Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Politically Engaged Scholarship in Social Movement Studies

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Marxist Historical Cultures and Social Movements during the Cold War

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in the History of Social Movements ((PSHSM))

Abstract

This chapter is inspired by the controversy surrounding positivist approaches in German sociology in the 1960s and motivated by the author’s continuing personal struggle of coming to terms with what might be termed “politically engaged scholarship.” Since this is not a problem specific to social movement studies because it has been discussed on principle grounds as a matter of philosophy, logics, and methodology of human and social sciences, the chapter refers, first but very briefly, to this fundamental debate that prepares the ground for similar debates in special fields like social movement studies. Second, the chapter aims at providing a descriptive and analytical overview on engaged scholarship in social movement studies. Here the focus is not specifically on Marxist, neo-Marxist, or post-Marxist approaches, but on the broader spectrum of politically engaged scholarship. Moreover, the chapter is not restricted to the most recent period but ventures further back. Third, the chapter reflects on the advantages and problems of engaged scholarship and promotes an approach that includes both closeness and distance vis-à-vis social movements as an object of study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    O. Rammstedt (1991) ‘Die Frage der Wertfreiheit und die Gründung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Soziologie’ in L. Claußen and C. Schlüter-Knauer (eds.) Hundert Jahre “Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft” (Opladen: Leske + Budrich), pp. 549–60.

  2. 2.

    T. Adorno et al. (1969) Der Positivismusstreit in der deutschen Soziologie (Darmstadt and Neuwied: Luchterhand); H. Keuth (1989) Wissenschaft und Werturteil: zu Welturteilsdiskussionen und Positivismusstreit (Tübingen: Mohr Siebek).

  3. 3.

    T. Sorell (1991) Scientism: Philosophy and the Infatuation with Science (New York: Routledge).

  4. 4.

    P. Atkins (1995) ‘Science as “Truth”’, History of the Human Sciences, 8, 97–102.

  5. 5.

    For example, A. L. Hughes (2012) ‘The Folly of Scientism’, The New Atlantis, 37, 32–50.

  6. 6.

    K. Popper (1959) [first published in 1935] The Logic of Scientific Discovery (London: Hutchinson & Co.).

  7. 7.

    ‘The objective and value-free scientist is not the ideal scientist. It is not possible without passion, and all the more so in pure science. The term ‘love for truth’ is not a mere metaphor’ (K. Popper (1969) ‘The Logic of Social Sciences’ in T. Adorno et al. (1969) Der Positivismusstreit in der deutschen Soziologie (Darmstadt and Neuwied: Luchterhand), pp. 103–23, here p. 114; my translation). Robert Merton (1942) made similar claims by characterizing the ‘mores of science’ as both moral and technical prescriptions.

  8. 8.

    H. Albert (1964) ‘Social Science and Moral Philosophy. A Critical Approach to the Value Problem in the Social Sciences’ in M. Bunge (ed.) The Critical Approach to Science and Philosophy. Essays in Honor of Karl Popper (Glencoe, IL: Free Press); H. Albert (1999) Between Social Science, Religion and Politics: Essays on Critical Rationalism (Amsterdam and Atlanta, GI: Ropodi).

  9. 9.

    For example, A. Schütz (1962) ‘Common-Sense and Scientific Interpretation of Human Action’ in M. Natanson (ed.) Alfred Schütz. Collected Papers, Volume I (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff), pp. 3–47; P. Feyerabend (1975) Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge (London: NLB); and K.O. Apel (1973) Transformation der Philosophie, Volume I: Sprachanalytik, Semiotik, Hermeneutik and Volume II: das Apriori der Kommunikationsgesellschaft (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp).

  10. 10.

    See P. L. Berger and T. Luckmann (1966) The Social Construction of Reality (Garden City, NY: Doubleday); Taylor, C. (1967) ‘Neutrality in Political Science’ in P. Laslett and W. Garrison Runciman (eds.) Philosophy, Politics and Society (Oxford: Blackwell); J. Rüsen (1983) Historische Vernunft Grundzüge einer Historik: Die Grundlagen der Geschichtswissenschaft (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck); W. J. Mommsen (1977) ‘Der perspektivische Charakter historischer Aussagen und das Problem der Parteilichkeit und Objektivität historischer Erkenntnis’ in R. Koselleck, W. J. Mommsen and J. Rüsen (eds.) Objektivität und Parteilichkeit. Theorie der Geschichte, 1 (München: dtv), pp. 441–68; H. E. Longino (1990) Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press); P. Scott, P. E. Richard and B. Martin (1990) ‘Captives of Controversy: The Myth of the Neutral Social Researcher’ in Contemporary Scientific Controversies, Science, Technology & Human Values, 15, 474–94; and C. Ratner (2002) ‘Subjectivity and Objectivity in Qualitative Methodology’, Forum Qualitative Social Research, III, 3.

  11. 11.

    ‘Technology and science themselves in the form of a common positivistic way of thinking, articulated as technological consciousness, began to take the role of a substitute ideology for the demolished bourgeois ideologies’: J. Habermas (1974) Theory and Practice (London: Heinemann), p. 253ff.

  12. 12.

    Rüsen, first, calls for Begründungsobjektivität (objectivity of foundation). This means that historical facts should be acknowledged regardless of the meaning attached to these. Second, Konstruktionsobjektivität (objectivity of the construction) requires to embed histories into the medium of argumentative communication. Third, Konsensusobjektivität (objectivity of consensus) implies the capacity of histories to serve people with diverging positions to communicate on the basis of shared meanings. Rüsen, Historische Vernunft, pp. 128–32.

  13. 13.

    L. Cox and A. G. Nilsen (2005) ‘Why Do Activists Need Theory?’, Euromovements Newsletter, http://eprints.maynoothuniversity.ie/445/, date accessed 10 May 2016.

  14. 14.

    ‘All men are intellectuals…but not all men have in society the function of intellectuals’: A. Gramsci (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks (New York: International Publishers), p. 9.

  15. 15.

    The organic intellectual gives to a social group or class ‘homogeneity and an awareness of its own function not only in the economic but also in the social and political fields’: Gramsci, Notebooks, p. 5. He participates ‘in practical life, as constructor and organiser, “permanent persuader” and not just a simple orator (…) from technique-as-work one proceeds to technique-as-science and to the humanistic conception of history, without which one remain “specialised” and does not become “directive” (specialised and political)’: Gramsci, Notebooks, p. 10.

  16. 16.

    E. P. Thompson (1978) The Poverty of Theory and Other Essays (London: Merlin Press).

  17. 17.

    V. I. Lenin (1902) What Is to Be Done?, p. 110, https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/download/what-itd.pdf, date accessed 12 May 2016.

  18. 18.

    C. Wright Mills (1959) The Sociological Imagination (New York: Oxford University Press).

  19. 19.

    D. Rucht (2016) ‘Conclusions. Social Movement Studies in Europe: Achievements, Gaps, Challenges’ in O. Fillieule and G. Accornero (eds.) Social Movement Studies in Europe: The State of the Art (New York and Oxford: Berghahn), pp. 456–87.

  20. 20.

    K.-D. Opp (2009) Theories of Political Protest and Social Movements. A Multidisciplinary Introduction, Critique and Synthesis (London: Routledge).

  21. 21.

    C. Barker and L. Cox (2002) ‘“What Have the Romans Ever Done for Us?” Academic and Activist Forms of Movement Theorizing’ in C. Barker and M. Tyldesley (eds.) Eighth International Conference on Alternative Features and Popular Protest Volume I (Manchester: Manchester Metropolitan University), pp. 1–27.

  22. 22.

    A. Starodub (2015) ‘Post-Representational Epistemology in Practice: Processes of Relational Knowledge Creation in Autonomous Social Movements’, Interface: A Journal for and About Social Movements, VII, 2, 161–91, here p. 161.

  23. 23.

    J. M. Chevalier and D. J. Buckles (2013) Participation Action Research: Theory and Methods for Engaged Inquiry (London: Routledge).

  24. 24.

    For example, M. Mies (1978) ‘Methodische Postulate zur Frauenforschung—dargestellt am Beispiel der Gewalt gegen Frauen’, Beiträge zur feministischen Theorie und Praxis, I, 1, 47–52.

  25. 25.

    T. Brock (2014) What Is the Function of the Social Movement Academic?, The Sociological Imagination, http://sociologicalimagination.org/archives/15545/comment-page-1, date accessed 12 May 2016.

  26. 26.

    See M. Cresswell and H. Spandler (2013) ‘The Engaged Academic: Academic Intellectuals and Psychiatric Survivor Movement’, Social Movement Studies, XII, 2, 128–54, for reactions to it see, for example, N. Crossley (2013) ‘Response to Cresswell and Spandler’, Social Movement Studies, XII, 2, 155–57; Brock, Function.

  27. 27.

    Social Movement Studies (2012), 11, 2.

  28. 28.

    It was established in 2009 and appears biannually (www.interfacejournal.net). See also C. Flesher Fominaya, The Global Interface Project: Linking Sociology and Movement Activists, http://isa-global-dialogue.net/the-global-interface-project-linking-sociology-and-movement-activists/, date accessed 9 May 2016.

  29. 29.

    See Barrington Moore’s introductory statement: ‘Without denying my own moral preferences and the latter’s causes, I tried to continuously formulate arguments that can be refuted by appealing to evidence and logics’ in B. Moore (1982) Ungerechtigkeit—Die sozialen Ursachen von Unterordnung und Widerstand (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp), p. 14 (my translation from the German edition).

  30. 30.

    J. Jasper (1998) The Art of Moral Protest. Culture, Biography, and Creativity in Social Movements (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), p. 343.

  31. 31.

    J. Jasper, Art, p. 377.

  32. 32.

    This element is expressed in the self-description of a new journal: ‘Interface: A Journal for and About Social Movements is a forum bringing together activists from different movements and different countries, researchers working with movements, and engaged academics from different disciplines to contribute to the production of knowledge that can help us gain insights across movements and issues, across continents and cultures, and across political and disciplinary traditions: learning from each other’s struggles.

    Interface is open-access (free), globally organized in different regional collectives and multilingual. We aim to develop analysis and knowledge that allow lessons to be learned from specific movement processes and experiences and translated into a form useful for other movements—hence our name. In doing so, our goal is to include material that can be used in a range of ways by movements—in terms of its content, its language, its purpose, and its form. As a “practitioner journal” the peer-reviewed elements of the journal are reviewed by one activist and one academic reviewer prior to publication.’

  33. 33.

    D. Rucht (2010) Involvement and Detachment as Postulates and Problems of Social Movement Research. Paper presented at the workshop Protest bewegt! held at the Social Research Center, Berlin, March 26 and 27, 2010; N. Elias (1956) ‘Problems of Involvement and Detachment’, The British Journal of Sociology, 7, 3, 226–52.

  34. 34.

    E. Hoffer (1951) The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements (New York: The American Library).

  35. 35.

    M. Greven (1988) ‘Zur Kritik der Bewegungswissenschaft’, Forschungsjournal Neue Soziale Bewegungen, I, 4, 51–60, here p. 58.

  36. 36.

    C. Barker and L. Cox, Romans, p. 4.

  37. 37.

    M. Cresswell and H. Spandler, Engaged Academic, p. 141.

  38. 38.

    A. Touraine (1981) The Voice and the Eye [orig. in French 1978] (New York: Cambridge University Press); Critically: A. Melucci (1989) Nomads of the Present (Philadelpia: Temple University Press), p. 200ff.; and D. Rucht (1991) ‘Sociological Theory as Theory of Social Movements? A Critique of Alain Touraine’ in D. Rucht (ed.) Research on Social Movements. The State of the Art in Western Europe and the USA (Frankfurt: Campus; Boulder: Westview Press), pp. 355–84.

  39. 39.

    C. Barker and L. Cox, Romans.

  40. 40.

    M. Cresswell and H. Spandler, Engaged Academic.

  41. 41.

    N. Crossley, Response, p. 156.

  42. 42.

    Robert Merton established this as one of four principles, circumscribing it as “detached scrutiny of beliefs in terms of empirical and logical criteria” in R. K. Merton (1942) ‘Science and Technology in a Democratic Order’, Journal of Legal and Political Sociology 1, 115–26, here 126, reprinted as ‘The Normative Structure of Science’ in R. K. Merton (ed.) (1979) The Sociology of Science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), 267–78.

  43. 43.

    A. R. Zolberg (1972) ‘Moments of Madness’, Politics and Society, II, 183–204.

  44. 44.

    J. Esseveld and R. Eyerman (1992) ‘Which Side Are You On? Reflections on Methodological Issues in the Study of “Distasteful” Social Movements’ in M. Diani and R. Eyerman (eds.) Studying Collective Action (London: Sage), pp. 217–37.

References

  • Adorno, T. et al. (1969) Der Positivismusstreit in der deutschen Soziologie (Darmstadt and Neuwied: Luchterhand).

    Google Scholar 

  • Albert, H. (1964) ‘Social Science and Moral Philosophy. A Critical Approach to the Value Problem in the Social Sciences’ in M. Bunge (ed.) The Critical Approach to Science and Philosophy. Essays in Honor of Karl Popper (Glencoe, IL: Free Press), pp. 385–409.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Albert, H. (1999) Between Social Science, Religion and Politics: Essays on Critical Rationalism (Amsterdam and Atlanta, GI: Ropodi).

    Google Scholar 

  • Apel, K. O. (1973) Transformation der Philosophie, Volume I: Sprachanalytik, Semiotik, Hermeneutik and Volume II: das A priori der Kommunikationsgesellschaft (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp).

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkins, P. (1995) ‘Science as “Truth”’, History of the Human Sciences, 8, 97–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barker, C. and Cox, L. (2002) ‘“What Have the Romans Ever Done for Us?” Academic and Activist Forms of Movement Theorizing’ in C. Barker and M. Tyldesley (eds.) Eighth International Conference on Alternative Features and Popular Protest Volume I (Manchester: Manchester Metropolitan University), 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, P. L. and Luckmann, T. (1966) The Social Construction of Reality (Garden City, NY: Doubleday).

    Google Scholar 

  • Brock, T. (2014) What Is the Function of the Social Movement Academic? The Sociological Imagination, http://sociologicalimagination.org/archives/15545/comment-page-1, date accessed 12 May 2016.

  • Chevalier, J. M. and Buckles, D. J. (2013) Participation Action Research: Theory and Methods for Engaged Inquiry (London: Routledge).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, L. and Nilsen, A. G. (2005) ‘Why Do Activists Need Theory?’ Euromovements Newsletter, http://eprints.maynoothuniversity.ie/445/, date accessed 10 May 2016.

  • Cresswell, M. and Spandler, H. (2013) ‘The Engaged Academic: Academic Intellectuals and Psychiatric Survivor Movement’, Social Movement Studies, XII, 2, 128–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crossley, N. (2013) ‘Response to Cresswell and Spandler’, Social Movement Studies, XII, 2, 155–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elias, N. (1956) ‘Problems of Involvement and Detachment’, The British Journal of Sociology, 7, 3, 226–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esseveld, J. and Eyerman, R. (1992) ‘Which Side Are You On? Reflections on Methodological Issues in the Study of “Distasteful” Social Movements’ in M. Diani and R. Eyerman (eds.) Studying Collective Action (London: Sage), pp. 217–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend, P. (1975) Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge (London: NLB).

    Google Scholar 

  • Flesher, Fominaya C. (2009) The Global Interface Project: Linking Sociology and Movement Activists, http://isa-global-dialogue.net/the-global-interface-project-linking-sociology-and-movement-activists, date accessed 9 May 2016.

  • Fuster, R., Mommsen, W. J. and Rüsen, J. (eds.) Objektivität und Parteilichkeit. Theorie der Geschichte, Volume I (München: dtv).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gramsci, A. (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks (New York: International Publishers).

    Google Scholar 

  • Greven, M. Greven (1988) ‘Zur Kritik der Bewegungswissenschaft’, Forschungsjournal Neue Soziale Bewegungen, I, 4, 51–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1974) Theory and Practice (London: Heinemann).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffer, E. (1951) The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements (New York: The American Library).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, A. L. (2012) ‘The Folly of Scientism’, The New Atlantis, 37, 32–50, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-folly-of-scientism, date accessed 11 May 2016.

  • Keuth, H. (1989) Wissenschaft und Werturteil: zu Welturteilsdiskussionen und Positivismusstreit (Tübingen: Mohr Siebek).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenin, V. I. (1902) What Is to Be Done? https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/download/what-itd.pdf, date accessed 12 May 2016.

  • Longino, H. E. (1990) Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Melucci, A. (1989) Nomads of the Present (Philadelpia: Temple University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1942) ‘Science and Technology in a Democratic Order’, Journal of Legal and Political Sociology 1, 115–26 (reprinted as ‘The Normative Structure of Science’ in R. K. Merton (ed.) (1979) The Sociology of Science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), pp. 267–78, http://www.panarchy.org/merton/science.html.

  • Mies, M. (1978) ‘Methodische Postulate zur Frauenforschung—dargestellt am Beispiel der Gewalt gegen Frauen’, Beiträge zur feministischen Theorie und Praxis, I, 1, 47–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, C. (1959) The Sociological Imagination (New York: Oxford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mommsen, W. J. (1977) ‘Der perspektivische Charakter historischer Aussagen und das Problem der Parteilichkeit und Objektivität historischer Erkenntnis’ in R. Koselleck, W. J. Mommsen, and J. Rüsen (eds.) Objektivität und Parteilichkeit. Theorie der Geschichte, 1 (München: dtv), pp. 441–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, B. (1982) Ungerechtigkeit—Die sozialen Ursachen von Unterordnung und Widerstand (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp) [First published 1966] Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World (with a new foreword by Edward Friedman and James C. Scott, eds.) (Boston: Beacon Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Opp, K.-D. (2009) Theories of Political Protest and Social Movements. A Multidisciplinary Introduction, Critique and Synthesis (London: Routledge).

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. (1959) The Logic of Scientific Discovery [first published in 1935] (London: Hutchinson & Co.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. (1969) ‘The Logic of Social Sciences’ in Adorno, T. et al. (1969) Der Positivismusstreit in der deutschen Soziologie (Darmstadt and Neuwied: Luchterhand), pp. 103–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rammstedt, O. (1991) ‘Die Frage der Wertfreiheit und die Gründung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Soziologie’ in L. Claußen and C. Schlüter-Knauer (eds.) Hundert Jahre “Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft” (Opladen: Leske + Budrich), pp. 549–60.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ratner, Carl (2002) ‘Subjectivity and Objectivity in Qualitative Methodology’, Forum Qualitative Social Research, 3, 3, http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/829/1800.

  • Rucht, D. (1991) ‘Sociological Theory as Theory of Social Movements? A Critique of Alain Touraine’ in D. Rucht (ed.) Research on Social Movements. The State of the Art in Western Europe and the USA (Frankfurt: Campus; Boulder: Westview Press), pp. 355–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rucht, D. (2010) Involvement and Detachment as Postulates and Problems of Social Movement Research. Paper presented at the workshop Protest bewegt! held at the Social Research Center, Berlin, March 26 and 27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rucht, D. (2016) ‘Conclusions. Social Movement Studies in Europe: Achievements, Gaps, Challenges’ in O. Fillieule and G. Accornero (eds.) Social Movement Studies in Europe: The State of the Art (New York and Oxford: Berghahn), pp. 456–87.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rüsen, J. (1983) Historische Vernunft Grundzüge einer Historik: Die Grundlagen der Geschichtswissenschaft (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schütz, A. (1962) ‘Common-Sense and Scientific Interpretation of Human Action’ in M. Natanson (ed.) Alfred Schütz. Collected Papers, Volume I (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff), pp. 3–47.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, P., Richard, E. and Martin, B. (1990) ‘Captives of Controversy: The Myth of the Neutral Social Researcher’, Contemporary Scientific Controversies, Science, Technology & Human Values, 15, 474–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorell, T. (1991) Scientism: Philosophy and the Infatuation with Science (New York: Routledge).

    Google Scholar 

  • Starodub, A. (2015) ‘Post-Representational Epistemology in Practice: Processes of Relational Knowledge Creation in Autonomous Social Movements’, Interface: A Journal for and About Social Movements, VII, 2, 161–91, http://interfacejournal.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Issue-7-2-Starodub.pdf, date accessed 9 May 2016.

  • Taylor, C. (1967) ‘Neutrality in Political Science’ in P. Laslett and W. Garrison Runciman (eds.) Philosophy, Politics and Society (Oxford: Blackwell), pp. 25–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, E. P. (1978) The Poverty of Theory and Other Essays (London: Merlin Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Touraine, A. (1981) The Voice and the Eye [orig. in French 1978] (New York: Cambridge University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Zolberg, A. R. (1972) ‘Moments of Madness’, Politics and Society, II, 183–204.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung, Berlin, Germany

    Dieter Rucht

Authors
  1. Dieter Rucht
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dieter Rucht .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Social Movements, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany

    Stefan Berger

  2. Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany

    Christoph Cornelissen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Rucht, D. (2019). Politically Engaged Scholarship in Social Movement Studies. In: Berger, S., Cornelissen, C. (eds) Marxist Historical Cultures and Social Movements during the Cold War. Palgrave Studies in the History of Social Movements. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03804-5_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03804-5_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-03803-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-03804-5

  • eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation