Abstract:
While NSMs are gaining increased publicity in post-development writing, much of their description is characterised by vagueness, generalisation and, often, romanticism. Though they have a rich history in social theory, this is rarely alluded to and concepts central to NSMs such as civil society and everyday life arc not examined, even though agreement on their use in development is rare. A more rigorous approach is desirable if NSMs are to fulfill the potential many post-development writers (Rahnema, 1997; Escobar, 1995) claim for them as solutions to the development impasse.
A discourse analysis shows considerable difference between what different writers intend by the term 'new social movement' and also reveals a number of absences in their descriptions and analyses. In spite of the frequent use of buzz words such as diversity and heterogeneity, most writing is surprisingly similar and limited in scope. Missing from most development writing is an inclusion of feminist groups, for example, even though such movements form a staple part of NSM theory. Equally, mention of movements outside of Latin America and India is very rare. Widening the discussion surrounding NSMs and encouraging a more rigorous approach to their research can only be beneficial to this emerging form of development discourse.
