The Study the Temporality of Social Movements: An Analytical Approach

This paper aims to contribute to studies on collective action by offering a systematic framework for analyzing the temporal orientations of political movements. The temporal orientation of social movements, I contend, can be fruitfully examined as distinct forms of historicization undertaken by social actors. In the paper, I identify four forms of historicization, two of which are already well-established in the field and focus on situating objects of inquiry within their historical contexts. The first form is a synchronic contextualization, which involves interpreting an object within the confines of a specific historical context. A paradigmatic example of this approach can be found in the Cambridge School of intellectual history. The second form is diachronic contextualization, which seeks to understand an object’s position within a continuum of preceding and subsequent phenomena. Scholars such as Fernand Braudel, Reinhart Koselleck, and Karl Marx exemplify this approach. In both traditions, the act of historicizing is primarily conducted by the scholar. These two methods are familiar to researchers across disciplines that engage with historical issues. The central contribution of this paper lies in emphasizing the importance of analyzing how the object of inquiry – be it a thinker, a social movement, a state (as in the case of Christopher Clarks study over Prussia, a cultural sphere (like the West as in François Hartog’s work), or another social entity – historicizes itself. This involves investigating how the object positions itself in relation to history, articulating its connections to the past, present, and future, and, where relevant, attempting to transcend historical constraints by invoking eternity as structuring horizon for achieving their aims. Analogous to the aforementioned scholarly practices, self-historicization can also be divided into diachronic and synchronic dimensions. Diachronically, an object historicizes itself by explicitly or implicitly situating its identity and purpose within a temporal continuum, articulating its relationship to past developments, current realities, and future aspirations. It may also invoke concepts of eternity to transcend temporality altogether. This dimension captures how the object orients itself within history over time: how it diachronically historicizes itself. Synchronically, the object positions itself within contemporaneous historical frameworks by situating its existence within specific historical epochs or temporally bounded contexts. This involves using particular concepts to make sense of the present. For instance, right-wing populist movements often historicize themselves synchronically by invoking terms like multiculturalism, globalism, or “cultural Marxism,” framing the current era as one of societal decline. Conversely, left-wing movements frequently rely on terms such as neoliberalism, the Washington Consensus, or late capitalism to articulate their synchronic historicization. The paper seeks to systematically illuminate these latter two dimensions of historicization – how an object of inquiry historicizes itself both diachronically and synchronically – and to explore the analytical advantages of distinguishing between these dimensions. By doing so, the study contributes with analytical framework serving to systematically improve our understanding of how social movements construct their temporal orientations and embed themselves within historical narratives/imaginaires.