Voluntas
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-020-00199-5
Building Bridges: Social Movements and Civil Society in Times
of Crisis
Donatella Della Porta1
 International Society for Third-Sector Research 2020
Abstract Social movement studies and studies on civil
society and, related to them, studies on voluntarism and the
third sector, are burgeoning fields of knowledge, which
have, however, only rarely interacted with each other. In
fact, social movement scholars have devoted little attention
to the concept of civil society, not even when addressing
issues of ‘‘social capital’’. Vice versa, civil society scholars
have, with few exceptions, not considered social move-
ments as cognate phenomena. This is all the more puzzling
as there is instead ample theoretical and empirical over-
lapping, which calls for the building of bridges between
these fields of study. In political and media discourse some
organizations, individuals or events are defined inter-
changeably as linked to either social movements or civil
society. In the social sciences, however, the core concep-
tualizations have pointed towards different elements as
characterizing these phenomena. In particular, social
movement studies can contribute to the literature on vol-
untarism a toolkit of concepts and theory oriented to
understand social and political conflicts, learning from the
literature on voluntarism about conceptions and practices
of solidarity. In this article, I will address some (potential)
interactions between the two fields, looking at differences
and similarities in the conceptualizations of the two phe-
nomena as well as in their empirical analysis as they have
developed in time. I will first of all address conceptual-
izations in these cognate fields with attention to their the-
oretical developments. Then, I will point towards some
recent trends that have blurred the distinction between
social movements and civil society, voluntarism and third
& Donatella Della Porta
donatella.dellaporta@sns.it
1
Scuola Normale Superiore, Florence, Italy
sector policies, looking in particular not only at more
established analyses of NGOization of social movements,
but also, and especially, of what can be defined as an
SMOization of civil society—that is, the hybridization of
more established civil society organizations into social
movement organizations, especially when facing politi-
cization in times of crises and increasing criminalization of
solidarity activities.
Keywords Social movements
Civil society
Voluntarism
Social Movements and Civil Society:
An Introduction
Social movement studies and studies on civil society as
well as, related to the latter, on voluntarism and the third
sector are burgeoning fields of knowledge, which have,
however, only rarely interacted with each other. In fact,
social movement scholars have devoted only occasional
attention to the concept of civil society (Della Porta and
Diani 2011; Snow et al. 2004; Edwards et al. 2001;
Edwards 2004), while, on their side, civil society scholars,
with few exceptions (among which Cohen and Arato 1992;
Alexander 2006), have not considered social movements as
cognate phenomena.
This is all the more puzzling as there is instead ample
theoretical and empirical overlapping, which calls for the
building of bridges between these fields of study. At the
theoretical level, especially in recent analyses, both refer to
voluntary participation oriented to the realization of the
common good, defying visions of human beings as mainly
self-interested. From the empirical point of view, not only
in political and media discourse, some organizations,
individuals or events are defined interchangeably as linked
123

to either social movements or civil society, with an
increasing hybridization in times of financial crises.
In what follows, I will address some (actual and
potential) interactions between the two fields, looking at
differences and similarities in the conceptualizations of the
two phenomena, as well as in their empirical analyses as
they have developed over time. As Anheier and Sherer
(2015, 49) noted: ‘‘For a long time, the research agendas
for civil society, volunteering, and social movements have
developed in parallel, and remained largely unconnected.
Typically, seminal work on social movements rarely ref-
erences seminal work on volunteering and civic engage-
ment, and vice versa … Only more recently has a growing
body of academic work emerged and begun to integrate
these distinct literatures’’.
These recent evolutions in the two fields of study might
help to bridge knowledge on social movements and civil
society. In attending to this task, my aim here is neither
theory building nor empirical analysis of case studies, but
rather a critical review of both fields of studies, singling out
divergences and convergences, with a reflection on how the
actual and potential interactions between social movement
studies and studies of civil society could help understand
recent empirical developments. In considering the complex
and heterogeneous conceptualizations of civil society, the
aim is therefore not to streamline the two concepts, but
rather to point to the need for more dialogue between those
scholars who use them. Direct social action and search and
rescue activities are to be considered as illustrations of my
argument, not as autonomous pieces of research.
Considering especially attempts at integration, in
addressing the linkages between social movement studies
and studies of civil society, the third sector or voluntarism,
I will first summarize some conceptual differences and
similarities, stressing how the main theoretical develop-
ments in both fields might help to develop reciprocal
interactions. Then, I will point towards some recent
empirical trends that have blurred the distinction between
social movements and civil society, voluntarism and third
sector policies, looking in particular not only at trends
towards the NGOization of social movements, but also, and
especially, at what can be defined as an SMOization of
civil society—that is, the hybridization of more established
civil society organizations into social movement organi-
zations, especially when facing politicization in times of
austerity policies and the increasing criminalization of
solidarity activities. As will be stressed, social movement
studies can contribute to the literature on voluntarism a
toolkit of concepts and theory oriented towards under-
standing social and political conflicts, learning from the
literature on voluntarism about conceptions and practices
of solidarity.
123
Voluntas
Conceptualizing Social Movements and Civil
Society
Conceptually, the various definitions of social movements
and civil society present different accentuations, but also
space for interaction (Diani 1992, 1995; Kumar 1993;
Edwards 2004). Looking inside these definitions, we can
single out, first of all, some main tensions (Della Porta and
Diani 2011). First and foremost, civil society theorizations
stress the importance of autonomy, while social movement
studies point towards the fundamental role of conflict in
society. Second, civil society analyses point towards
civility, while social movement studies pay attention
especially to the transgressive nature of protest. Third, civil
society theorizations address the role of a structured third
sector between the state and the market, while social
movement studies look at loose ‘‘networks of networks’’.
As for the first point, an autonomous civil society is
called upon to address the tensions between particularism
and universalism, plurality and connectedness, diversity
and solidarity. Particularly inspired by new social move-
ments and the movement for democracy in Eastern Europe
(Misztal 2001), in social theory the ‘‘revival’’ of civil
society developed especially in the 1990s with the search
for a space that was autonomous from both the state and the
market. In fact, ‘‘in the aftermath of the revolution of 1989,
the term ‘civil society’ was taken up in widely different
circles and circumstances’’, as a ‘‘concern about personal
autonomy, self organization, private space became salient
not only in Eastern Europe’’ (Kaldor 2003, 2). Civil society
is thus conceptualized as a sphere of un-coerced human
association located between the individual and the state
(Walzer 1998, 123).
Social movement studies have instead defined conflict as
the dynamic element of our societies. The ‘‘European tra-
dition’’ in social movement studies has looked at new
social movements as potential carriers of an emergent
central conflict in our post-industrial societies or at least of
an emerging constellation of conflicts. Influentially, Tour-
aine (1977) highlighted the declining relevance of the
conflict between capital and labour, and the parallel
growing importance of conflicts around knowledge. In the
USA, the resource mobilization approach reacted to the
then dominant conception of conflicts as non-strategic,
emotion-driven and often irrational. As major carriers of
societal conflicts (Oberschall 1973), social movements are
instead considered as expressing the voice of the chal-
lengers (Lipsky 1965; Tilly 1978), playing a relevant and
positive role in the democratic process through uncon-
ventional forms of political participation (Tarrow 1989).
As for the second point, conceptualizations of civil
society have often pointed towards civility as based on
Voluntas
respect for others, politeness and the acceptance of stran-
gers (Keane 2003). Theorizations of civil society have
highlighted consensual issues and agendas to be addressed
through the promotion of collective responses to pressing
public issues that most recognize as central. Civil society
often acts towards aims that are defined broadly in order to
make them better acceptable to large sectors of public
opinion. In this way, civil society is seen as the texture of
cooperative and associational ties, fostering mutual trust
and shared values, ultimately strengthening social cohesion
(Putnam 1993).
Social movement practices have been defined instead as
transgressive, contentious and/or confrontational. Their
disruptiveness allows them to draw the attention of public
opinion and put pressure on decision makers, as challenges
to law and order help amplify their voice. Not by chance,
research on social movements has in fact focused on pro-
test, its forms and transformation in time, theorizing
specific repertoires of collective action as comprising the
set of means a group has at its disposal for making col-
lective claims. More recently, the definition of contentious
politics versus non-contentious politics (McAdam et al.
2001), or of eventful protests (Della Porta 2017), has tes-
tified to the continuous attention to social movements as
bearers of fundamental conflicts.
As for the third point, civil society organizations tend to
work within a third sector, neither state nor market, espe-
cially in the form of well-structured NGOs and instru-
mental and at times single-issue coalitions. The concept of
civil society has been used as a synonym of associational
life. For Keane, civil society is ‘‘an aggregate of institu-
tions whose members are engaged primarily in a complex
of non-state activities—economic and cultural production,
household life and voluntary associations’’ (Keane 1988,
14). A global civil society has been defined as formed by
organizations that are professionalized, institutionalized
and focused around particular causes (Kaldor 2003). Con-
sidered as one of the most important exports from socio-
logical theory into politics (Mitzal 2001), but also as
flattened out and rather emptied of content (Chandoke
2003)–‘‘confusing and contested because so many different
definitions and understanding exists’’ (Edwards 2011, 3), in
its broad definition, ‘‘civil society organizations cover a
huge range of entities of different types, sizes, purposes,
and levels of formality, including community or grassroots
associations, social movements, labour unions, professional
groups, advocacy and developmental NGOs, formally
registered nonprofits, social enterprises, and many others’’
(Edwards 2011, 7). The literature on civil society has
emphasized then a selective trend, with the richest and best
structured organizations gaining in influence thanks to
institutional contacts and legitimacy in public opinion
(Della Porta 2013).
In contrast, social movements are considered as informal
networks between a multiplicity of individuals, groups and
organizations, engaged in political or cultural conflicts on
the basis of a shared collective identity (Diani 1992; Della
Porta and Diani 2020). As such, they transcend the
boundaries of any specific organization and encompass
instead much broader collectivities (Diani and Bison 2004).
The type of available resources explains the strategic
choices of movements and the consequences of collective
action for the social and political system, as at times soli-
darity links can compensate for an absence of material
resources.
These differences notwithstanding, also at the concep-
tual level there are potential overlaps, and therefore spaces
for cross-fertilization, between the two fields of studies.
First, some streams in social movement studies have
stressed the importance of autonomy. Research on new
social movements highlights action in areas and on issues
that did not relate directly to the struggle for power, but
aimed instead at increasing the autonomy of individuals in
relation to several political and institutional spheres, as
autonomy was sought from technocratic apparatuses and
from corporate control over knowledge production. Thus,
reference to autonomy is central also in the conceptions of
new social movements, as fighting against attempts at
colonizing the lifeworld (Habermas 1971). According to
Melucci (1996), in complex societies, which require
increasing integration and extend their control even over
the motivations for action, new social movements (such as
the environmental movement or the movement on
women’s rights) oppose the penetration of the state and the
market in everyday social life. In this way, activists reclaim
individual identity and the right to choose one’s private life
against the manipulation of the system (Della Porta and
Diani 2020).
At the same time, in some moments, civil society
autonomy has been stated in open opposition to a (re-
pressive) political regime (e.g. in Central Eastern Europe).
In Jeffrey Alexander’s vision, it has to fight for its auton-
omy as ‘‘The civil sphere is bound by what might be called
‘noncivil’ spheres, by such worlds as state, economy,
religion, family, and community’’ (2006, 7). According to
Arato and Cohen, the struggle for an autonomous and
democratic civil society is in fact a main aim for new social
movements that present themselves as a self-defence of
society against the state in a self-understanding that aban-
dons the revolutionary dream, ‘‘in favour of radical reform
that is not necessarily and primarily oriented to the state’’
(Cohen and Arato 1992, 493). As in really existing civil
societies, the aim towards universalizing solidarity is never
achieved, cultural and social movements mobilize for
specific claims for justice that are then expressed in uni-
versal terms.
123

Second, reflection on civility has entered social move-
ment studies through the analysis of deliberative forms of
democracy that value consensus and discursive qualities.
While participation has long been a claim put forward by
progressive movements, more recently activists have the-
matized the importance of highly discursive qualities. In
the Global Justice Movements, social forums worked as
arenas of discussion, aiming at building consensus (Della
Porta 2009). Within anti-austerity protests, prefigurative
action, in particular in protest camps in occupied squares,
aim at developing alternative (and more harmonious)
relations (Della Porta 2018b).
Also, at times, reflections on civil society have trans-
gressed the boundaries between the public and the private,
considering not only the provision of services, but also
advocacy for different causes. Belonging to civil society,
social movements are referred to as to ‘‘processes that are
not institutionalized and to the groups that trigger them, to
the political struggles, the organizations, and the discourses
of leaders and followers who have formed themselves in
order to change institutional rewards and sanctions, forms
of individual interaction, and overarching cultural ideas,
often in a radical way’’ (Alexander 2006, 214).
Third, attention to some specific associational forms has
spread within social movement studies, especially in the
resource mobilization approach, where social movements
are regarded primarily as sets of organizations with similar,
or at least compatible, goals, rather than as networks of
interdependent actors. Considering social movements as a
normal part of the political process and social movement
organizations as strategic actors, the resource mobilization
approach analysed the mobilization of those resources
necessary for collective action. Research on social move-
ment organizations has in fact stressed the role of organi-
zational entrepreneurs in the mobilization of resources
within complex organizational fields (Zald and McCarthy
1987). While conflicts are considered as always being
present, collective action is expected when the mobiliza-
tion of diffused resources allows for discontent to be
transformed into action.
In parallel, civil society studies have looked at collab-
oration promoted by networks of like-minded people
concerned with a specific issue or a broader cause, often
operating within epistemic communities. In particular,
research on the global civil society has looked at the
cooperation between a broad range of national and
transnational non-governmental organizations in advocacy
activities on issues such as human rights or environmental
protection (Keck and Sikkink 1998).
In sum, even if developing through different approaches,
there is also some conceptual overlapping that allow for
integrated theorizations. In fact, both social movement and
civil society studies have looked at: (a) voluntary
123
Voluntas
participation in collective action; based on (b) complex
relations of conflict and cooperation; for (c) implicitly or
explicitly defined public goods. What is more, in the evo-
lution of both fields of studies, recent trends point in a
similar direction to attention, in both, to communicative
processes, the production of norms of democracy and links
of solidarity. There could also be additional complemen-
tarity, as the theorization of civil society has focused more
on identity building within the public sphere, underesti-
mating, however, the political dimension, which is in turn
central in social movement studies. Looking at general
trends in the development of the two fields can help
specifying the potential theoretical gains from more intense
reciprocal interactions.
Considering long-term developments, social movement
studies has grown especially since the 1970s, taking dis-
tance from previous research on collective behaviour, on
the one hand, and the labour movement, on the other. Since
the 1970s, social movement studies has developed upon
two considerations, basically summarized by the concepts
of new social movements, particularly widespread in Eur-
ope, and of resource mobilization, coined instead in the
USA. Especially in Europe, social movement scholars
differentiated their core subject of study from labour
movements, often addressed through Marxist approaches,
to new conflicts in contemporary societies. While Marxist
analyses had traditionally assessed the centrality of capital–
labour conflicts, the transformations that followed the
Second World War gave more weight not only to social
characteristics, such as gender or generation, that were not
overlapping with class, but also to post-materialistic con-
cerns. The emergent student, women’s and environmental
movements were considered as examples of new social
movements that were to substitute the institutionalized
labour movement. In particular, since the 1970s, new social
movements were defined as actors in the new conflict at the
core of post-industrial, or programmed, societies (Touraine
1977; Melucci 1996). In this move, attention to emerging
collective identities supplanted the concern with social
classes. At the same time, in the USA, studies on the civil
rights movement and student protests singled out that their
activities, rather than being irrational or anomic (as con-
sidered in previous studies), were rather guided by strategic
behaviour and shared norms. The main explanatory
dimensions were not grievances, but rather resources
mobilized by social movement organizations (Zald and
McCarthy 1987).
Once a marginal area of concern in the social sciences,
since the 1970s social movement studies has developed
into one of the main fields of study in sociology and
political science, also acquiring a role in disciplines such as
anthropology, geography, history, psychology and philos-
ophy. As the field of study consolidated, a toolkit of
Voluntas
concepts and middle-range theories developed as particu-
larly useful to address the types of social movements that
developed outside of traditional cleavages. Even if con-
tributing to the accumulation of knowledge on some social
movements in some geographical areas, the institutional-
ization of social movement studies also produced the risk
of closing down the field to new areas and innovative
interpretations. Addressing environmental, women’s or
peace movements, social movement studies, however,
rarely looked at labour or peasant movements, and still less
at ethnic or religious ones. Focusing especially on social
movements within established democracies, they devoted
little attention to forms of resistance in authoritarian
regimes, anti-colonial movements in the periphery, or poor
people’s movements at the core. Interested mainly in pro-
gressive social movements, they only occasionally studied
reactionary or conservative social movements. Looking at
movements ‘‘in the streets’’, they only rarely addressed
their less visible actions, such as knowledge production
(Della Porta and Pavan 2018) or solidarity activities (Della
Porta 2018a).
Countering the risks of a closing down of the field
around a sort of mainstream, each new wave of protests
contributed to increasing attention to social movements.
With new generations of scholars joining the field, attempts
to innovate the established toolkit multiplied, bridging the
study of social movements with that of other forms of
contentious politics, considering the broad arenas in which
movements are embedded, bringing back attention to the
social bases of broad societal conflicts and the eventful
dynamics triggered by protests (Della Porta and Diani
2015). While between the 1970s and the following decade
research focused mainly on macro-level political opportu-
nities for protest, and organizational forms and strategies at
the meso-level, from the 1990s on there was a renewed
attention to various cultural aspects, as well as to the causal
mechanisms that intervene between structure and action in
a field redefined as contentious politics, and covering social
movements as well as revolutions, democratization and
other contentious phenomena (Della Porta and Diani 2020).
Relational and processual approaches started to consider
movements as producers of norms and looked at their
experimentation with democratic processes, with the pre-
figuration of participatory forms and to high-quality com-
munication (Della Porta 2013; Della Porta and Pavan
2018).
In the social science literature on civil society, an evo-
lution has been noted with an initial trust in civil society
defined as a sphere separated from the state, followed by a
pessimistic view of civil society and the market, and then a
return of interest for civil society as an arena for the
development of solidarity and collective identity through
communicative practices. As Jeffrey Alexander
synthesized, while in the seventeenth century, in its first
conceptualization, civil society tended to include the entire
range of disparate institutions beyond the state, including
the market, it was then stigmatized as faith in an emanci-
patory capacity of capitalism declined. Since the 1980s, the
new engagement with civil society brought about a return
to the old vision of civil society as a sphere of social life
autonomous from the state: the 1989 movements for
democratization promoted an interest in what has been
defined as a revolt of civil society against the state, which
dovetailed with increasing attacks on state capacity in the
West (Ehrenberg 2011), also raising, however, concerns
with solidarity.
Theorists of civil society are nowadays still split
between those who follow a normative approach that
locates in it societal trust, and those instead who see its
dark side in the domonance of special interests and selfish
attitudes. What is more, there is a misalignment between
the normative claims of autonomy and civility and an
empirical reality of dependence upon the market and/or the
state as well as competition for funds. In fact, in recent
times, research on voluntary associations has focused on
their marketization, within a third sector that is seen more
and more as a cheap (and inefficient) surrogate for a
retrenched welfare state, or even as a promoter of exclusion
and sectarian values. While concepts like civil society have
entered social movement studies in the past, especially in
the analysis of movements for democratization in authori-
tarian regimes or as global civil society aiming at democ-
ratizing international organizations, here as well empirical
evidence has pointed to the cooptation of NGOs or their
weak capacity to influence power holders. The dominant
New Public Management doctrine, with competitive con-
tracting for public services, the introduction of voucher
systems and the commodification of rights, has strongly
affected voluntary associations, while reducing funds,
decreasing the quality of services and increasing instead
internal competition among voluntary associations (Smith
2011, 33–35). The financial crisis has further increased
these challenges, with reduced material resources as well as
the constraints upon any type of advocacy activities critical
of existing institutions.
Recent developments have, however, also introduced a
new vision of civil society as an arena for public deliber-
ation, rather than as forms of associational life or as norms
of a good society (Jordan 2011). Jeffrey Alexander has in
particular considered civil society as an arena of commu-
nication, nurturing norms of solidarity, identity formation
and democratic life, considering also social movements in
this understanding: ‘‘a solidarity sphere in which a certain
kind of universalizing community comes gradually to be
defined and to some degrees enforced’’ (Alexander 1998,
7). In societies that are governed not only by power and
123

oriented not only to the pursuit of self-interest, ‘‘solidarity
is possible because people are oriented not only to the here
and now but to the ideal, to the transcendent, to what they
hope will be the everlasting’’ (2006, 3). In fact, he suggests
a conceptualization of ‘‘civil society as a civil sphere, a
world of values and institutions that generates the capacity
for social criticism, and democratic integration at the same
time’’ (ibid., 4). The central quality of the civil society is
therefore its being oriented to universality. Based on a
cultural structure of values, civil society is then composed
of various mediums of communication, including associa-
tions and regulations.
In this vision, social movements are considered as
depending upon symbolic communication, with the
potential to go beyond particular injustices. It is especially
through their cultural action—their capacity to produce
resonant cultural drama—that they succeed, as their
specific concerns are taken up by the civic public. Move-
ments operate then through social performances, relying on
emotional and normative commitments, producing identi-
fication and therefore solidarity, through communication.
Similarly, according to Cohen and Arato (1992), ‘‘a
civic-society oriented approach could highlight two addi-
tional dimensions of contemporary collective action: the
politics of interest (of civil on political society) and the
politics of identity (the focus on autonomy, identity and
democratizations of social relations outside the polity)’’
(ibid., 509). Even if social movements also aim at influ-
encing actors in political society, their main function lies in
the very development of identities. Differently from
interest groups, social movement are said to mobilize
symbolic, rather than material, resources that are oriented
towards cultural change, rather than political representa-
tion, by ‘‘undoing traditional structures of domination,
exclusion, and inequality, rooted in social institutions,
norms, collective identities and cultural values based on
racial and class prejudice’’ (ibid., 508). Autonomy is
therefore central to new social movements as ‘‘au-
tonomous, voluntary and indigenous associations within
civil society using and expanding public discourses and
public spaces for discourse are the differentia specifica of
contemporary social movements’’ (ibid., 507). New social
movements are characterized as involving ‘‘actors who
have become aware of their capacity to create identities
and of power relations involved in the social construction
of those identities’’ (ibid., 511). They ‘‘construe the cultural
models, norms and institutions of civil society as the main
stakes of social conflicts’’ (ibid., 523). The democratization
of political society and the creation of egalitarian norms are
the most important means towards those civilizing aims.
In sum, in both fields identity, relations, communication
and influence tended to become the main focus of attention,
even if in the studies of civil society there was more of a
123
Voluntas
focus on some specific norms and in social movement
studies attention to the political role of social movements
remained higher.
Hybridization of (Social Movement) Activism
and (Civil Society) Voluntarism
Besides theoretical resonance, the need to bridge the two
fields of studies can be supported also on the basis of
evidence of empirical interactions between social move-
ments and some forms of volunteerism. Historically, rela-
tions between movement politics and civil society
organizations have been frequent (Della Porta and Diani
2011; Anheier and Sherer 2015). Civil society organiza-
tions have constituted important networks for block
recruitment and also provided important organizational
resources. So, for instance, at the origins of both the civil
rights movement and the student movement were dense
networks of civil society organizations, which, even if not
involved in protest, nonetheless facilitated collective
mobilization. In addition, movements have triggered the
development of civil society organizations as means of
survival in the doldrums after intense moments of protest.
In the labour as well as in the women’s movements, a
dense civil society has been built in action, constituting
then an important infrastructure also in moments of latency
of the most disruptive forms of protest. Research on con-
temporary societies has also shown sustained interactions
between different types of mobilization, as civil society
organizations do participate in protest campaigns and,
individually, there are frequent overlapping memberships
among rank and file, as well as in the leadership. This has
been the case, as mentioned for the World Social Forums,
or the European Social Forums, that constituted arenas for
the encounter of hundreds of social movement and civil
society organizations (Della Porta 2009a).
Research has also pointed to processes of hybridization
between more disruptive social movement organizations
and more tame non-governmental organizations. One way
in which this hybridization has been addressed is through
the analysis of so-called NGOization of social movement
organizations, that has singled out the following trends in
social movement development:
(a) Moderation of Repertoires In the late 1980s, a
change was noticed in the repertoire of collective
action. Social science literature talked of a with-
drawal of social movements from protest, which they
tended to replace by lobbying and opinion formation
(Della Porta 2013). A global civil society has been
said to have developed from the process of taming of
the social movements of the pre-1989 period, as well
Voluntas
as the decline of old civic associations (such as
unions), and the transformation of the former into
NGOs (Kaldor 2003).
(b) Organizational Structuration Research on Western
societies has noted that, especially since the 1980s,
social movements have become more structured,
with social movement organizations considered as
more and more institutionalized actors, rich in
material resources and channels of access to decision
makers. Movement organizations became well
embedded at the national or even the transnational
level, acquired substantial material resources,
increased their public recognition and membership
and set up paid staffs and formal organizational
structures. They became similar to interest groups,
albeit of a public interest type; entering the third
sector, acquiring professionalism and often admin-
istering public resources; and commercializing their
activities by creating (sometimes successful) niches
in the market.
(c) Depoliticization of Frame Together with moderation
in the forms of action and organizational structura-
tion, a sort of depoliticization was noted (Della Porta
and Diani 2004; Lofland 1989). In fact, new social
movements were said to be more and more focused
in their collective framing on single issues, prag-
matic in their interactions, often adapting to main-
stream discourse in order to increase their resonance
with public opinion, from which they obtained
symbolic and even material resources. Several
movement organizations also tended to moderate
their discourse in order not to jeopardize public
financing as well as private contributions.
The image of institutionalized post-materialistic and sin-
gle-issue actors was, however, shaken in the 1990s and
broke down after the year 2000. New transformations
emerged in recent times with a return of ‘‘politics in the
street’’, which implied instead: (a) cross-issue networking;
(b) direct action; and (c) repoliticization of frames.
The mobilizations against austerity policies, violence on
women or climate change not only testify to a return of
politics to the street, but also challenge the idea of a retreat
from the public, proposing alternative visions of politics.
While stressing the need for political governance of the
economy, these social movements reflected an increasing
tension between a representative and a participatory con-
ception of politics. They in fact prefigured forms of par-
ticipatory democracy carried out in areas open to citizens,
regarded as subjects and actors of politics (Della Porta
2013).
Since the last decade, contentious repertoires of action,
emerging in a new wave of protest against what activists
refer to as ‘‘hegemonic neoliberalism’’, have brought about
a resurgence of social issues. In Europe and elsewhere, the
end of the ‘‘mid-century compromise’’ between capitalism
and the welfare state brought social rights back to the
central stage of massive collective mobilizations—albeit
not without attention to new themes (like environmental
sustainability or gender) that had emerged with the ‘‘new
social movements’’ (Della Porta et al. 2006; Della Porta
2009a, b, 2015).
Politicization ensued not only from disillusion with
conventional pressure politics but also from a return to
attention to the importance of the state against the market
and the public against the private. By bringing social rights
back in, these conflicts also confirm the relevant role that
politics has to play vis-à-vis the market. Politics has been
considered important for constituting the norms and insti-
tutions of civil society and ensuring those conditions of
equality and freedom on which civil society can prosper. If
for Habermas the welfare state brought about a risk of
penetration of the lifeworld by the administrative state, it,
however, also represents a defence of the lifeworld against
the penetration of the capitalist economy (Cohen and Arato
1992).
These developments interacted with some indications of
an SMOization of civil society. As post-democracy (Crouch
2004) spread, a minimalistic conception of political par-
ticipation and neoliberal policies reduced the power and
recognition of collective representation of workers, while
civil society organizations have also lost resources, chan-
nels of institutional access and public support. These
brought about the acquisition by formalized civil society
organizations of some characteristics usually considered as
typical of social movement organizations, in particular:
(a) Use of Direct Action In a more challenging envi-
ronment, NGOs are pushed, at times, to mobilize in
contentious forms in defence of their beneficiaries.
Volunteerism is hybridized with activism, with
attempts to mobilize the attention of public opinion
also through disruptive forms of collective protest.
(b) Networked Structure Faced with a decline in mate-
rial resources and institutional channels of access to
policy-makers, even the most structured NGOs have
built alliances with grass-roots social movement
organizations. The more formalized structure is kept
in place, but accompanied by attempts at participat-
ing in loose coordination with different types of
actors.
(c) Politicized Discourse. With the closing down of
opportunities for discrete interactions with state
institutions in the forms of lobbying, or outsourcing
of services, some NGOs politicize their discourses,
in particular in reaction to crises and repression.
123

These types of trends were already visible in the Global
Justice Movements, which saw the participation of various
types of civil society organizations—such as develop-
mental NGOs, charities, trade unions—together with more
typical social movement organizations. Already at the
beginning of the 2000s, forms of protest were used also by
large and well-structured NGOs that participated in various
transnational campaigns for social justice, human rights
and environmental protection. While keeping their well-
structured organizations, many NGOs started to open
channels of access to bottom-up participation as well as
taking part in broad contentious networks. In particular,
they tended to change their frames, bridging several issues
and concerns within a politicization of their vision of their
activities, as well as those of their opponents (Della Porta
2009a, b).
More recently, the humanitarian crises produced by
austerity policies and the criminalization of solidarity fol-
lowing the rise of xenophobic politics and policies are
among the main triggers of a hybridization of social
movement activism and volunteerism, with a transforma-
tion in action repertoires, organizational structures and
collective framing.
First of all, during the financial crisis new repertoires of
action were used by progressive movements in order to
denounce the deadly consequences of cuts in welfare. A
scaling down of protest activities has been in fact singled
out, with the spreading of direct social action as alternative
socio-economic practices oriented to everyday transfor-
mation with the creation of concrete communities (Bosi
and Zamponi 2019). The provision of services based on
voluntary non-profit actors became politicized through the
entry into the field of social movement organizations,
which developed into a hybrid combination of NGOs and
SMOs.
As voluntary practices have been challenged by a
reduction in public and private contributions linked to the
crisis (including declining free time to volunteer, money
for charity and consumption of the goods produced through
voluntary work), contentious actions addressing austerity
policies and the increasing poverty ensuing included not
only protest camps but also other prefigurative forms that
directly implemented the movement’s aims. Bosi and
Zamponi (2019) have pointed to the development not only
of mutualistic practices in areas such as social services and
health, but also popular sports or legal consultancy with a
spreading of critical consumption, self-help house squat-
ting, alternative financing, self-managed production and
work (in the industrial sector but also in agriculture). Often
inspired by the principle of self-management, alternative
economic forms revisit old traditions of mutualism of the
19th century, adapting to new organizational models (ibid.,
163). So, cooperatives and self-help grew in the crisis, even
123
Voluntas
more than claim-making and conflict (ibid., 198). A vibrant
informal civil society developed, with a different social
basis to formal voluntarism, including those who were hit
by the crisis and the politically engaged (Malamidis 2018;
Hadjimichalis 2018; Della Porta 2018a).
Given a political crisis, strengthened by economic and
social crises, it is in the social field that social movement
activists tried to create the conditions for a new political
activation through rematerialization, reterritorialization
and reappropriation (Bosi and Zamponi 2019). Direct
social action is considered as able to trigger politicization
in action, by working on emergencies in order to rebuild
the prepolitical conditions for participation, even if at the
risk of being absorbed by everyday emergencies. The
provision of a welfare from below brings about a reterri-
torialization of public goods. Responses to material needs
are important in bringing about new social ties against their
perceived disintegration and in fuelling a desire for a
community to develop in public spaces outside of the
working environment (ibid., 172). Direct social action is
seen as facilitating then the activation of individuals
through aggregation that is often also oriented towards
recreational activities against the sociability crisis linked to
economic crisis and disaggregation. The construction of
spaces is also oriented towards the creation of jobs through
a reappropriation of production (ibid. 178–179), linked to
the aggregation of multiple pieces of identities.
Changes also happened in response to the criminaliza-
tion of civil society organizations, in particular those active
in solidarity with refugees and migrants. Especially during
search and rescue operations in the Mediterranean,
humanitarian interventions by larger and smaller voluntary
organizations have been delegitimized and even criminal-
ized, with rescuers charged with collaboration in human
trafficking (Heller and Pezzani 2017). The criminalization
of solidarity has been linked to the increasing repression of
refugees themselves, both those who are denied the status
as they are labelled as economic migrants and also those
who are accorded the status of refugees, but who are
considered as potential terrorists. Thus, ‘‘The migrant at
sea is presented as part of a continuum of ‘tricky subjec-
tivities’—which include the smuggler, the potential ter-
rorist and the refugee—and as both a ‘risky subject’ and a
‘subject at risk’ at the same time’’ (Tazzioli 2018, 9).
In sum, as NGOs were stigmatized as facilitating illegal
trafficking, criminalization triggered an SMOization of
civil society organizations involved in humanitarian help to
refugees, transforming such help into the performance of
acts of citizenship (Isin 2008). This has been accompanied
by trends towards loose coordination within a horizontal
network of grass-roots initiatives, direct action including
civil disobedience and the politicization of frames, pro-
viding services denied under austerity but also mobilizing
Voluntas
in protest and framing solidarity beyond charity (Della
Porta 2018a).
Where to Go: Taking Stock and Moving Forward
In sum, this article has pleaded for more interaction
between different traditions of research on social move-
ments, on the one hand, and on civil society, voluntarism
and the third sector, on the other. This plea has both the-
oretical and empirical grounds.
From the theoretical point of view, while civil society
conceptualizations have focused on autonomy, civility and
association, social movement studies stressed conflict,
transgression and networks. However, the theoretical bor-
ders between the two fields have been blurred in recent
theoretical evolutions that have focused on civil society as
a sphere in which solidarity norms are reproduced, and
social movement studies have looked at social movements
as arenas for the development of specific norms. Issues of
identity and communication are more and more central to
debates in both fields. In addition, both fields of studies
share an interest in the mechanisms that facilitate or dis-
courage citizens’ involvement in collective action (Mar-
well and Oliver 1993; Van Deth et al. 1999; Wilson 2000;
Diani and McAdam 2003). There is common interest in
how organizational forms combine the quest for efficacy
with that for decentralized, participatory structures (Kriesi
1996; Jordan and Maloney 1997; Anheier and Themudo
2002). Moreover, there is attention in both to transforma-
tions, not only in political, but also in societal opportunities
for the achievements of public goods and a good society.
Complementarity can develop from bridging attention to
the capacity to influence public discourses, affecting cul-
ture, which is analysed in recent works on civil society, and
the analysis of power and political influence, which is more
central in social movement studies. A better understanding
of our societies can come from cross-fertilization between
different fields of research. In fact, the reflection on civil
society has focused attention on the balance between
autonomy from the state and autonomy from the market, as
well as the role of norms of trust and reciprocity, while
social movement studies have contributed with a focus on
conflicts and the investigation of the political role of
societal actors. Further interactions would help the search
for a balance between the tradition in sociology that rec-
ognizes the fundamental role of conflict in creating soli-
darity and such concepts as reciprocity, civility, dialogue
and respect, which have been pivotal in reflections on civil
society.
Cross-fertilization can be all the more fruitful since the
empirical boundaries between social movement organiza-
tions and voluntary associations are made more and more
porous by what was dubbed the NGOization of social
movements, and the SMOization of NGOs faced with
increasing retrenchment of the welfare state and the
criminalization of solidarity activities. While neither is a
new phenomenon, the dynamics of the economic, social
and political crises triggered by the Great Regression have
certainly accelerated a process of hybridization. Faced with
austerity, progressive social movement organizations have
engaged in new forms of mutualism and voluntarism in the
social sphere, as a means for providing not only immediate
help but also the reconstruction of social ties as a first step
towards political mobilization. At the same time, the
criminalization of forms of solidarity has transformed basic
forms of humanitarian help into acts of civil disobedience
and, therefore, acts of citizenships. As civil society orga-
nizations became the target of repression, resistance trig-
gered an intensification of organizational networking as
well as a politicization of the political discourse.
These trends can be expected to reopen debates on the
relationship between state and market and the very concept
of autonomy, as well as civility, going beyond a depoliti-
cized vision of civil society. This is all the more important
as recent developments challenge established knowledge.
Criticizing mainstream social movement studies for
understanding movements as strategic actors, investing
resources for achieving specific institutional changes,
Alexander had focused on their capacity to pursue uni-
versalistic values in the civil sphere. Against social
movement scholars’ vision of social movements as strate-
gic actors of a conflict between different interests,
embedded in institutional power relations, mobilized by
purposeful organizations, Cohen and Arato had stressed
instead their acting through a politics of influence, defined
as a ‘‘peculiar ‘medium’ that is specifically suited to
modern civil society whose public spheres, rights, and
representative democratic institutions are, in principle at
least, open to discursive processes that inform, thematize,
and potentially alter social norms and political cultures’’
(Cohen and Arato 1992, 504).
The process of hybridization points however to the
importance of a logic of power, with claims for a return to
the public against the private and to the state against the
market. Looking at the work of scholars who more
explicitly consider social movement organization, such as
Cohen and Arato, as well as Jeffrey Alexander, we can note
that while the definition of social movements as relevant
actors in civil society (in particular in promoting inclusive
norms, developing collective identities and influencing the
public) certainly points to important aspects of movements’
activities, these authors are still very much influenced by
the New Social Movements approach and the reality of
social movements in the Western World in the 1980s. The
vision of social movements as actors of the cultural sphere
123

is selectively focusing on some movements’ concerns, at
the risk of overlooking claims for state intervention, a
return to the public and a concern with power and politics,
which emerge as a relevant recent trend and that social
movement studies are better equipped to address. On their
side, civil society studies might contribute knowledge on
the process of involvement of social movements as service
providers, their commitment to rebuild solidarity ties and
their interest in communication. While social movement
studies might be better equipped to address the politiciza-
tion of civil society, the involvement of social movement
organization in direct social action responds to a need to
address not only economic processes, but also cultural
ones, such as the rebuilding of the societal value of soli-
darity stressed in studies on civil society.
References
Alexander, J. C. (1998). Real civil society. Dilemma of institution-
alization. London: Sage.
Alexander, J. C. (2006). The civil sphere. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Anheier, H., & Sherer, N. (2015). Voluntary action and social
movements. In D. Della Porta & M. Diani (Eds.), Oxford
handbook on social movements (pp. 494–511). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Anheier, H., & Themudo, N. (2002). Organizational forms of global
civil society: Implications of going global. In M. Glasius, M.
Kaldor, & H. Ahheier (Eds.), Global civil society 2002 (pp.
191–216). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bosi, L., & Zamponi, L. (2019). Resistere alla crisi. I percorsi
dell’azione sociale diretta. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Chandoke, N. (2003). The concepts of the civil society. New Delhi:
Oxford University Press.
Cohen, J. L., & Arato, A. (1992). Civil society and political theory.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Crouch, C. (2004). Post democracy. London: Polity.
Della Porta, D. (Ed.). (2009a). Democracy in social movements.
Lomdon: Palgrave.
Della Porta, D. (Ed.). (2009b). Another Europe. London: Routledge.
Della Porta, D. (2013). Can democracy be saved. Oxford: Polity
Press.
Della Porta, D. (2015). Social movements in times of crisis. Bringing
capitalism back into the analysis of protest. Cambridge: Polity.
Della Porta, D. (2017). Where did the revolution go?. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Della Porta, D. (Ed.). (2018a). Contentious moves. London: Palgrave.
Della Porta, D. (2018b). Protests as critical junctures: Some
reflections towards a momentous approach to social movements.
Social Movement Studies, 11(3–4), 1–20.
Della Porta, D., Andretta, M., Mosca, L., & Reiter, H. (2006).
Globalization from below. Minneapolis: The University of
Minnesota Press.
Della Porta, D., & Diani, M. (2004). Movimenti senza protesta?
L’ambientalismo in Italia. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Della Porta, D., & Diani, M. (2011). Social movements and civil
society. In B. Edwards (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of civil
society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
123
Voluntas
Della Porta, D., & Diani, M. (Eds.). (2015). Introduction: The social
movement field. Oxford handbook of social movements (pp.
1–29). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Della Porta, D., & Diani, M. (2020). Social movements. An
introduction (3rd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Della Porta, D., & Pavan, E. (2018). The nexus between media,
communication and social movements. In G. Meikle (Ed.), The
Routledge companion to media and activism (pp. 29–37).
London: Routledge.
Diani, M. (1992). The concept of social movement. Sociological
Review, 40, 1–25.
Diani, M. (1995). Green networks. A structural analysis of the Italian
environmental movement. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
Diani, M., & Bison, I. (2004). Organizations, coalitions, and
movements. Theory and Society, 33, 281–309.
Diani, M., & McAdam, D. (Eds.). (2003). Social movements and
networks. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Edward, B. (2011). Introduction: Civil society and the geometry of
human relations. In B. Edwards (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of
civil society (pp. 1–14). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Edwards, B. (2004). Civil society. Cambridge: Polity.
Edwards, B., Foley, M., & Diani, M. (Eds.). (2001). Beyond
tocqueville: Social capital, civil society, and political process
in comparative perspective. Hannover, NH: University Press of
New England.
Ehrenberg, J. (2011). The history of civil society idea. In B. Edwards
(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of civil society (pp. 15–27). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Habermas, J. (1971). Towards a rational society. Student protest,
science and politics. London: Beacon.
Hadjimichalis, C. (2018). Crisis spaces: Structures, struggles and
solidarity in southern Europe. London: Routledge.
Heller, C., & Pezzani, L. (2017). Blaming the rescuers. London.
https://blamingtherescuers.org/report/.
Isin, E. F. (2008). Theorizing acts of citizenship. In F. Engin & G.
M. Nielsen (Eds.), Acts of citizenship (pp. 15–43). London: Zed
Books.
Jordan, L. (2011). Global civil society. In B. Edwards (Ed.), The
Oxford handbook of civil society (pp. 93–107). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Jordan, G., & Maloney, W. (1997). The protest business?. Manch-
ester: Manchester University Press.
Kaldor, M. (2003). Global civil society. An answer to war.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Keane, J. (1988). Democracy and Civil Society. London: Verso.
Keane, J. (2003). Global civil society?. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Keck, M. E., & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists beyond borders. Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press.
Kriesi, H. (1996). The organizational structure of new social
movements in a political context. In D. McAdam, J. McCarthy,
& M. N. Zald (Eds.), Comparative perspective on social
movements. Political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and
cultural framing (pp. 152–184). Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Kumar, K. (1993). Civil society: An inquiry into the usefulness of an
historical term. The British Journal of Sociology, 44(3),
375–395.
Lipsky, M. (1965). Protest and city politics. Chicago: Rand McNally
& Co.
Lofland, J. (1989). Consensus movements: City twinings and derailed
dissent in the American eighties. Research in Social Movements,
Conflict and Change, 11, 163–189.
Voluntas
Malamidis, H. (2018). From protest to production: Enlarging the
boundaries of social movements in crisis-ridden Greece. Ph.D.
thesis. Firenze: Scuola Normale Superiore.
Marwell, G., & Oliver, P. E. (1993). The critical mass in collective
action. A micro-social theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
McAdam, D., Tarrow, S., & Tilly, C. (2001). Dynamics of contention.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Melucci, A. (1996). Challenging codes. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Misztal, B. (2001). Civil society: A signifier of plurality and sense of
wholeness. In J. R. Blau (Ed.), The Blackwell companion of
sociology (pp. 73–85). Oxford: Blackwell.
Oberschall, A. (1973). Social conflict and social movements. Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Putnam, R. (1993). Making democracy work. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Smith, S. R. (2011). The nonprofit sector. In B. Edwards (Ed.), The
Oxford handbook of civil society (pp. 29–42). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Snow, D., Soule, S., & Kriesi, H. (Eds.). (2004). The Blackwell
companion to social movements. Oxford: Blackwell.
Tarrow, S. (1989). Democracy and disorder: Protest and politics in
Italy, 1965–1975. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tazzioli, M. (2018). Crimes of solidarity migration and containment
through rescue. Radical Philosophy, 2(01), 4–10.
Tilly, C. (1978). From mobilsation to revolution. Reading, mass:
Addison-Wesley.
Touraine, A. (1977). The self-production of society. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Van Deth, J. W., Maraffi, M., Newton, K., & Whiteley, P. F. (Eds.).
(1999). Social capital and european democracy. London:
Routledge.
Walzer, M. (1998). The idea of civil society: A path to social
reconstruction. In E. J. Dionne (Ed.), Community works: The
revival of civil society in America. Washington, DC: Brookings
Institution Press.
Wilson, J. (2000). Volunteering. Annual Review of Sociology, 26,
215–240.
Zald, M. N., & McCarthy, J. (1987). Social movements in an
organizational society. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
123