Table of Contents

Handbook of Political Citizenship and Social Movements

Handbook of Political Citizenship and Social Movements

Elgar original reference

Edited by Hein-Anton van der Heijden

This Handbook uniquely collates the results of several decades of academic research in these two important fields. The expert contributions successively address the different forms of political citizenship and current approaches and recent developments in social movement studies. Salient social movements in recent history are explored in depth, covering the environmental, women’s, international human rights, urban, Tea Party, and animal rights movements. Social movements and political citizenship in the ‘global South’: China, India, Africa, and the Arab World, are discussed, presenting a novel empirical insight into these fields of study.

Chapter 13: Post-structuralism, social movements and citizen politics

Steven Griggs and David Howarth

Subjects: politics and public policy, european politics and policy, international politics, public choice, social entrepreneurship


There is no independent and self-contained post-structuralist theory of social movements that is comparable, for example, to ‘resource mobilization theory’ (e.g., Oberschall, 1973; Tilly, 1978) or the ‘political process approach’ (e.g., Tarrow, 1978). At best, certain post-structuralist motifs and concepts are reflected in various theoretical frames and perspectives. Such themes include the role of identities, values, and changing subjectivities in the emergence and operation of multiple movements, as well as general theoretical reflections on the character of social structures and their connection to agency, human subjectivity, power and domination. The emancipatory potentials and effects of assemblages of various types are also investigated and evaluated by post-structuralist thinkers, as are their negative and oppressive impacts, though post-structuralists have tended to eschew traditional forms of normative theorizing in favour of genealogical and critical histories of particular struggles and campaigns. Yet these introductory remarks still beg a number of tricky questions about the nature of post-structuralism itself. Can it be viewed as a discrete social and political theory, or is it a broad approach? Does it even exist as a coherent body of theoretical discourse? Who counts as a poststructuralist theorist or researcher? In our view, post-structuralism is best defined and understood as a particular style of theorizing in social and political theory, which is informed by a distinctive ethos, where both the style and the ethos are predicated on a specific set of ontological postulates (e.g., Hacking, 1985; Howarth, 2013).

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information