The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Putting Values and Institutions Back into the Theory of Strategic Action Fields
Open accessAbstract
Neil Fligstein and Doug McAdam have presented a new theory of how collective action creates the structure and dynamics of societies. At issue is the behavior of social movements, organizations, states, political parties, and interest groups. They argue that all of these phenomena are produced by social actors (which may be individuals or groups) involved in strategic action. This allows Fligstein and McAdam to advance a unified theory of “strategic action fields.” This article takes issue with aspects of Fligstein and McAdam’s important contribution. We argue that that all organizations are not essentially the same; in addition to the location and interactions of their strategic actors, their dynamics are shaped and distinguished by differing values and norms, by the autonomy of institutions embedded in strategic action fields, and by the fractal relationships that nested fields have to broader principles of justice and social organization that span societies. We also criticize the view that social change can be conceptualized solely in terms of shifting configurations of actors in strategic action fields. Rather, any theory of social action must distinguish between periods of routine contention under the current institutions and norms and exceptional challenges to the social order that aim to transform those institutions and norms.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“In 'abnormal times', such as revolutions, these processual dynamics have the capacity to reshape fields of action and categories of meaning quite dramatically (Goldstone and Useem 2012: 39, 45).”
From Within and Beyond the “Fourth Generation” of Revolutionary Theory (2016) · cites this paper as Goldstone and Useem 2012
Citations
Cites
States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and China
Skocpol, T. (1979) · Cambridge University Press · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511815805 · Cited by 5,408
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 15
- 10.1111/j.1467-9558.2010.01385.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1017/CBO9780511488979 · DOI
- 10.1515/9781400833610 · DOI
- Gamson William A., 1975, Strategy of Social Protest
- Goldstone Jack A., 1991, Revolution and Rebellion in the Early Modern World
- 10.1023/B:RYSO.0000038611.01350.30 · DOI
- 10.1086/210134 · DOI
- 10.7208/chicago/9780226304007.001.0001 · DOI
- 10.4159/9780674038288 · DOI
- Hirschman Albert O., 1970, Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States
- 10.1017/CBO9780511491054 · DOI
- Selbin Eric, 1999, Latin American Revolutions
- 10.1146/annurev.soc.23.1.1 · DOI
- 10.1093/sf/76.2.357 · DOI
- 10.1177/000312240206700402 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Within and Beyond the “Fourth Generation” of Revolutionary Theory
Lawson, G. (2016) · Sociological Theory · doi:10.1177/0735275116649221 · Cited by 126
Metadata
- Authors
- Goldstone, J. A., & Useem, B.
- Affiliations
- George Mason University, Arlington, VA, USA
- Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
- ORCID
- Useem, Bert
- Venue
- Sociological Theory
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2012-03
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 37-47
- ISSN
- 0735-2751 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9558
- OpenAlex
- W1997072973
- Cited by
- 78
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 4
- FWCI
- 9.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Sociological Theory (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Contemporary Sociological Theory and Practice
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Movements and Cultural Identity
- Keywords
- strategic action fields, collective action, social movements, organizational dynamics, values and norms, institutional autonomy, social change, institutional change, Neil Fligstein
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review