ABSTRACT
Despite the remarkable growth and progress of social movement scholarship since the 1970s, two recent critiques point to major gaps in the field. One critique comes from Walder, who argues that because of an overwhelming focus on mobilization – how and why movements emerge, develop, and succeed – social movement scholars have largely failed to examine the political orientations of social movements, and especially the way in which they are shaped by social structures. 2 A second, and related, critique by Hetland and Goodwin, argues that social movement scholars have increasingly failed to consider the relevance of capitalism and dynamics of class struggle. 3 Whereas the former critique calls for greater attention to the substantive content of contentious politics, the latter critique calls for situating contention within a broader political economic terrain.
