and “disseminators of culture” such as culture retailers and artistic performers[31].

Polleta and Jasper are talking about “institutional identities”, where the development of a “group pride” is another form of identity[32]. The goal of this practice is to construct a form of solidarity and loyalty of members towards the organisation they activate in. In this context, the symbols and strategies used resonate with those of prior members[33]. For example, when activists sing “We shall Overcome”, they recall and identify with the same tactics used in the civil rights movement[34]. Thus, collective identity secures the continuousness of collective action in time[35].

In order to construct a collective identity one needs a conflict which forms a group (the “we”) with shared beliefs and values bond by solidarity and connected through a social network. Thus, people need this common “tool kit” to build the collective identity needed for action. The next question would be by whom and through what is this “tool kit” formed? As dellaPorta and Diani point out, “the symbolic construction permits us to attribute to the events and behaviours of individuals or groups a meaning which facilitates the activation of mobilization, but frame analysis allows us to capture the process of the attribution of meaning, which lies behind the explosion of any conflict”[36].

In the context of conflict, collective identities need to be incorporated in frames of justice and injustice so that the collective actor can distinguish between “we” the group, and “them”, the conflict[37] As Snow and his colleagues argue, identity construction is an ”inherent feature of the framing process”[38]. Thus, as well as identity, framing is an important feature that helps one understand movements’ mobilization and participation.

 

 

 

 

2.2. Framing

 

According to Ervin Goffman, frames are a “schemata of interpretation” that enable individuals to “locate, perceive, identify and label” occurrences within their life space and the world at large[39]. Through frames, individuals are able to recognise the “world” and make sense of their reality[40].

If Goffman regards frames as the “organisation of experience” or as a “belief system” from which actors construct reality, contemporary social psychologists regard frames as “mental models”, as well. These mental models are divided between cognitive elements that actors already perceive as real (for example, the concept of “restaurant”), cognitive beliefs (such as civil rights) and those non-cognitive beliefs such as norms, values, attitudes and goals from which they construct their own reality and beliefs about what is “just” and “unjust” in order to take action (OPP 2009).

Following Snow et al., Gamson[41] suggests three components of collective action frames: injustice, agency and identity and emphasize the importance of emotions and the media coverage of a movement in implementing these frames. For Gamson, injustice is constructed through emotions such as “compassion”, “cynicism”, “bemused irony”, and “resignation” which are used to sustain anger and take action. Through agency, consciousness is raised making actors aware of the social power of change they have as a collective. Media and the manipulation of symbolism are used in constructing or reconstructing “problems, enemies, crises, and leaders”, thus, “treats and reassurances”. The identity frame serves as a motor for collective action through which people distinguish between “we” the group, and “them”, the conflict.

On the other hand, Snow and Benford[42] emphasize the importance of culture in the framing process of a movement through elements such as norms, values, tradition, artefacts and of what social actors define as legitimate. It is argued that culture and collective action frames influence one another and that the framing processes “reflect wider cultural continuities and changes”. Snow et al. describe a set of discursive and strategic processes, through which collective action frames are diffused within movements, culture and time. The discursive process (speeches, talks, communication) is generated by frame articulation (alignment of events and experiences) and frame amplification involving issues, events or beliefs “bringing into sharp relief and symbolising the larger frame or movement”, for example, slogans such as “Liberté, Fraternité, Egalité” or “We Shall Overcome”. Within the strategic process, frames are constructed and organised to gain a specific purpose (in recruiting new members, in mobilization, in attaining resources). In order to achieve these specific goals, Social Movement Organisations (SMOs) make use of what scholars called “frame alignment processes”.

Snow and Benford identified four alignment processes: “frame bridging”, “frame amplification”, “frame extension” and “frame transformation”. Through frame bridging, frames concerning particular problems are linked. Frame amplification, necessary for most movement mobilization, has the role to intensify existing beliefs and values. By frame extension, SMOs interests and frames are extended from their initial interests by including new issues of concern for new adherents. Finally, frame transformation is concerned with the change of “old understanding and meanings and/or generating new ones”[43]. Following Snow, Johnston analyses discourse on the influence of behaviour and argues that the goals of these frame alignment processes can be found in the social movement’s speech which is also influenced by culture. For Johnston, the “ ‘true location’ of a frame is in the mind of the social movement participant” and the “structure of mental frames can be reconstructed through the close analysis of the discourse of social movements” because “people do things with words”[44].

At the same time, discourse involves creativity and repetition. As Billig states[45], “an orator discourse that seeks to create new movements of opinion toward a minority position will often repeat, and claim to exemplify, the values of the minority”. By repeating signs, values, themes of an ideology etc., people develop a nature of “sensus communis” which provides the “resources for moral dilemmas to think and argue about”. On the contrary, social movements (the minority) provide arguments against the common sense (the majority) perception. Billig argues that no matter if the arguments of the minority oppose those of the “common”, the majority’s opinion is changed even by taking an offensive attitude. Hence, repeating a discourse affects people involved in a movement as well as those who are not.

Drawing from their research on women’s movement and the lesbian and gay movement, Verta Taylor and Nancy Whittier, illustrate discourse as embedded in ritual in order to construct collective action frames. By using the radical feminist movement, Taylor et al. describe how collective identity frame was constructed through “an extensive network of alternative institutions such as bookstores, music festivals, self-defence and martial arts schools, rape crisis canters, publishing houses, and travelling agencies”[46]. These alternative networks provided the solidarity incentive that facilitated movement participation. In order to understand how “mobilizing identities” are formed, scholars of social movements turned to network analysis[47].

 

2.3. Networks, resources and mobilization

 

Melucci argues that collective identity as a process is formed through “submerged networks”, where people construct an active relationship where they interact, communicate and influence each other, negotiate and make decisions. These networks are “forms of organization and models of leadership, communicative channels, and technologies of communication”. Social networks are the place in which the symbolic production is developed and where social relations are connected to mobilization. These networks “incorporate and enact the ways collective actor define ends, means and field of action”[48].

Using their research on the nationalist movements in Spain, DellaPorta and Diani, identified three types of networks “those which link the various movement organizations”, “those which connect the same organisations by means of activists which they have in common” and “those which enable activists to be recruited”[49]. Activists “are the bearers of solid values and specific solidarities and are likely to involve in different social networks, hence, they can connect various movement organizations. Another important aspect of networks is their capacity to recruit members and to mobilize supporters. For example, Snow et al. found that more than 75 per cent of a movement’s members are recruited through networks. It seems that people are prone to adhere in a protest movement if they are connected with activists already involved in collective action. Within these links, potential activists collect information and construct their reality.

By activating in various organisations of a movement, members create new channels of communications among different organisations amplifying the promotion of their common goals. The organisation of a movement and the links created provide a specific form of subculture. It is argued that all groups, regardless of their size, develop a culture “a bounded set of images and traditions that come to characterize those individuals to themselves and often to outsiders”[50]. This “idioculture”, as Fine describes it, consists of “a system of knowledge, beliefs, behaviours, and customs shared by members of an interacting group to which members can refer and which they can employ as the basis of further interaction”. Thus, social movements are seen as a “space” where actors construct their own culture, interact, identify themselves as a subculture and perform cultural rituals (discourse, narratives, and stories).

Firth places music in a “metaphorical space” without frontiers because it ”is the cultural form best able both to cross borders- sounds carry across fences and walls and oceans, across classes, races, and nations- and to define places; in clubs, scenes, and raves, listening on headphones, radio and concert halls, we are only where the music takes us”[51]. For example, in the civil rights movement, blues formed an “informal network” connecting migrant workers who were moving across the country[52].

Considering art and music as both knowledge and action, Eyerman and Jamison, argue that art and music, as cultural expressions, influence the societal culture and become “functional devices for recruitment or resources to be mobilized”. Hence, culture is a “space” and a device for resource and moreover, of additional resources. For example, the radical feminist movement network mentioned above is not only a “space” of oppositional culture, where collective identity is formed, but is also a provider of material resources through the institutions formed by this network. However, the focus should be on resources as symbolic goods[53]. For Fine, “cultural expressions, slogans, and patterns of rhetoric are vital sources- manipulated consciously or emerging spontaneously- that symbolize the causes of discontent for movement actors and serve to energize and justify their actions” whereas the ideology (seen as culture) of a movement is the best resource for mobilization. The free rider problem is resolved by the set of nonmaterial resources and rewards provided by this idioculture[54].

Further, as Fantasia and Hirsch point out, culture is not just a static field which provides opportunities and constrains for a movement. More than supplying the resources needed for a movement to survive over time, culture provides the resources for new practices and meanings. Social movements or “heavens” are networks in which “members of subordinated groups discover their common problems, construct a collective definition of the sources of their oppression, and note the limits of the routine means of redressing grievances, where collective identity and solidarity are cultivated in practices, values, and social relations”. These “heavens” provide the socio-organizational foundation for cultural transformations and collective action[55]. Thus, networks are important because they enable the organisation of action, cultural diffusion, and the framing and reframing of movement ideology and demand[56].

 

 

3. CONCLUSIONS

 

Focusing on collective identity, academics seek to explain how people construct their interest in taking action. Collective identities are constructed through a set of shared values and beliefs and provide the foundation for action. The importance of culture in producing collective action comes from the values composing culture. In the first place, collective action arises from the identification of individuals with these values. As DellaPorta and Diani claim, the post-industrial values provide the motivation necessary to maintain the costs of action. Collective identity allows actors employed in a conflict to identify themselves with the movement by shared values, beliefs, interests and common traditions[57]. In order to become a “we”, these shared values and beliefs need to be transformed into collective ones. These are facilitated by cultural symbolic production and solidarity through different activities, such as rituals.

The symbolic production allows actors to give meaning to their beliefs and values, but in order to employ them in action, there is a need of a sense of what is just and what is not, and these feelings are integrated through frames of collective action. Action becomes possible through these “frames” which allow people to construct reality. Networks provide the space in which these social processes take place in order to create collective action. The network is the place where culture is diffused, framing is integrated and action is organised. Thus, collective identity, framing and networks are an interrelated process in the achievement of collective action. It is merely impossible to talk about action without considering these processes.

 

Bibliography

 

BENFORD, Robert, “An Insider’s Critique of the Social Movement Framing

Perspective”, Sociological Inquiry, Vol. 67, 1997, pp. 409-430.

CROSSLEY, Nick, Making Sense of Social Movements, Open University Press, Buckingham, 2002.

CRUZ, Jon David, Politics of Popular Culture: Black Popular Movement as ‘Public Sphere’ (unpublished PhD dissertation), University of California, Berkeley, 1986.

DellaPORTA, Donatella, Mario DIANI, Social Movements: an Introduction, Blackwell, Oxford, 1999.

DONATI, Paolo R., “Political Discourse Analysis”, in Mario DIANI, Ron EYERMAN (eds.), Studying Collective Action, Sage, London, 1992, pp. 136-167.

EYERMAN, Ron, Andrew JAMISON, Music and Social Movements: Mobilizing Traditions in Twentieth Century, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998.

FIRTH, Simon, “Music and Identity”, in Stuart HALL, Paul DU GAY (eds.), Questions of Cultural Identity, Sage, London, 1995, pp. 108-125.

GOFFMAN, Erving, Frame Analysis: an Essay on the Organization of Experience, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1975.

JOHNSTON, Hank, Bert KLANDERMANS (eds.), Social Movements and Culture, UCL Press, London, 1995.

McADAM, Doug, Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency. 1930-1970, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1982.

McCARTHY, John D., Mayer N. ZALD, Social Movements in an Organizational Society, Transaction, New Brunswick, 1987.

MELUCCI, Alberto, “The Symbolic Challenge of Contemporary Movements”, Social Research, Vol. 52, 1985, pp. 781-816.

MORRIS, Aldon D., The Origins of the Civil Rights Movement: Black Communities Organizing for Change, The Free Press, New York, 1984.

OLCESE, Cristiana, “Contentious Master Tropes: Art vs. Politics in Protest” (unpublished), 5th ECPR General Conference), Postdam Universitat, 10-12 September 2009.

OPP, Karl Dieter, Theories of Political Protest and Social Movements, Routledge, London & New York, 2009.

POLLETTA, Francesca, James M. JASPER, “Collective Identities and Social Movements”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 27, 2001, pp. 283-305 [http://www.jamesmjasper.org/files/collective_identity_2001.pdf] – 15 Nov. 2010.

SNOW, David A., E. Burke ROCHFORD, Steven K. WORDEN, Robert D. BENFORD, “Frame Alignment Processes, Micromobilization and Movement Participation”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 51, 1986, pp. 456-481.

SNOW, David A., Robert D. BENFORD, “Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 26, 2000, pp. 611-639.

SNOW, David A., Robert D. BENFORD, “Master Frames and Cycles of Protest”, in Aldon MORRIS, Carol MCCLURG MUELLER, Frontiers in Social Movement Theory, Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn., 1992.

SWIDLER, Ann, “Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 51, 1986, pp. 273-286.

TILLY, Charles, From Mobilization to Revolution, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1984.

TOURAINE, Alain, The Voice and the Eye. An Analysis of Social Movements, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1981.

TOURAINE, Alain, “An Introduction to the Study of Social Movements”, Social Research, Vol. 52, 1985, pp. 749-788.

TOURAINE, Alain, The Workers’ Movement, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge & New York, 1987.

 

 

 



[1] Alberto MELUCCI, The Symbolic Challenge of Contemporary Movements, Social Research, Vol. 52, 1985, pp. 781-816; Idem, The Process of Collective Identity, in Hank JOHNSTON, Bert KLANDERMANS (eds.), Social Movements and Culture, UCL Press, London, 1995, pp. 41-63; Verta TAYLOR, Nancy WHITTIE, Analytical Approaches to Social Movement Culture: The Culture of Womens Movement, in Hank JOHNSTON, Bert KLANDERMANS (eds.), Social Movements...cit., pp. 163-187; Donatella DellaPORTA, Mario DIANI, Social Movements: an Introduction, Blackwell, Oxford, 1999.

[2] William A. GAMSON, Constructing Social Process, in Hank JOHNSTON, Bert KLANDERMANS (eds.), Social Movements...cit., pp. 85-106; David A. SNOW, E. Burke ROCHFORD, Steven K. WORDEN, Robert D. BENFORD, Frame Alignment Processes, Micromobilization and Movement Participation, American Sociological Review, Vol. 51, 1986, pp. 456-481.

[3] Rick FANTASIA, Eric HIRSCH, Culture in Rebellion: The Appropriation and Transformation of the Veil in the Algerian Revolution, in Hank JOHNSTON, Bert KLANDERMANS (eds.), Social Movements and Culture, UCL Press, London, 1995, pp. 144-159; Gary Alan FINE, Discourse in Social Movements, in Hank JOHNSTON, Bert KLANDERMANS (eds.), Social Movements and Culture, UCL Press, London, 1995, pp. 127-143.

[4] Charles TILLY, From Mobilization to Revolution, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1984; John D. McCARTHY, Mayer N. ZALD, Social Movements in an Organizational Society, Transaction, New Brunswick, 1987.

[5] Doug McADAM, Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency. 1930-1970, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1982; Donatella DellaPORTA, Mario DIANI, Social Movements...cit., p. 9.

[6] Aldon D. MORRIS, The Origins of the Civil Rights Movement: Black Communities Organizing for Change, The Free Press, New York, 1984; Simon FIRTH, Music and Identity, in Stuart HALL, Paul DU GAY (eds.), Questions of Cultural Identity, Sage, London, 1995, pp. 108-125; Ron EYERMAN, Andrew JAMISON, Music and Social Movements: Mobilizing Traditions in Twentieth Century, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998.

[7] Hank JOHNSTON, Bert KLANDERMANS (eds.), Social Movements...cit.

[8] Francesca POLLETTA, James M. JASPER, “Collective Identities and Social Movements”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 27, 2001, pp. 283-305.

[9] Nick CROSSLEY, Making Sense of Social Movements, Open University Press, Buckingham, 2002.

[10] John D. McCARTHY, Mayer N. ZALD, Social Movements...cit.

[11] Alain TOURAINE, An Introduction to the Study of Social Movements, Social Research, Vol. 52, 1985, pp. 749-788; Alberto MELUCCI, The Symbolic Challeng...cit.; Idem, The Process of Collective Identity, in Hank JOHNSTON, Bert KLANDERMANS (eds.), Social...cit.; Donatella DellaPORTA, Mario DIANI, Social Movements...cit.

[12] William A. GAMSON, Constructing Social Process, in Hank JOHNSTON, Bert KLANDERMANS (eds.), Social Movements...cit.; Erving GOFFMAN, Frame Analysis: an Essay on the Organization of Experience, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1975.

[13] Rick FANTASIA, Eric HIRSCH, Culture in Rebellion...cit.; Gary Alan FINE, Discourse in Social Movements...cit.

[14] Donatella DellaPORTA, Mario DIANI, Social Movements: an Introduction, Blackwell, Oxford, 1999.

[15] Hank JOHNSTON, Bert KLANDERMANS (eds.), Social Movements...cit., p. 76.

[16] Alain TOURAINE, The Voice and the Eye. An Analysis of Social Movements, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1981, p. 61.

[17] Ann SWIDLER, Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies, American Sociological Review, Vol. 51, 1986, p. 273.

[18] Rick FANTASIA, Eric HIRSCH, Culture in Rebellion...cit.

[19] Alberto MELUCCI, “The Process of Collective Identity”, in Hank JOHNSTON, Bert KLANDERMANS (eds.), Social Movements...cit., pp. 44-45.

[20] Ibidem, p. 46.

[21] Ron EYERMAN, Andrew JAMISON, Music and Social Movements...cit., p. 23.

[22] Ibidem, p. 24.

[23] Donatella DellaPORTA, Mario DIANI, Social Movements...cit., p. 73.

[24] Verta TAYLOR, Nancy WHITTIE, Analytical Approaches...cit..

[25] Ron EYERMAN, Andrew JAMISON, Music and Social Movements...cit., pp. 35-36.

[26] Simon FIRTH, “Music and Identity...cit.”.

[27] Ibidem, p. 109.

[28] Cristiana OLCESE, Contentious Master Tropes: Art vs. Politics in Protest(unpublished), 5th ECPR General Conference), Postdam Universitat, 10-12 September 2009, p. 5.

[29] Ibidem, p. 33.

[30] John LOFLAND, Charting Degrees of Movement Culture: Tasks of the Cultural Cartographer, in Hank JOHNSTON, Bert KLANDERMANS (eds.), Social Movements...cit., pp. 188-216.

[31] Ibidem, pp. 205-207.

[32] Francesca POLLETTA, James M. JASPER, “Collective Identities...cit.”

[33] Ibidem, pp. 297-298.

[34] Ron EYERMAN, Andrew JAMISON, Music and Social Movements...cit.

[35] Donatella DellaPORTA, Mario DIANI, Social Movements...cit.

[36] Ibidem, p. 69.

[37] Francesca POLLETTA, James M. JASPER, “Collective Identities...cit.”, p. 292.

[38] David A. SNOW, E. Burke ROCHFORD, Steven K. WORDEN, Robert D. BENFORD, “Frame Alignment Processes...cit.”, pp. 631-632.

[39] Erving GOFFMAN, Frame Analysis...cit., p. 464

[40] Paolo R. DONATI, Political Discourse Analysis, in Mario DIANI, Ron EYERMAN (eds.), Studying Collective Action, Sage, London, 1992, pp. 141-142.

[41] William A. GAMSON, “Constructing Social Process”, in Hank JOHNSTON, Bert KLANDERMANS (eds.), Social Movements...cit., pp. 85-106.

[42] David A. SNOW, Robert D. BENFORD, Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 26, 2000, pp. 611-639.

[43] Ibidem, p. 625.

[44] Hank JOHNSTON, A methodology for Frame Analysis: From Discourse to Cognitive Schemata, in Hank JOHNSTON, Bert KLANDERMANS (eds.), Social Movementscit., pp. 218- 227.

[45] Michael BILLIG, Rethorical Psychology, Ideological Thinking, and Imagination Nationhood, in Hank JOHNSTON, Bert KLANDERMANS (eds.), Social Movements and Culture, UCL Press, London, 1995, pp. 64-81.

[46] Verta TAYLOR, Nancy WHITTIE, “Analytical Approaches...cit.”, p. 165.

[47] Francesca POLLETTA, James M. JASPER, “Collective Identities...cit.”, pp. 288.

[48] Alberto MELUCCI, “The Symbolic Challenge of Contemporary Movements”, Social Research, Vol. 52, 1985, pp. 781-816; Idem, “The Process of Collective Identity”, in Hank JOHNSTON, Bert KLANDERMANS (eds.), Social Movements and Culture...cit., pp. 44-45, 49.

[49] Donatella DellaPORTA, Mario DIANI, Social Movements...cit., p. 112.

[50] Gary Alan FINE, Discourse in Social Movements, in Hank JOHNSTON, Bert KLANDERMANS (eds.), Social Movements...cit., pp. 128 -129.

[51] Simon FIRTH, Music and Identity, in Stuart HALL, Paul DU GAY (eds.), Questions of Cultural Identity, Sage, London, 1995, p. 125.

[52] Jon David CRUZ, Politics of Popular Culture: Black Popular Movement as Public Sphere (unpublished PhD dissertation), University of California, Berkeley, 1986; Ron EYERMAN, Andrew JAMISON, Music and Social Movementscit., p. 79.

[53] Ron EYERMAN, Andrew JAMISON, Music and Social Movements…cit., p. 24.

[54] Gary Alan FINE, Discourse in Social Movements, in Hank JOHNSTON, Bert KLANDERMANS (eds.), Social Movementscit., pp. 132, 141.

[55] Rick FANTASIA, Eric HIRSCH, “Culture in Rebellion: The Appropriation and Transformation of the Veil in the Algerian Revolution”, in Hank JOHNSTON, Bert KLANDERMANS (eds.), Social Movements…cit., pp. 145-146, 159.

[56] David A. SNOW, Robert D. BENFORD, Master Frames and Cycles of Protest, in Aldon MORRIS, Carol MCCLURG MUELLER, Frontiers in Social Movement Theory, Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn., 1992.

[57] Donatella DellaPORTA, Mario DIANI, Social Movements...cit., pp. 62, 109.