The Dictionary of Human Geography

Comp. by: VPugazhenthi Stage : Revises1 ChapterID: 9781405132879_4_S Date:1/4/
09 Time:15:23:37 Filepath:H:/00_Blackwell/00_3B2/Gregory-9781405132879/appln/3B2/
revises/9781405132879_4_S.3d

has also written thoughtfully on the topic. In

an important paper, Smith (2000b) constructs

a geographically sensitive argument forequal-

ityas a basis for social justice, and articulates

an argument for the morally significant aspects

of human sameness as a way out of the rela-

tivism ofdifference. Smith also considers

the injustices of an uneven geography of global

resource endowment as a basis for a territorial

social justice. In a more post-structuralist

vein, Kobayashi and Ray (2000) argue for a

pluralist notion of justice that embraces posi-

tionality. They eschew a calculus ofrights,

with its logic of impartiality, arguing instead

for an emphasis uponrisk(cf. Peake and

Ray, 2001). Noting that differently positioned

people face differential exposure to injustice,

they insist on the importance of geography to

social justice. That said, social justice dem-

ands more careful and sustained attention by

geographers. As Merrifield and Swyngedouw

(1997, p. 2) note, it has all to often been

relegated to the ‘hinterlands of academic

inquiry’. For while social justice is often

invoked, or implicit to much geographic work,

particularly of a critical bent (critical geog-

raphy), it is all too often left untheorized

(although see the special issue of the journal

Critical Planning, 14, 2007, which is dedicated

to the theme of spatial justice: see http://www.

spa.ucla.edu/critplan/). nkb

Suggested reading

Holloway (1998); Peake and Ray (2001).

social movements The organized efforts of

multiple individuals or organizations, acting

outside of formal state or economic spheres,

to pursue political goals. They are commonly

organized around either particulargroups–for

example,theworkingclass –orparticulargoals–

for example, access tohealth care. Their

demands may be focused on the state (e.g.

new laws), on economic actors (e.g. wage

demands), on society as a whole (e.g. the chan-

ging of norms relating toraceorsexuality)or

on any combination of these. Social move-

ments can radically transform society: consider

feminismorenvironmentalism. Yet as loose

networksof actors with many informal elem-

ents, they present methodological challenges: it

is often difficult to show thatxprotest or NGO

producedyeffect; to determine whether a given

actor is part of a movement; or to predict

whether, when and how a movement will arise

from given social conditions.

Early, major approaches to social movement

theory conceived of social movements as

phenomena withincivil society, a sphere

regarded as distinct from, but complementary

to, thestateand themarket, one containing

the informal norms and institutions necessary

to the ongoing reproduction of theeconomy

and the state, as well as forms of social par-

ticipation and difference not strictly tied to

economicclassor legal citizenshipstatus

(see Urry, 1981).marxisttheories saw social

movements, notably the labour movement,

as direct results and expressions of political

economic conflicts. Many early sociologists,

following Emile Durkheim, adopted func-

tionalistperspectives that interpreted social

movements within organic, equilibrium-

oriented conceptions ofsociety; social mo-

vements were spontaneous phenomena

produced by the need for individuals and

groups in the rapidly shifting geographies

and economies of moderncapitalistsocieties

to continually rebuild informal norms and

institutions, create new relationships, and

bring their material existences and expect-

ations into alignment. From the 1960s on,

liberal rational choice theories became

dominant: Mancur Olson and others analysed

social movements as collective action strategies

by which rational individuals pursued their

(calculable and known) self-interest. Interest

consequently shifted fromwhysocial move-

ments existed and whateffectsthey produced,

to a focus onhowthey pursued their goals.

Questions regarding how movements mobilize

resources and supporters, frame issues, identify

and exploit political opportunities, and change

over time dominated social movement theory

for the subsequent few decades.

More recently, the ‘new social movements’

(NSMs) that have appeared and grown

around the world since the 1960s have

become central topics in the field. Theorists

have argued that these NSMs, such as envir-

onmentalism and the peace movement, differ

from ‘old’ social movements in critical

respects. Posited differences include claims

that NSMs: are more issue-specific; cut

across class lines; use unconventional tactics;

express not only instrumental goals, but

meaning, identity and multiplesubjectposi-

tions; and are less likely to turn to established

political parties and channels to achieve their

goals. All of these claims warrant careful

scrutiny. Most recently, geographers have

begun to theorize how central geographic

concerns such as space,place andscale

matter in social movements’ formation and

operations (Miller, 2000; Wolford, 2004;

McCarthy, 2005). jm

Gregory / The Dictionary of Human Geography 9781405132879_4_S Final Proof page 695 1.4.2009 3:23pm

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS