Matrixes of Diffusion, Innovation and Cohesion: Umbrella Organisations, Counter-Publics and the Emergence of the Brazilian, Solidarity Economy Movement as a Strategic Action Field

Fligstein and McAdam’s (2011) claim that an “emerging action field” (EAF) is a space where “rules do not yet exist”, but are progressively constructed as a result of the discursive construction of collective interests. This communicative process, in its turn, results from the interaction between participating actors. This perspective does not take into account the possibility that such process may in itself be regulated by pre-existing norms and repertoires that were circulating within the public sphere. As a result, it is not able to account for the way in which “umbrella organizations” (such as political parties, labor unions, or religious/philosophical organizations), as well as the networks they develop, contribute to the diffusion of pre-existing norms and repertoires within social movements. It is also not able to account for how “challenger groups” within EAFs challenge those pre-existing norms and repertoires and promote new ones, therefore contributing to the emergence and consolidation of movements as autonomous “Strategic Action Fields” (SAF). This paper aims to fill that gap in theory by connecting it with Habermas’ theory of “communicative action”, as well as Fraser and Young’s theory of “counterpublics”. It uses the process of emergence of the Brazilian Solidarity Economy movement as an illustration of: 1) how “umbrella organizations” and associated networks promote the diffusion of pre-existing norms and repertoires of action within a “counterpublic”; 2) how network membership and pre-existing norms and repertoires regulate the emergence of an EAF; 3) how “challenger groups” within an EAF promote normative and strategic innovation; 4) how the pre-existing norms and repertoires act as a common “matrix” that supports innovation at the same time that it prevents secession, by ensuring that the norms and frames developed by “challenger groups” will not diverge too much from those of other groups within the EAF.